1910-01-28

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 127) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.- Mr. Turriff.
Mr. FOSTER

Mr. SPEAKER.: I promised the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) yesterday, that I would look into the question raised by him in reference to an answer to a question, on the order paper, of the hon. the Minister of Public Works. The answer referred to stated that a certain company declined to tender for certain work and that the said company gave as a reason for declining that they found certain difficulties attending upon the work. The hon. member for York asked the hon. minister to lay the papers referred to on the table. As a matter of fact, the answer of the hon. minister did not refer to any papers, and the hon. minister himself stated to the House that he was not sure there was any correspondence on the subject. The hon. member for York asked if he was not entitled to demand that the correspondence, if anyj be laid upon the table without an order of the House.	-
The rule of parliament in respect to the production of papers is that no documents can be laid before the House unless in pursuance of some parliamentary authority. The proper parliamentary authority is, of course, an order of the House, which must be moved for under the rules of the House as to notice. There is, however, a rule of debate, which the hon. member for York probably had in his mind, to the effect that when a minister of the Crown quotes a public document in the House and founds upon it an argument or assertion, the document quoted from should be produced. This rule does not apply to the case in question, as I do not find that the hon. minister quoted from any public document; in fact, he stated that he was not sure there was any correspondence on the subject. I am of opinion, therefore, that the hon. member for York is not entitled to the production of any correspondence or papers, if any, without following the rule of the House as to papers, on motion after notice.



CURRENCY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER-for Hon. W. S. Fielding-moved that the House go into committee on Tuesday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for a revision and amendment of the Currency Act, chapter 25, of the Revised Statutes.
Further resolved, that the standard for gold coins of the currency of Canada be such that of one thousand parts by weight, nine hundred shall be of fine gold and one hundred of alloy; and the standard for silver coin shall be such that of one thousand parts by weight nine hundred and twenty-five shall be of fine silver and seventy-five of alloy ; that the

standard weight for gold coin of the denomination of ten dollars in the currency of Canada he two hundred and fifty-eight grains, and the standard weight for a silver coin of the denomination of fifty cents be one hundred and eighty grains, and for other gold coins and silver coins proportionate weights respectively; that the Minister of Finance be authorized to issue out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may be necessary for the purchase of bullion in order to provide supplies of coins for the public service; and that the cost, charges and expenses incident to carrying out the provisions of any Act founded upon these resolutions be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that the House go into committee on Tuesday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Militia Pension Act, chapter 42 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, as follows;-
By inserting the following section immediately after section 6 thereof:-
6A. Time served in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police may also be included in the term of service of an officer for the purposes of this Act.
2. In such case the yearly deduction of five per cent upon average pay under this Act from any pension shall be reduced by the average yearly deduction from the officer's salary or pay as a police officer made under and for the purposes of Part II. of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act, or made under and for the purposes of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, or under Part I. of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act.
6B. The following times may also be included in the term of service of an officer for the purposes of this Act:
(a) Time served with the military forces in South Africa in any one or more of the years 1899, 1900, 1901 and 1902, and the time during which the officer was invalided but remained on full pay on account of wounds, injuries or disease suffered or contracted on such service;
.(h) Time served by an officer of the Canadian militia with the South African Constabulary ;
(c)	Time served with the third (special service) battalion of the Royal Canadian regiment of infantry at Halifax;
(d)	Time served with the Yukon field force in any one or more of the years 1898, 1899 and 1900; and
(2) Time served in the employment of the government of Canada in connection with the militia stores prior to the organization of the Ordnance Stores Corps.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that the House do on Tuesday next go into Com-84
mittee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Royal Military College Act, chapter 43 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by repealing section 7 and substituting therefor the following;-
7. The salaries, pay and allowances of the commandant and of the superior and subordinate staffs of the college shall be as fixed from time to time by the Governor in Council.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved that the House do on Tuesday next go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council: (a) to sell and dispose of the Baby Farm, situate in the township of York, in the county of York, and province of Ontario, the acquisition of which was ratified by chapter 51 of the statutes of 1908. The purchase money received from the construction of barracks and buildings thereon for the housing of the militia and other military purposes in or in the vicinity of, the city of Toronto, (b)) to sell and dispose of that parcel of land in the municipality of Assiniboia, in the province of Manitoba, and now used and known as the Winnipeg Rifle Range. The purchase moneys received from the purchaser of the said range to be appropriated and used for the purchase of land for a rifle range in, or in the vicinity of, the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. FOSTER.: I would ask the attention of the Minister of Railways to a return ordered on December 1, as to passes on the Intercolonial railway. That motion includes another for the production of the papers in reference to the purchase of ties on the Windsor branch. If the former papers could be brought down the later papers might remain for the present. I wish to ask the Prime Minister about a return passed on November 24, for papers with reference to the secretariat of the imperial conference. I would like to have them as soon as possible. I would like also to have the return to an order passed on December 1 for a return of the United States war vessels, or what we call war vessels, on the Great Lakes. A return was brought down last year answering a series of questions as to the Transcontinental Railway Commission's appointments. That return did not give the post office address or the location from which the appointees were appointed, and without that it does not answer my purpose.

COMMON ri


Mr. GRAHAM.: A similar return was asked this year and we are trying to complete what was brought down last year, making an addition to it. If I remember correctly, the commissioners said last year that it was impossible to give those particulars.


George Eulas Foster: I think they can give them if they wish.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH GERMANY.

Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I wish to draw the attention of the government to an article which appears in the New York ' Herald ' of yesterday. The title of which is ' Dominion government refuses to' accept German concession for the removal of the surtax.' I wish to ask the government whether it is true that they have received a communication from the German government in regard to the removal of the surtax and whether they have decided to take any action in the matter. The article goes on to say that Italy and Belgium, both of whom will be hurt by the Franco-Canadian treaty which goes into effect January 1, are pressing the government for as favourable concessions as France secures and are prepared to retaliate if they are not accorded. I would ask the government whether Italy and Belgium have also pressed on thq government the necessity for better trade relations and whether they have been refused in the same manner as, according to this article, Germany ha3 been. This is an important article, we have the privilege of having a member in the press gallery who represents this paper and whose presence, I am sure, we all appreciate and if the Prime Minister will be good enough to answer those two questions I would appreciate it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: There has been no official negotiation of that character going on. There may have been some informal negotiations.



MR. ALLARD AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Mr. CROTHERS.: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a question of mine which he answered yesterday. I asked whether Mr. Allard had been connected with the government contracts directly or indirectly on January 22. The Prime Minister gave an answer in the present tense, that the government is not aware that Mr. Allard is interested in any contract directly or indirectly. Of course he might have been interested last Saturday and not yesterday. I would like my right hon. friend to answer the question as it is worded, if he is prepared to do so. I Mr. FOSTER.
would like to have the answer a little more definite if possible. Was he interested on January 22 and has the Prime Minister sufficient information to enable him to say unequivocally that he had not on that day any such interest.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no information whatever. It is quite possible, I do not know, that Mr. Allard or any body else may have had contracts with different branches of the government, but it would take some time for the government to find out. If my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) will tell me he has reason to believe that Mr. Allard has a contract with a particular department I would have investigations made immediately, so as to satisfy what I suppose is a very legitimate curiosity.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have some information, but it is not sufficiently definite in my mind for me to state it as a fact to the right hon. gentleman. If I get in a position to do so, I will give my right hon. friend the information and we will get the answer unequivocally.


Wilfrid Laurier: When my hon. friend has it sufficiently definite in his own mind, if he will let me know I will try and give a definite answer.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. BRADBURY.: I have asked several times for the instructions to Chief Justice Howell with reference to the surrender of the St. Peter's reserve. A return wa3 brought down yesterday and I presume the Minister of the Interior thought that included the instructions to Mr. Judge Howell. It does not and I- would like to know if the minister has those instructions.


Mr. OLIVER.: The hon. gentleman asked for the instructions to Mr. Howell some time ago, and why they were not included in a return asked for from the Interior Department. The instructions were not issued from the Interior Department, but from the Governor in Council. However, the instructions were placed on the table by myself yesterday, and I stated to the House that they were the instructions and were in response to the hon. gentleman's inquiry.


George Henry Bradbury: Am I to understand that these are the only instructions which Chief Justice Howell received?


Frank Oliver: The instructions laid upon the table yesterday are the only instructions that the chief justice received.


George Henry Bradbury: I desire to call the attention of the minister to the fact that about two weeks ago an order of the House was

issued for a return showing some accounts of George Tracy in relation to St. Peter's Indian reserve. That has not been brought down. I understand that it is a small return and will take only about a day to copy.


Frank Oliver: That will be laid upon the table on Monday.



INTERCOLONIAL AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' BENEFIT FUND.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Third reading of Bill (No. 19) to amend the
Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways employees' provident fund Act.-Mr. Graham.
George Perry Graham: Since the introduction of this Bill I had a conference with the men interested, who are still in the employ of the railway, and who, as representatives of the association, meet to discuss its affairs periodically. They had several amendments to suggest; and, after discussing all these propositions for some days, it was decided that those propositions, together with the provisions of this Bill, should be referred to competent authorities to see what would be the result to the fund before further action should be taken. I agreed to that. Under these circumstances, I move that the order for the third reading of this Bill be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Is it proposed to withdraw the Bill altogether, and, when the decision of the competent authority to which it has been referred is received, to introduce it again? Generally speaking, how will the matter stand after the withdrawal?
Mr: GRAHAM. If I get the information and it will warrant me in introducing the Bill suggested, it might be possible to do it this session. The difficulty arises from the many intricacies that were developed as we discussed the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite uncertain at present what will be done?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Motion agreed to and Bill withdrawn.



SEED CONTROL ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved the second Teading of Bill (No. 55) to amend the Seed Control Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Has there been an explanation of this Bill?


Mr. FISHER.: Yes, I explained the Bill on its introduction. But, should an explanation be desired now, I may say that, in the course of the operation of the Seed Control Act, some slight difficulties-very few, I am 84*
happy to say-have arisen, and this Bill is intended to obviate those difficulties. In addition, the Bill adopts a new principle in seed control. Hitherto we have dealt only with the purity of seeds; now we propose to deal with the vitality of seeds. The clauses relating to purity have helped to protect the farmers against the purchase of weed seeds or of seeds of a different variety from that which they desire to purchase. Now it is proposed to protect the farmers-from having seed palmed off on them the percentage of whose vitality is not up to a fair standard. This has not been embodied, in the Act heretofore, but we have found; in some instances that the loss of the farmers in consequence of this inferior quality of the seed has been very considerable, and we wish to take the necessary means to protect them. The first clause of the Bill simply authorizes the making of regulations for this purpose, and the last clause provides that labels on packages of seeds must state the percentage capable of germination. The third section brings under the operation of the Act alfalfa, now a very important farm crop, to be dealt with as grass and clover seeds have been dealt with heretofore. The Bill also adds wild radish to the list of prohibited seeds and introduces some explanatory names of seeds mentioned in the seventh section of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. Subsection 1 of section 2 of the Seed Control Act, chapter 128, of the Revised Statutes, 1906, is amended by adding the following paragraph immediately after paragrapn (u.) tnere-of:-
(aa) regulations determining the percentage standards of vitality for good seed of the various kinds of cereals, grasses, clovers, forage plants, field root and garden vegetaolo crops; and,
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have just explained that section 2 of the Act as- it stands authorizes the making of regulations determining the maximum proportion of the seed of weeds named in the Act that may be tolerated in other seeds, and also such regulations as are necessary to secure the due enforcement of the Act. Under this proposed section, we shall also make regulations to provide standards of vitality.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister -be good enough to give us some idea of what success is being met with in carrying out the Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not sure that that is a subject I should take up on thi3 section, but, as I wish to give all the information possible, I will say in general terms that it has been very successful in improving the

