1908-06-15

Mr.   R.@: Tj. BORDEN. Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any further information to give to the House respecting the additional legislation to be brought down.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is quite possible that there may be a Bill for the purpose of amending the Criminal Code, a Bill to amend the Judges' Act, to provide for the trial of causes of action arising in the territories, a Bill to correct certain errors in the translation of the revised statutes. All of these are comparatively minor matters. It is possible also that there may be some amendments to the Railway Act, which may be of more consequence. Apart from these, I do not know that we have any thing further to introduce, reserving of course the right to introduce further legislation if it should be necessary.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr A. A. McLEAN.: I wish to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries about a return ordered on the 10th of February with reference to lobster fishing licenses at River John, N.S.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I will make inquiries.



NIAGARA, ST. CATHARINES AND TORONTO RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 82, an Act respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company.-Mr. Adamson.
Mr. SPROULE.: This Bill provides that the company shall commence the railway and shall expend on it 15 per cent of the capital stock but it does not mention any period for its completion. The original Act provided that it should be constructed within five years, but that has been struck out, and there is now no time limit for the completion of the railway. That was not intended when the Bill was before the Railway Committee and in my judgment it should not be passed in that shape.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The section in its present form seems to me rather senseless. It provides that the company may complete the railway, which it has been authorized to construct, and may expend 15 per cent of the amount of its capital stock thereon within two years after the passing of this Act; then it proceeds to provide that it may complete the said railway without fixing Mr. FIELDING.
any period. It seems to me a remarkably curious form. Does the Minister of Railways understand it ? I am bound to say I do not.


Mr. GRAHAM.: The amendment has just been niaced in my hands. The construction of this road has been commenced, and what I understand the Senate has been trying to do is to give the company power to complete it.


Robert Laird Borden: Apparently the amendments made in the Senate have not been very carefully drawn. It might possibly be well to let them stand until the minister has an opportunity of ascertaining just what has been intended.


George Perry Graham: I think it would perhaps be as well to let them stand until I can get an explanation of their real meaning.
Order allowed to stand.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. PERLEY-by Mr. W. J. Roche- asked :
1.	What was the total expense in connection with the obtaining of the surrender of the pine timber on the Dokis Indian reserve?
2.	Will any further amount have to be paid for that purpose? If so, how much?
3.	Was any commission paid or promised to Indian Agent G. P. Cockburn in connection with this surrender, in addition to his regular salary? If so, how much? ,
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	$1,344.60.
2.	No.
3.	No.


PURCHASES OF COAL LANDS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PERLEY

by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	How much money has been paid up to December 1, 1906, on account of the purchase price of sections 27, 28, 33, 34, and the east half of 32, of township 6, range 3, west of the fifth meridian, disposed of as coal lands?
2.	What balance was due on these lands on that date?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 
Hon. PRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	$28,416.20.
2.	$77,509.21.
The following lands do not enter into the above calculation for the reasons stated :
1.	Section 16, township 7, range 2, west 5th meridian. No sale prior to December 31, 1906.
2.	Section 21, township 7, range 2, west 5th meridian. No sale. Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.
3.	West half of section 1, township 7, range 3, west 5th meridian. No sale prior to December 31, 1906.
4.	North half of section 8, township 7, range 3, west 5th meridian. No sale.
5.	North half and southwest quarter of section 11, township 7, range 3, west 5th meridian. No sale. . School lands.


SOULANGES CANAL INQUIRY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	What is the total amount of expenses incurred in connection with the inquiry conducted by L. A. Boyer in connection with Sauve, and other matters on the Soulanges canal?
2.	What amount has actually been paid by the government on account of such expense so incurred?
3.	What is the amount claimed by commissioner L. A. Boyer in connection with said inquiry?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	$870.05-total amount of expense incurred re inquiry conducted by L. A. Boyer, in connection with Sauve and other matters on the Soulanges canal.
2.	$870.05.
3.	$544.80 was paid to L. A. Boyer.


PORT CREDIT HARBOUR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLAIN-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
What amount has been expended on Port Credit harbour for each year respectively?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Will my hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) kindly look at this question and inform me what it means. There is no year mentioned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are only a few years in which there has been any expenditure.


William Pugsley: I have information that there was expended in 1892 $1,214.75, and
in 1893 $592 ; a total of $1,806.75, for dredging only.
. Mr. SPROULE. Nothing since ?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.


PAYMENTS TO GAETZ BROTHERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
What sums of money during the year 1904 and 1905 were paid by the Department of the Interior to Messrs. Gaetz Brothers, of Red Deer, Alberta, or any member of the said firm, and what was the nature of the services rendered ?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: $838 for land guide services.


EX-CHIEF JUSTICE McGUIRE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	What superannuation or pension allowance is drawn by ex-Chief Justice McGuire, of Saskatchewan?
2.	On what date did this judge retire from the bench, and what was the period of previous active service?
3.	What reasons were advanced as to why he should be relieved from his judicial duties?
4.	How long was Judge McGuire Chief Justice, and by whom was he succeeded?
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :: 1.	$3,333.34 per annum.
2.	Retired January 3, 1903, after active service of 15 years, 7 months, 8 days.
3.	The fact that he had served as a judge of a Superior Court for more than 15 years.
4.	From February 18, 1902, to January 3, 1903. He was succeeded by Hon. A. L. Sifton.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mi. Daniel-asked :
1.	What were the receipts and working expenses of the Intercolonial Railway for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1908, and for the months of April and May, 1908, respectively?
2.	What were the receipts^ and working expenses for the same months in 1907?
3.	What was the capital and expenditure on the Intercoloniar Railway for the last fiscal year, and what was the capital expenditure in April and May of this year?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Intercolonial Railway :	Receipts, year
1907-8,	$9,173,558.80 ; working expenses,
$9,157,435.53 ; receipts, April, 1908, $740,576.43 ; working expenses, April, 1908, $740,851.01 ; receipts, May, 1908, approximate, $693,801.12 ; working expenses, May, 1903- (will be ready June 25, 1908).
2.	Intercolonial Railway : Receipts, April, 1907, $817,952.34 : working expenses, 1907, $669,380.90 ; receipts, May, 1907 $799,095.95 ; working expenses 1907, $715,888.88.
3.	Intercolonial Railway, capital expenditure :	1907-8, $4,382,494.01 ; April, 1908,
$302,719.78 ; May, 1908-(no returns yet).


EMPLOYMENT OF FRANCIS W.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLEMENTS-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
Is one Frank OhilveTS son of Charles L. Chilvers, at present in the employ of the government, and supposed to be in the Inland Revenue . Department ? If so, when was he appointed and what is his salary?
Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: Mr. Francis Warner Chilvers is in the employ of the Inland Revenue
Department. He was appointed by order in council of August 6, 1901, and his present salary is $1,200 per annum.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to the ' accident ' described as follows in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of the 10th June, 1908?
' Last Saturday a Ross rifle burst at the breech, and a sliver metal came within an inch of taking the man's eye out. Sooner or later there is going to be a fatal accident with that weapon, and somebody should be held criminally responsible/
2.	If so, what are the facts?
3.	Is the government aware that the accident described above is said to have been entirely due to a defective or an overloaded cartridge, and that the ' fatal accident' so much next the heart of the Ottawa ' Citizen/ failed to materialize owing to the strength and superiority of the Ross rifle?
4.	Is the government aware that the range offioer is reported to have at once taken possession of the rifle and prevented the removal of the defective shell, in order that there might be no possible misunderstanding as to the true cause of the accident?


Mr.  M. S.@: X. The department has seen the report referred to.
2. The officer commanding No. 5 company, Army Service Corps reports as follows :
Ottawa June 11, 1908.
From the Oflieer Commanding No. 5 Company, Army Service Corps, to the District Officer Commanding Military District No. 4.
Sir,-I have the honour to report that on Saturday) 6th instant, a Ross rifle was injured while being fired by Private Fields of my company. The injury to said rifle consists of extractor blown out, bolt cover slightly damaged, and stock slightly checked. No injury whatever to any person occurred, the bolt having remained in the fired position. I presume that the damage was occasioned by a defective or overloaded cartridge, as no obstruction was found in the barrel and about a quarter of the base of the cartridge was torn away.
I have the_ honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) S. E. de la RONDE, Major,
Commanding No. 5 Company, A.S.C. Mr. GRAHAM.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No report has yet been received from the range officer.


SERVICES OF KENNETH FALCONER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLAIN-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	Has any agreement or arrangement been made to pay Kenneth Falconer the balance of his account for bookkeeping in the Marine & Fisheries Department? If so, what is the final amount to be paid?
2.	What will be the total sum paid to the said Kenneth Falconer for the above work?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes, $0,816.34 is the amount of the last cheque given to Falconer.
2.	$42,315.89 is the total cost of his services.


NEW POST OFFICES IN THE NORTHWEST.
Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	At what dates were applications made for the establishment of a post office to be called Bonn, on the northwest quarter, section 24, 33, 22, west of third meridian, and by how many persons were they signed?
2.	What was the nature of the inspector's report on the application, and how many settlers would be accommodated by the establishment of a post office at this point?
3.	What action was taken in the matter ?
4.	Were tenders called for carrying the mails? If so, from whom were tenders received, what was the amount of each tender, and to whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	3rd December, 1906 ; petition bearing 40 signatures.
2.	The inspector's report shows that from 30 to 35 families would be accommodated and estimates a revenue of $30, and that the office could be served by courier on a proposed mail route between Pascal and ' Cole-ville ' estimated to cost $500 a year. Tenders were invited to ascertain the cost and the tenders received, (a) $775, William B. Turner ; (b) $950, John Fridgen ; (c) $1,000, J. E. Hunter.
3.	No tender was accepted, as the proposed mail route was rendered unnecessary, more satisfactory arrangements being possible for the supply of the new offices from Wiggins.


Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	At what dates were applications made for the establishment of a post office to be called Mackinnon, on sections 15, 33, 22, west of third meridian, and by how many persons were they signed?
2.	What was the nature of the inspector's report on the applications, and did he report the location as preferable to section 24? If

so, what accommodation was there then or is there now for a post office?
3.	How many settlers would be accommodated by this office?
4.	On whose recommendation was the post office located at iMackinnon?
5.	Were tenders called for carrying the mails? If so, what were the amounts of the tenders, and to whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	3rd June, 1907, no petition.
2.	The inspector reported that a post office was required at Bonn or Mackinnon, the two points being less than three miles apart, and that he considered Mackinnon the better location, it being understood that two projected lines of railway, one from Lloydminster, running south-east and the other the Moosejaw-Lacombe branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway would cross the proposed site. In a report dated the 25th February last the inspector states that the Mackinnon office is rendering good service to the public.
3.	20 to 25 families and those who would have been served by proposed Bonn. The postmaster at Mackinnon states under date of 20th January last that nearly a hundred are using the Mackinnon post office.
4.	On report of post office inspector that apparently Mackinnon would be the preferable site. [DOT]
5.	The inspector having entered into a temporary agreement with Mr. Duncan G. Grant, postmaster of Mackinnon, to perform a weekly service between the new post office and" Wiggins, distance 33 miles, for the sum of $275, tenders were not invited, as Mr. Grant's offer is an exceptionally favourable one. The reason a temporary agreement was entered into is that service might be given at once, but tenders will be called for in due time.


EMPLOYMENT OF ARTHUR CARON AND HUBERT THIBERGE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	Is Mir. Arthur Caron in the employ of the Department of Public Works as a subordinate to Mr. Paul Reinhart? If so, what was he employed at on the 8th day of June, 1908?
2.	Is Octave Thiberge also in same employ? If so, what was he employed at on the same day?
William Pugsley: Arthur Caron and Hubert Thiberge (not Octave Thiberge) are employed under Mr. Reinhardt, on the carpenters' staff of the Public Works Department. Neither of these men reported for duty on June 8.


PICTOU POST OFFICE BUILDING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. W. J. Roche -asked :
1.	What is the area of concrete sidewalk, &c., laid at post office building, Bictou, Nova Scotia ?
2.	Was the work done under contract? If so, what was the price agreed upon under contract, and who was the contractor?
3.	What is the total cost of the work?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	2,370 superficial feet of sidewalk ; 160 lineal feet of curb and gutter.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) $890.	(c) Robert S. Low.
3.	$890.


THE YUKON PLACER MINING ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House again In committee on Bill (No. 150) to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.- Mr. Oliver.
Frank Oliver: This Bill was under discussion some time ago when a general explanation was given and a number of amendments were agreed to. When, however, the proposed amendment to section 61 of the Act was reached, objections were taken to it and it was thought better to hold the Bill over. Since then I have been able to meet some of the parties interested who took objection to the amendments proposed and have also had the opportunity of considering the matter with the commissioner of the Yukon Territory. As the result, I desire to place in your hands, Mr. Chairman, the following amendment to section 61 of the Act which will take the place of the one proposed in the Bill, namely, section 25.
I beg to move :
Section G1 of the Act is hereby repealed, and the following substituted therefor :-
If, after the grant has been made, any person or persons locate and bona fide work any claim or claims below the ditch-head on any stream so diverted, they shall collectively be entitled to the continuous flow in said stream of the water passing such claim or claims to the following extent : If 300 inches or less be diverted, they shall "be entitled to 40 inches and no more; if over 300 inches are diverted, they shall be entitled to 60 inches and no more, except in either case upon paying to the owner of the ditch and all other persons interested therein compensation equal to the amount of damage sustained by the continuous flow of such extra quantity of water as is desired; and in computing such damage, the loss sustained by the owners of such claim using the water from the ditch, and all other reasonable losses, shall be considered.
The right to such continuous flow and to such extra quantity of water, as above set out, shall be subject in all cases to the approval in writing of the government mining engineer or mining recorder, subject to appeal to the Gold Commissioner within twenty days from the date of the decision rendered.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the precise effect ?


Frank Oliver: The section in the Act, section 61, embodies a very important principle regarding the ownership and use of water. In a discussion which took place on the amendment proposed to that section, it was explained that without some such amendment there was a possibility of the water right in any stream being acquired and applied to gold bearing ground and thus diverted from other gold bearing ground to which it naturally belonged. The amendment in the Bill before the House and the further amendment now proposed is to make effective the right to use certain portions of the water of any stream in order to wash the gold from the gravel which is naturally and most readily avail-aide for production by that water. The contention was made on behalf of those who had secured water grants that this would be an interference with their acquired and vested rights. That is admitted, but it is considered that the dominant right to use the water, wherever that water can be best applied for the obtaining of gold, takes precedence of the vested rights mentioned. I think it may be said that the view taken by the Yukon council, which is responsible for the Act in the first place and the proposed amendment in the Bill before the House, was, at the time that Bill was discussed, upheld by this House. But the further point was raised that there was a possibility, under the Act and the proposed amendment, of contentious or improper interference with vested interests in water rights. Eor instance claims might be staked and applications made for the use of the water when there was not sufficient ground to warrant that water being given. The amendment I propose is specially made to guard against any such possibility. As will be seen in the concluding paragraph of my amendment, it is provided that no claim shall be entitled to the water, which the first part of the section says it may be entitled to, unless the mining recorder and mining engineer approve of the claim as a workable one and entitled to the water as a business proposition.' That is the purpose of this amendment. There was another question as to the proper reading of the clause submitted to the House. Apparently the intent was not made clear. By the amendment now proposed we have made it clear, and have made a further provision that the taking of the water from the person who has acquired the right to it shall be subject to the approval of the mining engineer and the mining recorder, with right of appeal to the Gold Commissioner.


Mr. FOSTER.: That water is granted as a right to someone who improves the course. Has the person who has the claim the right Mr. OLIVER.
to a continuous forty inches without paying any compensation or fee to the one who has improved the water course or does this refer entirely to unimproved water courses? What I mean is this. If someone has a grant from the government and incuts large expenditure improving a water course by a ditch or a flume or something- of that kind, then the water goes to the different claims. Is a claim holder entitled to a flow of' forty inches from the improved waterway without compensation at all to the one who improves it ?


Frank Oliver: My bon. friend (Hon. G. E. Foster) has hardly grasped the idea. It is not a question of improving the watercourse, it is a question of the water having been diverted from the natural watercourse. I will try to make the matter clear, though that could be much more easily done by means of a diagram than by means of a speech. Here, let us say, is a small stream of water, flowing through territory which is presumed to be gold-bearing. Some person acquires a number of gold-bearing claims either in the territory which is immediately appurtenant to that stream- that is, naturally appurtenant to it-or in some other territory to which the water may be led. Having acquired these claims, he applies for a water-right covering the flow of the water in that stream. There is, we will say, one hundred inches in the stream. The person applies for 100 inches or 150 inches. And, having these claims he is entitled to the water grant if he is the first applicant. He gets this water-grant. He is then entitled to the use of the water in that stream, and is entitled to divert the water to the claims which he has acquired. Let me stop here for a moment to point out to the committee that the party does not acquire any right to the water, but only the right to use the water upon these claims- if he does not use the water upon these claims, he has no right to the water. No-w, we will suppose that the claims which he acquired were either outside the drainage basin of the stream, or were, say, half a mile down the stream from where he takes out his ditch. After his discovery of his claim, after he has acquired the water-grant and has built his ditch, some person discovers gold in the claims which lie between -or. as the Act says, ' below the ditch-head.'


George Eulas Foster: The ditch-head is where it leaves the natural bed?


Frank Oliver: Precisely-the point where the water is taken off from the stream. Now, these claims cannot be made productive without the use of water. But the man who has secured the water-grant has secured all the water, and there he practically has these claims locked up in his strong box until the man who has staked them gives them up and the man who has

the water-grant sees fit to acquire them and transfer his water-grant to them. Now, that is not considered to be sound public policy. It is considered that the right of ownership of the public in the water is absolute, and the water exists and is used for the purpose of producing the gold; and, that the right to the use of the water for the production of the gold inheres in the first place in the gold-bearing area to which the water can be most conveniently applied. And so, under the British Columbia law, and under the law of other countries, and in the Yukon Placer Mining Act of last year, it is provided that, in such a case, the man who discovers the gold on the claim on the stream below the ditch-head will be entitled to a certain portion of the natural flow of tihe stream in order to make these claims productive, without paying any toll for the use of the water to the man who already had the water-right. The Act, as it was passed last year, was understood to make this provision; but it was found that the wording of the Act was not fortunate, and that it did not, as interpreted by the courts, make the provision that was desired. So, in the process of amending the Act, the Yukon Council proposed to give effect to their intention by the insertion of the word 'first': that is to say, ' first ' 40 inches of water. But when [DOT]we brought the section into this House a week or more ago, we found that even the use of the word 'first' did not convey the idea that was desired to be conveyed. I asked the House to let the matter stand until I could go over the section and try to provide a wording that would convey the idea. The wording now before the committee, according to our best information, does convey the idea. And we have added a provision which saves the man who owns the claims and holds the ditch from vexatious attack. This, we think, he is entitled to and this we propose to concede. This was not provided for in the Act of last year, nor was it provided in the amendment proposed by the Yukon Council; but we think it is a proper amendment and we ask the House to accept it.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume the words ' and no more ' relate to the 40 inches and the 60 inches?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: They are rather awkwardly introduced in the present wording. I would also point out

Mr. OLIVER Before the hon. member leaves that point, perhaps he will allow me to explain why those words are there. They are put in there to make it absolutely clear that two different miners cannot by any possibility make separate applications and each one get 40 or 60 inches. This one application covers everything. It is to establish that beyond question that the words ' no more ' are put in.	'


Robert Laird Borden: Then as to the words ' diversion.' I do not know whether my suggestion is pertinent, but it seems to me that in the first part of the section you use the word * diversion ' in relation to the water which goes through the ditch and does not go past the claim. But, later on, you use the word ' diversion ' in relation to the water which is not diverted into the ditch, but which does continuously flow past the claim. Do I make myself clear?
Mr. OLIVER Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to be unfortunate to use in a statute the same word in two different senses, if it can possibly be avoided. I do not know whether I entirely appreciate the use of the expression 'and no more.' So far as I understand these words, as the minister has explained them, they have relation to 40 inches or 60 inches, and the minister seems to give them a further signification.


Frank Oliver: No matter if there is more than one application, no more than 40 inches or no more than 60 inches can be taken from the man who has the water rights.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to make it perfectly plain in the first part of the section that this is intended? It does not seem to me that the words ' and no more ' would have that particular signification that the minister seems to consider they imply. Would it not be better to say that if, after the grant has been made, any person or persons locate and bona fide work any claim or claims below the ditch head of any such stream so diverted, they shall be collectively entitled to so much of the continuous flow?


Frank Oliver: Would you use the words 'and no more' then? I see the advantage of changing the word ' diversion ' to continuous flow. But I am not as clear about the other part.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to make it clear that any person or persons on the claims below should be entitled to only 40 inches or only 60 inches as the case may be. It seems to me desirable to make a change in the first part of the section.


Frank Oliver: That is certainly the intention. It means that whatever number of claims there are, they should be entitled only when there is 40 inches or 60 inches.


George Eulas Foster: I do not quite understand it. The ditch-head starts out from the main stream and the water runs down over the line of diversion, and the grant has been got by some person who has a mill down on the line through which the diverted water runs. Now. between that and the ditch-head you may have two or three persons who have got claims.


Frank Oliver: That Is the idea.
Mr. FOSTER Now you say that if, after a grant has been made, any person locates, he should be entitled to water. But there are three persons, we will say, who have located. No. 1 says, I have a location here,
I have the same right and I want mine. The law says, if any person locates he shall be entitled, whereas I understand the intention of the minister is that though there be three locatees they shalll only have 40 inches between them. But the law does not say that; it says if any person has a claim, so any one of the three may get that 40 inches and cut the others out. Or is it so that the water Is not lost?


Frank Oliver: That is the idea. We provide there should be no diversion. What we are providing for in this amendment is that the water shall not be diverted, it shall be used along the original stream. The man who gets the water right in the first place may have secured a right which will enable him to divert absolutely from that territory altogether.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read my amendment :
If, after the grant has been made, any person or persons locate and bona fide work any claim or claims below the ditch-head on any stream so diverted, they shall collectively be entitled to the continuous flow in said stream of the water passing such claim or claims, to the following extent: If 300 inches or less be diverted, they shall be entitled To 40 inches and no more; if over 300 inches are diverted, they shall be entitled to 60 and no more, except in either case upon paying to the owner of the ditch and all other persons interested therein the amount of damage sustained by the continous flow of such extra quantity of water as is desired.
Then the rest remains the same.


George Eulas Foster: The mining engineer's authority to report is confined to reporting whether it is a workable claim or not, or does he report as to whether this man shall have the water?


Frank Oliver: He reports as to its being a workable claim. He reports on the work, and the mining recorder gives the decision. That decision of the mining recorder is subject to appeal to the gold commissioner. I think that whatever doubt there may be in the section as placed before the committee would be removed by the amendment suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition, and if I am permitted I would move the substitution of the section as amended for the section in the form which I moved it.
Section as amended agreed to.


Frank Oliver: If that amendment i.\ adopted, on consideration of the Bill, there are one or two further amendments that 1 Mr. FOSTER.
think would add to the advantage of the Bill, If I have permission to bring them before the committee. They are not of vital importance. One is in regard to section 5 of the Bill amending section 7 of the Act of last year. It will be noticed that in the printing on page 2 under the heading ' Section amended as proposed,' the amendment is displayed in italics in subsections 2 and
3.	The section is shown as it has already been agreed to by the House. But, we find that the provision, as it stood in the Act, has been taken advantage of to make our records there a sort of unauthorized place of record; that is to say, a person would come in and presume to file with our officers a document in connection with some claim that was on record but with regard to which we had uo record of his having any right. He would be thereby placing, to some extent, a cloud upon the title of the claim without there being anything to trace his authority to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: That is, a stranger to the titles comes in and presumes to file a document?


Frank Oliver: Precisely. I am not sure but that we would be perfectly justified, in the administration, in refusing such a favour, but it has been the practice to accept such a document when tendered, and it was thought that the addition of these words to the original section 1, would meet the case:
Provided, however, that no document shall be so recorded or filed which has not been executed by the recorded holder of the interest affected.
That would then restrict our registration to documents which would be in the chain of title. It seems to me that it would be a very proper amendment and with the permission of the committee I would like to have it inserted. I therefore beg to move that section 5 be reconsidered and that the amendment which I have read be inserted.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that if you leave that amendment in its present terms it might work out some possible injustice. For example, a man who was the recorded holder might be held, under the judgment or decree of some competent court, to be merely the trustee of some other person and the unyielding terms of this amendment might prevent that man from getting himself properly'on record. What would the minister think of an amendment somewhat in the following terms : ' Except under the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction?'


George Eulas Foster: That might shut out a bona fide right because of the technicality of not having the claim recorded.


Frank Oliver: Yes. Perhaps it would be just as well to leave the section without amendment.


Mr.   POSTER@: If a difficulty arises you can guard it afterwards.


Frank Oliver: Yes, it is not a serious amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister not think there may be some little difficulty in connection with what I suggested?


Frank Oliver: If there is any question about it I would rather not touch it at all.
1 do not consider it as very important.
Amendment withdrawn.


