1908-04-27

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 158) respecting Meaford Harbour. He said : The object of the Bill is to legalize a situation which has existed for some years and has created some disturbance. The township of St. Vincent was at first the authority which had the power to deal with this harbour which is on Georgian bay. Later on, in 1874, if I remember well, the town of Meaford was incorporated with the harbour within its territorial limits. The municipal authorities of the town assumed that the fact that the harbour was within the boundaries of the town gave them sufficient authority to deal with the harbour, to make necessary improvements and to levy taxes. I understand that some work had been carried out by the municipality on this assumption that they were acting within their right. As some doubt has been raised as to their right to carry out these works and levy taxes, they have approached the department and asked that legislation be introduced to legalize what has been done and to declare that for the future, the harbour shall be vested in the town of Meaford.


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

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) if tenders have yet been advertised for in connection with the dredging anticipated to be done during the coming season at Midland, Tiffin and Victoria Harbour.


Mr. SPROULE.: 


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I can only say that I have given the necessary directions for the calling for tenders, and I assume that the advertisements are out. If not issued, they are in course of being issued.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. DANIEL asked :: How many claims for damages to property, or personal injury or loss or damage on the Intercolonial Railway have been settled since January 1, 1908, what is the nature of the claims so settled, the amount of damages claimed in each case, the settlements arrived at, and the names of the persons settled with?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: The answer to this question is sufficiently large to make quite a bulky return. If my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) will allow me to lay it on the table, I will do so, instead of spending the rest of the afternoon in reading it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Certainly.


PROPOSED JAPANESE COLONY IN THE WEST.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: Referring to cage 6650 of unrevised 1 Hansard ' of April 8. 1908- wherein the Hon. Mr. Lemieux made the following statement:


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Since the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) has referred again to the number of Japanese who wish to settle near Calgary as agriculturists, I may say, in order to show that the Japanese authorities are living up to their agreement with Canada, that a few days ago the Canadian Pacific Railway Company applied to the Dominion government in order to ascertain if something like 300 Japanese would be allowed to enter the Dominion and take up land in the Northwest. The Canadian Pacific Railway authorities pointed out that the Japanese government would not obiect to issuing passports to the intending Japanese immigrants; but the Japanese government had stated that they could not issue passports unless the Dominion government would a-.'-ee to it. That shows plainly that the Japanese authorities are living up to the agreement arrived at during the month of December last.
1.	What was the date of the Canadian Pacific Railway's application to bring in Japanese immigrants?
2.	By whom was the application made?
3.	What were the exact terms of the application ?
4.	What was the complete answer of the government to such application?
5.	Have any other applications been made bv the same company, or any other company, for such a privilege?

719t>


Rodolphe Lemieux: 1,	2 and 3. The following letter was received :
(At Ottawa), March 25, 1908. Hon. Prank Oliver, M.P.,
Minister of the Interior, Ottawa.
My Dear Sir,-A Japanese gentleman contracted with us last autumn for the purchase of a considerable area of land in the irrigation block with a view to cutting it up into small farms for Japanese settlers. He now cables from the Philippines that he has made arrangements for the emigration of two hundred Japanese farmers this year, but that the Japanese government is not disposed to grant passports unless Dominion government approves of the settlement of these people in Alberta.
Will you kindly inform me what view the government take of this proposition? Our correspondent asks for cable reply, and I shall be glad if the matter can receive early consideration.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) C. DRINKWATER.
4.	The government replied as follows :
Ottawa, March 30, 1908.
Dear Sir,-In reply to your letter of March 25 regarding approval by the government of the settlement of a number of Japanese on irrigation lands near Calgary, I beg to say that if the arrangement to which you allude is in the nature of a contract for the furnishing of labour this government cannot approve of it, and therefore cannot ask the Jananese government to grant the necessary passports.
As announced in parliament, however, you are no doubt aware that a certain number of (Japanese domestic servants -land farm labourers may be given passports for Canada. Within the number agreed upon of these classes the Dominion government has no objection to offer to the Japanese authorities issuing the necessary passports.
I notice that you speak of your correspondent cabling from the Philippines that he has made arrangements for the emigration v 0 hundred Japanese farmers this year, it by this it is meant that these are Japanese coming from the Philippines, I beg to point out if they are Japanese citizens that the order in council of March 28 would in any case prohibit their landing in Canada.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) FRANK OLIVER.
C.	Drinkwater, Esq.,
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Ottawa.
5.	This is the only application made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or any other.


DEFALCATION IN MONTREAL POST OFFICE.
Mr. BERGERON asked :: L Was a defalcation discovered in the Montreal Post Office lately? If so, what was the amount stolen?
2.	In which department of the Montreal Post Office did the offence occur?
3.	Was an investigation held, and what was the report?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Yes. A young man employed in the Montreal post office was arrested for having stolen $202.42, who, when brought before the judge, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a period of four years in the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.
2.	The offence occurred In connection with the amounts collected at the Montreal post office from newspapers for postage.
3.	An investigation has been ordered, but up to date no report has been received.


TUG BOAT 'LORD KITCHENER '
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	In what service does the Department of Public Works or the Department of Marine employ the tug boat 'Lord Kitchener'?
2.	At what rate per day or hour is the remuneration paid?
3.	What amount has been paid by each department for the tug boat during the calendar years 1906, 1907 and 1908 to date?
I.	Who is the owner of this boat?


William Pugsley: 1,	2 and 3. The tug * Lord Kitchener ' was employed by>
this department as follows : in April, 1906, the tugs ' Lord Kitchner ' and ' Lord Roberts ' were employed together to tow the dredge ' New Dominion ' and scows from St. John to St. Andrews, N.B. The payment for the joint service was $150, lump sum. The tug has been employed towing scows of dredge ' W. S. Fielding ' from Lunenburg, N.S., to St. John N.B., at the rate of $125 a day ; reached destination Friday (24th).
4.	John E. Moore.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Marine and Fisheries Department employed boat in Bay of Fundy lighthouse and buoy service.
2.	Under charter party dated April 11, 1907, rate paid was $125 per day, all found. Under second charter party dated November 11, 1907, rate was $85 per day, including captain and first engineer, the department finding remainder of crew, foe1 and stores.
3.	1906.
1907	$21,762.19
1908	 14,053.49

4.	John E. Moore.


DREDGE ' FIELDING.'
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What is the date on which the dredge 'Fielding' arrived in St. John?
2.	How many; days' work has been done by this dredge since that date, and at what points ?
3.	What other dredging work is being carried on by the government in St. John harbour or vicinity, by what parties, and has such work been let after public tender ?-


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	25th February, 1008.
2.	(a) 25.
(b) Superintendent of dredging reports that dredge removed a shoal patch of about three hundred feet in length inside the bell-buoy from fifteen feet to a depth of twenty-one feet low water. Then commenced about seven hundred feet outside bell buoy west of centre line of channel at thirty feet at low water and laid moorings and worked in about five hundred feet two hundred feet wide west of centre line, now continuing inward.
3.	(a) Dredging at Sand Point and Rodney slips.
(b)	G. S. Mayes and Dominion Dredging Company.
(c)	Yes.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Noah A. Timmons.
2.	Appointed 1st March, 1902. Salary and allowances, $1,305.
3 and 4. The work of the office is efficiently performed by the postmaster's three assistants, but the postmaster, who is at present living at Haileybury, does not personally supervise it.


DREDGING IN THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Are there still any claims pending in connection with the dredging done in the province of Quebec during the season of 1907?
2.	If so, who are the claimants and what is the total amount of said claims?
3.	Is there a claim in said connection by Henry W. Prendergast or the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes Dredging Company? If so, what is the amount, and why has it not been paid?
4.	Is there a claim regarding said dredging in the province of Quebec in 1907 by E. A. D. Morgan or the General Construction Company? If so, what is the amount, what is it for and why has it not been paid?
5.	Is there a claim in said connection by L. Cohen & Son? If so, what is the amount of said claim, and what is it for?
Mr. FOSTER.: From the 25th to what date ?


William Pugsley: To Saturday, I presume.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS -CONTRACT FOR CEMENT.
Mr.  J. D.@: REID-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Has the Montreal Harbour Commissioners lately given a contract for cement?
2.	If so, was the quantity 30,000 barrels? If not, how many barrels were contracted for ?
3.	To whom was the contract given?
3.	Is it a fact that this order is to be imported from Belgium	?
o.	Is the government aware that there are cement manufacturing industries in Canada, making first class cement?


Hon.   L P. BRODEUR@Minister of Marine and Fisheries: There is no information in the department in regard to this matter. We have written to the board in Montreal to supply us with information, and when it Is received I will be glad to answer the question.
POSTMASTER AT MATTAWA, ONT. Mr. WHITE-by Mr. Blain-asked :


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	St. Lawrence and Great
Lakes Dredging Co.. ..$9,888.33	.
L. Cohen & Son		806.40

3.	Yes ; $9,888.33 as above.
Payment delayed owing to complications between contractor and certain creditors in whose favour powers of attorney to receive moneys had been filed.
4.	No.
5.	Yes. $806.40 for dredging at Port St. Francis in November, 1907.


FAIR WAGES SCHEDULE ON DREDGING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. VERVILLE-by Mr. Calvert-asked :
1 Is there a fair wages schedule attached to all contracts on dredging?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to attach one in future contracts?
3.	Is the government aware that it is stated men working on dredges last season were not paid their wages?
i.	Is it the intention of the government to take measures so as to guarantee such payment in future?
1.	Who is the postmaster at Mattawa, Out.?
2.	When was he appointed and what salary does he receive ?
3.	Does he give personal supervision to the duties of his office?
4.	Where does he reside?
Mr. BRODEUR.: 


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. No wage schedule is attached to dredging contracts, but a proviso inserted to the effect that the contractor agrees

and binds himself to pay to the workmen engaged in the said work, such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade, for competent workmen in the district where the works are to be carried out.
3.	No information in the department.
4.	Should representations regarding specific cases be made, the department would take matter up with a view to assisting the employee.


RAILWAY FROM NORTH SYDNEY TO SYDNEY MINES.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	What is the length of the branch railway from North Sydney to Sydney Mines?
2.	What is the total cost to date?
3.	What was the cost of the right of way?
4.	What amount was paid for land damages?
5.	Are there any claims outstanding unpaid? If so, what is the total amount?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	2-7 miles.
2.	$136,479.02.
3.	$24,442.69.	.
4.	$4,238.
5.	Yes ; $7,015. Now in process of settlement.


CUSTOMS EMPLOYEE AT WINDSOR.
Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: 1.	Is one Michael Dillon employed at Windsor, Ontario, by the Customs Department?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, and what is his salary and duties?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Michael Dillon is not employed at Windsor by the Customs Department.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: The name in this question should be Michael J. Walsh instead of Michael Dillon.


William Paterson: That is the difficulty. Bring up the question again with the right name, and I will make inquiry.


LAND SITE FOR SANDWICH POST OFFICE.
Herbert Sylvester Clements: From whom was purchased the land site of the Sandwich post office, and what price was paid for it by the government?


William Pugsley: From A. T. Healy for $1,700.


CUSTOMS OFFICER AT WINDSOR.
Herbert Sylvester Clements: .
1.	Is one J. A. Pepin connected with the customs at Windsor?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, what was his age at the time of appointment, what is his salary, and what are his present duties?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	Mr. J. A. Pepin is not connected with the customs at Windsor. Mr. Joseph N. Pepin is an officer of customs at that port.
2.	First employed in June, 1907, appointed by order in council from 1st January, 1908 ; age 64 years ; salary $700 a year. His duties are those of a preventive officer of customs.


WHARF AT SCOTCH TOWN, NEW BRUNSWICK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILMOT-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Has application been made to the Department of Public Works for the construction of a wharf at Scotch Town, Queen's County, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, has the department ordered a survey of site and specification for building a wharf at this locality? If so, what is the nature of such report?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) For a wharf, 470 feet long to 7 feet depth of water, the cost will be $4,900.


FRITZ CIRKEL, MINING ENGINEER.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Is Fritz Cirkel, of Montreal, in the employ of the government of Canada?
2.	Has the attention of the. government been called to a recent advertisement about the 26th of February last, in the Montreal 'Herald,' which quotes a report of this gentleman and describes him as follows:-
Fritz Cirkel, Esq., of Montreal, consulting mining engineer and mining expert to the Dominion government, who lately made an inspection of the said property, concluded his report as follows:-
3.	Is this gentleman mining expert to the Dominion government, as represented in this advertisement ?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: 1.	Fritz Cirkel has for four years been temporarily employed by the Mines branch.
2.	No, but the director of mines had his attention called to an advertisement in the ' Bulletin ' issued by the Canadian Mining Institute, in which Mr. Cirkel is represented as 1 mining expert to the Dominion government.' The director has already called the attention of parties concerned to the advertisement and requested that it be withdrawn.
3.	Mr. Cirkel has for four years been employed temporarily as outside expert doing special work. He is the author of the following reports for the government: ' Mica, its occurrence, exploitation and uses,' ' Asbestos, its occurrence, exploitation and uses,' * Graphite, its properties, occurrence,

refining and uses,' ' Iron ore deposits of the Ottawa Valley, Quebec side,'* ' Chrome iron ore deposits of eastern townships.'*
*The last two reports are not yet ready for distribution.


MAIL CONTRACT, DIGBY TO WESTPORT.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	What is the name and residence of the person carrying the mail between Digby, Nova Scotia, and Westport, Digby County, Nova Scotia?
2.	Is said carrier under contract to carry the mail? If so, when were tenders called for, and at what d-ate do they expire?
3.	If the present contract expires June the 30th, does the government intend to give the customary three months'' notice to people wishing to tender?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Estate of the late W. H. Eldridge of Sandy Cove, Digby county, Nova Scotia.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) In June 1900. The contract was renewed in 1904 and expires 30th June, 190S.
3.	A renewal of the contract has been offered to the widow of the late contractor, who is now performing the service.


DREDGING AT CHICOUTIMI.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Was any dredging done at Chicoutimi last season ? If so, who' were the contractors, and were tenders - invited for the work?
2.	How many tenders were received, and who were the different parties tendering therfor ?
3.	What was the rate paid per yard, what was the nature of material dredged, and to what depth was dredging done?
4.	Who was the local inspector of the work?
5.	How^ much was the total sum paid to the contractor for work so done, and was such amount in full of all work? If not, what balance is due to the contractor for said work?


Hon. W. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) General Construction Company. (cl Yes.
2.	(a) Three. (b) General Construction Company, M. Connolly, Dominion Dredging Company.
3.	(a) 34 cents, (b) Mud, clay, sand, chips and sawdust, (c) 12 to 15 feet at Chicoutimi ; 15 to 25 feet at Chicoutimi wharf.
4.	H. Magnan.
5.	$14,070.78, paid in full.


NEW BARRACKS AT TORONTO.
Mr. MACDONELL asked :: 1.	Has the Militia Department approved of the plans, &c., for the new barracks at Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
Toronto? If so,( when and what is the cause of the delay in the Public Works Department ?
2.	How many officers, non-commissioned officers and men, respectively, are being provided with living accommodation outside of the barracks, and for what reason ?
3.	Wlvat has been the total annual expenditure for such purposes for the last three fiscal years, including the present year?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	Plans of eleven of the buildings required for the new barracks at Toronto were forwarded on March 7, last, by the Department of Public Works to the Department of Militia and Defence for final approval. These plans are now being considered, and will be returned to the Department of Public Works in a few days.
2.	Officers and warrant officers, 16 ; noncommissioned officers and men, 74. These are compelled to live out of barracks as there is no accommodation for them inside, pending the erection of new barracks.
3.	Annual expenditure for allowances to officers and men in lieu of quarters :
Fiscal year-[DOT]
July 1, 1905 to June 30, 1906. . $10,535 20
July 1,1906 to March 31,1907..	8,149 20
(Nine months.)
April 1, 1907 to March 31, 1908 13,125 60
No payments have as yet been made for the current fiscal year.


TRAP-NET LICENSES.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	How many trap-net licenses in the district of John 'A. Weber, Chester, Nova Scotia. have been taken out in the year 1906?
2.	How many trap-net licenses in the district of John A. Webber, Chester, Nova Scotia, have been taken out in the year 1907?
3.	What are the names of those who paid for these licenses?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	No trap-net licenses were issued in this district in 1906.
When the decision of the Imperial Privy Council on the Fisheries Reference secured to the provincial governments the property interests in the fisheries, which involved the issue of leases and licenses for fishing privileges, it declared the clause empowering the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to issue licenses, to be ultra vires, where the right already existed by law.
The department, however, by tacit admission and tentative arrangement with the local government continued to issue licenses as formerly, pending final settlement of the question.

A gradual disposition grew up among the fishermen in this district to interpret the law for themselves and to fish trap-nets without licenses, and eventually a decision was rendered in the county court denying the right of this department to issue such licenses, which strengthened the hands of the fishermen in their contentions.
The department held, however, that subsection 7 of section 47 of the Fisheries Act, chapter 45 of the revised statutes, was to be interpreted as a prohibition of a method of fishing, not necessarily involving the abstract question of proprietary rights ; but merely giving the minister authority under certain conditions to legalize the operation of a trap-net, which was prohibited by the Act without his permission, whereas section 8 authorizing the minister to grant licenses as such, essayed to take power of a proprietary character.
Hence while he may not grant a license in the proprietary sense of the word, he could by special license or permission authorize a trap-net license, which trap could not be legally operated without his authority.
In 1906 the fishermen did not take out licenses, and early in 1907 the officer asked what course he was to follow for that year, and he was instructed to compel the fishermen to take out licenses, or remove their trap-nets with the assistance of one of the fishery protection cruisers.
2.	Eighty-four trap-net licenses were issued in the year 1907.
3.	William Levy & Co., Amos Fleet & Co., John Roast & Co., Benjamin Levy & Co., Jacob Seaboyer & Co., Gabriel Levy & Co., Cyrus Young & Co., Simeon Young & Co., Isaac Newton & Co., Joshua Mason & Co., David Baker & Co.. Jeremiah Levy & Co., Alvin Cross & Co., Stephen Cross and Benjamin I-Ieisler, Wesley Young & Co., Stephen Cross and Benjamin Heisler, Hibbard Baker and Frank Baker, Wesley Young & Co., Harry and Arthur Publicover, Harry and Percy Young, Ellis, Cross & Co., Alexander Wilsou and Albert Cross, Reuben and Howard Mason, Dennis Pearl and Sebastian Cross, Charles Cross & Co., Willis Levy & Co., Stephen Cross and Benjamin Heisler, Daniel Await and Co., Alexander Wilson and Hezikiah Slaughenwhite, Reuben Fleet & Co., Colin Heisler and Rufus Wilson, Ozen Hubley, David Baker & Co., Ernest Covey & Co., David Baker & Co., Ephriam Meisner and Joseph Pearl, Har-' ris, Publicover & Co., Colin Heisler and Rufus Wilson, Nathauial Levy & Co., Stanley Langille & Co., Reuben and Stephen Cross, Alexander Wilson and David Young, Daniel Baker and Zenas Rodenhiser, Denis Pearl and Joseph Wilnoff, Robert Schnare & Co., Albert Levy & Co.. David Gates & Co., Charles Nass & Co., James Boutilier &
Co., Willis Boutilier & Co., David Moland, George and Henry Gates, Albert Young, James Heisler and Samuel Ernst, Albert Young & Co., Austin Cleveland, M. Cleveland & Co., Albert Young & Co., William Gates & Co., B. and E. Publicover, James Sawler & Co., Thomas Misner & Co., David Cleveland & Co., Harvey Young & Co., Zenas Misner & Co., Harvey Young & Co., Wesley Young & Co., Amos Stephens & Co., William Manuel & Co., T. Roast & Co., Frank Baker & Co., Alvin Cross & Co., George and Sydney Coolen, Salem Coolen & Co., William T. Hornish, James W. Morash, William L. Hornish, Jackson Young & Co., William D. Jollymore & Co., Levy Coolen & Co., Salem Coolen & Co., Alfred Jordan & Co., Joseph Dominic & Co., Isaac Ray & Co., Jeremiah Dominey.


SALE OF HOMESTEADS.
Mr. LAKE asked :: ![DOT] To whom and under what terms, specifying by homestead, sale, or otherwise, were the even-numbered sections in township 13, range 13, west second meridian, disposed of by. the government?
2. Were any sections or parts of sections marked in the books of the Interior Department as reservedJ for any person at any time? If so, for whom and for what reasons were they so reserved?


Hon. F. OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1. Township 13, range 13, west 2nd meridian.
NEi 2, homestead, W. G. Raper, patented 28th August, 1906.
NW| 2, homestead, Leonard Knapp, patented 4th January, 1907.
SEI 2, homestead, A. G. Raper, patented 11th August, 1900.
SWJ 2, homestead, A. P. Knapp, patented 5th November, 1906.
NEi 4, homestead, Wm. Morgan, patented 27th March, 1906.
NWi 4, half-breed scrip, Donald McLeod, patented 31st July, 1902, Jas. Gardiner and
D.	J. Wilson.
SEI 4, homestead, Patrick Curran.
SWi 4, half breed scrip, Sara McLeod, patented 31st July, 1902, Jas. Gardiner, et al.
NEJ 6, halfbreed scrip, Angus McLeod, patented 14th August, 1902, Jas. Gardiner and D. J. Wilson.
SI of nwj 6, halfbreed scrip, Donald McLeod, patented 31st July, 1902, Jas. Gardiner et al.
NI of nwj 6, lialfbreed scrip, Angus McLeod, patented 14th August, 1902, J. Gardiner et al.
SI of sei 6, halfbreed scrip, F. Desriviers, patented 12th August, 1902, Jas. Gardiner et al.


COMMONS '208
[Stage Direction]
NJ of se|- 6, homestead, ffm. R. McLel-lan.
SWJ, homestead, Wilbert Lloyd, patented 20th January, 1906.
Section S.: 
Mr OLIVER.: NEi 20, halfbreed scrip, J. B. Corrigal, patented 8th June 1903, D. Peterson.
Wi of swi, halfbreed scrip, Patrice J. Fleury, patented 20th February, 1903, D. Peterson.
Ei of swi, halfbreed scrip, John B. Cor-rigal.
Section 22, sale, Wm. G. Livingston, patented 16th September, 1903.
NEJ 24, homestead, Chas. Gardner.
NWi 24, halfbreed scrip, R, D. E. J. Bruce, patented 22nd November, 1902, Jas. Porter.
SEi 24, halfbreed scrip, Z. Lepine, patented 5th September, 1905, C. M. Weiss.
Ni of swi 24, half breed scrip, R. D. E. J. Bruce, patented 22 November, 1902, Jas. Porter.
Si of swi 24, halfbreed scrip, Ewen McDonald, patented 5th May, 1903, Jas. Porter.
NEJ 26, homestead, Arthur Draper, patented 6th March, 1906.
Wi and sej 26, Hudson Bay Company, title passed 4th April, 1884.
Section 28, sale patented 16th September, 1903, W. G. Livingston.
NEi 30, halfbreed scrip, Elizabeth J. Kennedy, patented 20th February, 1903, D. Peterson.
Ei of nwi 30, halfbreed scrip, Elizabeth J. Kennedy, patented 20th February, 1903, D. Peterson.
Ei of nwj 30, halfbreed scrip, Elizabeth J. Kennedy, patented 20th February, 1903, D. Peterson.
Wi of nwi 30, halfbreed scrip, Isidore Parenteau, patented 20th February, 1903, D. Peterson.
SEi 30, halfbreed scrip, Isidore Parenteau, patented 20th February, 1903, D. Peterson.
SWJ 30, halfbreed scrip, Isidore Parenteau, patented 20th February, 1903, D. Peterson.
Section 32, sale, Wm. G. Livingston, patented 16th September, 1903.
NEi 34, homestead. M. Hack, jr.
NWJ 34, homestead, Conrad Schneider.
SWJ 34, homestead, Richard Schmidt, patented 25th March, 1907.
SEi 34, homestead, L. A. Barnett, patented 18th April, 1908.
NEJ 36, homestead, J. J. Olmstead, patented 10th May, 1906.
NWJ 36, homestead, Walter Olmstead, patented 7tli May, 1906.
SEJ 36, homestead, J. R. Annis, patented 7th February, 1906.
SWJ 36. homestead, W. A. Olmstead, patented 12th April, 1906.
2,	Yes. Sections 22, 28. 32 and wi of section 14 were reserved in 1902 for Mr. W. G. Livingston, of Winnipeg, to whom they were subsequently sold under order in council of 4th June, 1902.

