1909-02-09

[Stage Direction]
The Forty-First Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries concerning fisheries.-Hon. L. P. Brodeur.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 46) respecting the Crawford Bav and St. Mary's Railway Company, and to cnange its name to ' The British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba Railway Company.'-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 47) respecting the Guelph and Goderich Railway Company.-Mr) Lewis.
Bill (No. 48) respecting the Montreal Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 49) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Devlin.
Bill (No. 50) to incorporate La Compagnie du chemin de fer International de Rimouski. -Mr. Ross.
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the Royal Casualty and Surety Company of Canada.- Mr. H. H. McLean.
Bill (No. 52) respecting the Bank of Vancouver.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 53) respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Donnelly.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 19) to amend the Post Office Act (Hon Rodolphe Lemieux) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-compensation for loss of
registered letters-
Mr. SPROULE.: What do you mean by ' registered domestic article? '


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I will give the House a few explanations regarding this Bill. Section 9, subsection K of the Post Office Act reads as follows, in regard to the powers of the Postmaster General:
prescribe and enforce such regulations as to letters directed to be registered, as to him



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Beem necessary, in respect to the registration of letters and other matter passing by mail, as well between places in Canada as between Canada and the United Kingdom, or any British possession, or any foreign country, and to the charge to be made for the same, not exceeding five cents per each letter or article.
As every member of the House knows, it costs five cents, besides the usual postage of two cents, to register a letter. We have two classes of registered letters, the international and the domestic. Under the terms of the Postal Union Convention held at Rome in 1906, the Canadian Post Office Dep-partment agreed to become a party to the following provision:
In case of the loss of a registered article, and except in cases beyond control, the sender or at the request of the sender, the addressee is entitled to an indemnity of 50 francs.
All nations which adhere to the Postal Union are now responsible to the extent of 50 francs for each registered article which is lost, that is to say, the proven value of the article. What we do for international registered letters which are lost we intend to do for domestic registered letters that are lost.
This regulation for indemnity for the loss of registered letters has been adopted by Great Britain and the United States of America. The regulation of the English Post Office Department for compensation for the loss of registered inland correspondence reads as follows:
Subject to the rule stated below, the Postmaster General pays compensation voluntarily and as an act of grace for registered correspondence, including parcels. The fee payable over and above the postage is the ordinary registration fee for two pence, the limit of compensation being five pounds sterling. Compensation in respect of money of any kind (coin, orders, notes, cheques, stamps, Ac.) will only be given in those cases in which the money is inclosed in one of the registered letter envelopes sold by the post office and the packet is tendered for transmission by the registered letter post.
My hon. friend sees that in England they indemnify to the extent of £5. We intend to indemnify to the extent of $25, as is done in the United States' postal law. Let me read the text of the postal law dealing with this indemnity:
As a part of such system of registration he (the Postmaster General) may provide rules under which the sender or owners of first-class registered matter may be indemnified for loss thereof in the mails, the indemnity to be paid out of the postal revenues, but in no case to exceed $100 for any registered piece, or the actual value thereof when that is less than one hundred dollars, and for which no other compensation or reimbursement to the loser has been made; provided that the Post Office Department or its revenues shall not be liable for the loss of any other Mr. LEMIEUX.
mail matter on account of its having been registered.
And the United States regulations based thereon read:
Indemnity shall be paid for the value of the lost domestic first-class matter not to exceed $25 in any one case in accordance with the law and the regulations of the Post Office Department.
What we do to indemnify the sender or in respect of the addressee, as the case may be, of an international registered letter, we should at least do in the case of our own domestic letters, and we shall follow the regulations in that respect adopted by two of the most progressive countries, England and the United States. Let me now give to the House a few statistics of interest in connection with this matter. The estimated number of registered letters (not including other registered articles) posted in Canada during the five fiscal years, is as follows:
1903- 4	 5,980,000
1904-	5	
6,594,5001905-	6	
7,475,0001906-	7	
8,338,6671907-	8	
9,078,000
The number of registered letters posted to the department as lost through various causes during the course of post in Canada during the same five fiscal years is as follows:
1903-	4	
1161904-	5	
1151905-	6	
1041906-	7	
1001907-	8	
208
What would have been the liability of the department for the last two fiscal years if the powers I am now asking parliament for had been conferred on the Postmaster General? It would have been as follows:
1906- 7	$ 381 33
1907- 8	 2,184 78
That is the proven value of the letters lost because we would not pay the $25 for each letter lost. We would pay according to the proven value of the loss. If a letter lost contained only ten dollars, we would only pay that amount. In certain countries I believe, however, they pay up the amount fixed by statute. Last year (1907-8) we would have been called on to pay $2,184.72, but $1,621.22 of this amount was due to the fact that a postal car was wrecked and totally consumed by fire near Moorhead on November 14, 1908.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: How much was claimed as having been lost?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The amount claimed is larger, but still it is remarkable how very little is claimed, if we take into consideration the vast amount of registered mail matter which passes through the mails. I

have not the figures, but they are not large and of course fictitious claims have been made on the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The amount which a letter contained up to $25 is paid in full, and above $25, only that sum is paid?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. This has worked verv well in the United States and England, and really we have been a little backwards in this connection. We ought to have adopted that last year, but waited until we saw how it worked out in other countries.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Will the hon. minister give some idea of the amount to be set apart for this work?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We claim that under these regulations more care will be taken by the officials and the department to trace lost letters. In fact, it will be almost impossible to lose a registered letter. Of course a car or a steamer may be wrecked, but, taking the estimates of previous years, the amount will be very small. There will be more care taken and the department will make more money, because many more people will register their letters when they know the department is liable for each registered letter to the extent of $25.


William Findlay Maclean: Will there be any change in the form of receipt given for a registered letter? Will the amount the letter is said to contain he stated on the receipt?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. At present we have only the five-cent stamp, which shows that a letter is registered and there is no declaration by the party that it contains money. In the future, under the regulations to be framed, the amount in the letter will have to be stated if it is feasible.


Mr. LENNOX.: There is no provision in the Act for ascertaining the amount at the time of registration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That will be part of the regulations. We need not amend the Act for that.


Haughton Lennox: As a matter of practice, the Post Office official will not take any notice of the amount you are sending. Will there be a regulation by which the postmaster is bound to ascertain, at the time of registration, the amount being sent?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There will be under the new regulations.


Haughton Lennox: I presume that this is not retroactive?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Haughton Lennox: Because, I have a very interesting case of loss in my own riding, and I have not been able to get any report that the matter has been properly investi-24}
gated, though I have drawn the attention of the department to it several times.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my attention been called to it in the House?


Haughton Lennox: I do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) will send me a note of it


Haughton Lennox: I have done the note part of it; I have written several letters and have been assured that the matter would be investigated. It will be a very interesting case if investigated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to know the case.


Haughton Lennox: I will give the Postmaster General the facts on another occasion. I would like to ask him also if he has considered the question of making compensation to the person who suffers loss-outside of this matter altogether-through the dishonesty of a government official? It seems to me that in such cases compensation should be made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad the hon. member has called attention to this matter, vv nenever an official of the post office appropriates money from the sender or from the addressee, the department, as a general rule, after full investigation makes good the amount. We have a special fund in the department for that very object. Of course, the instances in which w'e are called upon to make compensation are very few, but it does happen, perhaps two or three times in the course of a year, that dishonesty is practised in these matters by a government official. In that case, we make good the amount. The regulation under which this i3 done was passed several years ago by my predecessor, Sir William Mulock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there a regulation, or does the minister intend to make a regulation, to provide for keeping the address of an individual who registers a letter?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not usually enforced.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under the new arrangement the department will be on the alert, as it will not wish to pay $25 for a lost registered letter. We intend to make the most stringent regulations for the protection of all the parties concerned. If there is not sufficient protection under the present regulations, we will have them framed in the proper way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not sure that the Postmaster General understands my question. I asked if the address of the sender would be taken. I have never known the address of the sender of a registered letter to be asked for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, the postmaster is obliged to have the address of the sender as well as the addressee. An invoice is sent from office to office following each registered letter. It is very difficult to draw a registered letter from its appointed route because of this invoice system, but with the provision that is here proposed we shall take even more care.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the regulation a very good one. Personally I could never understand why there should not be compensation to the loser of a registered letter when a registration fee has been paid. Many cases of loss have been brought to my attention, and some of these I have brought before the department. I have learned that registering simply means keeping trace of a letter, but without compensation in case of loss. It seems to me that a registration ought to be an insurance as well.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: As I understand it, if postmasters lose public money through the act of burglars, they have to bear the loss. I have known cases where postmasters have desired to give up the money order business in order to get out of the risk, the public money that they have in charge being, no doubt, an attraction to burglars.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If postmasters have taken the necessary precautions, for instance by keeping their postal notes, money, &c., in a safe approved by the department, and by using due diligence, the Post Office Department generally recoups them any loss they may sustain in the way referred to.


Mr. HUGHES.: Is there to be any means of ascertaining whether the value is in the registered letter or not? Any one in business knows that sometimes a man will claim to have sent certain money by registered letter, but the receiver says that the money to the amount claimed was not enclosed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under the new regulation the sender will have to prove the amount before it is sent, because the department will be called upon to recoup him according to the proven value contained in the letter.


Mr. PORTER.: I understand that there is a provision by which a person desiring to transmit money to a foreign country may go to a postmaster, make his deposit of money and get a receipt therefor, and that money will be paid to a person named in a foreign country. But in case the money is not delivered, what provision is there for the depositor getting it back?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The regulations concerning registered letters, as well as ordinary letters, passing between two countries, are framed by what we call the Postal Union


Edward Guss Porter: Pardon me. I do not speak of a registered letter. But suppose Mr. SPROULE.
I deposit money with the postmaster to be paid to a certain person, say in Russia?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have postal conventions with different countries by which we restrict our postal or money orders.


Edward Guss Porter: Suppose I send $25 in that way and it is not delivered in the foreign country, how do I get my money back?


Rodolphe Lemieux: If it is lost in Canada and the Post Office Department is proven responsible, Canada pays the money. If, on the other hand, the loss is proven against the foreign country, the foreign country pays the money.


Edward Guss Porter: Is there any limitation fixed? In the two cases I refer to, over a year has elapsed since the money was sent, and the party sending it seems to have no redress, although he has made application time and again. The only answer he gets is that inquiry is being made. Is there any limit to the time within which this is to be paid?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, there is no prescription.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Is there any good reason why the sum should be limited to $25? It seems to me that if the whole people of Canada, through their government, undertake to perform a service for individuals and fail in the attempt and lose a sum of money, the whole people, through their government, ought to make good that loss to the individual. It may be considered advisable to limit the sum that the Postmaster General should undertake to convey from one part of the country to another; but if that sum is unlimited, if a man sends $100 through the government and it is lost, it seems to me that the government should sustain that loss and not the individual.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think if we changed the law and made the government responsible for the whole amount in case of loss, the people of Canada, so long as the present Postmaster General presides over the department, would have unbounded confidence in the department, and would be willing to confidde a much larger sum than $25 to the department for delivery. Why should the people be obliged to send these large sums of money through banks or express companies instead of through the government?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may mention in this connection that I have under consideration a plan of government insurance under which the Post Office Department will take charge of larger amounts, though that plan is not yet ripe for legislation. At present, large payments are sometimes made through the Post Office Department by banks and companies, showing the confidence they have in the service, and that confidence is justified by the very few losses that have occurred. Registered letters are so well traced that banks and large corporations are sending relatively large amounts of money through the Post Office Department. If we carried larger sums we would have to provide a special system of insurance, with a rate higher than the present rate of five cents. My officials are now studying very closely a plan in this direction and perhaps next year I may take the House into my confidence on that subject.


Mr HUGHES.: I need not remind the minister what came to his notice last year, of a very heavy loss that occurred between Lindsay and Dunsford. I think $500 disappeared mysteriously, and the loser could get no redress. I may also remind him of another case that the late member for Durham, Colonel Ward, brought frequently before the minister, where an officer of the department was proven to have received the money for the money order and never transmitted the money order. Is it the intention of the department to make this Bill retroactive, so that the loser in this case could get redress?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That will not come under this Bill. I recollect Colonel Ward's case, and I examined the papers very closely at the time. Has my hon. friend read the report on that case, issued by the department?


Mr HUGHES.: I have not read the report, but I have read all the evidence except the final report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have the evidence and at the close of last session I satisfied Col.
Ward that he should not press the matter further, because it was a special case. I need not say anything more about it.


Samuel Hughes: I could not let that pass, because that is a reflection either on the gentleman who paid the money, or it is a reflection on Colonel Ward. There is no doubt that the postmaster took the money, that is well established.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not reflect at all either on Colonel Ward or on the postmaster. The best thing I can do is to send the report to my hon. friend, and he will see that the department is not at all liable in that case.


Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.: Does not the department keep a certain amount of money from the postmasters for the purpose of making up losses?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, in case of possible dishonesty on _ the part of the officials there is a special fund in the department called a guarantee fund; and wherever an official has been dishonest, and a claim is made on the department, an investigation takes place, and the money is paid by order in council if the department is liable.


Thomas Chisholm: Is that not a species of insurance for the transmission of money? I may say that I think it is a criminal offence to send a letter purporting to contain money, that does not contain money.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but under the new regulations the evidence must be given and made clear to the officers in the department that there is money in the letter. That is how we intend to frame the regulations.


Mr. OSLER.: Is the clause confined to money only or does it cover articles of value ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, all registered articles.
On the question shall the Bill be reported.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Before the Bill is reported, I desire again to present the amendment which I offered last year to the Postmaster General and which I then understood would he considered by him providing the revenue of the country would per-, mit. We remember that last year a considerable reduction was made on drop letters in cities or larger places where letter carriers were employed. Formerly the postage on drop letters in cities where letter carriers were employed was two cents. By the legislation of last year that was reduced to one cent in this way. Section 58 of the Post Office Act reads as follows :
On letters not transmitted through the mails but posted and delivered at the same post office, commonly known as local or drop

letters, the rate shall be one cent per ounce weight which shall in all cases he prepaid by postage stamps affixed to such letters.
The clause, as originally enacted has also the following words :
Except that in cases where there is a delivery by letter carriers the rate shall he two cents per ounce which shall also be prepaid by postage stamps.
By the enactment of last session these words commencing with ' except' were expunged from clause 48 which practically made the postage on drop letters, whether in cities, towns, villages, or rural districts, one cent. To my mind this was a decided discrimination in favour of the cities as they enjoy the free delivery while in the rural districts there is no free delivery. It would only be fair that the rural districts should receive some compensation now that the revenue of the postal department has increased to such a very large amount. I intimated when the Bill was up last year that I desired to move an amendment to give effect to the proposition which I then made and make now to have the postage on drop letters in all places where letter carriers are not employed reduced from one cent to one half cent per ounce. The reduction would be fifty per cent in both cases. Fifty per cent of the postage was removed from drop letters in cities where letter carriers were employed, and I proposed then that we reduce the postage on drop letters in all other parts of the country to the same extent. There is no question but that this would be quite a boon to the people. Merchants throughout the country would no doubt use the post office to a much greater extent in sending out their bills, circulars, and other material appertaining to their business; in fact, I think the post office would derive a revenue at half a cent an ounce which would very largely recoup what would be lost by the reduction owing to the very much larger use that might be made of the mails. No doubt many others besides merchants in rural districts, such as doctors and others sending out accounts for like purposes would use the mails to a greater extent, and I think it only fair that the rural sections of the country should be considered along with the cities in this reduction of postage. I take no exception-I took no exception a year ago-to the reduction on drop letters in cities; in fact, I believe I expressed my approval of it: I thought it was quite right and proper as the revenue of the country could afford it. But, whilst that was the case I claimed in the interest of the rural districts, one county of which I represent myself, that we should be put on a par with the cities and be given a corresponding reduction in postage. Hence, I have prepared an amendment which I will offer to the Postmaster General, and if he has found the Mr. HENDERSON.
revenue has been sustained that no material loss has accrued owing to the reduction of postage in cities, I hope that he will take this amendment into his favourable consideration and grant to the rural districts the same favour and consideration that he has been gracious enough to extend to the cities. The amendment I propose will be in the form of clause 2 to the Bill now before us and will read thus:
Section 48 of the Post Office Act, chap. 66 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, as amended by chap. 53 of the statutes of 1908, is amended by adding thereto the words following: Except that in cases where there is no delivery by letter carriers the rate shall be one half cent per ounce to be prepaid by postage stamps.
The effect of the amendment, if adopted by the House, as I trust it will be, will be exactly as I have stated, that drop letters in all places outside of cities where letter carriers are not employed, will be subject only to half a cent postage instead of one cent as now. That will be the entire difference, and I ask that the minister will favourably consider this amendment. I would like very much to have it submitted to the House. If it is not received by the minister this year I hope it will be another time, but I do not desire to do anything that will prevent its adoption at any future time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you going to do provided this amendment passes, with those localities where rural free mail delivery is established P


David Henderson: Free mail delivery is yet in its infancy, and consequently I do not know that it will really be a factor in connection with this matter. Free mail delivery will be in the country and could not affect letters that are posted to be delivered in any village or town by the citizens of that village or town. I beg to submit this amendment, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Chisholm).


