1909-03-26

RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT - SANITARY CONDITIONS.

Mr.  E. N.@: LEWIS (West Huron) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. Ill) to amend the Railway Act. He said:	The
Bill I now feel it my duty to lay before the House has reference to a pernicious state of affairs which affects the people who travel in Canada, and the remedy which I propose will, I believe, be welcomed by the heads of the railways themselves, as well as by the Board of Railway Commissioners and by the general public. I have here an editorial article from a leading Ottawa paper dwelling upon the fact that the health as well as the comfort of the people who travel in Canada is affected by the sanitary state of the trains and the stations, especially the small stations throughout Canada. We have Acts of parliament which provide for the appointment of inspectors to look after the cattle, the fruit and other commodities carried on our trains, but we have no inspectors to look after the welfare of the people who travel. And now that the people of Canada are rising to the state of prosperity in which as I am glad to know the plain people like myself are getting the travelling habit, legislation of this kind is needed. The Railway Act provides that the Board of Railway Commissioners shall have power to look after the matter to which this Bill Tefers, but there is no machinery provided for that purpose. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), whom I am glad to see in his place, may contend that the power of the Railway Commissioners in this matter is sufficient, but I do not so read the Railway Act. There are a number of clauses providing that certain officials may be appointed by the board with the approval of the Governor-in-Council, but there is no provision for the appointment of the officers referred to in this Bill. I am sure that no person within the sound of my voice, no person who travels in Canada, but will say that this Bill is needed. It is proposed by this Bill to add a subsection to section 284 of the Railway Act providing for five inspectors, to be appointed by the Board of Railway Commissioners subject to the approval of the Governor-in-Council. The duty oif these inspectors shall be to see that trains, railway stations, and buildings in connection therewith, are in a sanitary state. One of these inspectors shall be for the province of Ontario, one for the province of Quebec, one for the maritime provinces, one for Manitoba and Saskatchewan and one for Alberta and British Columbia.



The second clause is in reference to complaints under the Railway Act of which the Railway Board has cognizance. It has always occurred to me that while a large corporation, a mercantile company, a city or municipality, have power to put in force the Railway Act and ask the Commissioners to remedy the evils which may be extant, the poor man, the man of moderate means, has no such power. Therefore I ask this House to empower the board to appoint a public official, subject to the approval of the Governor-in-Council, who shall act as a public prosecutor, to whom private persons may make their complaints, and who shall examine the same, and, if necessary, lay them before the board and prosecute them.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I may remind the hon. gentleman that inasmuch as this Bill calls for the appointment of certain persons, implying thereby a charge on the revenue, it ought perhaps to be preceded by the usual formality. However, I suppose there is no objection to the introduction of the Bill.


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

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to inquire of the Secretary of State whether any person has been appointed in place of Mr. Foran, who I understand has become secretary of the Civil Service Commission; and if so, whether the person so appointed was appointed upon the recommendation of the Civil Service Commision, or whether there was any departure from the Act in that regard.


Hon. CHAS. MURPHY (Secretary of State).: I may say in answer to the hon. gentleman that an appointment has been made of a successor to Mr. Foran, and it was made by the Civil Service Commission.



CANADA EASTERN RAILWAY.

Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to jnake reference to an answer I gave the other day to the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames), as to the cost of the Canada Eastern. The answer, which will be found in ' Hansard,' page 2657, should not include the $25,000 which was spent on the Indiantown and Blackville Railway. The answer should be amended by striking out the words:
To put line between Indiantown and Blackville in condition for operation.
Ballast	 $10,000
Ties and	rails	 10,000
Fences	 5,000


Mr. AMES.: I would ask if the minister would be willing to make these corrections in the original statement, so that the original statement shall go into the ' Hansard ' in the corrected form.



SUPPLY-THE FRUIT MARKS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['About 33 miles from the head of the lake up to Larder. As a', 'result of the building of that road they have erected an immense sawmill at the foot of that lake and are doing an enormous trade. The road is paying well and the mill employs some 200 men. That suggests another and a reasonable argument for the construction of the road; the border of the lake is surrounded by some of the finest timber in Canada and there would be other sawmills as well as the one to which I have referred.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. M. BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: I desire to bring up a matter of sufficient importance to the government, and especially to the _ agricultural industry, to excuse me in taking up a little time of the House. I wish to deal with the question of the regulations in regard to the fruit industry. I have already, in this House, referred to the importance of this particular industry in my province of British Columbia, where we have now some 75,000 acres actually in orchard. We are practically only at the commencement of our orchard work, and of our output; and in connection with the building up of this industry, on account of the great expense in clearing land, in adopting the irrigation system, in providing fences and other things which are necessary to a successful horticultural development in our province, I need only say that the market question is for us particularly important, and that anything which tends to weaken the markets for the grower of fruit, must also weaken the whole industry. In 1905 the Minister of Agriculture took a step which I think was thoroughly commended by the industry throughout Canada, when he called together the Dominion fruit conference, a conference of gentlemen interested in this particular industry throughout Canada. That conference, I am glad to say, speaking I think for all western fruit growers, resulted in a great deal of good. It familiarized the various growers in the country with the methods and with the weaknesses of the industry which may have existed. It tended also to uniformity of method, and in one way and another, I think, strengthened the industry, and made it in a very real sense an industry recognized as national. Now, in connection with that conference the Fruit Marks Act was discussed and amended; and while we believe that the Act has operated for the development of the horticultural industry, it is perhaps natural that in the course of its operation for a series of years, some weak spots in it should have become manifest. To these I now desire to draw the minister's attention, to see whether it could. be amended or interpreted in a way that would better the conditions of the industry. Now, section 319 defines what a close package is, and subsection (a) says:
(a) ' closed package ' means a box or barrel of which the contents cannot be seen or 1 inspected when such package is closed.


Mr. LEWIS.: Then it defines these particular grades. It has been suggested and strongly felt throughout the whole western country that while section 320 simply confines its operations to the Canadian packer, section 321 should also be legally read and interpreted in conjunction with section 320, and therefore, when we come to infringements of this particular section which provides that
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale-&c.
I say that it does not apply as stringently as it should to the American competitor in our own market. It has been suggested that section 321 should be amended in some such way as to define how fruit has to be marked so that we can compel the United States competitor to enter our market at least on an even footing with ourselves and not have any advantage. This, of course, may be a question of law, and no doubt the minister has taken advice in regard to it from the Department of Justice. At all events, I would like to suggest that because a great many of our own people believe that it would be in the interest of the industry to alter the Act in that direction.
As this question opens up the whole subject of the kind of competition that we have to face and as I want to particularly and clearly state to the minister and the government our grievances wth regard to this matter, 1 shall take up the attention of the House for a few minutes in defining the position as it is to-day. We recognize, of course, that in building up this great industry in the west we have to face competition. We have to face very strong competition from the United States. There are only two ways in which the government can help those who have embarked a great deal of money, time and energy in this industry; one by means of a protective tariff and the otheT by means of the enforcement of the regulations. Of course, I thoroughly understand that it is not well to touch upon tariff matters now, although I hope upon a future occasion to deal with that question and to present our views to jny hon. friend

the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I might mention, however, in passing, that there is one thing that I think operates a little injuriously with regard to our industry and that is that the customs officials interpret the word ' barrel * to mean four boxes. Although a barrel does not hold four boxes we find that the American competitor is only charged ten cents a case, where we think he should be charged more. It is usually reckoned that three boxes, instead of four, are the equivalent of a barrel. At a later time I think I will be able to advance reasons for greater protection being accorded to that one great staple, apples, which will secure for me the sympathy even of our northwest members, who, I know, do not want to increase the price of the articles that they consume there. But, with regard to this phase of the subject that I am dealing with now, that is the question of inspection, I am positive that I can get the sympathetic attention of every hon. member from the prairies because we are simply aiming to give the consumer on the prairies the right to expect that what he pays for he should get. In this connection we, of course, meet our strongest competition in the west from the great states of Washington, Oregon and California, which are building up an enormous industry and building it up under greater^ advantages in some ways-I will not go into that now-than we can expect ourselves. There are two unfair ways in whiqh the product of the American competitor can come into contact with our own products upon the prairies. There are two dangers to meet connected with pests and diseases, and insufficient or poor grading. With regard to the question of the diseases and_ pests connected with fruit, I may say that in our own province the comparative immunity which we enjoy from all the serious pests and diseases which affect horticulture and inevitably affect the reputation of fruit products is simply the result of eternal vigilance along the line of our own provincial legislation. We enforce the most rigid system of inspection against the great states to the south of us which are infested with almost all the diseases and pests known to horticulture. We have something like twenty or thirty provincial inspectors who inspect, but only for diseases and pests. We found-and as this enforces the argument to some extent with regard to the grading of fruit I may mention it-some dealers _ and consumers taking a position of opposition to our method on the ground that it rendered the importation of fruit in large quantities a more difficult matter, hut we have happily found that as year after year has gone by we'have enlisted the sympathy both of the consumers and dealers. The net result has been that we have a fairly clean sample of fruit coming in from the	United States,
whereas, before that, British Columbia Was made the dumping ground for Mr. BURRELL.
infected fruit of all kinds. It is quite true that in achieving that end we had to reject, and are even now occasionally rejecting, thousands of consignments of all kinds of fruit, but we felt that we were justified in our position and the result has afforded us the most ample justification. We have come to the stage when we are not only supplying the wants of our own country but when we are exporting to our own northwest provinces and in a few years we will be an immense factor as regards fruit. We enter these markets in western Alberta and eastern Manitoba practically on the same terms as the United States with regard to freights. In the middle of the northwest provinces we have probably better terms than they have.
But what is the position of the United States fruit industry and the United States firms that enter our own markets? We have looked into the matter very carefully and we have found that there are a great many very large American firms that are operating in the United States and that are reaching out to control the great markets of the northwest, of Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and, in short, are endeavouring to practically control our trade. I might give the House some idea of this. I have a letter written to the general manager of the Coldstream ranch at Vernon, one of our biggest fruit growing concerns. This is a reliable and well known gentleman, and he gives us some idea in this letter with regard to what the American firms are doing:
The Rogers Fruit Company of Winnipeg, Pioneer Fruit Company of Brandon, and Stockton & Mallinson of Regina, are practically the one firm; in other words the stock of these concerns is held practically by the same people. They have also houses at Saskatoon and Calgary, and have just opened up at Edmonton. The chief man in connection with these houses is Mr. H. B. Finch, of Grand Forks, North Dakota, who manages a similar group of fruit houses and wholesale groceries in the Dakotas. Their chief representative, however, is Mr. DeCamp, who is the manager of the Winnipeg house, hut looks after their Canadian business generally. This is the combination you referred to in one of your previous letters as handling so much of the Washington fruit.
I took occasion yesterday to interview Mr. DeCamp, with the object of finding through their means a more extended market for the product of the Okanagan and British Columbia orchards. I was somewhat astounded to see the large quantity they had brought in from Washington into the Winnipeg and Brandon markets, of small fruit such as plums, prunes, peaches, cherries, &c. Winnipeg had taken over 150 cars. They had also done an enormous business in Washington apples.
Although we would prefer that the men who handle the fruit in our Canadian Northwest were Canadians, yet we are not simply

complaining that they are Americans or that we have to face this competition. The position is this: These great firms operate on a tremendous scale and they control to a very considerable extent the great fruit centres in Washington and Oregon. This year, in Washington and Oregon they had a very heavy crop and a slack market as the people had not recovered from the financial depression which visited the United States two years ago. Somewhat similar conditions existed in our own country and the American operators naturally reached out to send their surplus to the Canadian market and so control our trade. The Canadian growers were of course vitally affected, and we have some reason to claim that the American fruit did not meet us on even terms in our own market. We have been told that amongst the causes which operate against the purchase of large and increasing quantities of British Columbia fruit is, that the American box weighs heavier than the Canadian box and that the purchaser of American apples gets more for his money. The American box averages from 51 to 53 pounds whereas the British Columbia box only gives 45 pounds. The Canadian Act defines the dimensions of our boxes to be 20 by 10 by 11 inches inside measurement or 2,200 cubic inches. The California box is exactly of the same size, but there are a great many different types of package in the states of Washington and Oregon, some of them being a little smaller than the Canadian box. I am not at all sure whether it would not be a wise provision for the protection of our own industry that when this American fruit is sent into our markets the packages should be made to conform in size to our packages. However that may be, I want to give some facts which I think will enable the House to see that the argument that the American package contains more fruit than does our package cannot be well sustained. Shortly before I came east to attend the session of parliament a carload of Washington apples came to our district and I sent a careful man to weigh these apples by the box and give me the weights. It is of course known to every fruit man that the weight of a box of apples is always variable from the fact that some varieties will weigh heavier than others, and that the method of packing and the size of the apple will cause a difference in the weight. I had about nine varieties of these American apples weighed and it was found that the American boxes ran all the way from 53 pounds (the highest) down to 43 pounds; the large majority of them weighing 45 pounds, 46 pounds, 47 pounds, and 48 pounds. Judging from this there is no good reason for the contention that the American boxes contain a greater weight of fruit than do the Canadian boxes.
Then another reason given why the American apple meets with success in , our market is, that their system of packing is better and that the quality of their apple is superior to the quality of the Canadian apple. Well, I could give the House any quantity of testimony from dealers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that other things being equal, as far as quality and freedom from disease is concerned they would prefer the British Columbia fruit to that grown in Washington and Oregon. I will admit that there is some excellent packing done by the American growers and handlers of fruit, but at the same time it is not a question of the size of the package or the excellence of the packing, because packing does not mean grading or freedom from disease, and to give the consumer what he has a right to expect we have got to have not only good packing so far as the appearance goes, but we have got to have honest grading and freedom from disease. It is in this that the British Columbia grower is at a grievous disadvantage. We have gone into this question very thoroughly and I would like to quote the opinion of one of out own inspectors who was sent from the Department of Agriculture of British Columbia into the Northwest to make a careful examination into this matter. The letter is written to our chief inspector, and he says:
Waneta, B.O., 21st Dec., 1808. Thomas Cunningham, Esq.,
Provincial Fruit Pest Inspector,
Vancouver, B.C.
Dear sir,-I beg to submit the report of my recent visit to Alberta. There is no provincial law providing for the inspection of imported fruit in Alberta. The province therefore becomes the dumping ground for the culls and diseased fruit from the United Slates and from the eastern provinces of Canada.
Unfortunately the Dominion Fruit Marks Act in so far as Alberta is concerned is almost a dead letter, no effort being made by the resident inspector to enforce the requirements.
In jobbers' warehouses and retail stores throughout the province I found thousands of boxes of apples from the United States and from British Columbia which in no way complied with the requirements of the Fruit Marks Act, and which were distributed and sold without hindrance.
There are large quantities of eastern Canadian apples sold in Alberta, principally from Ontario and a few from Nova Scotia, which seemed to me to be culls and diseased fruit, unsaleable in the east. They were certainly not graded as marked, were full of worms, covered with apple scab, and in many instances with San Jose scale.
Large quantities of apples imported from the ^United States were poorly packed and graded and infested with codling moth, apple scab, bitter rot, and in a few instances with

San Jose scale. I may say that I also found a considerable quantity of apples from the United States splendidly packed and graded and entirely free from disease.
I would like also to quote the opinion of another inspector who went into the districts of Lethbridge and McLeod where he carefully examined the conditions. He says:
Lethbridge.-Here I found a few British Columbia apples of good quality, pack and grade, but the American article predominates; in some cases the packing and grading of the American fruit were excellent, but the fruit diseased, one box apples (Wolfe River), of fine appearance, well packed and graded, placed in a prominent place in the windows of the Hudson Bay store, was covered with spots (bitter rot). Other American apples and pears were of poor quality, and in many cases contained codling moth larva and apple scab in abundance.
The Dominion inspector had been at this place, but had taken no action, only instructed the importers to put their name on the box before sending them out of their warehouse.
Now, although I think we are learning fairly fast how best to pack our fruit, and while a large proportion of it is very well packed, unfortunately there is yet something to be learned. However that may be we have very good reason for the belief that a large proportion of the United States fruit is bad both as to disease and grading, and that owing to the inadequate number of inspectors under the Fruit Marks Act, a great deal of fruit has been sold as No 1 when in reality it was not of that quality, and yet, it came into competition with our really superior fruit, under that brand.
In this connection I might add that the general manager of the Coldstream ranch in Vernon, a very large concern indeed, sent a competent man out to Alberta to get a fair and clear idea of the conditions there, and I would like to read this extract from his letter. I might add that this man was in every respect absolutely reliable. He wrote as follows :
W. Crawley Ricardo, Esq.,
Pres. Coldstream Valley Fruit Packing Co., Ltd.,
Vernon.
Dear sir,-I beg to inform you that I have visited Calgary and (Edmonton and during my visit to both these cities have seen a large amount of American fruit. All this fruit appears to mo to be what would usually be graded as No. 2 and in some cases the writer would certainly not let it leave his packing house as anything but No. 3, if such a grade were packed by us. Though small and in a great many cases very mis-shaped, the colour was good and the pack very excellent-in fact from a casual look at a box of this fruit you could hardly see where one apple ended and another began; besides which, in no case that the writer noticed was an apple packed either Mr. BURRELL.
at the top or bottom of the box which showed any deformity or flaw and it was only by moving one of the sides or taking out several apples that you found these. So far as colour was concerned, some of the Jonathan were excellent, their only fault being size. I am informed that these can be purchased in Washington, Wenatchee or Yakima at sixty to seventy cents there..
This gives a little idea of the state of things, but to make assurance doubly sure -because the point has been raised that very little of this fruit comes in and that in the main we simply have to face first-class fruit- I suggested to the general manager of the Coldstream ranch that he should send one of his good men to the National Apple Show at Spokane, where the leading fruit men in that country exhibit their products, and have him go to these men as if he were a land seeker interested in their valley and find out from them exactly what class of fruit they would ship into Canada. He did so, and these were his instructions:
Mr. Frank Rayburn,
Fruit Foreman, Coldstream Estate Co., Ltd.
Dear sir,-I (shall be much obliged, when you go into Spokane, if you can get me definite information what the Americans are selling Iso. 1 stock for.
By the enclosed letters from Mr. Lanigan, assistant freight traffic manager, Winnipeg, you will see that dealers claim they are getting No. 1 at 65 cents and 73 cents per box f.o.b, Yakima.	.
I am anxious to get the following information :-
1.	What the Americans are selling their No. 1 for?
2.	Where their number ones are going to?
3.	What class of fruit they are shipping into our territories; if it is their surplus stock, or their straight No. 1.
When you get this information, please get from the most reliable people that you know.
The answer this man procured was that they were getting for their No. 1 stock, not 65 cents or 70 cents, but $1.50 a case f.o.b.; that this fruit was going to Chicago and New York and Europe, and that they were shipping to our country their second-class and surplus. Mr. Ricardo wrote me as follows:
M. Burrell, Esq.,
Grand Forks, B.C.
Dear Mr. Burrell,-The following information is what I secured through our foreman, who went to Spokane show; he went down to the Hotel Spokane, the headquarters of the Yakima people, as a land seeker, and got the answers to my questions. He told them that he had been through the Northwest Territories and had seen their fruit; they were emphatic that it was their 2nd class stuff and surplus.
Yours sincerely,



[Stage Direction]
I may say that all those statements can be corroborated from other sources. Let