Section 16, 20,30 and sel of section 14 were reserved in 1902 for 30 days for Mr. William Peterson, of Regina, to have halfbreed scrip located thereon.


LANDS APPLIED FOR UNDER IRRIGATION REGULATIONS.
Mr. HERRON asked:: 1.	What lands, if any, situated between Bow and Belly rivers, and within ranges 15 and 24, inclusive, west of the fourth meridian, have been applied for under irrigation regulations by Mr. A.ylwin or others?
2.	When were such lands first reserved for such purposes, and are they still reserved fro.m settlement ?
3.	What steps, if any, have been taken by Mr Aylwin or others to develop such lands, and what lias been the expenditure made by such parties in connection with such development?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	F. P. Aylwin applied to purchase townships 14, 15, 16 and 17, range 16; townships 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, range 17; townships 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, range 18; townships 13, 14, 15 and 16, range 19, west of the 4th meridian, all west of the Bow river, excluding a belt of two miles along the river.
M. S. Rutherford applied to purchase townships 12 and 13, range 13; townships 11, 12 and 13, range 14; townships 12, 13 14 and 15, range 15; townships 12, 13, 14 and 15, range 16, west of the 4th meridian.
John Cowdry applied to purchase townships 12 and 13, range 12; townships 11, 12, 13 and 14, range 13; townships 11, 12, 13 and 14, range 14; townships 11, 12, 13 and 14, range 15; townships 12, 13 and 14, range 16.
E.	H. and A. O. Ross applied to purchase townships 12 and 13, range 12; townships 11, 12 and 13, range 13; townships 11, 12, 13 and 14, range 14; townships 12, 13 and 14, range 15; townships 12, 13, 14 and 15, range 16, all west of the 4th meridian.
2.	The only lands reserved were those applied for by P. P. Aylwin,. which were reserved on the 20th May, 1907.
3.	Mr. Aylwin has expended $593.70 to cover the cost of having his survey of this irrigation scheme checked and examined by the Commissioner of Irrigation.


PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OP ROSS RIFLE SINCE JANUARY 1, 1908.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1.	How much has been paid to the Ross Rifle Company by the Militia Department since January 1, i908, and what are the dates of such payments?
2.	Which payments are made for completed rifles and which on progress estimates?


Hon.   S@: 
HEATH POINT LIGHTHOUSE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Did the government give a contract for rebuilding or work on Heath Point lighthouse tower, to E. A. Wallberg or the Steel Concrete Company? If eo, what was the contract price ?
2.	Has the contract been completed?
3.	How much has been paid to date on said contract ?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes. $6,095.
2.	No.
3.	$3,000.


LESSEES OF GRAZING RANCHES.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1. What are the names and addresses of the lessees of	grazing ranches	Nos.	2861,	2860,2867,	2810,	2811, 2816, 3075,	2921,	3035,	29712945,	3056,	2944, 3070, 2963,	3097,	3196,	3205,2955,	2973,	within the tract described as
townships 12 to 19, inclusive, in ranges 15 to 21, west of the fourth meridian?
2. What are the names and adresses of the present holders of these ranches?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 7.	What was the total cost of the work?
8.	Who was the inspector of the work, and how much has he been paid to date?


Hon. Wm. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1. M. Keefe.
Ranche
No.
2860
2810
2816
2921
2971
3056
3070
3097
3205
2973
Grantee.
Address.
Present; Holder.
Address.
John Cowdry	
Samuel Young	
John Cowdry	
Frank Levasseur	
E.	B. Stone	
H. L. & E. A. Robertson W. H. Moore dal


Victor A.: Morgan	
W. R. Hull


John E.: Reid	
John Lavell	
J. M. Williams	
F.	B. Park


Henry S.: Jones	
J. B. Kelly & A. L. Palmer.
J. E. James & W. L. Messurier.
C. M. Fletcher....	...
P. Burns & Co	
H. O. Bredin .. .[DOT]....
J. L. Marion	
McLeod, Alta
II		
Pincher Creek	
London, Ont., and Lethbridge.
Bassano, B,C	
Care of J. C. Scott, Toronto.
Lethbridge	
Calgary	
Brooks, Alta	
Bowville, Alta	
Bassano, B.C	
Medicine Hat Bassano, B.C..
Calgary	
Bassano, B.C	
Lethbridge	-..
John Cowdry	
Samuel Young	
John Cowdry	
Frank Lavasseur... E. B. Stone	
Cancelled 13-3-'08- W. H. Moore et al..
Macleod, Alta.
Pincher Creek.
London, Ont., and Lethbridge.
Care of J. C. Scott, To-


Victor A.: Morgan...	ronto. Lethbridge.
W. R. Hull 		Calgary.


John S.: Wilcox		Brooks, Alta.
John Lavell		H
J. M. Williams.		Bowville, Alta.
F. B. Park		Bassano, B.C.
	
Patrick Burns		Calgary.
James & Messurier..	Bassano, B.C.
0. M. Fletcher		,,
P. Burns & Co		Calgary.
H. O. Bredin		Bassano, B.C.
J. L. Marion		Lethbridge.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY STATION AT TRURO.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	Does the government consider the sanitary conditions of the railway station at Truro suitable for the employees to work in, and are the same conditions suitable for the public ?
2.	Is it the intention of the department to commence the erection of a new station suitable for this important junction this year?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The department is aware of the fact that the station buildings at Truro are old, but is not advised of any danger to the public health in consequence thereof.
2.	The matter is being considered. Large expenditures have to be made in connection with the new freight yard, &c., at that place.


CUSTOMS HOUSE AT HALIFAX.
Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	Who was awarded the contract for the customs house at Halifax?
2.	How many tenders were received?
3.	Who were the tenderers, and the amount of each tender, respectively?
4.	When -was the work to be completed?
5.	Were there any extras allowed the contractor?
6.	Was the work of the contractor entirely satisfactory?


Mr. LENNOX.: 2.	Four.	-
3.	Mr. Keefe, Halifax, N.S., $250,000: Sullivan and Langdon, Kingston, Ontario, $254,512; Rhodes, Curry & Co., Amherst, N.S,. $254,795 ; S. M. Brookfield. Halifax, N.S., $292,244.
4.	September 15, 1904.
5.	Minor extras to extent of $728.07 were paid on the main contract on which the amount of $8,072 is still held.
6.	No.
7.	$317,732.85 (inclusive of site, $24,000). I take it for granted that my bon. friend did not intend to ask what would be the total cost when the work is finally completed, but what is the total cost to date, and the answer is framed accordingly.
8.	(a) W. J. Busch, architect, (b) $4,130.95.
DREDGING AT MOUTH OF BECANCOUR .	RIVER.


Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	When were the dredging works at the mouth of the Becancour river, in the county of Nicolet, done in 1907, commenced?
2.	How many cubic yards were dredged?
3.	At how much per yard?
4.	How many days was the tug ' Alpha * employed in such dredging?
5.	What sum per day was paid for the use of that vessel hv the company to the government?

6.	From whom did- the ' Alpha ' receive instructions or authorization to do its part of that work?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	.Tune 8.
2.	101,962 cubic yards.
3.	Sixteen cents.
4.	From July 27, to September 3, 1907.
5.	The company obtained the use of the boat on trial under offer of sale on condition that all expenses including wages, fuel board and supplies were paid during the period the boat was in their possession.
6.	No special instructions were given other than as mentioned in the answer to No. 5.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-MAJOR HODGINS' CHARGES.
[Stage Direction]
Rt. bon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved :
That the memorandum of the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister, of date the 23rd April, and laid on the table of this House on the 24th instant, and the papers accompanying the same, be referred to a special committee of five members, with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned, and that the said committee be composed of Messrs: Carvell, Macdonald (PiCtou), Geoffrion, Barker and Lennox, and that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: There should also be power given to the committee to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation as otherwise the committee would have no power to do so. I would suggest further if it is the intention to deal with all the matters and charges which have been put forward in the statements purporting to emanate from Major Hodgins which have appeared in the public press, that it should be so stated in the resolution. I observe that the memo, which has been placed upon the table of the House from the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission refers to an article contained in the Manitoba ' Free Press ' and a similar article in the Ottawa ' Citizen.' In the press of British Columbia the statements of Major Hodgins were set out at very considerable length and in very considerable detail, so much so that the observations of the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission as to their vague and indefinite character would not seem to apply, because I observe that the Vancouver ' World,' after referring to the great weight which the words of Major Hodgins would carry in the province of British Columbia, uses this language :
We do not know that more serious oharges of robbery of the public treasury have ever been brought before the public of Canada.
There are no general statements made on hearsay, but specific allegations which can be proved or disproved, put forward by a man thoroughly familiar with the circumstances.
I would suggest therefore to the right hon. gentleman that there should be added to the resolution after the words ' therein mentioned' -on the last line of the resolution as it appears on page 10 of the Order Paper, these words :
Or set forth in the statements purporting to emanate from Major A. E. Hodgins which have appeared in the public press.
These should be added so that we may be sure, in sending the matter to the committee that we are dealing with all the charges and matters which have been alleged by this gentleman who has occasioned the action which the Prime Minister has taken.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I do no.t know that I would be justified at this moment in enlarging the motion which I have just brought to the attention of the House. The action which I have taken was upon the suggestion of my hon. friend who drew my attention to this matter, and we took action upon the reports which were available at that time. If there is any thing more it ought to be a matter for further consideration. I have never even seen the newspapers to which my hon. friend refers. -


Robert Laird Borden: I am not asking for any thing more to be Introduced. In bringing the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister I referred to statements made in newspapers in eastern Canada, which as I understand summarized the statements made by Major Hodgins and which had appeared at greater length and in greater detail in the press of British Columbia. All that I am now suggesting is that the motion should be so framed as to include all the matters and charges which were actually mentioned or made and which were referred to but not set out in the press of eastern Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly, any statement that has been made though not actually stated in detail ought to be taken in, and as I understand it myself at all events, it is being included in the resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: All I am in doubt about is whether or not the newspaper clippings attached to the communication from Mr. Parent contain the actual statements and charges put forward by Major Hodgins in British Columbia. In order to make that perfectly sure I was suggesting an amendment, not with the idea of adding any thing further but merely with a desire of including all the charges and statements that were actually made before I brought the matter to the attention of the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: The intention of the motion is certainly to deal with all the charges of Major Hodgins.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to look at the motion and see whether he is quite sure of that.
Sir WILFRID* LAURIER. Not having seen the paper I am sorry that I cannot express any opinion at the moment. Perhaps I had better allow the matter to stand until to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: I can furnish to the Prime Minister some British Columbia papers which contain the statement as originally made ; he could look over these and see whether all these matters are covered.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The motion stands.


MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved third reading of Bill (No. 149) to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
Mr. DAVID MARSHALL (East Elgin).: I would like to ask the minister if he intends by this Bill to do away with the name of the packer on the label. I understand that is the intention of the Bill.


Mr. FISHER.: I think the hon. gentleman's way of putting it is far too sweeping. It does not necessarily do away with the name of the packer, but it does permit the first purchaser from the packer to put his name on the label instead of the packer.


David Marshall: Then I may tell the minister that is the greatest mistake he ever made.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not make it. It was an amendment moved in committee, not by me, and adopted by the House.


David Marshall: It seems a pity to put laws on this statute-book one year and change them the next year, when they are proper laws. The canning industry in this country is a large industry and is likely to increase. It seems to me there would be no object in improving the quality of the goods unless the name of the packer is on the label, and it certainly protects the consumer. I have some special labels here which I will send over to the minister so that he may see them. We do not object to a special label but I believe the name of the packer should be on the label in every case. Some times these goods are sent out and they change hands two or three times and if the name of the packer is not on it is a very easy thing for the man behind the counter to say even unintention-Mr. R. L. BORDEN
ally they were packed by a certain firm when such might not be the case. In the interest of the business I would regret very much to see this change take place for I believe it would be a setback to the trade. I hope the minister will consider that well. We have no objection to the wholesale trade using special labels but we think the name of the packer is the best protection to the consumer. The Act of last year which provided that the name of the packer should be on the label was a good Act, and I was in sympathy with it and I regret now that it is proposed to change it. Speaking on behalf of the Canadian canners I may tell you that we are not sending 1,000 cases to the old country to-day except those which contain our own label and I say that is the best advertisement that the canned goods of this country can have. I again urge that the law should provide that the name of the packer should be on the label, if only for the purpose of protecting the consumer.


Mr. A. ZIMMERMAN (Hamilton).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Marshall) has not advanced one argument why the respectable and responsible Canadian wholesale dealers who have advertised and established the reputation of their labels for the past thirty years should not be allowed to use them as in the past. I can readily understand that the Canadian canners which the hon. gentleman represents would derive very great advantage from a law which provided that the name of the canner should be on the label. Now, the first object and design of this law is to protect the public. That is the object of the Act. The wholesale dealers -always had canneries of their own until of late years when they have sold them out to the Canadian canners who have some thirty-five or forty canneries under their company at the present time. Two or three of these canneries have worked up great names for themselves in the past, but the public have no guarantee that they are getting the goods of these particular canneries even when they ask for them ; the Canadian canners can take the canned goods of any of their canneries and place on them the name of the favourite cannery.
As to the question of responsibility, we know that the wholesale grocers are among the most substantial business concerns in Canada, much more responsible than many of the small packers. If the wholesale grocers are compelled to put the name of the canners on the goods, the effect would be to practically wipe out the whole business of the small canner as it would not pay the wholesale dealer to have his labels printed except in large quantity, and if the name of the cannery must be put on, then the wholesaler would practically be compelled to purchase his goods from the Canadian canners. In the past the wholesale

grocers have bought their canned goods from perhaps a dozen different canneries under their own special supervision. They are bound to have their goods of the very highest quality, and when the wholesale grocers put their own names on the cans it is a guarantee to the public that they are getting first class goods.


David Marshall: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong when he says-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is not a question, that is the statement of fact.


David Marshall: Does the hon. member know of his own knowledge that these special brands have been in use for 20 or 30 years ?


Adam Zimmerman: I do.


David Marshall: Name the label ?


Adam Zimmerman: I am not prepared to name the label.


David Marshall: I thought you were not.


Adam Zimmerman: Rut I know and you know that such firms as Balfour & Company, James Turner & Company, of Hamilton, have used their labels for many years.


David Marshall: I do not know that and I am correct when I say that these special labels have not been used longer than seven years. I have the dates when their use was commenced, I know what I am talking about. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Zimmerman) does not really understand it; they have not been using these labels for twenty or thirty years. I am speaking of fruit and vegetable labels.


Adam Zimmerman: Mr. Speaker


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member (Mr. Marshall) should not interrupt another member who has the floor except with his consent. That is the rule.


Adam Zimmerman: The system of labels that have been used by the wholesale grocers-


David Marshall: I would like to ask another question. In which way would the public be most protected, by having the name of the canner, the man who packs the goods, or the name of the wholesale dealer on the packages ?


Adam Zimmerman: Unquestionably by having the name of the wholesale dealer. The wholesale trade have established a large business all over the country in their special brands or labels and the system has worked well. They have spent large sums of money on these labels and to require that the name of the packer should be placed on the can practically means confiscation of one of the most valuable assets of the wholesale grocer.
220J


David Marshall: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the canners allow the cost of these labels when they puc them on ? The wholesale man is not at the loss of the labels.


Adam Zimmerman: I am aware that they allow a certain percentage. That is not the point.


David Marshall: I understood his argument to be there was a great loss on the labels.


Adam Zimmerman: No, I say the loss would be in the confiscation of a valuable advertised asset, an asset on which the wholesale grocer has worked up a large business during many years. That business has been established on a particular label, the trade have been well satisfied with the goods they have received, and now if you compel the name of the canner to go on these packed goods, it simply means confiscation of the wholesale grocers' most valuable asset.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it make any serious difference if you place on the label : Canned by so and so for such a wholesale firm ?


Adam Zimmerman: Certainly, as practically every wholesale grocer would have to go to the Canadian canners to get his goods and they would be practically selling the same goods.


David Marshall: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken ; they would not have to go to the Canadian canners, for there are more goods packed outside of Canadian canners than they are packing. Why do they want these special labels put on certain packages ? Because these goods have been before the public and have a reputation. When they send in their orders to the Canadian canners, they say : We want them labelled as packed at Aylmer-or some other point where the goods have a reputation.


Adam Zimmerman: 
David Marshall: Then why does the new packer always want to use his own

label ? Is it not because be wishes to get established, to get his goods out ? It is the new packer who wants to use his own label.


Adam Zimmerman: All I can say is that the present system has been very satisfactory so far as concerns getting goods put up by_ the wholesale grocers under their own private labels. It has worked well, the public have been protected, the policy has been successful and under it a large special business has been worked up. It has also enabled the small packers to establish a successful business. If you insist on the packer's name going on all these goods, it is no more protection to the consumer than having the name of the wholesale grocer on them, and it means confiscation of one of the most valuable assets of the wholesale grocer in his special label.


David Marshall: The hon. gentleman is mistaken entirely.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman has exercised his right to speak on this motion.


Adam Zimmerman: I have had the floor


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order. The hon. gentleman has also exercised nis right.


Mr. R. G. MACPHERSON (Vancouver City).: It seems to me that the hon. member for East Elgin, for whose opinion in this matter I have every possible regard, is unnecessarily alarmed over this suggested amendment. The section provides that these articles shall be marked with :
(a) The initials of the Christian names, the full surname, and the address, or, in the case of a firm or corporation, the firm or corporate name and address, of the packer.
and the amendment comes in here :
Or of the first dealer obtaining it direct from the packer who sells or offers the same for .sale. Such dealer shall, upon request of the inspector, disclose the name of the packer of such article.
Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Marshall) the reason for this amendment. I received from the Wholesale Grocers' Guild of the province of British Columbia a resolution passed at the last meeting, pointing out that the majority of them had been operating on specific labels more particularly for canned salmon. For a number of years, it has been the custom for the wholesaler' to go to a small packer of salmon and purchase his output. The packer does not label the goods, but they are labelled by the wholesaler with his own brand, and the wholesaler assumes full responsibilty for the purity of the article, and is held responsible under this amendment. Without this amendment, the packer would be obliged to put his name on the can. Now, John Jones
may have been the packer last year


David Marshall: 


David Marshall: I think canned fish does not come under the operation of this section.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Fish is subject to the provisions of the law under section 12.


Robert George Macpherson: I was pointing out that the wholesale dealer puts his label on the can. For instance, a man deals in what he calls the 'Sunset' brand of-canned salmon, using that brand for years and buying his canned salmon, possibly, from four or five different canners. This is necessary for the reason that a good run of salmon in a certain river one year may mean a poor run next year, making it necessary for the wholesaler to go to a different part of British Columbia for his canned salmon next year. '


David Marshall: I understand you to say that he would not be able to use the same packer, and so his labels would' be a loss. But you could overcome that by putting on a narrow strip ' packed by so and so ' upon the label.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend and I are working on the same lines ; we want somebody held responsible for the quality of the goods. But this is not a question of changing a label, but it is a question of maintaining a dealer's right in his own brand. A man may have built up a reputation for a certain brand of canned salmon. Under the present Act, he cannot operate in that way. Last year, for instance, the salmon was packed by John Jones ; this year it is packed by Smith and Brown. Cans thus differently marked might be put upon the same shelf, and my hon. friend will understand that this is a position that the wholesale grocers of British Columbia desire to escape. And I think that their position in the matter is very laudable and very fair.


David Marshall: Are all the wholesale people in British Columbia in sympathy with this ?


Robert George Macpherson: Yes.


David Marshall: Are you not mistaken in that ?


Robert George Macpherson: 1 have received a letter from the Wholesale Grocers' Guild of British Columbia on the subject. I am sorry I have not that letter with me-


David Marshall: The reason I ask is that one wholesale house in Vancouver particularly did not want this.


Robert George Macpherson: There may be one firm. But I have had several letters on the subject, including the one of which I speak, from the Secretary of the Wholesale Grocers' Guild which comprises practically all the wholesale dealers in British Columbia. Of course, my hon. friend wil understand that I am not working for any particular

grocer. I know that the wholesale grocers will be placed at a disadvantage or compelled to operate under the present section 12 of the Act.


David Marshall: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question :	If you
were buying a case of Cross & Blackwell's goods, or of Heinz's or of Snider's ketchup, would not you want to see their names on the goods ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would remind hon. members in speaking, they must address the chair.


David Marshall: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it is hard for me, apparently, to make myself clear, and this is a very important question.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend (Mr. Marshall) is right. If I asked for Crosse & Blackwell's goods, I would want to get what I asked for. Why ? Because, in the course of a long period of years, they have built up a reputation for their goods.


David Marshall: Well, here is a company that has been packing for twenty-four or twenty-five years. We have a reputation for our goods and do not want to give it away. Our position is just the same as that of Crosse & Blackwell.


Robert George Macpherson: I appreciate that. You put your label on the goods. You do not send out your goods under-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member (Mr. Macpherson) is doing exactly what I objected to a moment ago.


Robert George Macpherson: I beg pardon of the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Marshall) does simply what the wholesale grocers of British Columbia are doing. If I know anything of the canning industry of Canada, I know that the people who have established a reputation for their labels desife to have their brands maintained. My hon. friend suggested that if I ask for Crosse & Blackwell's goods I want them. Yes, and if I ask for the Clover Leaf brand of salmon, I want it, irrespective of the identity of the actual packer. It does not matter that it has been packed by one firm and labelled by another. The firm that labels the good's is as desirous of keeping its business intact and not letting anybody else know where they get this canned salmon as Crosse & Blackwell are to keep people from infringing on their label. But my hon. friend will see that the present Act makes that impossible. I cannot see how any harm could accrue to the man who buys or to the canner, through this amendment relating to the ' first dealer.'


David Marshall: But the harm is to the consumer, and it is the consumer we want to protect.


Robert George Macpherson: I took the staud last year that there should be the name of some responsible party upon the canned salmon. Until last year there was no responsible name upon the canned salmon, because, in many instances, the goods were packed, labelled and sent out without any individual name on the can.


Mr. ALCORN.: As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) reads the amendment, is it clear that the canner's label may be on the can or that of the first purchaser ?


Robert George Macpherson: Yes.


George Oscar Alcorn: Would the first purchaser be authorized to tear off the label of the packer and put on his own ?


Robert George Macpherson: I fancy that he would ecme under the operation of the criminal code if he attempted to do that. Of course, I am not a lawyer.


George Oscar Alcorn: This would seem to authorize it.


Robert George Macpherson: I do not think so. But the point I am trying to bring out-and I am sorry that this is not in committee, for I would like my hon. friend from Elgin to have the fullest opportunity for discussing it


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 18 provides against the difficulty suggested by the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn).


Robert George Macpherson: Section 18 says :
Every person who, not being an inspector, wilfully ajters. effaces, or obliterates, or causes to be altered, effaced or obliterated, wholly or partially, anv mark on any article which has undergone inspection shall incur a penalty of one hundred dollars.
That, I fancy, would cover. But what I am trying to point out is that the man who has established a reputation for a brand of canned salmon finds that brand practically wiped out under this law unless he can go into the canning business himself. If he is not in a position to do so, but goes into the open market, buys a pack of canned salmon, has it inspected and has his label put on it, that is a guarantee that the article is sound and fit for food.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I understand it, there may be a failure of the catch, so that the dealer is not able to procure his supply from the same packer as in a former year, and may even be compelled to buy from two or three packers. What guarantee is there to the public that these different packs of salmon are equally good when they are packed without the direct supervision of the wholesale men ?


Robert George Macpherson: Of course, the wholesale man comes under the operation of this Act. The wholesale purchaser is

going to be very careful, because he has established a reputation for his goods. He will see that nothing but the very best goods go out under his name. The hon. gentleman will understand that a man who has been putting up a particular kind of goods under a patent name, if he puts out an inferior article for only one year, it will injure the reputation of his goods for all time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you determine that they are up to the standard?