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are obvious reasons why I should express the hope that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) will not press his amendment. I do not receive the amendment in any bad spirit; on the contrary, it would possibly commend itself to me were I fully informed of the operation of the effect of reducing the drop letter rate in cities from two cents to one cent. It is quite true that last session I promised my hon. friend that if there were no loss in the revenue because of reducing the drop letter rate in cities I might perhaps extend the favour of the rural sections, but my hon. friend will remember that the promise was given not a year ago, but only a few months ago when the House was in session. From what statistics I have been able to gather I think it is fairly safe to assume

that the reduction of the drop letter rate will not eventually result in a loss of revenue, but we must at least wait for one fiscal year to pass before we can pronounce on that with certainty. When we have that information complete I will look forward with hope to the possibility of granting the boon to the rural sections proposed by the amendment of my hon. friend.


David Henderson: In view of the pro mise of the Postmaster General it is probable that with his assistance at the expiration of the fiscal year I will be better able to get this amendment adopted than were I to press it now In view of the argument advanced by the Postmaster General, I rather think it will be my wisest plan to accept his proposition, feeling assured that should we meet here at the expiration of the fiscal year I will have the assistance of the hon. gentleman to extend this boon to the rural districts as it has been extended to the cities. I may say that the Hansard will show that the promise of the Postmaster General was that he would make this applicable to the rural sections in one or two years, and as that promise was given only last July the Postmaster General cannot be held too strictly. I will accept the hon. minister's offer of material assistance, but I may tell him that next session he will not find me quite so pliable if he should raise any objections.
Amendment (Mr. Henderson) withdrawn.
Bill reported.


William Findlay Maclean: Might I ask the Postmaster General whether he has yet established a postal service in Gowganda and improved the service at Elk lake?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is just in time with his question. The hon. gentleman called on me the other day to ask for a post office at Gowganda and a service between Gowganda and the railway, and this morning we received word from Ontario, that objection would be taken to the grant or sale of any lot on which a building could be erected until at all events a few ! weeks hence. We have written the Hon. Mr. Cochrane this afternoon, asking him to consider our case before any other, as our desire is to serve the public. If my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will nress his friends of the Ontario government we will do our best on our side.
On the motion for the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. GERVAIS.: Next sitting of the House. ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved second reading of Bill (No. 18) to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Does this Bill contemplate making any change in the law or is it merely to carry out the law as it is supposed to be at the present time?


Mr. FISHER.: It effects a change. In the revision of the statutes a certain clause was transposed from one section to the other with the result that the amount which was to be paid in compensation was increased over the amount fixed by the statute which was being revised. This is an Act to amend the Revised Statutes so as to place the figures as they were before the revision. We want to revert to the original law. The present law has been changed from the original law.


Robert Laird Borden: Was that done intentionally or unintentionally?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Unintentionally, by the revisers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I remember the original law, it provided that the government should pay for the loss of animals slaughter ed because affected by certain classes of contagious diseases, one of which was tuber culosis. I brought to the attention of the minister last year or the year before, a case in which a person applied for compensation but gould not get it. What is the law with regard to that? Is the government responsible for the loss of animals which are slaughtered because affected by tuberculosis, or is it not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is not. The law provides that the minister may cause to be slaughtered animals suffering from infectious or contagious diseases or suspected of being so infected, and that he may order a compensation to be paid to the owners of such animals.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If tuberculosis is included in the list of infectious or contagious diseases, one would naturally expect that the government would be responsible for some portion of the loss sustained by the ! owner of tuberculous animals slaughtered by order of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-compensation to owners of diseased animals.
Robert Laird Borden: How did this change occur? Was it through some transposition of language or through some omission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 12 of the old Act provides that the Governor in Council may pay compensation for animals slaughtered under the provisions of the Act. Subsection 2 provides that the compensation, if any, shall be two-thirds of the value of the slaughtered animal. Section 4 fixes the maximum of value. In the revision of the

statute the same words and the same amounts are used, but the amount is applied to the compensation instead of the value. The consequence is that the compensation may be as high as the full value, which was not intended, and I am simply moving to restore the provision of the original Act.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I understand that since the revision of the statutes in 1906 until the present Bill has been introduced, the amount paid in respect of) slaughtered animals has been unlimited.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it has been limited.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to ask if between the revision of the statutes and this date the minister has paid any greater amounts for cattle slaughtered than he did prior to 1906, under the old statute.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, because we have been fixing the values on the basis of the old Act, acting as if the old Act was in force. We had the power to fix the full value, but we preferred to have the law made correct, and to act within its limitations rather than upon our own will.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: Since the outbreak of the foot and mouth disease in the United States, the frontier ports, as I understand, have been guarded by certain officials of the government. Gananoque being one of these points where people are crossing daily, 1 understand that two men are patrolling there, and in addition a veterinary surgeon has been sent there from some distance. I have received the following letter:
We have a veterinary surgeon here named Dr. Joint. The Department of Agriculture has sent a man here at a great expense to inspect or look after the hoof and mouth disease He is a veterinary surgeon. Can you find out from the minister why this is necessary when we have a fully qualified man here to do this work at a much less expense, and as we are anxious to have a veterinary surgeon here we think it very unfair on the part of the Agricultural Department to side-track it. The farmers of our district are anxious to have a veterinary surgeon here, hut if there is anything that can help him to make a good fair living, this riding should be considered and not some outsider. Anything you can do will he appreciated by the farmers and the townsmen of Gananoque.
Yours truly,



E. R. CHAPMAN.

[Stage Direction]
I think that puts the case fairly. We have a qualified veterinary surgeon in Gananoque, and yet the minister sends one in from outside point. The one he sent has been there for some time although there was no crossing until a few days ago when the ice took. Why was not the local vet. called upon ? Where there is a local vet. at one of these points, no matter what his politics-and I do Mr. FISHER.
not know the politics of the one we have- he should have the patronage of the department. I hope the minister will recall the man he sent and instruct Dr. Joint to do the necessary work.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not know of this case at all. I have not the slightest idea who have been employed except that as much as posible we utilize our own permanent staff on this work of guarding the frontier. They were not sufficient to do all the work, especially in the earlier days when the disease was very acute, and when we were making special examinations inside Canada as well as outside. We have utilized our permanent staff as much as possible so as to avoid the expense of employing others. The exDense has been very great any way. Where we cannot use the men on our permanent staff, we have tried to utilize the men on the spot as much as possible. I shall make inquiry into the case, and if the complaint be well-founded, I shall see that the services of a qualified man on the spot are retained.


Mr. DANIEL.: Is the embargo in connection with the foot and mouth disease removed or not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It still exists and is strictly enforced although we have been able to relieve it, so far as horses are concerned. But we have not considered it safe to relieve the embargo in the case of cattle and other live stock. We are only enforcing the embargo against those states of the Union in which the disease has occurred. The New England States have not been infected, and therefore we have not imposed any embargo on the State of Maine which adjoins my hon. friend's province.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What about the state of Kentucky?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That state is a long way from our boundary and is not infected. We shut out any animal coming from any state infected and which is quarantined bv the American authorities. We also shut out any animals which passed through those states. For instance if any animal from Kentucky passes through New York or Philadelphia, which are infected, it would be debarred from coming into Canada. But the places we are specially guarding are the frontiers of contiguous states. Wherever New York, Pennsylvania, or Michigan, which I think are the only three states infected, which touch our boundaries, we guard the frontier. In the case of a New England State, we only guard our frontier to the extent of preventing the entry of any animals which may have to come through Pennsylvania or New York, even if they originally came from an uninfected state. I may say to my hon. friend from St. John that we were obliged to make some regulation about the ship-

ment of cattle from St. John to Europe. One of the great dangers was that if Canada were suspected of having the disease, the quarantine would be enforced against us on the other side and our trade in live animals cut off. The port of St. John does one of the largest export trades in winter of live cattle to Great Britain. I am not sure if there are not regular lines of steamers from Portland and Boston which touch at St. John on the way to Great Britain. The United States regulations permit animals from states not infected, to be shinned from Boston or Portland to Great Britain. We would not allow that in Canada, and therefore had to make a rule that ships from Boston or Portland containing American cattle should not be allowed to touch at St. John, even for the purpose of landing passengers. We did that in order to protect our stock yards and wharfs at St. John from any possible danger of infection, so that there would be no danger of our export of Canadian cattle from St. John to England being interfered with. Until there is a change in the American regulations, we would not be justified in relaxing our own. I was in Europe at the time the outbreak took place, and was fortunate enough to have in Rome, when I was there, a prominent member of the Department of Agriculture in England, and our chief veterinery, Dr. Rutherford. It was largely due to that fortunate circumstance that we were able to show just what we were doing and prove to the English authorities that there was no danger to their herds and flocks from any importation of Canadian cattle, and the result was that no restriction was placed on the landing of Canadian cattle in the mother country. Suspicion at first attached to Canada in the minds of the English people, because in the earlier reports of the outbreak of the disease in the United States, it was stated that the disease originated in Ontario and that animals sent from Ontario to Philadelphia were infected. We proved conclusively that if they were, they must have contracted the disease in American yards shown to have been infected, where they were unshipped, fed, and watered. When this was shown to the English authorities, Canada was relieved of all suspicion in their minds, and they did nothing to interfere with our trade.


William Findlay Maclean: I have heard drovers in Toronto say that it would be a good thing to prevent, by law, the export of our cattle in cases of that kind, especially such cattle as many of those that are shipped from Toronto to Buffalo.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not understand.


William Findlay Maclean: The cattle going from Toronto to Buffalo, of which I speak, are of a very inferior grade and sold at low prices for slaughter in Buffalo. Had the export been prohibited, there would have been
no mention of Canadian cattle being affected over there. Certainly, some day, Canada will be quarantined by another country by reason of such conditions as these.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) mean to say that after the outbreak took place we should have prohibited the export of Canadian or that the export of cattle should be prohibited altogether?


William Findlay Maclean: When there was an outbreak.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then, we would not have been saved the difficulty.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am not quite clear about the answer which the minister gave with regard to horses. Has any embargo been placed on horses purchased in the State of Kentucky that may have to pass through Pennsylvania or New York in order to come into Canada? Are these horses debarred from Canada?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think not.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Listening to the reply of the minister to the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) I could not but think of the price paid for certain animals that were found diseased at the port of Point Edward. By the Auditor General's Report of 1906, page D-10, it appears that Mr. J. T. Brethour, of Burford, Ont., received compensation for eighteen hogs amounting to $1,533, and Messrs. Douglas & Son, of Mitchell, received $932 for twelve hogs, slaughtered on account of disease. As I understood the minister he was trying to lead the hon. member for North Grey to believe that compensation paid for hogs in years gone by had not been in excess of the limit he was placing in this Act. I could not but feel that he was trying to cover up some of his own wrongdoing in years gone by, for he evidently made a serious blunder in this case.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) seems to have forgotten a very essential part of the transaction to which he refers. He ought to have remembered that this money was not paid under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, but was paid out of the exhibition vote for animals that had been sent for exhibition purposes. These animals were paid for at full value just as any other exhibits that may be lost or destroyed while in our charge are paid for.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Where does the minister get authority to take money set apart for exhibitions and pay it out in this manner?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have the authority, because the whole matter is in connection with an exhibition. These hogs were sent for exhibition, as we might send a reaper

or a binder. If that reaper or binder were destroyed while in our charge, and with us responsible for the exhibit, we should be morally liable for the value. On different occasions we have paid for exhibits which we have been unable to return to the owners.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then, there is no limit upon the amount of money the minister is privileged to pay under such circumstances. Why does not he place, even in this present Bill, a limit upon the amount that he may pay for animals that may have been sent out of Canada for exhibition, and that are found, while' outside the country, to be diseased ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The payment for these animals has nothing to do with the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. They were dealt with as any other exhibit would have been dealt with.


Mr. BLAIN.: The minister would lead the committee to believe thai the government were exhibiting these animals, whereas the owners of the animals were sending the exhibit as a commercial enterprise.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Richard Blain: I would direct the attention of the minister to the discussion of last year. It was shown! that when the matter was brought to the minister's attention, he wrote a letter over his own signature stating that he did not see how compensation could be allowed. But when political influence was brought to bear, he had to turn about and pay the enormous prices mentioned. I rather think the amendments to the law that are now before us are made because this matter was discussed in this House last session.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has nothing to do with it, in any way, shape or form. The hon. member (Mr. Blain) may not know it. though I think he does-that Mr. Brethour, who was pc id this amount, is a well known conservative. No political influence was brought to bear on myself, or, so far as I know on any hon. member on this side of the House.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister (Mr. Fisher) is now introducing politics into it-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Richard Blain: Yes; this is an old story with the government-to get some liberal-conservative to unite their influence with that of the administration. I did not raise the point whether these gentlemen were liberals or conservative. I pointed out last year that the minister had paid for hogs $150 a piece in one case, $160 in another case, $65 in another case and $180 in another case, these hogs having been slaughtered because they were diseased. The correspondence in the case clearly showed that Mr. FISHER.
the government were not clear as to whether the hogs contracted the disease in quarantine or at the exhibition. The question whether the owners were liberal or conservative is not a matter in which the House is particularly interested.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) disclaims any political element in this question. I understood him to say that in the first place, I declined to pay the money, but that when political pull was exercised


Richard Blain: I did.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I simply answer that the gentleman to whom the money was paid is a conservative, and, so far as I know, never supported this government or the party that supports this government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He may have got some good Liberal to intercede for him. I understood the minister to say a short time ago that animals coming from Kentucky would not be quarantined at the border, though they might come through a state in which contagious diseases existed. But I understood him to say previously that this would really ensure them being quarantined.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I told my hon. friend that I thought there had been a relaxation in the case of horses. Speaking from memory, I think the Director General of the Veterinary Department told me that in regard to horses the disposition had been relaxed, and that they might come from any state now.


Edward Guss Porter: As I understand the original Act, the provisions in regard to compensation are the same for horses and for cattle, and that it is a matter of discretion whether compensation should be paid or not. I would like to ask the minister whether, in ease of horses killed for glanders, he knows of any case where compensation has been refused?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not.


Edward Guss Porter: I am told that it is the invariable practice of the department to grant compensation in cases of that kind.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been for some years back, but it was not so years ago.