me quote now from a paper published in the town of Kelowna, B.C., concerning the conference of fruit-growers and railway people over the question of markets and freights. Mr. Lanigan, of Winnipeg, freight manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, was asked various questions about the condition of the market, and in answer to the question why British Columbia was not doing more business he said:
At first he thought it was because of the Ontario fruit, hut afterwards he found that less and less Ontario fruit found its way to the Winnipeg market. Then he thought it was because too large prices were asked for British Columbia fruit. Finally, however, he satisfied himself that neither of these causes was the real reason. The real competition in Winnipeg was the Washington, not the Ontario fruit, and the American fruit was driving the others out of the market It was not because the foreign fruit was better, but because the growers of Yakima Valley and Wenatchee Valley were dumping their second grade fruit at prices which were too tempting for the dealers. Thus any reduction in freight rates would not help them, for it would he immediately met by the American roads. They already had the advantage in a less freight rate and in a ten cent duty This, however, was more than counterbalanced by the way the Canadian grower was handicapped by the law. He was obliged to pack and grade his fruit in a certain way, and the Fruit Marks Act, which was originally adopted to protect the Ontario growers, who did not suffer from American competition, did not apply to British Columbia fruit arriving here in closed packages.	He read a lawyer's
opinion in support of this view of the law.
Briefly, that is the case I wanted to put before the minister. I am positive that the hon. gentleman is desirous of building up this great industry and promoting the interests of fruit growers all over the country. We have felt this position so keenly that I have had petitions and requests re amendments to the Fruit Marks Act. Let me read one of these from the Okanagan Board of Trade :
Whereas, it is desirable in the interests of the consumer and the competing Canadian grower that United States fruit growers should grade and mark their fruit in conformity with the regulations of the present Canadian Fruit Marks Act;
And whereas, it is believed that the present Act does not apply to imported fruit:
Be it resolved, that the Okanagan Board of Trade urge upon the Dominion government the advisability of so amending the Act as to make it apply to fruit coming from the United States.
In closing I would like to say that whether we suggest an alteration of the Act, making it apply to the United States competitors and compelling them to live up to it, or whether this amendment is necessary or not, it is absolutely necessary
to have a larger staff of inspectors to see that the grading and packing is properly done when the American fruit comes into competition with our own. At present the position is this:	We have one inspector
for the whole of Manitoba and one for Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is, we have two inspectors for these three great provinces and one in British Columbia. To show how absolutely ineffective this staff is, take the case of British Columbia alone. In that province we are having a large amount of fruit constantly coming from the United States, and owing to the geographical character of our country and the fact that the Great Northern is running branch lines into it, the American fruit can get into our market cheaper sometimes than can our own fruit. It is absolutely impossible for one inspector in the whole of British Columbia to begin to see one-fiftieth part of the fruit which comes from the great state of Washington alone. I myself have seen case after ease of consignments imported in absolute violation of our own Fruit Marks Act-without any mark, without any of the names of the fruit, without anything to show where grown, very often carelessly packed, but they were sold in the open market without restriction, while we were held to the provisions of our own Act.
It is true that the Inspector of British Columbia has urged, when representations have been made to him on this subject, that anybody can enforce this Act; but we know that whilst this is perfectly true, it will not work out in practice, that in a small community no private individual will take on himself the onus of the objectionable work of laying information against people in the same town with whom he is perhaps on familiar social terms. People will not do it. Thus it is manifestly impossible for one inspector in British Columbia to begin to reach anything like all the importations entering that country to compete with our own fruit growers, and not fulfilling the conditions of the Act which we are forced to live up to. This does great harm to our own province. We had hoped to be able to solve this difficulty in the province. Our own provincial Board of Horticulture suggested to the minister that we would be glad, without expense, to allow our own provincial inspectors who are inspecting for disease and pests to carry out the inspection under the Fruit Marks Act, as well. The minister, I suppose as a matter of principle, did not see his way to accede to that suggestion and the matter remained in abeyance. One inspector for the whole of British Columbia is hopelessly unable to cope with the work. In Alberta and Saskatchewan we also feel that the present provision for inspection is hoplessly inadequate. Two inspectors simply cannot do more than occasionally
[Stage Direction]
perhaps take samples from one or two consignments and very small samples at that. I personally know what it means to inspect a large shipment of fruit, a carload, for instance. If you take anything like reasonable time to inspect it so as to ensure having the whole cargo in accordance with the Act it is a slow process, but with 150 cars in Winnipeg from the United States alone, and perhaps immense quantities at Calgary, Regina, Portage la Prairie and other points, it is easy to see it would be impossible for two inspectors to nearly cover that territory, and they apparently leave it to the dealers themselves to mark this fruit in accordance with our regulations as they see fit. The temptation is, of course, tremendous, especially to the American dealers, to mark the fruit at the highest grade even if it does not justify such marking, trusting that the violations will not be discovered, as the fruit is scattered over an immense territory. The two inspectors have to inspect not only the fruit from the United States, but in addition all the fruit that comes from British Columbia, in order to see that we live up to that Act, and that the consumer on the prairie is getting what he is entitled to get, a No. 1 grade fruit all through the package. They have also to inspect the very large quantity that comes from Ontario. We know that although many aggressive men in Ontario are sending out an admirable quality of fruit and grading it truly, I do not think my Ontario friends will take offence when I say there are a number of men in Ontario who are constantly sending, out very inferior fruit, not graded according to the provision of the Act. It is quite impossible for two inspectors to cope with the inspection of that immense quantity of fruit and extent of territory.
I am quite sure that the minister will give very careful consideration to the suggested amendments to the Act and to its interpretation. What we ask in regard to the inspection is that the government, now that the fruit industry has assumed such important dimensions should have at least two inspectors in Manitoba, one each for Alberta and Saskatchewan and two additional inspectors for British Columbia, that is seven in all. It would be desirable and in the interests of the industry if one of these was made chief inspector of this whole western section, and if possible it would be advisable that the man should have his residence in British Columbia because the greatest competition that we, as fruit growers meet in the Northwest is that of the box packages from California, Washington and Oregon, and a British Columbia inspector, thoroughly conversant with our method of box packing and inspection, would be more capable of dealing with the similar packages from the United States.
Martin Burrell: We have now in British Columbia 75,000 acres under orchard. A fair valuation of these lands would be $15,000,000. I predict confidently that in ten years' time that great industry at the very least will be valued at $100,000,000, and it is growing with a rapidity not witnessed in any other portion of Canada. We are asking and obtaining the best class of settlers from eastern Canada, and from Great Britain, and a large number of our good friends from the_ prairies are going in there .to take up their residence and practise horticulture. When we get these men into the province they have to realize as all others who have been in this business for years and years have realized, that it takes not only intelligence and perseverance but long years of waiting before you begin to reap the results of all your work and investment of capital, and therefore an industry of this kind is deserving of the greatest consideration on the part of the government. We have to surmount many difficulties and we are trying to do so, but I do not think we should have to surmount difficulties which could be wiped out of existence by acceding to the legitimate request we have made. Any difficulty in the market end would simply have the effect of discouraging the building up of this industry and the settlement, along the very best lines, of our British Columbia lands. We all deprecate as disastrous to the industry any competition of this kind, if we can prove as I think I have proved, that that competition is absolutely unfair to those of us who are building up the fruit industry of British Columbia. I sincerely trust that the minister will accede to these very moderate requests. They are made not in any political or party spirit but with the sole desire to build up what I believe can now be truly designated a national industry and I trust the minister will see that in meeting our wishes he will be carrying out the suggestions and aims set forth at the Dominion Fruit Conference of four years ago.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (Lambton E.).: In supporting the position taken by the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) which I am sure the House appreciates. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of appointing more inspectors in the east as well as in the west. We appreciate the extent to which the British Columbia fruit growers have been pushing ahead in the last few years. In 1894 there were in British Columbia only 13,000 acres under fruit while to-day there are over 100,000 acres, and fruit trees were planted at the rate of 1,000,000 per annum in 1907 and 1908.. We must, however, remember | that out of the 21,000,000 fruit trees in Can-

ada in 1906 the province of Ontario had 14,000,000, two-thirds of the total number. To impress on the House the importance of this subject, I shall quote a few statistics furnished by the provincial government of of Ontario with reference to the fruit industry of that province. In 1904, 55,000,000 bushels of apples were grown in Ontario At three bushels to the barrel, that would be about 18,000,000 barrels. Last year, ac cording to the same authorities, only 13,000,000 barrels were produced.
However, my reason for calling the attention of the minister to this matter is that of all the fruit packed for consumption last year, out of possibly five million packages, only 43,000 packages were inspected, and in the year 1906 only 11,000 packages. I know that the number of inspectors has been increased by four. But this is an increase for the whole Dominion.
I took the opportunity to go down to the fruit division to make some inquiries of Mr. McNeill, of that division, and I shall give the House the benefit of some of the facts which I elicited from him. In British Columbia, as the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) has stated, there is only one inspector, while there are twenty-six provincial inspectors in that province taking care of the fruit which comes in from the United States. There is one inspector for Alberta and Saskatchewan and one for Manitoba. As to Ontario, each inspector is given a district. Mr. McNeill marked off on the map the outlines of the several districts, for each of which there is an inspector. Huron district, for instance, covers part of Lambton, part of Middlesex, Huron and Bruce. This includes the important ports of Goderich and Sarnia. There are probably a hundred points in that district, in addition to these two important ports. I need not go further in order to show the impossibility of one man beginning to look after the fruit in that district. I am satisfied that the minister will see that in order to do justice to this work it will be necessary to have one man who, during the few months of the fall, would be able to give all his time to looking after the exports of fruit from Sarnia and another from Goderich, besides providing for adequate inspection of the rest of this district. The inspector in this Huron district is Mr. Bryan. Then, Mr. Furmigan has the counties of Essex, Kent, Elgin, Norfolk, Haldimand, part of Lambton and part of Middlesex, perhaps, as a whole, the most productive fruit district in the country. Yet, there is only one man to look after that extensive district. I am sure the minister will see that it is practically impossible for one man to begin to cover even a considerable portion of that district. There is another inspector who has his central office in Toronto. The city of Toronto itself must afford work enough
for one man, but this inspector is to cover also the counties of Welland, Lincoln, Wentworth, Brant, Peel, Halton and several others. So, I might go through the list of those who have charge of the different districts in Ontario to show how impossible it is for them to cover even a reasonable proportion of their districts within the time at their disposal in the fall of the year. When the minister looks at this question from the business standpoint, I am sure he will find it necessary to greatly increase the inspectors in these districts. It ought to be possible not only to have these inspectors look after the fruit, but educate, or, at least advise, the packers, and assist them to send out a better class of fruit. I desire to read part of one of many letters that I have^ received from prominent shippers of fruit in different parts of the country. I am sure the minister has received many such communications from prominent shippers of fruit in Ontario and elsewhere, urging the necessity of increasing the number of inspectors. The writer of this letter represents one of the very largest fruit growers' associations in Western Ontario. He says:
Last winter, I visited the Northwestern markets, such as Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina and Calgary. I saw large quantities of fruit, most of it marked No. 1, which we would not pack as No. 2; in fact, most of it was not better than we would use in the evaporater. I do not think I saw one single barrel packed as we would pack it or that was properly marked No. 1. You can easily see that this kind of packing is ruining the market for those who are packing right, causing suspicion to fall on all packers of Ontario apples. I have talked this matter over with nearly all of the reliable fruit shippers and co-operative associations of Ontario and 'find that practically every one of them condemns the present inspection under the Act and desires that we be given district packers who shall be responsible to the government for the reputation of the district assigned to them.
He then goes on to call attention to other matters in relation to the shipping of fruit. But, this subject that is now before us is the one that I ho up the minister will deal with in the near future. The letters that I receive go to show that a large portion of the fruit shipped to the western provinces is very carelessly packed, and that the inspectors are not able to cover a reasonable portion of their several districts. Take the export trade, covering about 1,200,000 barrels, a small proportion of which are examined at the port of Montreal, and, in addition, the enormous number of barrels packed and distributed in the_ different districts of the Northwest and it is clear that it is not fair to place the honest packers, these men who have reputations at stake and who have been^ building rip this business for many yeaTS, in the position in which they are placed as a result of this at-

tempted inspection. These men find that irresponsible packers, small packers who ship out by carload lots, are sending their goods into these different markets in competition with goods that are fairly and hon-estly^ packed. We must take either one position or the other-we must either increase the number of inspectors and compel the bulk of the shippers to live up to the Fruit Marks Act or abandon the Act altogether and allow matters to go back to where they were before, or, if you are going to discriminate in favour of the careless packer, you can depend upon it that you will find plenty of these men who are ready to take advantage of the Act to ship their goods under it. I am aware that the minister will say that he has increased the fine for infringement of the Fruit Marks Act. That is a step in the right direction. But the minister can understand that shippers, who have not a reputation at stake and whose standing is not lowered by being compelled to pay a fine, if there is money enough in it, will pay the fine and continue to do things in direct opposition to the Act. Let me call the attention of the minister to the fact that out of twenty-one inspectors in the whole Dominion there are ten who are almost entirely confined to the city districts, five at the ports of Montreal and Quebec, one at Port Arthur and Fort William, one at Toronto, one at Vancouver, one at Halifax and one at St. John.
I am satisfied that I have given sufficient grounds for urging upon the minister the necessity of investigating this question, and I am sure he will see the wisdom of appointing at once a number of extra inspectors, not only in the western provinces but in the eastern provinces, to compel shippers of fruit to live up to the Fruit Marks Act; otherwise he may depend upon it that the Act is going to do' an injury to the honest packer who is endeavouring to acquire a reputation as a packer of fruit, while the man who is careless in packing, will receive an advantage over him, because he will enjoy the advantage of the reputation secured by the honest packer. I do not need to mention exports to the old country. I know the minister fully appreciates the fact that many shipments which went over last year were far from being up to the standard. His own report states that a number of those shipments were far below the standard; in fact you will find that one of his superintendents of division says that the fruit is not up to the average of the other years. This superintendent also puts in a number of letters from different districts in England showing that the fruit sent over to the old country has not been up to the standard, and if we do not have a better enforcement of the law we cannot expect to hold our present advantage in that market.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I appreciate the spirit which has inspired the remarks of the two hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House. I recognize their criticisms as a perfectly fair and friendly effort to secure an advantage to the very important fruit trade of this country. I do not wish at all to take exception to the slight criticisms that have been levelled against the administration of the Fruit Marks Act. That Act and its administration are not probably perfect, and I court criticism and advice in respect to its administration. I must, however, point out-and I hope the House will pardon me for dwelling upon the subject, inasmuch as many of the members now in this House were not present when that Act was under discussion-I must point out that the Fruit Marks Act does not contemplate a complete inspection of our fruit. That Act defines certain grades and marks which must be put upon the fruit in closed packages, and certain requirements in regard to which the whole package must be equal to the showing face. It defines the law under which everybody who packs fruit must act, and everybody who packs fruit must live up to that law and carry out the exact definitions in the Act, or else they are committing an infraction of the law. Under the Fruit Marks Act anybody can take exception to the dealing of the packers, and it is especially open to anybody who buys fruit to see to it that he secures what he purchases, in accordance with the marks defined under this Act. At the time the discussion occurred in regard to that Act when it was put through parliament, it was clearly announced that there could be no effort on the part of the department to secure complete inspection of all fruit in our trade. The reason given was that we would have to have an army of inspectors, all competent men, and men who could only be employed for a small portion of the year. This, it was pointed out, involved an impossibility -I use the word advisedly-it would be an impossibility to secure a large number of inspectors during the rush of the fruit trade to inspect all our fruit, and then drop them off at the end of that trade, and let them seek employment elsewhere for the rest of the year. It would be impossible to obtain a sufficient number of thoroughly competent men under those conditions.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would ask the minister whether it would not be possible to obtain men like those who are in charge of packers for the different companies? They obtain competent men for a period of two or three months, for about $75 a month. Might it not be possible for the minister to obtain a similar class of men, who thoroughly understand the packing of fruit, to

take charge of a certain district, for say, $100 a month, for a couple of months?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not believe they could properly inspect all the fruit. There is another reason, why it is impossible to inspect all the fruit. Such an inspection would so interfere with the trade, with the transport of the fruit, that the trade could not stand it. I do not say that the trade would not submit to it, but it could not stand it. I would point out that during about two months of the year, in an average season, there are anywhere from half a million to two million barrels of apples passing through the port of Montreal, and it would be impossible to inspect even specimens of the different lots, while they are loading, or to hold them until they have been inspected, without seriously interfering with the progress of that fruit to market. There are some other points where it would be almost equally difficult to make such an inspection, but Montreal is the chief port. These are practically impediments to adopting the idea of a complete inspection of all our fruit. The other objection is the difficulty of obtaining competent inspectors for that purpose. I would point out in answer to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), that all the men who pack fruit, the dealers, who buy orchards and get men to go into those orchards and pack fruit, tell me that it is with the utmost difficulty they can get men at all competent for that work. The only excuse .they give us for packing some of their fruit improperly is the difficulty of getting just such men as my hon. friend alludes to. If I were to try to engage from 200 to 300 such men for two or three months of the year, I would not be able to secure qualified men. When it comes to deciding upon the quality and character of the fruit packed we require first-class men, because lawsuits might arise in consequence of their proceeding against packers, and unless our inspectors were absolutely reliable, some of the packers might suffer unjustly. Therefore. 1 say it was distinctly understood when the Act was passed that we did not intend to make a complete inspection of all fruit. That being the case, whv do we inspect at all? First of all, because the Act was intended for the purpose, chiefly of the export trade.
Our credit and reputation in the English market, to which nearly all our apples go, had become very bad. We were there denounced as sending forward apples with a good face in some instances but with wretched fruit in the middle of the barrel. We were also accused of sending forth apples which were marked with some designs indicating that they were of the best quality when, as a matter of fact, they were very inferior. We were also accused ol sending forward fruit which was called by one name, but which really was of a different variety. All these things had brought Canadian fruit in the English market to such a low class that something had to be done. It was therefore specially for the purpose of guarding our export trade, and as being a matter of trade and commerce, that this parliament undertook to pass the Act. The Act was framed with that special design, and, incidentally, in the process of watching the fruit trade for that purpose, it was quite possible for the inspectors to also, to a certain extent, although in a lesser degree, help and watch the local fruit trade. It was understood that whenever the inspectors were able to do this I would be only too glad to allow them to do it and thus help to protect the home consumers as well as the export traffic. But there is this difference between the export market and the home consumer. The purchaser of our goods in a foreign country finds it very difficult to come back on the exporter here in Canada. The home consumer can do that easily. In Ontario, in Toronto, or in any of the smaller towns there, a man who buys a barrel of apples and does not find it up to the proper standard is generally within a few miles, or, at most, within a hundred miles, of the man who packed the barrel and he can easily protect himself, whereas, the purchaser in the foreign market could not, and as a matter of fact, would not try to protect himself against the individual packer in Canada. But the whole of the Canadian export trade would suffer by reason of the reputation which would come to it from the defects which he had found in the purchase that he had made. Therefore, for the sake of protecting our reputation and credit in the foreign market it is necessary for us to have this inspection as regards our foreign trade.
Since the inception of the Act some matters have come to my notice which have induced me to go a little further. There was a large trade between the prairie provinces and Ontario on the one hand and British Columbia on the other. This was a trade which it was almost difficult for the purchaser to deal with as the export trade and we therefore felt that it was our duty to assist in guarding that a little. We put an inspector first of all in Winnipeg and afterwards one in Calgary for the purpose of protecting the people in these markets against the sale of inferior fruit. We were urged ,to do this especially, because, having begun with the export trade, we were told that dealers in Ontario and British Columbia would deliver into these markets, which were very good markets indeed in view of the prices, fruit which they did not dare to send forward for export because it would be subject to our inspection. We, therefore, took it upon ourselves to appoint an inspector in Winnipeg and one in Calgary for that purpose. We have an inspector in British Columbia for dealing

with the export fruit trade of that province and officers in the maritime provinces, in Quebec and Ontario for dealing with the export trade there, these being the great fruit exporting provinces of the Dominion. I think it only right that this explanation should be given particularly as the general tone of the complaints of my hon. friends who have spoken would leave in the mind of those who do not understand the question the impression that it was the intention of the Act to inspect all of the trade, when, as a matter of fact, it was avowedly not the intention of the Act and it was a duty which the department has never undertaken and was never expected to undertake.
Having given this explanation I might say a word or two with regard to what we are doing. My hon. friend has spoken of the vast number of packages of fruit shipped. I have no doubt the figures he has given are correct. As a matter of fact the figures I have show that the number of individual packages inspected during last year is a little over 41,000 by all the inspectors. That is about 2,000 to each inspector in round figures. This inspection goes on for about three months in the year and then we employ the inspectors, except the temporary ones, for another three months. During that time they do not do nearly as much as they do in the three months in which the active packing of fruit takes place. But although that was the number of actual packages inspected, the shipments included nearly 700,000 packages; so that practically we had to inspect, with our staff of inspectors, what was equivalent to about 700,000 packages of fruit. The result was that we were obliged to take out a large number of prosecutions, and this year I have insisted upon those presecutions being put through to the utmost limit except where there was a first offence or where there seemed to be mitigating circumstances. All through in the administration of this Act I have been desirous of taking it for granted that the packers wished to live up to the Act and that if they did not do so it was usually due to ignorance or carelessness. Therefore, in the case of a first offence, we generally allowed the thing to go, giving the packer a warning, pointing out to him what the requirements of the law were and insisting upon his fulfilling those requirements. For a second offence, however, during the last season I do not think we have dropped any. My hon. friend asks for more inspectors. That, I think, is the burden of the request laid before us now. I would be quite willing to do this, and I think that perhaps the time has been reached when the necessities of the case are such that I will have to do it. Last year I did it to a certain extent. I added three inspectors to the province of Ontario in con-Mr. FISHER.
sequence of the representations which were made to me.


Mr. BLAIN.: Who were they, may I ask?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Furminger, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Smith and Mr. Moore. One of these, however, replaced an inspector who died. I did this partly because it was represented to me, which was true, that there was a considerable export of fruit from western Ontario across the United States boundary line, especially at Niagara. We have tried to keep the inspection for the export trade scattered through the country, partly on the railways converging at Montreal, but chiefly in the port of Montreal, which is the great export port for all the fruit of Ontario and Quebec.	We also have had a good deal
of this work to do at Halifax, St. John and some other places in the maritime provinces, where there is an export trade. In addition to the inspection of the ports, which is the most convenient for the administration of the department, we have had several men travelling about in Ontario dropping on to shipments of fruit .anywhere and everywhere, and the reason we have been doing this is that, 'the law being what it is, any man who ships apples is open to attack and we wish to attack him in any way without warning and without letting him know that he was going to be caught. For that purpose I have had travelling inspectors going about in Ontario especially and the maritime provinces and ,an inspector in British Columbia doing the pame kind of thing, for the purpose of catching people. That is a deterrent. It shows the shippers and packers that they are never safe, that they may at any time be caught, and if they are caught they will be prosecuted and fined. It was never intended or expected that we could inspect all the fruit; but the law -being what it is, it fixes a standard, not only for our inspectors, but for purchasers from abroad. Therefore, it gives an opportunity for the purchaser to protect himself and an intimation to the packer what he must do, not only to comply with the law, but to do justice to the trade and the purchaser and himself. That is the object of the Act. I [DOT]would be very sorry indeed to think for a moment of dropping the administration ot this Act. Possibly more vigorous administration may be required, but that means more expenditure of money, more numerous appointments of inspectors, and I would remind some hon. gentlemen that when the Act was first introduced I was met with the taunt that the object was simply to provide places for government supporters. I explained that I was only appointing inspectors when absolutely necessary and was going to appoint none except efficient men. Since the Act has been in force, I have never had a complaint as to the efficiency and good character of

any man appointed under the Act. The .only complaint I have had is that I have not made sufficient appointments. I may say that we have tributes to the efficiency of this Act from outside the country.
I shall not go back to the old reports from England on the first Inspection Act, or quote again what has been often stated by our American competitors, but I will say this, that at present, in a number of states in the Union, the fruit growers have asked for legislation similar to our Act, and the American Federal authorities have been petitioned by a large number of the state fruit growers and the Pomological Union of all the American states, to pass an Act modelled on the lines of the Canadian Fruit Marks Act. This, it seems to me, is a fair tribute to the good lines of this Act and its successful working. In a general way, that administration has accomplished much for the object intended.
1 know that its administration has been carried on with) a single eye to the improvement of the fruit trade, and that the officers of the department, the chief inspectors and all the officers under them, have been working to the best of their ability for the proper enforcement of the Act and the benefit of the trade. I believe myself that it would be in the public interest if more inspections were made and I propose to stimulate more frequent inspections by one means or another. If we cannot overcome the insufficient number of inspections without additional inspectors,
I shall not hesitate to appoint additional inspectors where they seem to be required, and ask parliament for the necessary money to enable me to do so. But I do not think that I could appoint any more with the money at my disposal, and I want to keep within the vote if I can. I appreciate the statements made to-day and the reports that have come to me from other sources, and I appreciate the fact that the matter is of sufficient importance to the fruit trade to warrant my taking the responsibility of spending a little more money than parliament has voted, if that be absolutely necessary for the proper accomplishment of the work. There are, however, one or two other demands for inspectors to which I shall allude. A considerable number are from people who want to be appointed inspectors themselves, no doubt a laudable, object, but I do not propose to regard very seriously such applications because the desire to be inspectors probably influences their applications. There is another demand which also I do not feel called upon to grant. I have had representations from a large number of dealers asking me to appoint inspectors to go into their orchards and see that their packers comply with the law. To those people I say that it is just as much a part of their business arrangements and management to see that their'
packers comply with the law as to see that their book-keepers keep their books properly, and it is no part of the duty of the government to pay for that part of these people's business. I have therefore disregarded the applications of a good many men who have urged on me insistently that the government should appoint inspectors whose business it would be to go about in the orchards and see that the packers pack their fruit according, to the Act. The law is there and the packers and their employers know it, and it is their business and not that of the department, to see that they fulfil the law.
There are one or two points brought up by my hon. friend from British Columbia, which I shall deal with for a few minutes. Regarding what he said about the Act itself, he gave an interpretation of the clauses 320 and 321 in which I do not quite agree with him. The Department of Justice has informed me that the Act does apply to_ imported fruit and we have always administered it in that view. I have the instructions here which we give to our inspectors, and this is what these instructions say:
To Fruit Importers and Commission Merchants.
Importers of fruit are warned that the Fruit Marks Act, referring to the grading and packing of fruit, and sections 4 and 5 of the Act ' Respecting the Packing and Sale of certain Staple Commodities,' referring to the size of fruit packages, will be strictly enforced. Importers of foreign fruit will be held responsible for the packing and marking of the fruit which they sell as well as for the size of the paokages.
Copies of the Fruit Marks Act and the Act ' Respecting the Packing and Sale of certain Staple Commodities ' may be had, free, on application to the Fruit Division, Ontario.
That was a circular sent to my inspectors on the 5th of April, 1906. It has never been rescinded or modified. The inspectors thoroughly understand it, and it is their duty, to follow it. Last May, a year ago, there was a correspondence from Calgary, and in that correspondence one of the inspectors there wrote asking some questions and describing something that was going on there. This was the answer sent by Mr. Alexander McNeil, Chief of the fruit division:
I have your letter of May 21 with reference to the foreign fruit coming in. In such cases as this, the dealer is held responsible for the fruit. In the case of closed packages, he must put his name and address on the outside of the packages and will be held responsible for the grading and packing. In the case of berries and baskets, he will be held responsible for the proper marking of the packages.	_
As the cubic contents of this basket as you give the measurements will be 48 cubic inches, and as the legal standard requires 55J cubic inches it will be necessary for the