Robert George Macpherson: There is a physical way of doing so. All canned salmon are inspected by a provincial officer in British Columbia. I went with him last year through some of the canneries, and saw some of the salmon condemned. The man who purchases has no trouble at all in ascertaining the character of the salmon by opening a can. The operation of canning salmon is down to such a perfect science that it is almost impossible for bad salmon to be put up-except possibly in a very bad year.


Mr. BLAIN.: Does the hon. gentleman not think that the packer would be in a better position than the grocer to say as to the quality of the contents of the package ?


Robert George Macpherson: They are all subject to inspection under this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they all come up to the one standard why should one be better than another?


Robert George Macpherson: The idea is this : If you are a wholesale grocer operating in British Columbia and you have established a reputation for a certain brand of goods, and are using your own label, naturally you will be obliged to keep your goods up to the highest possible standard. But under the present operation of the Act, you could not go to three or four different canneries and buy your whole output for that year, because in one ease you would possibly buy the pack of Jones and Brown, and in another ease the pack of Smith and Robinson, all carrying a certain class of brand.


David Marshall: Does ,the hon. gentleman not think that the packer would be more particular if his own name were on the package than if he sent it out without his name?


Robert George Macpherson: I agree that the packer is going to be very particular. But we have many small packers who don't go into the market with their canned goods ; they depend entirely upon the wholesale grocer for the sale of their goods. The hon. gentleman will understand that if the wholesale grocer is obliged to go to three or four different canners, under the present operation of this Act he is obliged to buy goods that are labelled bv three or Mr. MACPHERSON.
four different men, and if he put his own label on all those goods and sent them to eastern Canada he would soon receive a black eye.


George Eulas Foster: They would have a double guarantee.


Robert George Macpherson: Possibly, and you cannot have the food you eat too well guaranteed. But the people have the guarantee of the responsible wholesale firm that these goods are pure, and they are also inspected by the government. They operate under this label and they are responsible for the goods.


Richard Blain: Would the public not have the same guarantee from the manufacturer himself under the present Bill?


Robert George Macpherson: The question of vested rights comes in. These people have operated under this label for years, but under the strict operation of this Act they cannot operate under that label any more. Everybody has been protected under this Act, the wholesaler, the canner and the user himself. I think my bon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Marshall) is unnecessarily alarmed. I agree that we should have every possible guarantee, but there can be no better guarantee than is here provided. There are many reputable wholesale grocery firms in this country whose names are synonymous for purity of goods and for fair dealing. They have operated in British Columbia for thirty or forty years under one specific label, but buying from several different factories. How unfair it would be if the vested rights of these men in their labels were wiped out, and only the packer's name should be allowed to go on the label.


David Marshall: How long has the canning business been in operation in this country ?


Robert George Macpherson: I know they have been canning fish for thirty-three years, I withdraw the words forty years. In 1877 salmon were first canned in the Fraser river. It is a question of the vested rights that a wholesale grocer has in his patent label. He has been protected by this law, and the wholesale packer is not being at all molested.


David Marshall: Who has the most money invested in this business, is it the man who supplies the label, or the man who builds a plant to put up the goods ? We do not object to special labels, but we want the packer's name to be on the label. We will put on any label they require, but we say that in the interest of the builder, and to protect the consumer, the name of the packer should be on.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend has got the wrong side of my argument. It is not a question of a label, the printing

of a label does not amount to much money; but it is a question of the vested rights of a man in goods that he has packed and sold for years. The person whose name is on the label is the man who is responsible under present conditions.


George Oscar Alcorn: British Columbia methods in the canning business must differ from those obtaining in Ontario. The business in Ontario has not been in operation for thirty or forty years, and it is impossible for the wholesale men to have acquired any such vested rights as the hon. gentleman has referred to. In Ontario the canned goods business has only been in operation for about twenty years. When the packer of the goods has placed his own label on a package, in the lapse of years that label has acquired a large money value, and it appears to me that the effort now being made to place somebody else's label on the goods ought not to succeed. It would deprive the packers of this country of the large value that they have acquired in their labels. The hon member for Hamilton speaks of the responsibility of firms. This matter of labels being placed by wholesale firms on packers' goods, is a matter of recent years. The person responsible for the contents of the can is surely the packer who has placed his label on those goods. The hon. gentleman says that the label is for the protection of the public. Well, he argues in a circle. Ever since the business has been in existence the canner has placed his label upon the goods. The public have learned to value the goods by their acquaintance with these labels placed upon them by the canners. The labels put on by the "wholesale men are a matter of recent years, and their value cannot be as great. The hon. gentleman evidently sees the force of that statement, and knows that the facts are as I have stated, because he adds that the wholesale dealers have in some instances established a canning business and have built It up, and says the public will be protected in getting the particular goods of these firms. That is precisely the case as I have put it. But the canners are the people who have the original vested rights. If there is any question of vested rights involved in this matter, it is the rights of the canner who, by lapse of time, has acquired a priority in such rights. They made the business. There was a time when there was no canning business in this country. The canners are the people who have made the business, spent the money, established the plants, gained a reputation for the goods they manufacture and established the value of their labels by trading with the public. Now, the wholesale dealers are endeavouring to take away that value which has been built up by long years of effort.


Adam Zimmerman: It is just the reverse.


George Oscar Alcorn: The hon. gentleman speaks of the wholesalers being the people who are responsible for the quality of the goods. How can they possibly give any guarantee of the quality of goods bought from a dozen different sources?


Adam Zimmerman: They have all to be subject to the same inspection.


George Oscar Alcorn: But there was a time when there was no inspection and when they bought the goods absolutely on the reputation of the packer. That is the reputation that the public desire to rely upon. They have learned to know these labels, they have learned to know the relative value of the goods, and they will be unfamiliar with the new labels put on by the wholesale men. The member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) says that it is a question of vested rights. I say: Yes, the vested rights of the packer. Surely the packers are the people who were on the scene first, they are the people who originated the business, and this is an attempt of the wholesaler to come in and take the benefit of the packers' years of work. I would certainly oppose in the strongest possible manner any amendment to the Act or any legislation which would have the effect of depriving the packer of the right to the full use of his labels and of his name for the purpose of placing his goods before the public. The public are entitled to the labels, they are acquainted with the reputation of the packer, these labels have a high money value to the packer and that money value ought not to be disturbed.


Richard Blain: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Win. Jackson):
That Bill No. H9 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
I suppose there will be no objection to allowing this Bill to go back to Committee of the Whole. There must be a considerable difference of opinion as to whether the Bill is a correct one or not, and I think it is a matter that the minister will consent to at once.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think this Bill ought to go back to Committee of the Whole. If any hon. members do not approve of any portion of the Bill they may move to strike out that clause.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, this is the third reading.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The only recourse is to move to refer it back.

Mi'. FISHER. If the hon. member wishes to refer it back for a particular purpose I would not object at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is for a particular purpose.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But that is not mentioned in the motion; the motion is simply that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: For further consideration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It means that the whole Bill shall be referred back for consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is only one clause of the Bill that there is any difference of opinion on.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman wisnes to move that this Bill be referred back for the purpose of striking out this particular amendment I have no objection, but if it is proposed to refer the whole Bill back for further consideration I would object.


Robert Laird Borden: For the purpose of considering the amendment. It may not be desired to strike it out altogether, but to modify it in some way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That particular amendment?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, that is the only one we are discussing; refer it back for the purpose of further considering that clause, whatever it is.


Robert George Macpherson: It is an amendment to clause 12.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Do you object to that?


Robert George Macpherson: I do not object to it. I am willing that the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) shall have every possible chance to express his views; still, I think he is entirely mistaken.
And the amendment proposed is as follows:
Or of the first dealer obtaining it direct from the packer who sells or offers the same for sale. Such dealer shall, upon request of the inspector, disclose the name of the packer of such article.


David Marshall: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause striking the name of the packer from the label. I am anxious to have the name of the packer put on the label. I want to say a few words about the label. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Zimmerman) said that some of these labels had been used for a number of years. I have the dates here showing the periods for which some of them have been used. The ' Triangle ' commenced to be used three years ago. The ' Tartan ' brand is the oldest in use, this label having been originated seven years ago. I am speaking only of fruit and vegetable labels.


Richard Blain: Are those a manufacturer's label or a wnolesaler's label?


David Marshall: These are what we call special labels. Every one of these labels has the name of the packer. I do not think that the Canadian canners are going to pack all these goods. They could not do it. I am speaking in the interest of the business. I am interested largely in the canned. goods business, and I am anxious to work up the quality of our goods. There is no reason why we should not be packing all the vegetables and catsups consumed in this country. There is nothing, to my mind, that will improve the quality of these goods more than putting our labels on them.


Adam Zimmerman: The wholesale groc ers do not object to the canners' name going on the goods. The packer is not compelled to sell to the wholesale grocer who insists that the name of the packer shall not be on the label.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The motion, as I understand it, is:
That Bill No. 149 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of further considering the amendment to clause 12.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went agaiii into committee on the Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 32 of the Act provides that:
All articles prepared for food in any estab lishment and packed in cans or similar re ceptacles, or in any package whatever, shal be subject to inspection during the whole course of preparation and packing; and all such packages shall be marked with-
(a) the initials of the Christian names, the full surname and the address, or, in the case ot a firm or corporation, the firm or corporate name and address of the packer Mr. SPEAKER.


David Marshall: I quite understand that, but the wholesale man will come to us and say: If you do not use our special label we will not buy your goods.


Adam Zimmerman: You are not compelled to sell to them?


David Marshall: Not at all, but what we want to do is to improve the quality of the goods. The hon. member for Hamilton knows very well that when he was in the clothing business he had a reputation for clothes. I used to buy clothes from him myself, I wanted to see his name on the goods, and it was on them. He knows as well as he is sitting here that that is the proper course to take. But, some of the wholesale men are behind him; I do not know whether it is votes he is looking after or not; but he has taken a different attitude 1 from that which he took last year.


Adam Zimmerman: No, I have always taken the same stand on this question. It is a matter of great moment to the wholesale dealer, and I will tell the hon. gentleman that when a man has worked up a large business under a specific label or trade mark it would be an outrage to take it away from him.


David Marshall: It is impossible to work up a very large business in three years.


Adam Zimmerman: The hon. gentleman is most unfair. He knows that there are lots of labels that have been used in this country.


David Marshall: Mention them.


Adam Zimmerman: I am not in a position to mention them, but the wholesale grocers from one end of the Dominion to the other are opposed to the Bill as it stands, and they have besieged members of this House with letters appealing to them to protect their vested interests in these labels. I think it is most unfair for the hon. gentleman to take advantage of his position in this House to represent his own business while the wholesale grocers, not being members of the House, are not here to defend themselves. I do trust that the hon. gentleman will not press this matter any further because the amendment is not interfering with him.


Richard Blain: The objection I see to the proposed amendment is that it creates a monopoly on the part of the wholesale dealer.


Adam Zimmerman: Not at all; it is the other way on.


Richard Blain: That may be my hon. friend's opinion.


Adam Zimmerman: It is the other way on.


Richard Blain: I have a label here which reads as follows: 'Triangle, James Turner & Co., Hamilton; put up expressly for us by the Canadian Canners', Limited.' If the amendment becomes law, James Turner & Co. will have the right to go to six different canning establishments in Canada and make an agreement for the 'Triangle' brand to go on each package.


Adam Zimmerman: What would be the objection?


Richard Blain: They would not be a uniform quality of goods because they were put up by six different canneries.


Adam Zimmerman: But he is responsible.


Richard Blain: The impression left on the consumer would be that all these goods w^ere canned in the one establishment, when as a matter of fact they would be canned in six different establishments.


Adam Zimmerman: And the Canadian canners to-day will put up the same brand in different factories.


Richard Blain: But the canner's name would be on the label. Under the proposed legislation the wholesale man can arrange with the manufacturer, and the manufacturer's name would not go on the goods, and yet he would be responsible for the contents of the can.


Adam Zimmerman: The wholesale grocer is responsible.


Richard Blain: The canner who puts up the goods is in a far better position to guarantee the contents than the wholesale dealer who never sees them.


Adam Zimmerman: They are all subject to the same inspection.


Mr. LOGGIE.: I appreciate what the hon. member (Mr. Marshall) says, but we must not forget that it is the practice all over the world for large wholesale houses to have private brands. If that be the practice in England, in Germany, in France and in the United States, there is good reason for favourably considering that we should follow it in this young country. One reason why the wholesale grocer wants his private brand is that when the brand is established he has control of his trade. Under other conditions a competitor may come in and quote the same brand, if it is not a special brand, at 2j cents a dozen less, and the impression is given that all the other goods sold by that man are sold at a lesser rate than the competitor sells them at. That may be unfair competition. It is most important in the interest of the large packers generally that their brands should go to the public and that a demand should be created for them because of their quality. But it seems to me that no great wrong can accrue to the consuming public if a wholesale house of high standing undertakes to buy these goods from the packer and put his own name on them and become responsible. He will make sure that he buys from a responsible packer.


David Marshall: If these goods turn out bad who is to pay for them?


William Stewart Loggie: As a rule the wholesale grocer must make good to the retail grocer, the retail grocer must make good to the consumer, and the packer is supposed to guarantee his goods for six months.


David Marshall: You are perfectly right, but suppose the wholesale man uses a special label on three or four dfferent packs how can you adjust the claims if the name of the packer is not on the label ?


William Stewart Loggie: Every packer has a box mark and every package of goods is identified by the case.


David Marshall: Yes, but some retail men take tbe goods out of the different cases as soon as they receive them, put them on the shelves and sell or destroy the case.


William Stewart Loggie: That may be true, and it is not an exceptional way of doing business. We have not. however, had such a stringent law as is now proposed except during the past year, and I think we can fairly well take the risk we have taken for so many years. I realize it is important to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Marshall) that his goods should go to the consuming public under his own name, but is that any Teason why some other packer who may not be as able as he is to do that should not be allowed to make a bargain with some large distributing house to put on their own label and be responsible to the consuming public?


Richard Blain: Would it not he fairer for that other packer to put his own brand on his own goods ?


William Stewart Loggie: There is nothing to prevent him from doing so.


Richard Blain: But it allows the wholesaler who is not a packer to use a label which would lead the public to believe that he put up the goods.


William Stewart Loggie: That is quite true, but all the same he has worked up a trade under that special brand and one reason for the special brand is that it prevents competition from another wholesale grocer.


George Oscar Alcorn: Upon what principle of *right or equity should a wholesale dealer be allowed to build up a value out of the goods of a canner who has created the value by his label being on these goods ?


Robert George Macpherson: He may not have created the value at all. It may be that it is the facilities which the wholesale man has for distributing the goods that creates the value.


George Oscar Alcorn: The canners of Ontario are not depending on the wholesale trade for a market for their goods. There is one very large cannery in my county which deals with no wholesaler, keeps no travellers upon the road, sells their -whole pack annually to one or two dealers in the larger centres and could sell them five times the amount if they had them.


Robert George Macpherson: I can quite believe that. This is not a question of canners and canners so far as I am concerned.


George Oscar Alcorn: That is what it seems to be developing into.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend is making it that. The canner has every right to place his name on the can. but the small canner who does not put his Mr. LOGGIE.
label on the goods has only the wholesale firms to look to for distributing them. The small mau is protected in his interest. The hon. member says that some canners will never go to the wholesale house. The same thing occurs in the fish business, a certain brand of salmon that I have in mind will sell anywhere.


George Oscar Alcorn: I cited that to show the value of the brand of that company. Those goods are sold upon that brand and upon nothing else.


Robert George Macpherson: Exactly and that is the reason I desire to have an amendment providing that the man who has established a brand but who is not a packer shall not have his label wiped out.


George Oscar Alcorn: What about the canner who has used his brand for a number of
years ?


Robert George Macpherson: This does not interfere with him. If I pack fish and desire to put my name on, this does not prevent me.


Mr. BARR.: Suppose the wholesale man covers the packer's name with his label.


Robert George Macpherson: Then he comes under the criminal code and goes to jail, which is tile proper place for him.


David Marshall: The hon. gentleman seems to think I am speaking entirely for the company in which I am interested.


Robert George Macpherson: I do not think so.


David Marshall: I am interested in the canned goods business, I am anxious to improve the quality ; I know what that means; immediately we get our standard up we can sell our goods. I want to stop American goods coming in. There is no reason why they should come in. Some of them are of better quality than ours, but to my mind nothing will stop their importation so quickly as putting the name of the packer on the goods. It musr be remembered that there are some 40 packers outside the company in which I am interested. I am not speaking for my own company, I am speaking for the interest of the business. As a matter of fact the wholesale men have nothing invested in this business. You speak of their having so much invested, but that is not the case. This adoption of the special label is not desired by all the wholesale houses themselves ; we have letters from some of them asking me to oppose it. If you want to improve the quality of your goods be sure to have your name on. The Bill that passed last year, with some amendments, is a good Bill and I would be sorry to see it interfered with because to my mind as it stands it is a move in the right direction. This proposed new measure would be setting this business back ten or fifteen years.


Robert George Macpherson: Oh no.


David Marshall: I am speaking as a practical man; I have been in the business 25 years and my whole aim has been to improve the quality of the goods. The goods I have been manufacturing for years have gone into the hon. gentleman's city and I know he has asked for that particular brand. Why ? Because he knew the goods were right. That applies to all goods properly labelled. There is nothing that will improve the quality so qqickly as placing the name of the packer on the goods. I am not talking in the interest of my company at all. I am talking in the interest of the whole canned goods business because I think it is in its infancy in this country. When the great Northwest fills up. where to-day we have 80 canneries, we will then have 180. I am sincere in what I say and I hope this Act will not be meddled with at all. I cannot speak too strongly on this question as I realize its importance.


Robert George Macpherson: I accept fully my hon. friend's statements, that he is not speaking for his canneries. I would not for a moment accuse him of that, his standing in this country is too high. But I know he is unnecessarily alarmed. I know a little about canned goods myself. I cannot speak from the practical standpoint of my hon. friend, but I know that there is no better canned fruit on the continent of America to-day than the Canadian. I was in the Santa Clara valley three years ago and met the canners there one afternoon. The statement was made there that the Santa Clara people did not put up some varieties of fruit and vegetables equal to those put up in the province of Ontario by the Canadian canners. I thought that was a very high tribute to Canadian canning. They did not speak of all classes of goods, but spoke especially of the very high class of our peas, peaches, and one or two other varieties. British Columbia possibly consumes more per capita of canned goods than any other part of Canada and there the Canadian packers have worked up a trade into which the Americans cannot cut. They are not getting in to-day excepting where the Canadians cannot supply the goods, as my hon. friend from Elgin knows. In the Dawson country, where so much canned goods are used, that applies fully ; you cannot sell American goods if they can get Canadian. My hon. friend evaded the point I tried to make, I would have him understand that this amendment is as much in the interest of the small salmon packer as of the wholesaler. The small eanner does not put his label on his goods, possibly he does not want to, and nine times out of ten he does not. The large eanner does because he has his market, but the small cauner depends on the wholesale man who has perhaps handled his output for years.


David Marshall: Is the hon. member speaking of fruit and vegetables or fish ?


Robert George Macpherson: Fish entirely.


David Marshall: That is not the case in Ontario.


Robert George Macpherson: I appreciate that, the trouble is that Canada is a large country. The canners of British Columbia and of Ontario are in the same position of desiring to see good goods on the market, but what may apply to British Columbia may not apply to Ontario. That is the' point I tried to make in regard to the operation of this clause on the canners of British Columbia. It will not hurt the canners so much although it will to some extent. I am trying to protect the man who has a reputation established but who is not a eanner.


Richard Blain: Does not my hon. friend think that the effect of this will be to increase the importation of American canned goods ?


Robert George Macpherson: The United States cannot get a market in the District of Columbia when the Canadian eanner can supply the goods. The hon. member for Elgin knows that.


David Marshall: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. If he goes to Bate's he will find American corn retailing at 25 cents a can. Why is that ? It is packed by Warner & Company, of Maine, and is extra fine corn. He is entirely mistaken in saying that American goods are not consumed here.


Robert George Macpherson: I know they are.


David Marshall: And they are sold at high prices. Our corn retails at 15 cents or two for a quarter, but Bate & Company are retailing American corn of the same size at 25 cents a tin.


Robert George Macpherson: But our corn comes into competition, it is selling at two for a quarter. The statement I make is that there are no better goods than ours manufactured on the continent. Take Alaska salmon and Rivers Inlet salmon. The Alaska salmon is cheaper to the merchant than the Rivers Inlet but he does not buy it because he knows that the Rivers Inlet salmon is a good, sound salmon ; he is not afraid to stake his reputation on it and he cannot afford to take seconds and place his label on them. We have to compete against canned goods from the American side but in the West where the consumption of canned goods is greatest, where they come in competition, the Canadian goods have shut them out of the market. They are put up in a northern climate and are generally a better class of goods, and are possibly as well tinned as the American, because the canneries are very up-to-date. I do not think there is

any danger under the present Act or this amendment of any influx of American goods.


Richard Blain: This amendment, I understand, is introduced at the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Mae-pherson).


Robert George Macpherson: Yes.


Richard Blain: My information from the west is that the chief thought of the western dealers who are in favour of this amendment is that it will give them a better opportunity to import goods from the United States.


Robert George Macpherson: That is a side light I have never received and that is not an argument they advanced to me. I do not think it is so, as they are obliged to . meet the Canadian tariff. And this clause does not make it any easier u get the goods in.


Richard Blain: Does not my hon. friend think that will be the result if the amendment is passed ?


Robert George Macpherson: I really do not. This Act has been in operation for a year. The wholesale grocers say that section 12 has worked a hardship, and, in view of that fact, I desire to make this amendment to help them out. This Act respecting meat and canned foods is a splendid law. It was necessary in the best interest of the canner.


David Marshall: Do you really mean that now ?


Robert George Macpherson: I have always been looked upon as being fairly frank in my statements. And I must tell my hon. friend that I mean every word I have said. I may be entirely mistaken, of course. I always give credit to my hon. friend (Mr. Marshall) for sincerity, and I think he should mete out to me the same measure of charity.


David Marshall: I did not put it the right way. I think I know the mind of the hon. member (Mr. Macpherson) and that if he would tell the House just what he thinks about it, he would say that the label should be on. He is a practical man and knows that that is the only way to meet the case.


Robert George Macpherson: I agree about the placing of the label. That is the proper thing, an excellent thing ; it should be done, and will be done in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand. Possibly, after this law has been in operation for a few years, the men who are using the special labels will be eliminated. But this House has no desire, nor has my hon. friend (Mr. Marshall), to work a hardship on a man who has established a reputation for his label after years and years of labour.


Robert George Macpherson: Take, for instance, Todd & Company, large (Opjerators on the Fraser river. Suppose that the Fraser river is a failure one year. Todd & Company have entered into a contract for so many thousand cases of canned salmon for the old country market. They are so many hundreds of cases short. They buy what they need from a small cannery. They are practical men, and, of course, they see to it that the goods are right. Every can of these goods is marketed on Todd & Company's label. The present operation of the law has the effect of wiping that out. Does not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Marshall) see the force of that statement ?


Adam Zimmerman: The same thing applies to other caimers. The canners may go to a small independent canner and buy his output and put on it their own label and their own brand.


David Marshall: That is true. We do that. But what does the small packer say?" He may be only a beginner and trying to establish his own label. And he objects.


Robert George Macpherson: This does not prevent him from putting on his own label.


David Marshall: I am not speaking of the case referred to by the hon. member (Mr. Macpherson) of which I know nothing.
I know that it is the case here that we buy small packs. But we examine the goods.


Robert George Macpherson: That is what I say.


David Marshall: And our name is on the goods-the name of some packer appears on the label. It does not matter who packs the goods ; I want to see the name on the label.


John Barr: This is a question of great importance. It affects three classes of people-the canner, the wholesale grocer and the public. The law that was passed last year was a step in advance. We know that the public are very skeptical about canned goods and this has affected the business, and we believe that the law passed last year will improve the business. But, if we adopt this amendment, we help to create a monopoly by giving the wholesale merchant an advantage. If the small canners wish to protect their goods by putting on their name, they should be allowed to do so. Not only that, but, under this amendment, the wholesale merchant is likely to go to the small canner and say : We want to purchase your goods, but we will not do so unless you allow us to put on our label. Why should the small catn-ner be forced to allow the wholesaler to use his own label and thus destroy the advantage of the canner ? We know that some canners do not produce as good goods as others. My hon. friend (Mr. Macpherson) suggested that Ontario produced the best,

that British Columbia did not produce always as good quality as other parts of the country.