Edward Guss Porter: Where cattle are slaughtered for tuberculosis, are there not many cases where compensation has been refused?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Edward Guss Porter: Then I would like to ask the reason for the discrimination. Why pay the owner of a horse which is slaught-tered for disease and refuse to pay the owner of another animal which is slaughtered for another disease? If the principal is right in the one case, it appears to me it should be right in the other.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At first sight my hon. friend would appear to be right. But we have to deal with these diseases in a practical way. In certain classes of contagious diseases, such as glanders and hog cholera we think we are within measurable reach of stamping them out. With that object in view we wish to slaughter, not only animals which are diseased and immediately dangerous, but animals which are sure to incur infection, and thus prevent them from spreading the disease. In regard to glanders we are in a position to do that. A few years ago we determined to try and stamp it out, and I am glad to say that we are progressing reasonably towards that end. I do not mean to say that we are likely ever to be able to stamp out glanders absolutely, and that there may not be occasionally a few sporadic cases in Canada. I think we can do with regard to glanders what we have practically done in regard to hog cholera. The situation is different with regard to cattle suffering from tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is a disease not easily recognizable. While we have a sure test of the existence of the disease in an animal, it does not prove to be a sure test to show whether the disease is communicable to other animals. As a matter of diagnosis, it is practically impossible for a veterinary to say whether, when he finds by the test tuberculosis in an animal, the disease has so far progressed a to become communicable and dangerous. I have no hesitation in saying that there are a large number of cattle which have responded to the tuberculine test and have been shown to be infected by the disease, but which were not in the slightest degree dangerous, either to other animals or to the human species. There is no test by which we can tell which animals are dangerous and which are not. But so far as the glanders are concerned, the veterinary experts inform me that in case of any animal that responds to the mallein test, the disease is sure to be present and within a short time, to be dangerous both to other animals and to men. Under these circumstances we feel it is our duty to try to stamp out the disease of glanders, and for that purpose to pay compensation, where necessary, for animals slaughtered in the interest of the public at large. The disease of tuberculosis has not reached that stage, according to the expert testimony of veterinaries and physicians. Under these circumstances I never felt myself able to undertake towards bovine tuberculosis the same action that we have taken in regard to hog cholera, where we have succeeded so well. In regard to glanders we have made long steps towards stamping it out, and I hope that within a couple of years it will have practically disappeared. I appreciate the difficulty of making people understand the difference. I would be glad if we could devise
a system under which we could hope, even by expending a considerable sum of money, to stamp out bovine tuberculosis, but we have not yet been able to evolve any such system.


Edward Guss Porter: In view of this explanation I suggest to the minister whether it would not be practicable or advisable, in case of certain diseases, to remove the provision of the former Act and to make payment compulsory, leaving a discretionary power, as at present, in case of other diseases. For instance, in case of a disease where the object is to stamp it out, and where a certain amount of success has attended the effort, as in the case of glanders, to make payment compulsory, while in other diseases where the same progress has not been made in stamping them out to leave them to be dealt with in the discretion of the department.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Practically that is what we have done, only we have made the payment in the case of glanders and hog cholera compulsory by regulation and not by statute. The system is made uniform under the regulations which were passed according to the provisions of this statute.


Edward Guss Porter: My reasons for suggesting that is this: It has been suggested to me by farmers that if they knew for a certainty that they were going to get a certain amount of compensation for animals slaughtered it would be an object for them to discover disease and have an animal destroyed, whereas, under the present regulation, it being a matter of discretion with the department whether they shall be paid or not, they hide it and keep it from being discovered. It seems to me that it would assist in stamping out the disease if the payment were made compulsory, so that they would know that they would get compensation for slaughtered animals.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a matter of fact, they do know. It is thoroughly advertised that, in cases of glanders and hog cholera, they do get compensation, and it is also thoroughly understood that in cases of tuberculosis they do not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether I understood the minister correctly or not, but if I did his statement was to the effect that the reason tuberculosis is not included amongst the contagious and infectious diseases with respect to which farmers get paid if they have to slaughter animals that are affected, was because a veterinary surgeon could not determine at any stage whether there was serious danger of the animal affecting others.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hardly at any stage of the disease.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hardly think that a veterinary surgeon would agree with the minister in the statement that they are unable to tell, when certain stages are reached whether an animal is dangerous to the surrounding herd. Take, for instance, an animal where emaciation is going on rapidly; accompanied with a cough ; I do not suppose that the minister contends that a veterinary surgeon would not say that the animal was dangerous to others around it. If there is some stage at which the veterinary does know as a matter of professional knowledge that ought to be a strong reason why animals so affected should be included in the list, and I do not think that a veterinary would agree with the minister's contention that they are not included in the list because the veterinary cannot tell when they have become dangerous.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is quite right. If I said that-I will not deny it positively, but I do not think I did-I did not in any way desire to convey the impression that there was not some stage of the disease when the veterinary could not diagnose it as dangerous. You could very well have a number of animals affected with tuberculosis in such an advanced stage that an ordinary diagnosis would be sufficient to determine the disease, and I have been considering and discussing with my veterinary authorities the advisability of treating such cases of tuberculosis in the same way as we do glanders or hog cholera. While I confess that I do think it might reduce the danger I can hardly hope by that means or any other means that have yet been devised or thought out to stamp out the disease in the same way that I think we will be able to stamp out hog cholera and glanders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It might not be possible to stamp it out, but the danger from it might be minimized very much.


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: Do I understand the policy of my hon. friend's department to be of this character that if an individual has in his possession an animal which is necessarily dangerous both to other animals and to man, that animal is destroyed or may be destroyed and compensation results as a matter of course, but that if an individual has in his possession an animal which is not necessarily dangerous either to other animals or to man, which animal may be destroyed, the compensation is altogether discretionary?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, we take it as a matter of course that if we order destruction we will pay compensation.


Frederick William Borden: Always?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Always, whenever we order it, but we do not pay compensation Mr. FISHEE.
if an individual kills the animal himself and comes afterwards to us and asks for compensation.


Haughton Lennox: That is a phase of the matter that I want to mention to the minister. As I understand by the Act and from what the minister has just said, the only cases, no matter what the disease may be, in which he pays compensation, are those cases in which the destruction of the animal is ordered by the minister. Of course, I can understand that there may be good reasons for it, but I have had actual cases come to my knowledge, several of them, some of which I have communicated to the department, in which there seems to be a good deal of hardship arising out of the fact that the animal was necessarily destroyed, but not destroyed through the agency of the government. The people in the country do not know the law, but they do know that certain diseases are exceptionally dangerous. They know, for instance, that hog cholera and glanders are two diseases that are exceptionally dangerous, and that they require almost immediate attention. They call in an experienced and qualified veterinary and he directs-very often they think that they have a lawful right to so direct- that the animal should be slaughtered. I do submit to the minister that in a case of that kind, where it can be established beyond a doubt, that the matter was done in perfect good faith then in all honesty the government should pay. What does the minister think of that? I would say to the minister that if he likes he can separate the classes of cases. He can say that in these exceptionally dangerous cases immediate action should be taken and that in the less dangerous cases the present procedure should apply. But, I do submit to the minister it is a hardship, when a qualified practitioner comes in and orders the destruction of an animal, that, because, forsooth, the remedy was taken at the earliest possible stage, the owner of the animal should not have compensation, whereas, if he had allowed the animal to linger and communicate the disease to probably many others of the herd, and spread it throughout the neighbourhood, there should be compensation. Why should not a certificate by a duly qualified veterinary, whether there has been any action by the department or not, entitle to compensation when he has acted of necessity in order to prevent the spread of the disease? I have had several cases of that kind, three or four that I can recall at the present time. I have brought them to the attention of the minister, and I have one before him now. I have not lost faith that we will be able to succeed in this case. I think the law might be very much improved in that regard.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend, I am afraid, is an advocate, and perhaps he is

interested because of having these particular cases, but I will recall to his memory the fact that when we raised the proportion of the value of the animal to be paid in compensation some years ago we threshed that question out here, and I myself was fully convinced of the danger. I had my attention very strongly drawn to the danger of exaggerated compensation. I remember my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) pointing out and urging upon me the danger of collusion between practitioners and the owners of animals. It was suggested that the fact that the owners were the clients of the practitioners would dispose the latter to perhaps slaughter a little bit hurriedly and value a little high. In the interests of the public treasury we have to guard against anything of that kind. While these diseases are dangerous, there is no great difficulty, if any, in a farmer isolating a case on his farm for a day or two until the government veterinary arrives. The law provides that any practitioner must notify the department at once when he finds in his ordinary practice a case of contagious disease, and we immediately order one of our permanent officers to go there and investigate. I venture to say there is hardly any part of Canada which one of the government veterinaries of wide experience, would not reach within a day of our receiving notice of the existence of the disease. There is a good deal in having experience in handling some of these diseases, because we find that a good many local practitioners who. are quite good veterinarians have never seen a case of glanders. I hope the district of my hon. friend is not so affected-


Haughton Lennox: It is the finest county in the province.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I venture to say that in the province of Ontario pretty nearly one-half the ordinary veterinary practitioners have never seen a case of glanders, and I say that with pride, and it is a source of great satisfaction to us. In the maritime provinces I do not believe there are half a dozen veterinary practitioners who ever saw a case of glanders. In some parts of the province of Quebec glanders was prevalent a few years ago and we had to spend a considerable amount of money and use a great deal of diligence to stamp it out; but we have succeeded and to-day there is not one case where there were ten a few years ago. I think in a short time we will be able to say that glanders is practically stamped out from the entire province of Ontario. I believe it would not be in the interest of the public treasury to depart from the rule, that where we pay compensation it shall only be done on the order of an officer of the department.


Edward Guss Porter: When cattle are sent in from the country to the abbatoir at Toronto and slaughtered, and then found to he affected with tuberculosis, both the buyer and the seller of these cattle are absolutely in ignorance of the existence of the disease until the animal is killed. The flesh of that animal is then condemned by the officer of the department under the Inspection of Foods Act, and as I understand no compensation is paid. Why should not compensation be paid for an animal condemned by an officer of the department after it was killed, as well as for an animal condemned by an officer of the department before it was killed? If compensation is paid in the one case why should it not be paid in the other? It is worthy of consideration as to whether compensation should not in such a case be paid to the person who suffers the loss.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The condemnation of an animal at the abbatoir as unfit for human food is entirely different from the condemnation of the live animal which is affected with a contagious disease. The principle of compensation under this Act is to prevent the spread of contagious disease among our live animals, while the condemnation of the carcass at the abbatoir is for the protection of the public health. The dead animal does not convey the disease to any other animal.


Edward Guss Porter: It conveys the disease to man if its flesh is consumed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but that has nothing to do with the contagious disease spreading to other animals which the Act now under consideration is intended to prevent. When we order the slaughter of a live animal, we consider that the owner has suffered for the benefit of the owners of other herds and that in the public interest he ought to be compensated. As the animal is diseased and consequently not at its full value we only pay two-thirds of the value. _ The question raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Porter) is an interesting one, and I dare say it will come up for discussion on the estimates for enforcing the Canned Foods Act.


Edward Guss Porter: While it is very important to prevent the spread of contagious diseases amongst animals, it is very much more important to prevent the communication of that disease to human beings, and in that light it seems to me that compensation should be granted in the case I have mentioned.	m


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I wish to call attention to a provision of this Act which bears harshly on the farmers and horsemen of British Columbia, and which has been the cause of no little hardship in my own riding. I refer to the provision by which the government is nominally entitled to pay

compensation to the extent of two-thirds of the value of an animal slaughtered. The value of the animal is limited to $150 in the case of horses other than thoroughbred. A couple of years ago we had reports of the prevalence of glanders in British Columbia, in consequence of which government officials were sent into the various sections of the province with authority to apply the mallein test and to slaughter any horses which reacted to that test. In British Columbia a horse of the value of $150 is a very ordinary animal indeed; that amount does not represent one-half the value of the average working horse in that province. It certainly did not represent the value of a large proportion of the horses which were condemned under the mallein test and slaughtered, and for which their owners were only offered $100 in compensation. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider whether, in fairness to us in British Columbia who have to pay so much more for our horses and our cattle than the farmers in eastern Canada have to pay, there should, not be a provision in this Act stating specifically that this compensation should bear some relation to the real value of the animal, and if we should be so unfortunate as to again come under suspicion as we did a couple of years ago, that our farmers should not be so heavily mulcted as they were then. I know of case after case in which horses valued at between $300 and $400 were slaughtered, not because they had the glanders, but because there was a suspicion that they might develop glanders. They were slaughtered on suspicion only, and yet their owners received only $100 of compensation. The minister shakes his head, but I am speaking, not from hearsay, but of my personal knowledge of events that occurred in the city of New Westminster. The thing became such a scandal, the subject of such an outcry, that a meeting of horse owners was held, and a delegation was sent to the Minister of Inland Revenue, when he was on a visit to Victoria, with the result that the work of testing and inspecting horses was stopped, and from that day we heard nothing more about glanders in my riding. V hat I want to point out is that when dealing with British Columbia, in the matter of salaries, for instance, we make a difference as compared with other parts of the Dominion, and in most lines of business it is recognized that prices are higher in British Columbia than in other provinces. Therefore I contend that it is a hardship upon our people that this Act should continue as it is, particularly in the case of horses slaughtered, not because they have the disease, but because the mallein test seems to show a disposition on their part to contract it and that they might in time become dangerous to the community. The Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
owners of these horses should receive fair compensation, instead of being put to the serious loss to which so many have been put by the application of that test.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend himself has shown that his statement of the case is not a fair one. I understand him to say that these horses did react to the mallein test. That being the case they had the disease, though it may not have been apparent in the animals' noses. The horses having once contracted the disease, the veterinarians tell us that it is liable to become bad at any time and without warning, so as to be communicable to other animals. In regard to the value of the horses and the payment of compensation, no doubt certain classes of horses in the west-in Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as in British Columbia-are a little higher in value than in Ontario or Quebec, although I do not think there is a very great difference. But it would be very difficult indeed to put in the Act a provision that in British Columbia the value should be allowed to go to say $100 higher than in Ontario, and that therefore the compensation should be somewhat higher. That would be a difficult thing to work out, and I am afraid that it would lead to demands in all parts of the country for discrimination. I would not like ,off-hand to agree with it, although I sympathize to a certain extent with my hon. friend's suggestion.


George Taylor: I would like to enter a protest against so light and airy a disposition as the minister has shown, in saying that I admitted that the horses had the disease because they reacted to the mallein test. I am not a veterinary surgeon, but I have sufficient acquaintance with the procedure in these cases to know that the department realizes that reaction to the mallein test is not a positive proof of glanders. So much is that the case that the department provides for no less than three tests at long periods apart. Though a horse may react to the test to-day, the veterinary surgeon does not say that it has glanders. He says: it may have glanders, and I will test it again. After a long time he applies the second test, and again says: I am not sure that the horse has glanders; I will test it the third time. All this is contingent on the owner of the horse paying the cost of quarantining it during the period it is under test, and also agreeing to absolve the department from all liability of payment of compensation if, on the last of this series of tests, the horse is found really to have glanders. If reaction to the mallein test were positive proof that a horse had glanders, the department would not make provision for a series of tests of this nature. I rise to make this explanation merely because I do not think it is a proper answer

to ridicule my presentation of the case, and to say that I admitted that the horses had glanders. I said that a great majority of the horses were condemned on suspicion only There are horses in British Columbia to-day which reacted to the mallein test, but their owners would not allow them to be shot, and these horses to-day show no suspicion of glanders.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is quite right in saying that under certain circumstances the department has agreed to the position he states. The rule of the veterinarians is that reaction to the mallein test is conclusive evidence of the disease My hon. friend says that some of these animals reacted once, and afterwards did not react, and were released. I think that possibly a few cases of that kind have occurred but very few indeed. We throw the onus on the owner because absolute quarantine is only granted as a rule where the owner has a very valuable horse and prefers to take the risk of not getting compensation rather than allow it to be slaughtered. He prefers to go to the expense of an absolute quarantine than have the animal slaughtered. All the veterinary authorities consider the mallein test as an absolute one, like the tuberculine or any other. That tuberculine test is practically absolute, yet cattle have been condemned and slaughtered, in which afterwards on examination no trace of tuberculosis was found. But the scientific world have taken the tuberculine test as being so absolutely sure that the number of cases in which it has not been accurate is almost infinitesimal. A similar experience may be found in connection with the mallein test, but that test is considered by the veterinary authorities as absolute.