McPherson Fruit Company to stamp all such hoses with the word ' short ' as required by law. No doubt, they will recoup themselves for the extra labour from the shippers._
I presume you are supplied with copies of the Inspection and Sale Act, part IX.
The House will see theretore that the instructions of the department to their inspectors, and the action of the department generally has always contemplated that the Act applied to imported fruit just the same as the home packed fruit. We have asked our inspectors to always carry out that idea. My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) spoke about a possible amendment to section 321. There is no doubt in our minds whatever that under section 321 the package has to be marked as required by the provisions of this part of the Act, and the imported package has to be marked exactly the same as the Canadian package. Section 320 is a direction for the packers in this country before they send out their fruit, and section 321 says:
No person shall sell, or ofier, expose or have in his possession for sale, any fruit packed in a closed package and intended for sale unless such package is marked as required by the provisions of this part of the Act.
That means.that whether the package be imported or packed at home, as long as a person has it in his possession or offers or exposes it for sale, it must be packed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, so that the Act applies to all packages no matter whence they come. In the administration of the Act we have held the person who is the agent or the purchaser from the importer the responsible person against whom to have recourse if there is any infraction of the Act because of course we cannot go to a foreign country to prosecute. My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) speaks of the grievances of British Columbia. I have no doubt whatever that he can appeal fairly to the people of the prairie provinces just as he can to me for sympathy in the difficulties-I would not like to call them grievances-which the fruit men of British Columbia have experienced in their laudable and legitimate efforts (with which I have the greatest sympathy) to capture the market in the prairie provinces. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell) speaks about the tariff, and I shall not enter into that question further than to say that I propose to represent to the Minister of Customs what I think is a fair thing, namely, that four boxes of apples contain a larger quantity than a barrel, and that if the duty is to be levied on boxes it would be much fairer to count three boxes to the barrel than to count four.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will make that representation to the Minister of Customs and Mr. FISHER.
ask that he shall issue an order that the duty should be levied in that way which I think is right and proper. If it is not done at the present time I have no doubt it is because of some misconception on the part of the officials. My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) spoke about the provincial regulations, and here let me compliment the province of British Columbia on the regulations they have enacted for the purpose of shutting out and suppressing insect pests and disease in fruit. In that respect British Columbia has taken the lead of all parts of Canada. It is in the purview of the provincial legislatures to so enact and the province of British Columbia has gone very far in that direction and has I think administered its law wisely and well.
The Fruit Marks Act is not specially aimed at protecting us against fruit pests and it only incidentally does so by directing the condemnation of apples or other fruits which are rendered inferior in quality by reason of having in them these fruit pests. As to the enforcement of the Act, the local inspectors in British Columbia have a perfect right to prosecute under the Act if they so desire. If fruit is being sold anywhere in British Columbia which is not marked and packed in accordance with the provisions of the Fruit Marks Act, anybody and everybody whether he be an inspector or not can lay an information or take out a prosecution under the Act. We have received from our inspectors at Winnipeg and Calgary a good deal of information on the subject, and that information has led us to believe that as a rule the American fruit offered on these markets has been packed quite in accordance with the provisions of our Act. I do not mean to say that there is no bad American fruit put upon these markets, but at all events our inspectors have not reported any such. I do not suppose for a moment that they inspect all the fruit, but we certainly have had reports from them showing that in a general way the American fruit is well packed and fulfils all the conditions of our law. I took occasion a little while ago to send a circular to all the dealers in fruit in the three prairie provinces and with one exception they all reported that the American fruit arrives in good condition and is packed an strict accordance with the requirements of our law. It may be said that these dealers are prejudiced as they handle American fruit, but at all events that is the information they have sent us. One dealer did report that he had seen some American fruit which was not quite up to the standard.


Martin Burrell: Were they wholesale or retail dealers?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were mostly wholesale.


Martin Burrell: They are largely American firms.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They may be prejudiced, but of course I cannot say as to that. Let me say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell) that as a general rule the British Columbia fruit, is, I believe, well packed and properly marked. I remember that some years ago I was in British Columbia and having seen a good deal of the fruit there I considered, and so stated it in the east, that the British Columbia fruit growers could give a lesson to the rest of Canada in the putting up of fruit. They had seen the example of California long before we in the east had; they profited by it and as a general rule they put up their fruit very well. The last time I was in the province of Alberta in the fall of the year I saw boxes of British Columbia fruit, and, when I saw it in competition with the American fruit I must say that personally I would have had no hesitation in buying the British Columbia fruit in preference to_ the other. My experience on that occasion led me to believe that British Columbia can successfully supply these markets with fruit just as soon as they are able to grow enough for the demand. I venture to think that the chief reason for such a large quantity of American fruit being sold in the prairie provinces,'
is,	that British Columbia up to the present time could not supply the market. Although British Columbia has gone so far ahead, as my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) has described, in planting trees and providing for a large production in the future, it is my belief that British Columbia does not now produce enough to supply the market of the prairie provinces.
As a matter of fact, according to some returns I have seen, a considerable quantity of American fruit is imported into British Columbia, and sold in that province, not because it is better fruit, not because the British Columbia consumers would prefer
it,	but because at certain times and seasons there is not enough British Columbia fruit of some kinds to supply the market of British Columbia, and certainly not enough to supply the prairie markets. A large quantity of fruit has been sent from Ontario into the prairie provinces especially of late years. To-day the Ontario fruit growers are making great strides in the prairie markets. During the last season I have had an Ontario man inspecting in Winnipeg. He has made reports upon the fruit trade in Winnipeg and the prairie markets generally. He found some fruit arriving from British Columbia in very bad condition, chiefly because the people there did not seem to understand how to pack it in the car and how to see to its transportation. I am of the opinion that when fruit is to be shipped by rail, even in refrigerator cars, it is essential that it should be cooled before it is placed in the car. I would also say that some carloads of small fruit arrived in Winnipeg last season from British Columbia in a state of mush. They had been seriously heated in the car, and had been packed in such a way that there was no circulation of air amongst the packages, while the American fruit coming into the Winnipeg market the same day was in perfect condition because there was provision to allow the circulation of air between every two layers of baskets, and because the fruit had been cooled down as low as it could be cooled with safety before being packed in the car. This hint may account for.a great deal of the bad fruit that has arrived in the prairie provinces from both Ontario and British Columbia. I propose that that inspector shall go about in Ontario and give the fruit shippers and packers of Ontario the benefit of what he saw in the Winnipeg market last season. Before the next shipping season begins I hope he will be able to lay the information he has acquired in this way before the Ontario people so that they may learn what conditions have arisen in their fruit trade with the west in the last season, and by some means I hope to lay the same information before the British Columbia shippers.
I am glad of what has been said here today. I appreciate the spirit in which the remarks of hon. gentlemen have been made and sympathize with the views expressed, and I shall try during this coming season, as I did in the past season, to bring about a larger measure of close inspection of the fruit trade. I hope that we will be able to remove any difficulties that may exist in this respect.


Mr. F. LALOB (Haldimand).: I would compliment the minister on his fair descrio-tion of the administration of the Fruit Marks Act, and the manner in which he has approached the question before the House. Any remarks I shall make will be not in a spirit of fault-finding or hostile criticism, but with the object of remedying any grievances that may exist. I do not believe that the Fruit Marks Act is as rigidly enforced as it should be, because we have not enough inspectors to properly carry on the work. I am glad to hear the minister promise to try to increase the number and to give us more rigid inspection. I believe that an inspector should be appointed in each county during the packing season. This could be done as there are plenty of men in almost every county competent to inspect apples and these men may be selected and engaged only for the packing season. In that way a higher standard could be attained because I believe it to be of immense importance

that the buyers in the British market should feel sure that when buying Canadian apples he is getting inspected fruit packed according to the Canadian law. To create such a feeling in Britain will give us a great advantage in the British market over the American shipper. Therefore I am in sympathy with the Inspection Act and in favour of increasing the number of inspectors, if the minister can see hi3 way clear to do so. I was surprised yesterday to learn, from an answer given In this House, that some 37,000 barrels of American apples were imported last year into the Canadian Northwest. I was sorry to learn that because the Canadian west should in the future be one of the best markets for the apples of Ontario, and it is unfortunate that we are losing all that great Northwest trade. I suppose we are labouring under great difficulties in the way of freight rates to_ that country as compared with the American shippers and it would be a great advantage to the Ontario apple producer if the duties upon apples going into the Northwest from the United States were made a little higher in order that we might gain that market.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) complaining of lax inspection of apples in British Columbia, because Ontario shippers are afraid to send apples into British Columbia owing to the inspection there.


Martin Burrell: That is provincial inspection.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That may be. I wish to call attention to an industry which is of great importance to the farming community and which is growing more Tapidly than almost any other industry, the evaporating of apples. In almost every part of every county in Ontario you will find that within the last few years an evaporator has sprung up. It is not the better class of apples that waste on the trees, they are packed and shipped. The apples that are allowed to waste are those that do not come up to the proper standard for shipment. The safeguard against that is the evaporator. These evaporators are being located all over Canada; the industry has grown faster than any other that I know of; and I do not know of anything of greater benefit to the farmers than the establishment of an evaporator within his reach, because it takes this class of apples, which would [DOT]otherwise be wasted, at a fair price. These apples are evaporated, done up nicely and are sold partly in Canada and partly for export. This year, I am sorry to say, that industry is in a most unfortunate position. Unless some remedy can be found, I cannot see much hope for the extension of the [DOT]evaporated apple business in Canada. The principal difficulty we labour undetr iin -this business is the German surtax. I am not saying this in a spirit of fault finding Mr. LALOR.
with the position of the government in the matter. For, I wish to say at once to the government that their position is the position that I take; it is a position in which I am prepared to support them. I believe their stand was a proper one and that in the interest of the country, we should retaliate and let them have surtax for surtax. But the German market, unfortunately is our chief market for the export of evaporated apples. The Germans have placed this surtax of one-half cent a pound on evaporated apples going into that country, and the result is that more apples are offered for sale in Canada than the country can take. There is to-day a great surplus of last year's crop, and one dealer is competing with another to see who will sell evaporated apples the cheapest, in order to get rid of them before next season's pack comes on. So faT as I am concerned, I have ten carloads of evaporated apples today in New York that were shipped for export to Germany. They are held in bond. The surtax is almost prohibitory, and the result is that we cannot get rid of our surplus stock, and we do not know what to do with it. There is no way by which, at as little cost, the government could assist a Canadian industry as by helping the men in this business to pay this surtax on evaporated apples. The evaporated apple m-[DOT]dustry, I believe, is the one industry that is suffering on account of this surtax. Our manufacturers, I believe, are getting benefit from it, and it would be a pity on their account to remove it. Our farmers who export wheat and other products are not suffering as a result of it. But this growing evaporator industry, the immense importance of which to the farmers I have already pointed out, is placed in such a position by this surtax that it greatly needs assistance. I would like to see the government render that assistance by paying a certain portion of that surtax, in order that the surplus of evaporated apples may be got rid of. When you consider the enormous quantity of dried fruit brought into this country, you can see the effect it has upon the evaporated apple business. The growers of small fruits suffer to an enormous extent from the importation of American fruit. No less than 1,600,096 pounds of strawberries and blackberries were imported into this country last year. The duty is not heavy enough. This market should be secured to the Canadian fruit grower. We have ample facilities for growing fruit, especially small fruits, and I believe that the tariff should keep out the American fruit to as great an extent as possible, and give the market to our own people. It is a wonder to me that the growers of small fruits have not agitated before this for the increase of duty on this class of fruit. As to the evaporated apple trade, I speak from experience as one connected with it, when I say that it is suffering greatly from the German surtax. It would not cost the government much to assist this industry in the way I have suggested.	6


Mr. SPROULE.: What quantity is imported?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I have not the figures at hand. But I know that a certain quantity is imported, particularly from California into British Columbia and the west. To-day, probably about 400 cars of evaporated apples are packed in Canada every year. They represent an enormous quantity of green apples. Probably 200 cars are used in the country and the rest are exported, largely to Germany. At a cost of about $25,000 a year, the government could pay the surtax imposed upon the evaporated apple products and relieve the Canadian industry. This would do almost more than anything else, as I have already suggested, to assist the farmer in getting rid of the apples that otherwise would be lost. I cannot speak too highly of the advantage of the evaporator to the farmer.
I believe that advantage is as great as that afforded by the canneries. I believe the government would be wise in deciding to assist the people engaged in this bust ness.
, Mr. M. S. SCHELL (South Oxford). It is very pleasing to see the spirit in which this subject has been debated, for it is so seldom that we find both sides of the House agreeing so thoroughly on any matter as to-day. We know that the work of the fruit inspectors has been most helpful to the apple industry as well as to the industry of growing small fruit. I do not propose to quote, as I might quote at length from different sources, to show how the work that has been done by the inspectors since they were appointed in 1901 is regarded. The fact that our friends of the opposition are asking for an increase m the number of inspectors is the clearest proof that good work has been done. I have a very high appreciation of this trade, its growth and possibilities. I agree heartily with the hon. member for Yale-Oariboo concerning the possibilities of the apple industry-and I suppose the same applies to small fruits-in the province of British Columbia. We feel that there are as great possibilities in the province of Ontario. We know that the fruit of British Columbia is of very fine quality very handsome, perhaps even more so than the Ontario fruit or that of Nova Scotia But we know that it is not finer in quality Ontario, I think, produces the best ali round apples, perhaps not as fine in appearance, but for flavour, for texture, and for keeping quality, I do not think there is any part of the Dominion of Canada tnat produces finer apples, or possibly as 107
good. ^ The possibilities of development in Ontario are very great, yet I am sorry to say we have been making but very little progress of late years. The number of new orchards that are being set out is very small, comparatively speaking; the older orchards we have are not producing the quality of fruit that they should produce, and there is something lacking with this industry. Now, I do not blame the Dominion government, I do not blame the Ontario government, either one of them entirely;
kiplr perhaps the fault lies primarily at the door of the producer, at the door of the grower.


Mr. OLIVER.: The packer?


Mr. SCHELL.: No, not the packer, you have to go far behind the packer to find the root of the trouble. If we are going to put this industry where it should be, and if we are going to have our inspectors do their work satisfactorily in the future, we have got to produce a better quality of fruit. The inspectors have done about all they can do, except as a deterrent in future. The educational work has demonstrated that our fruit has to be put up according to a certain standard, and packers buyers and dealers Understand that. But until we get a better quality of fruit a more uniform quality, there will always be a difficulty in the enforcement of the Fruit Marks Act, and our growers will not obtain the^ value that they should obtain from their orchards.
I think that in the first place more educational work should be done. The farmers already know something of it from reading in the newspapers, and from the example of their neighbours in spraying their orchards and taking proper care of them. But as a rule, our farmers have not gone systematically into the work of spraying and caring for their orchards as they should do. I believe the provincial government of Ontario, assisted by the Dominion government, should take up this work more energetically in the way of imparting education, instruction, and making demonstrations with a view of putting this in-"usj'ry on a better footing. I understand that the provincial government of British Columbia have taken a very strong stand in relation to their fruit industries, and I think they are far in advance of us in the province of Ontario-and I am now speaking particularly for that province. It is the provincial government of Ontario that have primarily the charge of the educational institutions, and it is their duty to do more in the way of sending out inspectors and instructors. If the apple industry, the fruit industry, of that province were properly handled, instead of exporting one million barrels of apples, out of the ten million or fifteen million we produce in that prov-


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What do you think of the freight rates to the west?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I think they are too high and I think that the railway companies of this country should give us better rates. Especially is it unfair that when the fruit gets to Winnipeg local rates prevail from Winnipeg to western points. That is an absolutely unfair condition that I think our Board of Railway Commissioners should take up and deal with. We should have a through rate to Calgary, Edmonton, Brandon or Regina, as well as to Winnipeg, and I think it is an absolutely unfair condition that is maintained to the detriment of the shippers of Ontario fruit. The rate is high anyway, and I think we are entitled to a through rate just as much as we would be in shipping any other commodity. I hope that this government, operating in connection with the government of Ontario and, if necessary, with the government of Nova Scotia, if their system is not what it should be, as well as with the government of British Columbia, will take hold of this industry and spend money upon it. Every dollar they spend they will get back ten times over as the result of better educative work. I do not know of any industry in which there are greater possibilities of development. I do not know any way in which the government can spend money and receive a better return. Instead of having complaints about poor fruit and inspectors not always giving satisfaction either to the shippers or the buyers, if we get the fruit right there will be no difficulty about the inspection, and if we had the clean fruit they have in British Columbia and in some of the western states there would not be much difficulty about inspection. -There the fruit is comparatively clean. They have not the scab and coddling moth to the same extent that we have in Ontario. By solving the question of the production of a good quality of fruit at home we will rid ourselves of the difficulty, annoyance and heart burnings in connection with poor fruit that we sometimes see put up and shipped to the markets that should never leave our own orchards except to go the evaporator or cider mill.


Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants).: Mr. Speaker, I have only a word to add to what has been said. I am more than pleased that this subject has come up to-day. This is the fruit grower's day. We have sometimes a lawyers' day, we have always a political partisans' day and during the last few years I believe we have had, once in each session, a doctors' day. I am very glad therefore that to-day we have a fruit growers' day. I think that much good will come of it. I am very glad that this question has come up. It is one in which I am personally deeply interested, coming from 1071
a country where fruit growing is one of our chief industries, where fruit growing is one of our most paying industries, where the apple tree is indigenous to the soil, [DOT]where it will grow wild in the fence corners alongside of the morning glories and the wild roses, where you can scent the apple blossoms for a hundred miles in one direction without losing sight of the blooms all the way. It is one of our paying industries. Apple growing in Nova Scotia is as good as owning bank stock even if bank stock is good. My hon. friend (Mr. Schell) who has been telling us about the superior fruit, the unapproachable fruit of Ontario, I am sorry to say, wound up with a hard luck tale about bad fruit, miserable, scabby fruit, wormy fruit, unintelligently cultivated and unintelligently packed. I would advise our friend to send his fruit growers either to British Columbia or down to Nova Scotia to get some lessons in intelligent fruit growing and intelligent and honest packing. I am also glad that this question has come up because it has developed that the only fault which the Fruit Marks Act has is that there are not enough inspectors. I remember that not very long ago, at least one of the voices that was singing the praises of this Act to-day and finding no fault with it at all, was criticising this Act very energetically and very earnestly, and I also remember that it was attacked very bitterly. But the hon. gentleman who was then criticising the Act declares to-day that the only fault to be found with it is that there are not enough inspectors. The outfit of inspectors necessary to examine our apple crop would be something like the outfit of surgical instruments that a surgeon would need. It could not be complete. I presume the inspectors were appointed to look after four classes of the people in the fruit business-the ignorant grower, the ignorant packer, the careless packer and the dishonest packer. The want of education, I think, is one thing that has made the inspector necessary at all. If our people were sufficiently educated in the art and skill of growing apples properly, of growing them for their own profit, of growing them in a businesslike way, I think we would have very little trouble about the quantity of inspectors. In so far as Nova Scotia is concerned I have nothing but good words to say for the Fruit Marks Act'. We have not many inspectors there, not as many as would like to be appointed, but I think possibly that at the present time we have about all that are necessary. We exported from the port of Halifax last year between 600,000 and 700,000 barrels of apples and so intelligently is the fruit grown and so honestly is it packed that the two or three inspectors that are employed in Nova Scotia, one of whom is at the port of Halifax, are all that are

necessary. I have it on the authority of the chief inspector that while in some cases fruit packers are being fined every year, the fact is that dishonest fruit packing is growing less and less all the time. As in other businesses, so in the fruit growing business, education and intelligence are necessary, and if my hon. friend from Ontario inquires into the sad situation he paints he will find that the trouble in Ontario is that while the soil is fit and the conditions favourable the people are not growing the fruit intelligently. The hon. gentleman told us that $300 per acre was paid for land, and he seems to consider that an enormous sum. Let me tell him that down where I come from you cannot buy an acre of orchard for $300.


Malcolm Smith Schell: The statement was that the fruit itself was sold at $300 per acre.


Judson Burpee Black: I could mention an orchard in my district on which last year the fruit sold for $4,000. However, that makes very little difference, for what I was getting at was the importance of intelligence in growing fruit. The fruit growers in my section of the country are educated and intelligent men and we have B.A's. and M. A's., graduates of our colleges, engaged in the industry. The 'result is that fruit growing in Nova Scotia is not only a paying business now, but that year after year we find our export of fruit growing larger and the quality of the apples getting better. Perhaps in some sections of the country where fruit is not so intelligently grown and where perhaps it is a little more dishonestly packed there may be more inspectors required, but in Nova Scotia we have no fault whatever to find with the Act and indeed we think it has proved itself to be a very great benefit to the industry.


Mr. D. A. GORDON.: I have listened with much interest to the statements made by hon. gentlemen as to the many evils that confront us in the fruit growing industry, but as they have offered no remedy I trust I may be pardoned for making a suggestion which I think will bring about a cure for these evils. We realize that all through Canada qj>ples and oranges are of the same value. I had occasion to state in the House recently that last fall apples in my locality sold for from 8 cents to 25 cents per 100 pounds, and I have before me a report of the market in Great Britain from which it will be seen that at the same time apples sold there for as low as one shilling per barrel. In my belief the remedy that would enable the apple crop to be marketed in a manner so as to bring to the growers the greatest return would be to introduce proper cold storage facilities nearer the points where the apples are produced. Until that is done Mr. BLACK.
I do not think the apple crop can be made to bring to the growers that return which it ought to bring.