Frank Oliver: There is another amendment to which I would like to ask the consideration of the committee. It is with regard to the payment of a fee. A prospecting license is issued at the present time and it seems reasonable that there should be a small fee charged. I propose to provide that a fee of $2 be charged on the issue of a prospecting license. It is not important but it is to guard against an application being made without due cause and consideration. I therefore move:
That section 34 of the Act be amended by inserting after the word ' may' in the second line the words ' upon payment of a fee of $2/
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


LAND TITLES ACT-ASSURANCE FUND
[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved second reading of Bill (No. 168) to authorize the payment to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta of part of the assurance fund under the Land Titles Act, 1894.
Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister give a brief explanation?


Frank Oliver: This Bill is in pursuance of the terms of the Acts creating the two new provinces. Before the new provinces were organized the registration of titles was under the direct administration of the federal government. The Torrens system of land titles prevailed and a feature of that system is that on every title passed a certain percentage on the value is paid into what is called an assurance fund which guarantees claims that may be made on account of possible mistakes in the passing of titles. The Torrens title is supposed to be an absolute title so that if mistakes occur they have to be provided for out of the assurance fund which is gathered for this purpose. During the administration of the land titles system in the Northwest Territories there accumulated a very considerable fund. When the provinces were organized the responsibility for the registering of titles pasesd to them, and it would seem that this fund might very well be transferred to the provinces together with the 334
responsibility for the registering of titles. This Bill provides for this transfer. It is a mere matter of calculation as to how much of this assurance fund now in the hands of the Dominion shall go to each province. The apportionment is proposed to be made on the basis of actual payments on account of the lands contained within the limits of each province.


George Eulas Foster: Is the whole fund handed over?


Frank Oliver: Yes, with the exception provided for in subsection 1 of section 2. It is impossible for the Dominion government to absolutely divest itself of responsibility in regard to the titles which have been issued under its authority, and while it is proper that the assurance fund accumulated should pass to the provinces, yet, in order that the Dominion may be safeguarded it is proposed to take a guarantee from the provinces that they will pay all claims accruing against this fund, as a condition of their receiving it.


George Eulas Foster: What is the amount of the fund?


Frank Oliver: I do not remember exactly now. When a title is passed a valuation has to be placed upon the land and upon that valuation a tax is paid into the assurance fund.


Mr. LENNOX.: Has the document by which the provinces agree to indemnify the Dominion government been drawn up yet?


Frank Oliver: No.


Haughton Lennox: Has there been any discussion between the Dominion government and the provinces as to the amount which each would be entitled to?


Frank Oliver: Each province claims the money in the assurance fund that accrued because of transfer of lands contained within that province.


Haughton Lennox: It is merely a matter of accounting and not of arbitration.


Frank Oliver: It is intended to be a mere matter of accounting but in case there is any question the Bill provides that it shall be settled by arbitration.	-


Robert Laird Borden: On what basis is part of this fund to be retained by Canada?


Frank Oliver: Subsection 1 of section 2 provides for an amount to be retained by Canada as having arisen from transactions relating to land not now within either of the said provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read a second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
Haughton Lennox: I do not think the expression ' aggregate amount ' is well selected.



It is not a question of the aggregate amount the two provinces would be entitled to, but the amount that each of the provinces would be respectively entitled to.
Mr. OLIVE1*. Subsection 3 provides for a question arising as between the two provinces, and subsection 2 is with reference to a question arising between the Dominion and the provinces. The question between the Dominion and the provinces having been settled the division of the remainder will be settled as provided.


Haughton Lennox: It might work out in that way.
On subsection 3,


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy (Calgary). Has this Assurance Fund been invested by the Dominion government or what disposition has been made of the money while in the hands of the Dominion ?


Frank Oliver: I am unable to answer that question except to say that I think it has gone into the general funds of the country and an account kept of it separately. I am not aware that it has been invested separately.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: I assume that the Domini >n would have received interest on that fund in some way. Does this Act provide that the principal of the fund as well as the interest shall be handed over to the province ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that question at the moment.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. As I understand it, the money is paid into this assurance fund as a tax on the increased value of the land. For example : if a man buvs a piece of property to-day for $1,000 and he sells it in a month for $2,000, the last purchaser would pay a certain percentage on the increased value into the assurance fund. That has been goiug on for some time and the fund would now have attained considerable proportions.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman is correct in his statement. Each time a title is registered a sworn statement is made of the value of the property and a certain percentage upon that is paid into this assuiV ance fund. I am not aware how the Act provided that the assurance fund should be invested. This Bill simply proposes that according to the terms of the Land Titles Act the funds will be passed over to the provinces.
, Mr- M. S. MCCARTHY. Would the minister let us know before the third reading of the Bill, the amount of the fund, what was done with it by the Dominion government, and whether or not any interest is to be paid to the provinces ?


Haughton Lennox: 


George Eulas Foster: Did the Dominion use that fund as a free loan for its own purposes or was it in the nature of a guarantee fund which had to be invested and the accumulation of interest added to the principal so that the fund should be thereby increased? It is really the money of the purchasers of the land and it would seem right that the government in possession of it should invest it and pay a certain amount in interest which would go to swell the fund and make the guarantee more efficient.


Frank Oliver: I will get the information.


George Eulas Foster: It is not necessary to hold back the third reading if the minister would get the information this afternoon.


Frank Oliver: I would be glad to have the Bill read a third time and I will bring down the information afterwards.


Mr. HENDERSON.: This fund may assume very large proportions during the next twenty years and it may not be required at all for the purposes for which it is designed as there may be no errors in titles. Is there any provision made by which the provinces may use the money for any other purposes, or must it hold this money in perpetuity as an assurance fund.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer with authority on that point, but I would imagine that as the responsibility with regard to registering has been placed with the provinces and the fund handed over to them, save in so far as they are to indemnify this government against any claim, they will have full authority to deal with the assurance fund as they see fif.


David Henderson: I do not see the necessity of retaining this fund. The province is rich enough to indemnify any purchaser against an error in the title without having to set the moneys specifically apart. Are there many claims of this kind ? I should not think there were.


Frank Oliver: There are very few, I am very glad to say. As to what action the provinces may take with regard to registration I cannot say, but I would fancy that the intention, in providing this fund, was that claims might be paid out of it on an order of the court without requiring an Act of parliament.


George Eulas Foster: It is a feature of the Torrens system that there should be a guarantee fund.


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


YUKON ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill

(No. 169) to amend tile Yukon Act. He said : There are three principal points in this Bill. One is to provide for an entirely elective council for the Yukon ; the other is to provide for an audit of the accounts directly by the Auditor General ; and the third deals with the administration of estates. The most important provision is that for an entirely elective council. There is naturally a desire on the part of every community in this country to have the fullest possible measure of self-government. In the organization of new territories it has not always been thought desirable, nor lias it always been possible, to give entirely elective legislatures. When the Northwest Territories were first organized, it was necessary to have a legislature partly elective and partly appointed, and when the Yukon government was organized that system was followed. While that has worked with some degree of satisfaction in the Yukon, it can never be considered an entirely satisfactory system, and we believe that the time has come when the council of the Yukon should be made wholly elective instead of partially elective and partially appointive. The membership will be as present-ten members will be elected, one of whom will be Speaker. At present the commissioner is ex-officio Speaker, but it is now proposed that he shall not sit in the council and shall exercise executive functions only. Up to the present the commissioner had legislative as well as executive functions and so had the council. But under this Bill it is proposed to place the responsibility for legislation entirely on the people of the Yukon through their elective members, and the responsibility for administration entirely on the commissioner appointed by this government.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Mr.   POSTER@: What is the present population of the Yukon ? I understand that it becomes pretty small in the winter, after the month of December and is at its flush period from July to December. Does the minister know what it is in the winter season and what it is in the summer ?


Frank Oliver: We have had no official census since 1901. But a year ago an unofficial census was taken, and my impression is that the permanent resident population was placed at about 10,000 in the whole territory.


Mr.   POSTER@: I have seen it stated authoritatively that during the winter there were not more than 1,500 or 2,000 at the most resident.


Frank Oliver: I should say that that would refer entirely to Dawson city.


George Eulas Foster: It seems a little peculiar to have the people elect their own representatives to do their legislation and then have 334}
the whole of the administration vested in some one appointed by the Crown. What has led to that ? It is a distinction which does not occur in really popularly governed countries. .We elect our representatives and we have a Governor General, but he does not do the administration. The representatives act through the cabinet and they really do the administration and legislation, of course divided off by a sharp line of division between the two. And here you have a gulf between the two. The people there can only go as far as legislation, and here they are without control except through the medium of one member.


Frank Oliver: We are moved to that idea by the wish to secure economy as far as possible. We wish to meet the aspirations of the people of the Yukon to have a free voice in their legislation. If the population were larger and the revenues available greater, there would be no objection to adopting the same system of administration as prevails in the other provinces. But we feel that the population is hardly large enough, nor are the resources sufficient, to warrant any scheme of representative administration that would be satisfactory and that would be adequate, without, as we should regard it, very unduly increasing the expense. We think that, under all the circumstances, we are meeting to a fair degree the legitimate aspirations of the people. And vet are not thereby increasing the burdens upon the taxpayers of the country.


Mr.   POSTER@: Under what guidance is the administrator there as regards this government ? It is really this government administering-that is, the commissioner administers on the advice of this government ?


Frank Oliver: He is a commissioner of this government, and, as commissioner of this government, he administers under the advice of the government, with a wide scope of liberty of action. Being at such a distant point, it is absolutely impossible to administer affairs efficiently or intelligently if they were administered directly from here. Therefore, while he is subject to our direction, we depend very greatly upon his judgment.


George Eulas Foster: As an adviser ?


Frank Oliver: We expect, of course, to be advised by him, but we expect also that he shall act as occasion arises.


Mr.   POSTER@: But this government will be held absolutely responsible for all administrative acts.


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Poster) has done that before.


George Eulas Foster: It is well to have it reiterated.


Mr. LAKE.: Have the council any control over the revenue or expenditure, under this Act ?


Frank Oliver: They would have absolute control over the expenditure, and of such portion of the revenue as would be raised by local means. We propose that the revenues should be under constitutional control, that is, appropriations shall be made on the vote of the council.
On section 2,
2.	The said section 2 is further amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
(g) 'Commissioner in Council' means the Commissioner by and with the advice and consent of the council.
Mr. LAKE, I suppose that means by and with the consent of the majority of the council ?


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly.
On section 3,
3.	Section 6 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
6. The Governor in Council may from time to time appoint an administrator to execute the office and functions of the commissioner during his absence or illness or other inability.


Haughton Lennox: This is not exactly a substitute for what section 6 provided for. Section G of the present Act reads :
In the case of the death of the convmis-sioner, the senior member of the council shall act as commissioner until a successor is appointed.
These two seem to provide for different states of things. The section in the Bill now before us provides for a person to act as administrator in the absence or illness of the commissioner. But the section of the Yukon Act which I have just read provides for a different state of things. Is there anything involved in the new system you are introducing to dispense with the necessity of providing for what is provided for in section 6-not for. the case of the commissioner being unable to act, but for the case of his death.


George Eulas Foster: Would not ' absence ' cover that ?


Haughton Lennox: I do not think it would in the connection in which we find it.


Frank Oliver: I think ' or other inability would cover it.


Haughton Lennox: I have not gone over the Act very carefully, but there seems to remain the difference that I have pointed out.


Frank Oliver: The difference is this : In the other Act it was contemplated that the council should be in part of nominated members, and that the senior of +hese should become, by virtue of his office, ad-Mr. FOSTER.
ministrator under certain circumstances. But it is found in practice that we require an administrator even outside the occasion of the death of the commissioner. For instance, that we may be better acquainted with the conditions of the Yukon, and that the commissioner might become better acquainted with the policy of the government, it is advisable, in everybody's interest, that the commissioner should visit Ottawa from time to time. And, in case of such absence of the commissioner from the Yukon, it is necessary that provision should be made to carry on the government during his absence. Therefore, the section is made to cover such occasion and all occasions not covered by the Act. As there are to be no appointed members, there will be no one entitled to step into the position of administrator.


Haughton Lennox: When the commissioner dies who appoints his successor? .


Frank Oliver: I think that these words: 'the Governor in Council may from time to time appoint an administrator to exercise the office and functions of the commissioner during his absence or illness or other inability ' cover the point. If the commissioner should die, he would certainly be unable to prosecute his business, and we would appoint an administrator.


Robert Laird Borden: But you could not appoint an administrator if there were no commissioner. This is to provide for the case where the commissioner continues in office, but you require some one to administer the office for him. In case of the death
fthe commissioner I suppose there is au-ority to appoint a new commissioner, but the administrator serves an entirely different purpose for he administers an office which, for the time, is held by another.
Mr. LENNOX Section 6 of the Act provides that in case of the death of the commissioner the senior member of the council shall act as commissioner until his successor is appointed. Would that still happen?


Frank Oliver: No, that section 6 is repealed.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, but suppose the commissioner dies, then is that provided for by this new section 6? Is somebody to act in his place until a new commissioner is appointed?


Frank Oliver: I mav be wrong, but I should think that section 6 would cover the right of the government to appoint some one to administer until a commissioner is appointed. And. of course, the right to appoint a commissioner is inherent. If there is no commissioner, section 4 says that the Governor in Council may, under the Great Seal, appoint a chief executive officer to be styled and known as the commissioner. If there is no commissioner, the government,

under that section, has a right to appoint one
On section 6,


George Eulas Foster: What is the qualification of a voter ?


Frank Oliver: He shall be a British subject, of the full age of twenty-one years, who has resided in the territory for a period of twelve months prior to the date of election.


Mr. FOWLER.: Why is it necessary that the incumbent of the office of commissioner should take the oath of allegiance ? It seems to me that if he is a British subject it is not necessary for him to take the oath of allegiance. The government would not appoint a man who was not a British subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do the same as members of this House.


Frank Oliver: The qualification of voters is fixed bv the Act and under section 9 and it is provided that it may be still further restricted by the legislative council itself, but cannot be extended beyond those restrictions.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister think over the question as to the number of the council ? Why is it fixed at ten ? Are as many as that required ?


Frank Oliver: The territory Is very large, and while I must admit that we were led to say ten because the present council is composed of ten, still, the territory being very large, it is desirable that there should be an opportunity for a representation of the various sections. Besides, we thought it was not desirable to reduce a deliberative body to a small number.


George Eulas Foster: Who form the districts from which they should be selected ?


Frank Oliver: We are providing in the Bill that the legislative council should do so. At present it has the authority to adjust the districts which shall elect members under the provisions of this Bill, and the Bill does not come into force until the 1st of May, 1909. That is to say the present council will hold another session, and at that session they have the responsibility placed upon them of dividing the territory into districts. We think they can do that with a better knowledge of the conditions than we can here.


George Eulas Foster: What amount is it proposed to pay the commissioner ?


Frank Oliver: I think his salary at the present time is $6,000, with $6,000 as living allowance, altogether, $12,000. The members of the council get $600. There is a provision that their salaries should not exceed $600 with travelling expenses.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the reason for not fixing the salary of the commissioner in the statute, the same as the salaries of governors and judges are fixed?


Frank Oliver: The commissioner of the Yukon is not in the position of a governor or a judge, and it would not be practicable to give him that position. Besides, it might be possible, under a change of circumstances or in the interests of economy, to reduce the salary, or possibly to increase it.


George William Fowler: Can you remove him except for cause ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, he is simply a commissioner.


Haughton Lennox: We are to pay the salary of the commissioner, and we are not controlling the amount he should be paid.


Frank Oliver: That has been the case heretofore, and in voting the estimates parliament may say how much he should be paid. So we do not at all take away from the authority of parliament.


George William Fowler: Who fixes the manner in which the elections should be held ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Why should not the council determine the qualification of voters ?


Frank Oliver: We are providing that they shall within these limits. We think we are entitled to fix certain limits beyond which they may not go, but within these limits they are, by this section, empowered to fix the qualification as they see fit.
On section 11; council to continue for three years, but commissioner may dissolve at any time.


George William Fowler: It seems a very strange authority to give to the commissioner that he may dissolve the council whenever he likes.


Frank Oliver: That is according to the British system of government. It is considered advisable to, at any time, make it possible to bring the government in line with the will of the people. It is not a right which has been subject to abuse in the past and I do not think it is liable to be abused in this case.


George William Fowler: Why not make this like a municipal council which lasts for a certain length of time ? Shorten the time, make it for two years instead of being subject to being dissolved by the action of the commissioner.


Frank Oliver: I am strongly, of the belief that under the circumstances it is advisable to have the law in such a position that an appeal may be taken at any time in case of a deadlock. In giving due authority to the representatives of the people they must have the right to withhold Supply. Money

cannot be expended except on the vote of council. It is quite possible that the majority in a small council, such as that, might tie up the public service and it would be a question as to whether they were justified in doing so or not. It is based upon the British system of government and I think we are only following the system of responsible government which prevails everywhere else in making this provision here. While we are departing to some extent from the principle of responsible government we are only doing it under the stress of financial necessity.


George William Fowler: The same thing might be true of any municipal council. They have the voting of certain moneys and the imposition of certain taxation and they might do the same thing. I therefore do not think that the argument applies.* It seems rather absurd to my mind.


Mr. AMES.: Would it not be possible to provide that should such a dissolution take place there should be a report of the reasons submitted by the commissioner himself to the higher authority that appoints him.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend might take it for granted that that certainly would be the fact. The commissioner is not the governor but he is the commissioner administering under the authority of the government here. Of course, we are res-possible for what he does and should he dissolve the council he would have to account to us as we would have to account to parliament for his having done so.
On section 13 ; council shall sit separately from the commissioner; commissioner may approve or disapprove of bills or reserve them for assent of Governor in Council.


George William Fowler: What is the population of the Yukon?


Frank Oliver: We have no definite know ledge upon that point. The population ii much larger in the summer than in tin winter. Our latest information is that then were about 6,000 there last winter and thai there are about 10,000 in summer.
has not fulfilled the expectations that were had of it at the time this elaborate machinery was required. Now, you are making a new Act and it seems to me that the part of economy and reason would be to simplify this machinery. You have a governor who opens this council, which is smaller than the council of any of the small towns throughout Canada. I suppose he opens parliament with all the paraphernalia of a Windsor uniform, cocked hat and the firing of guns. It looks like a comic opera parliament. I think you had better hold up this Bill, consider its provisions further and tiy to get it into such shape as to provide only the machinery necessary for doing the business of this country. It is only practically the town council of Dawson. It is altogether too expensive.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 15,
(n) All public moneys and revenue over which the Commisisoner in Council has the power of appropriation shall form a fund to be known as the Yukon Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the council any funds now out of which to appropriate money?


Frank Oliver: Each year parliament votes money for general expenses in the Yukon and the vote is subject to appropriation by the council. There is also revenue raised by the council itself.


George Eulas Foster: What are the sources of their revenue?


Frank Oliver: There being no municipal organization, Dawson City, and Whitehorse, and I think Bonanza are administered by the council by direct property tax. They have also the revenue from liquor licenses.


George Eulas Foster: They have nothing to do with the forest and mining taxes.


Frank Oliver: No.


George William Fowler: It seems to me this is very elaborate machinery you are providing for the government of 6,000 people.


Frank Oliver: It is no more elaborate than what we have at the present time. It is quite an arguable point that the machinery of government is more cumbersome than is necessary, but at the same time there is a very large territory and the interests of that territory are very great. We have hopes that the development will continue and that it will justify the best facilities of government that we can give the people there.
Mi-. FOSTER. Have they a property tax ou outlying districts?


Frank Oliver: I do not think so.


George Eulas Foster: How do they distribute the money we give them?


Frank Oliver: The vote under the heading of expenses of government in the Yukon Territory they appropriate, but the vote for improving roads can only be used for road purposes and they distribute it. The title of the vote expresses whether we or they administer it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is provided in this Bill that the governor may refuse his assent to Bills. Does he reserve the Bills


George William Fowler: The population has decreased instead of increased; therefore, it1 Mr. OLIVER.

for the consent of the Governor General or what is the procedure?


Frank Oliver: Section 13 of this Bill provides that all Bills passed by the council shall be presented to the commissioner for his assent and he may either assent or refuse to assent or refer to the Governor General in Council.
On section 17,
(n) It shall mot he lawful for the council to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue of the territory, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to council by message^of the commissioner, in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed.	,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me the intention of this Bill is to build up a little provincial government in a territory that is about the size of one of our counties. That may give us trouble in the future. This council has practically the functions of a provincial government, and yet it has only 10 members and a commissioner who seems to have unlimited power even to the extent of fixing his own salary. Will it develop into a full fledged provincial government or what? It seems to be moving in that direction from stage to stage.


Frank Oliver: The salary of the commissioner is fixed by the Governor General in Council and the hon. gentleman is in error in saying that the commissioner has power to fix it. I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman that we are establishing a cumbersome and expensive and perhaps inappropriate system of government. We are very careful in this proposal not to increase in any degree the expenditure or the liability of expenditure. It is merely a question as to whether we shall carry on the government of the Yukon approximately on the principle of responsible government or on the principle of municipal government. There is much to be said for one and for the other, but there is no evidence that municipal government is in any degree cheaper or better than responsible government. To my mind municipal government has not yet been found as good or as cheap as responsible government, conditions being the same. Municipal bodies all over the world are looking around from time to time for improvement over the system of municipal management and are casting their eyes in the direction of responsible government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are developing into that now in the Yukon.


Mr OLIVER.: We are not increasing the number of councillors or of officials. We are simply carrying on the government as it is to-dav, but we are giving an elective council ; that is the only difference.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you not giving them powers of taxation ?


Frank Oliver: We are adding no powers whatever. Under this Bill they have the same powers as they had before. The Bill simply means that the responsibility between the people of the Yukon and this government shall be more clearly defined than it has hitherto been ; but there is no provision made for any increase in the expenditure nor for any increased eumbrousness in the form of government, but rather it seems to me the government will be less cumbersome than it has been in the past. When the responsibility is clear-cut and well defined, we have every reason to expect better government. Without clear-cut and well-defined responsibility resting on the people on the one hand and on the administrative authorities on the other hand, we cannot expect to have a satisfactory system of government ; and I feel safe in saying that a great deal of the dissatisfaction that has existed in the past in regard to matters in the Yukon has been because of the lack of definite and fixed responsibility.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a good deal of force in that. Defined and fixed responsibility is valuable, but it seems to me that it is the part of wisdom for us to consider what is going to be the future of this legislation. You give that country a form of quasi-responsible government, and suppose it does not develop and grow in the future, what are you going to do ? Can you take it away ?


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly.


Mr SPROULE.: I doubt very much if any government would assume the responsibility of taking it away at any future time ; and if not, what is going to happen after that ? Is it going to develop into a provincial form of government ? Or, what is going to happen in the event of the country not growing ? Will it continue for all time with the authority that this and previous Acts clothe that council ? It seems to me there ought to be some definite object in view, having regard to what is likely to be the future of that country.


Frank Oliver: Our immediate object is to try to give the country a form of government that will be satisfactory to the people there and to the people here. We cannot of course tell what the future may be ; we have hopes of the future development of that country ; but of course we may be disappointed. I cannot see what the future of the country has to any serious extent to do with the proposition before the House, that is, to give the territory as it is to-day an elective council and a form of government generally that will be in accord with the general principle that pervades our constitution namely, that the people shall govern in certain well-defined affairs and within certain well-defined limitations, and that

outside of these this government shall be absolutely and directly responsible.
Mr. SPROUT,E. Under what authority could this government interfere in the future and do away with that council ?


Frank Oliver: There is no reason why this Act of Parliament should not be amended in the future as it is being amended to-day or has been amended in the past.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Or repealed ?


Frank Oliver: Or repealed, if it should seem good to parliament to repeal it. We are not erecting a province, which would be put under the protection of the British North America Act. We are simply dealing with a form of government in a part of the country which is still under our absolute jurisdiction without any regard to the terms of the Confederation Act.


Mr SPROULE.: You are clothing them with most of the powers and responsibilities of a provincial government. You give them power to outline their constituencies, to say what their sessional indemnity shall be-the same powers that pertain to a provincial government ; and if they live under that for some time, will it not be held by them that as they have been performing all the functions of a provincial constitutional government, the federal power could not take these away from them, and that they should be recognized under the principles of the British North America Act as a province ?


Frank Oliver: Certainly, if the form of government which we are giving them now turns out to be satisfactory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose it does not turn out to be satisfactory to you ?