James Davis Taylor: I would ask the hon.
minister if he will take steps to ascertain whether it is not really the case that horses in British Columbia are so much more valuable than the average elsewhere, that he should make some discrimination in their favour.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall certainly look into the matter.
Mr.NANTEL. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I notice, that under the law, the animal must be valuated by the minister or by a person appointed by him; and moreover, that the price to be paid must not exceed such figure, that is to say $150 for a grade horse and $300 for a thoroughbred.
It seems to me that the law could be made more simple, and thus prevent all the annoyances to which the minister is exposed. The way should be to pay an average and uniform price; two classes being made a certain price would be paid for a common
horse, and so much for a thoroughbred, the price being fixed by the statute itself. There would then be no necessity of sending valuators on the ground and by that a saving of many costs, and the minister would not be exposed to the annoyance nor to the accusations of undue favour given to political friends, as has been insinuated a moment ago.
Nevertheless supposing that we would not be very particular as to the price to be fixed, it seems to me that there would not be much inconvenience, because a horse affected with the glanders or other contagious disease has no value, and the owner must expect to lose. The above remarks apply with greater force to other animals.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would be really more simple and easy for the minister to accept the suggestion of the honourable member ; but, unfortunately, I think this would give a sort of encouragement to owners of horses of no value; we would be paying too much for horses of no service and not enough for the good ones. We must encourage the betterment of the breed, and, I would rather pay a little more to obtain that end, even if it costs me more annoyance than to accept the way suggested by the. hon. member, which would undoubtedly be more simple, but also far worse.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: ly he was given a clearance and allowed to sell his cattle or export them. His net loss on that transaction was between $1,800 and $2,000. True there was suspicion but there was no disease. Had the animals been slaughtered he could have received compensation; but I believe that under the circumstances he is not entitled by law to any. There should be some provision to meet cases of that kind. I can understand that very great 'care has to be exercised in inspecting cattle for export to Great Britain, but in cases where no disease actually exists the owner should be given compensation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The case cited by my hon. friend appears to be one of hardship, and it is unfortunate that the owner had to suffer this loss. The details will be looked into and I shall be glad to know exactly the facts.


Mr. BURRELL.: In the crusade against glanders some two or three years ago, can the minister tell us whether that crusade ceased because the disease of glanders was wiped out or whether it was because of the indignation excited among the ranchers of British Columbia partly through the inefficiency of the test and partly because of the inadequate compensation? I quite agree with my hon. friend from New Westminister (Mr. Taylor) that the compensation is entirely inadequate in the case of horses slaughtered in British Columbia, owing to the greater value of these animals in that province as compared with other provinces. It is quite possible to suppose a case in which a horse could be five times the value of the compensation paid. And for that reason, the difference of value should be put on it. I imagine the intention is to place a fair value on the man's animals. In our portion of British Columbia, far removed from New Westminster, an ordinary team is worth about $600-certainly, you could not purchase them for less than $500. And to put a price of the sort outlined by the government and pay_ two-thirds of it would cause a rather indignant feeling on the part of the farmers, especially if he thinks the test is not infallible and that sometimes his animals are slaughtered on suspicion only. I know that the feeling through the Okanagan and down the Similkameen was very strong, and I think that it was the cause of the action of the department being changed in the way it was.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know that there was a good deal of excitement, but the department did not deliberately change what_ the hon. gentleman calls 'the crusade' in consequence of the protests made. We tried, as far as possible, to deal with the public in a conciliatory way, and to educate the public to an appreciation of an understanding of our motives and methods.


Hugh Guthrie: Speaking from memory entirely, I urged upon my officers to proceed with greater caution, and to, use-if I may say so-more conciliatory methods than they seemed to be exercising. As to change of policy, there is nothing of the kind; and that policy, I am glad to say, has practically brought about a cessation of the disease in British Columbia. I have no doubt that the condition to-day in regard to horses in British Columbia is enormously improved in consequence of what was done at that time. The difficulties in the way of making discrimination as to the value of animals in different parts of the country are very great, and I doubt very much if any such arrangement could be come to that would not work greatly to the detriment of the treasury, as well as bring about cases of injustice. I am willing to think about it, and see if anything of the kind can be worked out, but I confess that I cannot see any prospect of it.


Mr. MOLLOY.: I, for one, would object to an increase in the compensation for gland-ered horses. The reason is that a glandered horse is not worth a single dollar. I have had some experience as an inspector and I would certainly object to any increase in compensation for a horse proven by the post-mortem to have been diseased. A glandered horse is not only valueless, but he is a source of danger and may cost the country an immense sum of money. I remember one band of bronchos brought into the county in which I live, and the result of their coming was that disease was spread over the whole county. Therefore,
I object to pay over $100 for that which is not worth a ten cent piece, and is a source of danger to the country. Is it not a fact that the Canadian government is paying larger compensation for animals that are slaughtered in this way than any other country in the world ? And why should horses be worth more in British Columbia than in Manitoba? The city of Winnineg boasts, and justly, that it has the finest horses of any city in Canada. Why people in British Columbia should expect more for their glandered horses than people in other provinces, I cannot understand. Besides, such a thing would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction. This is the first time I have learned that the department is paying/ for horses that are destroyed on suspicion. Horses are not destroyed on suspicion. The very fact that the government allows the owner of the horse to reserve the animal to be subjected to the mallein test for the third time, I think, is a wise provision. I have tested horses for the third time and have found that they reacted, but the second and third time the reaction is not so marked as the first time. Besides, a horse whose entire system is permeated with disease might not react at all. That is one case where you have

to go by the clinical symptoms. So far as increase in the compensation is concerned, 1 certainly object to any.


Martin Burrell: I would point out that section 3 of this Act says:
-Section 82 of the said Act is amended by adding after the word 'disease' in the seventh line, the following words,-'or of the suspicion of such disease.'
If the hon. member for Proveneher (Mr Molloy) is going to be logical, he should move an amendment providing that no compensation be paid, for he is evidently under the impression that the government are wasting the people's money by giving compensation. But I feel sure he is astray on the facts, for, so far as British Columbia is concerned, there is at least a very strong feeling that animals have been slaughtered on suspicion, without knowledge.


John Patrick Molloy: I do not feel at all bound to move that compensation be done away with. I am proud that the Canadian people pay so large compensation as they do. But I honestly think that $100 for a horse that is not worth a dollar is enough. True, the owner suffers the misfortune of the loss of the horse, or even the loss of a part of his herd. A man not having enough horses to do his work may purchase a horse not knowing that he is introducing disease into his herd. I do not think the innocent buyer should suffer. But when the country helps to bear the loss to the extent it does, I do not think there is any reason for increasing the compensation.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: It is astonishing how, in this world, circumstances alter cases and change the view we take of questions. I happen to be, not a veterinary surgeon, but a representative of western farmers. And I happen to have had a couple of horses destroyed by glanders. I found the compensation extremely useful as assisting me in contending with the conditions of a new country and the difficulties of the pioneer work in which I am engaged. From this point of view, I should be prepared to differ slightly from my hon. friend from Proveneher (Mr. Molloy). The western farmer must face circumstances of very great difficulty. He tackles a life which is entirely new to him; and when he has the misfortune to get a pair of glandered horses, I can assure you from personal experience the compensation comes in very handy. From the point of view of the country, it is not always a loss to pay that compensation, for there are homesteaders in the west who if thev had not that compensation in such a difficulty would be left for a considerable time without horses altogether, and the wealth that they would otherwise earn, not only for themselves, but for Canada, would be unearned. I think that, from that point of 25
view, even a broad and sympathetic view of the case of the settler would commend itself to my friend from Proveneher if he tried for a moment to forget that he is a veterinary surgeon and place himself in the position of the farmer. But from the public point of view, there is another argument to be urged. The man who knows that he is going to have the only horse which he has destroyed, with all the difficulties of his life to face, having to provide for his wife and family and needing something to tide him over the struggles that lie before him in the early years of his life as a settler, will be apt to hide for a long time the fact that his horses have the glanders. I think it is a wise policy to give every encouragement to the settler-up to a reasonable point, which, I think, is two-thirds of the value of the animal-to divulge at the earliest moment the fact that he has a glandered horse, and thus afford protection to the owners of animals with which the others might come in contact. On these grounds, both of sympathetic regard for the earlier settler in his struggles and of the public good, so far as that is concerned, I offer my hearty support to the attitude of the department and a modest demurrer to the view taken by the hon. member for Proveneher (Mr. Molloy).
Bill reported.
Mr. FISHER moved the third reading of said Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the Bill is read a third time, for the benefit of those who have asked the question, can the minister state briefly what are the quarantine regulations against stock going from Canada to the United States at the present time-as briefly as he likes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would hardly like to give an answer off-hand to so important a question, for it involves, not only the regulations against one kind of stock, but against all kinds of stock, and those regulations vary in regard to different kinds of stock. If I were to attempt to give a brief explanation, I might leave something out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could not the minister instruct some one in his department to get the information and make it public-because the question is often asked us, and we cannot tell.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will do so.


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

Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of the Bill (No. 20) to amend the Government Railways Act.


Robert Laird Borden: What is it?


Mr. GRAHAM.: Last year, it will be remembered, the Government Railways Act was amended to change the conditions under which those suffering loss by having animals killed, could recover compensation. An error was made in not putting in the exceptions that are in the general Railway Act. I am advised by the Justice Department that the way to obviate the difficulty is practically to repeal what we did last year and introduce the exact terms of the ordinary Railway Act, and make it apply to government railways. It repeals what we did last year, and introduces a clause found in subsection 4, chap. 37, of the Railway Act, section 294.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand how that will work out. It is intended that there should be a fiat granted, as in the ordinary procedure in the Exchequer Court? If not, how is it proposed that the Crown should be served?


George Perry Graham: It is expected that the department, in all these cases, will allow the privilege of going to the Exchequer Court, where we settle a great many cases. There has been a good deal of discussion, not so much over the court process of recovering, but over the fact that our conditions were not the same. The people suffering losses under the old Government Railway Act had to prove more than we propose to require of them under this new Act. This is in identical terms with the ordinary Railway Act, except that we put ' His Majesty' where the word 'company' occurs.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not criticising the object of the Act. It seems to me that the Crown when it engages in the business of transportation ought to be subject to the same liability for the negligence of its officers as any private corporation. But I wished to know how it is to be worked out, because this measure provides that compensation can be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction. Now, as far as the Exchequer Court is concerned, we know that recovery can be had against the Crown there. There are rules of the court, and statutory provisions as well, providing that a petition should be presented. The Crown is not usually sued by its own writ; it is sued by a subject, by means of a petition, and a fiat on that petition. Then there is a procedure for service of a petition by depositing it in a certain department of the government. When you introduce a rough and ready provision like this, adapted, not to proceedings against the Crown but to proceedings by one subject against another, I was desirous of as-Mr. GRAHAM.
certaining in what way it will work out, according to the view of the government. I do not precisely understand that at the present time.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: Last year it was thoroughly threshed out and section 29 was inserted amending the Government Railway Act by providing practically what we are providing here.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid my hon. friend does not understand me.


George Perry Graham: There has been no objection taken to the granting of a fiat in every instance in which it has been asked for.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not criticising the object of the Act; I am endeavouring to see whether or not it would be effective in its present form. If I am satisfied it will be effective in its present form I have no word to say, but I am not satisfied of that at the present time nor can I say that the assurance of my hon. friend absolutely removes my difficulty. It would be contrary to all precedent that the Crown should issue a writ against itself; therefore, you must proceed by petition, I presume, and yet this statute does not seem to make any provision for such a procedure. It says that the subject may recover in any court of competent jurisdiction. I am not aware that in any court other than the Exchequer court there is procedure at the present time, nor do I know there is authority in the judges of the respective courts to authorize any procedure for the purposes of a section like this. I may be entirely wrong in this, but at all events I would like to have some information on the subject.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend and did not catch the technical idea. This Bill does not provide in any way for the extension of jurisdiction to any court outside of the Exchequer court.


Haughton Lennox: Then, it is badly worded.


George Perry Graham: Any court of competent jurisdiction means the Exchequer court in this case.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Where the Crown i3 a party that is the only court having jurisdiction.


George Perry Graham: That is the only court of competent jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I misunderstood the section. I thought it was the intention of the section to permit these proceedings to be had in the ordinary courts of the land and not confine them to the Exchequer court. Then may I ask why the draughtsman did not simply say: The Exchequer court? It would have re-

774 moved a great deal of misapprehension on my part to have done that. If the expression ' in any court of competent jurisdiction means, as the minister assures me it was intended to mean, the Exchequer court and the Exchequer court alone, it would seem to me to be a very much simpler mode of draughting simply to use that expression, and if it is intended to confine the remedy to the Exchequer court I would respectfully suggest that it would be better to say so.


George Perry Graham: There is no objection to saying that. We have just followed the language of the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the difficulty has arisen from the fact that language applicable to suit between subject and subject has been applied to an entirely different thing, namely, to a petition by a subject against the Crown for compensation.


George Perry Graham: I would move that where we have the words ' in any court of competent jurisdiction ' we say in the Exchequer court.'


Robert Laird Borden: If it can be fairly worked out it would be very much better to give jurisdiction to the courts throughout the country rather than to confine it to the Exchequer court. However, that is a very large question and I would not be prepared to urge it upon the minister at this stage.


George Perry Graham: It is a question that I have been considering a good deal and possibly I may have something to say with regard to it before the session is over. In this Bill I am simply trying to remedy a mistake that we made last session.


Mr. PARDEE.: Suppose jurisdiction were afterwards extended to the other courts would it not be well to leave the language as it stands in the Bill at the present time? It would save an amendment to this Act. By this Bill petitioners can only come to the Exchequer court and this would not have the effect of extending jurisdiction to other courts.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined to think that actions will be attempted in other courts under the language as it is at the present time, and they will probably fail. However, if the minister proposes to extend to other courts the jurisdiction to entertain proceedings against the Crown for compensation of this kind or otherwise I would not have any special objection to allowing the language to remain as it is at present for that purpose.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to commit myself at the present time. Possibly we had better leave this at it is and if such a change should be made later on it would not require an amendment here, as this would meet the case. This question ' 25i
is a large one; it means giving up a prerogative of the Crown which prevents any subject from suing the Crown except permission is granted to him. Therefore, to say that a person could sue the Crown; in any court of law would be to reverse the position which the Crown has always taken. I think it would be wise to leave this wording as it is at the present time as there is no other court that would have any jurisdiction except the Exchequer court.


Haughton Lennox: If the matter is going to be considered and if this is going to have any general beneficial operation it would be necessary to give the parties the right to sue in local courts. It is not a suit for a large amount as a rule. It is an action for compensation for the loss of a few animals and unless the person injured can be given the right to sue in the local courts it is of very little advantage. If he has to come to the Exchequer court and prosecute his action he will not get much benefit. It may be that in that way the Crown frequently escapes but if the scope of the Act is extended in such a way as to apply to the courts generally, as it appears by the wording here, it will give the injured person a better opportunity to prosecute his claim. I might also call the minister's attention to the expression ' in any action ' after the words ' His Majesty '. That does not seem to read very well. I think it is intended to be ' by action in any court.' I would like the minister to consider whether it can be worked out so as to extend the right of action to local courts. I do not know whether it can be but it would be beneficial to parties having claims against the Crown.


George Perry Graham: The wording is from the Railway Act, chapter 37. We have followed it exactly.


Haughton Lennox: It is bad wording.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friends should have got it right when they were putting it through. I was not here. This is whati we get for following a bad example. It is nothing new that we are introducing here to-night; this is to remedy something that was passed last session and we are endeavouring to get this tribunal a little closer to the people. The Exchequer court is a perambulating court and goes to the people instead of the people coming to it. If we should extend jurisdiction to the courts generally we would relinquish a prerogative that the Crown has retained from time immemorial. Whether that ought to be done or not is a question that requires consideration. There is quite a demand for it, I will admit, and we are considering it, but at the same time that is not proposed here and I would like to amend this Act so as to make it workable.


Mr. HAGGART.: The principal element of an amendment of this kind is to do away with the necessity of getting a fiat for an action. *


George Perry Graham: Unless the Intercolonial Railway runs through the hon. gentleman's constituency this clause does not apply. I am trying to bring the government railway under the General Railway Act in this respect.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Would not the same law apply to the railways in Canada?


George Perry Graham: That which I am introducing now has been in the Railway Act for years, and I am simply applying it to the government railway.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understand it has been held in the courts that if a railway runs through a man's farm and his cattle are killed the railway company is responsible, but if the cattle of a farmer through whose land the railway does not run are killed on the track the company is not responsible.


George Perry Graham: I am not amending the Railway Act at all; I am merely applying this provision to the Intercolonial Railway. Speaking from memory, I think it has been held that if a man's cattle get from his own farm to a place where they have no right to be and are killed, negligence may possibly be shown and he has not the same claim for damages as would the man whose cattle are killed having strayed directly from his farm to the railway.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not think that is right.