quality of seeds supplied to our farmers. In the first place, it has attracted the attention of farmers to the quality of the seed, and, in the second place, has required seed merchants and sellers throughout the country to live up to the law. And, with their desire to do so-which I may say is general-they have the knowledge that if they do not do so they are called to account. This is not always by prosecution necessarily, although a number of prosecutions have been entered. We try wherever possible, where apparently the dereliction of duty has not- been intentional, to admonish rather than punish. But where the lack of proper supervision is apparently due, either tc gross carelessness or deliberate intention, we do not hesitate to put the Act into force. I am glad to say that even in respect of those who have violated the Act, the course we have adopted, and the existence of the Act itself, have tended greatly to raise the quality of the seeds supplied to our farmers. I am also glad to say that the farmers who buy seeds, knowing of the existence of this Act and of the machinery which is provided to enable them to get good seeds, are firstly, paying more attention to the quality and character of their seeds, and secondly, are taking the trouble to send samples to the laboratory here, where they are tested, and where information is given to the farmers of the character of the seeds which they are purchasing.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The reason I ask the question is that I understand there are quite a number of farmers, who take advantage of the privilege of sending their seeds here to be tested, but nothing like the extent that the minister would perhaps lead us to believe. Do the farmers generally know that this Act is in existence, and do they take the trouble to purchase pure seeds from the local dealer, or are they allowed, as the old Act, if I remember rightly, gave them the privilege, to dispose of their seed to the retail man, and the retail man, instead of buying from the wholesaler, is buying from the farmers? Then, would the minister be good enough to tell us about how many inspectors he has looking after the Seeds Mark Act, and about how many prosecutions there are per annum?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are seven inspectors whose special business it is, in that period of the year when seeds are bought and sold, to look after this business, and they take samples amongst those who are selling seeds. The Act empowers them to go in and buy a sample and make a test of it for themselves, without the intervention of the purchaser or the farmer. At the same time, the farmer can also send samples to be tested. The seed men themselves frequently send samples; nearly half the seeds that are tested here come from Mr. FISHER
the. seed sellers. They desire that the seeds they are selling should be up to the standard of the Act, showing, as I have already said, their desire to do what is right. The machinery of the department in the seed laboratory is a great assistance to them; without it, each of them would have to have a testing machinery of his own, which would be almost impossible for them to get. We have a staff of experts here who have been trained in that work for a long time, and who are able to do it. Some of the large seed houses do this for themselves, but the smaller ones and the retailers do noL In this way we are fully aware of the improvement that has been made, and that improvement is far greater than the number of prosecutions undertaken, whether successful or not, would indicate.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have been conversing with some of the western men, and I find, as the minister may be well aware, that hundreds and thousands of acres of grain are burned every year, for instance, in the province of Manitoba, by the weed inspector. Of course the land has a good deal to do with that, the land has been permeated to a certain extent with these seeds. Does the minister mean to say that farmers in general throughout the northwest, as well as eastern provinces, are conversant to any extent with the clauses in the Seeds Marks Act? I cannot help but think that they are not in touch with the operation of the Act to a large extent, or they are paying very little attention to it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The power to burn up foul seeds in the field is taken under a provincial law and not under this Act. I regret that the fields of the west, as well as the fields of the eastern part of Canada, are very foul. It is very regrettable, and one of the chief objects of the Seeds Commissioners branch is to try and assist the farmers to improve that condition of things. But it is a slow process, it can only be carried out with the co-operation of the owners of the land themselves. All we can do in that regard is to urge upon them the necessity of improvement, and to suggest methods by which they can effect an improvement, and save the vast loss which is entailed upon them year by year by neglecting to clean their land. As to the knowledge of the farmers of this Act, I think it is pretty widespread. My hon. friend will remember that two years ago, about the time this Act was passed, we sent through the northwest a special train carrying samples of seeds and grains, and a staff of expert officers. They held about 200 meetings in the three prairie provinces, mostly in Manitoba and Sask-

atchewan. They were very largely advertised, and commented upon, and discussed, even by those who were not able to attend the meetings. It was a very graphic and effective way of calling the attention of the public to this evil, and to methods of remedy. Since that time we have had, with the co-operation of the seed growers, local associations, or branches established, and a very large number of meetings have been held, dealing almost entirely with the question of the purity of the seeds. In addition to that, the various institute meetings in the several provinces, this question has been frequently discussed, and the farmers have taken a great interest in it. I may say that the grain farmers, especially of the west, have been thoroughly aroused to the necessity of action. I grant that a great many of the farmers of Canada, perhaps the larger number, do not carry out the advice that is given to them. It is perhaps too much to expect at present, although we think that they will do more. Farmers are like the rest of us, they probably do not do quite as well as they know how. There are hundreds and thousands of farmers in Canada who have been made acquainted with the information supplied by the department on this subject, they are advised to do certain things to clean their land, and yet many of them, for lack of time or energy, fail to act upon our advice. We can only hope that as time goes on our farmers will more generally take advantage of the machinery provided in the Act, and I think we are gradually overcoming the apathy which has existed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot help feeling that altogether a more aggressive policy ought to * be adopted in the eastern provinces in carrying out the policy of the government in this regard. When you take into consideration there are 23,000,000 acres under crop, if you could increase the production by a bushel or two per acre per annum, see the millions of dollars it would bring back to the farmers. If merely a few copies of this Act, or the instructions go out to a small number of farmers it is not likely that the aggressive policy is being pursued that should be carried on. I think it would be well if the minister could devise some means whereby he could undertake a more aggressive policy upon this subject.


Mr. HERRON.: When this movement began the government sent a car through our part of the country to show the advantages of the use of pure seed. But, unfortunately, that policy of the government, has not as far as I know been continued, and nothing further has been done in that direction. I do not think there Is
one man in a thousand among merchants or farmers, or the men who handle seed grain, in our part of the country, who knows anything about the Pure Seed Act. It is a very important question. Our western country is subject to foul seeds of every kind. They grow very luxuriantly and very rapidly. They seem to take the place of almost any useful crop. That is one of the evils that we will have to contend with in that country, and I think the government should continue the propaganda and the policy of distributing more information in that direction.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that we are doing nothing in the neighbourhood in which he lives?


John Herron: I do not believe that one man in a thousand knows anything in particular about your pure seed Bill. I do not think that very much has been done in the last two or three years in the direction of educating the farmers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, we have regularly, for several years, conducted field crop competitions in the hon. gentleman's own constituency, and there were thirteen seed fairs held last year in Alberta for the special purpose of explaining to the farmers the advantages of good seed and of getting them to buy good seed. I think I am within the mark when I say that from 40,000 to 50,000 copies of our special seed bulletins and the Seed Act have been distributed each year by my department. I think that my hon. friend a little underrates the intelligence and knowledge of his own people. He will find- that a good many of his farmers know about this, about these seed fairs, about the field crop competitions and about the work of the seed growers associations which are working locally, as our department is working for the whole country. We are aiding and co-operating with these associations, stimulating and helping them on. I sympathize with the feelings of the hon. gentleman when he says that enough is not being done, but at the same time, I have learned by long experience that you have to exercise some patience before seeing plainly the results of work of this kind which is done in agriculture. You do not get the results all at once. The spread of information, the improvement of methods, and all that is very slow and it is especially a case where, in our western country, a great many of the men who own and work the land were not brought up as farmers.	It is a great deal
harder to teach these people than it is to teach young men who have grown up with and been accustome 1 to agricultural work from their childhood,

and especially people who have come from abroad and who are not familiar with our conditions. I am just as eager as any one to do all that can be done profitably and advantageously, and I must confess to my hon. friend that nearly every year I am asking for a little more money to expend in this way. But I would like to have a thorough scheme of organization and of work to ensure that the money spent will give a good return. I do not want to ask parliament for money to spend uselessly for the purpose of making a show of spending money and of being able to say that so much money has been spent. I have never done that in connection *with any of the work of my department, and I do not like to do it now. If any suggestion is made, and occasionally I get valuable suggestions from members of the House, farmers, and leading men of the country, I am only too happy to take it up and see whether it will work into practical organization or operation for the benefit of the farmers. I think we have done that about as much as we could. We are doing a a great deal of work at the present time in connection with the improvement of iseed. My seed commissioner gives his whole time to it and we have the further satisfaction of knowing that other countries, notably the United States, are looking to us and to this very Seed Control Act for models upon which to base their legislation and work.


John Herron: The minister stated that several seed fairs have been held.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Thirteen in the province of Alberta.


John Herron: Were they in my constituency?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No; I said thirteen in the province of Alberta, but I also said 'that there were field crop competitions held in the hon. gentleman's own county. That is another thing.


John Herron: Where would they be in my own constituency?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Fishburn Agricul-, tural Society has been co-operating with the department and carrying on that work.


John Herron: I am very glad to hear it, but I would like to say a further word in reference to this seed train that passed through our country a few years ago exhibiting pure seed. I think that it gave a splendid education to the farmers and did a great deal of good to the country. I am sorry that something of the kind could not be undertaken again. I believe that is one of the best ways of educating the farmers that I have ever seen, and from that day to the present I have not Mr. FISHER.
seen anything that has impressed me as being of such value in that direction. It may have been costly, but I think it was of great value to the country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I quite agree with .my hon. friend that such a work as that seed train did is very effective. In waking up the people to a certain line of work we find, first, that we have to do something that is very striking, something that will attract public attention, something that will awaken and arouse them, and then we have to take it up more in detail by instructive and helpful co-operation with the people individually. The results of that are not as conspicuous and a great deal of the work is being done silently without its attracting the interest or observation of the people at large. But it is just as necessary to go through that second stage or phase of the work as it is to do the more conspicuous! *or the more brilliant work at the commencement. I can assure my hon. friend that while we have not been doing anything quite so brilliant as that train, we have been doing just as effective work in' the present stage of the education of the people. I am not afraid of the expense, and if it is necessary to arouse the people again to do something of that kind, I would not hesitate because it costs money, and I am sure, judging from experience, that parliament will foe good enough to grant me the necessary funds. I am glad the suggestion has been made as to whether we should not repeat the experiment.


George Eulas Foster: Did the hon. gentleman have any co-operation between the government and the provincial authorities or between the government and the railway companies, or did he simply engage in this enterprise alone? In the United States the railways would seem to be very generous in the contribution of car facilities, and of course it is to their advantage because every good bushel of grain, instead of a bad bushel, brings them more trade. It is just as much the duty of the up to date provincial agricultural authorities as it is ours that such work should be done, and co-operation would make the work more effective and more economical.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The provincial authorities were invited to co-operate, and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan did. The railways supplied the rolling stock and hauled the train free.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I sympathize with all reasonable efforts to prevent the spreading of foul seeds, but I think this Act provides for a penalty on the man who sells foul seed whether he has knowledge that the seed is foul or not. That may prove to be, rather harsh. For instance, a farmer might not know there was foul seed in the clover



1B10

[Stage Direction]
seed he sells and it would be going very far to impose a penalty on him.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: If I require to show every time a prosecution is entered that the person selling impure seed knew he was doing so, I would practically have to give up all attempt to enforce the Act. If persons offer for sale seed as pure, it should ba pure, and we must trust to them taking the necessary precautions.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think a penalty should he imposed unless the man had knowledge he was selling impure seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I take direct issue with my hon. friend there.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Surely guilty knowledge must he the essence of an offence of that sort.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If a man engaged in business sells me seed as pure, it is his business to know. In subsection 2 of section 9 if the man can prove he bought the seed in good faith from a wholesale merchant, the onus is thrown on the wholesale merchant.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But suppose the man grew the seed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then he would have to take the consequences.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think that would be harsh treatment.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: There has been a good deal done by the provincial and Dominion governments to prevent the distribution of wild seeds through the sale of seed grain and grass and clover seeds, but there is another mode of distributing these wild seeds to which I would direct attention. The milling companies grind their screenings, but they do not grind them fine enough in some cases, and the most dangerous weeds in the section of the country I live in, as well as in other parts pf Ontario, have been introduced through the importation of ground feed. We have no knowledge in the world when we buy that feed that we are going to pollute our farms, but nevertheless' that has been the result. While the distribution of wild seeds is met in the Bill in some aspects, something should be done to take precautions in the direction I have mentioned.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a pretty difficult problem to deal with. The provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba have provincial statutes which cover that point, and which if they are enforced would seem to be calculated to meet the difficulty pretty successfully. I do not think the province of Ontario has any such law, or, if so, it is entirely obsolete. The situation, is a little different in the different provinces, and their laws have practically to
be different. I am advised that it would be extremelv difficult, if not impossible, for us to draw a general law applicable to the whole Dominion which would cover the ground as well as the provincial laws. In each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta there is a provincial law on the subject. This question has been considered pretty carefully by us, but there is nothing in this Act which deals with that.


John Albert Sexsmith: I am well aware that noxious seeds exported from the west have been distributed through the province of Ontario, especially in the vicinity where I live. I am glad to learn that the western provinces have laws to prevent this; but during the last five years I myself have received the seeds of foul plants that have never existed in our part of the country before, through the buying of western feed, many of the farmers in Ontario have come to the conclusion that it would be better to buy no western feed at all than to take the chances of polluting their farms with these noxious plants.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I sympathize with my hon. friend on that point. I believe the tailings of screenings that come from the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur are the principal media for the distribution of these foul weeds. These tailings or screenings are bought by the millers of Ontario, mixed with other grains, ground, and sold as feed, but they are not ground sufficiently fine to destroy all the weed seeds. It is a problem worthy of consideration whether something ought not to be done to restrain the distribution of these screenings. It is a matter which is under my consideration and which will have to be discussed in dealing with the terminal elevator question.


John Albert Sexsmith: I do not see that there could be any objection to amending the Act to prevent the milling companies disposing of these screenings unless they are ground so fine that the seeds will not germinate, and to prevent them mixing them with other grains and selling the mixture as pure feed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The farmers frequently prefer feed that is not ground too fine; and to grind these western tailings so fine as to kill some of the smallest seeds would be a pretty difficult process. I have had some investigation made into that question,- but perhaps not sufficient to make me very positive.


John Albert Sexsmith: Perhaps it would be wise for the minister to make further investigation, and to compel the people grinding these screenings to sell them separately and not to mix them with other grains.