Frank Oliver: If it did not turn out to be satisfactory. I think it beyond question that the same authority which gave it could withdraw or amend it. It would be the duty of parliament to withdraw or amend it as the circumstances would dictate. If, on the other hand it was found to be satisfactory there is no reason why it should be withdrawn or amended ; and if the country developed so that it became a province, I can only say that that is the end to which we desire our legislation to tend ; that is what we hope for.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there are illustrations under British government of institutions of this kind having been granted and having been afterwards withdrawn. That could of course be done as a matter of legal power, and the question which was raised by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) would seem to relate rather to the constitutional right of this parliament to withdraw these institutions after they had once been granted. I suppose the minister's contention is that there is not any very considerable change except in the Mr. OLIVER,
constitution of the council. At the same time, without criticising the idea of the minister, it leads to a rather curious result. You will have a body in the Yukon elected by the people which shall have full power of legislation within certain limits just as any province of Canada has full power of legislation within these limits under the British North America Act. Then, instead of constituting a system of party government by means of a cabinet, which I would consider inappropriate at the present time, you have a commissioner who would fulfil under this Bill two functions -in the first place, the executive power with respect to the Yukon, and also a great many of the functions of the cabinet of this Dominion or of one of the provinces of Canada. That is to say there cannot be any money Bill introduced into the council without his consent. You depart, however, somewhat from the ordinary ideas of constitutional government in this respect, that it is not necessary for him to initiate legislation. I suppose the question as to what legislation should be introduced or passed would be a matter for the council itself to determine. That seems to be the scheme of the Bill, as far as I understand it-to have a legislative body possessing within certain limits the same rights of legislation as any provincial legislature would have, to dispense with the ordinary machinery of a cabinet, and to fulfil the functions of a lieutenant governor and a cabinet as well, to a great measure through the commissioner appointed by this government. The result of all that will be, so far as administration is concerned, and so far as the initiation of money Bills is concerned, that the acts of the commissioner will be acts for which this government will continue to be responsible, inasmuch as it appoints the commissioner and can remove him if he does not see fit to carry out its policy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the council should disagree with the commissioner and that he should refuse to assent to Bills ? They would be his constitutional advisers, I take it. Suppose there is a conflict of authority between the council and the commissioner, would the council resign or would tiie commissioner resign ?


Frank Oliver: That will be a question for the council and the commissioner to consider when the time comes. We shall have means of requiring the commissioner to resign if we see fit, and he will have means of calling upon the assembly to resign if he sees fit.


Mr FOSTER.: Can he dissolve the assembly ?


Frank Oliver: The whole system of responsible government looks to throwing the responsibility as directly upon the people as possible. This is what we have in view in

the case of any trouble between the commissioner and his council which they cannot settle themselves. The matter can be referred to the people at once for their decision.


George Eulas Foster: There is this about it. This Yukon council can try Its prentice hand in legislation over the whole Dominion.


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: It can legislate with reference to banking and commerce.


Frank Oliver: No. The matters upon which it may legislate are set out in the Act. We are not repealing 'the Act but only making certain amendments to it. The Act delimits the powers. We are only making the provision which we think necessary in order to change the condition of a partially elective to a wholly elective council.


George Eulas Foster: It is an experiment and we can see how it works out. There are two main points. You have one meeting a year of this council and that meeting need not necessarily be a long one. The council ought to do ail its business in a very short time, and you are giving $600 to each councillor. Up to a late date that has been the full appropriation by a provincial legislature which sits from six to twelve weeks and deals with a variety of legislation. Beyond doubt the Yukon council will go to the limit and make the salary $600. That is a pretty large allowance to be paid out of their limited fund for one meeting a year. I should think the allowance for these gentlemen is a pretty big one and that a per diem allowance would be preferable. That might be open to tbe objection that they might, for the sake of the allowance, make their sessions longer, but they could hardly in decency go beyond what would give them a fair amount of pocket money. Another thing is that this will make the appointment of a commissioner a very responsible one and the government can no longer fool with it. Everything will depend on the wisdom and good sense and executive ability of the commissioner. In every respect his judgment will be called upon to make matters move properly in the government of that country. The first thing that will happen, there will be disapointment. You say that you are going to let the Yukon manage the Yukon. The people elect their own men and these men legislate, but no Act can become law until approved of by the government of Canada. The Yukon council may legislate, but they cannot put their legislation into execution. That alone will cause dissatisfaction, and as to the outcome, that will depend on the character and ability of the commissioner more than on anything else. I do not know what kind of a person he will turn out to be. but in times past the government might have had better commissioners than they had. They might also have had worse, and while I have nothing to say against Commissioner Henderson, there will be considerable scope there for the exercise of his abilities and discretion.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate the position, but we really think it better that the responsibility should be well defined. Then we shall know whom to hold responsible. In the past we were held responsible when we did not have control.


George Eulas Foster: I acknowledge that difficulty.


Frank Oliver: Under present conditions, we shall have control in so far as we have responsibility.


George Eulas Foster: That will be an improvement no doubt.
On section 21,-duties and powers of public administrator.


George Eulas Foster: What are the duties now and the obligations, in so far as accounting for estates is concerned? I brought up a case in that connection which had two parts to it. One was that the administrator had never yet given any guarantee until Mr. Senkler was appointed. And the other was that the administrator did not seem to have made any complete statement. I saw in a paper the other day a case alleged where the Commissioner of the Yukon became guardian aud public administrator of the estate of an insane person and a great deal of trouble ensued. Either the representative of the insane person or the person who went insane and came back to his proper state of sanity wanted a statement and had great difficulty. He made it warm for the administrator, and the latter compromised for a lump sum and thus got rid of the arraignment. All that is very irregular and very wrong. How do you cure that from this time on?


Frank Oliver: I will refer the hon. gentleman to subsections 4 and 5.


George Eulas Foster: I see, we have not come to that.	.	,
On subsection 5,
5.	The work and operation of the office of public administrator, and his dealings and accounts in connection with estates or property coming into his hands by virtue of his office, shall be subject to inspection, examination and audit by the Auditor General of Canada, or by any officer deputed by him' for that purpose.


George Eulas Foster: This still does not make it obligatory upon him to wind up an estate and make his statement ; it simply provides for an audit to see that he has done his work correctly.	.


Frank Oliver: He will be subject to the ordinances of the Yukon council. We do not

feel that here we have a sufficiently Intimate knowledge of the conditions surrounding property in the Yukon-many of the properties being mining claims-to enable us to make provision for their being properly dealt with. Therefore, as my hon. friend will see, we provide that he shall perform such duties as are imposed upon him and shall be invested with such powers as are bestowed upon him by or under any Act of the parliament of Canada or any ordinance of the Governor in Council or the Commissioner in Council. His duties having been thus defined, he shallaccount to the Auditor General for his discharge of those duties. First, as provided in subsection 4, he shall give security to us and men he shall account to the Auditor General for the discharge of his duties. That seems to me to cover the case as well as it can be covered. We in this parliament only deal with the public administrator in some specific cases, as in the Placer Mining Act. The government might deal with him as in the ordinance passed here known as the Lien Ordinance which we have passed in regard to the Yukon. But the general provisions in regard to the public administrator fall, and X think properly fall to be defined by the legislature of the Yukon. And we take account as to whether his duties are properly discharged or not.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether that covers it fully or not. The Yukon must have been mighty lax not to have had a better state of affairs.


Frank Oliver: There was no such definite provision, such as we have here, for accounting. The administrator was acting under the legislation of the Yukon, and it seemed to be an open question whether he was under the jurisdiction of the Yukon council, or the courts of the Yukon or of this government, with the natural results that matters got into serious confusion. But I think that under this legislation the responsibility will be definitely fixed-certainly so far as security and accounting are concerned.


George Eulas Foster: In view of what we know to have taken place, that is in view of the laxity of the former state of affairs, I think it would be only fair that back matters should be cleared up by at least final statements and audit. I can see that, with so many estates of a peculiar kind, to set down here the exact condition on which an estate is to be administered might be difficult. But there is no trouble in making it plain that every estate in the hands of the public administrator is to be accounted for.


Frank Oliver: The Auditor General has sent to the Yukon this year a representative from his office. He has no authority under the Act to do so, but he has taken the re-snonsibility of sending an officer to go into the question of accounts ; and I understand Mr. OLIVER.
that the question of estates will come under his attention. However, under this Act, there will be no question for the future about authority or responsibility.


Robert Laird Borden: Under subsection 2, there seems to be equal authority given to the Governor in Council and the Commissioner in Council to impose duties and bestow powers upon the public administrator. There is provision in the concluding part of this subsection that ' any ordinance of the Commissioner in Council shall have force and effect except in so far as it is not inconsistent with this or any other Act of the parliament of Canada.' But whether an ordinance of the Governor in Council or an ordinance of the Commissioner in Council shall prevail, should they happen to be inconsistent, as they may be, does not seem to be clear. Is it intended that they shall have equal power or that one or the other shall have overriding power ?


Frank Oliver: I observe that that does not seem to be provided for.


Robert Laird Borden: As the Governor in Council is to appoint, I should suppose that the Governor in Council must have controlling power. Possibly some slight amendment to the concluding part of the subsection would meet the case. The proviso might be modified so as to read:
Provided that no such ordinance of the Commissioner in Council shall have force or effect except in so far as it is not inconsistent with any ordinance of the Governor in Council or with this or any other Act of the parliament of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Not inconsistent with any ordinance of the Governor in Council or any Act of parliament.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, (reading) :
Provided no such ordinance of the Commissioner in Council shall have force or effect except in so far as it is not inconsistent with any ordinance of the Governor in Council nor with thi9 or any other Act of the parliament of Canada.
On section 23,


Mr. ALCORN.: Is it intended that parties should be left to the ordinary remedy in the courts for recovery of their rights or would this section 22 give power to order restitution?


Frank Oliver: Remedies would be provided by the legislation of the Yukon Council. This is merely to secure that there should be a correct accounting. No doubt the legislation of the Yukon Council would provide for what is to be done with the money. The trouble has been in the past that it was not clear just what should be done
Bill reported.

Mr. OLIVER moved the third reading of said Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the Bill is read the third time, I would suggest to the minister that careful provision should be made by order iu council with respect to keeping accounts and investment of the moneys. Any executor or administrator who admits trust moneys in his hands can be ordered to pay them into court forthwith. I do not think it would be going too far to require public administrators to pay this money into a bank to the credit, either of the government at Ottawa or to the credit of the government of the Yukon territory. It seems to me most incongruous that a public administrator appointed by the Governor in Council should be keeping in his private account in a bank or carrying around in his pocket, moneys which he holds only as trustee for persons who have not appointed him their administrator, but who have been compelled to submit to his anointment by the action of this government. I hope when the minister comes to frame provisions by order in council he will have particular regard to the necessity of making that matter perfectly plain and of safeguarding the interests of persons really entitled to such moneys in every possible way, both by keeping the accounts and by the immediate payment into some special hands, to the credit of the government of the country for that matter, of every dollar that is realized out of any assets.


Frank Oliver: I appreciate the value of the suggestion and will give it attention.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 184) to amend the Chinese Immigration Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister give a brief explanation?


Frank Oliver: This Bill is intended to cujre two or three defects in the Act as it stands at present. One of the amendments is to provide that only minor children of Chinese merchants shall be exempt. There have been abuses under the Act for lack of this provision, and people who are not properly entitled have secured exemption from the head tax. Another section provides for the punishment and deportation, on occasion, of Chinese who come into the country without payment of the head tax. It has been found in practice under the present law that if a Chinese succeeds in getting into the country without paying the head tax there is no means either of compelling him to pay or of deporting him because he has not paid. These are the principal amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2: Persons exempt from payment of entrance tax.
George Eulas Foster: What change is made?


Frank Oliver: The principal changes of the Bill occur in this section. Previously, the Act, in defining those who were exempt from the tax, spoke of children without prescribing that they must be minor children, and as a consequence persons who were not minors were securing admission free of the head tax. Evidently the intention of the Act was to limit the exemption to minor children.
. Mr. FOSTER. What is the limit of age?


Frank Oliver: The limit of the age of a minor is 21 years. Then, the other provision in the same section is to limit students to the age of 17. Formerly there was no limit to the age of students. Any person over 17 years of age, though he professes to be coming to attend some educational institution, must pay the head tax.


George Eulas Foster: Why do you do that? Should not a man have the right to be a student if he is IS years of age?


Frank Oliver: The difficulty, as I understand, is that the privilege was abused.


George Eulas Foster: You have power to substantiate the person's age.


Frank Oliver: It appears that there is a good deal of difficulty in dealing with the question, and it was thought advisable to draw the line considerably tighter than has been done in the past.


Mr. GALLIHER.: There is a distinct objection on the part of the people at the coast to men attending the same school as small children. That is one of the chief objections. Men from 20 to 30 years of age were attending school and learning English with children of 7 and 8.


George Eulas Foster: It appears pretty arbitrary for us to say that a man shall not be a student because he is over 17 years of age.


William Alfred Galliher: We feel that way about it any way.


Robert Laird Borden: Sub-paragraph 0 seems to be new. I do not see it in the original statute.
(Subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Governor in Council) duly certified teachers.


Frank Oliver: That is new also, but that is not important in the same sense as the other two are.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I asked the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) on the

16th December, 1907, how many Chinese had come into British Columbia since the 15th January, 1907, and I was told that there were 1,325. Could the minister tell me, without consulting the Department of Immigration, if that number included minors? Do I understand that the figures that were given to me then were simply taken as the number of Chinese upon whom the head tax had been collected? From what I could gather from the explanation of the minister, the reason for introducing this legislation was that a minor should not be able to get in,, under certain conditions without paying the head tax.


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer my hon. friend. Of course, he is aware that the administration of the head tax is under the Department of Trade and Commerce, but it is administered by the Department of Customs. In the Immigration Department we have no knowledge of it. It would depend on how the question was framed. If it were a question as to how many Chinese came in it would include all Chinese. If it were only how many Chinese paid the head tax it would include only those who paid the head tax and would not include minors, students who were over 17 years of age, and other people, who although they were not minors, came in as the children of merchants and the wives and children of clergymen, &e.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I will read the question to the minister:
1.	How many Japanese, Hindus, or other Asiatics, respectively, have arrived in British Columbia since January 15, 1907?
2.	How many arrived there in each of the three years preceding said date?
Would that include minors?


Frank Oliver: I understand that includes Japanese and Hindus as well as Chinese.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: No, the answer was:


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1. Chinese, 1,325, of whom 1,152 remained in British Columbia; Japanese, 7,358, of whom 7,357 remained in British Columbia; Hindus, 2,016, of whom 2,045 remained in British Columbia.


Frank Oliver: I would understand that answer to include all Chinese whether they paid the head tax or not. That makes no distinction between those who paid the head tax and those who did not.
On section 4,


Mr. HERRON.: What certainty have you that these Chinamen are not liable to slip off the train at any place they desire to?


Frank Oliver: The amendment provides that these people may pass in bond subject to regulations by the Customs Department, Mr! m. s. McCarthy.
which apparently was not provided for before.


Robert Laird Borden: It is exactly the same as it was before except that you are enabling persons of Chinese origin to pass in transit from a port or place out of Canada to a port or place in Canada without the payment of the tax. The statute at present permits them to pass from a port or place out of Canada to another port or place out of Canada, but this would appear to enable them to go to a port or place in Canada as well. The minister is certainly not providing any further restrictions.


Frank Oliver: This section is evidently intended to apply to those who are entitled to come in without the payment of a tax.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not seem to me that it fulfils that intention.


Frank Oliver: On looking over section 4 and in the light of the discussion which took place in the Senate, the intention of the section would appear to be that the payment of the head tax may be deferred until a person of Chinese origin arrives at his destination in Canada. Instead of paying the tax at the port of entry he may be bonded through to his point of destination and the head tax paid there.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: The object of this section is to give the particular province where a Chinaman lands the opportunity of collecting the 50 per cent of the head tax to which the province is entitled. The complaint has been that hitherto British Columbia has been getting the advantage of the 50 per cent of the tax while the particular Chinaman may be intended for another province. I should think this provision is fair to all the provinces.


John Herron: Is there any provision by which our officer at a port where these people might land shall notify them in any way, or does a Chinaman travel as an ordinary passenger ? Unless there is some way of following these people, I think it would be impossible to collect the tax at an ordinary port.


Frank Oliver: The collection of the tax !s in the hands of the customs officials. As my hon. friend will see, by this section it is intended that the travelling of a person of Chinese origin from the port of entry to his destination shall be under the regulation and supervision of the Customs Department, who would be responsible for the collection of the tax at the point of arrival.


Robert Laird Borden: If that is the intention, it is not very apparent in the construction of the section. There Is a provision in section 7 of the Act that every person of Chinese origin, irrespective of allegiance, shall pay into the Consolidated Fund of

Canada, on entering Canada, at the port of entry, a tax of $500, with certain exceptions. Then there is a provision in section 19 that persons of Chinese origin may pass through Canada without paying the tax under regulations to be made by the Governor in Council. That is proposed to ne amended by this section. Section 7 provides that the $500 shall be paid at the port of entry. There is no provision in this section that it shall be paid anywhere else. Section 7 of the Act simply makes provision for the passage through Canada of persons of Chinese origin. If this section means that the tax is to be paid at the place at which the immigrant eventually arrives, I think it should say so. The construction suggested would make all those people who pass through Canada as much liable to the $500 tax as those' who enter Canada for some place in Canada, although they do not have to pay the tax in the first instance. That is the interpretation the hon. member for Nanaimo puts on the section so far as immigrants are concerned who are destined to some place in Canada. If it bears that interpretation in the one case, it should bear it in the other. It seems to me that an endeavour has been to mix up in the same section two matters which should be kept anart. The better way would be to make a slight amendment to section 7, providing that the nayment might be made at the port of entry or at some other port, and to leave section 19 as it is.


Ralph Smith: I understand that under the regulations provided by order in council the transportation company have to give security to the government to the amount of $500 for every Chinaman transported to any point within or outside of Canada. For instance, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company must arrange with the government collector in Vancouver for the transportation, and must be actually responsible for the landing of these people according to the terms of the arrangement; and when they land in Ontario or anywhere else, the railway company is responsible until the Dominion official in Ontario notifies the Dominion official at Vancouver that the $500 tax is paid.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not finding any fault with the intention as it is understood by my hon. friend, but I am pointing out that the amendment as framed does not carry it out. and I am endeavouring to suggest a method of carrying out the intention. It is needless to say that any arrangement between this government and the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway company cannot override the statute.


Ralph Smith: What I mean to say is that the bonding privilege at the present time is carried out exactly as I have said.


Frank Oliver: I think perhaps it would be just as well to satisfy ourselves that the section is right, so that I think we had better let it stand for further consideration.
Section 4 allowed to stand.
On section 5,


John Herron: The penalty in this section is a fine of $500 or 12 months' imprisonment. The fine is not proportionate to the imprisonment for a Chinaman. He would stay in jail for some years for $500.


Frank Oliver: There is no provision in the existing law enabling us to deal with a person of Chinese origin who had been successful in getting into the country without paying the tax. He could not be compelled to pay the head tax and he could not be deported. This provides for his deportation.


Robert Laird Borden: There has been some change in the language but there apparently is no intention of changing the meaning except in the respect the minister lias mentioned.


Frank Oliver: I see that a certain provision contained in the original section 27, and which seems to be very necessary, must have been left out by mistake. Section 27 provides a penalty for Chinese coming in contrary to the law and also a penalty in the case of every one who wilfully aids or abets such persons coming in. As we are letting section 4 stand, I think it would be well to let section 5 stand also so as to rectify this omission.
Section 5 allowed to stand.
On section 6: Enforcement of deportation.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to introduce this section as section 27 A, as it would seem to more naturally follow the provisions of section 27 of the original Act?


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend will put it into shape in that way, I will accept it.


Richard Stuart Lake: Has the minister any information as to how many immigrant Chinese have come in from the 15th of December last, when the answer was given to my hon. friend from Calgary, to the present time?


Frank Oliver: I have no information. The Department of Trade and Commerce has control over Chinese immigration, but the Act is administered by the Customs Department. The Interior Department has nothing to do with it.


Richard Stuart Lake: The Immigration Department does not include Chinese in its returns?


Frank Oliver: No.
Progress reported.


PROPRIETARY AND PATENT MEDICINES.
Hon.   WM@: TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue) moved second reading of Bill (No. 146) respecting proprietary and patent medicines. He said: As I purpose asking that this Bill should go to a special committee, it might be well that I should make a very brief explanation. Two sessions ago a special committee was appointed which heard the evidence of druggists and medical men respecting the manufacture and sale of patent medicines in Canada, and that committee reported as follows:
Your committee, after mature consideration, have come to the conclusion that the evidence produced before it appears to be of such a character as to warrant the enactment of a law respecting the sale and manufacture in Canada of proprietary medicines and the advertising thereof.
That report was approved by the House, and a Bill was prepared based upon it, but that Bill did not reach its second reading before prorogation. The Bill was rather a drastic measure. I have found, by frequent interviews with the retail trade and the manufacturers, that they considered it as extremely far-reaching in its provisions, and one we would have considerable difficulty in enforcing. Feeling that we were bound to act upon the suggestion of the committee and realizing that there is a demand in the country for legislation of this kind, we have prepared a Bill along the same lines, but not so far-reaching or drastic. When we consider that the practice of medicine is hedged around with all kinds of conditions and that no one can practice medicine unless he has a diploma of a medical college and that no one can put up a prescription unless he be a certified druggist, and when on the other hand we find that any one may make a compound or a nostrum of any kind and put it on the market, and by vigorous and systematic advertising-advertising not always of a reliable or truthful character-cause it to be extensively purchased, it seems to me that the manufacture and sale of proprietary medicines might very well be subject to restrictive legislation of some kind. As a matter of fact attempts were made to deal with the question by the provincial legislatures of Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick several years ago, and the very	fact that they did so is an
indication of the widespread public opinion that legislation of some kind is necessary.	None of these measures, however, became law but were withdrawn because of the very strong opposition ithey met from the manufacturers. They were all on different lines. Some proposed that the word 1 poison ' should be put on the bottles or packages where poison was one of the ingredients: others proposed that the full formula should be printed on Mr. OLIVER.
every label. All the proposals were of a different character, and it was considered by the trade that it would be very much better that legislation on this matter should be of a Dominion rather than of a provincial character. The Bill before the House has received consideration at the hands of both the retail druggists and the large manufacturers of proprietary medicines; and while it is not altogether everything they desire, it fairly meets with the approval of both. During our conferences both of these parties represented to me that certain changes ought to be made-I am speaking now of several months ago-and I intimated to the Pharmaceutical Association of Canada that when the Bill was read a second time I would ask the House to send it to a small special committee and that if they had any views to express or suggestions of change to make, the committee would be glad to hear them. I have several amendments that I shall propose to the Bill. If it will meet the view of the House, I shall be glad to have the Bill given the second reading and afterwards referred to a committee of five to consider the Bill and the proposed amendments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the minister (Mr. Tempi eman) received any representations against the Bill?


William Templeman: No. The Bill has now been in circulation for several months, and, so far ns I can remember, there have been no representations against it-none whatever.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I inferred that the Bill was not likely to go on. It has been so long before the House that I told some druggists It would probably stand over. It was introduced on the 3rd of April.


William Templeman: True. But the hon. gentleman knows the reasons for not proceeding earlier.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I do not.


William Templeman: I have been in contact with the retail drug trade of the country as represented by their solicitor and their president, and the Bill as framed has met with their-I was going to say absolute approval, but that would not be correct, for I have before me some amendments which they have suggested; but with these made, it will meet with the absolute approval of the trade as represented by the retail druggists. It does not altogether meet with the approval of the patent medicine men, but, on the whole, it is approved by a large majority of them. We have no Dominion legislation, and they realize that the probability is that, if the Dominion does not legislate on the subject, the provinces will, and so the manufacturers will not know ' where they are at,' as the expression is. If they are required, for instance, by the province of British Columbia, to put the label 'poison ' on their bottles, they will practically

cease to trade in British Columbia. While this legislation is not far-reaching or drastic, it is, nevertheless, a beginning. We aim to do three things: we aim to prohibit absolutely the use of cocaine; we propose to prohibit the excessive use of alcohol; and we propose to require that any manufacturer who will print the formula on the label shall not come under this Act. There is also a provision that in case any one of the noxious poisons named in the schedule is present in the medicine, the name of that poison must appear upon the label.


Mr. BARR.: It does not compel them to publish the formula?


William Templeman: It provides that if the formula is printed on the label, the preparation does not come under this Act. There is that incentive to publish the formula.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The suggestion has been made that the formula might be filed with the Department of Inland Revenue, and that might be accepted instead of printing it on the label. Is there anything in the Bill to provide for that?


William Templeman: The Bill of last ses

sion had such a provision.


Herbert Brown Ames: I suppose that if this is referred to a small committee interested parties will be given an opportunity to be heard before that committee?


William Templeman: As a matter of fact, it is because of promises I made two months ago to the representatives of both branches of the trade-the manufacturing druggists and the retail druggists,-that an opportunity would be given them to be heard before a committee of the House, that I am anxious to have the Bill so referred.