Judson Burpee Black: That is what we do.


David Alexander Gordon: I am very glad to hear it. We all know what a benefit the cold storage system has been to the cheese industry and my suggestion is that the Minister of Agriculture should adopt similar methods in relation to the apple growing industry, and that educational stations should be established so as to teach the growers how to produce the best crop and how to market it in the best condition when it is produced. I urge this view of the case upon the Minister of Agriculture and I trust he will take steps in that direction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was somewhat amused at the speech of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Schell), because, while he told us in one breath that transportation had reached a high state of perfection, in the next breath he said that the facilities for transportation to Winnipeg and the west were wretched, that the freight rates were exorbitant and that the fruit was not well handled.


Malcolm Smith Schell: I did not say anything about the handling of the fruit; I only spoke about the question of rates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Schell) told us that we had the best system of cold storage in the world, but if that be so, _ how is it that so many shipments of fruit to England last year have been reported as being in bad condition when they arrived at their destination. I think that could be minimized greatly had we better cold storage and better care of the fruit on the voyage. The hon. gentleman blamed the Ontario government for not doing as much as he thought they ought to do in this direction, but I think that with him it depends a good deal on whose ox is gored. He thought the federal government was doing everything all right but of course he thought the Ontario government was doing everything all wrong. My belief is that both governments might do more than they have done, and, while we may provide cold storage and proper transportation we must also remember that proper culture of the fruit is a most important thing. There is something needed beyond all that, and fhat is the proper cultivation of the ground and its proper fertilization. Compare our orchards here with those in southern California. In the latter you would not see a blade of grass growing, they are practically cultivated all the time. The cultivation of the soil is not only looked after but the increase of moisture, and all that is needed as well as spraying and other devices. My hon. friend

from Oxford (Mr. Schell) gave as an instance of what might be accomplished in the fruit line, what has been done in the manufacture and export of cheese. No doubt that is the case, but was the excellent work done in the cheese line all done by government? Not at all. It was done by the united efforts of the governments and the cheese men themselves. For years back, in the county my hon. friend represents, the cheese manufacturers have had their own men in the field lecturing and instructing, and that, combined with the work done by the government, helped to accomplish what has been attained in that business. It was owing to the united efforts of the people belonging to the cheese associations and of both the federal and local governments that the trade in that commodity was so much improved. If we desire to accomplish something similar in the fruit business, we shall have to do it largely on the same lines. Last year we exported 1,600,000 barrels of apples, which must be only a small fraction of all that we grew and that we might have exported if the prices realized paid the expense. Besides we exported 6,000,000 pounds of evaporated apples. I do not know at what price these are sold elsewhere when picked, but in my county they sold at 25 cents a hundred during last year. That was a very small price, but the apples taken to the evaporator are not of a quality which would do for barrelling. They were practically the product of the orchard not fit for other markets, and although sold at inferior prices, if you add these prices to those obtained for the good exportable apples, you have a good average. To my mind what is required is a more rigid inspection and more inspections. I agree with the hon. minister that it would be altogether too much paternalism to send inspectors into every orchard to show the people how to pack their apples. That they ought to learn themselves, and it is something which their own innate honesty ought to dictate to them. But the apples should be examined periodically to see if packed and graded according to; law, and to punish those individuals who violate the law and in that way destroy the reputation of Canadian goods. We want more inspectors and we require a better system of cold storage. We want cold storage places in which to keep the apples and then have cold storage transportation both in the cars and on the steamers. We also require men at every port to look after their loading and unloading, to see that they are not exposed, to see that they are kept in proper condition, and when they reach their port of destination to see that they are taken charge of and put into cold storage again until they are sold. In addition to that, we require better freight
rates. Our freight rates are entirely too high, both ocean and railway. They take away a portion of the profit which otherwise would go to the exporters and the growers of the fruit. When these things are done, we shall have better results. We also ought to make greater efforts to find out markets abroad. In that way we could do something which would enure to the benefit of our fruit growers and exporters. In addition we should have an increase in the duty upon imported fruit so as to keep a lot of foreign fruit out of the Canadian market. We are entitled to have our own markets for our own people. Should the government operate along these lines, they will be doing something which cannot fail to benefit the trade generally.


Mr. W. O. SEALEY (Wentworth).: I have been much interested in the discussion we have had on the Fruit Marks Act and its administration, and I am glad to find that the department has been endorsed all along the line for the good results accruing from the Fruit Marks Act and its administration. The only complaint apparently seems to be that there are scarcely enough inspectors, and scarcely enough work done along the line of inspection, that the packers are not watched quite close enough. The very satisfactory explanation of the work of the department given by the hon. Minister of Agriculture renders it entirely unnecessary on my part to supplement it, but I shall take the liberty of drawing attention to one phase of the case which has come to my notice in the way of local observation. The packers and shippers, as a rule, so far as one can judge at home, who complain most loudly of the lack of effort on the part of the department and of the infraction of the law by others are generally the greatest sinners themselves. The large shippers are constantly complaining in order to induce the inspectors to be exceedingly hard on the smaller packers and shippers and in that way draw attention away from the quality of their own work. But so far as 1 can observe, the greatest infractions of the Act are committed by the packers and buyers who purchase by the orchard rather than by the barrel. When they buy by the orchard, they get the whole product, and they consider it most profitable to take everything which they can have the slightest chance of selling. Whereas when they buy by the barrel, _ they are far more cautious, the inspection is far more rigid, and consequently the result is much better. If I could venture to offer a word of suggestion or caution, it would be that the department should impress on its inspectors the _ advisability of paying rather most of their attention to those localities where the practice is to buy the orchards outright. I am not suggesting that that is not a satisfactory and simple

way of adjusting between the grower and the packer and shipper, but, so far as my observation goes, that is where the greatest mischief results. Not that the other methods are entirely satisfactory by any means, but this method is open to a great deal of abuse. I am sure that we are all pleased to have the assurance of the hon. minister that if any more inspectors be required, even though the appropriation be exhausted, he will not hesitate to appoint them, and if he does the House will have still greater confidence in him and his administration of the department, even though there be an overdraft. While the remarks and suggestions in this House have been largely with reference to the watching of the transhipping of the 'fruit and of the operations of the packers, I think the idea of the large packers and shippers in each locality is to get the government inspectors to do the work of inspecting the small packers and shippers from whom they buy, an expense and duty which should fall on the large packers themselves as a business transaction. While I agree with and am glad to endorse the Department of Agriculture in going to the extra expense proposed, it is just a question how far the department, in the public interest, should be encouraged to devote its energies to looking after the small packers for the benefit of the large packers and shippers.
We can all endorse most heartily the proposition to provide increased cold storage accommodation, especially in the vicinity of fruit growing centres, and I am satisfied that this matter is, as we were assured, engaging the consideration of the department and that we may anticipate a further improvement at an early date. I would again suggest that the department have their inspectors watch moTe closely the packers who are in the habit of buying apples on the trees and to whose interest it is to pack as many apples as they can.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the Fort Erie and Buffalo Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
On section 9-Union with another company.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The power given here is to unite with 'any other company incorporated for similar purposes, under the laws of Mr. SEA LET.
Canada or the province of Ontario, or under the laws of the United States or the State of New York. In the case of railways, we usually compel the company to name the roads with which amalgamation is to be permitted. It prevents them negotiating with any others without coming to parliament. In this case, we give a free hand. There may be nothing in it, but I do not see why we should grant such wide powers.


George Perry Graham: This Bill provides for a bridge only for foot passengers and vehicles, I believe. It did not come before the Railway Committee, but was dealt with by the Committee on Private Bills.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CEDAR RAPIDS MANUFACTURING AND POWER COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 94) respecting the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing & Power Company.-Mr. Boyer
On section 1-Expropriation powers1-' time extended.
Mr. PERLEY.: It does not seem to me that we ought to pass this Bill in the shape in which it appears before us. A charter was granted to this company in 1904 as a power company in connection with the Cedar Rapids on the St. Lawrence river. They were given until this year to make use of certain expropriation powers that were given them. Now, they come back and ask us to extend these expropriation powers until 1914. Their charter gives them very large powers with regard to using the water at Cedar Rapids. If they wish to develop the water-power, they ought to do it, and should not come here to ask us to extend these rights for five years. That would mean that the development of this power might be tied up for that length of time, even though for merely speculative purposes. We ought not to grant expropriation powers extending over so many years unless the parties have shown their good faith, and have shown that they intend to go on with the work.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: This matter came before me by reason of an application that the company made to have their plans approved of. It appeared that some time ago, before I became minister, there had been a partial approval of the undertaking, and the parties were of opinion that before they could actually expropriate land they would require, under the statutes, approval of the plan of their works. In view of the fact that we have an International Waterways Commission to whom all questions relating to waters which are wholly or for a part of

their course boundary waters between the United States and Canada, are usually referred, I thought it would be well to refer the matter to that commission. The matter was accordingly referred. If it had not been that I took that view, I think I should have felt it my duty, upon the report which I had from the engineers of my department, to approve of the plans, and the company could have proceeded to expropriate the property. Under these circumstances, I scarcely think it would be right to refuse to the company the extension of time. It may be, the time asked for is too long. It does seem to me that it is unreasonably long; but I think they might fairly be given a reasonable extension. I was informed, and I have no doubt it is the case, that the company already owns a very considerable part of the land rights necessary for the development of the water-power at the place where they propose to develop it, but that they desire to exercise their rights of expropriation in regard to additional property. Parliament having granted them the power by their Act of Incorporation, and there having been delay because of the reference by me to the International Waterways Commission, and and as their time expires early in the coming summer, so that it would have been difficult for them to exercise their powers of expropriation in the meantime, it does seem to me rather reasonable that an extension should be given.


George Halsey Perley: Have they shown any evidence of ability to build the works necessary for this power? It is very easy for people to get plans,-it costs very little to do that, and then endeavour to get somebody to buy the rights they have.


William Pugsley: The people who are interested in the property that is to be developed, and whose names I do not now recall, but who are very respectable people, gave me very positive assurances that they were ready to go ahead and were most anxious to have their plans approved, but I thought it was only courteous to the government of the United States that the plans should be submitted to the Waterways Commission. If I had not taken that ground I do not imagine that they would have been here asking for an extension of time. It seems to me though that the time asked for is longer than they need. If it were shortened by two years I should think it would be ample.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: Does this give the promoters of this Bill anything in the nature of a blanket to the exclusion of others who might develop the property?


William Pugsley: It would as to that particular property.	j


George Halsey Perley: Does not the minister think it is time we stopped granting these charters giving rights to water-powers when we know that every day these water-powers are growing in value? They are one of the great assets of this country. The question came up not long ago in the House with reference to a western charter. Before long we will use these water-powers in place of coal, or at any rate, for heating purposes. Is it not time that we stopped granting these charters to private individuals which give them the practical ownership of large water-powers which at the present time are no doubt largely vested in the Dominion? The persons to whom we give these powers very likely do not propose to develop them at all, but they have sense enough to see that before long they will become of great value.


Mr. PARDEE.: The company have already acquired, without expropriation, nearly all the land necessary and the only portions that are outstanding of the land required are portions which are owned by non-residents. These non-residents are holding out for an excessive price for the lands which are proposed to be purchased. It will be seen, therefore, that the company have done something to cary out the objects for which they are incorporated.


George Halsey Perley: I would like to ask the hon. member who has this Bill in charge whether he knows that himself?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I only know that it was stated before the committee and I have a letter from the person who is acting as the advocate of the company in which he says that that is really the state of affairs at the present time. Of course, I could not say it from my own knowledge.


Mr. MADDEN.: I do not think that what my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Per-ley) is contending against is so much the right to expropriate lands as the right to hold these waterways for a period of five years. In view of the fact that the government has taken steps at this session to preserve our natural resources, and has added to the standing committees of the House three committees having that object in view, I think it would not be a bad idea to submit this Bill to the committee on waterways and forestry to say whether, in their opinion, it is wise to allow a company to blanket a water-power for five years.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that it would be scarcely fair to this company to do that. Parliament has already given it this charter and has clothed it with the power of developing this water-power and acquiring lands. In pursuance of that authority they have gone ahead, and they have, as I was informed, acquired practically all the land which is necessary for

the development of these powers. We ought to treat this company just as we treat other companies. We scarcely ever refuse to give a reasonable extension of time, parliament having once granted the charter. With regard to the question raised by my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley), I think it is one of a great deal of importance. I think it is a question that is worthy of a good deal of consideration as to whether steps should not be taken for the public control of the various water-powers, particularly the valuable water-powers of the country, but before we should refuse to private individuals the opportunity of developing these powers and rendering them available to industrial purposes which, of course, is a matter of very great public advantage, the government ought to be prepared to undertake the responsibility of their development. My hon. friend will see that if we were to refuse to private companies the authority to develop power without the government being prepared to move forward the result would be to prevent any development at all. We have granted a great many charters to private companies and it seems to me it would not he reasonable to stay our hand just at the present time whatever may be decided upon in future. Having once granted a charter to this company it seems to me that it would be only reasonable that parliament should grant an extension. But I would suggest to the promoter of the Bill, if he is present, that the time be made 1912 instead of 1914. I think that would be ample time to enable this company to exercise all the powers which they might reasonably exercise under the charter in so far as the expropriation of land is concerned.


George Halsey Perley: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman who is in charge of this Bill whether there was any opposition to it in the committee?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: An hon. gentleman who was present tells me there was no opposition at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that they got this power from parliament and that they should not now be refused an extension of it. They got their charter but they allowed it to lapse. They acquired it when there was very little attention directed to the water-powers of the country, but since then, the necessity has become more apparent of having some supervision over these very valuable assets belonging to the provinces, in most cases, although, I presume, in this case, this being on the St. Lawrence river, it would probably come under federal authority. But, I think that the provinces should have control over these water-powers. It seems to me that these properties belong to the provinces; therefore, I should think the provinces Mr. PUGSLEY.
would have the right if they saw fit to lease them. I do not believe they should be given away for nothing. It is a mistake and is not good business. They should be leased so that they would yield a very considerable revenue, as time went on, to the province. The province of Ontario, at least, is considering the question of how far to go in taking charge of the water-powers which belong to the province and this, together with the interest which has developed lately in the federal parliament in regard to the question, as well as the public attention which has been directed to it, should cause us to be much more cautious now in dealing with the question than we have been hitherto. Since this charter has run out and they have done nothing, I do not think it would be any very great hardship if we allowed it to die and allowed the property to revert to the province or to the Dominion as the case may be.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is in error as to the charter running out. If it had run out there might be some force in what he has said, but the charter has not run out. They came here some time ago asking for the approval of their plans, and they had still quite a number of months within which to exercise the rights contained in the charter. The charter will not expire until some time in June next.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is the last session and it is practically an expiration of the charter.


William Pugsley: If I had approved of the plan when they came to me, they would have had ample time to expropriate the land before the charter expired. But I thought it proper, as a courtesy to the government of the United States, to refer the whole matter to the International Waterways Commission. What they feel is that there will not be a report from the commission in time to enable them to expropriate the land before the charter expires, and that is why they come here. But I think the extension they ask for is too long, I think it should be made not longer than 1911 or 1912.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister seems to have only one anxiety, that is, to give them a renewal so that they may expropriate the land. What strikes me is that we are giving them forever, practically, control over the water-power, and if we did not renew the charter at this session of parliament it would die. Since they have kept, practically, the whole limit of the time without taking advantage of it, except doing some preliminary work, I do not think it would be any great hardship, in view of the fact that we are on the eve of starting a new policy with regard to these waterways, if we kept the waterway in the hands of the authorities that own it.


George Halsey Perley: I raised this question merely on general principles. I have nothing to say against this particular project,
I do not know who the gentlemen are that are interested in it. But I agree with what the minister has said. We want to get our powers developed as fast as we can; if the government do not do it, we must find some private corporations to do it. But we ought to consider carefully whether, in the future, we ought not to insist that before we grant any such charters, some evidence of good faith should be given, and some evidence of the ability of the parties to put the work through. We ought to take the stand that no charters of this kind should be granted giving valuable water-powers, when the promoters wish to get them simply for the purposes of speculation, because we all know that these water-powers are going to be of immense value. However, in this case there seems to be no opposition to the Bill in committee, and I think we might agree with the minister's suggestion that the date to which the expropriation powers are extended should be changed from 1914 to 1911. That would give them ample time. If they really mean business, two years are lots of time for them to do all they want to do.


William Pugsley: I move in amendment, in section 1, line 4, to strike out the word * 1914 ' and substitute therefore the word ' 1911.'


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I am afraid the motion cannot be accepted without notice, and so far as I know there has been no notice. In the case of a private Bill in Committee of the Whole, there must be notice of any amendment of any serious importance.


William Pugsley: Might it not be done by unanimous consent ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If not, then move that the committee rise and report progress.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I would prefer that the committee rise, rather than make a precedent by which possibly I should find myself bound.


William Pugsley: I give notice then that I will move this amendment at the next meeting of the committee.
Progress reported.


THE CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 75) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee.
On section 1,
George Perry Graham: There was a question raised in the committee with respect to this Bill. And the Railway Committee was unanimous, that the only possible way to
deal with the Bill along the line suggested by that committee was to report the fact to the House and let the Committee of the Whole House deal with it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The proper course would be the one indicated in the previous Bill, and that is that the committee should report the Bill to the House and the House should deal with the change on the ordinary procedure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was this amendment made in the Railway Committee?


George Perry Graham: It was unanimously adopted by the Railway Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That covers it all. The Railway Committee recommended the Bill.


George Perry Graham: The Railway Committee was unanimous, but they thought they could not take that course without reporting to the House. If the Committee of the Whole House approve of the change and was unanimous, but they thought they would be perfectly in order.


George Halsey Perley: What section?


George Perry Graham: Subsection E.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: For the particular understanding of the situation I think I should read what appears in the the report of the Railway Committee.
In accordance with the requirements of rule 105, your committee call the attention of the House to an amendment which they have inserted in the last mentioned Bill authorizing the Canadian Northern Railway Company to construct a line of railway from a point on its constructed line at or near Sudbury, southwesterly to a point at or near Little Current, as such provision does not appear to have been contemplated in the notice or petition for the Bill as reported upon by the examiner of petitions for private Bills.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Is it a question whether proper notice was given?


George Perry Graham: No notice was given-


David Henderson: I have no objection to the Bill going through. I was not in the Railway Committee and do not know what was said there, but I do not think we should exercise some extraordinary powers here to-night with respect to a case where there is no notice, if our action is to be cited as a precedent on some other Bill. That is all the objection I have. If it be distinctly understood that it should not be quoted as an authority hereafter, I have no objection.


Mr. FIELDING.: How can my hon. friend bind all the members not to quote it?


George Perry Graham: This course would not he taken were it not that some of the older members on the Railway Committee said it was perfectly legitimate and had often

been taken. If the committee thinks proper, we can refer the Bill to the Standing Orders Committee,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What advantage would that be when we already know there was no notice. The only proper thing would be to cut out the clause of which there was no notice, because otherwise we shall be establishing a bad precedent which undoubtedly will be quoted in the future.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Rather than have the clause cut out we would hold the Bill over and give the notice.


George Perry Graham: Possibly it is just as well to let the clause stand in order that we may see if it has not been the practice of the House to take this course in cases where the Railway Committee have been unanimous. We can look into it a little further at the next meeting of the committee.
Progress reported.


THE CANADA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Insurance Company.
William Stevens Fielding: That Bill should stand. The committee have reported that the notice is insufficient, and I understand the promoters contemplate giving the necessary notice. At all events the Bill cannot be proceeded with at present.


David Henderson: Will it be proceeded with on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill should stand until the promoters have given such substantial notice as will satisfy the House. Progress reported.


THE KOOTENAY AND ARROWHEAD RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 80) respecting the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company.-Mr. George Taylor.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: On section 1.


Mr. GOODEVE.: I propose to move the amendment of which I have given notice:
The Kbotenay and Arrowhead Railway Company shall within two years after the passing of this Act construct fifteen per cent of the mileage of the unconstructed portion of the railways which it was authorized by section 7, of chapter 70, of the statutes of 1901, to construct and shall complete said railways and put them in operation within five years, and if the said fifteen per cent of mileage is not so constructed, and if the said railways are not so completed and put in operation within the said periods respectively, the powers of construction conferred upon the said company by parliament shall cease Mr. GRAHAM.
and be null and void as respects so much of the said railways as then remains uncompleted.
The day on which this Bill was considered before the Railway Committee there was at the same hour a meeting of the Banking and Commerce Committee which was dealing with the Insurance Bill, and a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee which was dealing with the Canada Life Bill, and as a large number of the members were present at these other important committees there were few at the Railway Committee and my amendment was defeated by the very narrow majority of only two votes. Hence I consider I am amply justified in asking the House to now reconsider this Bill. Then again, by an amendment passed in the Railway Committee they were granted five years to build the railway from Lardo via Duncan up to Arrowhead, which is really the uncompleted portion of the original charter, and by that amendment they say to the House that they are commencing to construct a short line of railway which will be a connecting link between two portions of the railway already connected. There is the further reason in support of my amendment that in 1906 they obtained from parliament an extension of three years for the construction of this portion of the railway, and in that three years they have done absolutely nothing. There is the further reason, that m addition to the privilege of bonding the road for $25,000 a mile there was granted a large cash subsidy per mile which has been paid over to them for that portion of the railway which has already been built. There is a still more important reason and it is that when this charter was first asked for in 1901, there was an influx of prospectors and capitalists into that district in the Kootenay country in anticipation of the road being immediately constructed. This is a very mountainous district having a large number of very beautiful lakes, and minerals being discovered there the prospectors felt that the word of a great corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway could be relied upon, and so they brought in a large amount of machinery at great cost to develop these mines, only to find that they had been deceived and that the railway would not be built. In addition to that a large number of agricultural settlers have gone into that district on the same understanding and these men have been there for nine years deprived of the fruits of their capital and their labour. I would call the attention of the House further to the fact that there appears in the daily press an article in large type, said to be authorized from headquarters, stating that the company were about to rush this railroad to completion, and with the permission of the committee I shall read that article:

We have news from a reliable source that one of the objects of the Canadian Pacific Railway in stopping work on the Kootenay Central is to rush the construction of the Arrowhead and Kootenay Railway, connecting Revelstoke with the Crow's Nest road, and making Revelstoke the most important railway junction in the province of British Columbia. It is stated the Canadian Pacific Railway now recognize this road must be built without delay if the road is to be in a position to handle the big grain business which is now being developed between the western prairies and the Pacific coast.
There is something very sinister in this article with reference to the reason why the Canadian Pacific Railway did not build the Kootenay Central. Let me say that just a few weeks ago we had before the Railway Committee a Bill applying for an extension of time for the completion of the Kootenay Central Railway and I objected to the extension being granted without a provision being inserted that the road should be commenced within a certain time. Would you believe it, sir, that at that time the Canadian Pacific Railway actually put men to work and announced in the press of the district that they were about to rush the Kootenay road to completion, but just as soon as the Bill passed the House without any provision of the kind I wanted there was a telegram sent out there and the men who were working on the road were withdrawn. In this very same press which announced that the Kootenay Central Railroad would be constructed, we find the statement now made that the reason for the withdrawal of theses men was that th Canadian Pacific Railway Company were about to construct the Arrowhead and Kootenay railroad. We are peculiarly situated in this part of British Columbia in that the railroads have to follow the easiest lines to get through the great mountain ranges and make connection with the outside world, and although these pieces of road are short in themselves it is necessary that they should be constructed in order to develop that part of the province. The amendment which I offer is a fair and reasonable one, inasmuch as it simply asks that they shall construct only 15 per cent of the total mileage covered by this charter, and no doubt some of the members of the committee will be surprised to learn that 15 per cent amounts to only six or seven miles. That does not seem much of an enterprise for a great corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway to undertake in view of the fact that in their notices in the daily papers and in this very Bill itself they say they will commence the construction of this railroad within two years, and complete and put it in operation within five years. When the Bill was before the Railway Committee the Minister of Railways very justly told us that he had
received resolutions from boards of trade urging him to make provision that the company should construct this line immediately. There has been discussion in the Railway Committee over the formation of some definite scheme to compel companies applying for charters to demonstrate their bona fides by constructing within a reasonable time the railways covered by the charters they ask for, and to my mind there is no simpler way of meeting the difficulty than to provide that a small percentage of the total mileage shall be constructed within a specified time. Surely there can be no hardship in the amendment I offer when it allows this company two years to construct 15 per cent of a road which they themselves declare they will have completed and running in five years. My amendment should appeal to the sense of fairness and justness of every man in this committee. It is not very much of a penalty, indeed it is no penalty at all to ask this company to show their bona fides by constructing within two years 15 per cent of the mileage included in the charter. If I had a map I could show the committee that this line runs from Lardo to Arrowhead. The Arrowhead branch has already been constructed under another charter and runs from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to Revelstoke to a point on the Arrow lakes, a portion of the Columbia river. By completing this small link of 40 miles they will have a line giving access to that rich tract of country, opening up mines and agricultural lands. The settlers who have gone in there and the capitalists who have invested money there will be enabled to reap some reward for their labour and investment. I appeal to the committee for support of this amendment as a business proposition.