Mr. SPEOULE.: My experience is that the farmers are discarding the mills run with wind-power or horse-power because they do not grind fine enough, and are sending their grain to the large mills to get it ground finer. They believe that the finer the grain is ground, up to a certain standard, the better feed it is. My information in regard to this Seed Act is that while it provides for a certain standard of purity, and while the seedsmen generally comply with it and label their seeds No. 1, the Gomplaint is that you find, some months or a year after you have bought the seed, that you have introduced a lot of noxious weeds into your farm. For instance, you cannot buy turnip seed without getting with it a great deal of wild mustard, and the same thing is true of much of the clover seed that is sold. It is difficult to say what remedy could be applied to prevent this, but I know that there are a large number of complaints of that character.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the farmers would purchase their seeds a little early and send a sample to be tested at the laboratory here they would get a reply in two or three weeks or perhaps less, and would know whether the seeds were what they had bought or not. It is hardly possible to tell the difference between mustard and turnip seed by the eye, but by testing them here they can easily be distinguished.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The trouble is the seed is usually brought in just before seeding time.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The farmer has the other remedy of buying only seed marked No. 1, which, from our experience with a large number of samples, almost invariably fulfils the condition of No. I.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you to do when you find they are not No. I?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have found verv few samples of No. 1 that did not fulfil the conditions. I think the trouble is the farmers will not insist on buying No. 1.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From my experience and knowledge I am satisfied that in many cases they do not fulfil the conditions. On my own farm I have sowed seeds marked No. 1 that contained a great number of weeds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am sorry my hon. friend did not report that to the department. We have occasionally had reports sent, and we have traced them up. Even after the seeds are sown the purchaser is liable to a penalty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have difficulty in the enforcement of the Act when you have to go into court.



M. SEXSMITH.

Sydney Arthur Fisher: Keep a sample of the seed and send it to be tested.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Most farmers do not do that. When they sow No. 1 they do not retain a sample. I think that the common law should give damages in such a case, but owing to the difficulty of proving that the weeds came from the seed no farmer would go to the trouble of undertaking a prosecution. The Act is not as valuable in its working out to the farmers as they anticipated, because of these difficulties.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If a farmer will not take the trouble to protect himself, we cannot protect him. The farmer can test the seed before he sows it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He cannot get it from the seedsman until a day or two before he wishes to use it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a rule he can get it earlier.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My office is right at a seed store, and I have seen the seed brought in hundreds of times after seeding was partly or principally over, even telegraph orders being sent to supply the demand.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Having failed to protect himself in that way, the farmer has the further protection of reserving a small package of seed, sufficient to make a test. When he has this proof, not only can he prosecute, but if he will let us know we will prosecute for him. We have had very few failures of prosecutions under this Act, and in many instances, without absolutely prosecuting, we have been able to change the whole current of the seed business in a locality by pointing out the truth in regard to the quality of these seeds. It is a physical inability, though, to protect people who will not protect themselves.


Mr. STAPLES.: How many inspectors are there under this Act and what salaries do they receive?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think seven altogether, and they are moving around the country. Some of them work in particular regions most of the time, and are backwards and forwards, but most of them are not located in any particular place.


William D. Staples: How many of them are in the west?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Murray, of the Experimental Farm, Brandon; Mr. Eddy, Mr. Eeid and Mr. Mackillican.


William D. Staples: Are they on the road all the time?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Just during the busy season. Mr. Murray gets his salary as manager of the Experimental Farm, and does

not get additional pay for seed inspection work. They are in a certain division of the Civil Service, subdivision 'A' of the second division. I could not give, offhand, the exact salary of each, but the salaries of that subdivision run from $1,600 to $2,100.


William D. Staples: How many prosecutions have there been during last year throughout the Dominion?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Thirty-seven.


John Albert Sexsmith: I appreciate the efforts of the minister (Mr. Fisher) to deal with this very important question. But there is a difficulty still existing that, it seems to me, is hard to get over. A farmer goes into a seed store and the merchant shows him perhaps half a dozen samples of seeds at different prices. And I have known instances where farmers are inclined to buy-like many other people-a cheap article. Taking that seed home and sowing it, of course, may be said to be the farmer's own business. But the difficulty is that he is sowing weed seeds, and his neighbour, no matter how cautious he may be with regard to the seed that goes into his own land, has to share in the difficulty that follows. The foul seed is apt to spread all over the locality. I do not think that any dealer should be allowed to put on the market a low grade of seed, even at a low price; such seed should not be put on the market at all. There should be a standard, and no seed should be allowed to be sold below that standard.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have a standard below which no seed may be sold with a mark to indicate that it is No. 1. We have no definition of lower standards.


William D. Staples: How do you make the grade?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. I seed is described in the Act, and nothing below the standard there fixed can be sold as No. 1.


William D. Staples: How do you make the test?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has to be made in the laboratory. Of course, you cannot make it in a store. But if a man sells as No. 1 seed which is belo\f the standard here fixed, he is liable to a prosecution for a misdemeanour under the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not that standard test made by actual count?-not more than so many weed seeds to be found in one hundred. With reference to the viability, that would be matter of growth, of course.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 7 fixes the standard, and provides that the seed must be free from the seeds of the weed named in the preceding section.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And that, as I understand, is determined by actual count. But I understood the minister to say that it was determined in the chemical laboratory.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the seed laboratory. We have nothing to do with the chemical laboratory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister does not seem to be in good temper.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was explaining an answer to a question, and the very fact that the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) speaks of a 'chemical laboratory' shows that he misunderstood and I wish to set him right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend (Mr. Staples) asked the question how it was determined, and when the minister said it was in a laboratory, he asked how it was done. I said I understood that it was by actual count of the seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not understand the question to be put in that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I drew attention to the fact that the Act provided a standard, as I understood, of the number of noxious weed seeds permitted, this to be determined by actual count. As to the viability, of course, a certain percentage must germinate, and that must be tested in the laboratory. Thus, there must be two methods of reaching a standard of the seed that must be sold as No. 1. I thought the hon. member (Mr. Staples) was not getting the information he asked for.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. member wishes to answer the question instead of me, I suppose that is all right. The clause defines the character of the seed to be sold as No. 1. Whether the seed sold is of this character can only be determined in a seed laboratory, the large firms dealing in seeds have their own laboratories, and can determine whether the seeds they are selling are up to the mark or not. The consumer or small dealer who has bought from the wholesaler can, if he wishes, send samples to the seed laboratory of the department and these will be tested and a report furnished as rapidly as possible. Now, with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith), in section 6 of the Act there is a list of what we call noxious weeds. We are adding one to the list by the present Bill. No seeds can he sold in Canada which contain seeds of any of these noxious weeds, unless the package is marked with the full name and address of the seller, and the common name of this kind or kinds of noxious weed seeds contained. Thus, if the farmer buys No. 1 seed, he knows it cannot contain any of these noxious weeds, or the merchant who

sells it is liable to prosecution and punishment. If the merchant chooses to sell seed which contains these noxious weed seeds, he must give his name and the name of the weed seed contained in the package. I do not think that any farmer with common sense would buy that kind of seed. We, therefore, have provided practically against the selling of seeds in Canada with any of these noxious weeds intermixed. From time to time we add to the list of prohibited noxious weed seeds, as we are doing to-day. These seeds are the particularly noxious ones. Of course, there are other injurious seeds, but not so bad as those in'-hr'erl in the list. Then, section 7 of the Bill defines what No. 1 seed is to be. We are not attempting-I hope we shall come to that by and by-to define No. 2 and No. 3 seed, or, perhaps ' rejected,' and let the farmers know what they are buying. However, we have not yet determined a safe definition of second or third class seed that we would like to put before the purchasing public. At present we think it safer -in fact the only safe way-for the farmer to buy No. 1 seed. I suppose the difference varies in different parts of the country. I am told that, the difference in price of a bushel of clover seed between No. 1 and other seed that does not come up to that standard, is not more than $1. We do not guarantee that these s-eeds shall not be found in seed that is sold as No. 1. But I can say that, roughly speaking, we make a test of something over 1,000 samples a year of the seeds which are marked No. 1, and not one half of one per cent has failed to come up to the standard. We get samples everywhere during the summer season, it is the duty of our inspectors to go about and buy samples and send them in to be tested, and especially do we aim at testing these No. 1 seeds, because they are the seeds that we want the farmers to buy. I think I am correct in saying that the No. 1 seed as marketed by the people of this country according to the laboratory test, is up to the standard.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: I would like to inquire whether it is the intention of this Bill to increase the standard so as to provide for a less percentage of weeds than formerly existed. I have had some complaint from farmers in my riding that the standard is not sufficiently high to warrant them in getting pure seed. I recollect that when the Bill was brought in, there was a good deal of opposition to it, even by farmers, who complained that it was impossible to get a less percentage of weeds than the Bill provided for, and some considered it as a great hardship to the seed merchants to have 3o low a percentage, they said it was impossible, with the machinery available, for seedsmen to produce seed of the proper standard. I have had com-Mr. FISHER.
plaints from different sources that the standard is not sufficient to ensure the farmers getting good seed. Is it possible to get a less percentage of weed seed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend will look at the Act, not the Bill, section 2 says:
The Governor in Council may make regulations to determine the maximum proportion of seeds of the weeds named in this Act that may be tolerated in any other seeds without affecting their character as being free from the seeds of the said weeds within the meaning of this Act.
That is the toleration clause. It is a little difficult to ensure absolute purity. In grains like oats and wheat we permit one in a pound. That means, roughly speaking, that there may be possibly one to the 1,500. The limit of toleration in grass 3eed and clover; is one in 1,500 by count. So if there is more than that, if there is one in 1,200 or 1,400, that seed would be regarded as impure, according to the Act. If there was only 1 in 1,600 or 1,700, that seed would be allowed to pass. I think the test is already pretty severe. Toleration is allowed chiefly for the purpose of permitting the accidental presence of these noxious weed seeds.


Mr. A. H.: C-LARKE. Even that proportion would be dangerous in the dissemination of bad weeds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We could require one in 2,000 instead of 1,500. Our object is to make the law just as strict as the trade can possibly bear.


John Albert Sexsmith: I agree that the standard now is fairly high in regard to No. 1 seed. But there is No. 2 and No. 3. Does the minister think it would be impracticable to place a standard below which no seed should be sold? I think there should be some standard.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would refer my hon. friend to section 8 of the Act:
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, for the purpose of seeding in Canada, any seeds cf timothy, alsike or red clover or any mixture containing the said seeds, if the seeds of the weeds named in this Act are present in greater proportion than 5 to 1,000 of the seed sold.
That is a statute, we cannot change it by regulation. The seeds named in this section are those I refer to in clauses 6 and 7, the noxious weeds. I do not think the trade could supply the farmers of Canada to-day if that clause was made more severe. We must improve the quality of seeds produced, so that the seedsmen may be able to buy seeds of that kind and quality.


John Albert Sexsmith: I am pleased to learn that there is no practical standard below No. 1. But, would the minister not think it wise to go a little farther and prohibit any of those dangerous seeds, such as are named in No. 1 quality from being included in No. 2, and thus create a better standard?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have no standard in No. 2 at all. We have fixed the standard at No. 1, and we have practically told the farmers that they ought to buy No. 1. As far as the Act is concerned there is no No. 2 or No. 3. No. 1 is called the government standard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you provide them with authority to sell another class of seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am just informed that some of the seedsmen are selling a certain lower grade as government standard. If they are I will have to look after them and try and prevent it. I do not know just what the trick is or how I will prevent it, but I do not wish to have the standard below No. I ticketed with the name of the government. I shall have to look after these people, and if it is necessary I would like to amend the Act for the purpose of preventing them from doing that.


Mr. WRIGHT.: When this seed Bill was before the House two or three years ago, I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that the largest seed firms in Canada did not number their seeds at all. I have been in this business, not of late, but for many years, I have sold thousands of dollars worth of grass and clover seed; I have bought an equal amount from the big wholesale houses, but I have never bought a bushel of seed that was numbered. It was designated by a certain name. Grass and clover seed bore the names of certain animals, etc. These made it perfectly clear what the grade was, but it was never sold as No. 1. I do not know if there has been any change or not. If there has not been any change these men may continue to sell their seed under the names under which they sold it in the past and it would not be brought under the scope of the original Bill or the Bill before the House. I would like to know just how the minister deals with cases of that kind.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Since this Act came into force there has been much more temptation on the part of dealers to mark their seeds as No. 1. If my hon. friend will look at clause 7 of the Act he will see that that designation is not required, but that the clause includes No. 1 or any other designation which represents seed of first quality. For instance, if a man were to call seed ' prime ' or ' extra ' we would apply section 7 to it as well and haul him up if the seed
did not come up to the standard. Before this Act came into force and there was no standard at all for seeds, seedsmen offered their seeds under any name they chose, and there was nothing illegal about it. But since the Act has come into force, there is this standard, and we deal with the seed according to the names they apply. If they affix a name which may be included in that class, we deal with it accordingly.


William Wright: Is there any clause in the Bill that compels a wholesale seedsman to designate his seed, 1, 2 or 3?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


William Wright: He can call it ' wolf',
' fox', ' lynx', or any other name he likes, sell the seed under such name and not come under this section of the Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He will come under the Act if he sells seed under a name that would come under the designation of clause 7.


William Wright: Suppose he calls it ' wolf ' or ' fox ' or ' lynx' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, but successful farmers would not buy it under that name.


William Wright: Well, they do buy it. I have bought and sold hundreds of thousands of bushels under names of that kind.