Herbert Brown Ames: There are two questions involved-the attitude of the public to the makers and vendors of patent medicines, and the attitude of the maker and the vendor of patent medicines to each other. There is a difference of opinion in some cases between these two branches of the trade. That is why it is advisable that an opportunity should be given those interested to be heard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
William Templeman: [DOT]
That the said Bill be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Templeman, G. H. McIntyre, Beland, Sproule and Thos. Chisholm.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 148) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act.-Mr. Fisher.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: All the clauses of this Bill have been adopted. The Bill stood to be reported.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: When the Bill was in committee on the previous occasion, it was suggested from the other side of the House that some bon. members were not then present who might wish an opportunity to discuss some clauses of the Bill. I said I would not take the clauses as passed, although they had been passed upon, but would leave them all open to discussion. The Bill was discussed at some length on April 21. Some suggestions were made, and perhaps, the committee would wish to take up these suggestions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) would like to be present.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) is particularly interested in this Bill ; he has never approached me on the subject This Bill is chiefly for the purpose of increasing the penalties under the Fruit Marks Act, with also some slight changes with regard to dairy products.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Is the minister not aware that infractions of the Act to a certain extent have taken place in marking butter in factories?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know what infractions the hon. gentleman refers to.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I refer to marking dairy butter on the boxes as creamery butter. There is a law which compels makers to mark their butter either dairy or creamery.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Now that the hon. gentleman has mentioned it. I do remember having discussed that subject with the Dairy Commissioner, Mr. Ruddick, and we have to-day an officer watching the butter trade for the purpose of detecting such frauds. We have had, I think, two cases where imitation butter has been sold in Canada. This was an infraction of our law which, until quite recently, we had no suspicion [DOT] of. Our attention was directed to something suspicious and we sent an officer to look after it. We have had to fine two individuals within the last few months for the sale of what I cannot help calling bogus butter. I think those fines will deter other parties from engaging in this business.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many men have you watching?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have one officer who is doing that especially. He is a man of experience in dairy matters and is following the trade very closely. If that thing is done it is only in large centres. I do not

think it is being done in the country parts. What my hon. friend refers to as taking place in the export trade, marking dairy butter as creamery, would also no doubt be done in the export centres, and the same officer is watching for that. We have not yet discovered anything of that kind.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I think it would be impossible for one officer to cover the whole country and keep close watch over the trade. There is a large amount of butter coming in from the outside and I would like to know if the minister is taking measures to inspect that. He is well aware that in 1906, 27,000 boxes were supposed to come back from Great Britain as Canadian butter, whereas it was not Canadian butter. Butter is also coming in on, the western coast from New Zealand.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken when he says that the butter which came back from England was not Canadian butter. It was Canadian butter and was clearly proved to be such.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the minister will inquire amongst his own friends they will tell him that a large portion of the butter which came back in 1906 from Great Britain as Canadian butter was in fact not Canadian butter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is entirely news to me.- I was not aware of it, and as a matter of fact I know that application was made to the customs authorities for the free entry of that butter as being a Canadian product. It was proved to the satisfaction of the customs that it was a Canadian product and it came in as such. My own officers have informed me that they had no doubt whatever that it was a Canadian product; in fact, I think they knew the exact course of that butter on the voyage back and forward. I think the butter was all marked Canadian butter on the packages.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I can only say that the customs office has been mightly deceived in regard to other goods coming intp this country, and humbugged into believing them to be British goods. However, we know that practically all the butter coming in on the western coast is not Canadian butter. Can the minister tell us what inspection he makes of that?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We do not make any particular inspection of that. If it comes into Canada as butter and passes the customs, we do not dispute the fact We have no particular reason for inspecting it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: There is just as much likelihood of that being an inferior quality of butter, and does it not require similar inspection by the department?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a considerable amount of butter coming from Australia Mr. FISHER.
and New Zealand, but we have no reason to suspect that it is bogus. The hon. gentleman talks about the quality. Of course we cannot prevent an inferior quality of butter being sold in Canada. The people import what they ask for, except that we do not allow bogus butter, such as oleomargarine or butterine or anything of that kind, to come in.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the minister made an inspection of the butter coming in from Australia or New Zealand ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, we have not.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How does the minister know it is really butter ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is entered as butter. I do not think there is any oleomargarine or butterine manufactured in Australia or New Zealand. I do not think it is at all likely that anybody would export oleomargarine or butterine to New Zealand or Australia and import it into Canada.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: They could well afford to do it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not given very much attention to this Bill but the language of section 333b is rather peculiar :
333b. The Governor in Council may make such regulations as he considers necessary in order to secure the efficient enforcement and operation of this part, and may by such regulations impose penalties not exceeding fifty dollars on any person offending them.
Is it intended to give power to impose a fine of $50 on any person offending the government ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, offending against the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: But it does not say so. It should be ' violate.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend will notice that section 5, section 313b provides penalties not exceeding $50 for any person * offending against ' the regulations, and I have no doubt that the intention was exactly the same in section 333b but the word ' against ' has been omitted.


Robert Laird Borden: Apparently the expression in use in the statute is ' offending against.'


Mr FISHER.: We had better put in the word ' against ' after ' offending,' in the 36th line, and I would move that the section be amended in that respect.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) to another point. When this Bill was up for consideration before he asked me if I would not consult the Depart-

ment of Justice with regard to line 20 of section 3 :
-Place in a cheese during the progress of its manufacture, or at any time -thereafter, any foreign substance.
I applied to the Department of Justice and they sent me the following letter signed by Mr. Newcombe :
April 23, 1908.
Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 22nd instant -respecting (the amendments to -the Inspection and Sale Act, I have the honour to state that the two clauses to which you refer n.e are practically the same and forbid anyone to place in a cheese during the process of its manufacture or at any time thereafter any foreign substance, and (I think that Mr. Fisher's opinion that the words ' foreign substance ' would not include cotouring matter, is correct.
This is in answer to a letter written by the deputy minister :
I would point out, however, that in the absence of a definition it might be difficult to decide what would be a ' foreign substance ' within the meaning of the Act.
My deputy minister has proposed this :
That section 279 of the said Act be -amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
(g) Foreign substance means any substance not necesary to <the manufacture of the cheese into which it is introduced.


David Henderson: How would that deal with colouring matter ? That is essential.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is essential and colouring matter would be allowed. This refers to any substance not necessary to the manufacture. Of course colouring for coloured cheese would be necessary. That is what the Department of Justice seems to recommend, and I propose to make this amendment in consideration of my hon. friend's objection.


David Henderson: That will get over the difficulty. If a mouse were put into the middle of the cheese it would not be essential.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so, although it might be edible.
Section .as amended agreed to.
On section 5,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then, there was a question about the last clause of section 5. In the 10th line occur the words ' impose penalties.' I think it would be better to say ' provide for the imposition of penalties,' and I therefore move that the section be amended that way.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many firms or persons have been fined during the past year with regard to cheese ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There have been none so far as I know with regard to cheese ; two were fined for the sale of spurious butter.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many were fined under the Fruit Marks Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There were about 200 convictions and several prosecutions are pending. In the subsection with regard to No. 2 quality tile words ' includes no culls ' are introduced, and my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) has suggested that these words should be also introduced into paragraph 2, referring to the first quality, On consulting my officers they think it would be as well to insert the words, and I therefore propose an amendment to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Large quantities of New Zealand and Australian butter have been imported into Canada. Do I correctly understand the minister to say that this butter enters Canada without inspection. Canadian butter and cheese is subject to rigid inspection, and the manufacturers are fined for any infringement of the law, so that this would seem to be a discrimination against the hotter makers of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We carefully and equally watch the sale of any butter in Canada whether it is foreign product or Canadian product. But the customs officers do not inspect imported butter at the frontier. They suppose that when an article is entered as butter it is butter, but if they have any reason for suspicion they would report to us and we would follow it up and test it. If it were not butter we would prosecute.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand that there is one man appointed to look after the Inspection of butter, and it is impossible to expect that he is going to inspect all the butter distributed throughout the country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is one man specially detailed by my department to watch for frauds in connection with the sale of butter. He travels about, and wherever he has any reason to suspect, or when information reaches us, that spurious butter is being sold, he is sent to investigate; but the department does not undertake a general inspection of butter. There are certain laws respecting the marking of butter, and If these are broken, people breaking them are liable to punishment. I should say to the committee that some representations have been made in regard to the penalties provided in this Bill for infractions of the Fruit Marks Act. Hon. members will notice that the -penalties are considerably increased. We found that the penalties under the Fruit Marks Act were so light that they really did not deter. Although we have had a large number of prosecutions, the penalties have ranged under



$10, sometimes being only $2 or $3, and the average being only $5 or $6, even in the case of large shipments, in some cases of from 100 to 1,000 barrels of apples. Therefore we have thought it proper to increase the penalties considerably. I have received one or two questions in regard to them, and I confess that I have not been yet altogether convinced that the penalties are too heavy.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I suggest to the minister that he send copies of the Bill to exporters, and also copies of the regulations regarding cheese and butter to the cheese and butter factories throughout the country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have sent thousands of copies of our laws to people interested in these different products. I think everybody engaged in the business understands what the provisions of the Fruit Marks Act are, as well as the provisions of this Bill, which was introduced into this House on the 6th of April last, and which has been sent broadcast to all the people interested.
Mr. riCICUP. For small packers would not these penalties be pretty severe?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill provides that in no case shall the penalty be less than $10. 1 must say I do not think that is too high in the case of a man who deliberately violates the Fruit Marks Act. It may go up to $50, but that is in the discretion of the magistrate, and our experience has been that the magistrates have been very lenient where there has been a range of penalties. For the second offence the fine is to be not less than $50 nor more than $100. We have been very lenient. I think I am safe in saying that we have never prosecuted for the first offence. The first offence in the Bill means the first conviction. For the third offence, that is, for the third conviction, the fine is not less than $100 and not exceeding $500. In the case of a very large shipment, if the offence is with respect to a shipment of fifty or more packages, there is an additional penalty on each package in excess of fifty of 25 cents for the first offence, 50 cents for the second offence and $1 for the third and each subsequent offence. In a shipment of say one hundred barrels the inspectors do not generally open more than from five to ten, and the fine is imposed only on the number actually opened, not on the whole shipment. In a shipment of 1,000 barrels there would probably be opened twenty-five or thirty. Consequently I do not think the penalties are too severe.


Mr. PICKUP.: That puts the small shippers in a bad position.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I take it that the magistrates, in imposing these fines, will inflict the smaller penalty in the case of the small shippers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: Suppose the offence is accidental?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can hardly think that an offence of this kind would be accidental for the second or third time. For the first offence the minimum penalty is only $10. I may say that these penalties were pretty carefully worked out by my officers, and we thought they were not at all undue. I have had discussions with a number of shippers who at first misunderstood the penalties. They thought the penalty was $10 for evei-y package; but when I explained that it was not for every package, but for every case, they were satisfied. However, I am not wedded to these particular penalties. I am in the judgment of the House, but we thought after careful consideration that they were not unduly large.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: The conditions in Nova Scotia and in New Bi'unswick are a little different from what they are in Ontario. The growers pack their fruit right along, and there is considerable fruit canned over from the fall to the spring, which might be in very good condition when packed, but becomes deteriorated in the winter or spring. In that case the packer might be subject to a fine. The fruit might be honestly packed in the fall and placed in the warehouse and in the spring be unfit for market.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think we have to judge the fruit at the time the packer delivers it. If he keeps it in his own warehouse, he must look to its safe keeping.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: It deteriorates from natural causes.
Mi-. FISHER. Well, if he does not ship it for months, he is responsible when he does.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: If he sold it, the purchaser would come back on him.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Still the packer must be liable under the Act, if he sells fruit which has been packed for a long time and has deteriorated. We must deal with it at the time he ships it and not at the time he packs it. Wre could never convict people otherwise.


Mr. M. S. SCHELL.: If the second offence were committed in the same year as the first offence, would that be considered a second offence?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We did not contemplate any prescription. A man gets fined this year and commits the offence next year, that would be a second offence.


Malcolm Smith Schell: Take a small shipper or a farmer who puts up his own apples. He is fined one year $10, the next year he is fined again and his fine is $50. The third year he is liable to a fine of $100. That seems to me very stringent especially when he has to employ not the best skilled

labour. In a business in which skilled labour is so very important, that is very stringent. You can take any number of men and explain to them what is required, and still it will be impossible to get them to pack according to the Act unless they have special training. A man may be as honest as possible and yet, under those conditions, lay himself open to a fine, and he finds himself up against a very hard proposition. I do not think the trade is built up simply by imposing fines.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: The Fruit Marks Act as it is at present has been beneficial, particularly in years when the fruit grown has been of good quality. Many growers have endeavoured to pack their fruit in conformity with the Act, and have improved their orchards, by raising the best varieties of the largest, cleanest and best coloured fruit possible and packing No. 1 and No.
2 quality, and only in exceptionally good years, when fruit was good, No. 3, and shipping it only when matured, and in proper season, in proper packages, attractive and up to the standard. As a consequence thev have established a reputation and character for their fruit, enabling them to find a market at the highest prices. Conditions in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are somewhat different from those in Ontario, where the growers sell their orchards, and it is packed and shipped by the purchasers. With us the grower packs his fruit. As considerable winter fruit is put up, you will recognize that it being a perishable commodity, it deteriorates rapidly. It might be honestly packed in the fall, sold and placed in warehouse, and in the spring be unfit for market, condemned and the packer held responsible. In some years our fruit does not grow well, develops poorly, and no No. 1 fruit is produced. No amount of inspection will produce No. 1 fruit in those years. But it is generally admitted that the Fruit Marks Act inspection has raised the. character of the fruit sold in Canada for export, in years when it has been successfully grown. In the last two years the fruit was very poor, not only in Canada but in the United States, and much that was shipped would have been better fed to stock. Our fruit growers, like all other classes of people, are human and anxious to get as many barrels of No. 1 and No. 2 fruit as possible for market. Sometimes a few barrels of poor qaulity slip in that should not, but on the whole, in seasons when the fruit is well grown, or a good fruit season, I do not believe that much fault can be found with the fruit grower and packer, and very little if any violation of the Act, and that the contents of the barrel will come up to or equal that stamped on the head. If there happen to be a few lots of badly packed fruit in poor condition, they will make more noise and be advertised more extensively than hun-335J
dreds of choice shipments will receive praise. The past two years have been poor years for fruit, and the growers put up the best they had. Those interested in the fruit business are in favour of inspection, as it has raised the standard of Canadian fruit; but they feel that the penalties as set out in the amendment are too severe, will not be popular, will lead to evasion by those in the business, and will drive many out of the business. I am of opinion that if the penalty for a first offence were placed at a nominal amount, say not more than $20 and not less than $5, and as a warning the penalty were doubled for the second offence and a severe penalty were imposed for the third offence, these would be more effective and would answer the purposes for which this amendment is intended. Few magistrates would feel like imposing so heavy a fine as the Act defines. In fact, magistrates in Nova Scotia have not jurisdiction in civil causes for more than $80, and a conviction would be very severe to any man, who through ignorance, mistake or carelessness, violated the Act.
I do not think our fruit growers or packers would designedly do so; it would be against their interest. When the fruit growers realize the purpose of existing legislation, there will be no further violation, and arrangements, such as have been suggested by Mr. McNeill, the superintendent of the fruit division, will be adopted in the way of co-operation in packing the fruit. Our people have great respect and confidence in Mr. McNeill's and the minister's enthusiasm and desire to raise the character of the fruit industry in Canada. But I would urge upon the minister that when, through inadvertence, mistakes or unforeseen circumstances, a grower or packer violates the Act, the penalty for the first offence be made as light as possible, as a warning, and that those for the second and third offences be more severe.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course in the prosecution it is discretionary with the prosecutor to proceed for a second or a third instead of a first offence, but I do not like to hold that out as a promise because I think the second offence ought to be prosecuted as such. Nevertheless there might be some little discretion exercised in that respect. Very frequently, in liquor prosecutions, it is very difficult to get any one to prosecute for a second or third offence. I have always disapproved of that and so have others, but I would not like to bold it out in a general way that we would take the second offence as the first or a third as a second. That would be in the discretion of the inspector, if exceptional circumstances indicated that he ought to use his discretion. However, I do not object to reducing the fines if hon. gentlemen think they nre too severe. On the whole I think they are not undue. We want to

try and bring about good packing. We have tried for several years with very light penalties and we find that they have not deterred at all.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: Is there any certain rule to guide the inspectors with regard to the number of packages they shall open? The minister has told us that in a shipment of 50 packages, they might open only one or two and the penalty is only imposed according to the number opened. In this way considerable hardship might be put on one shipper and another be let off easier. It appears that the fine is according to the number of packages opened.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not altogether.
Not as regards the


Mr.   A.@: MARTIN, first offence.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Or any of them.


Alexander Martin: You fine a man aewhethe?'t0 ihV1UInber of Packages opened, whether a first or second or third offence.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to correct ~y 1011' fl'IGnd- Until there are more than 50 packages opened, the fine is the same without regard to the number. It is only after 50 are opened that the fine is increasas" forty-nine50' ^ flDe iS the same for
onlKacfcag^ 'opened and'foufld
defective that the fine is imposed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what I say.


Alexander Martin: 
Alexander Martin: Of course, I did not suggest a fixed percentage. But it is easy to see, from what the minister said that inspection might be complete in one' shipment and may not approach completeness m another.
Mr, FISHER


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite true.


Alexander Martin: I fear that such an inspection may not be complete enough to protect the good name of our fruits in the British market. I think the minister should instruct his inspectors to have a certain minimum number of each shipment inspected. I can readily understand that, as the inspection is now made, there may be-I do not say intentionally-a good deal of favouritism.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, the inspections and prosecutions have to be reported to headquarters here. We have that control over our inspectors. If any inspector were doing anything that would indicate persecution or unfairness, he would be hauled up and an explanation demanded. Of course, we only inspect a few and the inspections are largely haphazard. I admit that, quite accidentally, one man may have several shipments inspected, and two or three other people may slip by without any inspection. But all are liable to be inspected. and it is this liability that we depend on to ensure proper packing. Of course, the object of increasing the penalties is to make the packers a little more afraid of being caught. We do not undertake to catch all or to inspect all-that would be physically impossible, especially at the busy time of the year. But I do not think there has been any suggestion of unfairness on the part of our inspectors. I shall be very careful to see that anything of that kind occurring is immediately put a stop to.


Alexander Martin: According to the minister's own statement, shipments may go through uninspected. Here are two men shipping apples, the packing of both being on a par. One man's shipment is inspected whereas his competitor escapes without inspection. The man whose shipment has been inspected may be called upon to pay a very heavy fine. (And as to the fines, I would make the first fine $5, the next $10, the next $20 and so on). And so one shipper is given a great advantage over his competitor in trade.


Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM.: I presume the inspection will be according to the grade of the fruit, and if a certain brand is found not to be turning out well, a few extra packages will be opened and if turning out very badly still more would be opened and inspected. It is evident that something must be /done, for i if something is not done and done promptly, in view of the prospect of an immense crop of fruit in this country, the market for our fruit in England will be ruined. I sympathize with the efforts made to increase the stringency of this law. I do not know about the amount of the fine, lint it seems to me that there should be more fair-dealing, and I think the inspection of our fruit should be more

thorough and systematic. I think that, if possible, it should begin at the orchard. I have here a letter from a man in my own country who is engaged in the apple business. Perhaps it would be well that I should read it :
Dear Sir,-1 write you re the apple industry of this province. The writer handled about six thousand barrels of apples last season and made a -good deal of inquiry as to how the apples were inspected.
In order to get to the bottom of the export apple business, I went to the expense of going to the old country and visited all the large centres, and came to the conclusion that something must be done in order to protect the apple industry of -this province. I had a long conversation with the Dominion fruit inspector at Liverpool and I found that last season 90 per cent of all the apples that were shipped in from Canada wei'e branded falsely, and particularly thoise from the province of Ontario. This statement came from the Dominion fruit inspector at Liverpool. After spending a good deal of time thinking over this matter I have come to this conclusion, that there should he one fruit inspector for every county, especially for a county like Huron, where there are so many apples produced. Doubtless there are several counties in the province where one inspector would be sufficient for say four counties, but in those large fruit counties I think there should be an inspector for every county.
It should be the duty of those inspectors to go from town to town during the shipping season and have power to inspect the apples at the different depots where the cars are loaded, and. also visit the orchards during the packing season and inspect the fruit on the ground and while being packed.
I think it is a great injustice to the apple exporters and to the trade generally to have the inspection done the way it is at present. If we had inspectors to go from place to place and do the inspecting as I suggest the packers who do the work would then be on their guard and fruit would he put up in different manner and condition, while in the way the work is done at present the exporter sends his men into the country giving them instructions to put up the apples according to the law. and fruit regulation and yet the packers deliberately put up a job lot of apples and simply put in worthless stuff, and seem to care nothing for this kind of deceitful work, as he gets his money on Saturday night and is away from the field of operation when those apples are inspected months afterwards at the port of consumption and nobody to be responsible but the exporter.
There is no individual who could go into the exporting of apples and see them all inspected himself while packing, hut must trust to the honesty of his men in the orchards, and until there is some wav of appointing more inspectors for the different localities there will be little or no improvement in the present system of packing.
The Dominion of Canada is known the world over for its high quality of apples and there is no earthly reason why our apples should not go into the market in better condition than they do at the present time.
In view of this would it not be money wisely spent for the benefit of the fruit growers at the present time to set apart a certain sum-of money and appoint competent inspectors in the various fruit districts who would in a systematic way inspect the apples in many cases before they got started on their journey?' If this were done, I am satisfied in a very short time, Canadian apples would command the attention they so much deserve in the markets of the world. When I tell you that while in London and Liverpool last December and January, the buyers from the various commercial centres looked with ridicule and disgust at the various shipments that were going forward from time to time, and in many cases Canadian apples were simply named Canadian walnuts, instead of Canadian apples. The government of this country seem to have abundance of money for every purpose in the world and surely they can increase their appropriation to advance and build up the fruit industry of this province.
The writer intended to call the attention of this matter to parliament before this date, but I have been thinking out a good sensible plan that would fill the hill, and I now present to you my conclusions that a movement in this direction would certainly bring forth marvellous results.
I sincerely hope you will be able to call the attention of this matter and present it on the floor of parliament at an early date,
I think this letter from a packer in the province of Ontario, should have some consideration. The difficulty is that our investigation and our inspection begin at the wrong end. It is like trying to stop a leak in a dam from below the leak instead of from above. If our apples were inspec-ed when they were being put up we would get over the difficulty. Although it would cost a considerable amount of money to appoint inspectors in all the apple districts, I think they would only be required for a very short time, and in that way we might get our apples properly inspected and retain our good name in the markets of the world. In Ontario, and particularly in the county of Huron, we have a splendid fruit district, and I am sure that if we could only get our fruit into market in proper condition it would mean a great deal of money to the people there. I have no doubt the minister is trying to do what he can in this matter, but I think a little more money expended in the way I have indicated would perhaps get over the difficulty. It is evident that in the meantime inspection is doing very little good. As to the amount of the penalities, I am not sure but that they are being applied, as it were, at the wrong end of the business, and I am doubtful as to the result. I hope, however, that this matter will be taken into consideration and that something will be done. It is evident that our apple business. our market for apples in tire old land, is being Injured by the way in which the apples are being packed, and by the Inferior stuff that is being sent forward under improper names.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I sympathize very much with my hon. friend from Huron (Mr. Chisholm) and I agree that a little more inspection is needed. I have said in a former discussion that the coming season we proposed to put on more inspectors. But I do not quite agree with his correspondent as to the duty of the government to supervise the packing of the apples. 1 think that is a business which belongs to the packer himself. I do not think it would be possible, even if it was advisable, for the government to step in and try to undertake the supervision of the packing of apples for export. To-day in the province of Ontario there are several co-operative apple associations, where the people have joined in a business way; they have assembled their apples, and graded them and packed them under expert supervision, and I do not think there has been a single case in which those apples are badly marked or badly packed. I know there are to-day a large number of exporters whose shipments are being constantly inspected by our people and are found to be without fault; there are others again where we find a great many faults. We have been obliged sometimes to appear, as my hon. friend from Prince Edward was saying a few minutes ago. a little unfair, because we find that certain shippers and certain packers are doing bad work while others are doing good work, and I confess that when we find a man is doing bad work we are a little more inclined to jump on him and to pay less attention to those who are doing good work. But if we were to undertake to send inspectors into the orchards and supervise the packing of fruit for the individual exporter, I think we would be undertaking what is not properly the business of the government, but is properly the business of the shipper. We ought to do as much inspection as will tend to make the packing fairly reliable. But 1 must reiterate that it is a physical impossibility -it is not a question of dollars and cents, although it would cost so much that I think parliament would be staggered at it-it is a physical impossibility for the government to have capable inspectors going around the country to supervise the packing of apples in the fall of the year for export. It is a physical impossibility even to go to each section of the country and inspect apples at stations where they are shipped. They are shipped at many hundreds of stations all over Canada, and we would have to have many hundreds of inspectors. I do not think parliament intended that we should appoint many hundreds of inspectors, I do not think parliament would be willing to grant the money to pay them, and I do not think that the results would be much better than they are now. Last year our apple crop in Canada was very abundant, but generally of an inferior quality, though there are some sections Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
where it was good. The result was that last season we had a great deal of fruit wrongly marked. Prices were good in the early part of the season and there was a great temptation to ship everything they could get into barrels without paying much attention to the quality. At first shippers got full price for what they shipped. It is true that at the end of the season there was a glut in the market and many men were badly bitten and they found themselves with bad fruit on their hands which they could not sell at all, or could only sell at a loss. But I hope a season like that will not occur again very soon. I am sure that the work of the inspectors generally has caused our fruit to rank much higher than it did before the inspection was begun. In consequence of the inspection1 under the Fruit Marks Act a great deal more attention is being paid to the quality of fruit. The purchaser in England and Canada thinks that he is likely to get better fruit and he knows that if he makes a complaint to us his complaint will be looked up and that probably prosecution will take place. Therefore, he talks about it aud insists upon getting good fruit. Before the Fruit Marks Act was in force it was very difficult for anybody to recover, there were no very defined grades or rules with regard to the packing and marking of fruit and the result was that a great deal of bad marking and inferior packing went on.