Mr. MILLER.: How many miles will the 15 per cent make?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Between six and seven. I understood from Mr. Thompson, representing the Canadian Pacific Railway, that there were 40 miles to construct, so the 15 per cent would make about that distance.


Henry Horton Miller: What particular benefit would it be to the people there to have these six miles constructed?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: It would be an absolute guarantee that the company would complete the 40 miles from the head of one lake to the foot of the other. The amendment would be no hardship on the company as they say they will complete the entire 40 miles within this five years.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: How many miles of the road is built now?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: About 33 miles from the head of the lake up to Larder. As a

result of the building of that road they have erected an immense sawmill at the foot of that lake and are doing an enormous trade. The road is paying well and the mill employs some 200 men. That suggests another and a reasonable argument for the construction of the road; the border of the lake is surrounded by some of the finest timber in Canada and there would be other sawmills as well as the one to which I have referred.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 30) respecting the subsidy from the Ontario government to the Lake Superior Branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.-Mr. Turriff.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
To provide 100-ton track scale at Aston junction, $2,500.
["Yes, I suppose so.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding House adjourned at 1 o'clock a.m. Saturday.", 'Monday, March 29, 1909.']
George Perry Graham: There has never been a scale at this point. Hon. gentlemen have seen some discussions on weights of lumber and it was decided to install this scale.


Mr. BARKER.: Does the minister think it proper to charge a scale of this kind to capital account on a road that has been running for 50 years? It seems extraordinary that you cannot get a new chair for an office on the Intercolonial Railway without charging it to capital account. This practice I think is contrary to the rule upon railways and should be stopped.


George Perry Graham: Absolutely the same thing is done on other railways, it is an addition, it is not even a renewal.


Samuel Barker: You might charge to capital account a new handle on a door. It is one of the ordinary articles required on a railway. No company ever thinks of charging any of these things to capital. It is a monstrous thing, and would not be thought of in any institution except one that is trying to produce a political effect by showing a surplus.


William Stevens Fielding: The amount involved does not affect the principle. The question is not whether the amount is large or small but whether an amount of this kind is a proper charge to capital. If it is a betterment of the road, it is a legitimate capital charge.


Samuel Barker: The principle is well understood, that every institution of this kind should endeavour, as far as possible, to close its capital account. The principle is not, as the hon. minister seems to think, to charge every new thing to capital. When a railway is fairly on its feet, fairly in Mr. GOODEVE.
operation-I wont say after it has been running for fifty years, but after it has been running for ten years-it is never thought right to charge every little thing of this kind-a $2,500 scale-to capital. There would be no end of it. On that principle, if you put a new wheelbarrow on the platform at a station, you would charge the amount to capital.


William Stevens Fielding: And that would be perfectly right. If you have an addition to the stock of the railway, anything that adds to the permanent value of the property it is a proper charge to capital. From the hon. member's (Mr. Barker) large knowledge of railway affairs, I am sure that he will see, on consideration, that this is a matter of principle, not a matter of amount, and that his contention is not well founded.


Samuel Barker: I have given the thing consideration, and I speak of my own knowledge when I say that large concerns of this kind that are fairly in operation, going concerns, when they want some little thing for the service-a few more trucks around the station or anything of that kind costing a few thousand dollars-never think of charging the amount to capital. What would be the result if they did ? Take a concern like the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway, which, perhaps, has no capital account; they could not provide these things that are necessary. These concerns spend thousands and thousands in this way, and the" amounts are charged up to maintenance or revenue. It is not necessarily maintenance in a going concern, such expenditures are a proper charge to revenue. I venture to say I can produce to this committee-not at the moment, of course-quotations from authorities on railway operations to establish what I say.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. member will look at the Intercolonial accounts, he will find many expenditures of a similar character charged to capital. And, if they be betterments, I do not think the point admits of any doubt. Sometimes there may be a question as to whether the amount represents a betterment or not. Where a renewal is charged to capital, of course, that is open to criticism. But, if you add a mile to your road, a new station, or anything that will make the property more valuable than before, that is, I submit, a legitimate charge to capital. Of course, no company would want to open a capital account for these trifling things, but if it had an open capital account, these items would be properly chargeable to it.


Samuel Barker: That is just the point. An ordinary railway has no open capital account, and no company should have an open capital account that has used its capital in establishing a railway system; it

should_ make the business bear itself and carry itself along. Of course, if they are going to add a new branch, that is a different thing, but to say that every petty appliance, or every petty accommodation aiong fifteen hundred miles of railway makes it necessary to keep an open capital account is wholly unreasonable; it would never be thought of. If a company were converting their whole bridge system from wood to steel, or replacing a sixty pound rail with an eighty pound rail, they would charge the difference to capital. But hon. gentlemen opposite a few years ago, charged the whole eighty pounds to capital.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Samuel Barker: Yes, they charged the whole eighty pounds to capital, and credited the concern with the scrap rails.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not what the
hon. member said a moment ago.


Samuel Barker: They threw the old rails in the scrap and credited them. That is not the principle on which the accounts should be run.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot see the difference, as a matter of principle, between an additional rail to the road and an additional scale to the road. The mere fact that the amount is small does not alter the principle. As I have said no company would open an account for these small amounts, but, when there is an open account, you must choose whether you will charge the amount to one account or to the other. In this case, which account should be chosen? Surely, capital account, for this is clearly a betterment. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) says there should be no open capital account. Well, we have to differ from him on that point. The hon. gentleman asks what would a railway company do in this case? The Canadian Pacific Railway, for instance, have regularly charged to capital items that the hon. gentleman says, ^n the case of the Intercolonial, should not be charged to capital.


Samuel Barker: I do not think the hon. minister can find a single instance of that kind. Say, after. ten years, the Canadian Pacific Railway comes here to get authority to issue new capital, does the hon. gentleman suppose that, in the meantime, they have not been buying trucks and other things necessary.for the road?


George Perry Graham: And they are adding to capital account every year.


Samuel Barker: When an extremely large expenditure is to be made, one that would put the companies into difficulties, it will be made with a capital expenditure. But this is like a manufacturing establishment putting in a glass window in its office and charging it to capital.


William Stevens Fielding: If it was an original
window, it certainly should be charged to capital. Or, even if there was a window, and the company improved its property by putting in a plate-glass front, it ought to charge it to capital.


Samuel Barker: No manufacturing company in the country would think of keeping open a capital account for such charges- taking down an old front door and putting in a new one.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a renewal.


Samuel Barker: In precisely the same way, an old railway company takes it for granted that, in the carrying on of its business, there are many articles that are to be added new and that they will buy, but they never think of keeping such things in a capital account. And the sooner this railway gets down to that principle, the sooner we shall be able to compare earnings or losses upon this road with the earnings or losses on privately-owned railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) does not see the difference between adding a rail or a scale. The road cannot run without rails, but it can run without scales.


William Stevens Fielding: No, it must weigh its freight.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It can use the scales it already has in other places. It may be a convenience for the traffic at this particular place to have a new scale, but the work was done without it before. A scale I would not regard as a betterment of the road at all, but merely an improvement for the handling of freight. The additions to the roadbed, stations, and so on, I take it would be betterments of the road, but I do not think that an added scale here or there should be regarded as a betterment of the road.
To provide siding for passenger cars at Gibson, $1,000.


Mr. CROCKET.: Is this the whole cost?


George Perry Graham: Yes. The work is done by ourselves.
Prince Edward Island Railway-extension to wharf at Souris-further amount required, $23,000.


George Perry Graham: This is the Souris wharf for which a contract was let in 1907, and there is a balance of $23,000 due on it. The entire cost will be about $71,000.


Mr. FRASER.: Would the minister say if this work has been let by tender, and if so, who were the tenderers, and what were the amounts?


George Perry Graham: The contract was let on a lump sum and schedule. The tenderers were Hugh Macdonald, of North Sydney, $71,000, and E. A. Walherg, $55,830, but under the schedule it amounts to $71,000. But the entire amount1, with the schedule added, was less than the next tender.


Austin Levi Fraser: This work, then, was let to E. A. Walberg at $55,000?


George Perry Graham: No, it was a lump sum with the schedule prices. That is an approximate amount.


Austin Levi Fraser: Can the minister tell us exactly what the work did cost?


George Perry Graham: The final estimate has not come in, but it is about $71,000, perhaps a few dollars under that.


George Halsey Perley: What is the original estimate of the cost of this wharf?


George Perry Graham: Our own engineer estimated it at $75,000. The work is now finished.


Austin Levi Fraser: Is the department aware that the concrete work of this wharf has cracked during the last five or six months, and that the wharf is practically useless for any purpose at the present time, and was useless during navigation last fall.


George Perry Graham: Some little time ago the crack my hon. friend refers to was caused by a vessel striking the pier. It is not at all serious.


Austin Levi Fraser: Is the department aware that this wharf is not fit to be used in its present condition, and was not last fall.


George Perry Graham: That is not the report we have from our engineers. The chief engineer himself visited the wharf last-summer, and says it is in good shape.


Austin Levi Fraser: I am speaking of the crack and the condition the wharf was in at the close of navigation. When the wharf was said to be finished, it was left very much unfinished. The top of the wharf is not finished, it will require two feet of clay or earth to make it fit for teams. The crack was here last fall, and the wharf was practically useless for shipping purposes at the close of navigation, and for some time previous.


George Perry Graham: Putting a little earth on top is not part of the contract at all. It is a matter of opinion as to the wharf not being useful, my hon. friend is the first who has raised that. Of course, he understands that it is not part of the contract.


George Halsey Perley: If there is something that is not in the contract, 'we want to know what the completed wharf will cost.


Austin Levi Fraser: 


George Perry Graham: The wharf has been used, it is a question perhaps of putting some gravel on it, or something of that kind.


Austin Levi Fraser: Is it the intention of the department to leave the wharf in the condition it was in last fall?


George Perry Graham: We will ask our engineer to give us a report after seeing what my hon. friend says, and if there is anything else to be done, we will do it.
Montague branch-land claims, $6,851.51.


George Perry Graham: This claim and the Murray Harbour branch land claim, and the Vernon River branch land claim, are Exchequer Court judgments. This Montague branch is a small branch six miles long which was opened in 1906. There were certain land claims taken to the Exchequer Court.


Austin Levi Fraser: How long have these judgments been standing against the government?


George Perry Graham: Since April and May of last year.
Lachine canal-further amount required to rebuild slope walls, $78,000.


George Perry Graham: This matter was thoroughly gone into on our main estimates for the canal, and there is in the main estimates already passed an amount to finish this work. That contract was let some years ago for rebuilding these slope walls with concrete, making them practically new walls. After the Cornwall accident last summer our engineer made a thorough examination of these walls, and I asked him to rush the work, because I became alarmed that there might be some other accidents to our canals.
Rideau canal-improvements, $16,000.


George Perry Graham: 
George Perry Graham: Those who were here the other evening probably will remember my explanation that I would take $25,000 out of the main estimates and make the amount in the main estimates $15,000, explaining to the committee that I would put $25,000 in these supplementary estimates because 1 could use it this year, we having advanced that much with this work.
Railways and canals-income-miscellaneous -to provide for expenses preparing plans for the reconstruction of the Quebec bridge- further amount required, $10,500.


George Perry Graham: We had $25,000 voted last year. This is intended for the work of the board.


Samuel Barker: Who are preparing these plans? Have you a staff of experts preparing them?


George Perry Graham: The Board of Engineers, Messrs. Vautelet, Modjeska and Maurice FitzMaurice, and they employ their own staff. We do not even make a recommendation to their staff. I want to let them accept the full responsibility. They have asked us for $10,500 more than they have expended this year up to date.
Intercolonial Railway expenses - further amount required, $500,000.


George Perry Graham: This estimate was made some time ago. We have got to a period at which we can reduce that by $150,000.


Samuel Barker: This is for working expenses?	,	.


George Perry Graham: Working expenses. There will be a considerable discussion no 'doubt on the main estimates on the item 'for working expenses. This will make the item $350,000.


Mr. TAYLOR.: How did you underestimate so much last year for working expenses? Was that due to the election?


George Perry Graham: No, that was the estimate they gave me. But we had a supplementary vote last year to make the amount up to $9,000,000. They underestimated the year before about $1,500,000.
Windsor Branch Railway-maintenance- further amount required, $7,000.


George Perry Graham: We are relaying the Windsor branch with a heavier rail out of revenue account.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What weight of rail are you putting down there?


George Perry Graham: It has been a 56-pound rail and we are replacing it with 67-pound fails that we have at the present time.
' Mr. BLAIN. Where are the rails manufactured that are put down on the Intercolonial Railway?


George Perry Graham: They are all manufactured in Canada, either at Sydney or the Soo.


Richard Blain: What is the piice now?


George Perry Graham: 

Militia and defence-chargeable to income- pay and allowances-further amount required, $170,000.
' Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence). This is simply _ a readjustment of the vote. We are not increasing the vote of the current year a single dollar, but some votes were larger than were required and others were smaller. It is proposed to take these votes, amounting altogether to $300,000, and not 'to use certain votes which I will read which were voted for the current year and are not required.
Engineers' services	$ 90,000
Militia stores	 65,000
Dominion arsenal	 60,000
Customs dues	 85,000
Total	$300,000
This vote is required for the permanent force.


Mr. CROSBY.: What has been done with regard to the money which is now due to the men at Halifax? Has any arrangement been made by which they will get paid Within a short time?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The moment this vote passes the House, I understand from the Minister of Finance, the Auditor General will be ready to issue a cheque.


Adam Brown Crosby: They will be able to get their money to-morrow if we pass it to-hight?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then I will be very glad to see it passed.
Annual drill - further amount required, $105,000.


Mr. ROCHE.: I would like to ask the minister if the annual training school for students in the city of Winnipeg has been held at the usual time this spring?
' Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. I am not absolutely certain, but I think it has. At any rate if it has not it will be held now.


William James Roche: I understood when I was 'home that the school had not been held at the usual time, but that it had been post-'poned until April or thereabouts.
' Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. It is possible.


William James Roche: There was a great deal of dissatisfaction among the young men who reside in the country and who will be busy

with their farming operations at that time of the year. They will be debarred from attending the school by reason of the postponement.


Frederick William Borden: I hope that will not be the case, but when this vote has been taken the school will be called at once.
Transport - further amount required, $12,500.


Mr. DANIEL.: What transport is this- material or persons?


Frederick William Borden: This is the ordinary transport connected with the camps and schools.
Royal military college-further amount required, $12,500.


Samuel Barker: Why is there more money required for the Military College?


Frederick William Borden: There is not a vacant place in the college and one or two instructors have had to be added.
Post Office Department, $240,000.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: This is required to meet the expenditure for rural mail delivery, the opening of new post offices and new postal routes, particularly in the western provinces, and the increased frequency of existing services on existing routes.


Samuel Barker: How much for each of these services?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Between $80,000 and $85,000 is estimated for rural mail delivery; the balance is for the other purposes. Demands are pouring in every day for the opening of new post offices, particularly in the western provinces, which affords an excellent barometer of the progress of the west.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is the Postmaster General providing for additional accommodation in the Dartmouth post office where it is so badly needed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) called my attention to this matter yesterday and pointed out that the Dartmouth office is quite too small for the business done there. This morning I asked the deputy minister to get a report from our inspector at Halifax and I will try to convince my colleagues that something should be done this year.


Richard Blain: I would remind the Postmaster General that there is a request before his department for the opening of a post office at Mount Pleasant in Peel county. I would also ask the hon. gentleman to have his inspector examine into the mail routes in that county. These routes were established a great many years ago; since that time some new railways have


William James Roche: been constructed necessitating a rearrangement of the mail service, to which I think with benefit to the public the other mail routes might be made to conform. The committee will be surprised to know that in some parts of that old county of Peel the people have not yet a daily mail service. It would be in the public interest if the Postmaster General would have his inspector make an adjustment of the mail routes, and while it would not increase the general expenditure much it would be a great convenience to the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has already written to me on the subject, and I will certainly ask the inspector to make a report.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: In October last there was considerable talk about the erection of a new post office in the village of Lake-field where the postal accommodation is very inadequate, but I fail to see any appropriation in the estimates for that building although the Postmaster General is providing post office buildings in many places with not half the population of Lake-field. I trust that in the near future he will erect a post office there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The erection of a post office comes under the Department of Public Works, but of course on the recommendation of the postal authorities. I will make a note of the request of my hon. friend.


Martin Burrell: I wish to direct the attention of the Postmaster General to the mail contract up the Cariboo road in British Columbia.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that the old trail?


Martin Burrell: Yes. In reply to questions which I asked in the House I was informed that the present contractors receive $24,750 per year and that the contract had not been let by tender since 1897. This is probably the most important mail contract in the west.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the mileage ?


Martin Burrell: The mileage with the side routes must be 400 or 500 miles. In 1862 or 1863 the first contract was let going up to Barkerville, about 280 miles north of the main line at Ashcroft. This is the country built up by the great mining rush in 1858 and 1859. From 1862 until 1896, this very important mail contract had always been let by open tender and for periods of four years. Prior to 1896, from Ashcroft to Lillooet, which is a separate line, about 36 miles, was let with the same contract; but as the country got developed, the policy was adopted-I think a wise policy-of letting these 36 miles by four year contracts separately and letting them direct by the government. In 1897 this big

contract of $24,750 was let to an eastern firm and since that time, probably the minister hardly realizes the fact that there have been absolutely no calls for tenders at all, and in addition the branch lines, of which there are quite a number, have not been let separately, as they should have been, by four years contract, but were merged in this main contract. There are four of these branch lines-one from Clinton via Big Bar and Dog Creek to Alkali lake, 112 miles and return; another one from the 150 mile house to Harper's camp; another one from the 150 mile house to Quesnel Forks; another to Alexis creek, Chilcotin. I want to speak of what I regard as an evil, and that is having these side lines merged in the main contract. The past practice has been for the company which has the main contract to sublet these lines by yearly contract. Take No. 4 from the 150 mile house to Alexis creek as an example; this line is 172 miles return trip, and it takes the contractor five days to do it. That contract has been sublet for $1,100. The passengers and express matter are so small that they add very little to the contractor's profits, and we think it rather absurd that a man, only equipped with four horses, should be doing 172 miles round trip in a country such as that Cariboo district. It is practically impossible, under the circumstances, for him to give a satisfactory service. It is bad enough in ordinary times, but An bad roads and bad weather it is impossible. The question may be put, why did this man take the contract at so small a sum ? The answer he gave to this question was that he had learned his lesson and would never do it again. Next year of course, the company will again let out that contract at as small a figure as they can.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the starting point of the main contract ?