Robert George Macpherson: I never said so.


John Barr: The hon. gentleman said that Ontario produced the best goods. That being the case, if you facilitate the putting on of the wholesale grocer's label instead of that of the packer, the purchaser does not know1 who puts up the goods or where they come from. This tends to the putting up of goods of inferior quality, for the man who puts up the best quality is deprived of the advantage which he ought to have. The present law has not had time to work out its results, and we should be careful how we make changes. Certainly, changes should not be made at the instance of the wholesalers and at the expense of the can-tier and the consumer. It is very likely that the canners would not be so careful if they sold to the wholesaler as they would if they had to send their goods out to the world bearing their own name. And, just as soon as we find our own goods going down in quality, we find increased danger of importation from the United States and other countries. Therefore, it seems to me that the amendment, while it may be to the advantage of the wholesale grocers, is not in the interest of the canners or the public.


William Stewart Loggie: The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) says he buys goods from the small canner. Does he put on the small canners' labels, or the label of the canners' association ?


John Barr: It there are two or three canners under the control of one concern, that concern might put its own label on the goods. But all are equally responsible, for their interests are identical and that interest is to build up their own brand. Though doing business in three places, perhaps, they are practically one.


Mr. ROBITAILLE.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I still think it would be reasonable to add an amendment providing that the name of the packer should be put on the can. as well as the name of the wholesale firm that handles the product if he so ddsires it. That is often done. Then we would preserve the value of the name or reputation which the wholesale firm had built up during perhaps a long number of years, as well as the good name of the canner. Machine companies do that with reference to binder twine. The binder twine wrhich is sold in the United States by the McCormick Company, much of it is manufactured by the Binder Twine manufacturers in Canada. They send a man especially to supervise the operation when the article is being manufactured, and it is made of a superior quality. The wholesale firm may have acquired a reputation for sending out a good quality, but I do not see why the manufacturers who produce that good quality should not share in some of the benefits as well as the seller.


David Marshall: If the packer's name is not on the can he is not known to the

trade. The packer has his money invested in the plant, and it would not be fair to the man who has built the factory and put in the machinery if he were not allowed to put his name on the package. If we get the beneiit of publicity in putting out high class goods, we will be able to keep our plant in better condition and to put up still better goods.


William Stewart Loggie: The hou. gentleman said a little while ago that he bought the entire pack of small canneries; did he put the labels on each one of those canneries on the aggregate pack, or did he put his own label?


David Marshall: We put our own label on.


William Stewart Loggie: Then what is the difference between his relation to these purchased goods, and the relation of the wholesale grocer who puts his label on them?


David Marshall: We are packers. We only buy from other canners when we are short. We do not buy these goods to speculate on, but only when we are short in filling orders and have to look outside. But we examine the goods thoroughly before we put our label on.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I must say that I cannot see the value that is attached to the Shibboleth of a packer. The wholesaler is just as well able to judge of the quality of the goods that he did not pack as the packer himself.


David Marshall: We send a practical man to examine the goods before we buy them, a man who thoroughly understands canned goods.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The wholesale grocer is also able to send a practical man.


David Marshall: It is only practical men who are capable of judging of these goods.


Adam Zimmerman: The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Marshall) knows of cases where goods were sent out from the canneries to the wholesale grocers, and were returned as not being up to the mark.


David Marshall: The party who buys from the original canner is responsible. We would not be responsible for the party selling, but if we get a poor quality of goods we come back upon the original packer. We are responsible because we know the brand.


Richard Blain: I think this is a matter that should receive the special attention of the Minister of Agriculture. He introduced a Bill in 1907, it has only been on the statute-book for twelve months. A very important alteration is proposed to be made in the Bill. The minister will not father the change. He has already stated that the amendment was not proposed by himself, rather shirking the responsibility for Mr. MARSHALL.
the change, and yet I suppose he has consented that the change shall be made. I would like to direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that whatever responsibility there is for this change will rest upon the minister himself. 1 do not think he is doing justice to the people of Canada by consenting that legislation of this kind shall take place. If this legislation is passed it will be practically impossible to follow the goods back to the door of the manufacturer. For example, James Turner & Co. buy a thousand boxes of canned goods from six different firms, and, with the view of perpetuating their own name, they put their own labels upon them. Some of these goods are sent to one province, some to another and some are exported out of the country altogether. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it would be possible for his department to trace these goods to the manufacturer when there is no manufacturer's label upon the goods? Neither the wholesaler nor the department would be able to trace these goods.


Robert George Macpherson: Why not ?


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman state how ?


Robert George Macpherson: The amendment provides that :
Such dealer shall, upon request of the inspector, disclose the name of the packer of such article.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend states that, but, at the same time, the special guarantor is the wholesale dealer. He is allowing the wholesale dealer to take the place of the manufacturer and I think this is dangerous legislation.


George Oscar Alcorn: In reference to the purchase of the pack of a small packer that arises in this way : Those' who start canning factories in a small way are not usually people of capital. A number of those wishing to engage in the business come together and the first thing they do is to sell their pack. They must realize money on their first year's operations. They go to some large packer and make an arrangement with him by which he takes all their pack for that year Until they do that the bank will not advance one dollar to establish their business. Under the 12th section of the Act packages are required to be marked with the name of the packer and it is desired here to add :
Or of the first dealer obtaining it direct from the packer who sells or offers the same for sale.
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman who has proposed this amendment, how he thinks it is going to work out practically. How is it going to operate in the ordinary course of trade ? I think I can tell him how it will operate. The wholesaler will say to

the packer : I will take your pack for this season, or some specified part of it, but I will insist upon putting my name upon the label. The packer naturally does not desire it. He has worked up a large value in his label during the course of many years' business. That is the proposition which is made to him by the wholesaler and the wholesalers combine to enforce that condition in all their purchases. They will all insist upon putting their own label on the goods and not the label of the packer.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) said, in answer to my question as to how it was possible to trace the goods back to the manufacturer, that the packer would be compelled to put his name on the goods.


Robert George Macpherson: No, I did not say that.


George Oscar Alcorn: The Act as it now stands says that:
_ All articles prepared for food in any establishment and packed in cans or similar receptacles, or in any package whatever, shall be subject to inspection during the whole course of preparation and packing ; and all such packages shall be marked with-
(a) the initials or the Christian names, the full surname, and the address, or, in the case of a firm or corporation, the firm or corporate name and address, of the packer.
And the amendment proposes to add :
Or of the first dealer obtaining it direct from the packer


Robert George Macpherson: Read on further.
Mr. ALCORN

-who sells or offers the same for sale.


Robert George Macpherson: Then go on.


George Oscar Alcorn: The question then was as to how the packer could be traced and in answer to that the hon. member for Vancouver cited this part :
Such dealer shall, upon request of the inspector, disclose the name of the packer of such article.
But the packer's name need not be on the package at all.


Robert George Macpherson: That is quite true.


George Oscar Alcorn: In the course of commercial dealing what will result from such legislation as this ? The result of this legislation will be to enable the wholesaler to put such pressure upon the packer as will compel the packer to allow his goods to go out altogether under the name of the wholesaler and thus entirely destroy the value of the label which the packer has established. The wholesaler can say : If you will not sell to me, or if your whole district will not
sell to me, I will get some one else to put up a factory ; a few of us will combine together, put up a factory and wipe you out of the business altogether.


Robert George Macpherson: For twenty years or over we have been operating in this way proposed by this amendment.


George Oscar Alcorn: You are talking altogether of fish and we are talking altogether of fruit and vegetables.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend cannot see anything outside of fruit and vegetables. But, my particular point is that we have been operating in this particular way for years. The hon. gentleman suggests as a reason why I bring in this amendment that the wholesalers would have the privilege of combining and forcing down prices. The reason is not that, and no argument that I have used can be construed by any hon gentleman to mean that. The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Marshall) knows that I do not mean that and I take it that he is an authority upon these matters
Mr ALCORN Will the hon gentleman restrict his amendment to fish and fish products ?


Robert George Macpherson: There is no reason in the world why there should be any specific line of demarcation between these two classes of goods that I can see. I do not know but that there are many wholesalers operating in connection with fruit and vegetables as well ; I cannot say that.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it answer the purpose if you changed the amendment iu such a way as to provide that after the word 'packer' the following words be added: ' And any subsequent dealer who sells or offers the same for sale must add thereto his own brand or mark ' ?


Robert George Macpherson: No, that would be making my amendment nugatory.


Robert Laird Borden: It would not make it nugatory. The strongest point of the observations which have been made seems to be that if any good will had been created in the trade mark of a wholesale dealer or exporter it would be desirable, if possible, to preserve that and, at the same time, pre serve the general principle of the Act by keeping the name of the packer upon the can. There are some cases in which the name of the nfan, who is not, strictly speaking, the packer, may properly be upon the can. I know that in Nova Scotia, for example, a man who deals in lobsters, sometimes has not his own factory at ail. He has lobsters packed according to a .certain specification which is carefully written out and embodied in the terms of a contract. He has the canning of these lobsters

inspected by men appointed by himself, so that, in effect, they are really canned under his own supervision although not canned actually in his own factory. Then his own label is supplied to the persons whom he so employs and it is put upon the goods. But, the amendment which is suggested does not apply to that ease at all. It is the case in which a wholesale dealer buys up a pack which perhaps he has not examined at all. I think it is highly desirable to preserve the principle of the Act and have the packer's name on the can, and at the same time preserve the good will which has inured in that way to a wholesaler by having his name on the package as well. It seems to me that the two ideas could be worked out together.


Robert George Macpherson: I really cannot follow my hon. frend through that because that would result in the goods of a man who had made his label -well known being obliged to carry two different names. I do not think that would be fair. My hon. friend makes a mistake in saying that the wholesaler does not inspect his fish.


Robert Laird Borden: I gathered that
sometimes he did not inspect.


Robert George Macpherson: He would not jeopardize the good name of his firm by putting his label on a poor pack.


Richard Blain: How is it possible to trace the goods to the canner?


Robert George Macpherson: My amendment
says :
Such dealer shall, upon the request of an inspector appointed under this Act, disclose the name of the packer of such goods.


Richard Blain: Suppose James Turner & Co., of Hamilton, buy 1,000 boxes from six different canning companies and they are all labelled under the name of James Turner & Co., how would it be possible to trace the packer after the goods are distributed throughout Canada?


Robert George Macpherson: I should not think there would be any difficulty. James Turner & Co.'s name is on the tin and the in-pector would go to that firm and ask from whom they bought.


Richard Blain: How would they know which of the six different establishments that tin came from?


Robert George Macpherson: He will he obliged under this Act to keep track.


Richard Blain: What objection can there be to compelling the canner as well as the wholesaler to put his name on the label?


Adam Zimmerman: The wholesaler as a rule will buy the output of a factory, and it Mr. R. J- BORDEN.
is the easiest thing in the world to keep track.


David Marshall: But suppose James Turner & Co. buy part of their stock from the Canadian canners and part from the Homestead and the goods are distributed and three months afterwards claims are made, how can a distinction be drawn between the.goods?


Robert George Macpherson: James Turner & Co. will be held responsible.


David Marshall: Yes, but the claims all come back to the canner, and it is impossible to tell which canner the claim should come to unless his name Is on the label. If a firm bought from one company it could be done, but where they buy from different companies it cannot be done.


George Oscar Alcorn: To show the outrageous character of this proposition, it is merely sufficient to mention that the responsibility for making good faulty goods is on the packer ; he is the man who is to be made to pay in case anything goes wrong, but the proposition is to give the whole value in the label to the wholesale dealer. The packer's label is wiped out, but the packer must pay all the losses in the end.


Richard Blain: I would like the minister to answer the question as to whether under this proposal it would be possible for the consumer of the article to trace the manufacturer of the article?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a matter of opinion. I gather from what my hon. friend from Elgin said that in the past they have been able to do that when the packer's name was not on the label, and if that be so they ought to be able to do it in the future. I say that if they were able to trace the packers in the past before this Act came into force, they ought to be able to do it in the future. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) spoke about my duty in the matter. My duty is to try and see that this Act safeguards the public interest, and I thought it did so, but when I examined the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Macpherson) I thought it provided a sufficient guarantee for the public interest and having that belief, although I did not propose the amendment, I did not see any objection to its adoption if the committee wished to adopt it. It was not in the original Act, and were it not for the representations of the wholesale trade generally of Canada-I think I may say from the Atlantic to the Pacific-I would not have known there was any objection to the original Act. It seems to me that there is a perfect safeguard for the public whether the amedment Is passed or not. and that being so it does not matter to me very much personally whether the amendment passes or does not pass. The other night the committee approved of the amendment.

I said then, as may be found in ' Hansard,' that I did not see any objection to it in the public interest, and as the committee has adopted it I would prefer it to remain and shall vote, if it comes to a vote, to sustain the opinion of the committee. I wish to say a word to my hon. friend from Bast Elgin (Mr. Marshall). He has stated that the Canadian canners purchased canned goods from other canners and put their label on them, and in my opinion that gives away his case. He may not agree with me in that, but that is my view of it. It does not seem to me to make a bit of difference whether it is a canner or a wholesaler who puts his name on goods he does not himself pack. I grant that if the Canadian canners pack the goods themselves their names might be an additional guarantee over and above what the wholesaler who does not himself pack the goods could give. But if the Canadian canner buy from another canner goods which they themselves do not pack and put their mark on these goods they are doing the same as the wholesale grocer does when he buys his goods from another canner and puts his mark on them. 1 cannot see any difference. My hon. friend says that they are practical canners arid would inspect the goods. The wholesaler is just as well able to employ a practical canner to inspect the goods he buys as are the canners and is just as likely to do so. My hon. friend (Mr. Alcorn) said the difficulty was that the man who established a new cannery would be at the mercy of the wholesale trade. He said the new cannery could not sell its own goods because it was not known, and I understood him to mention that it would then sell to another cannery or packing house. I cannot see that that differs in any way from selling to a wholesaler, and I do not think that they are any more in the power of the wholesaler than of the old established cannery.


George Oscar Alcorn: I gave that as the method by which these purchases are made, the trade reasons that arise why these goods are bought in that way. It is not an ordinary transaction.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it makes any difference whether the wholesale or another packing house buys from the small cannery. In both eases they are goods produced in the new cannery by beginners and the wholesaler puts on them his guarantee that he will be responsible for the quality of the goods. In another case an old established cannery puts its mark on. It seems to me that the guarantee of the wholesale house of the quality of the goods is no better and no worse than the guarantee of another canning house. The hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) asked the hon. member for Hamilton about Crosse & Blackwell. He knows perfectly well that Crosse & Blackwell do not them-230
selves pack one-hundredth part or a one-thousandth part of the goods on which they put their name. They buy goods put up in Canada, have them sent to England and put the Crosse & Blackwell mark on them, and the Crosse & Blackwell mark carries them all over the world. Crosse & Blackwell are in England, a packing house, but as far as the trade of the world is concerned, they are a wholesale house and not a packing house. They buy fruits from British Columbia, California, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, vegetables from Ontario, they send them to England and put the Crosse & Blackwell mark on them and that mark carries them all over the world, just as a wholesale house in Hamilton, Montreal or Toronto might buy goods in different parts of Canada, put their name upon them, and in that way guarantee the quality of the goods. My hon. friend's reference to Crosse & Blackwell was rather unfortunate for his argument.
I am not going to argue one way or the other. I did not introduce this amendment because I did not know it was necessary. When it was brought forward by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr, Macpherson) and shown to be necessary in the interest of a very large class of the community, I examined it to see whether it was going in any way to injure the public interest. I found that to my mind it would not and therefore accepted it and agreed to it. Having accepted it, and agreed to it, and the committee having accepted and agreed to it, I confess that no argument has been advanced why it should not be accepted and if it comes to a vote I shall have to vote for the retention of the amendment.


David Marshall: When the Bill was first introduced was its object not to improve the quality of the canned goods of the country ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


David Marshall: To my mind you have taken the back-bone out of your Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot see that. If I thought that I would not support it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. A. McLBAN.: I desire to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) a question. Section 12 provides that articles prepared for food and packed shall be marked in certain ways. Subsection (b) provides that such goods shall be marked with
(b) a true and correct description of the contents of the package:
Provided, however, that if it be established to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that such marking would hinder the



sale of any said articles in the British or foreign markets he may exempt such articles from the provisions of this section.
Have any regulations been made with respect to canned lobsters or other fish under subsection b of section 12?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Angus Alexander McLean: I would like to explain that, in the maritime provinces, and especially in the province of Prince Edward Island there are several men who buy canned lobsters from the packers. They instruct the packers how to put up these lobsters, the work being done according to formulae furnished by the buyers in Europe, especially in France. The goods are labelled with the brand of the man who buys from the packer. I do not think it would be advisable to change that method of doing business.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to ask the bon. gentleman a question. Do I understand him to say that in England they require that the cans shall be sent there without labels?


Angus Alexander McLean: I do not know that. But I know that the practice in the maritime provinces and especially in Prince Edward Island is as I have described it. And these men who buy from the packers have established a trade. The goods are put up under the inspection of these men. I think it would be unfair to change their methods of busiuess. I would agree with the hon. member for Vancouver city (Mr. Macpherson) so far as the packing of fish is concerned. It may be that a different method should be followed with respect to fruits. But I have some knowledge of the fish packing business, and, so far as that is concerned, I would agree with the amendment proposed.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. I was not here during the earlier part of this discussion. But, as I understand, the amendment makes it unnecessary to have the name of the original packer on the can.


Robert George Macpherson: The packer or the first dealer.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Under this amendment the wholesaler can write to the packer telling him to put up so many cans and label them, ' Packed for such a wholesale firm.' And the name of the original packer does not appear. But, is the wholesale man held entirely responsible for the quality of the goods? Would he be liable to prosecution if the goods were not as required by law?


Robert George Macpherson: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: With the additional safeguard that, if required, the wholesaler must disclose the name of the packer.


Angus Alexander McLean: 


John Dowsley Reid: But whom would you prosecute in a ease of that kind? There was a case in Montreal last year where some 50,000 cans, of salmon I think it was, led to a good deal of trouble. I think some people were poisoned, or at least made ill, by eating the stuff. In that case they could not find out-


Adam Zimmerman: There was no name on those packages at all.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not understand that. But, under this amendment, as I understand it, it would be impossible to put out canned goods without the name of some responsible party on the packages.


Robert George Macpherson: Absolutely.


George Oscar Alcorn: It appears to me that we are attempting to legislate in the same terms on two very different subjects. It is apparent from what has been said by the hon. member from Vancouver City and by the hon. members from the maritime provinces tnat the course of business with regard to the sale of fish and fish products differs materially from that followed in Ontario with regard to vegetables and fruit. I do not think it possible to frame a section which will be satisfactorily applicable to both these kinds of business. Therefore, I move, seconded by Mr. Marshall, that the amendment be amended by inserting after the word ' or ' the words ' (in the case of fish and fish products).'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the position is not quite understood. The change made at the instance of the hon. member for Vancouver City (Mr. Macpherson) is not an amendment, but is a part of the Bill. Therefore, this is not an amendment to the amendment.


Charles Marcil: I understand that the Bill is referred back for the purpose of considering an amendment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But the clause moved as an amendment is part of the Bill as printed. It was adopted in committee and is a part of the Bill as it stood for third reading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the fact that we are considering that clause is proof that it was not passed. The order was to go back into committee to consider that clause.
Mr. F'ISHER. Yes, clause, but not amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it is not finally decided until the clause is passed.


Mr. OWEN.: The government is doing the packer a great injustice. These men have been building up a trade and a reputation for years, and now they are denied the privilege of placing their own name upon their goods.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not at all.


Charles Lewis Owen: If the wholesale man refuses to buy these goods with the packer's name on them, it virtually amounts to the same thing. When people go to buy those goods and ask for a certain man's brand of canned goods, they have got to take the dealer's word for it.


Robert George Macpherson: The hon. gentleman has not read the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: Canadian canners are willing to put up their goods with the wholesale grocer's name on them, but they also want to put their own name on them. According to this Bill any wholesale manufacturer, or some men that are not particular as to the quality of goods, will put up inferior goods, though they may possibly pass the law ; yet they put on the wholesale grocer's name, and the goods can be sold to the injury of the reputation of Canadian goods as a whole. I can't see any reason why the law should not allow the actual packer's name to be placed on the goods so that they, can be followed up to their origin. If you went into a retail store and purchased canned goods with simply the wholesale dealer's name on them, you do not know who put up the goods.


Robert George Macpherson: The hon. gentleman has not read the Bill, or he would not make a statement like that.


John Dowsley Reid: In the ' Globe ' of April 8, I find an item which bears out my contention. It reads as follows :
Winnipeg, April 7.
The health authorities have seized 330 cases, each containing six one-gallon cans of apples, and they are on the watch for six more cases in the same consignment, of which there is at present no trace. The goods are declared by the health officers to be absolutely unfit for food. All bore the label of an Oshawa Canning Company. Prosecution will follow.
In that case you can trace the name of the manufacturer, and you are able to prosecute him, and you are able to show the public the company that is not putting up a good article.


Robert George Macpherson: The hon. gentleman as a business man will understand this proposition. A wholesale firm has been purchasing the output of a canning factory, they have established a reputation and have a label for a certain class of canned salmon. No other names ever appear on these cans except the name of that firm. The wholesale firm may have bought this salmon from a different factory every year, for the reason that one factory or another may have met with a failure. Wholesale traders in British Columbia who went out and bought 4,000 or 5,000 cases of salmon and put their own label on it and sent it to the markets of the world, obliged to buy 2304
from two or three different factories, have found themselves in the position of putting up this year canned salmon with John Jones' name on it ; next year James Smith's name would be on it, and in a very short time the reputation of their goods would be gone. People will say, this is not the same thing, because this label never carried these goods before. The merchants in British Columbia have found themselves badly handicapped by the operation of the present Act. My good friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) brings in the question of fish. Now we have small canneries who put up both fruit and fish. I do not know whether they are putting labels on their cans or not, but the wholesale houses are buying them. This amendment protects the public, and it does not place the wholesale merchants or canners in any worse position than they have been in for many years.


John Dowsley Reid: Take the case of fish. They might put up a can of fish that was taken from different parts of the country, and all might not be of the same quality. The effect of the wholesale man putting his name on it would be a guarantee to the public, because the public would know who produced those goods and where they were produced. The particular locality the fish comes from is what the public would like to know. I really think that the wholesale man should not object to the manufacturer's name going on so that he can show the public where these goods are made,, and in case they are not good you can go on and prosecute the manufacturer. The very fact of the name of the manufacturer and the words ' made in Canada ' being on these labels is evidence to the public that the goods are of the proper quality. I could mention cases where the dealer goes to some other country and gets goods put up simply because they are a little cheaper although they are not of the same quality as our own canned goods. It should be the duty of the government to protect our own manufacturers and -wholesale men and no wholesale man in Canada to-day will, if he has the interest of the country at heart, object to the name of any Canadian manufacturer being placed on these labels. I quite understand, as the hon. member for Vancouver has said, that in British Columbia the wholesale men are using these special labels. One wholesale man will get a name for his goods, another will get another name for his goods and yet they are all manufactured in the same factory. In a case such as the hon. member mentions, where it is absolutely necessary the public should be protected, I cannot see why they should object to the name of the manufacturer being on the label as has been the practice in times past.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for Leeds has classed the wholesale Grocers' Association of Canada as being composed

of people who do not care for the interests of the trade in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what the hon. gentleman said.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not know that I did.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the hon. gentleman did not know, but he spoke of the people asking for this amendment in that way and the people who are asking for this amendment are the wholesale trade of the country.


Mr. AVERY.: I think that both sides of the House want to arrive at some result beneficial to the manufacturers and consumers. If goods are manufactured by so and so for so and so and if you find that these goods are wrong how are you going to trace them up and find out where the trouble is ? We have heard of several cases of goods being sent out which have poisoned people and if the name of the manufacturer is not on the goods how are you going to trace them back ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Has my hon. friend read the Act ?


Melzar Avery: Part of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, let him read the whole of it and perhaps he will not say that.