David Henderson: In the discussion of section 10 it would appear that reference has been made to apples only. Perhaps the committee is losing sight of the fact that this 25 cent fine applies not only to a barrel of apples but applies to boxes of berries, currants and other small fruits. It does seem to me that a fine of 25 cents is a very large fine for an article probably worth not more than five cents. I think it is a pretty severe penalty particularly with reference to these small fruits.
Mr' FISHER. Sections 325 and 326, to which section 10 applies, are the sections which define the sizes of boxes, barrels, &c., and it is a very deliberate attempt at fraud when a man undertakes to sell fruit in a box that is smaller than the defined and legal size of the box. It is not a case of bad. packing or wrong marking ; it is a case of putting fruit deliberately into boxes or baskets which are smaller than the legal measure.


David Henderson: I thought this was the section which had reference to packing.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that is section 8.


David Henderson: Possibly the section may be all right in that respect, but at the same time it is a very severe penalty even for a violation of the law with respect to the size of the box. That is, as I understand it, what is known in Montreal as a short box ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, that is what section 10 applies to.


David Henderson: That may be quite right.


Mr FISHER.: I would be disposed, in view of what has been said, to propose, in section 8, that the figures should be slightly reduced. In line 42 I would be prepared to say * not exceeding $25 and not less than $10. For the second offence, in line 43, I would say ' not exceeding $50 and not less than $25,' and, for the third offence I would suggest ' not exceeding $200 ' in line 45 ' and not less than $50 ' in line 40. I propose that the section be amended in that way. I think that would meet the view of my hon. friend (Mr. M. S. Schell).


Malcolm Smith Schell: That is about what we had decided would be fair. There has been a great deal of adverse criticism of the Fruit Marks Act which I think has not been well founded, especially this last year. Those of us who have studied the Act know that it has accomplished a great deal of good, that it has been a very useful Act to the trade and that it has had the result of placing our fruit on a very much higher plane.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply. Exhibitions, $200,000.
['Several Bills on the Order Paper, beginning with the Act to amend the Railway Act, with respect to telegraphs and telephones; second reading of Bill to amend the Post Office Act; Bill respecting reformatories in Nova Scotia; Bill respecting the use otf tobacco by young persons, and afterwards Supply with the items of the Agriculture Department.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What exhibitions have you now?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This summer we have the Anglo-French exhibition in London which is on a very large scale and which was inaugurated by His Majesty the King with the special object of exhibiting the products of the British empire and of France and her colonies; two countries which are in such amicable relationship at the present time. As a colony of the empire in which both French and English speaking subjects are so largely represented we thought it well to make a special effort on this occasion. Our desire was accentuated by the fact that not since the Indian and colonial exhibition in 1889 has Canada been largely represented at any great display in the metropolis of the empire. I am glad to say that the press of all shades of opinion have complimented Canada on the exhibition we are making. I am satisfied it will do credit to us and draw attention to our country.


Mr. DANIEL.: How much of this grant goes to that exhibition?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The whole exhibition will cost something over $300,000, but the preparatory work, the payment for the building and a number of other expenses were paid out of the vote for the last fiscal year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What other exhibitions are provided for in this item?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We are also taking part in the Scottish International Exhibition at Edinburgh which we expect will cost about $35,000. I was at first a little reluctant to take part in this exhibition thinking that the one great exhibition in London was about all we could attend to in one year, but at the urgent request of Lord Strath-cona, I consented to have Canada represented there. We have a very excellent exhibit of Canadian products at Edinburgh, with a small staff in charge which is managed chiefly by Mr. Hutchison, from London.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Do you exhibit any live stock at these exhibitions?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. We exhibit the products of the forest, the farm, the mines and the fisheries as well as manufactured products. I am sorry to sav that very frequently the manufacturers of Canada do not seem to take enough interest in it to supply sufficient to make a creditable exhibit, and we sometimes have to supplement that by such manufactured articles as we can purchase and send over.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Who is in charge, and what staff has he?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Wm. Hutchison has been our general commissioner for exhibitions for many years and he is a permanent officer.


George Taylor: What is his salary?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $3,000 a year salary and an allowance while the exhibition is going on of $20 a day, and while the exhibitions are not going on of $10 a day when he is away from Ottawa; Mr. Hains, stenographer, Mr. Girardot, Mr. Dalglish, Mr. Despard, Mr. Grant, Mr. Turcotte, Mr. Fitzsimon; Miss R. Barrett, In charge of the ladies work. Then we have Mr. Barnes and Mr. Turriff, Mr. H. Desehenes, Mr. Lapierre and Mr. Lacroix, with Mr. Tolmie as secretary and accountant.


George Taylor: Is that a son of Mr. Tolmie, the member ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Taylor: And is Mr. Turriff a relative of Mr. Turriff, the member ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think he is a cousin of Mr. Turriff, the member.


George Taylor: What salary is Mr. Tolmie getting ?

'Mr. FISHER. $100 a month.


George Taylor: And expenses.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A living allowance of $5 a day.


George Taylor: What does Mr. Turriff get ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $7 a day to cover everything.


George Taylor: And travelling expenses, going and returning, I presume ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, their actual transportation.


George Taylor: It appears to me that [DOT]these exhibitions are simply for the purpose of finding places for political friends and paying them very large salaries. I see that at the Milan exhibition, Mr. Hutchison was paid six months' salary at $250 a month, and on account of living allowance, $3,370. That amounts to over $20 a day. Besides all that, he gets $113.30 for cab hire and $106.80 for sundry travelling expenses. It seems to me that $20 a day would be too much to allow a cabinet minister for living expenses even at an exhibition. I think it is just throwing the people's money away. I see a charge here of Mr. R. Pini for services for seven months, $675.78, and for travelling expenses, five trips from Milan to Rome and return, $270.22. What has that to do with the exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place, I think that these exhibitions are serving a very good purpose indeed.


George Taylor: At a very great cost.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They do cost something undoubtedly ; but at the same time I think Canada is getting an adequate return and more than an adequate return for the expenditure. I do not know anything that has done more of late years to show to the world at large the progress and productions of our country than have the exhibits which have been worked up at the various international exhibitions by Mr. Hutchison.
I do not think there is any man connected with exhibition work who has a greater genius for exhibiting to the best advantage and in the most attractive and artistic way the products of Canada. Mr. Hutchison has made a name not only for Canada but for himself at the series of international exhibitions, which has redounded to his credit in all the countries with which he has had to compete. Over and over again remarks have been made, personally, in speeches, at entertainments and in the public press of other countries, attributing to Canada an enterprise and a novelty in the way her productions have been shown at these various exhibitions which, as one well known individual said, was creating a new era in


George Taylor: exhibition work, and that is due to the enterprise, the enthusiasm and the genius of Mr. Hutchison. So far as the allowance made to Mr. Hutchison is concerned, I have only to say that it is larger of course than his own personal living allowance. When a representative of Canada is present at one of these exhibitions, he has to do a considerable amount of entertaining, he has to meet other exhibitors and the authorities of the exhibitions on an equal footing, and I am sure that nobody wTouid want the Canadian commissioner to be behindhand or to be niggardly or to appear at a disadvantage on such occasions ; and I am sure that nobody in this House who knows Mr. Hutchison will fail to understand that he spends not only his allowance, but probably more in keeping up the credit and the reputation of Canada in that way. I do not think my hon. friend is justified in saying that these exhibitions are got up for the purpose of providing places for the political friends of the government. The men who are engaged in them are men who have proved what they can do in a long series of exhibitions year after year, and the success of Canada at these exhibitions is due to the fact that these men are well qualified for the work.


David Henderson: Mr. Hutchison may be a very excellent man for the purpose referred to by the minister. I have nothing whatever to say against him along the line of being able to exhibit the products of Canada. If, however, Mr. Hutchison had anything to do with the selection of the place for holding the exhibition in the neighbourhood of London, he did not exercise very good judgment. To my mind the exhibition should be in a much more central place.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, neither Mr. Hutchison nor Canada had anything to do with the selection of the site for this international exhibition. That was done by a committee whose constitution was officially approved and supported, which had charge of the carrying on of the exhibition, and all we had to do was to comply with the invitation to take part in that exhibition.


David Henderson: I do not wish to criticise the action of the King, but I do think that the minister or Mr. Hutchison, or whoever had to do with the sending of an exhibit to London, did not exercise the best judgment in sinking so much money in an exhibition at the Shepherd's Bush, which is practically at the outskirts of the city and which I do not think is very much frequented by visitors. I would have thought that some more central point would have been chosen. I somewhat agree with the hon. member for Leeds that we are spending far too much money on exhibitions of this kind ; we are throwing away an enormous amount of money on them every year. The minister seems to think that we are get-

ting returns from them ; but I am quite unable to determine how those returns are estimated ; perhaps he could enlighten us. Even if there were no exhibition at all, and if we secured some point in the region of Trafalgar Square, and put up a permanent exhibit, that would attract the attention of the people, as the arch exhibiting the products of Canada, that was put up on one occasion at Charing Cross, we could do it at one-twentieth of the cost, and it would be more successful than the exhibits we send to these exhibitions got up by England, France or any other country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think my hon. friend quite appreciates the value of an exhibition of this kind. It is of the nature of other international exhibitions which have been continued from year to year in different countries, the organization of which is under the patronage of the authorities in the country where each exhibition is being held. We get an invitation to take part, and we reap all the advantages of an organization which costs us nothing. We reap ail the advantages of the rest of the exhibition as well as our own, and all the advantage to be derived from the crowds that are attracted to exhibitions of that kind. On this 'particular exhibition at Shepherd's Bush there are to be held gBfeat national Olympic games which are one of the most attractive sights you can possibly conceive, and to which people throng from all over the world. Our own people in Canada are sending over a considerable number Of athe-letes to take part in these Olympic games. I understand that Mr. Whitney, premier of the province from which my hon. friend comes, is contributing from the provincial funds to send some athletes over and other Canadian organizations are also contributing for the same purpose. Our exhibit is of course a portion of the attractions ; but if it were the only attraction, we would not get certainly more than 10 per cent or 5 per cent of the number of people who will be attracted thither. Some years ago Mr. Hutchison did make the suggestion to me that we should undertake to hold a special Canadian exhibit In the heart of the city of London, in the Strand and gave me an estimate of what it would cost and the probable benefit we would derive from it. Well, it would cost fully as much as this exhibition. I cannot agree witli my hon. friend that the exhibition suggested by Mr. Hutchison would be a better one because even though it were held in the Strand, and were particularly Canadian, it would not attract anything like the number of people who will go to Shepherd's Bush. And I am satisfied that a Canadian exhibit alone would not attract anything like the great concourse which will attend this great international exhibition. I confess that this work of exhibitions is one which has grown, and we think it has grown by reason of the success
which has attended each one. At each one Canada was favourably presented to the people who came to it. In the last six years these exhibitions have been held in different parts of Europe every year, and we were tempted to send our exhibits to each in order to give the people a chance to see what Canada has to show the rest of the world. We have been constantly asked to do this by reason of the success we have achieved in each case. The authorities of the Shepherd's Bush exhibition urged us to take part because of the wonderful success we had in Milan and Liege, at both of which the Canadian building was one of the great attractions. In Milan we presented the progress of Canada to the people of southern and southeastern Europe and in LiSge to the Belgians, the Dutch, the Germans and the French. This year we are exhibiting in the heart of the empire, and we hope there to make our display not only to the people of Great Britain, but also to people from France and eastern Europe. I have here an article in the Toronto ' World ' which perhaps my hon. friend will discuss with the hon. member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), and that hon. gentleman will no doubt tell him why the Toronto ' World ' gives so much prominence to these Olympic games and Stadium. The writer says that the Stadium is the largest one in the world, capable of containing 58,000 people, who it is expected, will be attracted thither for the purposes of witnessing these games. Those games, independantly altogether of the Industrial and Artistic Exhibits and side shows will undoubetly attract hundreds of thousands of people, and those people will no doubt take advantage of the opportunity to see the Canadian exhibit, so that a greater number will see our exhibit than possibly could if it were by itself in another part of London. My hon. friend says that Shepherd's Bush is away from the city. Well. I have been frequently in that neighbourhood, and it is within easy reach of London and was chosen as a place which could be easily reached by the huge number of visitors which it is expected will attend. They did not chose Shepherd's Bush without good reason, and I venture to think they were right.


David Henderson: After all the minister has said, I am still unable to see that w7e will gain any corresponding advantage from the huge expense we are going to incur at this exhibition in Shepherd's Bush. What kind of- people do you expect to attract to Canada from the numbers who will attend the Olympic games ? Do you think that your exhibit there will attract the attention of farmers ? I would rather suppose that a lot of sporting men would attend, and they are not the men we want out here at all. I rather fear we shall be spending a great deal of money with very ineffective results.


Mr. ELSON.: When Mr. Hutchison Is sent as commissioner to these exhibitions, does he draw his $20 a day from the day he starts until he gets back to Ottawa or only during the time he is over there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is now four years since Mr. Hutchison has been here at all. We have had exhibit after exhibit in Europe and he has been constantly employed between the opening of one and the closing of another and preparing for a succeeding one. He and the other commissioners have to be on the ground from one to two months before the opening of the exhibition and after its closing. During that period, he receives his allowance of $20 a day just as during the actual course of the exhibition. For the rest of the year, probably four months, he receives an allowance of $10 a day when away from Canada.


Peter Elson: I notice that Mr. Hutchison attended the Milan exhibition and the exhibition at Dublin. According to the accounts at page D-24 he seems to have received $20 a day while at Milan, but only $12 a day while attending the Dublin exhibition. Why is that?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not see the figures that the hon. gentleman gives. As I explained, Mr. Hutchison has spent about four years without coming to Canada at ail.


Mr. STAPLES.: How much money has he received?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He has received about $3,000 a year and $20 a day for living allowance during exhibitions and $10 a day-


William D. Staples: The hon. minister misunderstands my question. How much money has Mr. Hutchison received in dollars and cents?
Mr. FISHER? I will try and have that computation made up.


William D. Staples: When?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To-night, I hope.


Peter Elson: Then we have Mr. Brodie at $12 a day at this Milan exhibition and Mr. Catelli, 96 days at $10 a day. Here were three representatives of Canada at one exhibition, one at $20, one at $12 and one at $10. This seems a great expense. Is it not possible to give some details of these expenditures instead of putting them at a lump sum?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Our experience of details in these matters has not been satisfactory. After the Columbian exposition at Chicago, as well as after exhibitions in London and Paris, many details were brought down to the House that were entirely unintelligible. We thought it was better-and it has been the practice for the last seven or eight years-to give each of these represen-
~ Mr. HENDERSON.
tatives a fair living allowance and let him spend it as he thinks best. My hon. friend knows that on the occasion of a great exhibition living expenses are always high. While the living allowances that we make may seem great, I am assured by those engaged in this work that it costs them all their allowance to live at these exhibitions owing to the high expense rate at such times.


Mr. WM. JACKSON.: How often are these accounts straightened up? Are there any complaints in the Auditor General's Department of these accounts not being balanced up for years?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Usually the accounts are straightened up every year, but sometimes they have been left open.


William Jackson: For how long?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say. But I am informed that all the accounts are now straightened up to date.


Hon.   WM@: JACKSON Is it not the fact that some of the accounts of Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Brodie have been left four years and not straightened up ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think not.


Hon.   WM@: *MACKSON. I have here a copy of a lroer from the Auditor General dated May 22, 1907, as follows:
Since the beginning of the Liege exhibition in 1904, Mr. Hutchison and Mr. James Brodie have been drawing large sums of money on account of personal expenses. Up to date no statements of their accounts have been received.
So here is this account not straightened up from 1904 to 1907. I understand that the government are giving these gentlemen large sums for other expenses, wholly outside of this allowance for their personal expenses, and yet these men go on year after year drawing their money and rendering no account.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the letter which the hon. gentleman read referred to the personal living allowances of these gentlemen.


William Jackson: It says ' on account of personal expenses.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I do not think it has anything to do with the general expenses. Of course, Mr. Hutchison and Mr Brodie as secretary and accountant of the work had to have sums of money placed at their disposal to meet expenses. I understand that these were accounted for and straightened up from time to time. But there was a difficulty in regard to the living allowance of Mr. Brodie which was not straightened up until comparatively recently. We fouud difficulty in getting Mr. Brodie to straighten up his own personal expense account, and I am sorry to say that he had eventually to leave the service of the department.


William Jackson: How about Mr. Hutchison?


Mr FISHER.: The account came through Mr. Brodie's hand entirely, and it was on account of the dissatisfaction with regard to these accounts that Mr. Brodie left the department.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Judging from the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) that hon. gentleman must think that these expenditures are bringing a great deal of revenue to our country. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has been trying to get some knowledge of where the revenue comes from and I think it would be wise for the minister to make a further explanation. However, I wish to ask a question about Milan exhibition. What was the total expenditure on that exhibition?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The total was $130,201.61.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like the minister to explain why he thought it wise to expend $130,000 at Milan, if it was to encourage immigration, while at the Jamestown exposition he did not see fit to spend any money whatever. At the same time, he did something at Jamestown which to my mind was a great deal worse than spending money. He allowed the Grand Trunk Railway Company to place in large characters over their exhibit (the words ' Canadian exhibit ' or 'Canada,' I forget which. People looking for a Canadian exhibit were naturally directed to the Grand Trunk exhibit. I went there myself, and went into it, and all you could see were representations of fishing scenes and summer resort scenes, places where people could go during the summer months, leaving it to be inferred for the rest of the season Canada was a frozen country. Instead of that being complimentary to our country it was the very opposite. I think it was most unreasonable to allow it to be said that this was the Canadian exhibit. All it indicated was that you could have a good time in Canada during certain seasons of the year, and the rest of the time it was a barren land. The minister says that spending $300,000 or $400,000 at the St. Rouis exposition was a good thing for Canada in attracting immigrants. Why then did he not follow out the same policy at Jamestown?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place, the Jamestown exhibition was more of a national celebration than an exhibition. I know by visitors who went there that the exhibition, as such, was a fizzle. It was only after full consideration that we decided not to go there, because we believed it was going to be, as I say, a celebration, and especially a naval celebration, and not an international exhibition in the sense that the others were. As for the Grand Trunk Railway exhibit, it was the private exhibit
of a private corporation from Canada, in which they asked permission from us to use the word Canada in describing themselves. They asked if they might put up under the words 'Grand Trunk Railway,' the word ' Canada.' As the Grand Trunk is essentially a Canadian corporation, and was there to exhibit their resources, and special attractions for summer tourists, I didn't see that I could very well forbid them to use the word ' Canada.' But we made it a condition that the word ' Canada ' should not be more conspicuous than the words 'Grand Trunk Railway.' I was not there myself, and perhaps they did not fulfil those conditions. My hon. friend was there, and he could say whether the word ' Canada ' was more conspicuous than the words ' Grand Trunk Railway,' or whether their description was such as would entitle them to be considered the Canadian exhibit. Certainly I did not understand it so. If they did more than that, they went beyond our permission.
Mr., ARMSTRONG. You cannot blame the Grand Trunk for taking the position they did, if they got the privilege of making use of the word 'Canada' in whatever way they choose. If they made a big display and generally led people to believe that they were the Canadian exhibit, you cannot blame them. But when the minister says that the Jamestown exposition was a fizzle, I am satisfied that he does not know what he is talking about.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As an exhibition.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As an agricultural exposition, I can tell the minister that it was a magnificent one.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As good as the Chicago exhibition ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not as extensive, but much more extensive than the press generally gave it credit for. If the minister was taking notes of the press at the time-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: -he would not have gathered the information which I have given him. But the minister has not told us why he thought it wise to spend such a large amount of money in Milan and in Belgium, when he did not expect to get immigrants from those countries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. I did.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But he has never taken much interest in those countries. I agree with my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) that he ought to pay more consideration to that phase of the question. You would naturally expect, after this large expenditure in Italy, that our trade with that country would increase by leaps and bounds. When the minister spent hundreds of thousands in Japan, and was over there

himself parading liis position, he told us that trade with that country would increase rapidly, and that people would flock to our shores as a result of that exhibition. I notice by the Trade and Navigation returns that in 1905 our imports from Italy amounted to $647,000 in round figures, and our exports to that country to $251,000. In 1907. our imports were $628,000 and our exports $389,000. I might go back further, but I think that is sufficient to show that our trade with Italy is not increasing rapidly. The minister may say that our trade has increased with Japan. We would naturally expect It to increase, because a few years ago we were only sending to that country some $30,000 worth of agricultural products. Perhaps the minister would explain why our trade with these other countries does not increase more rppidly, when we have spent so much money in advertising Canada at their expositions. Have these exhibitions encouraged immigration from Italy and southern Europe, notwithstanding the bonus that we are paying to the people of those countries to come here ?


Mr. TALBOT.: I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) who has just taken his seat. It was my good fortune to visit the exhibition at Iuege and the one at Milan the year following. It is not a question of the effect that an exhibition will have in one particular part of Europe. It is a question of the effect it will have upon the people who are attracted from all parts of the civilized world. After visiting the exhibition at Liege it was my privilege to travel through Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia, and everywhere I heard enthusiastic words of praise and wonder uttered by people of high standing, commercially and otherwise, at the remarkable exhibition which Canada had made. One result of the exhibition at Liege was the organization of a large company at Berlin four or five weeks after with a capital of $1,000,000 which is now largely interested in the mining districts of Canada. I think that we should look at these exhibitions not only from the point of view of the effect they may have in the particular country where the exhibition is taking place but the effect they will have on the people of the civilized world. It is with pride that I say that the exhibitions which Canada has made abroad have drawn the attention of the whole world to our resources and possibilities, and I felt proud to be a Canadian when, in all the different parts of Europe that I visited, I listened to words of eulogy not only on account of the exhibits that Canada had made, but because of the artistic way in which our exhibits had been arranged. Every Canadian who visited these exhibition at Li&ge and Milan must be proud of the country from which he comes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sure we are very much indebted to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot) for the enthusiastic reference he has made to these exhibitions and especially to tlie German Development Company in which he is materially interested. Perhaps he could tell us a little more about the German Development Company?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I am quite willing to tell the hon. gentleman all he wishes to know if he will kindly put his questions to me.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Perhaps he can tell us how it was that one of the prominent officials of the Geological Survey Department left the survey and went into the employ of this company.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Because we paid him $5,000 a year, which is $3,000 a year more than he was getting from the Geological Survey Department.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: And the hon. gentleman thinks that is right. He says that the German Development Company, in which he is interested, paid this man $5,000 a year. What does this mean? If you will look into this question you will find that up to last year this same gentleman was in the employ of the Geological Survey Department and was paid by this government to go up into our western country for five years to investigate the coal lands of the Northwest and gather information with regard to them. Now, when he has gathered all this information together the hon. gentleman and his German Development Company, that he has chosen to praise so highly, take this man out of the employ of the Geological Survey Department, pay him $5,000 a year for five, months, and send him out to locate the best coal mining lands in our country. After locating these coal mines he comes back and steps into his place in the Geological Survey Department as if nothing had happened. Is that doing justice to the people of Canada? The hon. gentleman may talk about the German Development Company as much as he pleases. We are anxious to know where these coal mines are located. We are told that the German Development Company have practi- . cally the bulk of the coal mining lands of the Northwest, that they have corralled the whole of them, largely owing to their being able to get advice and information of a civil servant who had been in the employ of the government for five years, who entered the service of this company for a few months last summer, who located these mines and who then came back and reentered the service of the Geological Survey Department as if nothing had happened. That is one way of telling us about these wonderful exhibitions and what they have done for the Dominion of Canada, but what I have just described is hardly a proper thing for the government to permit.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I suppose my hon. friend is referring to Dr. Dowling ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Is the hon. gentleman aware that Dr. Dowling is in the service of another company and that he is receiving $6,000 a year ? It is not a question of Dr. Dowling working for us. While he was working for us the government was not paying him anything and the department had the benefit of his work. The department have reports of everything that he discovered during the three months that he was with us.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. gentleman think it is a proper thing for this country to spend a large amount of money to send this man and his party out to the Northwest, to keep him looking for coal mines and to furnish everything necessary for his maintenance and then have this man enter the employ of the hon. gentleman's company, as he did last spring, locate the best of the coal mines in the Northwest and then come back, as lie did last fall, and step into the employ of the Geological Survey Department as if nothing had happened? His pay goes on as usual. Now, it comes along to another spring. During the winter season, of course, there will not be a great deal for him to do. But spring comes along again and Dr. Dowling steps out and enters the employ of another company to locate mines up there. I have no doubt he will come back in the fall and that the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman), who is in charge of the Geological Survey, will take him back for the winter. Is that the way we want civil servants in the employ of the Geological Survey Department to conduct themselves? There has been too much of that work going on in the Geological Survey. If the minister will investigate that department he will see that this lias been going on during the last six, eight, or ten years. It has been anything but creditable to this government that they should allow men, after spending the people's money to gather information, to go out and sell the information to companies in which they are interested. If that is the kind of work that the hon. gentleman thinks is for the best interests of the Dominion, and if that is going to promote the development of our mines, we must, of course, expect that it is going to continue.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will the hon. gentleman be good enougli to tell me what the Geological Survey Department is organized for?