George Perry Graham: That is the general law and we are not amending it in any way.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
SALISBURY & HARVEY RAILROAD-

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CONMEE-for Mr. Emmerson-moved second reading of Bill (No. 35), to incorporate the Salisbury & Harvey Railroad Company.
Haughton Lennox: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways to this Bill, and to ask him to have it stand. We are face to face now with the very big question of the protection of level crossings. I believe the minister appreciates the importance of that question as much as anybody, and he has told us that he is investigating it; and I hope that we shall have at an early day a decla-Mr. GRAHAM.
ration of policy from him in reference to the whole question of railway crossings in Canada so far as they are governed by Dominion law. All legislatures which have had to deal with this matter, except in Great Britain, where they began right, have had to some extent to separate the different methods of dealing with it, according as the railway was an existing railway or a new enterprise. A more rigid rule has been applied to the new enterprises than to existing railways, and in Canada we shall probably have to be guided somewhat by the same principle. I think it would be unwise to go on incorporating railways at this session of parliament without having first laid down our policy upon this level crossing question. I appreciate that the matter as I present it is not without difficulty. We do not want to hold up these Bills; but at the same time, in view of the fact that the minister will very soon be able to declare to parliament, in a general way at all events, what he proposes in regard to level_ crossings, this Bill and other Bills of similar character ought to be allowed to stand. There is an alternative way of dealing with these Bills; that is, for the minister to state to the House that in allowing them to go to the Railway Committee, he will see to it that they are made subject to such legislation in reference to rail wav crossings as shall be enacted by parliament, which will probably get over the difficulty. But I feel it to be my duty as one member of the House to endeavour to prevent the incorporation of any new railways this session -or extensions, probably, as has been suggested to me-without some provision being made, having for its aim the elimination of grade crossings as far as possible, and, where that cannot be done, the affording of a reasonably adequate protection to the public using the highways. If the minister will say that he will see that proper amendments are made when the Bill goes to the Railway Committee, I would not be disposed to protest further; but I certainly urge on the minister not to allow it to go baldly before the committee until we have something more definite in regard to this question of railway crossings.


George Perry Graham: I see that my hon. friend appreciates the difficulty. I am not now going to discuss the danger of level crossings, nor the remedy that we may apply to remove the dangers as far as possible. We will discuss that a little later on.


Haughton Lennox: The minister appreciates that I do not expect him to do so.


George Perry Graham: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: This question has attained so much importance of late that it cannot be delayed very much longer. I agree with every word uttered by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), and I am glad that the Minister of Railways expresses himself along the line we hoped he would. I have always felt that there was something in the,.vested rights of railways which were chartered before any provision in regard to the protection of crossings was made, and that they should be dealt with differently from railways that may be chartered in the future. But we cannot commence too soon to deal with the question, and whatever legislation is enacted for that purpose should apply to every charter which passes this parliament hereafter.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree a good deal with what the hon. gentlemen have just said, but I cannot for one moment concur in the idea that the Railway Act, the general law of this country in regard to railways, is not to apply to all railways. The spirit of the Act is that it applies to all railways to-day, and anything that may be passed by this House as a portion of the general Act should apply to railways already in existence as well as to new railways. That is the key-note of the Act, and I cannot agree with the idea that we are to have two laws on this subject, one for the new roads and* one for the old roads. But, certainly, the question must be settled this session, and on a broad, progressive basis.


George Perry Graham: It would not be exactly two laws. But there are two different conditions which we must recognize. The main idea is that we should try to attain the same objects in reference to both roads, but the machinery for the two may be a little different on account of the different conditions.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE (Strathcona) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 36) respecting the Southern Central Pacific Railway Company.
Mr. J. D. REID.: Where does this railway run?


Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE.: This Bill simply provides for an extension of charter. The road originates in southern British Columbia and runs through the southern portion of Alberta and for a considerable distance north in that province.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not want to object to this Bill, but the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) will see that this company was incorporated in 1903-six years ago-and I would like to know whether any work has been done on this railway?


Wilbert McIntyre: Preliminary surveys have been carried on in the usual way. The Bill will be in committee, and at that time, I presume, the solicitor of the company will be ready to give full information.


Richard Blain: I think the answer of the Minister of Railways and Canals to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) was a very fair one, and a very frank one. I did not quite understand that he intended it to apply to extensions of charter or revivals of charter as well as to new legislation.


George Perry Graham: I would not like my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) to take advantage of the statement I make now, for I express my own opinion and on the spur of the moment. I believe that where a road is not constructed, the part not constructed ought to come under any legislation we pass, the same as a new line.


Samuel Hughes: How can you bring in part without the whole? That would be one-sided legislation.


George Perry Graham: That condition will probably not arise.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE (Strathcona) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 37) to incorporate the Western Canadian Life Assurance Company.
William Sora Middlebro: I understand that it is the intention of the government this session to bring down an Insurance Bill containing very drastic provisions, and involving, I understand, a great many amendments in the insurance law. It may be

that the provisions of that general Bill will conflict, to a certain extent, with the provisions of this. That being the case, I would suggest that this Bill be allowed to stand until the government have declared their policy on the general Insurance Act as promised in the speech from the Throne, and I ask the minister in charge of these matters to allow the Bill to stand, or give us the same assurance as was given to the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) with reference to the Bailway Bills. I would also suggest that the name proposed for this company is, perhaps, an encroachment, to a certain extent, on the rights of the Canada Life Assurance Company. The name very much resembles the name of that company, the principal difference being the prefixing of the name 'Western.' It seems to me that the Bill might be objectionable to that company.


George Perry Graham: I am not, perhaps, an authority on this particular Bill. My hon. friend (Mr. Knowles) who introduced the Bill seems to be absent. There can be no doubt in the world that whatsoever general legislation is brought in affecting insurance will be applicable to this company. No doubt the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who is in charge of the Bill, will see to it that this legislation is kept in harmony with the general Bill.


Samuel Hughes: There is no hurry; the matter cannot be decided until the Minister of Finance returns.


George Perry Graham: We might let this go to committee, and they will probably detain it there. In fact, I would advise them to do so.


William Sora Middlebro: How are we to know whether this is in harmony with the general Bill before that Bill is submitted to us?


George Perry Graham: This much is sure-the Minister of Finance will probably give the assurance when he comes-that if there is anything in this Bill out of harmony with the general Bill, the general Bill will govern.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 33) respecting the Niagara-Wel-land Power Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 38) respecting he Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Dubeau.

[Stage Direction]
House again went into committee on Bill (No. 20) to amend the Government Railways Act.-Mr. Graham.
William Sora Middlebro: On section 1.-Gates not closed.


John Dowsley Reid: This requires some consideration. According to it, a man might shut the gate on his farm all right and then some one, passing over the line, might open it and leave it open and the cattle might get out and be killed. The owner of the animals would not be in fault, yet according to this he would not be able to recover any loss.


George Perry Graham: The burden of proof is on His Majesty. All these clauses are in the Railway Act and have been there for years and we are simply making them applicable to the Intercolonial Railway. *
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY NEW STOCK.

['I cannot say.\nMotion agreed, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.', 'Wednesday, February 10,1909.']
Hon.   WM@: PATERSON (Minister of Customs) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.


William Findlay Maclean: Before we go into committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get on record the order in council which was brought down yesterday regarding the Canadian Pacific Railway increase of capitalization. The order in council is as follows:
On a report dated August 13, 1908, from the right honourable the president of the council submitting that the C.P.R., in a letter from Sir Thos. Shaughness.y, dated August 10. 1908, has applied for the approval of the Governor General in Council of a proposed increase in the capital stock of the company under the provisions of the Act 55-56 Vic., chap. 35, and has submitted a certified cony of the resolution passed by the directors that such increase is in the interests of the company, and that the president of the company be authorized to make application for the approval by the Governor General in Council of such increase.
The minister further submits that the ordinary authorized capital stock of the company stands at present at the sum of $150,000,000, divided into 1.500,000 shares of the par or face value of $100 each. The company represent that looking to the business activities and general development that are likely to follow a bountiful harvest, it is of the utmost importance that they should be in a position to secure from time to time the funds necessary for continuing the works of improvement and for providing the additional equipment and facilities that are sure to be required in order to keep pace with the progress of the country and the consequent expansion of traffic, and thev ask for approval of an increase of $50,006,000 in the authorized capital, making the authorized issue $200,000,000.
The minister recommends that the apnli-cation of the companv be granted, and that the issue of further stock of the companv be approved to the extent of $50,000 000 in shares of $100 each, making a total of ordinarv capital of $200,000,000, provided that none of such new stock be issued at less than par, and that

the issue he authorized by resolution of the shareholders of the company as provided by section 3 of the said Act 55-56 Victoria, chap. 35, and further that no part of such capital so to be raised shall be applied to the construction of any works outside of Canada^ 'The Minister further recommends that* the said $50,000,000 shall not, nor shall any part thereof, nor shall any moneys arising therefrom, no matter how disposed of, be deemed capital expended in the construction of the railway within the meaning of section 20 of the company's act of incorporation, and the power of the Parliament of Canada or the Governor General in Council to reduce the tolls upon the railway of the company shall in no wise be affected by any such increase of capital stock, in whole or in part, nor by the expenditure of any such moneys in the construction of the railways, or otherwise, but the same shall be excluded from consideration in determining the amount of capita] actually expended in the construction of the railway.'



[Stage Direction]
In this connection you may he interested in knowing what the company has done in the way of additions to its rolling stock equipment in recent years and I therefore beg to submit the following comparison of the various classes of rolling stock owned by the company in the years 1902 and 1908:
1902. 1908. Increase.
Locomotives	
745	1,404	659Passenger cars	
842	1,648	842Freight cars	
22,535	47,725	25,190
This is equivalent to an addition to our equipment of one locomotive every three working days, one passenger car every two days and fourteen freight cars each day during the entire period of six years, at an aggregate cost of about $37,000,000, and unless we are all very much mistaken, this work must be continued without cessation.
I have the honour to be,
My dear Sir Wilfrid,
Your obedient servant, (Sgd.) T. G. SHAUGHNESSY,
President.
Montreal, August 10, 1908. Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Premier, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-Although a considerable portion of the proceeds of the last issue of ordinary capita] stock is still available, the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, looking to the business activities and general development that are likely to follow a bountiful harvest, consider it of the utmost importance that the company should be in a position to secure from time to time the necessary funds for continuing the works of improvement and for providing the additional equipment and facilities that are sure to be required in order to keep pace with the progress of the country and the consequent expansion of trafic.
To that end the directors proposed to recommend to the shareholders at the October meeting that the authorized ordinary capital stock of the company be increased from $150,000,000 to $200,000,000 subject, as provided in statute 55-56 Victoria, chapter 35, to the approval of the Governor in Council. It will then be possible for the company to issue and sell this stock in such amounts from time to time as may be necessary or desirable for the purpose of the undertaking.
I be? to inclose herewith a certified copy of a resolution of the board of directors, adopted at a meeting to-day providing for such increase and authorizing this application.
I venture to respectfully request that this increase in the company's ordinary capital stock be sanctioned by an order in council containing the same conditions and restrictions as the order in council passed February 10, 1906, which authorized the increase from $110,000,000 to $150,000,000.
As I am informed that you and some other members of your cabinet will be leaving Ottawa in the near future for a short holiday, I also respectfully ask that this sanction he given at an early date, because in order that this matter may be dealt with at the October meeting the notices should he transmitted to the Old country before the end of the present month.

[Stage Direction]
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, duly called and held at the principal office of the company, at Montreal, on Monday, August 10, 1908.
Whereas the authorized ordinary capital stock of this company at this date is $150,000,000 divided into 1,500,000 shares of the par or face value of $100 each;
And whereas pursuant to the provisions of section 3 of the Act 55-56, Victoria, chapter 35, Canada, the company being duly authorized in that behalf by its shareholders at a special general meeting duly called for the purpose, may from time to time increase its capital stock for any purpose for which the company requires new capital, to such amounts and at such times as the shareholders at any such meeting may determine, such issue being first approved by the Governor in Council;
And whereas the company requires from time to time new capital for the purposes of its undertaking, and it is desirable to increase the amount of the said authorized ordinary capital stock to $200,000,000, being an increase of $50,000,000:
Now therefore it is resolved as follows, that is to say:-
That it is in the interests of this comnany that the ordinary capital stock of the company be increased from $150,000,000 to an amount not exceeding $200,000,000 in shares of $100 each or its equivalent in sterling money of Great Britain, to be issued and sold for the purposes of its undertaking as may be determined by resolution of the shareholders of the company ;
2.	That the president of the company be, and he is hereby authorized to make an application in the name of the comnany to the Governor in Council to have the said proposed increase of stock duly approved of;
3.	That the secretary of Ahe company be and he is hereby authorized and directed to give notice in the manner and form provided by the statutes and by-laws relating thereto for the holding of a special general meeting
[Stage Direction]
of the shareholders of the company at the head office of the company immediately after the annual general meeting of the company to be held on Wednesday the 7th day of October nest for the purpose of authorizing the said increase of capital stock, and of determining the manner and form in which the same shall he issued and disposed of.
(Sgd.) W. R. BAKER.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to what happened in this House in 1902 when the capital stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway was increased by $20,000,000, and I want to read a sentence or two from the speech of the Minister of Justice, now Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who introduced the Bill. In that speech, which will be found on page 2934 of the Hansard of 1902, and which is. well worth reading, the then Minister of Justice said:
In the Bill I haye the honour to lay before the House, the government has taken the precaution to make it a matter of state that the money is to be applied to the purposes which it is said to be necessary at the time the order in council was applied for.
In other words, while the Canadian Pacific Railway was given the right to increase its capital by $20,000,000, the minister made it his duty to put into an Act of parliament that the money so raised was to be devoted to special purposes. He then proceeded to say:
Now this regulation was necessary only with respect to two points, namely with respect to issuing any part of this amount of capital stock at less than par-for under their charter they would have had right to do so- and there is a restriction that the $200,000,000 shall not be issued at less than par.
-and then with respect to the tolls, it is made a matter of special stipulation that when you come to apply section 20 for the regulation of tolls this additional twenty millions should not b# taken into account. And further, they have thought proper, at the suggestion of the Minister of the Interior, to provide that this money should be specifically applied for the purposes for which the company say they require to have it-that is, it should be applied in the improvement of the property of the company.
And that also was added to the Act of parliament that then went through. The then Minister of the Interior, now the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), in reply to some remarks I made after the Minister of Justice had spoken, said:	,
Mv honourable friend
[Stage Direction]
Meaning the then member for East York.
-will learn, I think, with PTeat delight, that the first order in council provided that an immediate reference should be taken to the courts for the purpose of determining the amount of the capital actually expended in the construction of the road, so that we might know exactly where we are in respect to the control of rates on this railway. That was Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
the first thing to take into consideration, and that arrangement was arrived at before the order in council was finally passed giving the company power to increase their capital stock.
Now, what I want to know to-night is, first of all, is it the intention of the government to introduce a Bill authorizing this increase of capital, and imposing the conditions that were imposed in the then Bill, namely, that the money shall be applied to a specific purpose, and that the stock shall not be sold for less than par. I also wish to ask the minister whether the promise made by the then Minister of the Interior was fulfilled, that an immediate reference was to be made to the courts to ascertain the actual cost of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am somewhat in doubt whether that work was ever done. I think it ought to be done; and my main object to-night is simply to get this order in council and the schedule that accompanies it, put upon the record to give the minister an opportunity of saying whether we are to have a Bill this session dealing with this increase of capital, and whether that reference which was outlined by the then Minister of the Interior has ever been made, namely, that we were to have a reference to the courts to find out what thq actual cost of the investment of the Canadian Pacific Railway was. That is very important. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company to-day, I believe, claim that they are simply under that charter, and that the rates can only be interfered with by this parliament when their earnings exceed 10 per cent on the actual amount invested in the company. I ask the minister if it is so, whether that reference was ever made, and whether that amount has ever been ascertained. I also want to know whether he intends to introduce a special Act this session in reference to that matter, like that of seven years ago.
George Perry Graham: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend definite information on this point. I do not know whether that reference was ever made to the courts or not. Perhaps I am wrong, but it strikes me that the Bill was necessary.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, why was it in the previous case?