John Albert Sexsmith: The farmers buy No. I as they are reasonably protected, and I think they get a fair quality of seed, or as good as they could reasonably expect. But, without a No. 2 or a No. 3 grade, if we so designate it by numbers, we could not supply the trade. A great many farmers are compelled to buy No. 2 or No. .3 because we cannot supply the trade with No. 1. I think it would not be going too far to ask the minister to have these very dangerous seeds extended to the other grades as well and prohibit the sale of them altogether. What are the names of the seeds which are prohibited in No. 1?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are named in clause 6. They are prohibited in all seeds, and in clause 7 are those prohibited ones which are prohibited in No. 1. In regard to a second grade, when we were discussing the arrangement of this Bill, we examined into that, tout we did not wish to encourage the sale of any seeds except No. 1. We did not wish therefore to fix a standard which would toe pretty dangerous and very low. If we were making a standard of No. 2 slightly below No. 1, the relief that farmers and seedsmen must have would be very slight. If we made the difference very considerable, there would be a great temptation for many people to say: Well, No. 2 cannot be very bad, because there are a lot of numbers below No. 1, and I will buy it because it is cheaper. My hon. friend may

contend that the trade could not supply' the whole demand for No. 1. If that is largely true, it may be found to be a good sound argument in favour of creating a No. 2 grade, and I will look into that with the; greatest care. If I find, the facts such as will justify it and my officers can make a satisfactory description of a second grade,>
I would be rather disposed to introduce it into this Bill.


Mr. BEST.: I think that the farmers should sow the best class of seed they can get, but the great difficulty we find is that when we buy No. 1 seed and it turns out to be of an inferior quality we cannot get back at the man who sells, it. Last spring a dealer in our town sold what was supposed to be first-class seed to a farmer, but which proved to be not nearly up to tire standard. The dealer was fined $2. He had bought it from a wholesale dealer in Toronto, but nothing further came of the matter and it was dropped. We find that this is the greatest trouble we have. Farmers are trying to use the very best seeds , they can get, but we are often deceived in the seed we buy, and it is not worth while to go after the seller .for all the fine that is imposed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Did the farmer buy it for No. 1?


John Best: Yes, he bought it for No. 1 seed.	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And the man was liable to a fine?


John Best: He was fined $2.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That brings up the question whether the fines are sufficiently severe. We publish the names of those who are fined, and that has a more deterrent effect than the actual amount of the penalty.


George Eulas Foster: That would have more effect on the wholesalers than on the small retailers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. If the fines are not sufficient to deter, I have no hesitation in saying we will have to increase them.


John Albert Sexsmith: I believe that the more dangerous seeds should be prohibited altogether. The sowdhistle is one of the most obnoxious weeds we have, and I regret to say that it is spreading through the province of Ontario.
Mr, SPROULE. It is a very common thing to sell two or three grades of seed, and while the good farmer will take nothing but the best grade, others are not so careful. Now, clause 6 provides that the package must have the full name and address of the seller with the name and kind of seeds and the common names of the weed contained in the seeds. I do not Mr. FISHER.
think that law is complied with, because if it were nobody would buy the weeds if he knew they were in the seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The very fact that the name of these weeds is on the package is an open warning to the farmers not to buy, and they don't buy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But I do not think it is put on the package.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then it is sold in contravention of the law. If a man has a quantity of seeds which contain these weeds, he can sell them legally by putting the names of the weeds on the package, but if he does, of course nobody will buy them.1


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a common practice to offer for sale different grades of seed, and people buy them.


John Albert Sexsmith: I repeat that the sale of wild mustard and sow-thistle seed by the dealer or the farmer or any one else should be absolutely prohibited.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Wild mustard is prohibited in clause 6 of the Bill.


John Albert Sexsmith: That is a good thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it that every year you get wild mustard in your sugar beet and turnip seed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because, unfortunately, the Act is violated.


John Albert Sexsmith: If a farmer goes to a store and wants half a bushel of seed, and it is taken out of a bin and put in a bag, there is nothing to indicate that it contains weeds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The seller would have to put the name of the weed on the package in which he sells, as on the bin.


William D. Staples: Now that the different sections of the Bill have been carried, I want to have a little talk with the Minister .of Agriculture about the destruction of noxious weeds throughout this Dominion. This Bill prohibits the sale of seeds that contain noxious seeds, which is in the right direction; but, unfortunately, with all the care that- may be taken under this Bill, they will still be sold. The country, generally speaking, is becoming very much polluted with noxious weeds, and there is no question which is giving the farmers of this country more anxiety at the present time. The government of Manitoba has been exercising the greatest care on this subject; it has placed on the statute-book the most drastic law it could think out; but I believe that the Dominion government, which has a greater revenue at its command, a revenue gathered especially from the agriculturists of this country, could well afford to spend some of that

money in enforcing a law that would start at the very root of this unfortunate condition of affairs. It takes an enormous amount of money to enforce a law of this kind. Those who have their farms polluted with these noxious weeds suffer great loss, perhaps through their own fault, or through not knowing at first how injurious certain seeds would be. For instance, in the section of the country which I have the honour to represent, and in which the sow thistle prevails, the farmers did not realize for a number of years that it was as injurious as it has turned out to be. If the Minister of Agriculture is alive to the interests of the farmers, he should follow up this legislation with a law for the eradication of noxious weeds throughout this country. To my mind, this is one of the biggest questions the farmers of the west have to deal with. I do not know whether the minister has sucn intentions or not. If he has not, I would like to do my utmost to start him thinking along that line. The government of Manitoba has expended enormous sums of money in the attempt to destroy noxious weeds in that province; but a little province like that, without a stick of timber or a foot of land to derive a revenue from, cannot do much compared with this government, and I think it should use some of the money which it collects from the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as those of the other provinces, and give it back to them in the way of administering a law that would eradicate these weeds from the farms of the country.
Mr FISHER The subject which my hon. friend has brought up is one of the vastest importance and has a very wide hearing. The destruction of weeds on the land has been dealt with by the various provincial legislatures, including that of his own province of Manitoba.


William D. Staples: I know that; I have the law before me; but it takes an enormous amount of money to enforce that law.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But it is not enforced, unfortunately.


William D. Staples: I will venture to say that there is not another government in this Dominion making the efforts the government of Manitoba is to enforce the law.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad to hear it, but that is only a reflection on the other governments. This is a matter almost entirely of municipal control. I doubt very much if we could enforce a law in regard to it.


William D. Staples: That is the unfortunate part of it. When a municipality appoints an officer to deal with the law, and that
officer goes on to his neighbour's farm and orders him to cut down a field of grain and destroy it, that is where the trouble begins. If we had a general law, enforced by the officers of this government, it would have a better effect, and would not probably cause ill feeling among neighbours.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It does not require a Dominion law for that. The government of Manitoba could amend that feature of its law and provide efficient inspectors as well as the Dominion government could. As a matter of fact, that question has been dealt with by municipal regulation, which is a purely provincial matter, and which the Dominion government cannot interefere with. I am very dubious whether we could frame an Act which would enable us to enter upon a man's land and deal with noxious weeds on that land; and we certainly could not frame an Act which would cover the public highways, as the provincial and municipal authorities could. Any Act we framed would be very much restricted, even if it were not declared ultra vires of this parliament. I am not going to give a legal opinion on that point, but I can well understand the practical difficulties the Dominion government would have in enforcing such a law; and when we find that most of the provinces of the Dominion have such laws, which, according to my hon. friend, are not enforced, and which apparently are not enforced because they are not right


William D. Staples: It takes too much money to enforce them. Why should not this government lend some aid in that respect?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am perfectly willing to lend any aid within my power; but in this case, as in many others, where the provincial authorities are derelict in their duty, people appeal to us to 'do what the provincial authorities should do. The proper course is to keep their own provincial authorities up to the mark. My hon. friend had better deal with the authorities of the province he comes from.


Mr. THORNTON.: I would like to ask what means are taken under this law to ascertain what seeds will germinate?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have a germinating test. The seeds are put into a germinating plant or machine which shows at once or very shortly what seeds will germinate.


Charles Jonas Thornton: How are the dealers or farmers to know what seeds will germinate?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They can make the test themselves if they choose, or they can send samples here and have them tested.


John Best: I appreciate very much what [DOT]the department has been doing in the last

three years. We must admit that the farmers are improving greatly and still we can acknowledge that weeds are increasing. That is natural and I am afraid it will continue. We have new seeds and probably worse seeds coming all the time and I think the government should try to help the farmers to eradicate the weeds and keep them out. My hon. friend here seems to think the law should be very stringent. I claim it should not and I ask my hon. friend from Manitoba how it worked in the west when the law said that you could go out and mow down a farmer's field of grain if it contained many weeds. That is beneficial to the farmer with the clean farm, but we must also look after the poor man. They had to amend the law which allowed the elevator men to retain the screenings.


William D. Staples: Where was the law amended?


John Best: The principal of the agricultural college in Manitoba was sent out by the premier to ascertain if the farmers were content to take chances and get the screenings. He found that the great majority of the farmers were and they got the screenings back, I think it was an injustice to the farmers to have to leave their screenings at the elevators or mills for no doubt the elevator men kept a great amount of the screenings. While we are helping ourselves in some ways we may be injuring the country in others. I believe the government are doing all they can at the present time and I think they should try and increase the help they give to the farmers as the country increases. Let us give credit where credit is due. Ten or twenty or thirty years ago, we had not the seed tests we have to-day and I admit we did not need such tests, but, we have as much need now for the improved tests as for any other aid to agriculture. I, as a farmer, would ask the government to try to do everything possible to eradicate the weeds and keep the farms clear of them. They should encourage the farmers to sow nothing but No. 1, or the best seed. The farmers in too many cases do not properly clean the seeds which they raise, many seeds are resowed from improper cleaning. If the farmers are educated to sow the best and none but the best we will improve very much.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I assure my hon. friend I appreciate his views. We are watching very closely any opportunity to increase the stringency of these laws without unduly or unnecessarily interfering with the private business of the people. Before this Act was passed, there was nothing to prevent the refuse seeds of other countries being dumped on Canada and sold here. Since this Act has been in force the pro-Mr. BEST.
visions of the Act apply to seeds imported into _ Canada and any one selling seeds not coming up to the requirements of this Act, is mulcted and punished. The result is that the quality of the seeds imported into Canada from other countries has vastly improved, and we are, I think, safe in that way from the introduction of seeds from abroad which sometimes were brought into the country. It is well known that some of the worst and most noxious weeds we have in Canada were imported from abroad in seeds. That kind of thing can hardly occur under the operations of this Act and we are watching all the time where we can improve our legislation and its administration so as to take advantage of every opportunity of increasing the safeguards.


Mr. KIDD.: Is it not a fact that in many cases retail merchants would keep a good tested sample in the store, but would sell another grade to the farmer?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The inspectors inspect the seeds being sold, and any farmer can at once send a sample of the seed he has bought to the department and get it tested, without cost.


Edward Kidd: As a rule the farmers do not take much pains in getting the seed tested. I do not see anything in the Act that will protect the farmers or prevent the merchants from selling that inferior seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the merchant sells seed that does not come up to the quality established by the Act he is liable to a penalty.


Edward Kidd: For some time I have been watching the seed sold in our section and I do not think there is any improvement. I do not know where the leak is, but the Act does not seem to have the effect people anticipated.
Mr. FISHER, Our inspectors have taken samples of all kinds of seeds in every part of the country, and the result of testing those samples has been to show very marked improvements in the quality of the seeds offered; but of course if farmers will not take the trouble to give us an opportunity to protect them, we cannot protect them against their will.


Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.: I think there is a very important omission in the Act. Farmers are not botanists. Very often, even with the aid of books sent out from the department, they can scarcely recognize and name the weeds which they see growing. I would like to know how many retail merchants or farmers are able to take a handful of grain and name the seeds mixed with it. I suggested on a former occasion that any person who retailed seed under this Act should be compelled to have .in his place of business, one of those

cards of small bottles containing the different weed seeds, so that when a farmer buys seed he can compare it with the sample and know what he is really buying. This question of weeds in the west is very important. I think the yield has been reduced nearly one quarter in some cases, owing to noxious weeds. That matter should be looked into very carefully and every attempt made to check the increase of weeds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The samples of seeds of the different weeds are available not only for seed merchants, but for anybody else. I understand that. But I do not know that we could very well say that everybody who sells seeds should be compelled to have such a cabinet. We supply them at a mere nominal figure. But a man may sell seeds this year and not next year. The farmer has a protection that is far betterhe need not trust to his eyesight or his knowledge of seeds; he can send a sample to the seed laboratory here, and it will be tested and a report sent to him immediately, so that he will know absolutely, by the official record, the character of the seed he is buying.


Thomas Chisholm: It may be that a farmer has to go twenty miles to town to buy seed, and buys it, perhaps, to sow next day. How can he wait to send a sample to the department? I think that it would be a very small license fee-if you put it that way-to ask of a man who is selling seeds under such peculiar circumstances, and where there is a very great list, to have one of these cabinets in his place of business. It might keep out those who would go into the business in an irregular way. It would be a great educational influence, so that it would not be long until every farmer would be able to recognize these seeds by sight.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many farmers have sent samples of seed to the laboratory for test within the past year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Last year, there were about 13,000 samples tested. Of these, probably 5,000 came from seed merchants or sellers, and the other 8,000 from farmers.
Bill reported, and read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Very well.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has been waiting for an opportunity to say a few words on a subject of importance. He is not in his place at the moment, but will be here at once and ready to go on.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: I do not wish to interfere with any arrangement that has been made, but I would like, at this time, to call the attention of the government to order 35 in Public Bills and Orders. This is the partially-discussed motion on technical education. As hon. members will recall, the debate was adjourned at the instance of the government, for the purpose as I understood at the time of gaining further information as to the constitutional right of this parliament to deal with the question and, I believe, of consulting the various provinces. I would like to inquire of the government, and particularly of the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), whether any conclusion has 'been reached in the matter, and, if so, whether it will be necessarv or possible to have a day fixed for a further discussion of the question.