Charles Marcil: I think it is about time that we got back to the item concerning exhibitions.


William Templeman: As the responsible minister of the Department of Mines


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William Templeman: I am sure that my hon. friends opposite do not want an hon. gentleman on that side of the House to make accusations against a department and not give the minister in charge of that department an opportunity of saying a word in reply.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Go ahead.


William Templeman: I want to say that the statements made by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) are inaccurate in almost every particular with the single exception that the Geological Survey branch of the Mines Department did give Mr. Dowling leave of absence last year to go out to the west for a company that was going to investigate the coal lands. Mr. Dowling went out without pay


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Went withont pay?


William Templeman: Mr. Dowling was not paid by the Geological Survey when he was on that work.


John Waterhouse Daniel: We did not expect he should.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: If the Tories were in power he would be.


William Templeman: Mr Dowling is a mining geologist and conducted his explorations largely in the west, and every exploration he made there was fully set out in the reports of the Geological Survey. It was in consequence of the investigations made by the Geological Survey that this particular company as well as other companies originated in Europe and elsewhere for the purpose of exploiting the mineral resources of the west. We have in the mines branch a number of scientists whose knowledge is useful in ascertaining the mineral resources of the country. If we can help any company to develop our coal or metalliferous mines without costing the department anything I would like to know why we should not do it? Let me give you a case in point :	They have sent 50 tons
of the shales of New Brunswick to Glasgow for the purpose of testing them so as to ascertain what percentage of oil can be extracted from these shales, and it is only a few weeks ago that I authorized Dr. Ells, who has special knowledge of that matter, to proceed to Glasgow to be present at the test. Dr. Ells goes at the expense of the department.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is legitimate.


William Templeman: Dr. Ells is bringing his knowledge to bear on this investigation and it is hoped that the experiment may result in developing the mineral resources of New Brunswick in the extraction of oil from shales and lead to the introduction of capital for that development. The Geologi-

cal Survey has been for a number of years endeavouring, by directing its investigations in certain lines, to interest capitalists in exploiting the mineral resources of the country, and I do not know any better service that our geological branch could be engaged in. In this particular case Dr. Dowling went to the west and he gave these people assistance, but he gave them no information that is not already published in the departmental reports. Dr. Dowling has again gone west this year in pursuance of his work as a member of the staff. I repeat that the Geological Survey, which is a branch of the Department of Mines, can do no better work than to aid in interesting capital in the development of our mineral resources, and for my part I shall do my best to assist the survey in that object.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The speech of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Templeman) has convinced me more than ever I was before. He says it is all right that members of the Geological Survey staff should step out of office and assist private companies and then go back into the service. I do not believe such a procedure is in the interest of the service or of the country The work that Dr. Ells is engaged in is entirely different from the work that Mr. Dowling has been doing. Mr. Dowling has been spending tens of thousands of dollars of the money of the people in past years gathering information about the coal lands of the west.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: For what purpose?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It ought to be for the purpose of giving information to the public generally. But the hon. gentleman from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) comes along and he forms the German Development Company and he knows that Mr Dowling is the very man to locate these coal mines. Now, I want to point this out


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You can point out anything you like.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If my hon. friend from Bellechasse would explain how other people went up there and were unable to locate these coal mines owing to


Charles Marcil: I think we might get back to the consideration of the item now.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) was entitled to answer the minister, but now that we have explanations from both sides we should proceed to a discussion of the item.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) says that this was only an incident, but from what I can learn about the value of these coal mines it is a very important incident in his life. However, I will not pursue the matter further, but I would like the minister to explain what benefit these exhibitions are to the country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have always considered that these exhibitions in the first place advertise the products of Canada and attract and stimulate trade between foreign countries and our country. In the second place, these exhibitions have been a means of showing to the world at large Canada's progress and Canada's products so as to justify Canada arrogating to herself such a high place amongst the nations of the world. I think my hon. friend is as proud as I am of the progress Canada has made during the past 15 or 20 years. It is very flattering to hear foreigners who travel in this and other countries say, as hundreds and thousands of them say :	Oh, yes, we
know about Canada ; we have seen your exhibit at London or Liege or Dublin ; we had no idea of what products you had and how far your civilization had gone.


Mr. BENNETT.: Are they still asking after the Indians?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. We do not show the Indians or the Indian products in particular. We show the products of the white men of this country and we are proud of them. My 'Lou. friend may sneer and try to belittle the products of his country, but he will not reap any advantage from that.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Canadian Pacific Railway is advertising the country more than all your exhibitions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We advertise it well, and the result is that it is known everywhere, even in corners of the earth where a few years ago the name of Canada was hardly^ known.


William Humphrey Bennett: He is replying to the minister now.


Charles Marcil: The minister asked and obtained the permission of the committee to make an explanation.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. member for Bellechasse is responsible for introducing the subject ; it was he who spoke of the German Development Company.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I only spoke of it as an incident of the good these exhibitions were doing.


William Templeman: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Henderson: I think the minister ought to take that back.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I will not take a word of it back. I say that Canada has been advertised at exhibitions and otherwise in such a way that its progress and prosperity are known in corners of the earth where the name of Canada was hardly known fifteen years ago. There is another side to these exhibitions. Within the last two years people have come to Ottawa and made inquiry

in regard to the possibilities of investing capital in Canada. Two or three parties have come from Belgium to investigate the resources of Canada, and have approached me in my office and asked me to give them further information, with the idea of investing Belgium capital in Canada, and they attributed their visit here at all to Canada's exhibit at the Liege exhibition. Any who have followed these exhibitions know they have contributed materially to spreading a knowledge of Canada throughout the world at large, and to an appreciation of our progress, our productions and our advantages which was not possible before.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I merely rise to say that I am not opposing the expenditure of a reasonable amount of money on exhibitions, but when the minister takes the position that Canada was practically an unknown land until the last ten or twelve years, he is taking an unreasonable position.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not say that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have no doubt that Canada has been well advertised in the last ten years in particular, because we have had a government in power that has not only been ready and willing to expend large amounts of money, but to look after themselves, and we have been advertised in a not very complimentary manner. When I read in the old country papers and in the papers of the United States of the corruption that has been going on in the Dominion of Canada in the last ten or twelve years, I cannot help feeling ashamed. We have had much more than our share of that kind of advertising. The minister has not given us a very clear explanation of these exhibitions. Are they to encourage immigrants to come to Canada in addition to the bonuses we are paying? We cannot say that our trade with these countries has increased, as shown by the Trade and Navigation returns. Therefore the object must be to assist immigration.


Mr. MONK.: It seems to me that we have advertised our country in respect to these exhibitions in a very unfortunate manner, what we do is so perfectly childish. We spend a lot of money on favoured friends in organizing our show, and we never follow it up in any manner whatever. We spent a great deal of money in connection with the exhibition at Milan in Italy. We have immense possibilities in the way of trade with Italy, and the Italian consuls, in the last ten years at least, have been endeavouring to secure from this government favourable arrangements in relation to trade with the view of making a treaty with Canada, but they have received most scant consideration. The last one here had to go away without having received from my right hon. friend that measure of courteous treatment which is always accorded to an envoy of a foreign state when he comes for
the purpose of completing trade arrangements.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who was he?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The consul who last approached the government. He Had an extensive correspondence with the government, with my right hon. friend, and finally with Sir Richard Cartwright, who was at the head of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and he never got the slightest satisfaction. He was turned down, I think, because this government was afraid to conclude any kind of a commercial arrangement with tlie Italian kingdom. The result was that although we spent a great deal of money on the Canadian exhibit at Milan, we never followed it up, as the Americans always do these exhibitions, in order to open up negotiations for better trade relations. What have we done in respect to Belgium? Exactly the same thing, and I have no doubt we are doing the same thing in London. In Belgium we spent a great deal of money, we had a commissioner there who did not understand either of the two languages of the country, and we have never followed up that exhibition by endeavouring to conclude commercial arrangements with Belgium, a country with which we have every possible advantage for concluding such arrangements. My right hon. friend knows that we have never sent anybody to Belgium for this purpose, and have never opened up communications with the Belgian representative here. Belgium does an immense trade with the United States in lumber and in grain. She imports every year 75,000,000 francs worth of wheat from that country, and would be ready at any time to conclude commercial arrangements with us. Look at the way we have botched our commercial arrangements with Germany. After the present government had botched, as it did in the beginning, the British preference by a total misconception of the effect of the German and Belgium treaties, although the matter was pointed out to them repeatedly by Sir Charles Tupper, we allowed England to conclude a new arrangement with Germany without intervening to secure more favourable terms from that country. Germany is a country of over 60,000,000 people, with the several states of the Germanic confederation, with whom we could have had the most favourable commercial arrangement if we had only taken the trouble to look into the matter. It is all one with what we did with Japan. iMy hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture went to Japan. What he did there we do not exactly know. We took part in the Japanese exhibition, but how did we follow it up? What great advantages have we in the treaty which we have concluded with Japan? None that I can see. The Americans, when they take part in these exhibitions, follow it up by send-

ing out agents to enter into negotiations with the countries holding them, with a view to concluding commercial treaties with them.
We have Mr. Preston in Japan at present because he had to leave England at the time of the North Atlantic Trading Company contract under a cloud. But w7hat reports have we from him ? What evidence have we that he has done anything in the way of developing our commercial relations with Japan ? None whatever. It is just the same as w hen the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) was seeking power in 1896. We were told in the province -of Quebec that if we got that marvellous master hand into the incoming government, w7e would find that, with one stroke of the pen-that was the expression used-he would so modify your commercial relations with the United States that we would find there an easy market for all our agricultural products- our hay, our vegetables and other products -and that the whole condition of trade between the two countries would be changed. What happened ? My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture knows. We entered into negotiations with the United States, and the plenipotentiaries of that country immediately bowled us over by narrowing us down to the one question, that of the Alaskan boundary, and having succeeded in doing that, they settled that question, we all know how, by getting an advantage over us. Since then nothing has been done by this marvellous man, this wonderful farmer- what irony-to advance our agricultural relations with the United States. And in the last, the only effective attempt this government ever made to follow up au exhibition by doing something other than making mere show and ostentation, was the concluding of a treaty with France, and our people are beginning to perceive that we have been bowled over by the French statesmen, who undoubtedly got the best of the bargain. We do not object so much to exhibitions, but what we do object to is naked exhibitions not followed up by anything that has any effect whatever. Take the exhibition at Liege. My hon. friend knows that Mr. Hutchison does not understand the French language. Had we any one there to follow up effectively our expenditure? We have been told that one of the greatest obstacles to our opening up arrangements with people of Belgium was the fact that we had no one there who could speak their language. We cannot expect to do anything effective in the way of bringing about better commercial relations when we send over as our representative a silent man. I say that these exhibitions, unaccompanied by anything else, can only have the effect of making it known that there is such a country as Canada. But I travelled on the continent thirty years ago and found then that Canada was very well known. No doubt the knowledge Mr. MONK.
of Canada increases every year, but our commercial relations have not developed as they should have with any of those nations, because we have not followed up our exhibits by sending out commercial agents and endeavouring to open up arrangements for commercial treaties. The result is that we have never concluded any commercial relations with those countries except Japan -and with what results in the case of that country ? I would like to ask my hon. friend if he will give us a list of those who are going to represent Canada at this exhibition in any capacity. I would like to have a list of those whose expenses we are paying and to whom we are giving salaries. In my province every second man you meet tells you he is going to represent Canada at the exhibition, and you read in the papers the nominations of people who are being sent over to represent us in some particular capacity. It is extraordinary to read of the numbers of people who are going over there to represent us commercially, scientifically, philosophically or otherwise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And financially.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps financially. I would like to know because I asked the question once or twice and have always been told that no arrangements have been arrived at of any kind. Perhaps this is an opportune time for the hon. gentleman to tell us how many representatives we shall have there, and about what this exhibit is going to cost us.


Mr. FIELDING.: Before my hon. colleague answers that, I would like to test the value of my hon. friend's criticism with respect to the commercial treaties by putting him a question. I understood him to have said that these wideawake Americans always follow up their exhibitions by doing some wonderful things which we do not do, and consequently they get advantages which we do not get.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, what are the advantages which the United States have got in their agreement with Japan which we do not give ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not the treaties here, but it is a matter of public notoriety-and you will find it stated in every second newspaper .you read-that at present the Americans are getting the whole of the eastern trade and threatening the supremacy of Great Britain and Germany. That is a notorious fact. They are opening up trade with Japan to an extent that is frightening those great industrial nations. To what extent has our trade developed with Japan?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does my hon. friend want to know ? If so, I will tell him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Provided the statistics are perfectly sure and certain.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not need statistics.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have been lately looking after some matters in connection with the Quebec bridge, where you find one answer in the House of Commons a different one given in the Senate, and when you interrogate the witnesses another and a different answer altogether.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am in no need of statistics to enlighten my hon. friend. At the time of the Japan exhibition, the Americans had a considerable advantage in the Japanese market because they enjoyed the Japanese minimum tariff ; but since our treaty with Japan, we are exactly on the same footing as they, and they have no advantage at all. Whereas formerly they alone had the advantage of the most favoured nation treatment with the Japanese market, we now have that same advantage ; and until we sent our exhibit there and induced the Japanese to make the arrangement with us which we did, we were at a disadvantage in the Japanese market but are now on an equal advantage with the Americans. My hon. friend instances the United States as a country which, after each exhibition, takes advantage of their success to make new tariff arrangements and get commercial advantages in other countries. Will he point out one country, in which the United States have exhibited in the last five or six years, with which they have made a treaty after an exhibition ? I do not know of one ; but I do know that after the Li&ge exhibition, where the French people went, in large numbers, and which created a profound impression on the French people, vve were able to make a new French treaty, in which my hon. friend thinks the French got so much the advantage of us. Did they ? If they did, how is it that the French Senate have not yet ratified that treaty ? The French Senate find it so advantageous to Canada that they are criticising their government for having entered into it and are hesitating to ratify it. My hon. friend talks about our work in connection with foreign exhibitions. He has instanced the fact that we had an exhibition in Milan a few years ago and have not succeeded since that exhibition, in making a treaty of commerce with Italy. Quite true we have not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I blame you for not having tried, and for not having answered the correspondence.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend instances the fact that Count Mazza, when he was Italian consul at Montreal, approached the leader of the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce with a view to arranging a treaty of commerce between Canada and Italy. While the negotiations were on foot, Count Mazza got leave of absence and was away in Italy. During his absence 336
*	REVISED
Italy had only an acting-consul in Montreal, and negotiations were interrupted. When Count Mazza returned, negotiations were re-opened, but they had not proceeded far when the Count was recalled and left Canada. His successor, the present Italian consul, has been discussing the matter since that time. True we have not arranged a treaty, perhaps we have not even reached the point where we can feel assured that there will be a treaty. But negotiations between countries so far apart as Italy and Canada are not so easy to put through in a few months, or even in a year or two, as the hon. gentleman seems to think. But it was because of what was demonstrated at the exhibition that Italy was desirous of entering into commercial relations with us. I have no hesitation in saying that, as a result of the exhibition, the Italian people are looking to Canada for trade. The hon. gentleman knows that at the Milan exhibition we had a commissioner, an Italian who has been a resident of Canada for many years, Mr Catelli, who, when he was appointed to be honorary commissioner jointly with Mr. Hutchison, was president of La Chambre de Commerce. He was recommended by many people in Montreal as a proper and fitting representative, and I have no hesitation in saying that he proved to be so. It is true that Mr. Hutchison does not speak Italian nor does he speak French to any great extent. He is the business commissioner ; he works up the exhibits, makes the arrangements and provides the accommodation. Those who know him know that he is not fond of display or of going into social entertainment, the consequence is that frequently I have to appoint a joint commissioner who will do that part of the work to a certain extent; though Mr. Hutchison, with his hospitable nature, is always openhanded in his entertainment of bis friends and those with whom he meets who come constantly to his office. In Li6ge, Hon. Mr. Turgeon was appointed an honorary commissioner representing Canada. Mr. Obal-ski, whom my hon. friends knows well, the head of the Department of Mines, of Quebec, a gentleman whose mother tongue is French, was appointed as one of Canada's representatives, and he was at Mr. Hutchison's right hand in meeting with the French and Belgian capitalists to give them information which he was well able to do. At present in the London exhibition, Hon. Mr. Boyer has been appointed an honorary commissioner to represent Canada, and I am sure he will be an eminently fitting and creditable representative. He is about leaving for London
The hon. gentleman asks for the names of those engaged in this exhibition at London. He says that many stories and rumours are current-I suppose in the province of Quebec-concerning those who are going to represent Canada, i will only say that, so far as representing Canada is concerned,



[Stage Direction]
that is confined to the permanent exhibition commissioner and such special commissioners as may be appointed for that purpose. The staff at the exhibition representing Canada in a sense that they help in the work connected with the Canadian exhibit, but I do not think it a proper phrase to use concerning these people that they ' represent Canada.' The staff appointed there, in addition to the permanent staff who have been at work for a number of years, and whose names I have given, are the following :-Mr. Lacroix, from Quebec ; Mr. Barnes, from Halifax ; Mr. Poulin, of Montreal ; Mr. Lapierre, from Buckingham ; Mr. Annis, from Ontario; Mr. Turriff, from the Northwest ; Mr. Tolmie, accountant at London, and Mr. Race, of Mitchell, Ont., as temporary commissioner in charge of Edinburgh Exhibition under Mr. Hutchison. There is also a gentleman from the west to whom I have offered a position, but, as he has not accepted, I do not wish to mention his name.
Mr. DANIEL Is not Mr. Barnes from New Brunswick ?
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand he was from Halifax. He was recommended by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding).


William D. Staples: The hon. gentleman has mentioned every province in the Dominion, I think, except Manitoba. I suppose the gentleman whose name he did not give is from Manitoba ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Mr. BRODER.: I desire to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which arises in this connection. I read from an English paper, the ' Northern Whig ' of May 27, the following in the course of an account of the visit of the British' royalty and the President of the French Republic to the exhibition in London :
The carriages then proceeded to Machinery Hall where there was seen all that modern invention ha,s done for manufacture and trade. The interior of the Canadian building was so incomplete that the party did not visit it. They went on to the New Zealand section and then to the Australian, the commissioners and general agent being presented.
That seems rather a curious thing. I do not object to plenty of money being spent for the purpose of these exhibitions, but I think that we should carry out the intention in such a way that the people will get the benefit. If this newspaper account is correctly given


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it is.


Andrew Broder: Of course, I cannot vouch for it. But this paper is simply giving the full account of what occurred that day. It follows these distinguished visitors through the whole exhibition, and, in the regular course, tells what occurred when they reaeh-Mr. FISHER.
ed the Canadian section. If this statement is correct, somebody is greatly at fault. If Australia and New Zealand, coming the distance that they do, could be ready to receive these royalties, it seems to me that Canada should have doue as well.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My information is not to that effect at all. My information is that the Canadian pavilion was one of the most advanced. I grant that none of the pavilions were quite ready on the day of the visit of the Prince of Wales. It is well known and has been generally reported that the whole exhibition was in an incomplete state on the occasion of the Prince of Wales' going there to open the exhibition. But the Canadian pavilion was more advanced than most of them.


Andrew Broder: This was on the occasion of the visit of British royalty and the president of the French Republic.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a mistake, because both the president and the king were in the Canadian pavilion, I have definite information to that effect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: While thanking my hon. friend for the information about those whom we are sending over to the exhibition, I think his list must be incomplete, because there are other representatives, of some quality or other, whose names I have heard mentioned.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have given my hon. friend all I have appointed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then the others were living in hope. With regard to Mr. Boyer, I think he is a very good representative indeed. But I do not understand the meaning of the word ' honorary.' You find that a man is an honorary representative.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That means without pay.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But the following year when you open up the Auditor General's account, you find that the honour has cost us something.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps ' honorary ' commissioner is not a very good term. The appointment is a temporary appointment for the exhibition in question only. Mr. Hutchison is the permanent exhibition commissioner year in and year out, he has been six or seven years in that office. The Hon. Mi\ Boyer and the Hon. Mr. Turgeon were appointed honorary commissioners, meaning that they go there to represent Canada in official functions and in receptions, although they do not take part in the immediate management of the exhibition itself, and of the exhibition staff. For instance, I do not expect Mr. Boyer to interfere in the management of the staff, which is entirely under Mr. Hutchison's control:	An honorary commissioner is a gentleman who does not undertake to manage or control the de-

tails of the exhibition. I have always been in the habit of giving an allowance to honorary exhibition commissioners. Mr. Boyer is to be allowed $15 a day from the time he leaves Canada until he returns.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In regard to the Li&ge exhibition, I never understood that gentlemen like Mr. Turgeon and Mr. Obalski were acting in any capacity for this government. The hon. gentleman, I suppose, has appointed them honorary representatives for Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Hon. Mr. Turgeon was appointed an honorary commissioner. Mr. Obalski was in a different position. He was in charge of what I may call the French part of the work, under Mr. Hutchison. Knowing that Mr. Hutchison did not talk French, I chose a gentleman who I thought would be a representative man, a gentleman of position, a gentleman having a knowledge of this country, to go there and he at the right hand of Mr. Hutchison all through his work. Mr. Obalski was acting in that position, and is being paid by the Dominion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It makes it still more mysterious. The province of Quebec, strange to say, in connection with the exhibition at I.iSge, spent $25,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know anything about that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, it looks a little strange. $12,000 was spent for the purpose of printing a book in regard to the province of Quebec, regarding which, it seemed to me, that we might have employed the money very much better. Then $12,000 or $13,000 more went largely to pay the expenses of the Hon. Mr. Turgeon and those who accompanied him to the Liege exhibition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not pay Mr. Turgeon. He informed me he was going out any way, and I appointed him honorary representative. I did pay Mr. Obalski.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At any rate, the expenditure made by the province of Quebec in connection with that exhibition seems to me to be a very lavish outlay.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is their affair.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Everything would lead one to believe that, although my hon. friend explained it differently, the parties he sent from the province of Quebec to the Liege exhibition at great expense, merely went as representing the province of Quebec. But my hon. friend I think is mistaken when he says that the late Italian consul gave himself a great deal of trouble in connection with the starting of negotiations in regard to our commercial relations with Italy. That is incorrect, but it is pardonable for my hon. friend to lack information on that point. The negotiations for a commercial 336i
treaty with Italy were begun by the predecessor of Count Mazza, who carried on an enormous correspondence with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He came here time and again to see the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He had a dossier of papers nearly two feet thick when he came up to Ottawa. That gentleman returned to Italy absolutely discouraged in not being able to get any kind of an answer from the government. He had been a long time a member of the Italian parliament, and had been sent out here by the Italian government for the purpose of negotiating a treaty. When he returned and was replaced by Count Mazza, the latter gentleman considered that it was useless for him to attempt any more efforts.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I want to say that the negotiations were not opened before Count Mazza's time, because he interviewed me personally on many occasions, urging strongly a work of that kind.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The consul told me repeatedly that after what had been done by his predecessor he did not feel encouraged to attempt anything more. As a matter of fact, negotiations have not been pursued at all by this government. When the minister asks us to point out any commercial treaty concluded by the United States with countries where they have exhibited, he must be poking fun at the members of this committee. He has only to go to the library to find that the United States have concluded innumerable commercial arrangements with all those countries, both before and after those expositions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Have they made any arrangement with Belgium since the Liege exposition, or with Italy since the Milan exposition?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They had arrangements with them previously. Whether they have found it necessary in consequence of the exhibitions to make new commercial arrangements, I do not know. But the collection of treaties between the United States and European countries with respect to commerce, is a considerable collection. They never lose any opportunity of improving their commercial arrangements by treaty. You cannot establish any comparison between the two countries. This is a new country, barely vested with the power to make treaties, only in the beginning of its career. The United 'States have treaties with all European countries, but much more than that, they have commercial agents in every one of these countries. The United States have in Canada, I suppose, 150 or 200 commercial agents.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did my hon. friend say that the United States have two hundred agents in Canada?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I should think very nearly that number.


Wilfrid Laurier: The federal government?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Counting their commercial agents, consuls and vice-consuls.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where are they?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is very difficult to say these things off-hand, but they certainly have one hundred. They have one in every little city. They have one In St. Johns, Three Rivers, Montreal, Quebec, and I think they have one in St. Hyacinthe. They have quite a number in Quebec and they follow, on behalf of their country, most carefully the trade of the city where they are and make annual reports. We have nothing of the kind.


Mr. EMMERSON.: They reduced the number last year.	*


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That may be, and it may be that when I spoke of two hundred I was exaggerating. But, they have a very large number.


Henry Robert Emmerson: About twenty-five.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Twenty-five! They have that number, I fancy, in the province of Quebec. They have fifty, 'I suppose, in the province of Ontario, and they have them as well all over the west.