George Perry Graham: If it is necessary, undoubtedly one will be introduced; but if it is not necessary, I am not in a position to state that it will. be. I think all the' conditions mentioned in that legislation are guarded in the order in council.


William Findlay Maclean: But the Minister of Justice held, not only that they should do it by order in council, but that it should be in an Act of parliament.


George Perry Graham: I am not arguing that point. If it is necessary to have an Act of parliament, no doubt there will be an Act of parliament in order to bring into active operation the order in council, or to confirm it I think the conditions in the order in council cover everything that is covered by the conditions in the legislation referred to. I think the company cannot issue stock at less than par. A great many people think, my hon. friend perhaps does not think, that one way to protect the public would be to allow no company to issue its stock above par, either. I am not expressing an opinion, but that is the opinion of a great many men with whom I have talked, who think that would protect the public perhaps more than anything else against over-capitalization, principally against what we call wildcat schemes. However, after reading what my hon. friend has said in the ' Hansard ' I will.be able to answer him more definitely.


William Findlay Maclean: Another thing. The power to control the capital stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway was in parliament in 1892, but for some reason or other it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Governor General in Council, I would also like to know why there is this distinction between the Canadian Pacific Railway and other roads. If other roads wish to increase their capital stock they come to parliament and get a special Act, and" everybody has notice of that Act, and everybody can govern themselves accordingly. But the great Canadian Pacific Railway Company apparently can increase its capital stock by an order in council. Now when the road was first incorporated the control of its capital stock was altogether in the hands of parliament, but a strange thing has happened, and now the control of that road in regard to its stock, and it is the greatest road in the country, is a matter of order in council, and, as we saw in 1902, of an order in council that at that time was confirmed by an Act of parliament. I also wish the minister to look up that matter and be able to tell the people of this country how this change has taken place, and what there is to justify it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the matter of increasing the capital stock of a railway like this, I agree with the contention of my hon. friend from York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that it ought to be a matter of legislation in parliament. I do not know what the provisions of the Act are, or whether it empowers the Governor in Council to do it or not. But if it does empower the Governor in Council to do it, it seems rather strange that the last time they increased the stock they did it by Act of parliament confirming an order in council. I would regard a railway corporation coming to this parliament
for consideration just the same as I would a company that wanted to extend their line, or wanted to extend the time, or wanted to amend their charter in some particular. When it comes before parliament asking for consideration, parliament, in its wisdom, should amend that Act in any direction that is absolutely needed in the interest of the people, and it is then for the corporation either to accept the Act with the provisions tacked on, or not ask for the Act. I do not think that parliament, in its wisdom, would go so far as to do any great injustice, but I do not think it would be doing injustice to a railway corporation, when they come to parliament asking for favours, if parliament should in its wisdom ask for favours in return on behalf of the people.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the minister what is the position of this matter. Has the government power to increase the capital by order in council, or is it necessary for the company to come to parliament with a Bill to increase the capital? The minister who passed this order in council must understand the situation.


George Perry Graham: I am not in a position to say whether it is necessary. I have been of the opinion that it was not necessary, but I cannot say absolutely. It is a question that has been raised at the moment and I would have to look into it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister get the information and give it to the House at a later stage?


George Perry Graham: Yes. I promised the hon. member for South York to have his entire remarks investigated, or read carefully to-morrow, and give a reply to all the questions he raised.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Railways and Canals -Capital

Lachine Canals, to complete wharf and basins, $150,-
000.
George Perry Graham: This is a revote; $300,000 was voted last year for this work.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there anything done under this vote?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it be out of place to ask the minister to give us some information with regard to the government's policy on the enlargement of the Welland canal or the building of the Georgian Bay canal? The country has watched these questions with a great deal of interest and I am sure that a great many members of the House would be pleased to hear what the government's policy is. The promise was made during the election that some day the Welland canal would be enlarged and the

people were led to expect that operations would be commenced in the near future. Others think that the implied promise was given that the Georgian Bay canal would be commenced soon. It would be very interesting to the country to know what the government's policy is.


George Perry Graham: I never made any promise that either of these works would be done immediately. I have expressed the opinion in this House and reiterated it in the country that the position that Canada holds this year in the grain trade would be more than maintained if we enlarged the Welland canal. Last year this House voted a certain sum of money to make surveys, and I will have to ask for the voting of another certain sum to complete these surveys. I have abiding faith in the power of the development of our waterways to cheapen our transportation, and I believe that it will not be many years when either one or both of these things will be done if Canada is to hold her place. But, at the present time, I am not in a position to state what the policy of the government is. The estimate and report of the Georgian Bay canal scheme are in the 'Department of Public Works, and they have been laid before parliament. The report of the engineers on the Welland canal cannot be brought down until the survey is completed, and that will take perhaps another year. We are going on steadily with the work, and I am asking for another appropriation to complete this. By that time I hope I will be able to give the House an estimate of what it would cost to complete the enlargement of the Welland canal, or to build it anew in part. My own opinion is that it would maintain the trade in the carrying of grain by water from the west to the east and do its share of carrying the package freight from the east to the west. Notwithstanding the fact that the State of New York has voted one hundred million dollars for the enlargement of the Erie canal, experts tell me that the Welland canal, if enlarged to take the larger class of vessels from Duluth and Fort William down to the end of lake navigation. Kingston, Brockville or Prescott, we can get a rate for the carriage of grain that will be less than any rate that can be obtained by way of the Erie canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I noticed during the elections remarks attributed to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) to the effect that he had the assurance that if the government were returned to power again, thev would at an early date commence the enlargement of the Welland canal. I was somewhat curious to know what foundation in fact these remarks really had, and to that end I put the query to the Minister of Railways and Canals. But, I see that he rather fights shy of the question, and is not as desirous now of leaving the im-Mr. SPROULE.
pression on the country that it will be commenced at an early date as his candidate was when such a statement was going to get votes. I presume that something of the kind was carried on in the campaign along the proposed route of the Georgian Bay canal. I thought I saw some remarks by some of the candidates to the same effect, and I wondered then whether they had any inside information which justified them in making the statements that they did. I think it is well that we should be frank with the country, and it is equally correct that the ministers should be frank with us. I do not think that members of this House, when talking to the country, are justified in going beyond the information given to the House, because I do not think it is proper for the government to give any private information to any private member of parliament. I think the government should first give their policy to the country through the House. That is the duty of the ministers, and that is what is expected of them, and if it were the invariable practice there would be less credence given to such random statements as we see in the press from time to time when it is important to leave the impression upon the minds of the people that if a certain political party are returned to power wonderful things will be accomplished with regard to works in which they are interested. I do not see the hon. member for Welland in his place to-night; if he had been here I should have liked to have his explanation of it.


Mr. AMES.: Would the minister kindly give us a fuller explanation with reference to the work that is proposed to complete in connection with the Lachine canal.


George Perry Graham: This is to construct the wharf and two basins on the north side of the canal to afford better facilities for shippers.


Herbert Brown Ames: At what point?


George Perry Graham: At Cote St. Paul.


John Dowsley Reid: On the government's own property or on somebody else's?


George Perry Graham: On our own property.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has this work been partially done already?


George Perry Graham: The work is just let and the only money expended to date has been for the purchase of cement. It was got by tender.


John Dowsley Reid: At what date was the contract signed?


George Perry Graham: Soma little time ago.


John Dowsley Reid: Who are the contractors?


George Perry Graham: The Canadian General Development Company. Five tenders were received.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, this vote was given a year ago and this is simply a revote. Last year we were told the work had to be proceeded with at once and $300,000 was voted, and now we are told no work was done. Is it possible it was placed in the estimates last year to lead the people to think that $300,000 would be spent before the election? I suppose the tenders were called for about election time?


George Perry Graham: This work has nothing to do with the elections. If it were to have any influence on the elections I suppose we would have let the contract and had the men at work on it weeks before the election.


John Dowsley Reid: You could have promised it.	-


George Perry Graham: Promises don't go very far in this age. The session closed late last year and the money was not available until prorogation and the contract was not let until later.


Herbert Brown Ames: Last year $300,000 was voted and this year you are asking a revote of $150,000, leading to the inference that $150,000 was spent last year.


George Perry Graham: Following the usual practice we took a vote for $300,000 last year, which was expected to complete the entire work. This year we expect we will only be able to spend $150,000 and hence we ask for that sum.


Herbert Brown Ames: Your original intention was to spend $300,000 in one year, and now you have decided to spend $150,000 in each of two years.
. Mr. GRAHAM. If I followed my own inclination I would put in the original estimates the entire amount the work is expected to cost so that every one would know it, and that done I would take a vote for the money we expected to spend that year. In this case we have only spent a small amount for the purchase of cement and we are asking for $150,000, and next year we will ask for the additional $150,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is exactly what I said you had done.
national works for the development of the country. Then, when the business interests of the country are prospering, it is time for the government to stay its hand in expenditure. I believe the government is seriously to blame for cutting down its expenditures in view of the depression which existed last year and which is pretty sure to exist this coming year. If work is actually necessary for the development of the country the money should be expended now.


Mr. MONK.: The Lacliine canal referred to in this vote is in my constituency. The wharf accommodation is entirely insufficient for the immense traffic at that particular point; the basins are too small and accidents are continually happening there and at the Cote St. Paul bridge. There is therefore absolute necessity for additional wharf accommodation at that place and also for the enlargement of the basins. The work was projected a very long time ago and it is only now that it is being carried out.


Herbert Brown Ames: The estimates state that this $150,000 is to complete wharf and basins, but as the minister says it will cost $300,000 altogether. Is it not misleading to use the words ' to complete?'


George Perry Graham: I think the word ' complete ' is out of place there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has always been the practice to show in one column of the estimates the amount of money voted the previous year and in another column to show the revote so that the House would know how much had been spent during the year. The changed form of these estimates is an innovation which leads to confusion and which gives a just ground for complaint. The present form in which the estimate is put tends to confuse the members of the House as to the amount of money expended and the amount needed to complete the work. A return to the old form is advisable. In addition, I would like to know who are the officers of this Canadian Improvement Company-the president, the secretary and the directors-and who are the sureties.


Samuel Hughes: Is not the explanation that the order has been issued to economize during the coming year? At a stage in the history of the country when the ordinary business industries are more or less depressed the government is going to adopt the policy of cutting down the national expenditure in every department. I have always opposed such a policy on the part of the government, whether Liberal or Conservative. When the ordinary business industries of the country are depressed is the very time when the government should give the country the benefit of its credit and enter extensively into the construction of


George Perry Graham: It is an incorporated company. It is not possible for me at present to give that information, but I can ascertain who the members of the company are. These companies have to put up as a deposit a percentage on the contract. In this case there were five tenders and the lowest tender got the contract.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I would like also to ask the minister when it became the policy of the department to charge repairs to capital account. I notice that the second item here is to stop leaks. Is it the custom of the department to charge this to capital account?


George Perry Graham: These are leaks which have existed in the north bank for some time, very dangerous leaks. It is really a new concrete wall that we are putting up and it will close , up the bank.


Mr.   BAER@: Where did the government get the cement?


Mr. GEAHAM.: It was all purchased by tender.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice a separate item here for the testing of cement. Has that been customary? I thought that was done by regular salaried officials of the department.


George Perry Graham: We test the cement for our own works. These men are paid by the year to do this work, and this is the same item we had last year.


William Sora Middlebro: Will the minister tell us from whom he purchased the cement, the quantity purchased, and the rate per barrel?


George Perry Graham: This cement is all bought by tender. I may say that cement is cheaper now than we have ever had it before. This is bought from the Vulcan Company -in Montreal.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the Vulcan Company manufacture cement, or are they middlemen?


George Perry Graham: They manufacture.


Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval).: There are two manufacturers of cement in that part of the island of Montreal that constitutes the riding of Laval: One is the Vulcan Portland Cement Company and the other is the Lakefield Portland Cement Company. They are situated about two miles apart.


William Sora Middlebro: Which company got the contract?


George Perry Graham: The Vulcan Company.


An hon. MEMBER.: It is a Tory concern.


William Sora Middlebro: Is the Lakefield Company a Tory concern?


Charles Avila Wilson: No, the Lakefield Company is a better concern for the government than the other company.


George Perry Graham: This cement is purchased by tender, and the contract is given to the lower tenderer without any variation.


Mr. BARR.: How many barrels were bought from the Vulcan Company?


George Perry Graham: 20,000 barrels at $1.62, f.o.b. at the works. I may say that the bags returned will make a reduction of forty cents a barrel.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the House will remember that a few years ago the government went into a speculation of buying * Mr. CURRIE.
cement in anticipation of contracts, and bought 30,000 barrels that turned out to be absolutely useless. I do not know what system the government had then or what system they have now of testing the cement, or whether this cement has been tested so thoroughly that there is no doubt about it. I do not understand why the government should buy cement in anticipation of the contract. Who were the inspectors?


George Perry Graham: One of our staff. We have a rigid inspection of our cement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has that cement been delivered?


George Perry Graham: It was delivered f. o. b. at the works.


John Barr: Where is it now?


George Perry Graham: It is in our own sheds at Montreal, right near the works.


William Sora Middlebro: What is the next lowest tender?


George Perry Graham: I have not that information, but I can assure my hon. friend that the lowest tenderer got the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: The point raised by my hon. friend from North Simeoe (Mr. Currie) is of sufficient importance to make it necessary to take a few moments to discuss it, and that is the point of charging these items to capital. Just consider the position we are in from a financial point of view. In the year 1908-9 we shall spend probably every dollar of our revenue on current expense, and every dollar that we add to capital account this year will be borrowed, say at three and a half per cent, on loans not due for fifty years yet to come. We are borrowing this money without making any provision for a sinking fund and are arranging that the third generation after us shall repay it. Is it just to them that we should charge ' stopping leaks in the La-chine canal ' to capital? Look over the list and you will see the same thing occurring everywhere repairing slopes and all that. Should these things be charged to capital?


George Perry Graham: Certainly,


Herbert Brown Ames: And building wharfs ? We are building wharfs all through the maritime provinces and elsewhere and charging them to income, while here we are paying for a wharf from capital account. I submit that any money invested in capital account should be expended on something permanent, something that will stand for fifty years from now. It is not fair to put burdens on future generations if they are to have none of the advantages connected therewith. We ought to keep our public works in good repair, but we should do that without charging the expense to capital

account and borrowing the money to do it and making that money repayable fifty years from now.


Charles Avila Wilson: I quite agree with the hon. member from St. Antoine that the leaks in the Lachine canal should be repaired. I am not an expert in that work, but we are manufacturing cement in the riding I have the honour to represent, and I do not see why the hon. member from St. Antoine should ask questions about these tenders, provided that, according to the judgment of the minister, the contracts were granted in the public interest. In a few days from now, perhaps a few hours, the government will be asked whether some repairs will be made to the wharf at Pointe aux Trembles; and I do not see any reason why those two factories in Laval county should not get the contracts for cement, provided their tenders be the lowest, or at any rate be judged by the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Railways as being the ones which should be accepted in the public interest. It is certainly absolutely necessary that those works on the Lachine canal, which are in a condition menacing ruin, should be repaired. That is my policy, and I hardly think that the hon. member from St. Antoine division will venture to criticise it.


Herbert Brown Ames: This question is a very important one and might as well be tested at this point as at any other. I would move that the item to stop leaks on the north bank of the Lachine canal at Cote St. Paul be charged to income and not to capital.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is springing something new on the House. We are simply following in this matter the same practice which has prevailed for years both under his friends and ours. It is a practice which is perfectly defensible. The canals give no revenue, as a few years ago we made them free, and consequently there is no revenue account against which to charge these items. It is absolutely necessary to protect the walls and it is for that purpose we are asking that vote. Then I doubt if my hon. friend has any right to make the motion he did. This is a question involving expenditure. He could move to strike the item out or reduce it, but not to increase it or charge it against any other account. All he can do, if he does not approve of the item is to take the responsibility of moving that it be struck out. He cannot have it charged against income account by a vote. No member of the government could do that.


Herbert Brown Ames: The question I have raised is one that can be just as well discussed and threshed out on some other item at some other time, so that I have no objection to withdrawing my amendment at this moment. But I shall bring the matter up again in the form of a resolution, so as to
put on record our opinion with regard to charging the repairs against capital account


Mr.   .T. A. CURRIE@: I do not see why this item should be pressed when we do not know the amounts of the different tenders and who the tenderers really are.