Mr. KING.: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is right in saying that the debate was adjourned with a view to giving the government an opportunity to look further into the question and, in particular, to communicate with the several provinces to see how any action on the part of the Dominion on the subject of technical education would be viewed by them. I have here a copy of the communication which was sent by the government to the premiers of the several provinces, and of the replies which have been received. Perhaps I could not answer the question asked by the hon. member in a more satisfactory way than by reading these communications. I may say, first of all, that the government is of opinion that it is very much in the national interest that a commission on technical education should be appointed. In the resolution moved by the hon. member for South Wellington, it is declared to be advisable 'that a commission of inquiry be forthwith appointed to investigate the needs of Canada in respect to technical education, and to report on ways and means by which these needs may be best met.' If the government has any exception to take to that resolution, it would be that the resolution dres not go far enough considering the importance of the subject. Any commission appointed should in the view of the government have an opportunity of visiting other countries especially Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States and of ascertaining the systems and methods of technical instruction obtaining in those countries with a view of giving to Canada the benefit of the experience of these other nations. The government having come to this decision, the following communication was sent by myself to the premiers of the several provinces, with a view to ascertaining whether action of that

nature on the part of the government would be favourably viewed by them, and in particular-since the question is one that has been raised at different times in this House-whether any exception would be taken on the ground of jurisdiction to the action of the Dominion government in appointing a commission for the purpose.
Ottawa, Dec. 13, 1909.
Dear Sir,-The Dominion government is considering the advisability _ of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects industrial training and technical education, and into the system and methods of technical instruction obtaining in other countries-


Robert Laird Borden: May I interrupt for a moment? Are we to have a discussion of the whole subject?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: No discussion of the subject can take place now, because the matter is covered by an item on the order paper. I understood the hon. member for South Wellington merely asked the privilege of putting a question to the government as to whether progress had been made.


Robert Laird Borden: No objection.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: No debate can take place.


George Gerald King: It is not my intention to discuss the matter; but I thought the question put by the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) could be best answered by giving the House the communication sent by the government to the several provinces in regard to this matter and the replies which have been received from the premiers of the several provinces. I think the House will consider the subject of sufficient interest to have the answer given as fully as that.


Robert Laird Borden: That is quite proper. But it seems to me that all this ought to take place on the discussion of the motion itself; and the government can facilitate that at any time by forwarding the order on which the discussion should properly take place and the announcement properly be made.


George Gerald King: I am not anxious to press the answer, but I should think that the subject having occupied the attention it has in the press, the public would be interested in getting, at as early a day as possible, as full information as can be given of what the government has been doing. I am prepared to give the answer at present if that is the wish of the House. If not, I shall be glad


Robert Laird Borden: I am anxious to get any possible information in regard to the matter. But that information might Mr. KING.
very naturally provoke discussion, possibly even criticism. Then we shall be in this situation-either there is to be no discussion of it and no criticism, or we shall engage at the present time in a discussion which, seems to me, would be very much out of order.


Hugh Guthrie: I asked the question, because the question was asked me by members of the Manufacturers' Association who met here yesterday; and I have had other communications from persons desiring to know whether the motion is ever to go on again, whether the government has ever decided. My question is: Has the government come to a conclusion on the question of jurisdiction, which they intimated was the cause of adjourning the motion?-and I understand my hon. friend is answering the question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The arjgwers are all ready .before the government.


Hugh Guthrie: I never knew of them.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to the hon. gentleman going on and giving the information to the House, provided he will undertake that the motion shall be forwarded so that there will be an opportunity, at an early day, of discussing the information which he now affords to the House. But I do decidedly object to his communicating to the House matters which might legitimately be the subject of discussion, without any understanding that we shall have an opportunity of discussing them. It is obviously not the time now to discuss them, it would be against the rules of the House. The course which is proposed would have a very unfortunate result. The communication would be made to the House, and no opportunity would be afforded to discuss it. If the government will say that an early day will be appointed for a further discussion of this motion, I have not the slightest objection to my hon. friend going on and making his communication to the House.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I have as good a right as my hon. friend in this matter. I desire an answer to my question, and I understood that the proper time to ask it was on going into Supply. I also would like to have some day appointed for a further discussion of the matter. The motion happened to be called up on the 19th, unexpectedly. I was prepared to go ahead with it, but the Minister of Labour was out of the House that afternoon. It is unlikely it will be called up again unless a special day is fixed. But I simply ask the question whether the government has given that consideration that they promised, and what is the result. I think as a matter of right, I am entitled to an answer.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has a certain right to ask a question, and I have also a certain right, I suppose, to make my views understood; and I propose, with all respect and deference to my hon. friend, to make them understood. I say I have no objection at all to the communication being made to the House, provided the government will give us an early opportunity of renewing the debate, so that this communication may properly be the subject of discussion.


Hugh Guthrie: I want an answer to my question, without any conditions.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that my hon. friend possesses any special right above the rest of us. I have raised a legitimate objection, and I propose to persevere in it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The government do propose to give an early opportunity, as early as we can, consistently with other pressing business before the House, of discussing this motion and carrying the discussion to a conclusion. I appreciate that the motion before the House dealing with this particular subject can only be brought up, on going into Supply, by the courtesy of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: The assurance of the minister is absolutely satisfactory.


Mr.   SREAKER@: I understand there is to be no debate. It is under Rule 30, and I would not like this case to serve as a precedent.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) will be obliged to me for obtaining tlm assurance for him from the government.


George Gerald King: Considering the importance of the subject, I think the government will be glad to afford an opportunity for a full discussion, as full as the importance of the subject deserves.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that, with the consent of the House, the Minister of Labour will be allowed to answer the question on the understanding that there shall be no debate.
ME SPROULE. The member for South Wellington asks if there will be an opportunity of discussing, and the Minister of Agriculture says there will.


George Gerald King: He gave the assurance that was aske'd for by the leader of the opposition, and the leader of the opposition said that if that assurance were given, he would be pleased to have the communication which I hold in my hand, read to the House, and it is now my purpose to read this communication.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not the hon. member then out of order in discussing an order that is not on the paper, and is not before the House?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The moment objection is taken, there can be no debate. But I understand the House is willing to waive the objection, on the understanding that there should be no debate. If objection is taken, I should have to sustain it.


George Gerald King: The communications answer the question of the hon. gentleman. The letter sent by the government to the premiers of the several provinces was as follows:
Ottawa, Dec. 13, 1909.
Dear Sir,-The Dominion, government is considering the advisability of appointing a Royal Commssion to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects industrial training and technical education, and into the system and methods of technical instruction obtaining in other countries, particularly in Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States. It is intended that the commission shall be solely for the purpose of gathering information-


Mr. BOYCE.: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


George Gerald King: I am sorry the hon. gentleman did not hear my statement. I am reading a copy of a letter sent by myself as a member of the government to the premiers of the several provinces, informing them of the intention of the Dominion government, should they acquiesce in the same, to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into industrial training and technical education.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does the minister propose to read all that correspondence to the House, in answer to the question of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) ?


George Gerald King: That is what I propose.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then I strongly object to that course, and I invite the application of the rule.


Hugh Guthrie: The consent of the House has already been given.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Rule 30 says:
All items standing on the orders of the day (except government orders) should be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper.
This question being now on the order paper, I cannot allow it unless with the unanimous consent of the House.


Hugh Guthrie: I may be wrong in my understanding of the rule, but as I understand the procedure, on going into Supply I am entitled to ask a question of the government, whether it be concerning a matter which stands on the order paper or in re-



gard to any other question. I am not entitled to discuss the question standing on the order paper, but I am entitled to receive an answer to my question, and that is all I ask.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But the minister himself is causing discussion.


Hugh Guthrie: I submit that the minister is not causing a discussion. The minister is answering a question.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is the injustice of the whole thing. My hon. friend asks a question, the result of which produces a speech from the minister, which immediately raises a discussion, which discussion is out of order; therefore, I take objection to the minister making a speech in answer to my hon. friend.


Hugh Guthrie: I was asking for no speech from the minister at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Agriculture answered the question of the hon. member for Wellington.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Except by unanimous consent it cannot he discussed. Bourinot says that no member can debate a motion that is on the notice paper. The question is on the notice paper and it cannot be discussed now unless by unanimous consent.


Hugh Guthrie: Has it been objected to? I understood it was consented to.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that objection is taken by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.



George Henry Bradbury: Mr. Speaker, I desire for a few moments to call the attention of the House to a report w'hich was laid on the table a few days ago of the fishery commission which was appointed to investigate the fisheries in Manitoba. I regret very much that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) is not in his place. I regret to have to discuss this matter in his absence, b!ut the question is of such importance that I feel justified in asking the House to bear with me for a few moments while I review this report. During the holidays there was an interview published in one of the Monti eal papers, given, I presume, by one of the officials. If it had not been for that, interview, I do not think I wrtuld havd asked the House to have listened to any remarks of mine just at the present time, but, in justice to myself, however, I feel that I must ask the House to listen to what I have to say in regard to this report. An interview was published in the Montreal ' Star ' of December 22, 1909, as follows:


Hugh Guthrie: Ottawa, December 22.-The commission appointed some months ago to inquire into the question of Manitoba fisheries and to investigate allegations as to undue advantages being possessed by the Fish Trust, has completed an interim report. The appointment to the bench of one of the commissioners, Mr. Metcalfe, somewhat disorganized the inquiry, which is by no means completed, but it will be resumed next summer.
It is learned that the evidence so far taken, and which is embodied in the interim report is not of a character justifying some of the allegations made. The commission, however, is not in a position to make any recommendations till the inquiry is completed.
I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that every allegation, every charge that was made on the floor of this House last year by myself has been borne out by the report brought in by the commission, which I hold in my hand. More than that, the commission not only has corroborated everything I said here, but it has brought in recommendations far more drastic than anything I suggested. This is a question that has agitated the people of Manitoba during the last twelve or fourteen years. I was perhaps more conversant with this matter than many others, and I have repeatedly petitioned and had personal interviews with the Fishery Department, both with its minister and officials, but up to the time that this commission was appointed I have failed to secure any redress of or any consideration for the grievances and complaints of the fishermen and residents of Manitoba. I want to say in justice to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries that this is a matter in which he has taken considerable interest. I believe, Sir, that he has done what was possible to secure a fair and honest report, and I want to do justice to that hon. gentleman in this regard. The report was laid on the table by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a few days ago, and I intend placing it on ' Hansard ' that the people of the west may know exactly what has' taken place. This report is not in printed form and cannot be circulated in any other way.
Interim Report.
To the honourable
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Sir,-We, the commissioners appointed by order in council to investigate the waters of Manitoba and the west, have completed our first investigation of the waters of the province of Manitoba and have the honour to present an interim report, consisting of two parts:
1st. Certain important conclusions, based on the evidence received at the series of sittings held during the past summer.
2nd. Recommendations, with a view to such changes in the regulations governing the Manitoba Fisheries as appear necessary from the facts brought before the commission in the evidence.