Mr. CARNEY.: They never had one in Nova Scotia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did I hear the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Carney) say that they never had one in Nova Scotia?


Michael Carney: Only the consuls.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is a commercial agent if not a consul? I do not pretend that they have diplomatic agents here. I do not think there are less than two hundred and fifty commercial agents of the United States in France. How can we compete witli rivals of that kind? What I say with respect to these exhibitions is that it is right .we should make our country known. I draw the line at paying people to come here, but where it is a question of taking our proper place at these great shows of industry we should do it and we should follow it up. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that there is an immense business to be done in agricultural products with Belgium, far more than with France. Of course, the treaty we have made with France does not open any field at all for our agricultural products, but with Belgium and Germany we have an immense business to do and the hon. gentleman has never attempted anything in that line at all. He has done nothing to extend the facilities for commercial intercourse with respect to agricultural products with those countries. With Bel-Sir WILFRID LAURIER
gium there are immense possibilities for the extension of our trade as I know from having conversed with the representatives of Belgium in this country who are simply waiting for an opportunity of concluding a bargain with respect to these matters with our government which will open up an immense trade with Canada. But, there is too much indifference on the part of the government and the result is that nothing has been done. We would have done nothing with respect to France if the initiative had not come from the other side. I was surprised to hear the hon. Minister of Agriculture state here to-night that the French were dissatisfied with the treaty. The treaty has not yet gone through the French chambers because in France they do not rush things through parliament. They examine them carefully and the treaty is passing through that process of examination by select committees of the F'rench chambers. But, they are not dissatisfied. The minister handling the treaty in the French chamber stated positively that it was a most advantageous treaty and he stated further

which was the subject of criticism here-that the advantage that the French had was in the special list. We have none, as my right lion, friend knows.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) not know that at the present time the treaty is opposed by a large section of silk manufacturers in France and does he not know that that is probably the reason why it is held up in the Senate ? Does he not know that Canada is receiving too much by that treaty ? Yet the hon. gentleman says that we have not got anything from that treaty ? The hon. gentleman was the first to oppose the treaty when it came into this House. The first to raise his voice against that treaty was the hon. gentleman himself.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I never did.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, I am afraid my hon. friend is ashamed of his own conduct. He regrets it. He forgets it. If he forgets it, it is simply because he regrets it. I am sorry to say that if he regrets it and if he says that he never opposed tile treaty I will have to refer him to his own words.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I voted for it.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend voted for it after he had spoken against it, as he does on many other occasions. But. he damned it with faint praise and after having denounced it in many ways; at the last moment, his courage was not up to the point of opposing it. My hon. friend says that the initiative with respect to the treaty came from France. Where does he find that? It is a very gratuitous assertion and he has not a shadow of foundation for it. On the contrary, the initiative was taken by this government, we obtained permission from

the home authorities to go to France and it was our own action and initiative" which resulted in this treaty which will he of such great benefit to the country when it goes into effect. But, it has one fault and one fault only and that is that it is too favourable to Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not aware at all that the French merchants interested in sillc have raised any opposition to this treaty.
I will be extremely favoured if my right lion, friend, having made that assertion, will give me some proof that the French silk merchants, whose position is very much improved by this treaty, are taking steps to oppose it. I have no doubt that the right lion, gentleman will be in a position to lay on the table of the House some proof of that assertion. I repeat that my information is that the treaty is going steadily through the French chamber; only in France as in the United States, and sometimes in England, they examine treaties in committees before passing them. We do not do that here. My hon. friend says X opposed the treaty. I voted for it. In some of the observations which I made with respect to the treaty I stated that I was extremely x>leased that we had made a uew treaty 'with France, but I expressed regret that "we did not extend these treaties to other countries with which we might establish trade relations. A man can approve of a treaty without approving of every detail of it. My hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) took precisely the same position. What my right hon. friend is thinking of is the incessant clamour of his organs in Montreal and Quebec which stated that Mr. Monk, urged on by fanatical gentlemen on this side of the House, had opposed the treaty because it was a treaty with France.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) ga|Ve us an elaborate description of how these exhibitions are carried on and the great good that must accrue to Canada from them. He did that with regard to the exhibition at Japan, the exhibition in Belgium and the exhibition in Scotland. But we have seldom yet been able to get from him the exact cost of these exhibitions so that we may be able to ascertain whether or not we are getting an adequate return for the outlay. The minister said that if we look up the trade with these countries we will see what great benefits have resulted to Canada from the exhibitions. We heard a great deal about the benefit that accrued to Canada from the exhibition in Japan. We were told how wonderful was the advertising Canada got and what a great number of people visited the exhibition and how it was to stimulate trade with Canada. But when we look at the Trade and Navigation returns we find that in 1906 we exported to Japan $447,000 worth; in 1907 our exports were reduced
to $428 000 worth, and last year we exported $673,000 worth. Now, if we received the wonderful benefit from this exhibition that the minister would lead the country to believe, it certainly is not shown in the exports of Canada to Japan. Probably the exhibition did benefit us in the matter of immigration from Japan, but now we are obliged to legislate to keep the Japanese out of the country. We have had too much benefit in immigration and too little benefit in commercial advantages. Then we had an exhibition in Italy, and let us see how the result of that exhibition is reflected in our export trade to Italy. In 1905 we exported to Italy $251,000 worth, in 1900 $206,000 worth, and in 1907 $389,000 worth, but that is not a wonderful expansion of our export trade to a great consuming country like Italy. Perhaps, as is in the ease of Japan, we benefited in immigration, but while some of the Italian immigrants are useful to the country a great many of them are not. Indeed, the minister admits that immigration received the most important benefit, because in his report he states that the active members of the Italian commission were very much interested in our exhibits and asked for a great deal of information about Canada, more especially from the immigration point of view. Again we had an exhibition in Belgium, and this is the result of that exhibition on our trade: in 1905 we exported to Belgium $1,208,000 worth ; in 1906, $1,635,000 worth, and in 1907, $2,447,000 worth. We Increased our export trade with Belgium, not to a very large extent it is true, and probably to an extent that would have taken place even if we had had no exhibition in that country at all. In my judgment we have not got the return we ought to have from the very large amount of money expended on these exhibitions. It may be due to the fact as pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) thatt we have never followed up these exhibitions by a genuine effort to stimulate trade. Then, as to France, the minister tells us that thousands and thousands of people visited the Canadian exhibition in France and were much interested in it. We concluded a treaty with France, but take the treaty and the exhibit altogether and this is the result on our export trade to France : In 1905 we exported $1,405,000 worth to France; in 1906, $1,800,000 worth; in 1907, $1,999,000 worth. That is a very poor showing for the treaty and for the exhibition combined, and it is all the worse still because in this case immigration does not seem to have been stimulated. Notwithstanding the glowing figures which the Minister of Agriculture draws for us of the results of these exhibitions the hard facts show that these results are very barren indeed. Of course, the exhibition and the minister himself advertised Canada in Japan. We were even told in his newspapers what a splendid reception the Minister of

Agriculture got from the Geisha girls when he went to the theatre.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was imagination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all. I read it in one of the Montreal papers. Rut notwithstanding all that, there has been no substantial development of the export trade from Canada to Japan. In my judgment these exhibitions are most useful for the purpose of enabling the government to provide positions for their friends at very large salaries.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I dissent from the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) with regard to Japan. I visited Japan last year and I must say that nothing has so advertised Canadian resources in Japan as the Osaka exhibition at which Canada wras represented by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Hon. Mr. Boyer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What result have we obtained from it except immigration?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is quite wrong as to that. Had the hon. gentleman read the speech delivered before the Toronto Canadian Club by Mr. Nosse, Japanese Consul, he would have seen that 10 years ago the export trade of Canada to Japan amounted to the trifling sum of $6,000 or $7,000 a year, while now it is half a million dollars or more. I can assure my hon. friend that as soon as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has larger steamers and can give better freight rates, there is good hope of our doing as large a trade with Japan proportionately as the United States, does. My hon. friend would be surprised to find in Japan to-day that the bulk of the trade is with the United States. There is no reason whatever why the trade should not take the Canadian channel. We see in every station, and on every street in the large cities of Japan the wheat of the United States advertised ; yet it'is admitted by the best authorities in Japan, and tests made there have shown, that the Canadian wheat is far superior to the American wheat, and if to-day we had lower freight rates and larger steamers plying between Vancouver and Victoria and Yokohama, we should certainly turn a large trade from Canada to Japan. In Tokio, Yokohama and other large cities, streets are lined with cheap American manufactured goods, such as sewing machines. There is no reason why our manufacturers should not find in Japan a very remunerative field. My hon. friend says we do not follow up these exhibitions ; we send an exhibit in charge of our commissioner, a few speeches ai'e delivered, and nothing more is done. So far as Japan is concerned, my hon. friend will remember that we appointed a commercial agent at Yokohama, whose name is well known-Mr. McLean, a brother of one of the new members of this House, and a gen-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: tleman who enjoys a great deal of popularity in Japan. I had the pleasure of meeting him there. I also saw the British Ambassador at Tokio, Sir Claude Macdonell, who said to me that the presence of a commercial agent of Canada in Japan would certainly tend to create a trade between the two countries. I may say to the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that it has advertised Canada to a large extent in Japan, and I am quite sure that if the merchants and manufacturers of this country would help themselves a little, they would find a very remunerative market in Japan. As regards the Franco-British exhibition, I Jiave only to say that yesterday I read the London ' Times ' and the last issue of the ' Standard of the Empire,' and if my hon. friend will read those papers he will see that the Canadian exhibit is quite a feature of that exhibition, and compliments are paid to Canada for the really fine exhibit in the Canadian pavilion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In listening to the hon. Postmaster General one might think that Japan was going to develop a wonderful trade with Canada ; but the hon. gentleman knows well that so far as agricultural products are concerned, the Japanese have to be educated to use our cereals and the other kinds of food which we produce. But let my hon. friend call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the position of Canada to-day with respect to the German market, which imported last year over $200,000,000 of just such agricultural products as we are producing in the Dominion of Canada. What has he done to develop our trade with that country ? Germany, with its 60,000,000 people, consumes just the kind of products we produce. It is all very well to talk of the wonderful trade we might develop with Japan ; but it would take centuries to develop there such a trade as we could have in Germany. While Germany is a manufacturing country and is importing large quantities of just such products as we produce in Canada, our trade with Germany has dwindled year by year until it is to-day a paltry few thousand dollars. Why is that? When this government came into power, Canada was a favoured nation with Germany. The Minister of Agriculture admits that he has not raised a finger to attempt to improve our trade relations with Germany, while at the same time we can see the United States sending to that country $234,000,000 worth of goods, the Argentine Republic, $48,000,000 worth, of which $45,000,000 worth are agricultural products, Australia sending $28,000,000 worth, and even little Chili sending $21,000,000 worth. It is all very well to say that we have the British market to send our goods to ; but what advantage have we in that market over other nations ? The hon. Minister of Agriculture knows that our

goods are not sold on sentiment in the British market; and when I see and hear the Postmaster General telling ns of the wonderful advantages of trade with Japan, I cannot help feeling that if he would urge on the Minister of Agriculture the importance of getting our products into the German market, he would be doing a great benefit to the farming industry of our Dominion. I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of that position.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to the German trade, I think my hon. friend is the only man in the Dominion of Canada who entertains the views he has now expressed. He said that when this government came into power, we had favoured nation treatment from Germany. That is true. We lost it. The hon. gentleman says we lost it because of something we did. The something we did which lost us the favoured nation treatment from Germany was something that has been approved of by almost every public man in the Dominion of Canada, and it is something which has won for Canada the admiration of the colonial empire. It is not necessary to go into the question again. Germany took a certain line of action towards this country-why? Simply because we were not going to give Germany the same treatment that we gave the mother country. We claimed the right, belonging to the British family, to make our own commercial arrangements with the mother country and the other British colonies. The hon. gentleman's own political friends had claimed that right, but had taken no step to give effect to it. They had passed resolutions, claiming that the treaty with Germany was one to be denounced. The hon. gentleman admires that treaty and regrets the loss of it ; yet his own political friends passed resolution after resolution condemning it and demanding that the British authorities should denounce it. They failed, but when this government came into power and adopted a British preference, then came the opportunity to put an end to that treaty. The policy which he condemns received the approval of this parliament, irrespective of party and is something for which the whole colonial empire praised Canada, because it put an end to a treaty which interfered with the liberty of action between the mother country and the colonies.


Mr. BERGERON.: I am surprised to hear my hon friend the Minister of Finance repeat what I have heard very often about everybody having been so much satisfied with the cancellation of the treaty between Canada and Germany. My hon. friend knows that the preference given England by this government is not at all what was advocated by the previous administration. What we wanted was a mutual preference with England ; and it was upon the assumption that we could obtain a mutual preference that we talked about cancelling these treaties with Germany. It was not the preference of to-day, which gives England all the advantage.


William Stevens Fielding: The nature or extent of the preference is one thing and a treaty with Germany is another. Before wre could have a preference of any kind, it became necessary to denounce -that treaty-the treaty which the hon. gentleman says was such a good one.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It was better than the present condition.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As far as the people of the Dominion are concerned, they cannot help feeling that this government has failed to try and make a satisfactory arrangement with'the German people, which would allow our goods to go into that market under as favourable conditions as those of other countries. For ten or twelve years this government has been dilly-dallying with such an important trading country as Germany. The minister may say that he did his best in those ten or twelve years by giving Great Britain the preference ; but he knows full well that the British preference has not been of any benefit to the people of Canada; and he knows that what the Conservative party was advocating was a mutual preference. That is what we are advocating to-day, and that would be of great advantage. But the present preference is altogether one-sided, and the Finance Minister cannot say it is of any advantage to us that we should be placed in the position in which we are with Germany resulting from that British preference. The Finance Minister says that the British preference is of wonderful advantage to the Dominion Let him look at the increase of imports from Great Britain within the last eight or ten years and he will find that a large proportion of these goods were manufactured in Germany and other foreign countries and then sent into Great Britain, where only a paltry amount of work was put on them in order to enable them to secure the advantage of the British preference and undermine our industries one by one. He knows full well the disadvantages that have resulted from the jug-handled preference he is so fond of advocating. Be that as it may, the government has taken a position which has not been to our advantage, in shutting us out of the German market, the second best market in the world, as it has been doing the last ten or twelve years. Instead of putting the blame on the people of Germany he should lay it on this government which took the initiative by denouncing the German treaty. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) whether he has taken any -action towards obtaining from Germany better trade relations. -He knows full well that in the last few years our fruit men have been urging this government to

try and obtain better trade relations with that country. He knows well that our farmers are very anxious to have better trade relations with the German empire ; and it is but reasonable, when he is talking about treaties and the advantages derived from these exhibitions, that he should explain to our agricultural class, the great advantages that these treaties have given them, and in addition whether he has made any earnest, reasonable effort to obtain any better trade relations with Germany.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend attributes to me some remarks about the immense value of the British preference. Of course he was only dreaming. I have not alluded to that to-night. I only mentioned the fact that we had established a British preference and said nothing about its value. But he had to use that as a peg on which to hang his argument. He did say that under that British preference, we were bringing British goods to undermine our own industries. But he proposes to bring in goods from Germany to still more undermine them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not neeesarily.


William Stevens Fielding: Will Germany admit our products to her market and get nothing in return ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The tariff will regulate that.


William Stevens Fielding: What tariff ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: A proper tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: By our tariff w~e can regulate the admission of foreign products into our own country, but we cannot regulate the admission of Canadian products to any country on earth. He says it is an evil to have British goods coming in to undermine our own industries, but he wants to broaden the evil by bringing in the keener competition of Germany.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My hon. friend knows full well that German and other foreign goods are going into Great Britain and that his own tariff allows these goods to come into this country under the British preference, when one-fourth of the labour in their manufacture is expended on them in Great Britain ; and he must admit that a large portion of the goods coming through the British middlemen are foreign goods, which are filtered into this country under the British preference. I read a letter last session calling attention to the fact that large quantities of foreign goods were coming through Great Britain into this country under the British preference on which little or no work was done in Great Britain. These are things that are undermining our industries. He knows that wThereas ten years ago we had 120 woollen mills, to-day we have only 20 or 25, and that a good many other indus-Mr. ARMSTRONG.
tries in Canada have been undermined by the foreign goods, shipped through the British middleman to this country, under the British preference.


William Stevens Fielding: So far as the hon. gentleman's statement is correct, I admit it, but I fail to see how it aids my hon. friend in his argument. If the proportion of British labour going into the manufacture of these foreign goods is insufficient, that is a proper question for consideration, and for our requiring a larger proportion of British labour on these goods if necessary. But he says that goods are now coming in under the British preference-whether British or foreign-undermining our woollen and cotton industries; yet he wants still more undermining because he wants a treaty wTith Germany. And surely he is not so foolish as to imagine that Germany will make a treaty wfith us unless we give her further privileges in our market. Therefore whatever degree of undermining exists now, he wants still more increased.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My hon. friend knows that matters of that kind can all be regulated by a tariff. There is no reason why you cannot stop the German goods coming into our country-or British goods or any other-by a reasonable tariff, and so protect our own industry.


William Stevens Fielding: But that is not the question: the question is as to getting our goods into the German market.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But the minister kno-ws full well that before he took office our goods were going into Germany under the most-favoured nation clause. Cannot we have that arrangement again? Does the Minister of Finance think it impossible to enter into some arrangement-not necessarily the same arrangement -as we had before 1896-by which our goods can be shipped into the German market? Germany is a manufacturing country, and produces many goods that we consume in large quantities, but that are not manufactured here to any great extent; and, on the other hand, Germany imports hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the very products of which we have a surplus. Under a treaty arrangement, trade exchanges could be satisfactorily arranged for, I should think.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say that he had information of a later date showing that the newspaper statement read by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) was erroneous, and that everything in the Canadian exhibit in London was in proper shape.
I do not know whether this information came in a private letter or as a report from his agent.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My information was that His Majesty and the President of the French Republic visited our building at the

exhibition. I understood the newspaper quoted by my hon. friend from Dundas to say that they did not do so. I give the information as I have it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have here the London 'Times' of June 3. It does not seem to indicate that we are making such a good disiplay. It mentions the palace of Liberal Arts as being ' now open '; the great machinery hall, the palace of woman's work, the Australian government's pavilion, the Indian government's pavilion, the New Zealand government's pavilion, the French colonial pavilion, the Indian arena-all ' now open,' but not a word about Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My information .is that the Canadian pavilion was open early. I suppose the announcement the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has read refers to those buildings that opened just before it was made. I certainly read in one of the newspapers that Lord Strathcona had received the king and the president of the French Republic in our Canadian pavilion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the quotation given by the hon. .member for Dundas to refer to some date about the 24th of May. And here there is no evidence of our pavilion being open up to June 3. I am afraid the minister's information is scarcely reliable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will find that out.


George Taylor: I understood the hon. minister to say that the Mr. McLean employed is a brother of a member of this1 House


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was appointed a long time before his brother became a member of this House. He was appointed three years ago, I think.


George Taylor: We have two or three members named McLean in this House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is a brother of the hon. member for South Huron.


William Stevens Fielding: Not a brother of the leader of the third party.


George Taylor: I understood the minister to say that Mr. McLean was doing excellent work in Yokohama. Is he there now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was when I left.


George Taylor: Where is he now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know.


George Taylor: He is still in the employ of the government?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes.


George Taylor: Whose department is he in?


William Stevens Fielding: Trade and Commerce.


George Taylor: My information is that he is in China.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think he has been, for the last month or so, in China-in Shanghai,
I think.


Mr. ROBITAILLE.: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I must correct my hon. friend. Mr. Obalski was appointed by me to be one of my staff at the Liege exhibition, and was paid $10 a day for every day from the time he left Canada until he returned. I do not know whether he received his salary as an officer of the provincial government or not. I paid him $10 a day as one of the staff of the Dominion government at the Liege exhibition.


Lorenzo Robitaille: The minister is aware that a certan lawsuit took place in which it was stated that Mr. Obalski was not paid directly by the province of Quebec but by a syndicate there which gave him $3,000 for a certain report on mines which he had investigated. Also, Mr. Turgeon in a letter written to the provincial government, complained of the lack of courtesy on the part of certain officials of the federal government. Furthermore, Baron d'Epine was there and supposed to represent the province of Quebec, to distribute literature and assist as much as possible those visiting the pavilion to learn more about our province. And he was evicted from the Canadian pavilion. The minister knows that the argument was used that this was a general exhibition, and that it was not fair to let one province have an advantage over any other. I showed periodicals that I brought before the House that only the western portion of Canada was advertised by the Canadian government in those periodicals. I give the-minister credit for doing better this year, for, in the advertising matter of the Department of Agreul-

ture, Quebec gets more proper treatment. But I want to say that the treatment given to the Baron was commented upon by Mr. Turgeon himself, and I know that at the time certain correspondence was published in a local newspaper. That is why I say that as regards the Belgian exhibition I do not think we have obtained the results that we had a right to expect 'in view of the large expenses.


George William Fowler: Who is the representative of New Brunswick at this Franeo-Bri-tish exhibition?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think there is anybody at the present time. We have one representative from the maritime provinces in London at the present time, I think his name is Barnes, from Nova Scotia.


George William Fowler: I wish to remind the [DOT]minister that the province of New Brunswick is still on the map, although the minister does not seem to recognize the fact. It ip natural that the persons sent to this exhibition from the various provinces will put each his own province to the fore with regard to its resources and capabilities. So the gentleman from Nova Scotia would naturally put forward the resources of that province, and would be silent with regard to those of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I understand from the minister that he has sent representatives from all the western provinces. Judging from the amount of money he is devoting to this purpose, he must have quite a large staff; How many ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have given nine, besides our regular exhibition staff, of which there are eight.


George William Fowler: Surely out of seventeen representatives the maritime provinces should get more than one. I have noticed a disposition, whether it is by intention or through lack of care, to disregard the rights of the maritime provinces with regard to the matter of advertising Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no such intention.


George William Fowler: But the results are just the same as though they were intended Now the maritime provinces are just as valuable from an agricultural standpoint as they are from the standpoint of the fisheries, the forests and the mines, and there are many people who would prefer to live there than to live in the west, notwithstanding all the great fertility that we hear of.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to interject a remark ? I have seen the Buffalo exhibition, and all the provinces were represented there. I remember that one of the best exhibits in the building was the mining exhibit. There was also a forest exhibit from the maritime provinces, and a splendid exhibit o? animals.


Lorenzo Robitaille: 


George William Fowler: Wild animals ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and New Brunswick was especially prominent. But the hon. gentleman, when he speaks of advertising in foreign countries, must not forget that the public lands in the Canadian west mostly are the property of the Dominion government, whilst the lands in the other provinces are the property of those provinces. A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting, in London, Mr. Duff Miller, who represented the New Brunswick government, and I also met the representative of the Nova Scotia government. I went into the offices of both of them, and there I saw exhibits of the lands and agricultural resources of those provinces. Of course, the Dominion government is bound to advertise the lands which are the property of the Dominion government, but each province does the same for its own lands. ,


George William Fowler: The object of this advertising the Postmaster General speaks of is to get population, not to sell the lands. The Dominion government does not sell its lands, it gives its lands free, just as the other provinces give their lands free to the settler, and on about the same terms. The object of the Dominion government is to get population, and it is just as necessary to get population into the maritime provinces as it is into the west. So the Dominion government have just as much right to advertise the lands and the forest resources of the maritime provinces as they have those of the western provinces. The Minister of Agriculture is supposed to make dairying a special feature of our exhibit at these exhibitions. Yet the very provinces of Canada where the dairying industry can be carried to its highest perfection, are the provinces that he neglects at these exhibitions. What does he do? He simply advertises our wild animals and says nothing at all about the dairying interests of the country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But I do.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman visited the exhibition in Tokio ; at any rate he tells us so and bears testimony as to what he saw there.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The exhibition was at Osaka.


George William Fowler: It is the same thing. It is all in Japan. As 'far as I am concerned, Osaka, Tokio and Yokohama are practically the same.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They ore only 300 miles apart.


George William Fowler: In this country we do not consider 300 miles any distance. .


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let the hon. gentleman ask his colleague from Perth (Mr. A. F. MacLaren) when he commenced to export MacLaren's cheese to Japan? Is was since the exhibition at Osaka.


William Humphrey Bennett: Li Hung Chans took a lot of it away with him some years ago.


George William Fowler: MacLaren's cheese was celebrated all over the world long before the exhibition in Janan. I have a friend from Hong Kong who told me that ten years ago they were using MacLaren's cheese there. Japan knew of the industries of Canada before the exhibition at Osaka. There was something that the Postmaster General did say that I agreed with and that was that the Canadian Pacific Railway has done much more in advertising the food products of Canada in Japan than has any exhibition.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not say that.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman said something along that line.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Just a little different.


George William Fowler: At any rate what I say is a fact that for years they have been making an effort to introduce the food products of Canada into Japan.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Just a little different.


George William Fowler: At any rate what I say is a fact that for years they have been making an effort to introduce the food products of Canada into Japan.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With a subsidy from the government.