John Dowsley Reid: If the minister states the wholesale men are the ones which are making application for this change then I say they are looking after their own interests more than they are looking after the interests of the people as a whole. Suppose some irresponsible person goes to a manufacturer and asks him to put up 500 cases of an inferior quality of goods and this person, after disposing of these goods leaves the country, there is no way of prosecuting because there is no person to hold responsible. If the manufacturer's name is on the goods you can prosecute him but you cannot hold accountable an irresponsible commission man.


Robert George Macpherson: Would it not be as possible for a canner who had no more appreciation of his duties then a commission man to do the same thing ? The fact of the matter is that wholesale firms have been operating for years with these special labels ; under the present Act the canners have to have their names on the packages. The wholesale men are to all intents and purposes the manufacturers. They go to the factory and say : I am prepared to buy
5,000	cases of salmon but I want them to be put under my brand. That brand protects the wholesaler in the market.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


John Dowsley Reid: How would the hon. gentleman do in the case that I have mentioned ?


Robert George Macpherson: I would put the man in jail, of course.


John Dowsley Reid: But you could not get him.
Mr. MACPHERSON1. You cannot save people from being bad.


John Dowsley Reid: Could you not if the manufacturer's name was on the label ?


Robert George Macpherson: No, you could not any more than you could in the other case. If my hon. friend's imagination shows him how wicked a commission merchant might be he can also imagine how wicked the small canner might be. I know of a small canner who packed Cohoes fish that were too long out of the water and he could not get anybody to take them off his hands.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I feel very much disposed to vote against all these amendments. I think there is too much law, a great deal too much law and while I am not so dense, and while I have been listening to this discussion the whole afternoon, I think I know less about it now than I did when it commenced. I have no doubt that it will appeal to the public in the same way. There is too much law on the statute-book and there is not enough to carry out the purpose that the framer of the law has had in his mind. We have heard about the rotten fish that was offered for sale last year iu Montreal and although the sale of that fish did a lot of harm nothing could be done. There was no law to deal with the case. Although we have the statute-books filled up with laws we have not enough law to provide for a case of that kind. The consumer has been entirely forgotten in this discussion. It is a mere fight between the packers and the jobbers and the whole of the time has been taken for the last four or five hours in an effort to see who can make the most out of it-the packers or the jobbers. That is not the object that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) had in his mind, I am sure, when he undertook, in the first instance, to protect the public against the adulteration of food. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Mac-pherson) has nothing else in his mind or in view but fish. The object of his amendment is entirely different from the purpose of my hon. friends behind me who are interested in the packing of tomatoes, peas and other vegetables. I understand the position of my hon. friend from Vancouver, but, of course, we cannot legislate only for him or for those engaged in the fish trade. The position taken by my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. Me-

Lean) is the same as that of the hon. member for Vancouver. In their case the commercial men take the fish of certain packers. The packers are the secondary persons, they do not conduct the trade, but they are the employees of the men who do carry on the trade in fish. The merchants engage five or ten packers to pack fish for them and they require them to pack fish in different ways to suit different markets. A lobster dealer will go to a packer and say : I want you to pack lobsters In such and such a way for the German market and he will say to another packer : I want you to pack fish in such and such a way for the French trade. In that case the packer disappears completely. The commercial men are the ones who look after this trade. Those are the men that my hon. friend had In his eye when he moved this amendment. But, the position taken by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) is entirely different. He and other packers have created something. They can peas or tomatoes and they want to do it in such a perfect way that they will drive from the Canadian market all foreign produce of that kind. It was stated in a very open way that Americans come here and sell an article for 25 cents a package when our friends can put up two packages of the same kind of goods for a quarter. Still the American article takes the lead because of the name or for some other reason. The two interests represented are entirely different and we have lost the whole afternoon in a fight between the packers and jobbers. I appeal again to the Minister of Agriculture. We want to keep the consumer in our eye. He is the one that we are legislating for. We do not want to harm the packers or the jobbers, but they can take care of themselves. It is the consumer we have to take care of. The Minister of Agriculture should insert a clause providing that an inspector could enter a cannery and ascertain whether the goods were in proper condition or not. For my part I would like to see a government stamp on all these canned goods so that the consumer would have ample security that he is protected. After all it is the interests of the consumer that we should look after primarily in this matter.


Charles Lewis Owen: I cannot understand why the minister compels shippers to put their name on the fruit which is the raw material of these canneries, and deny to the manufacturer the privilege of putting his name on the manufactured article. The Minister of Agriculture compels the shipper of apples to place his name on every barrel that leaves this country so that if there is any fraud in the packing the shipper may be traced, but at the same time the minister takes away from the public
the privilege of buying any brand of canned goods they desire to buy from the retailers.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: Where does the hon. gentleman get that in the Act ?


Charles Lewis Owen: There is nothing on the label to show who manufactured the goods.


George Oscar Alcorn: The hon. member for Vancouver has been arguing all afternoon w ith regard to the trade of his province in fish and the amendment prepared by me gives him all he asks for, but yet he is not disposed to accept it. That is evidence to my mind of what I suspected all along, that this is a determined effort on the part of the wholesalers to compel the canners to sell to them and give them control of the trade.


Angus Alexander McLean: If the government would accept fish from the provisions of this Act, that is all the fish packers of the maritime provinces and British Columbia have asked, and if the minister gives an undertaking that that will be bone, these useless amendments might be dropped.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: There is nothing useless about the amendment because the wholesale grocers have been operating under it for the last eight months, and I think the trade have a pretty fair appreciation of what they want.


Charles Lewis Owen: If this Act passes in its present shape the public will certainly not be able to tell who packs the goods.


John Dowsley Reid: It would appear that the wholesale grocers are the only ones interested in this Bill. It seems that this Bill Is not in the interests of the canners or the public and that it is passed only to please the wholesale grocers.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, if this Bill passes, can a wholesale merchant in Toronto import from the Fnited States canned goods which have not the name of the packer, and by putting his own name on them sell them to the people of Canada ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill applies to all goods sold in Canada and the importer would be responsible for the quality of the goods. Under the Act of last session the packer in the United States would be responsible for the quality of the goods and nobody in Canada would be responsible. The amendment proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Macpherson) does not prevent any packer insisting that his name should be on the package ; that is a trade arrangement between him and the wholesaler. This Bill simply provides that the first dealer purchasing from the packer may put his label on instead of that of the original packer, but if an inspector desires

it he must divulge the name of the original packer. If I thought this amendment lessened the protection for the public in any way I would not have accepted it the other night, and believing that the public is amply protected I am not prepared to-day to vote down what the House agreed to the other day. It appears to be largely a quarrel between the packers on the one hand and the wholesalers on the other and I am not prepared to judge between them.


David Marshall: It is not a quarrel between the canner and the wholesaler at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot see that the guarantee of one is not just as good as the guarantee of the other.


David Marshall: It is not as good a guarantee to the consumer. My object is to protect the interests of the consumer. I believe that a packer who does not put his name on the label would not be so careful as he would if he knew the goods were going out under his name. These special labels which state that the goods are put up by so and so for the wholesale buyer have been used for some time and I do not see why you want to change that.


John Dowsley Reid: If the wholesaler says to the packer: I will only buy your goods on condition that you do not put on your name, then the packer has to comply with that or lose the trade An American citizen can send in here an inferior quality of canned goods, distribute them under the name of some person in Canada which may bo fictitious and if anything is found wrong he can move across the other side of the line. The minister has been met by a deputation of wholesale grocers and he seems to have nothing else in his mind but to protect their interests. The very fact that there were 50,000 cases of canned fish in the city of Montreal poisoning the people last fall should be sufficient to convince the Minister of Agriculture that the consumers of Canada need protection. I would suggest that the minister take this matter into further consideration and hear representations from manufacturers. the wholesale men, and some one on behalf of the public. He should prepare a Bill that would- protect all and be in the interests of Canada as a whole. The Senate will not meet for two or three weeks; he has plenty of time and there is no object in putting the Bill through tonight. For that reason I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Richard Blain: I cannot understand why the minister is so anxious, in the case of the Fruit Marks Act for instance, the person who packs apples must put his stamp on the package, while he does not insist on that in t^is case. As has been pointed out, this is Mr. FISHER.
only class legislation in the interest of the wholesale dealer.


Robert George Macpherson: Nothing of the kind.


Richard Blain: I agree that neither the manufacturer nor the consumer has been considered. Surely the consumer, if .he finds goods he has purchased are defective, should be able to trace them back to the man who put them up. The minister pointed out last year that the change would place the responsibility on the wholesale man. In order that his memory may be refreshed, I shall read what he then said at page 6773 of ' Hansard
I think all necessary safeguards can be thrown about the Bill with this additional amendment; and, as I have wished all through to interfere as little as possible with the course of trade, I have asked the House to add these words, which would enable the dealer, or the packer who was having goods packed for him outside of his own packing house, to put his name upon them and be responsible for them instead of the actual packer.
There is no doubt that this is class legislation for some particular purpose which I cannot understand. In my opinion this will permit the dealers in western Canada to import canned goods from the United States without a name upon them, place their own names on and sell them. I believe it will interfere with Canadian packers and divert a considerable portion of outtrade from Canada to the United States. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Mac-pherson) shakes his head. It may be all right from his standpoint, but I wonder that the minister who ought to be responsible for this legislation permits it. We have too much tinkering with our legislation. This Act was passed only last session and almost before the ink is dry the minister allows a member of the west for some special reason to move an amendment that will defeat its very object. The minister will be held responsible for this by the people of Canada.
Motion, Mr. J. D. Reid, negatived, yeas, 26 ; nays, 44.
Amendment to the amendment, negatived.


Richard Blain: Will any provision be made for those having goods on hand ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think the amendment will affect them at all.


Richard Blain: I suppose by that it has no value ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not at all; it provides that in the future a thing can be done which up to this time cannot be done.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Under this could there be any prosecution of the men who brought the 50,000 cans of rotten fish into Montreal ?


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


John Dowsley Reid: Does the minister mean to say he does not know anything about it ? '


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I did not say so. The hon. member has no right to put words in my mouth which I did not use. I said I did not know anything about the details of that transaction and consequently I could not say what should be done.


John Dowsley Reid: Do you not think the minister should know ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I do not.


John Dowsley Reid: He is in charge of this law, yet he says he does not know anything about the details of that affair in Montreal. 50,000 people were liable to be poisoned.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Dowsley Reid: They were by that
50,000	cans, and yet the minister does not think it worth while to get any details. If that is the position of the minister, I think the lives of the poeple will be in danger when this Bill goes through.
Section as amended, agreed to, on division.
Bill as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-POSTAL SERVICES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Supply, at the point where we leave it to-night.']
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).: On December 10, last, a return was ordered:
Showing what complaints respecting the inadequacy of postal service or delays therein, or respecting lack of or defects in postal facilities or means of communications, have been received by the Post Office Department since the 1st day of January, 1907, and the general nature of such complaints.
I thought that was a reasonable request to make of the Postmaster General, but it is now nearly five months since the order for that return was passed. I was assured some months ago that the Postmaster General was preparing the return, but that it took a good deal of time and care. Consequently, they were not able to bring it down any sooner. However, I cannot but think that, if that is the case, the Post Office Department is not in a very flourishing condition and is not the model department, one would suppose it to be, from the remarks we have heard made concerning it. I can only say that I have received a
number of most damaging communications in referrence to the affairs of that department and the irregularities therein. I am anxious to get the information that will come down in the return, that I may see whether these matters have been straightened out to the satisfaction of the public.
Another matter I would like the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) to consider is with regard to the weekly papers. On several occasions I have called his attention to the serious position of the weekly papers in Canada. I understand that the Postmaster General has placed a man in the United States to take charge of papers addressed to people in the United States and distribute them. The publishers are at the expense, inconvenience and delay of that system. The Postmaster General, in reply to questions I asked him in regard to these matters, made the following statement on April 9 :
I received this morning a communication from the Weekly Section of the Canadian Press Association, and they are perfectly satisfied with the answer given.
Well, Sir, I have here communications from a large number of the weekly papers in different parts of Canada, not one in favour of the arrangement that the Postmaster General has now made for handling these papers, but every one condemning in the strongest language this action of the government, not only with regard to weekly papers, but with regard to the daily papers also. Now, the Postmaster General must admit that on the 8th of May last, when he brought in this regulation dealing with the daily and weekly papers, he was placing those papers in a very unfair position. He has been forced to back down from the position he took last May and to restore the daily papers to the position in which they were previous to that time. He has also been compelled to pay tens of thousands of dollars of the people's money out of the public chest to satisfy them in a reasonable way for the loss they have suffered. I would like the Postmaster General to explain the difference in the position of the country to-day as compared with that in which it was in May last in regard to these papers. He will tell us, perhaps, as he has told us on previous occasions, that he has been able to stop at the border all the literature that is of a character that we should not like to have enter our country. If that is the case, what legislation has he placed on the statute-book or why has he gone back on the position with regard to the daily papers which he occupied previous to last year? There is no doubt that the Postmaster General had as good a right then to stop daily or weekly papers of an undesirable character from coming into the country as he has now. There can be no doubt that if he . will (appoint censors to deal with these

papers, he has power to stop objectionable matter from coming into Canada. At page 3266 of * Hansard ' of this year it will be seen that he said :
So, we are perfectly free to accept or to reject any periodicals, bnt the House and the country may feel assured that we shall accept only the good periodicals.
He has had to back down from his position in regard to the daily papers, and he is gradually backing down in regard to the weekly papers. What I would like him to do is to come out boldly and manfully and say that he has made a blunder and is will' ing to take it back; that he is willing to remedy the existing state of affairs and give the newspapers reasonable compensation for the loss they have suffered.
Now, will the Postmaster General please answer me with regard to another matter -and I will ask him to take note of these points and reply to them as best he thinks. I notice that in reply to some questions I asked during the present session in connection with the purchase of a steamer in Great Britain by the Post Office Department, it appeared that the government had seen fit to pay $60,000 for the steamer and $3,500 for bringing her over.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is she employed for ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Carrying the mail from the Transatlantic steamers at Rimou-ski. The steamer carries twenty-two men. So besides the cost of the steamer and of bringing her to this side, it will cost in the neighbourhood of $20,000 or $30,000 a year to run her. And the business that she is to do was being carried out under contract with a private firm for about $4,000 per annum. Will the minister explain in what way this is good business? I understand on very good authority that the new boat is so large and cumbersome that the large liners have expressed a wish that she should not be sent out during rough weather to take the mails, but that the smaller tender be sent out during storms. I might also say that reports are current that when the boat came over in May last


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the name of the boat?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The ' Lady Evelyn.' It is stated that though she came in May last she was not used for carrying the mails until the 20th of August and she made twenty-four round trips. But during this time the contract under which this work was to be done for $4,000 a year was still in force. The minister might explain this. Another thing is this :	It is reported that the minister and quite a gathering of friends went for a trip in this boat and spent a good deal of time and a great deal of the people's money in cruising about. I cannot say that I have any definite knowledge of that mat-


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: ter, but these are the reports that come in and I think it but right that the minister should have an opportunity of explaining them away.
There is still another question I would like the minister to deal with. According to his own reports, last year he paid the railways in the neighbourhood of $1,600,000. I have no definite knowledge about the manner in which that money is expended. We know that in the United States the mail is weighed. We know also that a representative in the United States legislature made the statement in his place that over $70,000,000 of the people's money had been wasted owing to the false weighing of the mails by the railways. The minister in reply to a question I asked stated, as I understood him, that the mails in Canada were not weighed, but that they were paid for according to some arrangement with the railways. I think it would be interesting to the country to know just in what manner the mails are carried so far as the railways are concerned.
Another matter with respect to which I would like information is the one-cent drop letter that he promised the people in the cities some months ago, possibly a year ago. People are anxiously waiting for him to reply as to the position he is going to take. I would like him to tell the House in what position he is going to place the smaller towns aud rural districts in regard to a cheaper mail service, and what advantage he is going to give them as an offset to the advantages he is giving the cities. The cities are receiving important benefits at the present time in the way of mail delivery, and a great deal of money is being expended upon them, and we who live in rural districts naturally feel that sufficient attention is not being given to us in the way of affording corresponding better mail facilities. The minister says that he is only giving free delivery to towns with a population of 12,000 and a revenue of $20,000. But if he will look across the line into the United States he will see that free delivery is given to cities with 10,000 inhabitants and a revenue of $10,000. The minister seems to be surprised at that, but if he will look into the matter he will find that is the case. He will also find that the Postmaster General of the United States has made several successful experiments in giving free delivery to towns with a population as low as 2,500.
I think the minister should be able to give us a better explanation than he did to-day when, in reply to a question of one of the Toronto members, he told us that the matter was under consideration. The minister has,
I think, a surplus of a million and a half dollars this year. What is he going to do with it? Is he going to let it pass into other departments to be squandered in the same way as they have been squandering the people's money the last few years ? Is it unreasonable for the rural districts to ask

for a better mail service? If you look around this House you will find that out of 214 members there are possibly 14 representing purely city constituencies, while the other 200 represent, either entirely rural districts or districts partially rural and partially urban. The minister is now considering a proposition to grant to cities a one-cent drop letter system; let him at the same time consider some way of improving the mail service in the rural districts.
I would like him also to give the House some definite statement of his intention with regard to free rural mail delivery. He may think that is a matter of trifling importance, but if he will look around this country he will find that it is a question of vital importance to large numbers of people. Last year he told us that this proposition was a luxury, it could only be looked upon as an ideal, and he said that we might have to wait till this country had a population of
20,000,000. For my part I think the time is already ripe for the Postmaster General to put into effect this important legislation. I will not go into the question fully to-night, because I have already dealt with it at an earlier period of the session. But the more I investigate the matter the more convinced I feel that this is a reform that should be adopted at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. MILLER.: The hon. gentleman advocates rural free mail delivery. I would like to know whether he advocates such delivery over the whole of Canada, or only a Part, and if only a part, what part.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman has asked a question that he would not have asked if he had investigated this subject thoroughly. I have never advocated the establishment of rural free mail delivery over the whole of Canada. I have explained clearly that wherever this system has been established, whether in the United States, or England, or Germany, or Switzerland, or France, it has been established under strict regulations that are found to be satisfactory. In the United States the president has established a commission of three men to deal with this question, not more than two of whom must be of the same political party. On that commission there are two Republicans, and one of the most prominent Democrats in the United States, Mr. Black. These men have full power to deal with this question, and when they appoint officials in any branch of the service, party politics are completely ignored by them. One of the regulations in the United States is that the route must be 24 miles long, and there must be 100 families living on that route, out of whom 85 at least must be prepared to place a box at their gate where the mail can be deposited. That rule is strictly enforced. If the route is short and the expense of carriage is less, the number of families to be served may be less.


Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE.: The hon. gentleman stated that the selection of routes was left entirely to an independent commission. Is he aware that in a periodical known as the ' Postmaster's Journal,' printed in the United States, the November number of last year states explicitly that the mail routes are made up largely for the benefit of the representatives, and not for the benefit of the people?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not believ.e that the hon. gentleman can furnish any facts whatever that would bear out his statement.


Wilbert McIntyre: I can furnish the hon. gentleman with the statement in this journal.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman will not find on investigation that politics enter into the administration of this service at all. The most enthusiastic advocate of the reform is the president himself. The editor of the ' Canadian Dairyman ' has been over to the United States and made a thorough investigation, and in his paper for the last two weeks he has stated that mere is no such thing as politics in the management of the rural free mail delivery system in the United States. I have been over there myself and investigated the question.


Wilbert McIntyre: The hon. gentleman must admit that he can get only a superficial knowledge of the influence of polities in the administration of that system, by merely going over to the United States and visiting the departmental buildings.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have been in the habit of visiting the United States more or less for the last fifteen years or twenty years, and my investigations have convinced me that what the hon. gentleman says is an error. Now, I do not wish to deal any further with this than to say that five-sixths of the territory of the United States is practically covered to-day and that 20.000,000 people in the rural districts enjoy the privilege of rural free mail delivery. ' While, in 1897. when rural free mail delivery was first established, the deficit in the United States postal department was over $11,000,000, when the expenditure for rural free mail delivery was $14,000, last year, while the expenditure was in the neighbourhood of $30,000,000. the deficit was only a little over $6,000,000 and the Postmaster General himself has distinctly stated that for the first four months of this year there was no deficit at all and that as far as the rural free mail delivery end of it is concerned instead of it being a deficit producer it is a revenue producer. I am satisfied that the Postmaster General will not get up to-night and make the statements in regard to the expenditures and deficits that lie made last year and that the Minister of

Agriculture will not repeat the words that he used in Quebec when he told the people how this question staggered him and how he did not even advise the discussion of it in the House. These are the questions that I want to put before the Postmaster General. I did not know of any other way of bringing them to the attention of the House .and the country and I am sure the Postmaster General will be good enough to reply to me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) has called the attention of the House to some matters concerning the Post Office Department. The department is so well administered apparently that I have not heard much criticism about it for a few weeks, although my hon. friend is the official critic of that department. I will be pleased to answer the questions which have been so graciously put by my hon. friend to-night on the different subjects which, he says, have attracted his attention for the last few months. First of all he is anxious to obtain information as regards the return concerning the irregularities reported in the Post Office Department during the last year. This return was moved for by the hon. gentleman during my absence in Japan at the beginning of the session. I have, on two occasions, informed my hon. friend that the officers of the department were anxious to prepare the return as soon as possible ; in fact out of ten or twelve returns which were moved for by hon. members on the other side of the House this year in the Post Office Department all have been laid on the table of the House with the solitary exception of my hon. friend's return. But, my hon. friend will admit that this return entails a good deal of work and, while there are very few irregularities, the officers have to look into every pigeon hole of the department to ascertain what few irregularities were reported during the year and as my hon. friend knows this takes a good deal of time and involves a good deal of work. I am as anxious to lay on the table of the House a list of these irregularities as my hon. friend is to have it. He will see, in looking over the return, when it is laid on the table, that with the millions of letters, packages ;and parcel packages passing through His Majesty's mails in Canada there are very [DOT]few 'irregularities and the department is very soon informed of any such irregularities that occur in any section of the country. My hon. friend is entitled to the return and I can assure him that he will get it as soon as possible. The officers of the department, notwithstanding that they are overtaxed during the session, are only too willing to gratify the demand made by the hon. member.
My hon. friend has called my attention to the weekly papers. I need not repeat what I have already stated to the Mr. ARMSTRONG.
House on a former occasion. I know that there is some agitation in some parts of the country concerning weekly papers. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that last year, on account of circumstances which I have fully explained, we had to amend our postal convention with the Washington authorities. That amendment was directed wholly against certain classes of periodicals published in the United States and Canada up to that date obliged both countries to carry according to their respective domestic rates, periodicals and newspapers coming under what, in the postal service, is called second class matter. I have explained on many occasions to the House where the difficulty was as it affected Canada. With the increase in the number of periodicals published in the United States and with the' enormons increase in the number of purely advertising sheets published on the other side of the line we had to put our whole mail service at the disposal of United States publishers. Besides, we had received for years, complaints from clergymen of the different denominations, against certain undesirable papers which were circulated through our mails in Canada. We thought that wre should revise our postal convention with the United States, so as to protect not only ourselves but even the United States, as we were told by the American postal authorities last year. To clear ourselves of that class of literature, the postal rate on second class matter was raised from one to four cents a pound; that is to say, papers mailed in Canada for the United States have to pay at the rate of 4 cents per pound. It is the same with papers posted. in the United States. My hon. friend was asking a minute ago what legislation had been introduced to purge our mails from undesirable literature. Let me tell my hon. friend at once that I claim -and I claim the credit not only for myself but for the officers of the department-* that we have nearly purged the Canadian mails of undesirable literature and I am sure that is a fact which will be welcomed by both sides of the House.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the minister be good enough to tell us just what he did that made such a radical change ; what legislation or regulation did he introduce ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Nothing appears on the statute-book because we have a postal convention with the United States. It is in that convention and not in the statute-book that my hon. friend will find the remedy. Under that convention, undesirable periodicals coming from the United States have to pay not one but four cents a pound. There is nothing as effective as a high postal rate to check the importation of undesirable literature.


William Humphrey Bennett: What about the great family journal, the Calgary ' Eye-Opener '- ever see that ?