Martin Burrell: From Ashcroft. The letting of these side contracts is on an entirely wrong principle. They should not be sublet by the year. The result of this practice is that a number of people will tender who do not realize that they are tendering at absurdly low figures, and they get stuck and lose money, and at the end of the year they throw up the contract. In the meantime the public is badly served and there is profound dissatisfaction through the country. The proper practice would be that which was always pursued prior to 1896, namely, to let each of the side contracts directly by the department for four years after calling for tenders. The contractor has then time to equip himself in good shape for doing the work and will give better satisfaction. I wish now to say a word about the mail contractors. I am not putting it too strongly when I say there 108
is throughout the whole of that country very strong resentment regarding the methods followed. 1 am not saying whether this company is getting too much or too little ; but I would point out that a large and important company of that kind, with ramifications of one kind or another, can exert a very strong political influence, and very naturally will exert it on behalf of this government which gives it this $24,000 per year contract without any call for tenders. The district of Cariboo is really worse off to-day than in former days because this company while having a monopoly, though not perhaps giving a worse service than the people formerly had, is charging higher fares. Formerly return fares were given at reduced rates but there are none such today. If that contract were thrown open to tender, there should be some fixed rate of fares in the public interest because the only possible way the people have of transportation over that 280 miles is by this means.
I remember that when this matter was up before, the minister said that the policy of his department was to let all the contracts by tender, but no public tender has ever been invited for this important work since early in 1897. And a peculiar thing is that it is a Toronto firm which has the contract. What would my hon. friends from Ontario think if there was a contract north of Toronto for a 280 mile mail route to be let and if that contract had been let by tender 12 years ago to a British Columbia firm, and instead of new tenders being invited every four years, that contract were renewed from year to year without tenders and without any opportunity being given any Ontario firm to bid for it? I am sure the minister will see that the Toronto people would, under the circumstances, feel that they had a very strong grievance. The contract was renewed early last summer. I do not know whether it is possible to cancel that contract, but at all events I hope that when the time comes to renew it, the minister will see his way clear to deal with it in that spirit in which he promised to deal with all those matters and throw it open to public competition. I am expressing the opinion, not only of my own friends, but of the minister's all through that country, when I say that he would give profound satisfaction to the people of that part of British Columbia,-a part which is not served by railways-if he would throw open that important contract to public tender and also adopt the policy of letting all those side lines directly by four years' contracts in the same manner.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman has made what I call a very fair criticism of this contract. In 1897 my predecessor, Sir



William Mulock, advertised for tenders and this company, the British Columbia Express Company, which is a Toronto firm, were the lowest tenderers and the department awarded the contract to them. This is a peculiar section of the country and the contractors have to make quite an outlay in order to cover that immense territory It is a very difficult country to travel over. The contract has been renewed twice since 1897, because this is a four year contract. The last time it was renewed, I think on representations made to the postal authorities at Ottawa-for I do not know enough of the country to decide such a contract myself-that if we advertised for tenders we would receive tenders but not from any one who would be in a position to cover that immense territory as well as the present contractors do it. I must say that we have not received any complaint as to the manner in which the contract is carried out. Tlie government decided to renew the contract with this firm. However the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell) comes from that section of the country and the grievance which he ventilates is in reference not to the main contract but to the side lines which are sublet by the British Columbia Express Company. His representations have been noted and I will see that the company carries out the contract, not only according to the letter but in the spirit in which it was given. I think my hon. friend will agree that this company gives a very good service. The proper way, I know, is to call for tenders, the law is clear on that; but the law also says that when a contract has been faithfully carried out the Postmaster General is at liberty to renew it at the same figure. I cannot increase the amount involved in a contrcat, but I can renew a contract at the same figure, provided the public interest is safeguarded. I can give a similar instance in the Yukon. We have two large contracts there, one with the railway company. Of course we have always renewed the contract with the railway company, and we are practically at their mercy. They are equipped with mail cars and are in a position to carry the mails over their railway to the best advantage; but the mail has to be carried part way to Dawson city by the lakes and the river. We have tried to cut the contract in two, calling for tenders for the lake and river section and allowing the railway the usual mileage allowance, but we cannot succeed because the railway company is the only one sufficiently equipped for the carrying out of the balance of the contract; so, although the amount is large, it has to be paid, and we make no profit out of that district. That is to say, the expenditure exceeds the revenue, but, of course, we have to give postal facilities to the Yukon Territory. ^ There is another somewhat similar case in the Yukon. If it is true that the Mr. LEMIEUX.
British Columbia Express Company farms out the side service at a much lower rate than the one paid to the company by the department, then undoubtedly there is room for improvement.


Martin Burrell: I hope the minister does not think I am impugning his bona fides in the matter?


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the whole the hon gentleman admits the service is good.


Martin Burrell: If his line of argument was good in this present case, it was equally gcod in 1896, when other men had the contract, for not changing then, but the department then took the ground that it would be advisable in the interests of the country to throw this contract open to tender. , They then threw down a company with a large equipment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was not the route changed and extended?


Martin Burrell: The former company had only the main contract, but the department included the branch lines instead of letting them separately. I think there is no doubt there would be bona fide tenders if the minister called for them from men who would be able to carry on that work. It might happen that they would find it necessary to purchase a large portion of the present contractor's outfit, as happened when the contract was changed before; but I am positive it would be in the interests of the country and of the government to pursue the usual method of throwing the whole matter open to tender.
I would call attention to another small contract from Lytton up to Lillooet, a distance of 40 miles, which was also renewed without tender. I knew, of course, that the minister was not familiar with the country.
I am familiar with every foot of it and appreciate the sentiment of the people there, and I have no axe to grind, political or otherwise. I simply desire to satisfy the general feeling_ of that whole country, and I assure the minister that his general policy is just as applicable to that country as to any other part of the Dominion.


Mr. CROTHERS.: I may be a little out of order and a little late in the appeal that I desire to make to the Postmaster General, but I was not present when the main estimates were up and possibly I may be allowed to speak now. I desire to make an appeal on behalf of the letter carriers of the city of St. Thomas. I have been observing the Postmaster General for a couple of months, and am inclined to think that he is disposed to be fair, and kind, and even generous. In fact, I had formed that opinion of the Postmaster General before I had the pleasure of seeing him, because he was kind enough to appoint these letter carriers in the city of St. Thomas just two or three

weeks before the elections, and they assisted me materially in distributing campaign literature. They all voted against me, but they are good fellows and they are doing good work and working long hours.
I am sincere about this. These men are living in the city of St. Thomas, where the cost of living is about as high as in Ottawa. I do not think there is another place of its size in Ontario where the cost of living is as high as it is in St. Thomas. There are reasons for that which I could mention. These letter carriers are receiving $1.50 per day. Now, does the Postmaster General think that a man with a wife and family can live, and live decently m a city like St. Thomas, on $1.50 a day ?
I believe that the servants in the Postmaster General's Department, are the only class of public servants of Canada who, as a class, are under paid. The people of this country ought to be ashamed of themselves to take the services of postmasters and letter carriers for the paltry pittances they pay them. I know the case of one man who travels twenty miles a day each way-forty miles a day-carrying the mail, and he gets $230.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By tender ?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Possibly. I have heard
a good deal about tenders since I have had the honour of a seat in this House. In many cases, the answer seems to be regarded as complete when it is to the effect that tenders were advertised for and the lowest tender was accepted. I do not know that that is a conclusive argument in a great many cases. I think the officers of one of these public departments ought to be in a position to instruct the head of the department what is a fair price to pay for the fair services they render, and, if the tender is very much more than a fair price, the department ought to Tefuse to accept it. On the other hand, in these other matters, I do not believe in the people of this country taking the services of public servants for a great deal less than they are actually worth. If the Postmaster General will excuse me for repeating. I would appeal to him as a man on behalf of these men-not political friends of mine, but decent men, putting in long hours and not adequately paid. Men breaking stone on the street get more than do these people who are working long hours delivering mail matter to the people of St. Thomas.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is an old English dictum ' Fine words butter no parsnips.' I intend to act, not say much about the letter carriers. I will ask the hon. member to wait until next week, when something will probably be done for the letter carriers.


Mr. MARSHALL.: I desire to speak also with reference to the postmasters. I have been looking into the matter, and I find
that in East Elgin there are eight post offices, the keepers of which receive eleven cents a day, and no rent allowance. That is too bad. These offices are open from eight to ten hours a day. I am pleased to say that the Postmaster General has changed the mail routes so that people are able to get the daily papers. There are nine places in which the rent allowance is $6 a year. But I draw particular attention to these eight places where the postmasters receive eleven cents a day and no rent allowance. The hon. minister the Postmaster General has a surplus. I know what he will say-that the revenues from these post offices do not warrant raising the salary. But I do not see how they can afford to keep the places open for the length of time they do and give the public good service, unless their salaries are increased. I have no political object in advocating this, these people are not supporters of mine, but they speak to me about this frequently. I have mentioned the matter to the minister privately, but I feel it my duty to take advantage of the discussion on this item to bring the matter before the minister in this way. I do not know whether he will feel like making a promise to raise the salaries, particularly of those who get no rent allowance. I would like to hear from him on the subject.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not give an answer at once; I should need to look into each case. If the hon. member will send me the names, I will investigate. Sometimes it happens that, in our 14,000 offices a mistake may be made as regards the rental and fuel allowance. And, as my hon. friend (Mr. Marshall) knows, the salary allowances are based on the revenue of each office. So, it varies. Some years, an office will receive the allowance, but if, next year, it is below a certain figure, it is deprived of the allowance. We must have a rule that applies automatically to every office. But, as I have said, mistakes are sometimes made. If the hon. member will send me the names, I will look into the matter.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to make a similar plea on behalf of the postmasters and mail carriers of New Westminster. I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Lemieux) whether it is not possible for him to use his influence with his colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) to have the fair wage clause, of which we hear a good deal in connection with the Department of Labour, applied to the transactions of the Post Office Department, so that the department might have the experience that private employers all over the country have when they are working on contracts for the government. It is quite proper that private employers should have the experience to which they

are treated by the Minister of Labour. When the government lets a contract to a . private employer, it puts him in a situation that the employees shall be paid a fair wage, which is stated so that there may be no mistake. I would suggest that the Minister of Labour have the Postmaster General do something of the same kind, and, that when contracts are awarded, particularly for the carriage of the mails, he should not ask that it be done at the lowest price, but fix the rate, so that the mail carriers may be paid a fair price for their services, which we can well afford to pay for. I am quite aware that the Postmaster General is one of the most progressive of ministers, and that he has made many improvements in his department. I do not want to appear as crowding him too much, but I think it would be a good idea to act on the lines suggested and to increase the pay of this staff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will bring the Postmaster General and the Minister of Labour together, and if they do not agree, I will take them before a conciliation board.
Further amount required (including compensation to the following railway mail clerks for medical and other expenses and loss of personal effects: E. A. Hartling, $118.50; C. E. O'Reilly, $468; W. W. Frost, $20; J H. Kelly, $76, and A. Chabot, $20, $80,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This amount is to complete payment for the current year, $1,000; travelling charges and expenses of inspectors and other officials, $39,297; stationery, printing, advertisements, special postage stamps, $10,000; various items of miscellaneous expenditure, such as letter carriers' uniforms, wages of labourers, charwomen, telephone and telegraph messengers, $20,000. The balance is to pay certain of our mail clerks who have been injured during their service on board trains. Mr. Hartling was employed as a railway mail clerk since September, 1895, and in an accident on the Intercolonial in April 1903, and again in 1907, he lost his clothing and other personal effects. Mr. O'Reilly also met with an accident on the Intercolonial on the 26th of February, and he asks for this amount to pay medical and other attendance, lost clothing, and mileage allowance. Mr. Frost was employed as a railway mail clerk, and met with an accident on the Intercolonial, as did also Mr. Kelly and Mr. Chabot. These various items make up the amount of $80,000. The accounts have all been verified by the Auditor General. The committee will notice that some of these accidents took place some years ago, but we did not know whether the amount should be paid by the Post Office Department or by the Railway Department. We Mr. J. D. TATLOR
had to get the opinion of the Minister of Justice, who decides that they should be paid by the Post Office Department.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: This item furnishes another argument in favour 'of increasing the salaries of railway mail clerks. These men are subject to railway accidents more than the ordinary citizen, because they are nearly all the time on railway trains. I have received a, circular and letters from mail clerks asking for the consideration of the department. They have to make very long runs, and suffer many hardships, as well as being exposed to danger. I would ask the minister, when he is dealing with other employees in his department, if he will kindly consider the railway mail clerks.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I received a delegation the other day, and I have a memorandum of the _ Railway Mail Clerks' Association, which is being considered.


George Halsey Perley: Is the minister able to form any estimate of the profits from the special issue of stamps?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not venture to give a figure. If the hon. gentleman will put a question on the Order Paper, I will procure the information.


George Halsey Perley: Last session when these estimates were up, the Postmaster General said a few words with regard to the possibility of providing a special stamp to be used at Christmas time for the benefit of the movement against tuberculosis. At that time, when I asked him a question, I thought the Postmaster General gave an answer which was fairly favourable, and that he was really thinking of doing something of the kind last Christmas; but as he did not do so, I suppose he must have changed his mind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not changed my mind on the subject. I think I informed my hon. friend privately last year when the question came up, that the reason why I thought it unadvisable to issue a special stamp for the benefit of the tuberculosis hospital, was that we had just issued a series of stamps in connection with the Quebec Tercentenary. Besides, it is not considered advisable for any country to multiply special stamps; in fact, it is considered infra dignitatem by the Postal Union to issue special stamps unless it is for such purposes as that of last summer. But I can assure my hon. friend, and all the friends of the hospital fund, and of the movement against tuberculosis, that it is my desire and my aim to help as much as possible that' deserving movement. If it is clearly demonstrated that the issuing of such a special stamp, as is issued in Denmark, and I believe in one or two

other countries in Europe, would yield an amount which will substantially aid that fund, then I am open to conviction. In fact I have been reading many papers on the subject, and I hope that the time may come when I shall be able to realize the hon. gentleman's wishes.


George Halsey Perley: I would call the attention of the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) to these remarks of the Postmaster General. I hope he has been listening to them.


Mr. JAMESON.: I have received a petition from the railway mail clerks, and while I do not desire to take up the time of the committee at this stage, I find another feature is presented by the correspondence susequently received, and that is in respect to a class of clerks who have not passed the examination and are not on the regular staff, but are nevertheless performing the services of those officials. It appears they are receiving very meagre remuneration, although they are obliged to travel long distances, and are subject to the same chances of accident as the others. They respectfully request that the minister will consider their petition for an increase of salary when he deals with the permanent clerks.
Further amount required for miscellaneous expenditure, 1908-9, Department of Labour, including printing and stationery, allowance to correspondents, travelling expenses, &c., $6,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This amount is required to meet the estimated expenditures to the end of the financial year. The expenditure is due to the heavy travelling expenses of the various officers of the department and to the increased charges for printing, &c.
Amount required to provide for the expenses of W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., as a representative of Canada at the Joint Opium Conference at Shanghai, China, $5,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This amount is required to provide for the expenses of Mr. Mackenzie King as the representative of Canada at the joint Opium Conference at Shanghai, China. The committee knows the object of the conference. For some years there has been a desire to suppress the use of opium and morphine in China, and the great powers, especially Great Britain and the United States of America, have decided, with the consent of China, to call a conference in order to study the question as to what are the best means of suppressing that evil. Canada was invited by the foreign office in London to join that conference. Mr. Mackenzie King was especially well equipped to take part in it. He had studied this question of the opium traffic and last year we introduced a Bill into
this House to suppress it in Canada. Mr. Mackenzie King is now in China; he has taken part in the conference, as usual, to his credit and to the credit of the country to which he belongs. I have not yet his report, but from what I have seen of the cables that appeared in the London 'Times' Mr. Mackenzie King has been one of the leading men in the conference.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who are taking part in the conference?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The conference is between the different nations, Great Britain, the United States, Germany, France, China and Japan, and perhaps others, but I name the large powers which have interests in the far east. The object of the conference is to suppress gradually the use of opium and morphine.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the official language ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The official language is English.


Samuel Barker: I suppose we shall have details of this expenditure later on?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes; Mt. King is accompanied by a secretary.
Civil governnemt-Governor General's secretary's office-contingencies-further amount required, $6,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This is an additional sum required for the contingencies of the Governor General's office chiefly due to the increase in the cost of telegrams. There has been a very large amount of cable business.
Office of the Auditor General-contingencies -clerical and other assistance-to pay the following extra clerks from the 28th June, 1909, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act:-C. M. Low, M. A. Reid, D. M. Gibson, W. M. Greenshields, E. M. Stitt, E. M. Fraser, Bertha McCuaig, :M. (Macdonald, Isabella MIntosh, L. Chartrand and H. R. Washington, $500.


William Stevens Fielding: Under the Civil Service Act the Auditor General had employed a number of temporary clerks who could only be employed, according to the strict wording of the Act, for four months. When the four months expired, to comply strictly writh the Act, he would be obliged to dismiss these clerks and bring in others. As they were engaged in work that was rather urgent, checking the election officers' accounts, the Auditor General came to me and said that he thought it was undesirable that these officers should go. I agreed with him that he should continue them for a short time, although I pointed out that it would necessitate a special vote as they are not employed in strict accordance with the Civil Service Act.


Richard Blain: This is an item in regard to which my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) wished to make some remarks.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest that the item pass and an opportunity will be given to the hon. gentleman to discuss it at a future time. I would like to get this through this evening. It is only $500.


Mr. BLAIR.: My hon. friend from North Toronto mentioned this particularly to me and said that if it came up he would like to have it stand over.


William Stevens Fielding: It will delay the Supply Bill. If my hon. friend presses it I cannot insist upon it going through, but I will give my hon. friend the assurance that there will be abundant opportunity for discussing it and I hope he will allow it to pass under these conditions.


Samuel Barker: Of course we ought to get rid of those words 'notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' I thought we had got rid of them.


William Stevens Fielding: I think we have got Tid of them pretty well.


Samuel Barker: Is there any need of having them there ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is the old form. If my hon. friend thinks it will help to leave them out I will not object.


Samuel Barker: Who appointed these clerks ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Auditor General.


Samuel Barker: Appointed by himself ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I think so. The practice in past years was for the Minister of Finance to appoint them. I was away at the time and I think the Auditor General appointed them himself. I know nothing to the contrary.


Samuel Barker: There would be every objection, from my point of view, to the government appointing any clerks in the audit
office.


William Stevens Fielding: They have always been appointed by the government.


Samuel Barker: I think that is a mistake. The commission that has been created should appoint the staff in the Auditor General's office.


William Stevens Fielding: The Civil Service Act makes no distinction between the Auditor General's office and any other office.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not intended that these clerks shall continue to be employed beyond a certain period?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the vote is only $500 for the whole of them.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that possibly that was for the reason that the fiscal year terminates on the 31st of March and you only require to make provision for five weeks.


William Stevens Fielding: They are only there for a short time and only for the special purpose of dealing with the accounts of the election officers.


Robert Laird Borden: Assuming that the circumstances are such as the hon. Minister of Finance has disclosed, the case is not as grave as I thought it was. But I think it is extremely desirable that we should not see this memorandum appearing in the estimates. It has been of frequent occurrence in the past although, I am glad to say, it has been of rather infrequent occurrence this session. It seems to me that it should disappear altogether. My attention was directed to this item by my hon. friend from North Toronto who desired to make some inquiries in regard to it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see that the words are very important and they can be stricken out. We have to get authority to pay the money.
Department of Finance and Treasui'y Board-contingencies-funther amount required, $2,000.


William Stevens Fielding: The sum required for the year was under-estimated and we need an additional vote.
Marine and Fisheries Department-amount required to pay salary of Mr. Oswald L. McLeod at the rate of $800 per annum, $363.41.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Mr. McLeod was appointed on the 18th of October, 1898, and owing to his special qualifications in the hardware trade he was to receive a salary of $800, but only $500, the usual salary of a temporary clerk was allowed, the Department of Justice being of the opinion that he should rank as a temporary officer. Considering the nature of Mr. McLeod's work it was thought he should have a salary of $800 and this vote is to give him that salary. It was impossible for him to present himself for competitive examination because no examination was held, but he will do so at the next examination.
To complete voters' lists for general election, 4908, $22,000.


Samuel Barker: Is this to pay the King's Printer?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Yes.
To provide for promotion of W. A. Lalonde from permanent messengers' staff to third-class clerk at $800, $166.66.


Samuel Barker: Has this officer a certificate?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He was the personal messenger of the late Speaker, and at the

elose of last session he was placed in charge of the blue book-room.


Samuel Barker: Did he require to pass an examination?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He was appointed at the end of last session before the Civil Service Act came into force.
To provide increases in the salaries of the following officers and clerks of the House of Commons from April 1, 1908. .T. B. R. La-plante, $700, R. R. Tremblay $200, E. Query $200, E. Naubert $100, $1,200.


Samuel Barker: Are these increases in accordance with the statute?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: These increases were granted by the Board of Internal Economy before the Civil Service Act came into force.
Debates, $25,000.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Last session was the longest session in the history of this parliament and the cost of publishing the debates was greater than usual.


Samuel Barker: Does this include salaries?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Yes.
Additional amount required for steamship subsidies between Canada and Great Britain, $15,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This subsidy is payable in proportion to the number of passengers and according to the class of vessel, so that it is not a fixed sum, and this additional amount is required to close up the accounts for the year. It is the ordinary Allan and Canadian Pacific Railway subsidy.
Further amount required for the construction of an ice-breaking steamer for the Northumberland straits, $215,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have passed a contract for the construction of this icebreaker for the sum of $500,000, and this amount of $215,000 is to pav the progress estimate due before March 31.


George Taylor: There is an item in the main estimates?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. Next year we will pay the balance of the contract.


George Taylor: We can have any discussion we like on the main estimates?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
Amount required to pay the pension of the pilot, F. X. Lamarre, from October 1, 1908, to March 31, 1909, at the rate of $300 a year, $150.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is a sum which has to be paid this pilot for his superannuation.
Lime Kiln crossing-further amount required to pay the outstanding account in connection with the chartering of tug for Lime Kiln crossing, $2,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The sum of $10,000 has been put in the estimates to provide for this expenditure. It was expected that the service would expire October 1, but it extended to December 8.


Samuel Barker: Is that also in the main estimates?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
Further amount required for the care of sick seamen in marine hospitals and the building and repairs to marine hospitals, $5,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Owing to an epidemic of smallpox and scarlet fever, it has been necessary to have added $5,000 to the vote provided for this year.


Clarence Jameson: What building is the hon. gentleman doing?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are not doing any building. This is a general vote put yearly in the estimates for the care of sick seamen and the building and repairs to marine hospitals. That is the way it is always worded.
Marine biological stations-to provide for unforeseen expenses in connection with the construction of biological stations at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and Vancouver island, $5,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have built two stations, one at St. Andrews and the other in British Columbia, and this amount is to pay the balance due.


James Davis Taylor: What will be the nature of the work carried on at this station in British Columbia?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These stations are for the purpose of studying the habits of the fish. The expenditure is under the control of scientific men, who are good enough to devote a part of their time to those researches. The board is composed of Prof. Prince, chairman, and a number of other university professors.


James Davis Taylor: There is one line in which a station of this kind could do very useful service. The most important of the fishing industries in British Columbia is that of the sockeye salmon. We have been making large expenditures during a number of years in +be effort to construct enough hatcheries to increase the supply of the sock eye, but notwithstanding all these efforts, and although proper attention has been paid to preserving the sockeye from depredation by fishermen or otherwise, we find that the supply of the salmon is not increasing, but remains about stationary._ The conclusion seems inevitable that there must be some cause for this which has not yet been recognized. There must be some cause, apart from anv suggestion of failure of the hatcheries to secure to us an abundant supply of salmon. So far as we can

see, the hatcheries are doing good work, and if there were no cause operating against them, we should have a yearly increasing supply instead of the supply retrograding or remaining stationary. Would it be part of the purpose of a station of this kind to pursue investigations to ascertain whether there are other fish preying on these salmon in their haunts between the time they leave their hatching grounds on the Fraser river and their return four years later? If we could find out what fish prey on the salmon and devise means of dealing with them, and guard against the efforts of the hatcheries being made nugatory, this station would be worth many times the money proposed to be spent on it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am very glad that my hon. friend has brought this to my attention. I shall take care to communicate his observations to the professor in charge. So far as regards the work done, we have obtained very useful information regarding the life and habits of the fish and no doubt the matter my hon. friend has brought to our attention might be properly investigated by the board. I shall bring it to the attention of Professor Prince and the other members of the Board.
To provide for expenses in connection with the International Fisheries Commission, including an amount equivalent to the difference between $2,800 and $4,000, being an increase to be granted to Prof. E. E. Prince since December 1, 1908, $5,400.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for the purpose of paying the expenses in connection with the International Fisheries Commission, and also to provide for the salary of Professor Prince. He was formerly paid a salary of $2,800, but in view of the fact that he has been appointed International Commissioner, it was thought advisable to increase his salary to $4,000.