George William Fowler: I have it directly from Mr. Dennis, who has charge of that part of the work.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know what they have been doing.


George William Fowler: They have been doing it for the last three years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Since the exhibition.


George William Fowler: What has the exhibition to do with the Canadian Pacific Railway introducing food products?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That started it.


George William Fowler: They were trying to cut into the trade that the Americans have been doing there and they were trying to secure a share of that trade for their steamers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They were taking more freight from the United States than Canada.


George William Fowler: That is a business proposition and they are a business corporation. I am not adverse to the principle of exhibitions. I believe they are a very good tiling.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Sensible men all agree with that.


George William Fowler: I do believe in the principle of exhibitions if they are properly conducted. But if they are used as a sort of junketing tour by the friends of the government, it is quite a different matter. Members of parliament are getting their relatives into these positions. Here we see that one member of parliament has his son there and another has his cousin there. We always get a little suspicious when we see that sort of thing done. I do not think the minister should allow it. We want competent men. It does not follow that because a man is the son of a member of parliament he is incompetent-not at all- but at the same time there is a certain amount of suspicion that a man is appointed because of the political pull he had rather than for his qualifications.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is entirely wrong in this particular case.


George William Fowler: Naturally the minister will say that. He has to say that in order to square himself with the House and the country. But he wants to scan very seriously the qualifications of a person who is recommended by his own relatives, because he will be prejudiced in his favour and lie may exaggerate his qualifications. It is very important to have good men there. You ought also to do the thing economically. The Minister of Agriculture represents the farming class and the farming class are usually economical people. The minister is a farmer himself ; at least it Is so stated, although one would never think to look at him that he was a farmer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Appearances are deceitful sometimes.


George William Fowler: Exactly, and statements are sometimes too. But I want to remind the minister that he is the representative of the agricultural class and that, therefore, he should practice due economy. Our representative has been receiving $20 a day for expenses. It may be all right, but it is rumoured that the reason why this lump sum is given-it is only a rumour and I am not stating this as a fact-is that it is necessary at the entertainments which are given by the commissioner that certain liquors should be used and the Minister of Agriculture, being a strong temperance advocate and a teetotaler, naturally objects to the pasing or O. K.'ing of accounts for so many dozen of champagne, so many bottles of Tom gin, or whatever it may be, and, therefore, he has devised this scheme of making a per diem allowance for the commissioner. I do not know whether that be true or not.


George Taylor: Quite true.


George William Fowler: Quite true, the chief whip says, and anything the chief whip says is true.


George Taylor: I can prove it by the Auditor General's Report.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Agriculture has devised this little scheme to get

over the O. K.'ing of accounts for liquid refreshments and therefore $20 a day has to be paid to the commissioner. Is that for the year round ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, during the exhibition.


George William Fowler: The exhibitions last during the year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A little under a year ; from seven to nine months.


George William Fowler: It comes to a very large amount and it does look to us farmers very big when we look at it from that standpoint. We find that his subordinates get $7 or $8 a day for living expenses.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, they get that for pay and all.


George William Fowler: That includes living expenses too?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George William Fowler: That would not seem to be too large ; it seems to be fairly reasonable. But I would like to know on what basis that $20 a day was arranged. I am not saying that it is excessive, but I would like to know the reason that actuated the minister in placing it at that amount so that the people may have an opportunity to judge as well as the minister whether it is a proper amount or whether it is too large.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not reckon it up item by item, but I remembered that years ago, when the Chicago exposition took place, before my own regime commenced, where a different system was employed, the commissioners had to give a detailed itemized account of everything even to the shining of their boots and the ironing of their hats and it came to a good deal more than $20 a day. I thought, on the whole, that would be a reasonable amount to be expended for the living expenses and the entertaining whieh is done by the commissioner. I know that entertaining at these exhibitions costs a very considerable amount. The commissioner has to entertain the other commissioners and bear his part and he has sometimes to give entertainments at the Canadian pavilion, of course with tea and cakes; that goes without saying. But still it all counts. Unfortunately, at exhibition times, prices are always unusually high. I have been at exhibitions myself and they usually charge two or three prices for rooms, board and that sort of thing. My hon. friend was talking about Japan and the Canadian Pacific Railway and the establishment of trade between Japan and Canada. I do not want to go back over the old story but the hon. gentleman made one or two statements which are not in accordance with my information. My hon. friend said that the Canadian Pacific Railway were advertising Canadian goods in Mr. FOWLER.
Japan long before the exhibition, but I can tell him that when the exhibition was on the tapis I went to the Canadian Pacific Railway and tried to interest them in it, but they poohpoohed the idea of the possibility of ever doing any trade with Japan. Before the exhibition the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers frequently left Victoria and Vancouver without a full cargo, but for the last three or four years they have had more cargo presenting itself than they could carry. While the figures quoted by my hon. friend from Grey are no doubt correct, it is a well known fact that considerable of the Canadian trade with Japan is done through Seattle and Tacoma because there are sufficient facilities to carry it direct to Japan. Not long ago some Japanese gentlemen purchased cattle here and they could not get satisfactory rates or assurances that the cattle would be taken by a certain steamer at a certain date and the result was that they had to ship these cattle from eastern Canada to Japan via the western states and Tacoma.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would show in the Trade and Navigation returns.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would go through in bond.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would show as trade to Japan if they went on a through Bill of lading but otherwise it would not.


George William Fowler: That is how they would go.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Some went that way and some did not. A very considerable proportion of the lumber bought in British Columbia for Japan is exported by United States merchants via Seattle and Tacoma, and I dare say not on through bills of lading. It appears as exports to the United States in the Trade and Navigation returns. I am not making any accusation against the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I do think that the Canadian Pacific Railway could to-day put on more steamers and larger steamers and that they would have them full all the time with merchandise from Canada to Japan direct. I know from my own personal knowledge that shippers could not get shipping facilities direct by the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers to Japan and that they had to send via United States ports.
Mr. FOWLER, Some two years ago I travelled with Mr. Dennis of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the continent and he then told me that the Canadian Pacific Railway were encouraging the export of wheat and flour and food products to Japan. He said they were induced to do so on account of the large and lucrative trade that' had been worked up, by different American millers with Japan. A man .would be crazy to ship Canadian lumber to the United States and thence to Japan, because to make any profit out of lumber you must handle as

little as possible. It costs 25 cents a thousand every time you handle lumber and surely the most economic way would be to ship it direct from the Vancouver mills and not via the United States.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When I was in Japan I was informed by dozens of people that Canadian lumber was shipped by Seattle merchants from Seattle to Japan.


George William Fowler: I do not see what sense there would be in that unless it were small lots of very high priced lumber. I think the minister has been wrongly informed about that.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If there is any transportation company in the world which is anxious to increase its trade in every possible way it is the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I am consequently much astonished at what the minster has said. As to the payment of $20 a day to Mr. Hutchison, it is of course a very large sum of money, but it is just as well to pay it as to have such accounts as we had from the representatives of Canada at the Philadelphia exhibition, and which contained some very discreditable items. Are these exhibitions going to be permanent and are we going to keep a permanent staff headed by Mr. Hutchison perambulating all over the world. Exhibitions have been held in all pa^ts of the globe now, and I think it is high time we should stop expenditure in connection with them and that the money could be more profitably devoted to the appointment of commercial agents in different countries who would endeavour to foster Canadian trade. Some years ago we established a commercial agency in Australia and I believe it has turned out to be very successful. Why should we not try the same policy in other countries ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not certain that there are any invitations to us to-exhibit at any exhibition this year. As to a permanent exhibit I have given the matter a good deal of thought. The carrying on of a special Canadian exhibit in London was suggested to me, but when I came to look into the matter, I found that the cost of advertising it would be so enormous, the same kind of advertising that is done by the authorities of these various international exhibitions, that it was out of the question to undertake it, and I came to the conclusion that it was better for us to take part in these large international exhibitions.


George Taylor: What will be the total cost of this Loudon exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Something over $300,000. Then there is the Edinburgh one, which will cost $30,000 or $35,000.


George Taylor: With the revenue falling as it is this year and as it will continue to fall, this item ought to be cut in two. I
think it is an outrage to be spending the amount of money we are doing annually on these exhibitions. We spent on the Milan exhibition $130,000, of which $65,000 was spent on employees. We pay Mr. Hutchison $20 a day for living allowance, while we only pay the others $10 a day for living allowance and salary, except C. H. Catelli, who gets $10 a day for living allowance.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That covers everything except actual transportation.


George Taylor: We find that Mr. Dafoe got $10 a day for service and living allowance. What were Mr. Catelli's duties ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He was an honorary commissioner. He is an Italian who has been living in Montreal for many years. He was the president of the Chambre du Commerce for that year, and as our representative at the Milan exhibition, he gave his services for nothing and got $10 a day for living allowance.


George Taylor: Who was Mr. Pini 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He was an Italian employed in Milan, a newspaper man who wrote up the Canadian exhibit for the Italian papers.
Mr. iAYLOR. Why was it necessary for him to make five trips to Rome ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He went to Rome with Mr. Catelli on two or three occasions to see the representative of the government of Italy.


George Taylor: It is all of a piece-junketing tours for political friends.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As Mr. Pini has never been in Canada in his life, I do not see how he can be called a political friend.


George Taylor: Perhaps he has influence with some friends in. Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have never heard of it.


William D. Staples: Who is Mr. Dafoe ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is connected with the Manitoba ' Free Press.' He is a first-class man.


William D. Staples: What did he go there for ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He went to write a report of the exhibition for Canadian papers.


William D. Staples: Would the minister inform us how much Mr. Hutchison has drawn each year that he has been on the other side in salaries and incidentals ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All that is in the Auditor General's Report, and I will have my officers find it out for the hon. gentleman.


George Taylor: I see that the exhibition building at Milan was sold for $3,472. What did it cost ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the total cost was something like $30,000.


William D. Staples: How much did the building in London cost ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $75,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would the minister give us a list of those articles to be found on page D-25 ? It would seem that he spent the not at all extravagant sum of $22.50 on specimens of butter and cheese made in Canada and $858.20 on mounted specimens. I would like to have a list of the mounted specimens on exhibition at Milan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not even know exactly what those mounted specimens were. Perhaps the imagination of my hon. friend can help me out.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have seen some magnificent views of the representations of Canada at these exhibitions. In the foreground there was a large picture of the premier, then there was an illimitable waste of red, blue and white drapery, and then there were some enormous bears, but whether cinnamon bears or black I could not tell. It seemed to ba absurd to have Canada pictured in that way. One would think we had nothing out here but wild animals. Since the minister was no doubt at exhibition at Milan, perhaps he could give us some idea what these mounted specimens were.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Unfortunately I was not able to go to that exhibition.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am sorry he should have seen fit to spend only $22 on specimens of butter and cheese as compared with $800 on mounted specimens of wild animals.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was not the whole expenditure on butter and cheese.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have tried to obtain a reply to several questions I put with regard to what efforts the minister has put forth to obtain better trade relations with Germany in connection with our pulp industry.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That matter is in charge of the Ministers of Finance and Trade and Commerce.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Did the Minister of Agriculture not even urge on his colleagues the necessity of doing something in that line ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not say that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then did he do so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Matters discussed in council are not for the public.


William D. Staples: By what method are the exhibits collected throughout Canada. Take for example our grain exhibits throughout the west ?


George Taylor: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The grains from the western country are largely collected by the officers of the experimental farm and also by some St the officers of the Immigration Department. They are collected from individual farmers wherever we can get them of a satisfactory character. When collected from private individuals, their names are put on them and the locality from which they come. When collected by officers of the experimental farm the locality is put on.
Mi\ FOWLER. Who snares the wild animals ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We get them from trappers and others. A little while ago we bought a very fine moose head in New Brunswick.


George William Fowler: That is where they grow.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was a remarkably fine specimen. When I hear of good specimens, I get my officers to buy them. We try to get the best of all possible kinds to illustrate the country.


George William Fowler: Why do you advertise from the sporting standpoint ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The sporting exhibits are very attractive. I have known of parties coming from England and the continent to hunt game in this country, who were induced to come by these exhibits and who spend thousands of dollars on their trips.


George William Fowler: Have you a separate room for each province ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: AVe try to make our exhibit purely national. We have found that when the exhibit is divided up into different provinces it loses it effect. A single building with a single homogenous national exhibit attracts more attention. In our literature we describe every part of the Dominion and give its characteristics and advantages.


George William Fowler: He gives two lines to New Brunswick to a hundred to Quebec.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken; we gave a fair proportion of our literature to the eastern pip-vinces. Remember I am an eastern province man myself, and if I had not been actuated by a stern sense of duty to give every place a fair show, I would want to talk-as much as possible about Quebec. But 1 did not allow any special representation of that province at Liege, because I wanted to keep the national characteristic of the exhibit and not have special representatives of the provinces or special exhibits of provinces separately. We take our exhibits from every part of the Dominion, giving the name of the locality, and, where we get it from a private party, the name of the party. But, at the same time, it is a homogeneous Canadian national exhibit.


William D. Staples: The minister said he was negotiating with some gentlemen from Alanitoba to go as representatives to this

exhibition. It is high time that gentleman was despatched. If the minister will tell ns who it is he is negotiating with, we from the province of Manitoba may be able to tell him if he is the best man.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not wish to use the gentleman's name .before the matter is settled, but, if he accepts, my bon. friend (Mr. Staples) will recognize that he is the best man for this service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not get the names of the representatives of the several provinces.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have given the list a couple of times already. I can go over it again, if the hon. gentleman desires.


George Taylor: What expert knowledge had Mr. Tolmie?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He has gone as accountant, to take charge of the book-keeping and accounts. He has been seven or eight years in banking and has been in charge of a branch bank. He is a thoroughly competent man.


George Taylor: What is his age?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Twenty-six or twenty-seven, I think.


George Taylor: I understand he is 22.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the hon. gentleman must be mistaken.


William Humphrey Bennett: What bank was he manager of?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He was in charge of one of the branches of the Merchants Bank at some place in Ontario.


William Jackson: Is he a son of the member?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


William D. Staples: What is Mr. Turriff's occupation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think he is a farmer.


George Taylor: An expert on exhibitions?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, these gentlemen are appointed on this special exhibition, in addition to the regular staff whose names I have given.


John Herron: Are you sending any one from Alberta?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


John Herron: Why is Alberta not represented?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You can't have every place represented unless you enlarge the staff.


William Jackson: Looking over the Auditor General's Report, there seems to be a certain amount of. looseness in these accounts. We find that the Auditor General finds fault with the way in which things are
managed. He speaks of some accounts four years old and not settled, of large amounts of money paid and no accounts of disbursements. Now, I think it is all right to spend money on these exhibitions, and to pay men fair salaries for their work in connection with it, but in many of these cases you find funds unaccounted for-some $400, some $1,000, and so on. And this in the case of men receiving as much as $9,000 a year or $6,000 or $4,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Which of them received $9,000?


William Jackson: Mr. Hutchison.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is one man. Is there any other?


William Jackson: I said one man. Will the hon. gentlemen tell me what Mr. Burns receives?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He receives $1,700 a year and payment for what travelling he does in Canada.


William Jackson: Last year, lie received $3,770 in addition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Where does the hon. gentleman find that?


William Jackson: At page D-26 of the Auditor General's Report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was when Mr. Burns was in New Zealand.


William Jackson: It is in the last report we have.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Burns was sent to New Zealand a year ago last winter, and while engaged in that trip he received his ordinary salary and $10 a day for living allowance.


William Jackson: So I was correct in the statement I made. Now, I want to ask the minister with reference to one or two of the men in his employ. What are the duties of A. L. Jarvis?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is secretary of the department.


William Jackson: What were his duties in going from Ottawa to Victoria, as appear on the same page, 26 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Jarvis went out to Victoria to see about a shipment of goods from Canada to New Zealand.


William Jackson: Was it necessary for him to take a large amount of baggage with him during that trip, which lasted a month ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that he did.


William Jackson: Were any of Mr. Jarvis's accounts disputed in the Auditor General's Department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say offhand. I * understand that when he went to Victoria

he took his wife with him, and by error the drawing room which he took was charged to him. Immediately on his return, when he found it had been charged to him, he went to the Auditor General and refunded, stating that it had been improperly charged.


William Jackson: That would not appear in the Auditor General's Report. Do members of the minister's department pay full fare on the railways the same as ordinary travellers ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Jarvis does.


William Jackson: How is it that in this account all that is entered up for his first trip from Ottawa to Vancouver and return, is $101.65 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say.


William Jackson: We find that for tlie next trip he makes to Vancouver, he charges $131. Now one of these must be wrong.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My deputy informs me that the rates vary with the season. One rate is for the winter and the other is for the summer.


William Jackson: Would the minister think it was an unusual rate to pay $67 for 6 days board at a hotel in Vancouver ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Is that in the Auditor General's Report ?


William Jackson: I get this from a return. We find in this return that there is a drawing room from Ottawa to Winnipeg, $30 ; from Winnipeg to Victoria, $30 ; from Victoria to Ottawa, $35. We find that is refunded. I understand from the minister that this man had nothing to do outside of going to the coast. Was It necessary for him to make any disbursements except on his crwn account ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say.


William Jackson: Does that man's duty require him to make any disbursements except on account of his own living expenses ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is quite possible. I have not the accounts before me. He may have had to make some petty disbursements on account of the department. But what is the hon. gentleman reading from ?


William Jackson: This is an exact copy of a detailed statement of Mr. Jarvis's expenses on a trip from Ottawa to Victoria and return. This return was brought down in the Public Accounts Committee, and I think I ought to read it:
A. T. Jarvis-Expense account. ' August IS-Cab, 75 cents, meals on
train, $3.10	$ 3 85
August 19-Meals on brain, $1.10 (20),
meals on train, $1.25	 5 35


Sydney Arthur Fisher: August 20-'Winnipeg, porter, baggage,
&c	$ 1 25
August 20 and 21-Hotel, Winnipeg,
$9.70, baggage, $1.50	 H 20
August 22-.Meals on train, $3.75.. ..	3 75
August 23-'Breakfast, $1.25; porter, 25 cents; Hotel Banff, $5; baggage, 75
cents	 7^25
August 21-'Meals on train, $3.75; baggage, &c., $1.25	 5 00
August 25 to September 2-Hotel Vancouver, $50.15; cabs, $10.50; baggage,
&c., $5.50	 66T5
September ,5-Motel Victoria,, $H2.)25;
cab, $1.50	 16 75
September 6-Meals on steamer and return, $2; &c., $1	 3	00
September 12-Hotel Vancouver, $67.05;
baggage, (Sic, $5.50	 72	55
September 13-Cabs, Vancouver, $7.50;
dinner on train, $1.75	 9	25
September 13-Stateroom on boat, $1;
meals, $1.75	
8	75Baggage, &c., $1.75	
1	75
September 15-Mbals on train, $3.85;
hotel, Winnipeg, $6; baggage, $1.25..	11 10
September 17-Meals on train, $3.85 (18); meals on train, $3.75; baggage,
$1.25	
8	85September 17-Cab, $1; incidentals, $15	16	00

Hotel, Vancouver, 8 days, $50.15.
Hotel, Vancouver, 6 days, $67.05.
Go all through these accounts and you will find that kind of thing existing. The Minister of Agriculture spoke a while ago with regard to Mr. Despard. Has there been any objection to any of his accounts, either in the hon. gentleman's department or in the Auditor General's Department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As to the Mr. Jarvis' expense account which the hon. gentleman has just read, all the items have been passed both in my department and in the Auditor General's Department, aud apparently have been approved. I think it is sufficient. I never knew anything about them until now. As to the gentleman last named, there has been no protest from the Auditor General that I am aware of. But I was informed that Mr. Jarvis found certain payments charged to him in the accounts of the department which he knew were not properly charged to him, and he went aud made a refund, owing to having had his wife with him. I know of no other protest from the Auditor General with regard to this man.


William Jackson: Has there been any exception taken to Mr. Despard's accounts with the department?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not that I am aware of.


William Jackson: Is there more than one Despard in the employ of the government.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not that I have heard of.


William Jackson: I understand that Despard received $100 a month. We find that he receives $75 and that another Despard receives $25. I would like some information as to this.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand that while Mr. Despard was away in New Zealand his mother was to receive a certain payment, that she was paid one month $25 and that by mistake he was also paid $25 in New Zealand. On his return his account was looked into and he returned the $25 which had been paid to his mother.


William Jackson: Is it not a fact that your department paid the ocean fares of some men employed in connection with these exhibitions which money has not been refunded ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed by my officers that they do not know of any such thing having taken place.


William Jackson: The returns show where the government has paid the Canadian Pacific Railway for the passage of some of these men's wives from San Francisco to Auckland and that this has to be refunded.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that they did not go by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the first place and I am satisfied that the fare of nobody's wife was paid by the department.


William Jackson: Well, the reports belie your statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What reports?


William Jackson: Your own reports that are before the Public Accounts Committee.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does my hon. friend say that the reports before the Public Accounts Committee show that the Department of Agriculture paid the fares of the wives of some of these officers going to New Zealand and that the money was not refunded ?


William Jackson: I say that the returns show that the return fares of some of these men and their wives were paid from San Francisco to Auckland and that they were to be refunded to this government.
Ml*. FISHER. If my hon. friend can show me that I will have it investigated. I think my hon. friend mpst be in error.


William Jackson: I am certainly not in error.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then I will investigate the matter and I am satisfied that we will find that if any such payment was made it was repaid by the husband. It may be possible that a ticket was taken for his wife at the same time that the department 337
secured a ticket for him. It is the practice of the department to purchase tickets for officers who are sent to these different exhibitions. It may be that some officer asked that a ticket be taken for his wife at the same time his ticket was taken for him and that it was charged up against his salary or other payment. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but I will have it investigated. I will say that if any such payment was made the individual on whose behalf it was made had to refund it and did refund it, and that the department is not out of pocket for the passage money of anybody's wife.


William Jackson: This return shows it has not been refunded and that it has to be refunded ; $750 is the fare of two from San Francisco to Auckland and return.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What is the name?


William Jackson: I do not purpose mentioning the name.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like the hon. gentleman to state the name of the individual.


William Jackson: I do not purpose mentioning the name of any one. Some of the best citizens of Canada who have gone to foreign countries representing manufacturing concerns do not speak very highly of the deportment of some of the officials sent out by the Minister of Agriculture to represent Canada at these exhibitions. I suppose the minister would like me to name my authority, but I do not propose to do it. One of the most prominent Canadians living to-day outside of Canada said that the deportment of these officials was not creditable to Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman does not wish to give the names publicly, let him give me them privately, and if any of my officers have been guilty of such conduct I will dismiss them from the service.


William Jackson: I do not object to $10 a day for living expenses, but I do object to $10 a day for living expenses when it goes in booze.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend will give me the names of any of my officers who have been guilty of misconduct I will inquire into the matter.


William Jackson: It is the duty of the department to send out representatives who will uphold the dignity of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


William Jackson: For Heaven's sake cut out that tag end to every man's account, 'other expenses not accounted for.' It would be well for the department to consider the character of the men who go on these excursions and see that they conduct themselves the way they should. I do not expect that the Minister of Agriculture will



appoint Conservatives, but I expect him to appoint good Liberals. There are plenty of good Liberals in the country who will represent Canada as she should be represented. It does seem to me that in every department it is almost impossible to prevent crookedness and irregularities. The men who have the patronage seem to have a pull with the heads of departments, and they recommend men who are not qualified to fill public positions. That is the case throughout the length and breadth of the country. Fully 25 per cent of the expenditures noted in the Auditor General's Report is practically thrown to the winds and it brings disgrace and discredit to Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is our duty to appoint men who will be a credit to the country, and I believe I have done so. If the hon. gentleman gives me the names privately of any men who have misconducted themselves I shall investigate, and if any one of them is guilty he shall have short shrift so far as my department is concerned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has a good deal of information to bring down with regard to this item, and as it is now time to conclude the work of the day, the item can pass and the information can be brought down later.


William D. Staples: I wish to discuss the matter of home exhibitions, and if that can be done on some other item, I have no objection that this should pass.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend refers to the Dominion grant for the Canadian exhibition he can discuss that on the item for that purpose.
Imperial Institute, $6,000.


George Taylor: How much was spent last year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Practically the whole of it. We contribute $2,500 to the institute, and in return the authorities keep our exhibits in order. We pay $1,500 to Mr. Harrison Watson, curator of the museum ; $500 for office assistance, rental towards the city office of the Institute $1,225, and the balance in adding to the exhibit and for incidental expenses.
Some resolutions reported.


ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the House adjourns, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to the return brought down by the Prime Minister containing correspondence with the moral and social reform council of Canada. One of the letters refers to another letter of April 20. and that letter is not on the file.


William Jackson: Will the hon. Minister of Finance draw the Prime Minister's attention to it and have this missing letter brought down?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a return brought down by the Prime Minister, and I am sure he will take notice of my hon. friend's remarks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will we take up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Several Bills on the Order Paper, beginning with the Act to amend the Railway Act, with respect to telegraphs and telephones; second reading of Bill to amend the Post Office Act; Bill respecting reformatories in Nova Scotia; Bill respecting the use otf tobacco by young persons, and afterwards Supply with the items of the Agriculture Department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 1G, 1908.