George Taylor: I understand the minister to say that this cement was purchased by tender at $1.62 per barrel. I want to refer to what took place here the other night. I then asked:
How comes it that the honourable minister paid $2.50 per barrel for 85 barrels of cement bought from Kirby & Co., when he could buy that cement at Hull for $1.80.
To that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) replied:
That was but a small quantity and no tenders were called for.
I then said: You could purchase it by retail at $1.65. This item proves what I said the other evening. The Minister of Railways purchased this cement by tender at $1.62, but the Minister of Public Works went to some of his political friends and purchased 85 barrels at $2.50, showing fifty per cent profit.


John Dowsley Reid: From whom was the cement purchased?


George Perry Graham: The bulk of it came from Montreal. My hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) wants to know the particulars of this contract. I have already told him that it is a schedule contract. I can give him the details of the schedule if he wishes.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister (Mr. Graham) must know that this is not an answer. Even though this is a schedule contract, he must know the quantities and he must have moneyed it all out or he would not know what vote to ask for. Now, a word with reference to the charge he makes that it has been the habit of his department from time immemorial to charge such expenditures as this to capital account. I take issue with the hon. gentleman and deny that the case is as he says. The money spent in repairs on the canals or in inspecting cement cannot fairly be charged to capital. And, as to the general question of our right to deal with this matter as proposed in the motion which has been withdrawn, we have not the right to move that an estimate should be increased, but we have the right to say whether an estimate should be charged to capital or to current account, and without the consent of the Governor in Council. Now, I understand that $150,000 has been expended and that $150,000 is a revote.


George Perry Graham: No, we had already discussed that before my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) came in. It is a little confus-

ing as it is presented. But, as I explained, we had a vote last year for $300,000; parliament sat until late in the season and we did not let this contract until December. Consequently only $40,000 out of the $300,000 has been spent. This year we expect to spend only $150,000.
. Mr. JOHN HAGGAET. If the hon. minister has entered into a contract, why does he ask for only $150,000? Suppose the contractor completes the work, will he vs ait for a year for his pay?


Duncan Graham: We expect that we will be able to spend only $150,000 this season.


John Graham Haggart: What does the contract money out at ?


Duncan Graham: I gave all the information with regard to this matter when the item was before the committee last year. I did not suppose that these details would be required to-night, so I have not these details before me. But I have sent for them and will be able to give them soon.


William Sora Middlebro: When is the work to be finished under the contract?


Duncan Graham: May 1, 1910.


Mr MIDDLEBEO.: At that time the minister will require the whole amount of the contract. Where will he get the money aftei the amount of this estimate has been spent?


Duncan Graham: From parliament, I hope; there will be a session in the meantime.


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. minister intend to follow the practice of the Department of Public Works and, at the end of the year, ask for fresh tenders for the uncompleted work, or is this contract for the whole work?


Duncan Graham: I hope that no person will be so silly as to take the objection which was taken against the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) in the last parliament. He proposed to extend a contract, but a member of the opposition strongly urged that he should ask for new tenders. The result was that it cost the country over $100,000 more than it would have cost. The contract in the case now betore us is for the completion of the work.


John Allister Currie: I strongly endorse the remarks of the hon. member for St. Antoine with reference to charging this amount to capital. If the department is charging repairs to capital, it ought to deduct 5 per cent annually to provide a fund for those repairs. I am rather sorry the motion was not pressed to charge this to current account.


Duncan Graham: This is practically not a work of repair, though it will have that


George Perry Graham: effect. The leak in this bank has been repaired from time to time out of current account, but now we are building a new concrete wall in front of the bank. I might say that it is practically a new bank.


John Allister Currie: The deputy minister has had time to figure out the total amount of the contract. I do not wish to do the figuring. There are officials in the department who are supposed to have this work finished, and the minister, of all others, is the man who ought to know the amounts before he lets the contract.


Duncan Graham: I know that my hon. friends opposite do not wish to be unreasonable. I have explained why I have not these details before me at the moment. I gave the details last year.


John Allister Currie: But that explanation was merely of an estimate, whereas now a contract has been made.


John Graham Haggart: There is another anomaly here. The hon. member tells us that $40,000 has been expended under this contract for cement-the cement has been bought and paid for. And yet he asks also $2,500 for the purpose of testing this cement.


Duncan Graham: We are constantly buying cement for the repair of the canals, and we have to pay the salaries of the men who test that cement.


John Graham Haggart: You don't mean to say that you charge to capital account testing cement for the purpose of repairing a lock?


Duncan Graham: The staff are charged to capital account. Just as the building of a cement wall is charged to capital, so testing the cement to build that wall is rightly charged to capital account.


John Graham Haggart: But all the cement he requires for this work on the Lachine canal, except for repair of .the locks, has been bought already and paid for, and all the testing must apply to the material for repairing the lock and the wall; yet he charges that amount to capital account.


Duncan Graham: This cement is merely a bagatelle to all the cement we use on the St. Lawrence canals.


Samuel Hughes: In case tenders were called for and the lowest tender was accepted last year, why does the government buy the cement? Why does not the contractor buy the cement?


Duncan Graham: We always supply the cement. As the ex-minister will agree, we want the very best quality of cement, and we test it. We make it a practice that our tenders shall never include the cost of cement; that we supply ourselves.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the customary way of testing cement that goes into public works? I thought it was tested week by week and day by day, because sometimes you will get a consignment of cement a part of which may be very good and another part very poor.


George Perry Graham: We keep a staff of men constantly at work doing nothing else but testing cement. We test the cement as it is received, and also as it is used. We also test it for its keeping qualities where it is stored.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand you employ other men besides those employed in testing cement, and how is it that you charge a portion of the work to this vote and another portion to some other vote? What becomes of the contention of the minister that we cannot pay this out of revenue because it should come under capital account?	*


George Perry Graham: The whole work is in connection with capital account, and the expenditure ought to be charged, I think, to capital account.
Mr. SP'ROULE. For re-testing the cement?


George Perry Graham: We charge testing the cement to capital account.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there are several employees who are paid by salary and who test cement regularly.


George Perry Graham: We have an engineer, Mr. Lordly, in charge of this work, and he is paid entirely out of capital account, whatever work he is engaged on.


John Graham Haggart: There is another peculiar thing. You purchase $40,000 worth of cement a year before you commence to work. What were the peculiar circumstances that required the purchase of the cement at that particular time? In what month did you purchase it?


George Perry Graham: We want to have our cement ready so that the contractors cannot raise any question that we detain them. This cement was purchased recently, and the delivery was completed only a few days ago.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the minister will tell us when it was paid for? Was it last year?


George Perry Graham: Part of it was, and the balance will be paid in this year.


Samuel Hughes: When was the last payment made?


George Perry Graham: $32,400 was paid in January last past.


William Sora Middlebro: When were the tenders opened?


George Perry Graham: Very shortly after they were received. The tenders are marked by two officials and placed in a safe.


William Sora Middlebro: Can the minister tell us when they were received?


George Perry Graham: I cannot remember.


William Sora Middlebro: Was it before the elections?


George Perry Graham: They had nothing to do with the elections. But I can get that information.


William Sora Middlebro: I think the item ought to stand.


George Perry Graham: It was asked for in the usual way, and given to the lowest tenderer.


William Sora Middlebro: I cannot understand why he should purchase cement in the month of October for contracts to be performed in the following year.


George Perry Graham: The explanation given by my deputy is that the contractors expected to do some work this fall, and they kept urging us to get the cement. But they did not go on with their work until we had the cement a little ahead of time.


William Sora Middlebro: Did the minister say that the contract was let in January?


George Perry Graham: We were going to let the contract earlier than that. The contractors urged that we should be ready with the cement so that they would not be detaind. Contractors are always ready to find fault and to complain that they are being delayed. We preferred to get it ahead of time. The date of the contract was October 24.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: That is the contract with the Canadian Development Company. That is not the contract for the cement. I have sent for the cement contract to give my hon. friend the date.


John Dowsley Reid: Let the item stand until it comes.


Samuel Hughes: Did we understand the minister to say that he would ascertain the names of the officers of this development company which received the large contract?


William Sora Middlebro: Will the minister find out the name of the president of the Lake-field Portland Cement Company?


George Perry Graham: The contract with the Canadian General Development Company is signed by Beaudry Leman.


John Allister Currie: Surely the hon. gentleman would not enter into a contract with a company unless the contract was signed by the proper officers. I under-

stand it has to be under the seal of the company and signed by the secretary or the president. Surely my hon. friend has no right to enter into a contract without the signatures of those officers.


George Perry Graham: That would depend on the by-laws of the company. It is signed by the head of the company and bears the corporate seal of the company.


John Allister Currie: What is the name?


George Perry Graham: Beaudry Leman.


Charles Avila Wilson: That is a well known name in the province of Quebec. He is an engineer. He is also a great nationalist, a friend of Mr. Bourassa.


George Perry Graham: I will send this contract over to my hon. friend opposite. There is the signature of the secretary that I cannot decipher.


John Dowsley Reid: I think we should have from the minister a list of the different tenderers showing the amount of each tender. There were five tenders and if we had that in detail it would go on Hansard. If the minister had come down and made the statement that last year there was $300,000 voted for this work, we have spent $40,000 of this amount for cement, tenders were called on such and such a date by public advertisement in the newspapers, and a contract was awarded on such a date to whatever firm got it, there would have been no trouble about it. I have been listening to ascertain what the position is and I cannot understand who the five tenderers were, what each tender amounted to or what the date of the calling for tenders for cement was. All we want is that little explanation and I for one undertake to say that the item will go through.


George Perry Graham: I have no objection at all to bring down the name of the tenderers. I do not think that my hon. friend as a business man will say that in connection with each of these items, unless the matter is questioned, we should give the tender of every man.


John Dowsley Reid: We are entitled to it.


George Perry Graham: The House has never asked for it but I will bring it over.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been the custom.


George Perry Graham: Where there has been any question as to the contract having been awarded to the lowest tender, of course, the tenders have been asked for. I will bring it over if my hon. friend wants it, but my experience in this House and in another House for ten years has been that unless there was a question as to the contract being given to the lowest tenderer these particulars have not been asked for owing to business reasons that any man will realize in a moment. But, if my hon. friend Mr. CURRIE.
wants it I will bring down all the tenders although business men do not like it.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister states that it has not been the custom in this House, but at any time we wanted any details with respect to any item the minister has always been able to supply them. We have the right to know the names of tenderers and in so far as I am concerned I want to know them now. The minister feels annoyed because I do want them.


George Perry Graham: No, I am not annoyed.


John Dowsley Reid: If the minister had a statement with regard to every item I am sure that the estimates would go through very easily. I do not think it is fair to ask us to pass these items in the way that the minister is doing to-night without offering to give us the slightest detail. The minister said that he gave all the details about this particular item last year, but I have been trying to find the details in ' Hansard '. They would be in ' Hansard ' if they had been given.


George Perry Graham: Not altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are a lot of men here now who were not here last" year.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot find any thing at all in ' Hansard ' as far as this item is concerned. As my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) states, there are a great many new men in the House and they are entitled to the details which were given last year.


Samuel Hughes: The original vote was $300,000, the minister has paid $40,000 for cement and he is spending $150,000. Does that include the $40,000 for cement?


George Perry Graham: No.


Samuel Hughes: Then the minister has a large sum of money voted that will not be expended for two years. Yet, he has purchased all the cement and is going to keep it stored for two years.


George Perry Graham: This is not enough cement for the work.


Samuel Hughes: Then there is a large quantity of cement bought and it is going to be stored until next summer to carry on this work. I again impress on the minister if this work is necessary he should expend every dollar of the money voted each year. The time for the government to stand to their guns and come to the relief of the people is when there is general depression in the business industries of the country. Men are out of employment all over Canada to-day, and the policy of the government is to throw more men on the streets and leave more mouths unfed by cutting down expenditure. If I had the power I would move to amend that vote.


George Perry Graham: I have not the power either.


Samuel Hughes: The minister can take steps to get it done and I cannot.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE.: Was the cement purchased by tender last year ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, we always purchase our cement by tender.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The Canadian Portland Cement Company sold you 5.000 barrels last vear at $2.62 a barrel; that is a higher price than you are paying this year?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It is a dollar a barrel more. You also purchased 2,500 barrels at $2.40 a barrel from another cement company; were these contracts let bv tender?


George Perry Graham: All our cement contracts are let by tender and we take the lowest tender in every case. That price is gross, and we get 10 cents per bag for the four bags in each barrel, or 40 cents.


John Graham Haggart: Portland cement should be supplied actually when it is needed as it depreciates greatly by keeping. The minister has purchased $40,000 worth of cement on a $300,000 contract and he will have to keep it a year or two before it is actually used.


George Perry Graham: We have just got delivery now and they will start using it on the 1st of April.


John Graham Haggart: The half of that cement will be used this year and the rest of it in a year and a half, and if it is in bags it will be perfectly useless at the end of that time.


George Perry Graham: There won't be a bag of it left then.


John Allister Currie: The minister said this contract was entered into in January, but the contract is signed on the 24th of October. It will take me some time to figure out how the prices in the contract compare with the current prices and whether the contract has been really let to the lowest tenderer or not. I ask the minister to let the item stand so that we can have access to the contract in his department or somewhere else to-morrow.


George Perry Graham: In order to give my hon. friend the information he wants I must ask that the original contract be given back. If you take that away we will have no contract at all.


John Allister Currie: I merely wish to have a look at it in the morning.


George Perry Graham: You can see a copy of the contract any time you like.


Herbert Brown Ames: What percentage on the total amount of the contract does the security represent?


George Perry Graham: Usually 10 per cent.


Herbert Brown Ames: The security furnished here is $23,698 so that the tender would be for $236,698 and the time for completion is May, 1910. We are onlv asked to vote $150.000 of that amount, which leaves a balance of $86,000. The $150,000 we are now asked to vote is for the fiscal year 1910, which expires on the 31st of March, 1910. Therefore, this contractor is held to complete his work by the 1st of May, 1910, but he will have to expend some $86,950 in the moi 'n of April next. On the face of it your contract is an impossibility taken in connection with the present vote, unless you intend to extend the time for the completion of the contract.


George Perry Graham: We will have another session of parliament before the expiration of the contract. In April the canal is unwatered and he would do a large share of his work then. However, it is seldom that these contractors absolutely complete such contracts on time.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is there a forfeit in this case?


George Perry Graham: I do not think there is a penalty in any of these cases, but they can only get an extension of time by order in council. Notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. friend who has hit the nail on the head fairly well, I may say that we do not want this year to expend any more money than we think is absolutely necessary.


Samuel Hughes: Now we are getting at the reason.


George Perry Graham: Yes, my hon. friend struck the nail on the head as he quite often does-if the nail is in the right place. This year we believe not more than $150,000 can be expended, but if more is expended it can be provided for next year as we will have a session of parliament before the final estimate will be passed.


Samuel Hughes: Then we are to understand that the government intends to add further to the depression throughout the Dominion by curtailing works that are necessary to be carried on in the interests of the country? We are going to have more men unfed and homes unprovided for owing to the fact that the government have brought a period of hard times on the country.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend does not agree with some of his friends, the hon. member for North Toronto, for instance, that it is a time for economy.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES I am not speaking of economy. I am speaking of the conduct



oi public affairs. If the government wanted to be economical, they had plenty of opportunity during the years of plenty in the business of the country. This year and last year are lean years, and the government are in a panic and are hauling in their sails and turning on the labour market of the country thousands of unemployed men still further to increase the depression.


Mr. M. MARTIN (St. Marys).: Does the hon. gentleman approve of the minister buying these 20.000 barrels of cement?


Samuel Hughes: Not one barrel of that cement has been made since the minister gave the contract. It was old stock on hand. The cement men saw the depression coming, and they made a slick deal with the department in anticipation of it. Half of that cement will be useless when the works go on.


William Melville Martin: The hon. gentleman must remember that that cement had to be bought on account of all the permanent works being done at Montreal. Last year we made twenty miles of new streets, and we are going to make more next year. The minister had to buy the cement ahead to get it in time. The hon. gentleman says the government should give work. Well, the minister, by buying that cement, gave work to that factory.