James Davis Taylor: Will the hon. minister state the general scope of this commission?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The commission was appointed in virtue of a treaty signed in the spring of 1908. That treaty provided for the appointment of two commissioners, one by the American government and the other by the Canadian, for the purpose of drafting regulations covering what are called the boundary waters, that is to say, the waters which divide Canada from the United States, waters like the southern part of the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of San Juan de Fuca. Then there are the great lakes of Ontario with their connecting rivers and a part of the St. Lawrence which is boundary water. There are also some lakes in the province of Quebec and in the States of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, the River St. John, the River St. Croix and Passamaquoddy bay. The two commissioners were formally Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
appointed, Mr. Bastedo on behalf of Canada and Dr. Jordan, of Stanford University, California, on behalf of the American government. Mr. Bastedo later accepted a position in the Department of Trade and Commerce and resigned his position on the International Commission. Professor Prince has been appointed to represent Canada. The two commmissioners have held some meetings and Professor Prince is leaving in a few days for the west to meet Professor Jordan. Professor Prince has been instructed to confer while in the west with the provincial authorities of British Columbia.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why is the whole of the St. John river included in that treaty? Only a small portion of the St. John river forms part of the boundary between the two countries and the greater part of it is far away from the boundary. I have never heard any reason why the whole river should be included in the treaty. The minister knows that Grand Falls creates a perfect block to any sea fish going any further up the river and yet the boundary portion of the St. John river is away above Grand Falls.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The part of the St. John river which is in the state of Maine is, I understand, of great importance to the fisheries, and at the same time some works are being carried on on that river and its tributaries which were detrimental to the interests of the fisheries. It was considered advisable on that account that we should have an opportunity of seeing that proper regulations were made in that part of the river for the purpose of protecting not only our own fisheries, but also the fisheries in that part of the river which is in the state of Maine. Of course if we were going to make regulations with regard to the part of the river in the state of Maine, it was also advisable that the commission should have the same authority on that part of the river which is in Canada. That was why the St. John river was included and the probability is that it is more in the interests of Canadians than of Americans to have that river placed under the control of the commission's regulations.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is merely with regard to the control of lumber mills and sawdust.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Sawdust particularly. My hon. friend is aware that the sawdust thrown in that part of the St. John river which is in the United States is detrimental to the fisheries, and of course this would give the commissioners an opportunity to deal with that important question, which affects most seriously the interest of our fishermen.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it a fact that there can be no regulation now with respect t*

the fisheries of the St. John river without the consent of the commissioner of the United States government and that that would extend even down to the harbour of St. John?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not necessarily. If the commissioners make no regulations with regard to the part of the river which is in Canada, or make regulations with regard to certain things, such as the size of mesh, it would not prevent our making regulations also with regard to close seasons or otherwise. It will of course give jurisdiction to the two commissioners, if they find it advisable to make regulations.


Oswald Smith Crocket: As I understand, any regulations promulgated by this Interna'-tional Commission become effective without the consent of this parliament.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If I remember rightly the treaty provides that the federal governments of the two countries will have to pass legislation to make the regulations of the commissioners effective. The regulations will have to be submitted to parliament to become effective.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And have the approval of parliament before becoming effective?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know that they would have to receive the approval of parliament. Of course it would come to about the same thing, but I think a clause of the treaty provides that in order to put those regulations in force, parliament will have to enact the necessary laws.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But we cannot have a regulation without the consent of a citizen of a foreign country. Even the regulations prohibiting and fixing the time for fishing in the St. John river must have the consent of a citizen of a foreign country.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not necessarily, because if the Commissioners do not agree upon the regulations which ought to be put in force, each country will be absolutely free to make the regulations which it considers advisable in the territory which is within its country.


James Davis Taylor: On what points would Professor Prince consult the provincial government of British Columbia?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On the general question of fisheries there, on the nature of the regulations which they would consider best designed to protect our fisheries.


James Davis Taylor: Have they authority in the matter of regulations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. The provincial authorities have nothing to do with the drafting of regulations, but the government thought that it would be advisable to have
a conference with the provincial governments before these regulations should be formally drafted. My hon. friend knows that by the British North America Act and by the judgment of the Privy Council of 1898 it was formally decided that the regulation of fisheries was entirely under the control of the federal government; no regulations can be legal except those passed by the federal authorities and as a consequence the provincial authorities have nothing to do with the drafting of regulations. And, as they have some proprietary rights in the fisheries, I thought that, before the regulations were formally adopted, we should have a conference with the provincial authorities. My hon. friend, perhaps, is aware that, some time ago, I had a conference, along with Professor Prince, with the representatives of New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario, and discussed the questions which might be raised when these regulations came to be drafted. Our intention was also to call representatives of the British Columbia government, but as British Columbia was far away from the seat of the Dominion government, I thought it would be more advisable that Professor Prince should see the provincial authorities when going to California to meet Professor Jordan to discuss with him the question of regulations. It is simply a matter of courtesy, which, I think, has been appreciated by the provincial governments in having these conferences before framing the regulations.


James Davis Taylor: The reason I asked was because, last summer, there was a very deplorable condition of affairs on the Fraser river. Both the Dominion and provincial governments were attempting to enforce regulations, which regulations were conflicting in their terms, so that the Dominion government inserted in their licenses certain conditions for complying^ with which the provincial government carried the licenses into court, and vice versa.


William Pugsley: And what was the result?


James Davis Taylor: The matter is undeT appeal, I believe, and is expected to be argued in London in June.


William Pugsley: What did the Supreme Court decide?


James Davis Taylor: I am not a lawyer, and it is a very difficult thing for a layman to attempt to give a synopsis of a judicial decision.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may tell the hon. gentleman what was done: We did pass regulations as a result of the British Columbia Commission, which were to be enforced last year. At the same time, I was surprised to hear that the provincial authorities though*

it advisable to issue licenses, to which they attached some regulations. The result was, as my hon. friend has stated, a conflict of jurisdiction which, I believe, must have created a great deal of dissatisfaction. But we were not to blame in that respect, because we acted within our rights and jurisdictions in providing those regulations. The matter was submitted to the courts, first a stipendiary magistrate, who upheld the action of the provincial authorities, and condemned the fishermen under the provincial regulations. This conviction was appealed to the county court which reserved the decision, declaring the regulations ultra vires, and that the licenses themselves, as a consequence, were illegal. An appeal was made by the provincial government to the High Court or Supreme Court of British Columbia, and I was glad to hear that the judgment of the magistrate of the county court was confirmed and the licenses were declared null and void. I am not aware that the case is appealed to the Privy Council. I am not surprised, however, because, when negotiations were entered into with the provincial government authorities and we tried to settle the conflict of jurisdiction, we were told that they intended to bring this question before the highest court in the realm. But I was not aware that the appeal had been made to the Privy Council.


James Davis Taylor: That is my impression. I am speaking from newspaper report, but it has every appearance of correctness. I should have thought that the minister would try to reach a modus vivendi, so that there would not be a continuation of this state of things another year. Has any agreement been reached?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach such a conclusion. The provincial authorities claim that they have the absolute right to make regulations and issue licenses, and there was some talk that the matter should be submitted to the courts.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the condition of the law? Have the provincial government the right to issue licenses but not make regulations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: And the Dominion government has power both to issue licenses and make regulations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My reading of the judgment of the Privy Council is that the provincial governments have the right to issue licenses. It was formally enunciated in the judgment that the right to issue licenses existed also with the federal government. At the same time, we maintain that we are the only authority having the power to make regulations, and the judgment ren-Mr. BRODEUR.
dered by the court in British Columbia confirmed the position that we took on the question.


Robert Laird Borden: Do both governments have the right to insist on the payment of a fee in connection with the licenses?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Have both governments, or rather both legislatures, the right to impose certain penalties if these licenses are not taken out?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman will understand that that is a point likely to lead to confusion.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I have heard in this parliament for the last four years, or ever since that decision was rendered, that seme other question was to be submitted to the courts in order that the whole subject might be cleared up, and I have understood that negotiations have been going on from time to time to bring that about. But it seems to be very slow of consummation. It seems extremely desirable that so confusing a condition of affairs should be remedied at the earliest possible moment.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is very unfortunate that this conflict of jurisdiction exists with regard to the fisheries, because I am quite ready to believe that it will have a bad effect upon our fisheries that we do not know exactly where we stand. The governments cannot act with the same interest as they would otherwise. Negotiations were held some years ago to submit to the court one of the questions raised, namely, whether the proprietary rights in the fisheries within the three-mile limit should be under the jurisdiction of the federal authority as maintained by this government. The question, however, was never submitted to the court. Another question was raised, also, whether the provincial authorities had the right to make regulations or the right to issue licenses and attach to those licenses conditions. In British Columbia, for example, there were conditions as to the fishing on Sunday. This was one of the questions submitted to the court, and the result was that the regulations made by the provincial authorities as to the fishing on Sunday were held to be illegal. A license should simply issue for the purpose of collecting fees, but it should not undertake in any way to regulate the manner in which the fisheries are carried on.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the subject taken up at the conference between this government and the provincial government some three years ago?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I do not know, I was not there at the time.


William Pugsley: I was there, and the reason was this, that all the provinces were not interested in the question. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were in no way interested, and as the interests of Ontario were different from those of the other provinces, it was thought better that the question should be left over for a further conference between the Dominion government and the provincial governments which were directly interested. I may be allowed further to say that the ground upon which it was held that the provinces could issue licenses was that they had a proprietary interest in the fisheries, and that therefore they had a right to say that no one should take fish except undeT license from the provincial government. But having a proprietary right was one thing, and the power to make regulations as to the mode and time of fishing was quite another; and the judicial committee held that, as a result, bcth governments can issue licenses, the provincial authorities simply giving the right to take property which belongs to the province, and the Dominion government having the right to regulate the fisheries under the provisions of the British North America Act, which expressly gives that power to the federal authority.


Robert Laird Borden: If that is the only result, it must be conceded that the fathers of confederation exercised a remarkable ingenuity in getting the whole subject into an extraordinary muddle.


James Davis Taylor: For the information of the committee I may sa.y that the fishermen did not suffer iinancial loss last year on account of the double licenses, because it happened that the Dominion fee of $10 prevailing before last year was then reduced to $5, and the provincial fee then first in force, was also $5, so they only paid $10 the same as before. I referred just now to newspaper reports about taking this case to London, and I think the minister will be glad to learn of another newspaper report which is to the effect that for this season the provincial government proposes to accept the Dominion regulations and to issue licenses as a matter of collecting revenue only, and to make the licenses state on their face that they are subject to the Dominion regulations. I would ask the minister whether Professor Prince, when he goes west to meet Professor Starr Jordan at San Francisco, will go with carte blanche to make any arrangements he may think wise, or is he limited by instructions from the government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think it would be advisable to state what Professor Prince's instructions are.


James Davis Taylor: Not the nature of the instructions, but whether there are any limitations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would not like to make any statement with Tegard to that. It is a matter of negotiation with the American commissioners, and I hope my hon. friend will not press for an answer.


Mr. LENNOX.: I do not think we need to fight shadows. It is right the minister should not divulge what the instructions are, but there can be no harm in the minister telling us whether he has allowed this gentleman to go down there without instructions, or whether he has taken the precaution of giving him instructions; whether he has given him a line of conduct to pursue, or is letting him act of his own will. There is no state secret there. Parliament has a right to know whether the government has taken reasonable precautions that the rights of Canada shall not be sacrificed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would not like to make any statement with regard to that. Every hon. member who knows Professor Prince must feel confident that he would not sacrifice unduly the interests of Canada. _ If the government can give him instructions in the matter-because that is a point under the treaty,-I do not know whether it would be advisable for us to give him formal instructions. But I may assure my hon. friend that having due regard to the experience of Professor Prince, of his vast knowledge of the fisheries, and having regard also to his character, he will do nothing which will at all jeopardize the interests of our Canadian fisheries.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Could the minister tell us whether it is the federal or state authority that has the right to fix regulations on the inland lakes, as to size of nets, amount of fee, and territory to be covered by the license?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are informed by the American authorities that the regulations with regard to fisheries on the boundary waters which are mentioned in the treaty, fall entirely under the control of the commissioners and of the federal authority. Formerly, all the regulations concerning fisheries were under the control of the state authorities, that was part of their jurisdiction under the constitution. But in virtue of another provision in the constitution, it is stated that the federal authority have the right to make treaties, and when those treaties are ratified by the Senate, they come into force and fall entirely under the control of the federal authority.


William Sora Middlebro: Could the minister say that by virtue of this treaty the right is taken away from the local authorities?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is a very serious question my hon. friend is putting to me

when he asks me to interpret the constitution of the United States. If he will read the correspondence which is brought down he will find some letters from the Secretary of State for the United States to the effect that the federal authority has full power to regulate the fisheries under the treaty.


William Sora Middlebro: Is the minister relying entirely on the information given by the Attoney General of the United States; is he acting on the assumption that the local legislatures have no jurisdiction with reference to fixing the amount of the fee, the size of the net, the close season, and all matters pertaining to the fisheries? Is he accepting the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States as absolute with regard to those matters?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, I suppose we should not accept an opinion given by the Attorney General of the United States, but that we should accept the opinion which would be given here by our Department of Justice. If Mr. Root affirms the American central authorities have power to deal with that question we must assume that he is correct.


William Sora Middlebro: Has any intimation come from the local legislatures that they have agreed to that view of the law?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know exactly what communications have been exchanged between the federal authorities and the state authorities.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the minister say now that these powers are being exercised by the local legislatures?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Formerly.


William Sora Middlebro: And now?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not now.


William Sora Middlebro: They will until the regulations come into force?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, of course.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the minister admit that the local legislatures in the Dominion have the power to fix the amount of the fee and require license for fishing?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have always had the power to issue licenses. That power has not been taken from us but the provincial authorities have the same power too. That is the result of the judgment of the Privy Council.


William Sora Middlebro: Is it a fact that the provincial authorities now do fix the amount of the license fee in the Dominion?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
William Sora Middlebro: Has the Dominion government the power to enforce a license and to fix a uniform amount as the license fee throughout the whole of the Dominion, or has each province the exclusive right to fix the amount of the fee?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In Ontario the local government issue licenses and fix the fees. While we have not formally exercised that power the federal authorities have the same power to issue licenses and to fix the fee for a license issued by the federal authorities.


William Sora Middlebro: Will it be possible for each state bordering on the Dominion of Canada to fix the amount of its license and likewise will it be possible for each province in the Dominion to fix the amount of its license?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As to the power of the states I am not familiar enough with their laws to say whether they will have a right to levy a fee upon their own fishermen. That is a matter, however, that does not concern us a great deal because each country preserves its absolute right to issue licenses on its own side of the water. If the state legislatures find it advisable to issue licenses and to levy taxes upon their own people that is a matter which does not concern us.


William Sora Middlebro: Will the minister advise me on this? Supposing that Professor Prince and the American Commissioner, while they are out in British Columbia, decide themselves upon these regulations, would this parliament then have any control over the matter or is the treaty not practically consummated r


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The treaty provides for that. -


William Sora Middlebro: The treaty provides that if they come to an agreement this parliament has nothing to do at all with making the regulations ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am under the impression that there is a clause in the treaty providing that if any regulations are made the congress of the United States and the parliament of Canada will have authority

to take the necessary powers to carry out these regulations.


William Sora Middlebro: Then the minister can give us the assurance that we will have an opportunity of discussing these regulations later on ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, because they will have to be submitted to parliament to give the government or the commission the executive power which is required.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to pay the expenses in connection with the investigation of the Marine and Fisheries Department On the recommendation of Mr. Justice Cas-sels, $1,000 is to be paid Dr. Morse for his services in connection with the investigation, and upon the recommendation of counsel $300 is to be paid to Mr. H Thomas.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total amount?


Haughton Lennox: I understood the minister sometime ago to say, that, as he understood the treaty, once these representatives came to an agreement there was nothing for the congress of the United States or the Dominion parliament to do but accept the terms they had agreed to. He did not think we had the right to reject or revise it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose that if parliament should refuse to pass the necessary laws to carry out these regulations it would put an end to them ?
A Mn BRODEUR. It is estimated at $55,000, but we have not received all the ac counts. There was a vote of $15,000 last year.


Haughton Lennox: Does Dr. Morse only get
$1,000?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He is an officer of the Exchequer Court and this is additional to his salary?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this vote pay all the expenses?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries some time ago if negotiations were on foot with the provincial governments with the view of adopting a modus vivendi respecting this conflict of jurisdiction but I do not think the minister understood my question. I was under the impression that some commission was appointed by the government to carry on negotiations. I would like to know what is being done.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We appointed, last year, a commissioner for the purpose of negotiating with the provincial authorities. Mr. Bastedo was the man who was selected for that purpose. The matter which was the most pressing at the time was the situation which arose in British Columbia and Mr. Bastedo communicated with the provincial authorities, made a visit or two and carried on negotiations with them. I must say that these negotiations were almost fruitless because immediately the provincial authorities decided to issue licenses themselves and in issuing their licenses they took it upon themselves to regulate to a certain extent, even to a very large extent, the fisheries. That, of course, made the question of jurisdiction more acute than it had been before. The matter was submitted _ to the courts and it was decided that the licenses issued under these conditions by the provincial authorities were null and void. I am informed by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. lx Tavlor) that the question, though decided against the contention of the British Columbia government, is now being submitted to the Privy Council.
Marine and fisheries investigation-further amount required, $40,000.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I would like to ask the minister if he thinks this investigation was necessary?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no doubt it was.


Haughton Lennox: What fees were paid counsel?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In a letter dated April 18, 1908, from the Minister of Justice to Mr. Watson, it is stated:-
With regard to your remuneration upon the inquiry before Mr. Justice Cassels, I have to confirm the understanding arrived at yesterday, that you would receive $100 per day and necessary expenses out of pocket, and m addition at the end of the investigation you would receive some further fee to be agreed upon having in view the responsibility involved in the inquiry and the magnitude it may assume.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has that further fee been fixed?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Minister of Justice informs me it has not.
To repay Cushing & Company amount deposited as security in connection with the seizure of the schooner ' Evolution ' in the year 1893 for alleged violation of shipping laws in Canada, $800.
Mr- BRODEUR. In 1893 the schooner 'Evolution' was seized for alleged violation of the deck-load law and the owners deposited $800 for her release. In 1896 it was decided by the government to withdraw the case which had been three years in court without prosecution, the department having been advised that there was doubt the suit would succeed. Instructions were given to the collector of customs at St. John to reimburse the $800, but he had

deposited it to the credit of the Receiver General and the matter remained in abeyance. It is only fair that these people should be reimbursed the $800.


Haughton Lennox: They don't ask any interest?


William Pugsley: They do, but they don't get it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What was the violation of the shipping law?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was alleged that having taken out a clearance for South America the schooner crossed the Atlantic in violation of the law.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not South America, but Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The defence was that during the voyage the schooner was forced to the other side of the Atlantic and that at most it was only a technical violation. Some years afterwards this law was repealed and the schooner would then not be liable to a penalty. The case was submitted to Mr. Barker, then agent of the Department of Justice at St. John and now Chief Justice of New Brunswick, and he expressed the opinion that it would be difficult to prove an intentional violation of the Act. Later on it was stated that Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was willing to settle the matter and the minister directed the owner should be informed that he merely expressed his willingness to arrange a settlement if the department of Justice so advised. In March, 1896, a return of the money was under consideration but was evidently not approved as a letter was written 'by Deputy Minister Smith to Mr. Wood, controller of customs, informing him that the matter had been discussed in council and that if he wished to return the $800 the Marine and Fisheries Department would not object. In reply Mr. Wood pointed out that the money had been deposited in January, 1894, to the credit of the Receiver General, and the Department of Customs did not have it to refund. The order in council recommends it therefore as necessary, and a report recommending a refund of the deposit was actually before council when the late government resigned. The report was never approved and the matter has never been settled. At the request of my hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works, I looked through the papers and found that it was simply a matter of justice that this sum should be refunded, and as it was in the hands of the Receiver General in the consolidated fund, a special vote was required.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When was the minister requested to refund this money?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose a month ago.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


William Pugsley: Some considerable time ago, Mt. Cushing wrote me and saw me about the matter. His information was that some ten or twelve years ago an order had been made by the department for a return of the money, but for some reason or other the money had not been returned. He also said that he had insisted on the case being disposed of in the courts, and that accounted for its dragging along some few years. Afterwards an order was made to refund the money, but it was found that the money had been handed by the collector of customs to the Receiver General. The matter dragged on a number of years and finally was overlooked in the mass of business in which Mr. Cushing is concerned. He wanted the $800 with interest, but my hon. colleague has not been able to see his_ way clear to recommend a refund of anything more than the actual amount deposited. Whether Mr. Cushing will be after him later for the interest, I do not know.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When did Mr. Cushing broach the subject with the hon. minister regarding a return of the money?


William Pugsley: Some time during the Christmas holidays when I was in St. John.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He did not make any reference to it before the election?


William Pugsley: The elections seem to be the one great event in my hon. friend's mind.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It appears to me that this Mr. George Cushing was a very strong and active supporter of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: True, a most valuable supporter.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He worked very hard to get the minister returned. Taking that into consideration, coupled with the fact that this fine, which was imposed in 1893


William Pugsley: It was not a fine but simply a deposit.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am quite aware that the hon. minister is extremely particular in the use of the English language at times.


William Pugsley: It is well to be so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I quite agree that he should be accurate when he has the opportunity. But it looks Tather peculiar that this deposit made in 1893 should be only now returned to a gentleman who took such an active part in promoting the election of the hon. minister. Of course it may be a mere coincidence, and the minister rather intimates it is, and I have no objection to Mr. Cushing getting back his money.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There can be no doubt about his being entitled to it, so much so that the late government had decided-on
the eve of the elections, it is true-to give him back the money,


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is astonishing is that when Mr. Cushing was really entitled to this money, he did not try to get it before. Certainly he was very patient for a man to whom the government owes $800. However, I am quite aware that the Minister of Public Works is good hearted especially towards his friends, and I have great pleasure in assisting him.


William Pugsley: It is not a question of good heartedness but of justice. My hon friend knows that Mr. Cushing is not the man to ask me or anybody else to get him one cent to which he is not entitled. What I wonder at is that this amount was not paid to him before. It seems to me one of the clearest eases.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It is just an evidence- of how slow justice often travels.
, Mr- PUGSLEY. It travelled very slowly from 1893 to 1896.	y


John Waterhouse Daniel: And from 1896 to 1908.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will it cover the full amount of Mr. Cushing's last campaign contributions?	s


William Pugsley: I am not aware that Mr. Pushing made any campaign contributions.