- Mr. LEMIEUX. I do not read undesirable literature ; my bon. friend (Mr. Bennett), perhaps, does. If he does I am sorry and I hope he will not do it again.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is your loss.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As far as daily papers are concerned they are placed back just where they were, as I understand it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I will answer my hon. friend.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: And as far as weeklies are concerned


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was just coming to them, if my hon. friend will allow me. I understand what he wants to know.. We have purged the mails of undesirable literature coming from the United States and besides, we have protected our commercial interests by preventing these purely advertising sheets from being dumped in our mail system. The hon. gentleman asks how it is we have rescinded the arrangement made last year with the Washington authorities as regards newspapers. Well, I had to take a radical step to begin with, but I did not intend to maintain that attitude towards the dailies. The hon. gentleman is a reader of the American press as I am. and he will agree with me that as a rule the American daily papers subscribed for by Canadians are respectable journals. Our rule was directed more against American dime novels and other unsavory periodicals. I maintained the rule against such objectionable periodicals and I gave the dailies a rate of one cent a pound. The editors of the weekly press, a very representative body, waited on me on the 9th April with the object of obtaining the same postal rate as the daily newspapers. I must say that the weekly press is favoured in some respects as compared with the daily press. A section of our postal guide reads :
A further exception is made in favour of newspapers or periodicals published not more frequently than once a week which may be sent free to regular subscribers in Canada residing within a circular area of 40 miles in diameter, the centre of which must either be the place of publication or some point not more than 20 miles distant therefrom according to the choice of the publishers. Such papers may also be delivered free to subscribers at the office at which they have been posted, except in cities where the letter carrier system is established. In the latter case ordinary transient newspaper rates are charged.
It will therefore be seen that the weekly press has some privileges? At the request of the weekly newspaper publishers we have given them a substantial reduction. If the hon. gentleman compares the Canadian postal rates with those of Europe or America he will And that we lead these countries in the cheapness of rates. I believe that soon I will be able to grant
the weekly press what its representatives asked for when they met me recently; that Is to say, the weeklies can be sent to a post office on the border and thence distributed in the mails in the United States without paying any additional postage, thus the rate instead of being four cents a pound will be something like two cents a pound or only one cent more than is now paid by the daily press. The question is now engaging the attention of the post office departments at Washington and Ottawa and I expect to be able to make an early announcement with regard to it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the minister had appointed a board of censors for papers coming into this country would he not have reached the same end without putting the Canadian press to all this expense and trouble ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We give respectable American papers the remailing privilege by which they can be mailed to a Canadian post office and thence sent broadcast through the Canadian mails. The undesirable periodicals do not come within our classification. As to the appointment of a board of censors, the burden of the office of Postmaster General is already very great without undertaking the censorship of thousands and thousands of American periodicals. Such American periodicals as Colliers, McClures, and others have applied for and obtained the remailing privilege and are practically obtained by Canadian subscribers at the old rate they paid before the regulations were amended last year.


Mr. CHRISTIE.: Do the American agricultural papers come under that privilege ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: As to that, I have been deluged with letters asking to admit a Philadelphia paper which is called, I think the ' Farm.' We have established our rule for second-class matter, and papers coming within that class are described as follows in our postal guide :
Any Canadian newspaper or periodical which, claims to be entitled to a statutory privilege must conform to the following statutory conditions namely:
(aj It must be known as a newspaper or periodical in the generally reoeived sense of the word and consist wholly or in great part of political or other news, or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics, and be published regularly at intervals of not more than one month.
(b)	The full title, place and date of publication, and the distinguishing number of the issue must he printed on the top of the first and every subsequent page, and also on any paper, print, lithograph or engraving purporting to be a supplement to it, and sent with it.
(c)	It must be addressed to a bona fide subscriber or known newsdealer in Canada.
(d)	It must be delivered into the post office under such regulations as the Postmaster

General may from time to time make for the purpose.
In order to illustrate how some very enterprising American publishing firms are acting, let me point out that as I have just stated, I have been deluged, of late, with letters purporting to be from subscribers to a paper published in Philadelphia, called the ' Farm.'


Peter Christie: I would mention the case of the ' Breeders' Gazette,' of Chicago, which is valued very highly by the farmers and agriculturists of Canada. It is a paper that is thought a great deal of by the farmers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If that paper comes within the definition which I just read to the House, it will certainly receive the privilege granted to the other periodicals. However, this ' Farm,' of Philadelphia, is offered to Canadian subscribers at the rate of 85 cents for five years, published weekly. It almost comes within the definition I have just read. True it is a newspaper, it has a title, it is recognized as a newspaper in the United States, it consists wholly or in great part of articles relating to agriculture or other current topics ; it has a few political opinions, but about three-quarters of the paper is used for advertising purposes. We are told :	Oh, the Post Office Department
is refusing the ' Farm ' the privilege of the mails. It is not a farmers' advocate at all ; it has a few articles bearing on agriculture or agricultural topics, but the balance of the paper, the enormous weight of the paper, is made up of advertisements, of American firms, American pills, American patent medicines. Papers of that quality, under these circumstances, cannot come within the definition which is to be found in our postal guide. Every sensible member of the House will understand why we must resist in some degree the invasion of our Canadian territory by bogus newspapers.
My hon. friend wishes to know how our mails are handled on our railway systems. I regret that he did not give me notice of this question this morning, so that I could speak more definitely and precisely on this technical question; when my estimates come up I will be able to give my hon. friend figures, and, I think, gratify his curiosity. The subsidy which we pay to the various railway systems for the carriage of our mails is based on the mileage. In the United States it is based partly on the poundage, the weight of the mails, and partly on the space which the mail occupies in the postal cars. There is the radical difference between the American and the Canadian railway mail service. It is admitted by experts that the Canadian system is far superior. so much so that I may later furnish to my hon. friend a report which was prepared for the Postmaster General of the United States not long ago, showing the enormous amount of money paid to the railways of the Mr. LEMIEUX.
United States which was admittedly wasted money. I am assured by my expert officials who are quite an authority on this question, that before long the United States will adopt our system of subsidies based on the mileage. I may say that our great trunk systems, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway and to some extent the Canadian Northern, are complaining that they are not sufficiently paid. On two or three different occasions, independent commissions, composed of experts, were appointed to readjust the payment of the subsidies, and I wish to inform the hon. gentleman that only a few days ago, at the urgent request of my late lamented friend, Mr. Drinkwater, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Wainwright, of the Grand Trunk, and the representatives of the Canadian Northern, I signed an order in council asking for the appointment of a commission of experts in order to readjust the payment of the subsidies to our Canadian system. I do not know if that commission will report in favour of an increased subsidy or a reduced one, but it is the custom every fifteen or twenty years, to readjust the subsidy for our railway mail service. It will be admitted that distances in our country are very great and settlement is sparse, mails have increased, and conditions may call for a readjustment.
My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) also referred to the 1-cent drop letter system. I have stated on different occasions that this question is under consideration. If I may speak personally, I may say that my sympathies are in favour of the 1-cent drop letter. It may be said at once that I am doing something for the cities to which the rural parts of the country are also entitled. There is some truth in that apparently, but when you come to sift the question to the very bottom and see the enormous amount of money which the Post Office Department is losing every day in all the large cities by the establishment and operation of the messenger services, it is quite easy for the postal authorities to realize on the other hand that if we did establish that 1-cent rate for the drop letter in cities and towns, we would at once cause a large increase in our revenue which would enable the department to give to the rural section of the community greater frequency of service than it now has, and more post offices. I may say to my hon. friend, and I state it before the House and the country, that my policy as Postmaster General is to bear in mind my position as trustee on behalf of the people of Canada for the very buoyant revenue of the Post Office Department. I am trustee for that surplus, just as I am a trustee for the moneys of the public which come into the Post Office Savings Department, and it is my duty to be more careful of that money than I am supposed to be of my own money. Therefore, I

must not waste that money. But with our boyant revenue; I feel that I am in a position to give the country an expansion of the service; where we have a weekly or a bi-weekly service, I think I am quite justified in giving a tri-weekly or a daily service. I believe that I should give the public in the thickly peopled portions of the country the service to which they are entitled. I am giving according to circumstances, a daily service, or a semi-daily service. As regards post offices, a few years ago the general policy of the department was to establish at a distance of five or six miles. I have reduced that distance so that, when an application is made to the department, whether made from this side of the House or from the other side, when circumstances justify it, new post offices are granted at a distance of two miles. I intend to continue that policy, and I hope that in doing so, I shall receive the support of the House.
My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) mentioned the fact that the department had thought it advisable last year to purchase a mail tender for the transatlantic mails. I do not care to eulogize myself, but I may be allowed to say that, if in anything I am entitled to praise by the maritime and commercial interests of the country, it is because I have authorized the purchase of a new steamer for our mail service at Ri-mouski and Sydney. Those who travel to Europe, and as good Canadians and good patriots return to Canada via the St. Lawrence route, have been simply shamed by the mail service as it existed at Rimouski. The first thing sighted by the newcomers or passengers returning to this country was something like a tug coming out to meet the steamer, with hardly any accommodation for passengers, with no' place for the mails; and sometimes this tug could not come to meet the steamer on time and so mails were missed, passengers were incommoded and the reputation of Canada suffered. The first delegation to meet me after I. was appointed Postmaster General was a delegation of the Board of Trade and shipping federation asking me to establish a mail service at Rimouski that would be a credit to the country. I said that I had just been sworn in and did not understand the conditions of the case, but that I would call at Rimouski and see what could be done. I went to Rimouski, and, Mr. Speaker, if you were to return there to-day, you would see what creditable changes have taken place. First, I asked the Public Works Department to give us a wharf worthy of the name, to give us electric light and to give us sheds for the passenger and freight -there were no sheds before. Also, you will gee there to-day, one of the finest steamers in the government fleet, the 1 Lady Evelyn.' That steamer was purchased not by myself-I am not an expert on steamers or on what pertains to steamers ; but, last year, after asking a vote from parliament
for that specific object, and having received it without opposition from either side of the House, I sent to England one of the most trusted officers of the Post Office Department, Mr. Laschinger, the assistant deputy minister. Mr. Laschinger is not an expert either, but he is a very safe and trusted employee. Under my instructions, he went straight to the Canadian High Commissioner, Lord Strathcona, by whom he was referred to the British admiralty, and, under the guidance of the Admiralty officers, lie bought the ' Lady Evelyn,' paying $60,000 or thereabouts. As to the value of the steamer, I can say to my hon. friend that not once, not twice, but ten times or more, I have been told by members of the Shipping Federation of Montreal that I could sell the ' Lady Evelyn ' at about one-third more than it cost the department to obtain her. My hon. friend is misinformed when he says that this boat has missed the mails. On the contrary, the ' Lady Evelyn ' was performing-under another name, I must say-in England, the same service that she is performing at Rimouski, except that the distance she covered on her route in England was longer. She has a fine deck for the mails and splendid accommodation for passengers. I was much pleased last year at the first trip of the ' Lady Evelyn,' when she met the ' Empress of Britain ' at Rimouski. The first man that I sighted on the deck of the ' Empress of Britain ' was the Principal of McGill, who usually goes to England once a year. He said : ' At last you have done away with our national shame, the ' Rhoda,' and I am proud today to come into Canadian waters and find decent accommodation for passengers.' The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) says that the ' Lady Evelyn ' has a crew of from 20 to 25 men. Yes ; the vessel is manned and equipped as an ocean mail tender for Canada ought to be. I keep the men the whole year round, for the service is intended not only for Rimouski but also for Sydney. Could I find and equip a suitable crew for every trip? The vessel may be at Sydney now, but in a few weeks she will be back at Rimouski. Am I to change the crew at every trip ? Could I hope in such a way to secure a well-trained, suitably-dressed crew of men, doing their duty faithfully at very reasonable cost ? I heard some derisive ' Hear, hear,' from my hon. friend from East Sim-coe (Mr. Bennett). Does he suspect that there is something nasty about the ' Lady Evelyn ?' I would like the hon. gentleman to look over the blue-book, to move for any returns or reports he pleases ; I invite him to come with me and pay a visit to the ' Lady Evelyn.' I have been in New York and Liverpool, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that he will see, not merely the best mail tender in Canada, but the best on this continent.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) a question? Could he give us the yearly cost ot' this tender ? The boat she replaced cost only $4,000 a year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, we had a contract with the Captain of the ' Rhoda,' a contract for five years at $4,000 a year! What does that represent as interest ? It represents the interest at G per cent on about $70,000. Now, this boat cost about $60,000. This represents an Interest charge of about $3,600 a year. So, we have saved money on that account. Besides it is right that this mail tender should be the property of the Post Office Department, so that she may be under our orders. And my hon. friend may rest assured that, as regards this steamer, there will be no scandal. The officers of the department here in Ottawa are looking carefully into the accounts for every purchase made in connection with the vessel. My hon. friend may rest assured that they will make it a point to see that the ship is well manned, well equipped and well run-and without scandal.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I was merely asking for information. I wished to learn, if I could, what was the yearly expenditure of this boat.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think that, the other day, there was a question on the Order Paper on that very subject. In reply to that question, I gave the figures for last year. I have forgotten those figures at present. The expenditure for the present year is just beginning. But if later on when the estimates come up my hon. friend will put the same question, he will have the figures, and he will learn that the amount spent on that steamer is very moderate. Now the hon. gentleman says :	Why is it that the
' Lady Evelyn ' arrived last year in the month of May and was put on the route only late in August ? The answer is very easy. The wharf at Rimouski is a very long- one, yet I regret to say that there was not at the extremity of the wharf a sufficient depth of water for that steamer. We had to do some dredging in the clian-lie] and as soon as the dredging was completed the boat was put on the route. Now the hon. gentleman says : ' I am told that during the time this steamer was performing her usual service the minister used her for himself and his friends.' My hon. friend is misinformed. I may, however, make a confession. I used the steamer twice. First, when the Prime Minister arrived from Europe. I was asked by the members of the press, and by several of my colleagues in the House, members on this side and I think there were two or three on the other side-to meet the Prime Minister near Berthier in the county of Bellechasse. The run lasted three or four hours, and the dinner offered to the Mr. LEMIEUX.
party was at the expense of the Postmaster General. So there was not much expense, the steamer had to be under steam in any case, because she was expected to be called to Rimouski at any day. On one other occasion I used the steamer with the deputy Postmaster General, Mr. Coulter, and my secretary, because I was anxious to establish a winter mail service between the island of Anticosti and the mainland. We left on a Monday afternoon, and on Wednesday morning we were back at Rimouski wharf. But this was an official visit made in the interest of the department and of the service ; and when the minister uses the steamer on occasions like this, I do not think the hon. gentleman should begrudge him the honour of travelling on the ' Lady Evelyn.'
I do not suppose my hon. friend meant to impute to me any thing unworthy in that regard.
Now about free rural mail delivery, I do not know that I should be called upon this evening to speak at length on this question. I would prefer to speak on it later on when the estimates are taken up. However, as the hon. gentleman has spoken on this question during my absence, he is entitled to a statement from me. On one or two different occasions I think he has spoken on this subject during this session. I read the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman in the debate on the address. His plea on that occasion was, in my opinion, a plea in favour of the United States. I sincerely hope that before long when the country is well settled, when immigrants are not prevented from coming to this country-we will have, as the United States have to-day, the luxury of free rural mail delivery. I agree with the hon. gentleman that the United States today are probably acting wisely in establishing free rural mail delivery. But how have they been able to obtain that luxury ff not by their accumulated wealth, by their large population, and by the large revenue yielded by the post office service ? Mr. Speaker, I think the question can be solved in a very few minutes. I need not go to Washington, as my hon. friend says he did. True, my officials went to Washington, but they did not go for the only purpose of obtaining from the United States officials the statement that the system was a success. They went there to investigate. Their minds were unbiased on the subject, they did not come back with the same report as the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman went to Washington for the purpose of convincing himself that it was a good thing for Canada to have free rural mail delivery. My officials went to Washington with an unbiased mind in order to investigate, and see for themselves if the conditions prevailing in the two countries were sufficiently alike to allow of the same system being established in Canada, and if it could be work-I ed out as well here as across the frontier.

Six*, the population of the United States, in round numbers, is 80,000,000 ; the postal revenue of the United States Is $183,000,000. In Canada we have not yet a population of
7,000,000. Our limited revenue-I say limited advisedly, although we have a fair surplus-our total gross revenue amounts to $9,000,000. Thus the United States have a population fourteen times ours, with a revenue twenty times as great. Can they not therefore afford themselves the luxury of free rural mail delivery ? Sir, it is with such facts in our minds that this question must be faced. Besides, we have about the same area as the United States. My hon. friend is advocating free rural mail delivery, which I myself would like to see under certain conditions, which conditions I hope will materialize before long. But will my hon. friend say this evening before the province of Ontario and the provinces further west, that he is prepared to discriminate in this matter ? Will he say before the representatives of the western provinces, where the distances are long, the area large and the population sparse-will he say :	You shall
not have free rural mail delivery, but we .will give it to Ontario and to Quebec where the country is more thickly settled ? Why, Sir, my hon. friend could not live twenty-four hours in the Post Office Department if he were to propound such a policy as that regarding the west.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What better position will the people be in ? Will we not have scattered districts a hundred years hence, or fifty years hence, just similar to those we have to-day ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is my hon. friend serious ? Does he propose to check immigration ? Does he think this country will not become settled ? Will he pretend, having read the history of Canada, that a hundred years ago the country was as thickly settled as it is to-day ? Is it not a fact that a hundred years ago in the province of Ontario not far from this city of Ottawa, there were no inhabitants ? Ottawa Itself, though now thickly settled, was but a solitude seventy or eighty years ago. My hon. friend surely does not expect that the aggressive provinces of the west will remain unsettled. On the contrary, I think they are God's heritage, and it is predicted that before long the balance of power will pass from the east to the west. Then my hon. friend will, if he lives in that golden age, realize ,that the west was entitled to the same treatment as the east.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister give me some reason why the thickly settled portions of eastern Canada should not be taken into consideration, and the thickly settled portions of the west as well ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because a farmer from Scandinavia or Germany happens to settle near Edmonton, or near that ambitious city of Strathcona, should he receive more consideration from the Post Office Department than the brave settler who goes upon the distant prairie and settles boldly alone ? I say that the same treatment must be given to the isolated farmer as to the farmer residing near the city or town.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why is it, when advantages are given to the cities, that the rural districts are not taken into consideration at the present moment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No intelligent resident of, say Buckingham, would claim that he is entitled, as regards letter carrier service, to the same service as a resident of Ottawa gets. The parallel should not be established in that sense, but I say that as regards free rural mail delivery-I am not speaking of city delivery

the same treatment should be given to the sparsely populated section of the country as to the thickly settled section of the country. Mark well, I am speaking of the farming community. My hon friend asks : Why do you not imitate the United States in this matter ? My hon. friend should not ignore the fact that the system of free rural mail delivery existed before the United States adopted it. The United States adopted free rural mail delivery, when? When they had 6,000,000 people? Not at all. They did not adopt rural free mail delivery with 15,000,000, nor with 20,000,000 nor with 60,000,000 people. They never dreamed of it in those days; not even when the population reached 70,000,000, but the United States started free rural mail delivery when the population reached the high watermark of 80,000,000 and when their revenue had increased from a few million dollars to $175,000,000. This system is not an American discovery. My hon. friend should hot lose sight of the fact that free rural mail delivery has existed for years and years in Europe. In Great Britain, for instance, where from Liverpool to London, it is practically one row of houses on both sides of the railway systems. It exists in France and in Belgium. But what is Belgium compared with Saskatchewan, with Manitoba, or even with Prince Edward Island ? We could put three Belgiums, and even more, in one of the smaller provinces of the Dominion. Therefore we must, before thinking of establishing that costly system in Canada, realize that we have an area as vast as that of the United States of America, that on the other hand we have only 7,000,000 of a population as against 85,000,000 in the United States, and that we have only a gross postal revenue of $9,000,000 as against one in the United States of $183,000,000. Further than that we have not the same climatic conditions. That fact must be taken into consideration also.

Whilst in the United States, generally speaking, they have a fair climate all the year round and good roads, we must admit that in certain sections of the country, during even the month of April and during several months of the year, our roads are practically impassable. All these facts must be taken into consideration before advocating the establishment of such a luxury. Let me draw a parallel. Here is an individual with a revenue of $50,000 a year ; my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), for instance, whom I see in his seat, has, I presume, at least a revenue of $50,000 a year. My hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), less fortunate, has only a revenue of $5,000 a year. Both are well off according to their relative condition of life. Surely my hon. friend from St. Antoine could buy an automobile and every morning he could be conveyed from his private house or country residence to his office, whilst the hon. member from Lambton would be satisfied to take, as I do myself, the tramway, or his bicycle or the ordinary train. He would see my hon. friend from St. Antoine passing in his automobile, whirling about in the streets of Montreal or suburbs, thus attracting his attention. Suppose the hon. member for St. Antoine would remonstrate with him and say: Why do you not get an automobile? You will get a drive through the fresh air ; your health will be better and besides it lends more dignity and charm to life to drive in an automobile? Would not my hon. friend from Lambton at once answer :	' It is a question of
revenue ; you have $50,000, you reside in the country, so do I, but I have only $5,000, I have a large family and I must be satisfied with the tramway.' So it is with free rural mail delivery. We have the United States on one side, same area as Canada, but with a revenue of $182,000,000. Here is Canada on the other, same area as the United States, but with only a postal revenue of $9,000,000 a year. Can we indulge a drive in the automobile of free rural mail delivery ? Evidently not, Mr. Speaker, we must be satisfied to live within our means. We must be as wise, as prudent as my hon. friend from Lambton would be if his revenue were what I have just mentioned as a comparison. Now, the United States are spending an enormous amount on this free rural mail delivery system. Last year, according to the figures which we have in the department, the postal authorities spent $26,000,000; that is to say, one-seventh of their income. But this is, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend should realize it, three times the total gross revenue of the Canadian Post Office Department. If Canada ceased to spend one red cent on its railway mail service, ceased to pay the postmasters-and what a noise there would be in the country if we did-if we ceased to pay for the conveyance of the mails and Mr. LEMIEUX.
if we used the total gross revenue of the Post Office Department for three years it would barely pay what the United States spent last year on free rural mail delivery. My hon. friend says that it is a revenue producer. Most of the revenue in the Post Office Department is derived from the sale of stamps for letters. Newspapers are carried at a loss by the department. We do it to accommodate the public, but they are carried at a loss. If I had more time I would give figures to the House. We get our revenue from the sale of the little postage stamp, but in order to have buoyancy we must have large centres of population as they have in the United States, large cities-Chicago. New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco-where millions of people are living and then we shall get revenue. We get a limited revenue. Therefore, we can spend only a limited amount of money. Now, does this free rural mail delivery increase the revenue? Has it increased the revenue of the United States Post Office Department? We made an investigation. I do not know if my hon. friend challenges the investigation made by the officers of the Canadian Post Office Department.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I certainly do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We sent to Washington trusted officials of the department, men like Mr. Ross, of Toronto, nearly 35 years in the service, taking more interest in his public duties than he would take in his own private business, being at present broken in health, because he has travellled during 35 years from one end of the country to the other to see that the Post Office Department was run economically and at the same time in the interest of the public. He went to Washington with Mr. Smith, and not relying alone on what they might hear from politicians who benefited politically by the system, - they remained in Washington for several weeks and made a thorough investigation and report. They reported that on 81 routes selected by the United States postal authorities for their examination, the revenue has increased during the six months by $50 ; on 51 other routes there had been no increase in revenue, and on 132 routes there had been a diminution of $225. This is not a flight of the imagination, these are cold facts, and before telling the good people of Ontario that there should be rural free delivery it is well that the facts should be presented. Now, the people of Quebec would be quite willing to have rural free delivery too. Even on the distant shores of Gaspd where they have received so many good things from the government since 1890. the hardy fishermen there would be quite willing to have free rural mail delivery. What my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) claims for Ontario I would be disposed to claim for Quebec, but to be fair and just to the other provinces of the Dominion I would

think that British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, are just as much entitled to that luxury as the two large provinces.