Conclusions of the Commission.
1.	We have reached the conclusion that all the lakes of Manitoba have been over-fished, and that some of the more valuable species such as the whitefish and the yellow pickerel hare decreased very seriously in size and in abundance, and that the sturgeon-the most valuable fish found in these water-is 'on the point of extinction and can only be preserved by stringent measures.
I want to -call the attention of the House to the fact that -during my remarks last session I pointed out the very facts that have been so strongly supported in this report. The Minister of Marine, through the promptings of one of the -officials who sat at his side, -denied that there was any fear of the depletion of the waters of Lake Winnipeg. I took the opportunity of asking the minister at that time to hold a searching investigation into these matters. The investigation was held and has justified what I said on that occasion. The report goes on to say:
2.	The evidence shows that tiie fishery laws have not been generally observed, both in regard to quantity of net used, size of mesh, &c., although the close seasons have in our opinion been observed by the majority.
3.	We have abundant evidence that the Manitoba fisheries have been unduly controlled by foreign fish operators, who have dictated the prices of fish and have secured the major portion of the profits.
That is also a matter that I have pressed upon the Fishery Department during the last ten or twelve years. I have proven beyond a doubt that the fisheries in Manitoba were controlled absolutely by th-e American Fish Trust, or the Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago, But in face of the evidence that I have submitted from time to time to the Fishery Department I have failed to receive any redress for the fishermen through any regulations which would have prevented these men from ruining our great fisheries. The consequence is that to-day we find this great fishery, once the greatest whitefish fishery on this continent, in a depleted condition, depleted to the detriment of our own settlers, while American citizens have made fortunes out of these fisheries. The investigation which has been made corroborates everything that I have stated year after year and which I stated to this House last year. The report goes on to say:
The people of Manitoba have benefited little from these great lake fisheries. Moreover inferior grades of fish have been sold in the Canadian market, while the better graces, including the larger size of fish, have been exported to the United States markets.
That is another point that I have emphasized time after time. The best fish that were taken out of Lake Winnipeg and 85i
our other lakes were exported to the American markets and the Canadians had to be satisfied with the culls. We had to pay a very much increased price even for the cull fish on account of the quantity that was exported to the American market out of our own country. It goes on to say:
It cannot he denied that the main market has been hitherto in the United States and the home market has been limited. With the wonderful development of Canada and the rapid growth of new towns in the west, the demand for fish is rapidly increasing, it is imperative that every effort should be made to restore these fisheries to their former plenitude, in order to provide a great staple food for the future population of the Dominion.
What a reflection this report is upon the foresight and wisdom of the Marine and Fisheries Department. The idea that this once great fishery has been allowed to bq depleted, and now the commissioners come and recommend that this country must spend tens of thousands of dollars in an effort to replenish this lake after allowing the Americans to take the fish from it and send them to the American market. The report goes on:
VVe are convinced that a minimum size limit for the more important food fishes is absolutely necessary. We therefore recommend that certain sizes of fish should he specified in tue regulations, below which nofish can be legally captured. We also recommend that the legal mesh of various nets should he increased.
It is essential, in our opinion, that fish, whether caught in Manitoba waters or elsewhere, should not be possessed, bought, sold or handled during the close season, provided by the regulations; but dealers having legally-caught fish in storage might, in our view, be allowed to hold them in storage under authority of a written permit issued by the inspector of fisheries.
We have found that the existing regulations regarding the possession and the sale of fish in close season have been openly and universally violated.	,
This, Mr. Speaker, is another matter that has been called to the attention of the Fisheries Department year after year by myself and others, and we have always failed to gain support or sympathy from that department. It has seemed impossible to get the Fisheries Department to take hold of this question in a business way and to protect the fisheries in the interest of the Canadian consumer and the Canadian fisherman, while on the other hand everything possible seems to have been done in the interest of the great American trust, who,~ one would imagine, had control of the Fishery Department here at Ottawa.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company-Mr. R. Smith.
Bill (No. 63) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 93) respecting the Vancouver and Coast-Kootenay Railway Company- Mr. E. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 89) *respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company-Mr. Douglas.
George Perry Graham: This Act was apparently passed in 1890, and the time has been extended several times, and there does n-t seem to be in this Bill any section repealing the former extension sections. It might be as well, therefore, to let the Bill stand for the third reading, when it can be referred back in order that such a section may be inserted.
Bill reported.


BURRARD INLET TUNNEL AND BRIDGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN moved the second reading of Bill (No. 118), to incorporate the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: As I shall not likely be in attendance on the Railway Committee when this Bill comes up for consideration, I would like to point out the fact that there is no provision for the plans of the proposed tunnel or bridge being submitted to the Minister of Public Works, or to the Governor in Council for approval.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the Railway Act provides that.


William Pugsley: No, this Bill provides that the plans shall be submitted to the Board of Railway Commissioners. My own view is that as the Department of Public Works is especially charged with the duty of attending to the interests of navigation, no power should be given to erect a bridge over a navigable water unless it is provided that plans shall be submitted to and approved of by the Minister of Public Works. I think that is a proper provision and mention it now so that possibly some gentleman! who is a member of the committee might bring Mr. BRADBURY.
the matter before the committee when the Bill is under consideration.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the second reading of Bill (No. 119) to incorporate the International Waterways Canal and Construction Company.-Mr. Conmee.
William Pugsley: I feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to the fact that I have received a communication from the city of Edmonton urging that this Bill should not be allowed to pass in any form, which I think would mean its present form, which would give to the company any exclusive right or any right of control over the river Saskatchwan. The Bill is very broad in its terms. It gives power not only to build a canal from Lake Superior, or from the Pigeon river to Rainy river, but it seeks to give control of the waters of the Rainy lake and the^ Rainy river and then to make a connection between the Lake of the Woods and the Winnipeg river, so connecting with Lake Winnipeg. Then it seems to give control, and I think it does by its terms give control over the waters of Cedar lake and Cross lake, which are parts of the Saskatchewan river, and also over the Saskatchewan river, the Assiniboine river and I think possibly Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg with power to exact tolls on goods transported over these waterways. I think my hon. friend will, on consideration, see that while it might be quite proper and perhaps desirable in the public interest that a company should be given power to build canals which should connect these waterways, it would not be proper to give to a private company any control of any kind or description over these great navigable waters in the western part of the province of Ontario and in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I therefore feel it my duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill.


Mr. CONMEE.: I think the minister is entirely mistaken as to the purport of the Bill. I see nothing in the Bill that asks for any control more than the usual powers granted to canal companies and I think if there is anybody responsible for the Bill it is the minister himself. This is a Bill to create a navigable waterway from Lake Superior by way of Rainy river, Rainy lake, Lake of the Woods, to Lake Winnipeg, and into the Saskatchewan river. This Bill was introduced two years ago. At that time an appropriation was made and it was believed by those interested and the public generally that the government would build

a lock on the Rainy river, at a point known as the Long Sault Rapids. I am sure that the minister's intentions were good but the lock has not been constructed. Owing to the international complications that has not been carried out and it was suggested that the only way to get over the difficulty was to incorporate a company - that would have similar powers in both Canada and the United States. That step was taken for the purpose, in part, of overcoming that particular difficulty. The Bill gives no special powers, no control over


William Pugsley: Look at section 8, subsection (e).


James Conmee: That is merely part of the power of the company to ' construct, excavate, erect and make all channels, locks, and so on. What control is there in that?


William Pugsley: And it closes ' and in and along the Saskatchewan river.'


James Conmee: Yes, or along any other river. But it does not give one iota of control. Look, for instance, at section 12:
Before the company breaks ground or commences the construction of any of the canals or other works incidental or necessary to the carrying out of the company's undertaking, authorized by this Act, the plans, locations, dimensions and all necessary particulars of such canals and other works, so authorized, shall be submitted to and receive the approval of the Governor in Council.
If that is not enough control, let us name some other body or provide other control. Again, if the minister will look at section 14, he will see that it provides as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall be held to give the company a prior or exclusive right to any warer privilege not developed or in course of development by the company ; all water privileges upon any stream affected bv this Act, and not developed or in course of development by the company, shall remain in the same position in every respect as if this Act had not been passed.
If the minister can suggest some better safeguard, or any preferable safeguard, to be embodied in the Bill, well and good. The promoters, I assume, will have no objection. As having charge of the Bill, I am only too anxious to have any one suggest improvements. I have tried in every way I can to put in such provisions as will protect the public interest, and make the measure one that I can defend in my constituency, for my constituency is the one particularly affected, though it may affect others also. But, surely it is not giving control of waters to say that the company shall have power to make a channel deep enough to navigate. Every one else is free to navigate, and the
company can fix tolls only as authorized by the Governor in Council, or the Minister of Public Works. I submit that the Bill ought to have its second reading, and, if there are any dangers in it, if the minister or any one else will be kind enough to draft a clause that will put them at rest, it will be gladly adopted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Con-mee) says he does not see anything unusual in the Bill. I guess not, for we have been in the hbait of giving him everything he asked for. But it happens that there is a change in the policy of the government in regard to waterways and water-power. The hon. member had a Bill in this House last year to give control over one of these rivers to the Ontario and Michigan Power Company, which, in the -judgment of this House, could not be granted, and therefore he was obliged to relinquish it for the time being.


James Conmee: The	hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sproule) is mistaken. The Bill was granted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. member did not get all the rights and powers he desired.


James Conmee: So far as the waters affected by this Bill are concerned, he did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ' It seems to me that, in view of the change of policy of the provinces and the Dominion in regard to water-powers and water highways to keep them as much as possible under the control of the government, and not give them over to the control of private individuals, we should be doing something not in the best interests of the Dominion, or of the provinces, if we granted the powers proposed in this Bill. I agree with the Minister of Public Works that such a Bill should not pass this House. The hon. member (Mr. Conmee) says that any safeguards necessary can be added. But the object of the incorporators is to get the right to build and then they will take chances of afterwards being able to secure the privileges under the plea that the charter gives the right to build these dams and therefore they are entitled to avail themselves of the powers of their charter. A corporation is given certain corporate rights, and I think it is generally held that they must be allowed to avail themselves of the powers given in their charter and go on with the undertaking. Thus it may have the effect of forcing the hand of a province or of a municipality where otherwise they would refrain from giving the power asked for by the company. Hence, I think this Bill is wrong, radically wrong. Then, as I understand it, this is an international affair. Why should a private

corporation control an international stream or any portion of it? The two countries might do it by agreement, but to give the power to a private corporation, I think, is radically wrong. This is a portion of the country that we know very little about; we do not know what is to be taken possession of up there. We have a commission appointed to look after these things-water-powers, streams, timber and other natural resources, and we should refrain from tying their hands more than has already been done until they have developed a policy that will be suitable and that will be assented to by the provincial and federal governments.


Mr. McCARTHY.: I understood the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) to say that this Bill would affect the province [DOT]of Alberta. I have read the Bill, and I would be glad if he would point out in what way it affects that province.


William Pugsley: Section 8, subsection <c) gives power to improve the Saskatchewan river, and, under another section, I should think gives certain rights where the river is being improved. With the permission of the House, I would like to make a few further remarks, particularly in consequence of what my hon. friend (Mr. Con-mee), who promotes this Bill, has stated.
Mr. McCarthy. Would the minister be kind enough to point out first how this will affect Alberta?


William Pugsley: I would refer the hon. member to section 8:
8. Tlie company may,

(a)	lay out, excavate, construct, erect, maintain and operate a canal and connecting channels from some point on Thunder bay, in Lake Superior, or from a point at or near the Pigeon river, by the most feasible route to Rainy lake, thence by way of Rainy river
' to the Lake of the Woods, thence from a point on the western boundary of the Lake of the Woods by the most feasible route to the Red river and Lake Winnipeg; or from the Lake of the Woods by way of the Winnipeg river and thence by the said Winnipeg river to Lake Winnipeg; thence by way of Cross lake, Grand rapids, Cedar lake to the Saskatchewan river, and also to Lakes Winnipegosis and Manitoba;	...
(b)	dredge, deepen and widen the Assmiboine river


James Conmee: That is struck out.


William Pugsley: -and make all other necessary improvements upon the said river to the city of Brandon;
(c)	construct, excavate, erect and make ail channels, locks, dams, diversions and watercourses necessary for the efficient operation oi a ship canal, maintain and operate all works *necessary to create and maintain a navigable waterway by the said points from Lake Superior to Lakes Winnipegosis and Manitoba, and in and along the Saskatchewan river.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That gives power to divert any part of the Saskatchewan river, to straighten it, to make works which are regarded as^neces-sary for the improvement of the navigation of the Saskatchewan river. Now, if it were proposed to vest in a private company that control, which I think ought only to be in the Dominion government


James Conmee: So it is. What about' the approval of the plan?


William Pugsley: That is another matter. If parliament were to sanction this 'by incorporating the company, I take it that it would he the diuty of the Governor in Council, upon proper plans being present ed, to approve of those plans, because it would not be proper for the Governor in Council to refuse to recognize what parliament had done. Now, my hon. friend, the' promoter of the Bill, has mentioned the case of a lock at the Long Sault Rapids upon the Rainy river. I quite agree with my hon. friend that that is a work which is very desirable, and if the Bill were limited to that work, or if, when it comes .before the committee, it were understood that it would be limited to that work, I would be very happy indeed to support the Bill, and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. The year before last, and I think also in previous years, parliament passed an appropriation for the erection of a lock at the Long Sault rapids in the Rainy river. That work is very essential for the navigation of that very important inland waterway. My department had plans prepared and made application to the International Waterways Commission for approval of those plans. The commission, for some reason or other, felt they could not deal with it, and suggested that application should be made to the United States government. Application was made to the United States government for permission to this government to build the necessary lock in the Rainy river, but the United States government, or those who professed to speak for them, were of the opinion that it would not be a desirable thing to do, and it was something which they could not do, that is, to authorize a foreign government to construct a work which would be partly upon United States territory; and the permission was not granted. Those who were advising as to the work thought the better way would be to get incorporation from the Canadian parliament and also from the state of Minnesota, Now, I can say to my hon. friend that if the object of this Bill is to promote that work, to enable a company to be incorporated by the parliaments of both countries. I should be very happy to give the Bill all the assistance I can. But, I would point out to my hon. friend that this Bill is much wider in its scope, and I _ am sure that if it were passed and went into operation, it would greatly hamper the

work of improving these waterways, particularly the Saskatchewan river, which the government has now in contemplation. Parliament is being asked this very session for an appropriation for the purpose of improving the Saskatchewan river by building wing dams, and there is an appropriation for the building of one or more dredges. We have had a preliminary survey made of the bed of the river, and it is the intention of the government to proceed with reasonable diligence in making the necessary improvements on that most important waterway. I think it would be a great mistake 'to give to a private company any control whatever over the navigable waters of the Saskatchewan river, as by this Bill such control is sought to be given. Upon the assurance of my hon. friend that his sole desire is to develop or to build a lock at the Long Sault rapids in the Rainy river, I would withdraw my objection to the second reading, with the understanding that my hon. friend will 'consent to the curtailing of the powers, sought by this Bill when it comes before the committee. I would be very sorry indeed to do anything which would prevent the building of a lock at the Long Sault rapids.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: In reading the very modest powers asked for in section 8 of this Bill, it occurs to me to ask my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) whether there is not something left out. On the other hand, I think a great deal is put in that ought not to have been put in. I think that, for several reasons beyond those stated by the Minister of Public Works, the Bill ought not to be read the second time. Last session we had a great deal of discussion over another Bill introduced by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River, a Bill involving a great deal that is involved in this Bill; that was a Bill to incorporate the Ontario and Michigan Power Company. It occurs to me, in view of what has taken place since, that Bill was introduced, and the effort that is being made now by the hon. member to utilize the powers given under that Bill at the present moment, after he met with refusal at the hands of the people in endeavouring to thrust that Bill upon them, that this Bill calls for some consideration.