Adam Brown Crosby: 
Mr CROSBY.: The man who loaded his States*01 Europe and cleared for the United
doIthat>UGSLEY" He did not hapI,en to


Adam Brown Crosby: Then what did he do?


William Pugsley: security that he would make good whatever penalty the Crown might get against him?


Robert Laird Borden: How did the Crown abandon the suit?


William Pugsley: By not proceeding.


Robert Laird Borden: The suit must come to some formal termination in the court.


William Pugsley: It just remained in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: It stands in the court yet, nothing has been done about it. It seems clear that the papers^ should be brought down. I hope the minister will bring them down and that the Minister of Public Works will place upon the table of the House the application which has been
made to him.	,	, . ,
I was surprised, after he had stated so strongly the justice of Mr Cushing s claim that he should have said he did not know much about the facts, because the justice or injustice of the claim seems to depend altogether on the facts. It seems to me to be largely a question of the facts of the case and if we do not know the facts we cannot sav whether the claim is ]ust or unjust.


Mr PUGSLEY.: 
Robert Laird Borden: If the case is so clear it is peculiar that the money was not returned long ago. If the Crown did not choose to proceed with the case, Mr. Cushing could have brought the case to trial or had it dismissed, one or the other. It does not appear to me that Mr. Cushing availed himself of his privilege in this respect.


William Pugsley: Because he was informed by the Crown that they had decided to abandon the suit and give him the money. Mr. PUGSLEY.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not propose to argue on facts with which I am not acquainted, but I propose to argue. that the papers should be brought down, including those alluded to by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), and the application referred to by the Minister of Public Works. It is an application respecting a public matter which I think should be brought* down.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will be glad to bring down the papers in my department referring to this case. I may explain from the memorandum placed in my hand the facts o this case. In 1893 an action was taken against Mr. Cushing. The action dragged for three years, and on the 21st of March, 1896, Mr. Smith, who was then ideputy;Mm!,st5r of Marine wrote to Mr. Wood, then Controller of Customs, as follows:
I am to inform you that this matter has been informally discussed in council, and to state that you are at liberty to return the amount referred to to the parties who deposited it, namely $800, and so fa* ft* department is concerned, it will make no ob jection to your doing so.
This letter was initialed by the then Minister of Marine, Hon. Mr. Costigan, and Mr. Wood replied under date 27th March,
1896:	.	.
On inquiry I am advised that this sum o money was not received or dealt with by the customs, and the Department of Customs has no control over the amount m question. I he collector at St. John, I find, as m duty bound under the circumstances, acted entirely on instructions from your department. The Department of Customs, therefore has no interest in the matter nor jurisdiction.
Then a recommendation to council was prepared by the then minister to refund the money and the order in council based on this was one of those numerous orders in council which were not approved by the Governor when the old government ceased to be in power. If the government take the responsibility of asking an appropriation to refund, they can do so. The only thing I ask is that the papers, including the application for the refund, be brought down so that we can discuss it if we think discussion advisable or necessary.


Mr CROSBY.: I am not satisfied with this matter. While I have listened to the very plausible manner in which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has dealt with this case-as he always can do when he wants things put through this committee-I am more convinced than ever that the money should not be voted at mis time. I am not a lawyer or a sailor. The Minister of Public Works pretends to be both. But I want to say that if this ship cleared from St. John for the United States and found herself in Europe, how did she

get there if there was not somebody who had an intention of going there? It would be a difficult thing to do.


William Pugsley: She was driven by stress of weather. She did not go to Europe, but to Santa Cruz in the Canary islands.


Adam Brown Crosby: Where are they ?


William Pugsley: In one of the oceans.


Adam Brown Crosby: How far was she away from Europe when she was in the Canary islands ? The hon. minister has begun to show how much he knows about law and sailorizing. If she went to Santa Cruz, she was governed by the deck-load law. The hon. minister would not know that, would he ? If the Minister of Customs were here, or if anybody were here who knew about customs, he would know that, going to Santa Cruz, she would deposit $400 or $800, as the case may be, and that money would go into the customs and be handed over to the Receiver General. The government would not worry them about it, because the government would have the money, and if the owner wanted it back, he could make a demand for it.


William Pugsley: He did make his demand; he made it fifteen years ago, and the matter was taken into the court.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the hon. minister will wait until I get through, he will understand better


William Pugsley: It will take some time.


Adam Brown Crosby: It may take the minister some time, but it will not take other people so long. And perhaps a few people in the country will understand. Any one who knows anything about the customs law knows that there are dozens of cases every year of ships being seized for infractions jf the customs law and depositing $400 or $800 as the case may be, which money goes to the Receiver General, and even if they are guilty, the government does not worry themselves, because they have got the money, , and, so far as the government is concerned, the question is settled. If the Minister of Customs were here, he could tell the Minister of Public Works that that takes place every month in the year.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But the old government decided to give back the money.


Adam Brown Crosby: The old government did many things that hon. gentlemen opposite said were wrong. Now, we want this government to do right. I have not had the honour of being here before, but now that I am here I want things to go right. I do not want to go back too far. But the papers in this case have been asked for by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I ask that the log book also shall be brought down which will show what took place every day from the time the 109
ship cleared from St. John until she arrived in Europe. After she arrived in Europe, if she was there as a result of stress of weather, she would have to protest there and show the cause. When Mr. Cushing, or the owners of this vessel, can bring before parliament these papers and show that an injustice was done then, I shall be prepared to vote for this item but not before. I have heard enough to convince me that it is not fair to grant this money. Besides, in voting it, we should establish a precedent for every man who wanted to evade the customs law to clear his ship for a port where the law did not apply and to sail where he pleased. It will be unfair to the House and the country to pass this vote for various reasons which I do not wish to discuss at length. But I ask that the item shall be allowed to stand until we can get the papers before us to convince us that the circumstances were as these narties contend. If that is made clear, there will be nobody more ready than I to give Mr. Cushing all that is due him.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crosby) is asking something that I cannot supply when he asks for the logbook.


Adam Brown Crosby: I will put the hon minister in the way of getting that-if he does not know how, I can tell him.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These things happened fifteen years ago.


Adam Brown Crosby: That does not matter.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For my part, I would be willing to receive the opinion of Mr. Justice Parker.


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not know Mr. Justice Parker.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He was in charge of the case. He had to investigate the facts, and he reported thfit he was not able to reach a conclusion against the owners of the vessel. And, on the advice of the Department of Justice, and Mr. Justice Parker- Mr. Parker then, a lawyer-it was decided by the old government in 1896 to refund the money.


Adam Brown Crosby: We have heard all that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) is charging me with trying to do something which is unfair, so I desire to state the facts that have come to my knowledge. It was decided by the old government to reimburse these parties. Formal instructions were given by the Department of Marine to the Department of Customs to give back the money. The Department of Customs said that the money was not in their hands, and so it was found that an order in council was required. A recommendation to council, was prepared, but the elections came on and the orders in council were not



passed. After the case had been withdrawn, and after the formal undertaking of the government of Canada, I think we are bound to carry out the obligations of the former government, whether we disagree with them or not. I have been through these papers, and I shall be glad to bring them down, and the hon. member can satisfy himself that the case that was proceeded with for three years by the former government, when they decided tio repay the money, was gone on with in good faith, except that the formalities were not completed. It seems to me that it is only rendering justice to pay the claim under the circumstances. Whether the old government was right or wrong in prosecuting or not prosecuting that case is not the question. They decided not to prosecute but to abandon the case and pay the money. But the money was not paid, for the reasons I have given. To pay it under the circumstances would only be in accordance with justice.


Adam Brown Crosby: The only argument the Minister of Marine and Fisheries puts up is that the old government recommended a let of appointments when they went out of power. If he was going to do all that the old government did when they went out of power, I could understand his argument. But I say that the log-book is available in every British ship, it is returned to the Trade Association in Great Britain, and the minister, or his department, is the collecting agency in Canada for that association. He can see the log-book or can if he wants to. He acts as the collection agency for the Board of Trade in London, and he can write and get that logbook any time he wants to. When he brings these papers here and shows what the Minister of Public Works indicates, then I will be satisfied. But we have no proof. It is no use for the Minister of Public Works to tell me that because this deposit was made, and because the government did not bring an action, this man had a right to go and ask for his deposit. There never was a case of that kind.


William Pugsley: There is a regular proceeding for bringing the matter to court, and that was done in this case.


Adam Brown Crosby: I beg the minister's pardon. I venture the assertion that when the Minister of Customs is here I will prove by him that that is not the case.


William Pugsley: I have had dozens of cases in that way.


Adam Brown Crosby: You may have had dozens of cases trying to get the money back for the man who put it in; but there has never been any case where the customs brought suit against a man after he had deposited his money; there was never a case where, after the money was deposited, the Minister of Customs or his officers brought suit against the man.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


William Pugsley: The proceeding is this: The notice is given by the Minister of Customs before the seizure. The owner is notified within so many days to put in a claim. He puts in a claim, and then the matter goes regularly to the Exchequer Court. The Crown is the plaintiff and the claimant is the defendant.


Adam Brown Crosby: When the ship is seized and the sum is stated, it cannot be less than $400, the owner of the ship deposits his money. But there is no case on record, where after the money was deposited, the customs brought action against the man who deposited the money.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In this case, action had been taken by the government because it was for the payment of the penalty under the deck-load law.


Adam Brown Crosby: What action did the government take?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: An action for the penalty.


Adam Brown Crosby: Did they take any action after they got the $800?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, they took action for the recovery of the penalty provided under the deck-load law.


Adam Brown Crosby: Didn't they have the penalty already?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then what are you going to get back if you have not got the penalty?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When there is a violation	of	a provision of	the
Shipping Act, and action has to be taken for the penalty provided by law, they immediately seize the vessel. Of course the vessel can be released, and it is done very often, on the deposit of a certain amount of money. That was ;done in this case, and then the action instituted by the Crown goes on, and has to be adjudicated. We often take action in my department against infractions of some of the provisions of the Shipping Act. In this case the government, after the case had been standing on the docket for three years, decided to withdraw the case and refund the money.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister says that he brought a case. Of course he did, he seized the ship. His case was good and he got the money. Now what more do you want? The other poor fellow is the one who has got a case. He had a hard case, and he couldn't get his money back for twelve years, and no wonder he is willing to get it back without interest.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am acquainted with several cases of infractions of the customs law where a ship is seized; the own-

ers want to obtain a release and put.up a bond or a sum of money in order to obtain the release of the ship. Subsequently an action is taken, probably in the magistrate's court, to fix the penalty.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would ask any man in this parliament if he ever knew a case in connection with the customs where an amount of money was deposited and action was brought, and the customs have got more than was deposited.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not a question of the violation of the customs laws, it is a question of the violation of the Shipping Act. The boat is seized, an action is taken by the Crown for the recovery of the penalty provided by the law, then the action goes on. In this case the action was withdrawn.


Adam Brown Crosby: Who withdrew the action?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The government decided not to proceed with this case, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries gave instructions to the collector of customs to reimburse the money.


Adam Brown Crosby: Bring these papers down and if they prove that the case is as the hon. minister has described it we will give the money, but until then 'I will vote against it.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sinclair).: Carried.


Adam Brown Crosby: The item is not carried. You cannot carry an item without taking a vote.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman must have heard me declare the item carried.


Adam Brown Crosby: You cannot carry it without taking a vote. I demand that you take a vote.
Indians - Quebec - to provide a further amount for relief, medical attendance and medicines, $6,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is that necessary?


Frank Oliver: A very large and unexpected expenditure has been necessary in connection with epidemics of typhoid fever at Oka and Escoumaine, and scarlet fever *and measles at Caughnawaga and at the present time some twenty-five cases of small-pox amongst the Indians of Resti-gouche. In order to stamp out the epidemics at Oka and Caughnawaga it became necessary to establish tent hospitals and to place doctors in charge. Dr. Ouimet at Oka and Dr. Patton at Caughnawaga. The unavoidable expenditure in connection with the epidemics at Oka and Caughnawaga amounted to $2,874.58. At Restigouche there is a quarantine of 25 patients ill with small-pox, who have to he 109J
fed and in every way supplied with the necessaries of life, and reclothed after the epidemic has ceased. No accounts have yet come forward from this locality. The expense of the typhoid fever outbreak at Escoumaine is as yet unknown, but it will amount to a considerable sum. In addition to these causes for the usual estimate for this service being insufficient there remains the fact that unusual applications for relief have been received during the present winter, and there yet remains to be paid accounts for the three most severe months, January, February, and March.
Indians-Nova Scotia-to provide a further amount for relief, medical attendance and medicines, $6,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that for any special reason?


Frank Oliver: The appropriations for medical attendance and relief have been altogether inadequate, chiefly due to the outbreaks of small-pox at Bedford, Halifax county, at Indian Book Reserve, Hants county, and at Pictou Landing, Pictou county. At the latter place some thirty Indians are reported as having the disease. In Hants county five families are affected. In all cases provisions have not only to be supplied to the sick but to all the other Indians in quarantine. The necessary expenditure to combat these epidemics will be between $4,000 and $5,000. Unusual applications for relief of distress have also been received during the present winter, and there yet remains to be paid accounts for the three most severe months, January, February and March. The accounts received and unpaid amount to about $3,500. The probable expenditure for the last three months, including medical attendance and provisions for Indians for small-pox, and in quarantine in Hants and Pictou counties will be $2,500.
Indians-New Brunswick-to provide a further amount for relief, medical attendance and medicines, $1,200.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there a superintendent of schools appointed for the Indians of New Brunswick as proposed last session?


Frank Oliver: There was a superintendent of schools appointed-Rev. Father Ryan.
Indians-Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories-to provide for removal of St. Peter's Indians to Fisher river, $8,975.


Haughton Lennox: How many Indians were removed?


Frank Oliver: The total number of Indians on the reserve is about 1,100, and it is expected that all or almost all will remove

to Fisher river. The work has been going on during the past summer, but the accounts are not in and we cannot say how many have actually gone. Thirty houses have been erected and there has been a great deal of material freighted over and preparation made for the accommodation of the Indians.


George Halsey Perley: Why were these Indians removed ?


Frank Oliver: It was part of the agreement necessary to secure the surrender of St. Peter's Reserve, a large reserve on the Red river quite close to the town of Selkirk, and in such a position as to be a considerable detriment to that part of the country. Under the arrangement it was necessary to get another reserve and make provision for removing the Indians to it.


Haughton Lennox: I see that the next item is:
To provide further amount for surveys, $6,561.
Is that in connection with the same matter?


Frank Oliver: It was in connection with the adjustment of the right to the land in the reserve. In the reserve there were claims held by others than Indians, and it was necessary to have a survey to decide these claims, and also to dispose of the Indian lands. The Indian lands were to be sold when the surrender was secured.
Dominion lands-chargeable to capital- further amount required for surveys, examination of survey returns, printing of plans, &c., $93,256.06.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to ask the minister is the expense of surveying these lands paid out of the proceeds of their sale? Do you charge the account for surveying the land to capital account and use the proceeds of the sale for current expenditure?


Frank Oliver: The cost of surveying Dominion lands is charged to capital account and the revenue from the lands is credited to current revenue.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to know upon what principle the minister considers the survey of land which is sold as a capital charge against the country and when the land has been disposed of why it should be considered as an asset of the country.


Frank Oliver: The land is given away. It is not treated as a source of revenue.


William Sora Middlebro: We have received some $18,000,000 from Dominion lands and the surveys have been charged to capital. Would it not be better to charge to the proceeds of the land the cost of surveying?


Frank Oliver: 


William Stevens Fielding: There is something in that criticism, but the practice was established years ago, and it is convenient to follow it for the purpose of comparison.


William Sora Middlebro: Are these abuses to continue for ever?


William Stevens Fielding: It does not hurt any one.


William Sora Middlebro: It gives a wrong impression as to our assets.


William Stevens Fielding: The cost of surveying is not treated as an asset.


William Sora Middlebro: It gives an erroneous impression as showing a surplus which the country has not got.


William Stevens Fielding: I don't think it conveys any erroneous impression.


Frank Oliver: For instance, it would not be fair to charge the surveys of lands given to railways, and free homesteads, to the revenue from lands.


William Sora Middlebro: Every time you charge to capital account the country is supposed to have a corresponding asset.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no. A railway subsidy is charged to capital, but there is no asset to represent it. If we were starting out afresh it might be well to charge the surveys to the revenue account, but there is convenience in following established methods.


William Sora Middlebro: If the expenses were paid out of current expenditure, would not your alleged surplus be so much less?


William Stevens Fielding: No, because the surplus is not established by reference to assets. We have lots of valuable property in Canada which we do not set down in our assets.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister is correct in what he says about assets, but my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) is perfectly right in his contention that if you charge this to capital account, which does not enter into your consideration of your surplus under your present method of bookkeeping it is obvious it would increase your surplus by that amount.


William Stevens Fielding: I admit that.
Seed grain, $40,000.


Frank Oliver: While the crop generally speaking was a very good one last year, the House will be sorry to hear that in the prairie area westward from Moosejaw and running along the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to west of Medicine Hat, there was a dry season and_ the crops were very light. In other localities there was a loss of crop by frost and it is desirable that the homesteaders should not be short of seed this year. The cases in which there was a light crop last year were not

the cases of individual settlers, but applied to a section of country.


William James Roche: How will this be distributed?


Frank Oliver: By the immigration branch.


William James Roche: Not through the provincial governments?


Frank Oliver: No, this deals with homesteaders, and last year it included those who held patents. These the provincial governments are looking after this year.


William James Roche: What is the security ?


Frank Oliver: We take liens on their homesteads, being the only people who can take liens on their lands. The money is being expended now and it is particularly necessary to get the grain out in time.


William Sora Middlebro: Is the grain for use this year ?


Frank Oliver: It is being distributed now.


William James Roche: Has the government any of last year's grain on hand ?


Frank Oliver: No. It was all disposed of last year.


William Sora Middlebro: When did the government decide on this extra appropriation ?


Frank Oliver: About three weeks ago I received word from our immigration commissioner at Winnipeg that this amount would be required.


Glenlyon Campbell: How much of this will be spent on salaries and how much on gTain ?


Frank Oliver: None will be spent on salaries, as this work will be handled by the immigration staff. Last year the work was so very extensive, we had to employ additional assistance, but that is not the case this year.


William James Roche: How did the government decide what parties should receive this ?


Frank Oliver: When we have information as to the requirements in any particular locality, an officer of the Immigration Department is sent there to investigate, and we act on his report.


William Sora Middlebro: Did the suggestion originate with the commissioner ?


Frank Oliver: No, during the latter part of the winter we were receiving communications at the head office here from different parts of the west, stating there was need for some assistance, and at the same time the commissioner was receiving applications in Winnipeg.
i Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Does the district
(extend to both provinces ?
I Mr. OLIVER. Yes, but more largely in Saskatchewan than in Alberta.
Further amount required for engraving, lithographing and printing maps of the Dominion and Northwest Territories, $9,600.


Richard Blain: Are those maps still purchased in the United States ?


Frank Oliver: No, they are the homestead maps which are drafted in the offices here and printed in Toronto.
Legal and other expenses incurred in connection with the arrest of certain Chinese in Sydney, Nova Scotia, $880.62.


William Stevens Fielding: This is for the payment of legal and other expenses connected with the arrest of 17 Chinamen alleged to have been smuggled into Canada from Newfoundland. They were fined $100 each, but through a flaw in the Act which has since been corrected, they could not be deported.
To cover unprovided items, 1907-8, as per Auditor General's Report, page C-4, $238,876.


George Halsey Perley: I want to protest against an item of this kind. It is very strange that we should have an item now with regard to the year ending March 31, 1908. The government brings down its estimates and then its supplementaries for the same year before the session is closed, and then further supplementary estimates in the the following session at the end of the year. The supplementary estimates to March 31, 1908, were not passed until long after that date, because business did not proceed with as much expedition then as this year. It is very extraordinary that the government should expend over $300,000 for the year ending March 31, 1908, in certain items in excess of the amount provided for in the previous estimates they brought down. The various departments ought to be able to get more closely to what they require.


William Stevens Fielding: For very many years an item of this character has been brought forward. It is a bookkeeping entry which the Auditor General desires for the closing up of his accounts. In some branches of the departments, it will be found that the grants have been greater than the expenditure, but in some other branches the expenditure is somewhat greater than the grant. In most instances the items are quite small, but occasionally they are quite considerable. The Auditor General desires to have this as bookkeeping entry. When we consider the vast current expenditure of the Dominion, this over expenditure of $200,000 or $300,000, scattered over all the departments, cannot be considered very large. With the best we can do, there will be occasionally some over expenditure.
34P>7

When an expenditure is current, you cannot always tell what it will amount to. If the excess is large, the Auditor General will refuse to pass it, but if small he lets it pass and asks that an indemnity be given in this way. $300,000 may seem very large, but distributed over the total business of Canada in a year, it is not excessive.


George Halsey Perley: I understand very well that it is impossible for the government to get the amounts exactly right at first. As I remember, the supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1908, were not passed until last May or June. How can there be any possible reason why these items, at least for last year, should not have been passed in the supplementaries for last year?


William Stevens Fielding: Of course the government are responsible for everything, but as a matter of fact this is a book-keeping matter which the Auditor General sends in. The Auditor General asks for this whenever his accounts are finally adjusted. The current year is practically at an end and yet you cannot adjust these accounts for some weeks. Before they are adjusted it will be discovered that here and there are some large over-expenditures, but the amount in this case is not unusually large.


Robert Laird Borden: I see $162,000 in one department.


William Stevens Fielding: There is difficulty there; in the working of the Intercolonial Railway there may be quite large overexpenditures, but when you take a large service like the Intercolonial Railway the amount is not excessive.


Robert Laird Borden: This must have been known last year.


William Stevens Fielding: It is the Auditor General who makes it known when he balances his accounts. It is his item particularly.


George Halsey Perley: The first item is $29,000 for charges of management.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a large item, I have not the details here. My officials are not present.


George Halsey Perley: That item was brought to the attention of the Auditor General later on when the accounts were being closed, but when the supplementaries were up the officers of the department must have known that this amount was going to be required to pay the Civil Service up to the 31st of March, last; but the estimates were not passed until May or June. Does the minister not think they should have had this in the supplementaries for last year?


William Stevens Fielding: That is that the departmental estimates should have been made more closely ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: In the Finance Department this is not an over-expenditure, the law has provided for it by a permanent statute.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me the whole proceeding is illegal.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I suppose so.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding House adjourned at 1 o'clock a.m. Saturday.

Monday, March 29, 1909.