Mr. MORIN.: And the Yukon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, if we had gathered from the Yukon the crop of gold which the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said were there when he combated that famous railway project, we might have been able to stand the expense of free rural mail delivery, but we did not get the gold and so we must be satisfied with our gross postal revenue of $9,000,000 a year. There is no evidence that in the United States, free rural mail delivery has materially increased the revenue. According to the report of our officials to which I have referred, during a period of six months in 1903, on 132 routes 3,638,000 pieces were delivered, and in 1904, during the same period, 3,662,899, showing an increase of 2,651 pieces or seven-hundredths of one per cent. And this was on 132 routes which were pointed out by the United States postal authorities as being the best routes in the whole Union. My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) should know that the free rural delivery in the United States which was initiated at an expense of a few thousand dollars, cost the country last year the fabulous sum of $37,000,000. When the hon. gentleman goes before the electors of Lambton with his pleasant smile and condemns this government for refusing them that luxury of rural free delivery which the people across the border enjoy ; when he tells them that the Canadian Post Office Department has no care for the welfare of the farmers of Lambton, I wish he would also tell them that the rural free delivery in the United States cost last year $37,000,000. If the hon. gentleman would invite me to his county I would like to discuss that matter with his friends, and I am sure they would give me a cordial reception when I disclosed to them these cold facts.
Until 1904, the United States published figures as to the cost of the routes and the amount of revenue derived therefrom. Since that date no official figures have been published. In 1904, the result of rural free delivery for the whole of the United States, setting forth the total number of letters, post cards, papers, circulars, packages, collected from all the routes and the total amount of stamps cancelled on all the routes and the revenue collected from rural free delivery, shows, there was collected one hundred and thirty-three odd million pieces at a cost of $12,681,876, and yielding a revenue of $2,601,815, thus giving a deficit, so far as rural free delivery is concerned, in that year of $10,080,061. The United States since that date have published no statistics until the present year when they have published a statement in their annual report of 2.31
the results, not of the whole service but of twenty-seven of the best and most favourable routes in the United States. But the report states that the" statement is for the purpose of giving some indication (mark you) of the possibilities of rural free delivery in tlie more densely populated localities served, both suburban and rural. The hon. gentleman complained in the debate on the address that I had stated the United States deficit on this service to be about $20,000,000. I do not remember having made that statement, but I may point out to the hon. gentleman that at a recent congress of the postmasters of the United States, attended by 1,500 postmasters, matters concerning the postal service in the United States were discussed and amongst others the possibility of developing the rural free delivery system by extending parcel post delivery on the routes, and the statement was then made and it has not been contradicted so far as I know, that the rural free delivery service cost $35,000,000 a year and only yielded a revenue of $5,000,000, thus leaving an annual deficit of $30,000,000, which is $10,000,000 more than the amount I am alleged to have stated. The hour is late and I shall conclude by thanking my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) for his courteous treatment of the department. We may differ, but I must admit that when he discussed questions in connection with the Post Office Department he is always very fair indeed. I am glad he has brought these several matters to my notice this evening and when the estimates are being considered we may discuss the question again. I am sincere in telling my hon. friend that I am as anxious as he can be to give the people of Canada an improved postal service, although I must say that we have on the whole a most creditable system in the urban and suburban districts. Above all, we must not exceed our revenue. I am as anxious as he is to give the farmers of Canada a free rural mail delivery, but my hon. friend will never convince a farmer of the west that he should pay for a luxury'to be given only to the farmers of the east. He will never convince a man with a head on his shoulders and with common sense in the head that we are in a position to spend as much money with our limited revenue and our small population as the United States with their enormous revenue and their large population.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a word in reply.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member has no right to reply. The only motion before the House is to go into Supply.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sorry I have not the opportunity of making just a few remarks.



Richard Blain: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I shall



first read the following resolution which was sent to me to-day:
The Women's Christian Temperance Union of Brampton passed the following resolution:
Whereas we understand that a Bill is being nrepared for the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada to prohibit the manufacture and sale of cigarettes;
Resolved, that, for the sake of the youth of our country, we sincerely hope and pray that such a measure may receive the most hearty support both of the Commons and of the Senate of Canada, and soon become law in our Dominion.
I would ask the Finance Minister if a Bill is being prepared by the government to be introduced during this session respecting cigarettes?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I must admit that I am unable to give my bon. friend any definite information. The whole question has been engaging the attention of the ministers as well as of other hon. members of the House, and it may be that before the close of the session some legislation, perhaps not altogether as broad as my hon. friend suggests, but approaching the same lines, will be introduced. I am not in a position to make a more definite statement at present.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Chicoutimi post office, $7,500.
William Pugsley: This is a revote to make provision for the completion of a public building now under erection at Chicoutimi.
Mr. FOWLER, How much has been spent?


William Pugsley: Up to November 15, $28,728.


Mr. FOWLER.: What is the contract price?


William Pugsley: $22,472, not including electric wiring, heating, interior fittings or clock.


George William Fowler: How about the duty on that clock?


William Pugsley: I have no information as to that. In the case of the clock of which we spoke the other day, I find there were several tenders for the clock and the tenderer to whom the tender was awarded tendered for a certain amount, duty not included. Therefore, of course, the duty had to be added to his contract price.


George William Fowler: And that was expressly stated in the tender?


William Pugsley: Yes. I feel that I should inform the committee that my deputy was mistaken in regard to the security for the Halifax custom house. He told me that the security was still held by the de- I Mr. BLAIN. '
partment, but on inquiry he finds that he was mistaken in regard to that. The security was paid over before I became minister and also before he became acting deputy minister. We have held back some $3,000 or $4,000 of the main bill.


Mr. FO  WLER@: By whose authority was
the security paid over?


William Pugsley: The certificate the department had at that time was that the building was substantially completed, and it was felt that it was not necessary to retain the security longer. It was paid over in the early part of 1907.


George William Fowler: Referring to the confidential report of Mr. Dodwell on the Halifax building and the subsequent report of Mr. Wright, to what extent do they agree?


William Pugsley: In a general way the report of Mr. Wright does not go to the same extent as the report of Mr. Dodwell.


George William Fowler: Under the circumstances do you not think the reports should be produced ?


William Pugsley: 1 could not produce a confidential report without the consent of the writer.


George William Fowler: Was it expressely understood between you and Mr. Dodwell that the report should be confidential.


William Pugsley: Mr. Dodwell desired that it should be confidential.


George William Fowler: Had the minister not a right to direct the making of that report? Mr. Dodwell is an officer of the department.


William Pugsley: I thought he would write more freely if the report was confidential. He has general supervision over all matters in that section of the country, but he was not in direct charge of this building and, therefore, the report was made confidential.


George William Fowler: He has general supervision over all matters in that section of the country, and I cannot see why Mr. Bush did not report to him and why Dodwell found it necessary to have verbal communication with the minister. I do not understand the supervision exercised by Mr. Dodwell. The minister had a right to command him to make a report. I cannot say that the minister has acted quite properly with regard to this matter. He does not seem to entertain the right idea with regard to the duties of the-officers of his department.


Richard Blain: Was the statement correct that was made the other evening, that the government had paid duty of over $400 on the coat of arms supplied for the Halifax building which should have been paid by the contractor under the contract ?


William Pugsley: The statement made has been verified with regard to the duty upon the coat of arms.
Cookshire public building, $5,000.


George William Fowler: The minister promised to bring some information with regard to the granolithic sidewalk before the Antigon-ish building.


William Pugsley: I have the information. The sidewalk cost 26 cents per square foot, which included the levelling. Mr. Ewart, the chief architect, says that that was the cheapest price at which he could get it done In that locality.


George William Fowler: Let us have the dimensions. For, I must say, 1 have not the confidence in the chief architect's figures I would like to have. If the lot was of the dimensions stated by the minister and the sidewalk was of reasonable width, it would be impossible to make up the amount of money paid in this case.


William Pugsley: A portion of the sidewalk was 21 feet. The architect says that the price of granolithic pavement in Ottawa is 18 cents. In some places it is more, in some less.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not long ago in our section of country this kind of work was done at 9 cents in one case and at 11 cents in another.


William Pugsley: The chief architect says that he has had this work done at as low as 11 cents, but 26 cents was the lowest price he could get in Antigonish.


George William Fowler: But I would like the dimensions.


William Pugsley: The chief architect brought the plan over before, but he has not it with him this evening. He will bring it.


George William Fowler: Well, with the plan before us, we can discuss the matter.


William Pugsley: This vote of $5,000 is for a public building in Cookshire. The site has been given free at the cost of the municipal council.


George William Fowler: What did the site at Chicoutimi cost ?


William Pugsley: 


Richard Blain: At whose suggestion was this vote for the Cookshire building put in the estimates ?


William Pugsley: The people of Cookshire asked for the building and the municipal council passed a resolution to furnish the site free to the Crown.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has tne building been commenced ?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is it to cost ?


William Pugsley: It is expected to cost in the neighbourhood of $19,000 or $20,000.


George William Fowler: What is the size of Cookshire ?


William Pugsley: About 2,000 population, I am informed. It is a growing town, I believe-a nice town.


Richard Blain: The minister did not answer my question. I asked at whose request this item of $5,000 was put in the estimates ? He says that the municipal council gave the site and the people of the town asked for the building. In what way did they ask-by petition ?


William Pugsley: A resolution passed by the council was sent to the Minister of Public Works in the ordinary way.


Richard Blain: Has the minister a copy ?
Mr. PUGSLEY, I have not it with me.


Richard Blain: And as to the town generally ?
Mi'. PUGSLEY. A petition was sent in by the residents and ratepayers of the town, which was transmitted by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Hunt), on December 6, 1907.


Richard Blain: Has the minister a copy of the petition ?


William Pugsley: No. It would make a bulky assortment of papers if I should bring the petitions for all these public buildings.


Richard Blain: I did not ask for all, but only for one.


William Pugsley: But I did not know which one the hon. gentleman would ask for.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The census of 1901 gives Cookshire a population of about 800.


William Pugsley: It has grown a good deal since. Then, I understand, this post office will serve a thickly settled community besides that included within the municipal limits of the town.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What is the revenue ?


William Pugsley: For the nine months, 1906-7, the revenue was $2,128.44 ; money orders issued $12,902 ; money orders paid, $8,411. Then, to give an idea of the business of the place, the exports were $297,079 in the nine months of the last fiscal period ; imports $65,047. Of course, this building is for a custom house as well.


George William Fowler: It is not a sub-port, is it?


William Pugsley: It must be, because the customs duties collected at the post office amount to about $2,000.


George William Fowler: I am not finding fault with this public building for Cookshire, which is a nice, thriving little town. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has taken it under his paternal wing and given it a post office, and we are wicked enough to suspect that he has an ulterior motive.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You must not impute motives.


George William Fowler: I say we ' suspect.' If the people of Cookshire get the advantage of this building, so much the better for them. But I wish to press upon the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) the fact that if he contends that Cookshire is entitled to a post office by reason of its importance, the amount of its revenue and the business done, he has double reason for giving a post office to the town of Hillsborough, in the county of Albert.


William Pugsley: I am glad that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) approves of this.


George William Fowler: My attitude is merely negative-I do not disapprove.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would refer to the census of 1901, page 302. I am not objecting to the post office for Cookshire, but I wish to show that the population must have increased rapidly if it has 2,000 now. According to the census of 1902 there were 322 English, 80 Irish, 49 Scotch, 1 of other nationality, 338 French-total population 801.


William Pugsley: That is within the municipal limit. But I am told that there is an important community besides to be served.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How far does the minister go in order to find his population of 2,000 ?


William Pugsley: I do not understand whether the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) is opposed to this or in favour of it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am not speaking to oppose this vote. I am only saying that if the minister proposes to give a twenty thousand dollar post office to every town of 801 population, we would like to know it, that is all.


William Pugsley: My opinion is that a good deal depends on the importance of the place and on the business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister tell us what the present post office costs the country for rent and light, and If there is any other government building there ?


William Pugsley: I am not sure whether there is an inland revenue office there, but there is a custom house. This building will be also used for customs. The rent paid last year was $190 for the post office and customs office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We proposed to put up a building costing $19,000, that will cost Mr. PUGSLEY.
us about $1,100 a year, I presume, after it is built.


William Pugsley: The intention of the town council is to rent a portion of the building for a registry office; that will give a little income.


George William Fowler: I do not think that is a proper thing to do. It seems to me it is a great mistake for this government, to put up a building for federal purposes and rent a portion of it to a municipality. Let the municipality build its own registry office.


William Pugsley: It is not considered undesirable for municipalities to rent portions of public buildings which are not required for municipal offices. That was a proposition which the municipal council made, and rent might be got from that. I do not see any objection to it at the present time.


Richard Blain: Could the minister give the date of the resolution of the municipal council ?


William Pugsley: It was forwarded on December 6, 1907.


Richard Blain: When was this $5,000 first placed in the estimates?


William Pugsley: Last year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is a full customs port. Mr. Ross is collector there.


William Pugsley: The amount received from customs was $3,186.


Richard Blain: Is it the policy of the department to appropriate public money for the construction of registry offices for municipalities ? Surely that is a new departure on the part of the government.


William Pugsley: I thought I made myself clear that it had not yet been decided whether to rent a portion of the building as a registry office. But the town council urged that, as it was a very convenient site for that purpose, when the building was erected there might be made in it a room which could be used for the registry office, and for which of course, the council would pay rent.


George William Fowler: Have you got the request there ? I would like to see it.


George Taylor: The town council has nothing to do with the registry office, it is the county council.


William Pugsley: The Information I have is that the resolution was passed by the municipal council of the town of Cookshire. They made a gift of the site, and they have also urged that in the erection of the building, as this is a very convenient site and in a public park, it would be desirable that provision should be made for a

registry office, for which they would pay rental.	[DOT]


George William Fowler: The minister has gone further than that, he has intimated that in his opinion that is all right. The minister might just as well provide at the expense of the federal government, a court house and jail as to provide a registry office. I venture to say there is not another instance like it in Canada. I protest strongly against any such departure from the rule. Does the Minister of Agriculture, for instance, think that is a proper thing ?


Mr. PUGS LEY.: All we are asking for now, is a vote for the building ; the question of the registry office is one that we will have to consider.


George William Fowler: Who will consider it ?


William Pugsley: The minister.


George William Fowler: The minister has already decided.


William Pugsley: No, I said where a town council is willing to give a convenient site in a square, as apparently this is, and if they request that in erecting the building there should be one room made suitable for a registry office for which they are willing to pay an adequate rent, there may be cases that would be entirely justifiable. Whether it will be done in this instance, I am not prepared to say.


Richard Blain: Was that the condition on which the site was granted ?
the municipal council and the petition by the residents of the town.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are embarking on a new principle, a principle that, I think, will be admitted by most people, is a bad one. If a place does not require as large a building it is an easy matter to reduce the amount that is proposed to be voted for that purpose. But, when we have supplied a place with a custom house, an inland revenue office and a post office, I think we have gone as far as we can reasonably expect to go.


Richard Blain: Will the minister supply, at a future date, the petition and resolution passed by the municipal council?


William Pugsley: I will be very glad to do so.


Richard Blain: And would the minister say wnether any part of the building will be constructed for a registry office?


William Pugsley: I will look at the resolution and I have no objection at all to stating my views later on.


George William Fowler: Then we will have an opportunity of discussing this item again?


William Pugsley: Not this item, but you can discuss the principle on some other item.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When will that building be commenced?


William Pugsley: We hope just as soon as the plans and specifications can be prepared and tenders called for.


William Pugsley: There was no condition.


George William Fowler: I think the minister ought to bring down that resolution of the town council to which he pays so much attention.


Richard Blain: I think we should have that resolution. The minister has pointed out that this building was put up at the request of the municipal council, and by a petition of the residents. He says he sees no objection to using a portion of this building for a registry office.
ilr. PUGSLEY. Provided they pay for it.


Richard Blain: Provided they pay for it. In other parts of Canada, particularly in Ontario, no such thing -would be tolerated for a moment. Every county council must provide a suitable registry office for the requirements of the country. It would not be suggested for a moment that the government should provide such a building; in fact, a building of this kind would be of no value unless the building were constructed especially for that purpose. It is rather unfair for the minister to come down and ask for an appropriation without having under his hand the request that was made by
Dominion public buildings-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $20,000.


William Pugsley: This vote of $20,000 is to be applied in carrying out renewals, repairs and work of that kind generally to public buildings in Quebec for which special appropriations have not been made. This is the ordinary maintenance vote which is passed every year.
Mi-. FOWLER. At what places is it expected to do this work?


William Pugsley: At some twenty or thirty different places and the repairs range from $4 up to $2,000.
Dundee custom house-renewals and repairs, $1,800.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was that building erected?


William Pugsley: It was built 58 years ago, and these repairs are absolutely necessary.


Mr. R. N. WALSH.: What repairs are being made?


William Pugsley: There is to be a new stone foundation, the building is to be raised three and a half feet, there will be 175 running feet of concrete and some excavating.


Robert Nelson Walsh: Does the minister know that this is a very old house that this $1,800 is being spent on, and that he could erect a new building for that sum of money?


William Pugsley: I know it is an old
house, but with these repairs it may last some time yet.


Robert Nelson Walsh: But with the $1,800 which is being spent upon it now you can put up a new building.


William Pugsley: I would not like to try to put up a new building with $1,800.


Robert Nelson Walsh: You could add a little to it and make a good building.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see this is a revote. Mr. PUGSLEY. It is a revote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If the money was voted last year and not spent there is no very great need for it.


William Pugsley: The contract has now been let.


Robert Nelson Walsh: Who has the contract?
-Air. PUGSLEY. Mr. J. Fraser.
Air. BERGERON AVere tenders called for?


William Pugsley: It is going to cost altogether $3,300.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many tenders were there?


William Pugsley: I think Mr. Fraser was asked to tender; there was no public call by advertisement for tenders.


Robert Nelson Walsh: Do I understand the minister to say that it is going to cost $3,30 j?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Air. CROCKET.: Why are you asking for only $1,S00?


William Pugsley: We are asking simply for $1,S00 because there was $1,800 granted last year. The repairs have not been started. This is a revote, but it is not unlikely that I may ask for $1,500 more in the supply estimates so as to get sufficient to do the work this year.
Farnkam post office-alterations, including rearrangement of fittings, $5,500.


William Pugsley: This is a revote to make provision for alterations, including a rearrangement of the interior fittings. This has been requested by the Post Office Department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was the Farn-ham office built?


William Pugsley: In 1893.


George William Fowler: What are the alterations? Air. PUGSLEY.


William Pugsley: It is proposed to make a larger lobby for the accommodation of the public and to change the interior fittings.	-


George Taylor: The usual way is for the minister to state how much is to be expended on each item of the repairs, what is to be done with the money, so much for this alteration and so much for that. The minister is not following the usual custom of the Department of Public Works.


William Pugsley: This memorandum has been prepared by the same gentleman who has for twenty or thirty years been preparing these statements.


George Taylor: I have been here for twenty years and I have always heard the minister get up and read off in detail an estimate of all the different items, it is placed on ' Hansard ' and we can read it.


William Pugsley: That is done in some cases where it is asked for.


George Taylor: It is always done. When we ask what he is going to do with this money he tells us in detail. This explanation which consists in stating that a room is to be enlarged is no explanation at all.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: AYhat will be the whole amount of expenditure?


William Pugsley: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And it is a revote?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will these repairs be made by contract?


William Pugsley: They will probably be made by contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are they all interior repairs?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What kind of repairs are they?
Air. PUGSLEA'. There has been some question as to what should be the extent of the repairs and the details have not yet been determined on by the chief architect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the estimate appears to be submitted to parliament on guess work, and it is not a businesslike thing to do.


William Pugsley: Alore extensive repairs have been urged than are contemplated by the chief architect, and if we make very extensive repairs it would raise a question whether it would not be better to erect a new building.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What did the building cost in the first place?
Air. PUGSLEY'. It has cost altogether for construction and repairs $11,400.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the revenue?


William Pugsley: Postal revenue (nine months), $2,867 ; money orders issued, $20,000 ; money orders paid, $17,000 ; population, 3,114.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-improvement and repairs to building, $12,500.


William Pugsley: These repairs and improvements have been requested by the medical attendant at the station.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who is responsible for the carrying out of these works?


William Pugsley: We have an agent there, Mr. Beiand.


John Dowsley Reid: Any relation of the member?


William Pugsley: I am told not.


George William Fowler: Have you an inspector of works?
Mr. 'PUGSLEY. Mr. Beiand. .


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Every year since I have been in this House we have been expending money on this quarantine station.
I have been on the island and everything appears to be in good order and repair, but still we have to spend money every year as if we were compelled to whether it was wanted or not.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: Last year there was $12,520 expended. What was that for?


William Pugsley: It was for lumber, plumbing, paint, cement, hardware, wages, sundries, &c.


Richard Blain: Was the cement purchased by public tender?


William Pugsley: I cannot say now, but the quantity purchased was very small.


Richard Blain: What is the policy of the department?


William Pugsley: The policy is to call for tenders for cement and we are frequently doing so.


Richard Blain: I see six rugs were purchased from T. Beiand & Co., at over $20 each. What were they for?


William Pugsley: I presume they were for the house of the resident physician.


Richard Blain: Was the cement bought by public tender?


William Pugsley: This was before my advent to the department and I cannot say just now, but the policy of the department will be to purchase as far as possible all the articles that are required for public buildings by tender. Occasionally there may be small quantities which it would not be convenient to purchase in that way, but as a rule competitive prices will be obtained.


John Dowsley Reid: Will this money be expended by contract or by day's work?


William Pugsley: While some of it may be done by contract It is probable that the bulk of it would be more economically and perhaps better done by day's work.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the foreman?


William Pugsley: Mr. Beiand, the representative of the Public Works Department at Quebec, is supposed to do that.


John Dowsley Reid: He lives at Quebec?


William Pugsley: When repairs are being made to any extent I understand he remains at Grosse Isle.


John Dowsley Reid: During the whole progress of the work?


William Pugsley: So I understand.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that the real fact?


William Pugsley: I understand so. He is supposed to be there sufficiently to have an oversight of the work.


John Dowsley Reid: Was he there long last year?


William Pugsley: I am told he has been twenty years in that employment.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-disinfecting apparatus, including building, $3,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will that complete the work ?


William Pugsley: The chief architect says so. There was an expenditure up to November 30 last year of $4,121.
Mr. BENNETT, What is this for ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Additional sulphur apparatus is needed there.


John Waterhouse Daniel: IHow much is for disinfecting apparatus and how much for the building ?


William Pugsley: The building will cost $4,689, and the balance will be used for the other purpose.
Ivnowlton public building, $4,500.


William Pugsley: This is a revote of $4,500 to make provision towards the erection of a public building in Knowlton.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the population ?


William Pugsley: 800.


William Humphrey Bennett: What would be the total cost ?


William Pugsley: The contract has not yet been let, but I suppose that including heating and everything it will be somewhere in the vicinity of $15,000, possibly more.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This money was voted last year. If it was very much needed,

you would suppose it would have been commenced. It looks like holding this money out before the community.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There was difficulty in procuring a site. The site owned by the municipal council and their authority for the sale had to be obtained. The site is about 115 feet by 90 feet, and it cost about |350.


George William Fowler: Have you agreed to build a registry office ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, but there is to be an armoury in conjunction with the post office building.


William Humphrey Bennett: To what amount will
the minister bind himself as the outside cost of this building ? If you start to erect buildings in every town or village of 800 the country will be bankrupt.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Knowlton is the county town, there is no public building in the county, and gentlemen opposite recommended me strongly last year, to get a building put there for that reason.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When we remember all the noise and trouble that was raised about the La Prairie post office, by the hon. gentlemen, when in opposition, and then have them vote money for a building of this kind, in a place of the size of Knowlton. it is not extraordinary that the public lose confidence in public men.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is generally conceded that a county town can very fairly lay claim to a public building and such buildings have been erected in most cases. This is the only public building in the county and the post office accommodation is quite inadequate.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The county town is generally not the largest but the'most central town in the county. Is the largest place in Brome only about 800 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We do not spread our villages over half creation. The village itself has a population of 800, but the post office will serve a community of at least 2,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is paid for the present office ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Eighty dollars a year.


George Taylor: What is the revenue ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The revenue was $1,557, and the rent paid is $00. That is according to the report.


William Pugsley: That is for nine months.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many are employed on the. post office staff at present ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The post office postmaster himself. But I think he employs two people in the office.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 


John Dowsley Reid: What has the Finance Minister to say about these expenditures ? Does he allows every place that asks for it to have a public building ? If so, it is no wonder that our expenditure is so high .