William Pugsley: I would call my hon. friend to order. I do not think it is proper, upon the discussion of the merits of this Bill, to discuss some other Bill.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I submit I am in order. I propose to contrast this Bill with, and to link it with, a Bill that was passed this session, and to show that that which the hon. "member was not able to do under the powers of the Ontario and Michigan
Power Company, he proposes to ask parliament to enable him to do under this Bill to incorporate the International Waterways Canal and Construction Company. That is as far as I intend to go. Well, under the Act of the Ontario and Michigan Power Company, my hon. friend took power, under section 7 of that Act:
To acquire, develop, improve, maintain and operate water-powers, use, supply and sell water-power for any purpose, by any means of application, generate, by means of waterpower or otherwise, electricity, heat, light and any other form of energy, and transmit the same by any means to, and subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, supply and sell the same for use in any manner, at any place, in Canada and the United States, and subject to the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
That is subsection (a) of section 7 of chapter 115 of last session. That company is to supply that power from the Pigeon river, in the district of Thunder Bay, amongst other streams, to supply'electricity, water-power and so on, from, amongst others, the Pigeon river, which flows into Thunder Bay. Here is the same river under section 8, here are the same powers asked for in another Bill, because by section 8 of this Bill (subsection h) the promoters of this Bill ask for power to:
Use, sell, lease or otherwise dispose of water brought by or for the said canals, channels or other works, if at any time such water may be utilized for purposes other than those of navigation, and subject to the provisions of this Act, produce, lease or supply, or otherwise dispose of hydraulic, electric and other kinds of power or energy created or made available or obtained by or from any canal, lock, channel or other work hereby authorized.
In the Ontario and Michigan Power Company Act the powers are circumscribed by two things, the Governor in Council, and, with regard to the towns of Port Arthur and Fort William, the consent, by bylaw, of those towns. Now, my hon. friend, the promoter of this Bill, endeavoured to obtain the consent of the town of Port Arthur under the Ontario and Michigan Power Company's enactment, to a Bill providing for the use of their power, and I think there was a rather spirited campaign, and the result was that the town of Port Arthur did not accept the proposals which were contained in the By-law, and the By-law was defeated. Under the Act which is now proposed, and having regard to that portion I have read, and to other portions of the Bill, for instance section 13, it seems it is quite possible for my hon. friend to' get into a similar position as he would have been had that By-law passed, because no consent of the municipalities, so far as I can see, is required under the present Bill. Therefore, I submit that my

hon. friend is asking altogether too much in this Bill, and that he is trespassing, with regard at any rate to these portions of water-ways lying between Thunder bay and the Lake of the Woods, upon provincial jurisdiction, that the Bill is open to objection in that respect, and that the second reading ought not to be proceeded with.


James Conmee: Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Under rule 21 the hon. gentleman is entitled to reply as the mover of the second reading of the Bill, but I wish to ask if any other hon. member desires to speak on this motion before he closes the debate.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I observe, by the Michigan and Ontario Power Bill passed last session, that a number of restrictions were placed in the Bill that do not appear to be contained in this Bill. This Bill, in a rather silent manner, gives the same power to develop electricity which the Michigan and Ontario Power Bill did when first introduced into the House last session. For instance, while ample power is given in this Bill to generate electrical power, there is no provision for making the sale or exportation of power subject to the restrictions contained in the Act of the Michigan and Ontario Power Company. There are five or six sections omitted from this Bill which were inserted in the other Bill. Take, for instance, section 13 of the Michigan and Ontario Power Bill:
Except as in this Act otherwise expressly provided the provisions of the Electricity Inspection Act, 1907, and of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act shall apply to the company and its undertaking.
One of the most strenuous objections to the Act of last session was that the Bill gave the company power to export electricity unrestrictedly against the prevailing policy of the Ontario government in reference to the generation of electrical energy. I think we should have the same clauses inserted in this Bill; otherwise the promoters will be getting exactly the same privileges as were embodied in the Bill of last session. I think that there should also be a clause inserted providing that they shall not enter a municipality without the consent of the municipality. There was such a clause in the Bill passed last session. Before that company can enter a municipality they must obtain it3 consent. I notice in the interpretation clause that the word ' land' is made to include ' land covered by water ' ; so that the word ' land * covers everything on the face of the earth. It says that this company may expropriate land covered by water. They will have absolute powers of expropriation, not only as far as land itself is concerned, but as far as land covered by water is con-
Mr. PUGSLET
cerned, and I would submit that it would prevent the Minister of Public Works from interfering if this company desired to place docks or dams across navigable rivers. The power is so large that they can place a dock or a dam across any navigable river if they wish to do so by virtue of the section that says that land includes land covered by water. I do not think it was intended to give any such large power as that. I have only had a few minutes in which to look at this Bill, and I think that hon. members ought to have a sufficient opportunity to look more carefully into it, and to see exactly what powers the Bill gives. It appears to me that this Bill is intended to give to these promoters what the Bill of last year did not give them.


James Conmee: I think the hon. member is not justified in making that insinuation.


William Sora Middlebro: I have already pointed out a number of things which this Bill does give the promoters which we did not give last year and which we expressly struck out. I notice that Pigeon river was mentioned in the Bill of last year and that it is also mentioned in thi3 Bill. Hon. gentlemen will remember the big fight that we had last year was over this power that the company asked with respect to the development of electrical energy on the Pigeon river and now this company comes back and asks for power to develop electrical energy on the very same river without the restrictive clauses that were inserted in the Bill of last year.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman is entirely without justification in making the insinuation that the Bill is intended to give any such powers as those which he describes. How does he know? Who has told him?


William Sora Middlebro: You can only judge by the intention from the Bill itself.


James Conmee: If the Bill gave the powers which the hon. member imagines it does, perhaps he might think them large powers. Take, for instance, the power to expropriate land covered by water. How can a canal be built unless they can get land covered by water? Is there any other way to get a canal except to utilize land covered by water?


William Sora Middlebro: There is no water at all in the Newmarket canal.


James Conmee: Well, I am not joking about the matter. This is a matter of very great importance. When the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) contends that this Bill is intended to give the powers that were given last year in the other Bill he is entirely mistaken.	*>


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I did not say that.


James Conmee: You left that impression upon my mind.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What I said was that the Bill was not circumscribed by the same restrictions that we imposed by the Bill of last year, but that at the same time it gave much the same powers, or rather larger powers without the restrictions.


James Conmee: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken. One was a Bill for the development and distribution of electrical power pure and simple; this is a Bill for the building of a canal.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: You do not ask that power in this Bill?


James Conmee: Not at all. If you look at section 13 you will see that if in the execution of a work the company create any electrical or hydraulic power in excess of what they may require for their own use, they may supply such portion of it as they can without prejudice to navigation.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What does subsection 8 mean?


James Conmee: Subsection 8 is a part of the Bill. It merely provides that they may do it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Do what?


James Conmee: But if they do it the control lies in section 13. Section 13 goes on to say;
In the event of the company at any time creating hydraulic or electrical power,
That section brings them under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, and it does not provide for the sale and distribution of electrical power at all. It does not give the company power to sell or distribute it to any municipality or over a transmission line or do any of the things which my hon. friend imagines the Bill enables them to do in order to bolster up some other theory. There is no other purpose behind this Bill than the purpose of building a canal.


William Sora Middlebro: What do the words ' supply electrical power ' mean?


James Conmee: Where does the hon. gentleman find that?


William Sora Middlebro: In subsection 8 of clause (a).


James Conmee: That clause provides that the company will have electric power to operate its locks.


William Sora Middlebro: It says it may supply electrical power.


James Conmee: Exactly. All canals when built create water-power or hydraulic pressure and the gates and locks of modern canals are operated by electricity.


William Sora Middlebro: There is no power on this earth that can prevent a man generating electrical power for himself, it is only when he wants to sell it to other people that he requires an enabling legislation.


James Conmee: I am glad my hon. friend holds that view, and that being so, he need not alarm himself about the wording of
subsection 8.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman will not misunderstand me. I mean that the hon. gentleman may go to his backyard and generate electricity to his heart's content for his own use, but when you talk about supplying electriciiy it means that you are going to supply it to some one else.


James Conmee: That is quite correct. This Bill gives the company power to utilize hydraulic or electrical pressure for its own use


William Sora Middlebro: I doubt that construction.


James Conmee: Wait till I am finished. I will do my best to enlighten the hon. gentleman, and if he is not enlightened it will not be my fault. The Bill provides further that having built the locks and got the hydraulic head, if there is more water than is needed for navigation the company may utilize that for power in the immediate vicinity of the works, but not transmit it.


William Sora Middlebro: Sell it?


James Conmee: Yes, for industrial purposes if any one wants it in the immediate vicinity. Would the hon. gentleman think it a proper thing to tie the investors up and to say that if they have more power than they need for their own purposes they cannot supply it to any one else? That is not utilizing our natural resources.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is there anything in the Act which would prevent the selling of electricity or power to Port Arthur or Fort William or any other municipality


James Conmee: There is no power in this Act to transmit.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Let me finish my question. Is there anything to prevent the selling of this power in Port Arthur or Fort William without the consent of the municipality by by-law?


James Conmee: There is no provision for a transmission line and no power to distribute electricity in the Bill. The Bill would not permit the company to sell electric power to any municipality or in any municipality without the consent of the municipalipy, because the general law would cover that.


William Sora Middlebro: Where is that restriction?


James Conmee: Section 13 confines the use of the power to the vicinity of the works. The hon. member (Mr. Boyce) says there are a great many things in this Act that ought not to be j>ut in, I agree with him, and I believe further that there are lots of things in all legislation that are not necessary.


William Pugsley: I call the hon. gentleman's attention to section 1, paragraph (a) which defines canals and it includes rivers and lakes.


James Conmee: I would ask the Minister of Public Works how else he could build a canal in that country without including rivers and lakes and channels. My hon. friend says that if this Bill is confined to the building of a single lock on the Rainy river at the Soo he will support it, but the hon. gentleman should know that if the company is confined to one single lock and cannot use the water stretches, and cannot through lakes and channels make connections, they could not make the enterprise pay. If their hands are to be tied, of course they will have to drop their Bill. This canal contemplates a waterway from Lake Superior to the Saskatchewan river, and the Minister of Public Works tells us that the government intend to improve the Saskatchewan. Then, the Bill has done some good in that it has drawn out that declaration from the minister, and so far as the Saskatchewan river is concerned I presume the promoters would have no objection to drop that part of the Bill. These conditions in the Bill are put in by lawyers and not by me; I did not draft the Bill. I am merely the promoter of it in the House.


William D. Staples: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman's eloquence, but I call attention to the fact that the hour for private Bills has expired.


James Conmee: I merely wanted to point out that at present more than one thousand miles of this route is navigable.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman can conclude his remarks when the Bill is again called.


James Conmee: Very well.