William Sora Middlebro: Has the minister the information I asked for, as to the date when the tenders were received?


George Perry Graham: I have been unable to get it this evening; but I will bring it, with the names of all the tenderers, in the morning. In the meantime the item may stand.


William Sora Middlebro: Can the minister tell me whether the $40,000 worth of cement is now lying at the factory or at the canal?


George Perry Graham: It is in our storehouse in Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is just one more element of danger which the minister's remarks bear, and it is this. He speaks of having given a definite contract of $238,000, and be now asks us to vote only $150,000, and he says that probably the contractors will go on and do more work than the appropriation will cover. Is that going to be the fixed policy of the government-to intimate to the contractors that we are having less money voted than we expect to spend this year, but that they can go on overexpending? 1 see in that an element of great danger. I hope the contractors will be given to understand that the government is responsible only for the moneys that parliament votes, and that until parliament votes a further sum they are taking a great risk in going beyond the amount voted.
Mr. sam. Hughes


George Perry Graham: We do that in the case of all contracts. We have notified all concerned that we want to keep the expenditure within the appropriations this year, and that if they go on and rush the work and over-run the amount voted, they do it at their own risk, because they cannot get any more cash until parliament votes it at another session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that he does not see the object of bringing down the tenders except to show that the contract was let to the lowest tenderer. There is another reason why we desire to see the tenders. These tenders are sometimes made upon schedule prices. For instance, one tender may put rock excavation below another, and some other item, such as cement work, higher; and the engineer, in going over the various tenders, is able to tell the government which tender in the main is the lowest. It is interesting to see how he reaches his conclusion by comparing one tender with another. For that reason it is absolutely necessary to know what the schedule prices of various tenders are; otherwise one could not make an intelligent comparison. I understand that the hon. minister is satisfied to bring down all the tenders.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend wants them. There is not a man in the House who is not an engineer who can figure them out. We have an engineer in the department who ' moneys out ' these tend. rs. I will bring them down, though it has not been customary to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to say, as one who has been in this House for a great many years, that it has been the custom.
Item allowed to stand.
Department of Public Printing and Stationery, $88,399.50.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the hon. minister explain that item?


Mr. MURPHY.: The committee will observe that there is a difference of $36,824.50 between the total amount of these estimates for 1909-10 and the total amount of the same estimates for 1908-09. This difference is accounted for by an amount of $34,470.50, which represents the salaries paid to the employees brought under the Civil Service Act of last session and the remainder, namely, $2,354, represents the increases which have been granted the staff for the incoming year. The gentlemen who have been brought in from the outside, and whose salaries represent the greater amount of this increase, are as follows:	One in the
second division of subdivision A, who has been put in charge of what is called the franchise room. Then in the second division of subdivision B, two gentlemen have

been brought from the outside service. In former years these were paid out of the bulk sum voted for wages for the Printing Bureau, from what is known as the King's Printer's advance account .One of these occupied the position of chief foreman and the other of entry clerk. All these gentlemen were brought in at the salaries they were formerly receiving. There have been no new appointments, but simply a change in the status of the former employees, all of whom were in the outside service.


George Taylor: There is one new appointment.


Charles Murphy: There is a position there which has not been filled. In the third division, subdivision A, there have been eight clerks transferred. These gentlemen occupied various positions in the lithographic room, accountant's office, delivery office, and advertising and corresponding branch. Then there have been seventeen transferred to the third division, subdivision B. These are clerks now performing different duties in the stationery branch, accountant's branch, correspondent's branch, storekeeper's office and acting in secretarial positions. Then the last group representing the transfer of eleven from the outside to the inside service, is made up of the messengers and packers who were employed in the Bureau. The other positions, to which my hon. friend from Leeds referred, is that of Superintendent of Printing. The salaries are the same as these gentlemen formerly received plus the increases they are entitled to automatically.


John Graham Haggart: Last year for the same service, there was only $75,000 required, and this year you require $81,000. Why this increase?


Charles Murphy: There have been no increases except the statutory increases under the new Act.


John Graham Haggart: Will those amount to $6,000?


George Taylor: There is $1,000 in Deputy Minister's salary.


Charles Murphy: Yes, that is a statutory increase.


John Graham Haggart: The total amount required for the outside service taken in is $31,000. The total amount expended last year for the inside service was $31,000. That makes $75,000 and you are asking $81,000, or an increase of nearly $6,000. How much would the statutory increases amount to? What increases were given the different officers, who are they, and why were they entitled to an increase?


Charles Murphy: I could best explain that by going over the list of the gentlemen brought in.
26J


Samuel Hughes: Start with the Deputy Minister.


Charles Murphy: The Deputy Minister is Mr. C. H. Parmelee and he receives an increase of $1,000, which is a statutory increase.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the first assistant to the King's Printer?


Charles Murphy: Mr. Wm. McMahon. Then in the first division, subdivision A, the gentleman whom my hon. friend from North Victoria inquired about was placed in that division.


Samuel Hughes: I do not see any vote for 1908-9 for an assistant to the King's Printer?


Charles Murphy: That is a new title given Mr. McMahon, the Superintendent of 1 rinting, and he receives $2,900 per year.


John Allister Currie: 1 understand that this Printing Bureau is paid for all the work it does for all the other departments at current rates?


Charles Murphy: That is my understanding.


John Allister Currie: Yet notwithstanding it shows a deficit of from $40,000 to $50,000. Why should it not be self-sustaining?


Charles Murphy: I do not challenge the statement, but shall inquire into it.


John Allister Currie: Printers throughout the country cannot understand why a bureau which receives contracts from all the other departments at fat prices should not be self sustaining. I am told that a lot of the work is duplicated. For instance, the work of setting up English is frequently given to French printers who are not very conversant with the language, and the setting of French work is given to English printers, who suffer under a like disability, and consequently the work of each has practically to be done over again. This has been brought to my attention by sev ral practical printers, who do not understand how this department needs a vote when it has good fat contracts for the printing of the several departments of the government.


Charles Murphy: I have not before heard the complaint to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. Currie) gives currency. I shall make inquiries, and, perhaps, at a later stage, I shall be able to inform the hon. gentleman and the committee definitely as to whether the statements made to the hon. gentleman have any foundation in fact. I may, however, point out that the Printing Bureau does a great deal of work outside of the departments Ur [DOT][DOT] hioh it is not paid-the issuing of 'Hansard', the printing of special reoorts, and a great many other things of that kind and these may possibly represent the amount to

which the hon. gentleman refers. As to the duplication of work of which the hon. gentleman has heard, I think that in all probability on inquiry it will turn out to be in large measure unfounded.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What becomes every year of the money we vote for ' Hansard '.


Charles Murphy: It is true there is a vote for * Hansard '.


John Allister Currie: Then, why try to give the impression that this item is virtually to pay for 'Hansard'? If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Murphy) will ascertain from the foreman of his printing department how much money was expended for straight setting and how much for corrections, he will soon ascertain whether I am correct or not. And I will ask him to bring that information down before we pass the item. For there is not a newspaper man in Canada who is not interested in this matter, especially those who run job offices. They would like to have a share of the government's business, and cannot see why the government maintain a bureau at great expense to do work that might as well be done outside.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know that I clearly understand the explanation the hon. minister tries to make. The amount voted for 1908-1909 was $44,475. The amount asked for next year is $81,299.50. The hon. minister says that he is paying out of this vote amounts which formerly were paid out of outside votes and that he is paying the exact amount of salaries that those taken in from outside had on September 1 last. The foot-note shows that the votes for those in the outside service for 1908-1909 was $28,722.83, with increases under the Act from September 1 1908, to March 31, 1909, of $1,154.78. The statutory increases only amount to $1,200. So, we have a deficiency still to be accounted for something like $6,000, of which $1,200 is taken up as the minister says.


Charles Murphy: No, $2,354, as appears in the estimates.


John Graham Haggart: Does that include the $150 proposed to be added to the salary of each civil servant?


Charles Murphy: No, nor does it include $1,000 increase to the deputy minister under the Act of last year.


John Graham Haggart: Then, there is still $3,000 left.


Charles Murphy: Speaking subject to correction as to the exact figures, my understanding is that whatever difference there may be is represented by increases to these gentlemen brought in.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. minister kindly point out to me in the Audi-Mr. MURPHY.
tor General's Report the details of expenditure for last year in this department?


Charles Murphy: I have not the report at hand.


John Allister Currie: I have two volumes 4 of it here.


Charles Murphy: Unless they appear in those volumes-


John Allister Currie: They do not, and that is one reason why I think the item should be allowed to stand.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Will the minister give us the name of the officer for whom this $2,900 is provided, and tell us whether he was in the service before or not? If he was in the service, from what position did he retire and what salary was he receiving?
If he was not in the service, what special qualification had he that he was given this prominent position over the heads of others?


Charles Murphy: The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart) has asked me with regard to the position for which the amount of $2,125 is provided. That is for the unfilled position of Superintendent of Printing. Until I am satisfied that some person is required in that position, there will be no appointment. The position was held by Mr. McMahon until last month, when he was promoted to be assistant King's Printer, his salary being represented by the item of $2,900. He has been in the Bureau since its organization, and was in the employ of the contractors for government printing before that. He has special qualifications for the office. He received a salary of $2,800, and this additional $100 represent the statutory increase.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of what department is the deputy minister here referred to a deputy?


Charles Murphy: My knowledge of that is confined to what I have learned from the statute. The law creating the Department of Public Printing and Stationery provides that it shall be attached to the Department of the Secretary of State, who is given administration of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Heretofore there has been no deputy?


Charles Murphy: Yes, the former deputy was Dr. Dawson, who was superannuated on account of failing health and age.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But $1,000 was added for the new man, who, it happens, was a member of this House.


Charles Murphy: That $1,000 was added by the statute of last session which fixed the salaries of certain deputies at $5,000.


John Allister Currie: Has any application been received for the unfilled position?


Charles Murphy: A great many, but each applicant has received the stock answer that the minister in charge is not satisfied that it is necessary to make any appointment.


John Allister Currie: The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is a practical printer, and if the Secretary of State will apply to him he will recommend him a good man.


John Graham Haggart: There will be a reduction in the outside service vote to correspond with the increase in this?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount of the reduction?


Charles Murphy: I have not the particulars, but when the item is reached I will have the information.
Fumigation stations, $5,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have been doing this work for some years, and it is going on satisfactorily. There is one station at St. John, N.B., one at St. Johns, Que., one on the Niagara frontier, at Beechburg, I think, one at Windsor, one at Winnipeg and one at Vancouver.
For the enforcement of the 'Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1908,' $4,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is a new item. Last year we passed an Act providing for certain markings on gold and silver ornaments or plate, which are being sold, and we have been appealed to by the trade to appoint an inspector to enforce the Act. I thought at one time there would be no necessity for an inspector, but I have been informed that the Act is being violated, and the trade has appealed to us strongly to enforce it.


Richard Blain: Who is the officer?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He has not yet been appointed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand you are providing $4,000' for an officer. How do you provide for his travelling expenses?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And expenses for prosecution, if there are any. We hope that the $4,000 will cover everything. I have not fixed the salary yet.


Mr. STAPLES.: What will be the qualifications?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope to get some one who is acquainted with the gold and silver trade.
Tracadie and D'Arey Island Lazarettos, and leprosy generally, $10,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is an increase of $2,000 due to the fact that we have been trying to deport Chinese lepers in British Columbia. As a rule these men are quite
willing to be deported and sent back to China, and the authorities there have no objection to their being landed in China. Unfortunately, we are finding more of this class than we had expected, and we shall probably require a larger sum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would not that properly come under the immigration expenditure?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been managed by us, because we have control of the leprosy-stations at Tracadie and D'Arey island. Some of these people have been in British Columbia for years and could not be deported by the immigration authorities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then if the time has passed which allows their being deported under the Immigration Act, what authority b/ive you for deporting them under any other Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No authority except their being willing to go, we paying the expenses to send them.
Public Works Health Act, $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that for the purpose of paying inspectors of public works to see whether the general precautions regarding health are being carried out?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many are employed for that work, and how are they engaged- by the year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are engaged by the year and they travel about and examine public works wherever they are being constructed. I had only one until about fifteen or eighteen months ago when I found the work was very heavy and increasing, especially in the west, and I had to appoint another. That gentleman resigned a couple of months ago and I have not yet appointed a successor,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salary do you pay?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Either $1,500 or $1,800 a
year and travelling expenses.


William D. Staples: Who is the man who resigned?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Chamberlain. He was working in the west.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the inspector from time to time visit the works or does he only make one inspection during the season?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He must visit them once in three months.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the inspector
now?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Fisher. He has been the inspector since the commencement of the work.


John Dowsley Reid: Has any person taken Dr. Chamberlain's position?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not yet. I expect to appoint some one. During the winter there is not such a large amount of work going on.


John Dowsley Reid: It is about a year since Dr. Chamberlain resigned?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, not later than last summer.


John Dowsley Reid: I think it was about June.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it was later than June, but I am not positive.


Edward Guss Porter: Suppose the inspector finds the conditions unsatisfactory, what is done?	'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The contractor is notified and if he does not immediately comply with the law he may be prosecuted. I do not remember that we have had any case of prosecution. The moment complaint is made the inspector is ordered to go, even if he has been there a month ago, to examine into the facts of the case and make a report.


Edward Guss Porter: Do I understand that there have been complaints?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. In one case where the complaints were partially well founded the contractors were notified that they must remedy the grievance. The Act and the rgulations specify what provision must be made for he employees and what precautions must be taken. The rule is that contractors are allowed to take a small sum, I think fifty cents a month, from the wages of the employees to cover the expenses.


Edward Guss Porter: Is that duty imposed upon the contractor by reason of his contract or by reason of the Public Health Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: By reason of the Public Health Act.


Edward Guss Porter: There is no clause in the contract in regard to that?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not necessarily. There might or might not be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For what purpose is that fifty cents a month taken from the employees?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For the purpose of giving them medical attendance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a different thing altogether from the inspection of public works.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has nothing to do with the pay of our inspector. It reimburses the contractors for the outlay they are obliged to- make in the interest of their em-Mr. FISHER.
ployees in providing hospitals and medical attendance. It is very much in the nature of an assessment in a union or organization of any kind for the purpose of insuring the members of that organization medical attendance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That has been the common practice for thirty years?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and that Act simply provides that certain requirements shall be complied with in consequence of holding back that amount of money.
Pensions-Mrs. Delaney, $400.


Samuel Hughes: That is for Mrs. Delaney, whose husband was shot at Frog lake?


Mr. PATERSON.: I think it is.


Samuel Hughes: I support the item very strongly, but I want to draw the attention of the government to the fact that the men who, while defending their country, were shot down at Frog lake have never had their graves decorated or cared for in any way. 1 brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) last year and I would be pleased if the Minister of Customs, who is leading the House to-night, would take it into his serious consideration and have the graves of the late Messrs. Delaney, Gowanlock and Gilchrist looked after. I beg to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) to it. These graves should be put within a little railing. It would not cost much; it would be a matter of courtesy, and I am sure that the soldiers throughout the country would appreciate it very much.


Frederick William Borden: I will make inquiry about it.
Pensions payable on account of the Fenian Raid, $2,000.


Mr. JAMESON.: I noticed the other day that when the veterans were before the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia and Defence it was said by some of them that there had been no recognition of the services of those who had served in defence of their country upon the occasion of this raid other than those who received wounds and were disabled. There was a certain recognition.
Hon! Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia). There was not only a recognition of those who were wounded, but if my hon. friend had been present at that meeting he would have seen that there was a recognition of the services of every man who turned out in defence of the country at that time, because he would have seen the evidence of it on the left breast of each man in the medal which he wore and which is the very highest recognition that can possibly be given by any country.


Edward Guss Porter: Last year a pension was granted to the widow and children of the late Lt.-Col. Hallowell who was wounded at Batoche and died last year. Is that a pension that would require a vote?


Frederick William Borden: No, that is statutory under the Militia Pension Act.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. PATERSON moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is private members' day, but if we reach government orders we will go into Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What department?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say.
Motion agreed, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.

Wednesday, February 10,1909.