William Stevens Fielding: Not every place. But I am afraid I am responsible for the doctrine the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has advanced. I think we can justify the construction of a public building-not necessarily an expensive building-in the county town of every county in which there is no other Dominion public building. I ventured to lay that rule down some years ago, and the more I think of it the more reasonable it seems to me. I think the government owes something to the people of the country in the matter of public buildings. Knowlton is a small town, but, if there is no other public building in the county, I think the government does no wrong in putting up a modest public building in this county town. It is a good example, and while it will cost a little, it does not mean that we are to put a public building in every town-for, I take it, there are other communities in Brome that might put forward a claim. But, if you confine it to the county town of a small county, or, in a larger county extends the rule to two or three communities, I think it is a good rule.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am sorry, in view of the statement we have just heard, that the hon. member for Sunbury & Queens (Mr. \\ ilmot) is not in his place at the moment, for neither Sunbury nor Queens has a Dominion building. In view of the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) a claim might very properly be put in for a public building for Oromocto in Sunbury county and for Gagetown in Queens. It is a new doctrine to me that the government will build public buildings in the county town of every county that has no other government building.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not gone so far as to say that these buildings must all be put up at once. I am not familiar with Oromocto, but I know Gagetown and I think that if there is not a public building in that county a fair claim could be made. And, if hon. gentlemen will be patient, no doubt it will be carried out. But all this will not be done in a day.


Mr. HERRON.: What procedure should one take in order to get one of these buildings in his constituency ?


William Stevens Fielding: Patience is a good policy.


John Herron: I have seven or eight towns of from 1,200 to 1,800 people without a public building of any description. I have not made any particular request for one. But if the government is willing to build

on such easy conditions, I think my constituency would have a claim.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: Which town would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron) suggest ?


John Herron: Well, for instance, Mae-leod. The post office there is unfit for a postal service. And it is a very important town.


Mr. TALBOT.: What is the population ?


John Herron: About 1,800 or 2,000.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The size of one of our villages.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Herron) must have patience. It is twenty-six years since I commenced to represent Brome and the county is only now getting its first public building.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the hon. gentleman right in saying that there is no public building in Macleod. I have understood that there is a very considerable building there.


John Herron: The constituency is about
40,000	square miles.


William Stevens Fielding: But I am speaking of the principle of making some public expenditure within a county.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Minister of Public Works has not said that he will bind himself that this building shall not exceed in cost any particular sum.


William Pugsley: I think I can say pro bably it will not be more than $20,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there a petition for this building ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I asked for it. And the hon. member's (Mr. Reid) desk-mate (Mr. Fowler) also asked for it.
Lachute public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote.


An hon. MEMBER.: In what county is Lachute ?


William Pugsley: In Argenteuil. The site has been bought and some work has been done. The total expenditure up to November 30, 1907, was $1,645.68.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: From whom was the site bought ?


William Pugsley: From Mr. H. M. Gall, for $1,200. It has a frontage of 44 feet on Main street.


George Taylor: Has the contract been let?


William Pugsley: Yes, to Messrs. Lafleur & Son, of Lachute.


George Taylor: What is the total estimated cost ?


William Pugsley: 


George William Fowler: What is the population of Lachute ?


William Pugsley: By the census of 1901, it was 2,022.
Lake Megantic public building, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the purchase of a site. The total cost is $4,000.


George Taylor: How large a place is it ?


William Pugsley: In 1901, it had a population of 1,883.


George Taylor: That is an awful price for the lot in a town of that size.


William Pugsley: It is a very valuable lot with a frontage of 64 feet on Main street, and a depth of 132 feet to a lane. It was considered a most desirable lot and the owners were not anxious to sell.


George William Fowler: Why so big a lot ? In Lachute you have a lot of only 44 feet frontage ?


William Pugsley: We could not vei'y well have the lot split up, as the owners would not sell in that way. The land was owned by the Presbyterian church, and, of course, they would not want to sell part of the lot.
Levis public building, $10,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there not already a post office at L6vis ?


William Pugsley: This is for a new building. The total probable cost is $49,713.44.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was it commenced ?


William Pugsley: In 1905.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it not finished yet?


William Pugsley: The architect tells me it is finished and occupied.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then, what is the money for ?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure to 3.1st October last was $35,274.44. Amount due on the contract, $6,262 ; wiring, $750 ; amount due on lock boxes, sidewalk, fencing, &c., $500 ; contingencies, superintendence, $3,163. rl'he first contract was for $22,000. The $49,000 includes many things which are not in the contract.


John Dowsley Reid: How does it come to pass that there are $27,000 for extras ?


William Pugsley: After the contract was let the site was changed, and that caused a great deal of extra work.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. There was a contract let for a certain sized building. Now it was changed from one site to another. Why did the change of site necessitate so great an additional cost ? if a contract was given for $22,000 and then you turn around

and ask for $37,000 for extras, there must be something wrong. I have no doubt that there is some robbery going on in that case. There is public robbery, I do not hesitate to say it.


William Pugsley: X can now give the House .some details of the extra cost. What the chief architect tells me is that after the contract was let it was decided to change the site. Where it was decided to erect the building was upon a place where there was an old wharf. That wharf had all to be cut out and a new foundation built of concrete. There was the extra work of excavating on account of the change of site, which amounted to $552. The concrete work, the brick, and so forth, cost $4,261. Then there was further excavation and concrete, and additional stone, $4,275. Then taking something off the foundation and replacing it, 212 yards, $2,106. There is a little over $11,000. I will give the reason why the site was changed. After the contract was let it became necessary, by reason of the Intercolonial improvements at Levis, to widen the street, and that necessitated putting the post office in a different position by some 50 feet. There was a new station and yard room required. The contract was let in 1905 to Mr. Joseph Couture.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What was the original cost of the site ?


William Pugsley: The site was given by the Intercolonial authorities ; the town and railway together owned the land. The government did not pay anything for either the first site or the second site.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The minister said he had to build a post office 50 feet from the first site, but that ought not to change the cost of the site. The government bought some ground there to enlarge the street. I do not see how the minister can claim there was any additional cost for the building.


William Pugsley: Suppose the place where the building was to be first erected was solid ground, and suppose that the new site necessitated building part of the foundation where there was an old wharf. That old wharf had to be cut away and a concrete foundation made. Surely that would change the cost.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not ask any one to tell me the location of that post office. He says there was a wharf there. I have my doubts whether there ever was a wharf there. I went into that very place sixty years ago and there was no wharf. Afterwards a wharf was built, but outside the place where the post office is now. But where the post office stands there never was a chance to build a wharf because there was no water. At low tide the water Is probably twenty feet from where the post office stands now, and when the tide comes in Mr. J. D. REID.
there is a little water, but not much. There is water at high tide in the month of May. Now will this $2,000 finish that post office?
Mr. rUGSLEY. It will complete it.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Are you sure of that?


William Pugsley: One cannot be sure of anything in this world.
Mr. jiORIN. That post office was built on poor ground. There was a post office building bought at St. Thomas, Montmagny, and it went down two years after it was-bought. The government paid $7,794.50 for it. I do not intend to blame the minister for that because he was not in the government at the time. But, when they commenced to erect this building at Levis they built it on a poor foundation, the foundation gave away, another man took the job of fixing it up, it gave way again and they again fixed it up. Now, if you go there and take a sight you see that the first story on the north side of the building caves in about four inches, and the second story leans out about four inches. The building warps and wobbles. The first story leans south and the second leans north. That is why I ask the minister if he knows what it will cost ?


William Pugsley: I wish to thank my hon. friend for assisting me in giving information to the committee as to the very great difficulties that have been met with in the construction of this building. What my hon. friend has stated accounts very largely for the large amount of extras which were necessary in the construction of the building. But, every effort, so the chief architect tells me, was made to secure a solid foundation. The building rests upon a concrete foundation that is deemed to be perfect, and there is every reason to believe that the foundation will stand.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the minister any personal knowledge of the locality?


William Pugsley: Only in a general way.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not think the minister is doing himself credit. He knows a great deal about Ldvis. We remember that a few years ago there was a long discussion about a question as to the acquisition of land in Ldvis for the purpose of the Intercolonial Railway. Some parties who owned the land there had met in the department with the statement of an engineer that the land was only worth $1 a foot.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Was that during the construction of the St. Charles branch?


William Humphrey Bennett: It was while Mr. Blair was minister. Was that the time?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: No, prior to that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Blair happened to I be the minister at that time and these par-

ties found an adverse report in the department that the land was only worth $1 a foot. By an inspiration they became possessed of the idea that it would be advisable to secure a magic wand to wave over the head of the minister or some other important gentleman, and these parties hied themselves down to the city of St. John and secured the services of one Win. Pugs-ley. May I ask the minister if he is the gentleman who made representations to the minister of that day as to the value of the land?


William Pugsley: I do not remember. I know Ldvis just as a traveller would know it, passing through.


William Humphrey Bennett: The bon. gentleman knew it better than that. I think he knew it as a very fair fee getter.


William Pugsley: I do not remember. I have no doubt that if I did the work I charged well for it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I thought, from the pretty close knowledge the minister had of the locality, as stated in his letter at the time, that he would be able to give us some personal recollections of the locality. I must compliment the minister upon the fact that the land suddenly rose in value from $1 to $2 a foot, and judging from the increase in the price one would naturally conclude that his fee must have been a very fair one. I will refresh the memory of the minister with regard to the matter at some future time. It is on ' Hansard.'


William Pugsley: How many years ago was that?


William Humphrey Bennett: Probably seven or eight years ago.


William Pugsley: Many things have happened since then. I do not remember these things for so long a time.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is a very odd thing that a local solicitor was not called in to make representations to the minister as to the value of this land.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much money did Mr. Couture receive ?


William Pugsley: Up to the first of November the contractor received $26,270. That includes the contract and extras.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has he a claim now?


William Pugsley: Yes, there is $6,266 still owing.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see in the Auditor General's Report of last year that he received $25,365, and also $3,830; that would be over $29,000 that he has already received.


William Pugsley: Yes, he had the contract for heating apparatus as well and the contract for fittings. The contract for fittings amounted to $3,500 and for heating apparatus to $2,178.50.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did he get all these by tender?


William Pugsley: Yes, I see there was an accepted tender dated July 10, 1906.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who was the clerk of the works?


William Pugsley: Mr. Auger.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was his salary ?


William Pugsley: $3 a day.


George William Fowler: Did he get paid for Sundays?


William Pugsley: I am informed by the chief architect that he was paid for Sundays.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What reason was there for him travelling? 1 see that he received $o2 for travelling.


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that he summoned him to Ottawa in regard to the foundations.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was there not an-otner clerk of the works at this time?


William Pugsley: I think not.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was not Mr. Mullar-key also clerk of works?


William Pugsley: No, Mr. Mullarkey was attached to the staff at headquarters.


George William Fowler: Why was his pay charged up against that work ?


William Pugsley: His pay and expenses are charged against the work he inspects.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: He is down as having received $4 a day.


William Pugsley: During what period?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: For 61 days.


William Pugsley: We paid his board while he was at Levis. Mr. Mullarkey, I am informed, is an expert on concrete work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is the gentleman who supervised the concrete work for the piers of the interprovincial bridge across the Ottawa river.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then why did he go
to Levis as clerk of works ?


William Pugsley: He goes out to places where important work is going on because of his special knowledge of concrete work and his wages are charged to the particular work under construction.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see that the government has paid his board besides $4 a day.


William Pugsley: When he is away from Ottawa, of course his board is paid. He is an expert in concrete work and he is a man whom the chief architect would be justified in sending to Levis if the foundations were as the hon. member who has assisted me in giving information as to the building has stated they were.


George William Fowler: Why was it necessary to bring Auger up to Ottawa ? What good would he do ? If there was anything wrong why not send a man down from the architect's department ? He could see with his own eyes what was the matter.


William Pugsley: Not being an architect and not being in charge of the work, I would not deem myself competent to criticise the judgment the chief architect exercised.


George William Fowler: Would it not be much better judgment to send an architect at first hand to see what was the matter ?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that it became necessary to make an arangement with the contractor for the extra work and the clerk of works, Mr. Auger, and the contractor came to Ottawa in order to settle what allowances should be made the contractor.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I would say to the minister as a friend that somebody ought to be watched whether it is the architect or the overseers.


William Humphrey Bennett: Or the minister.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: No, I won't blame him, because he is a new man in the business. All your architect amounts to is just the name ; he tells them what to do and how to do it, and as soon as his back is turned the work is neglected. The investigation into the fall of the tower here proved that the man did not attend to his business at all. Some of these days I will show you a place where some of your men were sent to build a wharf


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was there any water?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Yes, too much of it. The wharf was built and not a stone was put into the wall, and when the ice moved out in the spring away went the wharf, and it will cost $10,000 to replace it.


William Pugsley: Where was that ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I will let you know when the time comes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As I understand it, while the business portion of L6vis is down near the river side where the post office is situated, the greater part of the town is up the hill. Was it at the suggestion of the municipal authorities that the post office was erected on this site ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and the Board of Trade.


George William Fowler: The minister has accounted for $11,000 in his own peculiar way, but we want to know something about the remaining $16,000 for extras.


William Pugsley: Heating $2,178, tower clock $1,500, fittings $3,500, printing, advertising, clerk of the works, travelling
expenses $4,213, boilers, etc., $196, electric wire $400.


George William Fowler: Give the details for each of these items for printing and travelling expenses and advertising.


William Pugsley: I have not the details.


John Dowsley Reid: How much has the contractor been paid, and how much is due ?


William Pugsley: He has been paid altogether $26,270, and $6,226 is still due. The total expenditure to October 31 has been $35,274.44.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has that beeD paid ?


William Pugsley: Yes. The total is $49,715.44.


George William Fowler: We are to understand then that this building cost $49,000 ; the contract for which was $22,000 of which sum $7,000 was paid for the clerk of works or one-seventh of the whole amount.


William Pugsley: There were two clerks.


George William Fowler: Even so.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There must be a
mistake somewhere, because it would appear that most of the accounts mentioned by the minister have been already paid according to the Auditor General's report.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman say has been paid ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Couture has been
paid $30,000 already ; Auger has been paid, Mullarkey has been paid. The boilers have been paid for, the heaters have been paid for, the King's Printer has been paid.


William Pugsley: Have these items been paid, the $6,226 which I say is due ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No, I do not find that.


William Pugsley: The wiring.
Mi-. BERGERON. There is some wiring.


William Pugsley: Yes, $400, but there is still $750 due.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Here is a payment to L. F. Butcher, on account of wiring, as per tender, that was a contract.


William Pugsley: The wiring and fixtures were not in the contract. Is the $500 for the tower clock paid ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No.


William Pugsley: The $3,500 for fittings ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No.


William Pugsley: The lock boxes, sidewalk and fencing and the balance for contingencies and superintendence, $2,103, making up the total of $49,713.34.


George William Fowler: Who was the architect ?


William Pugsley: The plans were drawn in the department.


George William Fowler: Was there a time limit on the contract ?


William Pugsley: The date of the contract is January 31, 1905, and the date named for completion October 30, 1906.
Mr. FOAA'LER. Was it completed then ?


William Pugsley: No, owing to the change in site.


George William Fowler: Was there a new contract ?


William Pugsley: No, but an arrangement was come to with the contractor as to what he should receive for the extras necessitated by the change.


George William Fowler: AATien was the arrangement made ?	*


William Pugsley: The chief architect says before the changes were made this arrangement was come to as to what he should charge.


George William Fowler: Before he did anything, under the changed arrangement the price was agreed on ?


William Pugsley: It was by schedule price, so much per cubic yard of concrete and masonry, &c.
Mr. FOWLER, Did the change make any difference in the contract ?


William Pugsley: No, ail this very great extra work was by reason of the changed foundation.


George William Fowler: Was that the result of the change in the position.


William Pugsley: Yes; by putting it back by reason of the widening of the street.
Mi-. FOWLER. That made a difference of how many thousands ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: There is about 75 feet of land between high water mark and the cliff 120 feet high ; that is all the land there is there.
Mr. FOA\rLER. Where Is the building with respect to the street that crosses the railway ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: South east of the railway station.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: 60 feet from the railway.


John Dowsley Reid: Auger was employed at $3 a day. What was his occupation previously ?


William Pugsley: He was an architect.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it the custom to pay for Sunday on all this work ?


William Pugsley: We had a discussion on this on Friday. It has been a pretty general custom. I do not know over how many years the custom has extended, but it has been the general custom to pay inspectors for Sundays.


George William Fowler: Did he reside in Quebec?


William Pugsley: No, I think he resided in Lfivis.


Mr.   J.@: I). REID. Did he give his whole time to this building ?


William Pugsley: I take it for granted he did.


John Dowsley Reid: We would like to know. If he is a professional architect and will accept $3 a day and has the ability he should have, I think you should bring him to the department instead of paying architects $50 or $100 a day.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the building finished ?


William Pugsley: Everything is finished.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: From what the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin) says it is very serious. It seems the building is shaky.


William Pugsley: The member was indulging in figures of speech.
Air. AlORIN. I did not mean that, you say ? I do not blame the present minister but I do blame the government in connection with this matter. They have been 3,J years putting up the building, working for a while and then stopping, and if you paid your architect $3 a day for all the time it is no wonder the building is costing money. Any man can put up a building like that for $10,000 or $12,000. There is no fine work in the building, it is a brick building with stone trimmings around the doors and windows, two storeys high, with a kind of garret and a little tower, probably 50 feet high. I saw them putting in every stone and brick and all the work. The minister said that the wall was resting on concrete but will he state what the concrete rests upon ? He will find out some day that the concrete is not resting on anything solid.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know if the statement of the hon. gentleman is true that the building

Afr. AlORIN. It is so or I would never say so. If I said it I will stick to it, because I know it to be correct. I will not take back a word of that.


John Dowsley Reid: If that statement is true it is very serious. Has the department received any word from Quebec that that is the condition of affairs ? Who has taken the building over ?


William Pugsley: I thought my genial friend was joking about the building.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: No, I do not joke at all, it is not the place to joke.


William Pugsley: The chief architect says he has inspected the building, that it is a good building, that the foundation rests on rock, so it is a solid foundation and the building will last.


Richard Blain: Only last year the Minister of Agriculture stated to the House that the total cost would be $42,000. An item of $8,000 for Lgvis public building was under discussion and he stated that $42,000 would finish the work. Now he states it will cost $49,000.


George William Fowler: An hon. member from the province of Quebec has stated here tonight that this building rests upon a poor foundation, so poor that the building is already out of plumb at least four inches ; that it shifts with the tide or for some other reason ; that, to use the hon. member for Dorchester's (Mr. Morin) own words, it ' wobbles and warps.' Here is a building on which the government has spent $49,000, including some $7,000 for inspection alone. The government have paid two clerks of work, Mr. Mullarkey and Mr. Auger, one of whom is said to be an architect, paid them for week days and Sundays for about three years to inspect this work. And the chief architect says that he has examined this work and taken it over as all right. Well, here is a great variance of statement. An hon. member from the province of Quebec says he was present when a great deal of the work was done


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Has seen every brick put in.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Even if I did, don't poke your nose in.


George William Fowler: We hardly hold the hon. member for Dorchester to such exactness of statement as to cover every brick. But he has seen a good deal of the work going on. He lives near there and often sees this building, and taking an interest' in public affairs, as we know he does, he naturally tries to learn what is being done. He makes this statement that this building is not founded on rock


Jean-Baptiste Morin: No, I cannot .say that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George William Fowler: I am glad to see hon. gentlemen opposite so jubilant. It is so seldom that they get a chance to jubilate Mr. MORIN.
nowadays that we naturally like to see them happy. The hon. gentleman stated that it was on a poor foundation. I took it for granted that that meant it was not upon a rock foundation, as the Minister of Public Works alleged it to be, and I think that that was a fair deduction for me to make from the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Morin's) statement. At any rate, he said-and I think he will stand by that

that it is a poor foundation.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not know that anybody knows whether the foundation is good or bad, to come right down to the point.


George William Fowler: There is certainly a variation as between the statement of the hon. member for Dorchester and that which the minister reports as the statement of the chief architect.


William Pugsley: I think not.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for Dorchester says the building is out of plumb, while the minister says it is wTell built. From the fact that so many public buildings put up by this government have fallen, we are naturally suspicious. These buildings collapse mysteriously. As the member for Dorchester has pointed out, even a building on a solid foundation and wedged in between two other parts of a building fell down, though one would naturally have said that such a thing would be impossible. It is no wonder that we incline to take the statements of the chief architect with a grain of salt.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Last summer this building was supposed to be ready to move into. But they were repairing it and they were afraid of it falling down. They only moved in about six weeks ago. I know that perfectly well, because I was in the post office. I wanted to buy a stamp and the postmaster allowed me in, though he said they had not opened yet, but were only moving in that day.
Longueuil public building, $500.


George Taylor: It is past one o'clock, and I would ask the leader of the House (Mr. Fielding) if he does not think it time to quit.


William Stevens Fielding: I have counted up the sums voted and the total is under $100,000.


George Taylor: Well, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) have taken up a great part of the evening


George William Fowler: Let us sit here as long as they wish.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Sit a reasonable time. We will not stay late. Give us a fair show.


William Pugsley: This $500 is to provide for the construction of a retaining wall in

the rear of this building. It is 20 feet long, 8 feet high and 3 feet thick.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This is a new building, is it not?


William Pugsley: It was built in 1904.


George William Fowler: What do you want with a retaining wall? Is it to keep the building from falling down?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: What do you want with a retaining wall if it is not to retain something ?


Mr. GEOFFRION.: It is necessary to build a wall at the rear of the grounds-it is far from the building and is not to sustain the building which is perfectly new, well built and a credit to the city and the government.


George William Fowler: Then, it is a fence ?


Victor Geoffrion: Call it a fence, if you like.


George Taylor: The minister comes down and asks for a vote for a new public building, and now the representative of the county tells us it is a wharf-


Victor Geoffrion: No, a wall.


George Taylor: Well, wharf or wall, it is clearly not a public building.


William Pugsley: This is in connection with a public building. The improvement of the grounds of a public building would come within these votes. As my hon. friend (Mr. Geoffrion) has explained, it is necessary to build a retaining wall to prevent the earth from falling out.	.


George Taylor: Then, the item should be amended to provide for building a wall and not a public building.


George William Fowler: What will happen if you do not build the wall ?


William Pugsley: The earth on the lot will fall away.


Victor Geoffrion: There is a little rivulet passes there. My hon. friend from Beau-harnois (Mr. Bergeron) and my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard) know the place very well. It is necessary to build a wall to keep the ground even. It is not a wharf, nor a fence, but a wall.


Mr. LEONARD.: Who owns the adjoining property ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much did the building cost in the first place ?


William Pugsley: I have no memo, of that.


George William Fowler: Were tenders called for this work ?


William Pugsley: Yes, Mr. Baker was the tenderer and the tender was for $950.


George William Fowler: I thought this wall was not to cost more than $500.


William Pugsley: There was an appropriation in 1907-8 for $1,700, which included also a clock and room for the same.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is paid for.


William Pugsley: Yes, and there were other items making a total of $1,475. Prior to March 31, the expenditure was $975, leaving $500, for which a vote is now asked.


George William Fowler: Did you have a clerk of works ?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: Who inspected the job ?


William Pugsley: One of the resident clerks of works in Montreal.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the work finished ?


William Pugsley: There is a little something still to be done.
Magog public building, $13,000.


William Pugsley: This is a re vote.	The
appropriation last year was $13,000, of which nothing has been expended. The site has been chosen, we paid for it $4,100, to Messrs.
H.	N. Rivard and A. Tourigny. The original lot was 100 feet by 8 feet, for which we paid $3,200. Later on there was purchased another strip from the town of Magog to round out the first lot. For the second strip we paid $900.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost of the building when completed, including furnishings ?


William Pugsley: The estimated cost is $22,000 ; this is to include everything outside the lot.
Marieville public building, $7,500.


William Pugsley: This is in the county of Rouville. The population of Marieville, including Ste. Marie de Monnoir, is 2,360. The contract has not yet been let. The building will serve for a post office and custom house. The postal revenue for the last nine months was $1,020. and the customs duties $10,939.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Supply, at the point where we leave it to-night.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at
I.	30 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, April 28, 1908.