SUPPLY-MANITOBA FISHERIES COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired, tfie House resumed debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
['Yes.']
George Henry Bradbury: When the House Tose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the report brought down by the Fisheries Commission, signed by Prof. Prince, Mr. D. F. Reed and Mr. Hugg. I do not intend to read this report to the House to-night, because I dealt Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
with the matter to some extent last session. However, I wish again to emphasize the recommendations and the findings of this report so that the House may be seized to some extent of the situation so far as our Manitoba fisheries are concerned. At one time Lake Winnipeg was probably the greatest whitefish lake on this continent, and when you realize that to-day it is almost depleted you will understand what has taken place during the last fifteen years, notwithstanding the innumerable protests, private and public, made to the government against the operation of the American fish trust in these waters. For the information of the House, I may say that the Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago, the great octopus that has fastened its tentacles on every lake and on every sheet of fish-producing water in Canada, has done more to destroy these great fisheries of Manitoba than all other influences combined. And, Mr. Speaker, the Booth Company has been able to accomplish this through the agency and influence of some of our Canadian citizens. The law was such that Americans could not obtain licenses in these waters, but they used Canadians for their purpose and they formed what was then called the Dominion Fish Company, which was presided over by Capt. Wm. Robinson, of Selkirk, and in this way licenses were obtained to fish these waters in defiance of the laws of Canada. That the department was made aware time after time that the Dominion Fish Company was really the Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago can be demonstrated from the files of the department. But the representations made to the minister time after time by representative men, and in petitions from the settlers along the lake who were being deprived of their fishing rights, were all of no avail. It seemed impossible to obtain from the department any redress for the people. After a long and tedious fight for years, the Fishery Department at last realized that there was something wrong, and instituted an inquiry; and we have here to-night the result of that inquiry before us.
One of the reasons why I am troubling the House at the present time is that this is not the first report of a royal commission that has been filed in the Fisheries Department. In 1884 or 1885, at the request of the settlers of Lake Winnipeg, assisted by myself, the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Charles Hibbert Dupper, granted a commission. We_eomplained at that time that the Americans were controlling our waters, violating the law by setting out double the quantity of nets allowed, polluting the waters with dead fish and depleting the waters. That commission reported, but there were influences at work sufficiently strong to stay the hand

of the department, and the report has never been acted upon, although it proved every contention made at the time in three or four hundred sheets of foolscap. Up to the present time that report remains a dead letter, I presume locked up in the archives of the Fishery Department. It is for fear that a similar result may happen to the report of this commission that I have brought this matter before the House tonight, that the House may realize that the American fish trust has friends at court sufficiently strong, even in the face of a report as drastic as this one is, perhaps to influence the government against carrying into effect the recommendations of their commissioners. I tnust, however, that no influences will be allowed to interfere with the minister or the government in seeing that the spirit of this report is carried into effect. I cannot say that I agree with one or two of the recommendations, which I consider to be rather drastic at the present time. The report recommends that Lake Winnipeg be closed from 1911, and yet Captain Robertson, of Winnipeg, who was president of the Dominion Fish Company, which was part of the Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago, is to-day getting ready a fleet of 26 sailboats and two tugs to fish in that lake next summer. If some measure is not taken to make that impossible, it will mean almost the total destruction of the fisheries of Lake Winnipeg next summer. The companies realize that public opinion has been aroused on this question and is demanding that the government take action to protect this great fishery. They realize that next summer will be the last opportunity they will have, perhaps for some years to come, and if some power does not intervene, the damage that will be done will be almost irreparable. I trust therefore that the government will take steps to see that such restrictions are put on the fishing operations on Lake Winnipeg for next summer as will make it impossible for any combination virtually to destroy that great fishery. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to inflict this report upon the House, but with your permission, I will hand it to ' Hansard '- it is only two or three pages.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the. custom is for an hon. member to read anything he wishes to place in * Hansard.'


George Henry Bradbury: If you insist on my reading it


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: 'Not for the pleasure of having it read, but the custom is that nothing is to go in ' Hansard ' that is not uttered in the House. The hon. membeT will have to read it if he wishes it to go in ' Hansard.'


George Henry Bradbury: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is absolutely necessary that a
part of this report should go on ' Hansard.'
At six o'clock I was quoting from the report:
The system of fishery inspection, supervision and licensing carried out by the department requires, we are convinced, to be radically changed if effective enforcement of the law is to be secured. The local officers we have found to be inefficient, poorly paid, without proper means of transportation and not properly instructed in their duties. They habitually fail to report breaches of the law in their own localities. Even when such officers do report to the district inspector, it frequently occurs that no instructions relating to the case are given, owing to law methods in the carrying on of the inspector's work. Serious delays occur in this connection and very frequently the evidence that the law has been broken is not available when the instructions come to hand. We found that the chief inspector at a critical season of the year was engaged upon hatchery business, and was thus compelled to neglect the proper duties of his office. If it is absolutely necessary that the officer named should be absent frequently from his office, a deputy should be in charge.
The patrol of Lake Winnipeg by the inspector cannot be effective as at present carj ried out, his boat the 1 Lady of the Lake, being most unsuitable for such work.
During the discussion last year I drew the attention of the Hotuse to the fact that this government had purchased for the fishery inspector for patrol purposes a large steamer called the ' Lady of the Lake,' which cost the country some $8,000, and, according to returns brought down, about $7,000 a year to run it. It is the height of absurdity to have a boat of this kind on Lake Winnipeg. It is utterly useless for the purpose it was bought for, as I then pointed out, and as the commission now affirms:
Its large size gives early warning of its approach to all persons engaged in illegal operations. A small swift tug or launch should be provided on Lake Winnipeg, and indeed on each of the more important lakes of the province.
10. We found it very difficult to get reliable statistics as to the catches of fish on the various lakes, and recommend that sworn returns should be required as to the quantities of all fish taken out of the water

I might draw the attention of the House to the fact that this was one of my contentions last year, that as the reports were made up it was impossible for any one to arrive at a fair idea of the quantities of the different kind of fish taken out of these' waters.
-such returns to be furnished by each licensee to the inspector twice a year, on the 31st March and 30th of September, and that failure to furnish the said returns shall deprive the licensee so failing of the right to a new license until his default shall be remedied. We further recommend that the inspectors be required to analyse and summarize the said

returns, so as to indicate clearly the quantities of each kind of fish taken from each of the principal bodies of water in the * province.
I shall not read any more of the report. I wished to plaee that part of the report on record so that the country may understand some of the features I have been discussing here. But I wish to emphasize as clearly as I can, the fact that the danger is that the department is apparently not strong enough to carry out even the recommendations of this commission. I find that in the days gone by when we have endeavoured to get grievances such as these rectified there have been influences at work which have made it almost impossible to do anything and I trust the government will take this matter up earnestly and see that the spirit of this report is carried out.
I wish to refer to the report on Lac du Bonnet. I drew attention to the fact that this is an important sturgeon breeding ground and urged the necessity of closing it against all commercial fishing. This report, like the other, verified everything I said then and contains a recommendation along the same line. It has been recommended that the export of sturgeon from Manitoba waters should1 be prohibited and this is a phase of the question which I wish to emphasize. If we are to protect the sturgeon of Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg and Lac du Bonnet, the only way to protect it is to prohibit the export. According to this report and my recommendation the settlers around the lake should be allowed to fish for sturgeon. It is a great food fish. We have along this lake 600 or 700 settlers. In the lower part of the lake we have a French settlement at St. George and they draw their food supplies largely from this lake. If the lake is allowed to be . fished for commercial purposes, one year would, I think, thoroughly deplete this lake of sturgeon. This report has verified that fact, and I wish to emphasize, as I stated before, the necessity of the government prohibiting the export of sturgeon from Manitoba. I desire to call the attention of the government to the absolute necessity of taking action this summer in protecting Lake Winnipeg and Lac du Bonnet. If this report is allowed to stand over until the fishing season starts, until the great companies have secured their licenses, there will be a repetition of what has been done in former years by the large commercial companies. Last year I think some 2,500,000 pounds of whitefish were taken out of Lake Winnipeg, I believe that if the quantity this year is limited to that amount no great harm could occur to the lake this summer, until the commission completes its work. This is an interim report, I understand the commission is ordered back to Lake Winnipeg to complete its task. If that limitation is not im-


George Henry Bradbury: posed, then, with the introduction of this great plant I spoke of, together with the plants now on the lake, this amount can be trebled and 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 pounds can be taken out. That would be a serious matter for the lake and the settlers, and I trust that action will be taken along these lines to make it impossible for these great companies to destroy our great lake fisheries.
One of the modes of operation of the American companies has been to take advantage of the American customs regulations. All fish caught in American nets have been permitted to go into the United States free of duty, while fish taken in nets owned by Canadians have been met with a duty of a quarter of a cent a pound At the boundary line. You can realize what that means, it gives the absolute control of the American market into the hands of the Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago. The manner in which they did this was well known to the Fisheries Department, because it has been brought to their attention time after time. The Booth Company organized a Canadian branch and called it the Dominion Fish Company. They put Captain Robinson, a Canadian, at its head. This company obtained a license from the Dominion government to fish, and signed a declaration when they got their license that they were the actual owners of the plant and gear fishing in these waters according to our law. Then, when the fish reached the American markets, the Americans took the oath that these fish were caught in American nets. The consequence was that our law was violated and the American law was violated, but the Americans got their fish in free, while the Canadians were met by a duty of one-quarter of a cent per pound. That is one of the modes of operation of the American combination, and it is one upon which the government should take some action. I trust that the Fisheries Department will see to it that the spirit of this report is put into operation at the earliest possible opportunity, and that the interests of our settlers will be protected and winter fishing under wise and fair regulations provided for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the evil antedates the action of the fishermen. The evil starts first in the Fishery Department in giving licenses to a number of individuals away in advance of settlement to control certain important and valuable fishing grounds and fishing waters for a mere trifle. We have had it brought to the attention of this House more than once. Take the case of Mr. McNee and others associated with him, and Mr. Markey, of Montreal. They have got license after license from the govern-

ment extending over a number of years and covering operations on Lake Winnipeg, Great Slave lake, Great Bear lake and Lesser Slave lake, Hudson bay and various other small lakes and rivers throughout that country for a mere trifle, and turned around and sold their leases to others who are trying to get control of them to the disadvantage of the .settler when he came there and of the country as well. These parties are usually associated with Americans. And, after catching the fish in Canada, they evade the customs at the boundaries and take the fish into fthe United States free. A Canadian, wishing to export fish, must pay the duty, and so he is unable to compete. Two years ago- and I believe the same thing goes on today-the Buffalo Fish Company was carrying on operations of this kind on Georgian bay. The law of the United States, I understand, provides that fish caught by Americans are admitted to the United States free of duty. So they come here and get a license, and are able to take the oath that the fish have been caught by Americans, and so they get the advantage of the American market, while the Canadian is shut out. As might be expected, the result is that these operations are all carried on by Americans who hire Canadians to do the work for them. If you go into the Marine and Fisheries Department you will find that license after license has been issued, some as low as $8 a year, and from that up to $100 a year, through which these people control these valuable fisheries to the detriment of our own people. And the licenses are renewable.
Now, is that right or is it wrong? If the government wishes to manage the department in a wise and business-like way, would they carry out this policy? No. Who are the people who get the benefit of this system? The speculators and the operators. And so we have these licenses covering these privileges in the Peace River district, in Slave lake, in the Hudson bay, in the Nelson river and in all that northern country-all held by men who never worked as fishermen, but who are the managers of the concerns and who manage them so as to make large sums of money out of them. And all the money that is made outside of that of the exploiter, goes into the hands of the Americans. Do not the government agree with me that the principle is wrong and that, until settlement or other interests make it necessary, these fisheries should be reserved? I think it is time the government looked into these questions. I cannot imagine for a moment that they do not understand the facts. They cannot be ignorant of the way this system is carried on and of the evils that must result. But, because some of their political friends, who are always-I was
going to say on the graft, but perhaps I should rather say with speculative aim in view, improper speculative aim in view- they are allowed to carry on these nefarious operations. It is time that this should be stopped, and, unless the government put a stop to it soon; they will be obliged to do generally what they are doing now in many cases, providing breeding establishments, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to stock the depleted waters of our country-depleted not by our own citizens, but by those living outside the country altogether. This matter has been brought to my attention over and over again by the fishermen of the Georgian bay. But it has seemed io be impossible to control the government. Sometimes, it is said, that the banks own the government If we consider the Marine and Fisheries Department, I should be inclined to say that this class of fishermen seem to control it, and citizens of this country have no power to bring about right management.


William Pugsley: May I ask a question? To which government does he refer when speaking of fishing in the lakes of Ontario?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The federal government.


William Pugsley: Is not the hon. member aware of the fact that no person is allowed to fish in the waters of Ontario without the license of the provincial government also?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Ontario government impose a license for purposes of revenue, but it is the Dominion government that regulates the size of the mesh of nets and other matters in relation to fisheries. Besides, this government has control of Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and all the country to the north, with their great and valuable lakes. And they are giving these practically interminable licenses just as in the past. From what I know, I am inclined to believe that the provincial government is desirous of conserving these valuable rights for the people of the province, but they are unable to do so because of the conflict of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments upon this question of fishery rights. Several times I have called the attention of the government in this matter, and have asked if they could not hurry up their arrangements so as to reach some definite conclusion, that it might be known to which authority these rights actually belong. The federal authority has control and is exercising these rights-not in Ontario, for, since the decision of the Privy Council on the subject, the government of Ontario has exercised control. But it is being carried on in other parts of the Dominion by the department here and those who have these rights from the department, enjoy the benefit of the fisheries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot pretend to have the knowledge of the Fisheries Department to enable me to supply the information sought by my hon. friend from Manitoba (Mr. Bradbury). But his remarks will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. As to what my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has to say, he mentioned one or two of what he called glaring instances in which the rights of the people had been sacrificed and the privileges given. He spoke of a lease given to Mr. McNee, and another given to Mr. Markey. I suppose the hon. gentleman is aware that these leases were cancelled long ago, and the privileges taken away, because onerous conditions which had been attached to the leases, were not fulfilled by the holders. My hon. friend will find, I think, that in the Marine and Fisheries Department, in this respect as in others, a great change and reorganization has taken place, and most of what he has been talking about has not been done for several years past.
Mr, SPROULE. If the minister will excuse me, I was on the Public Accounts Committee the year before last, when we discussed the matter, and it was admitted by the party who was brought before the committee, that he had the license.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I admit that such licenses were issued at one time, but few licenses are now being issued in the way he has described. Old licenses issued years ago were perhaps described fairly by the hon. member. But the two he mentioned in particular were cancelled, because, as I have said, onerous conditions were not fulfilled-the conditions were so onerous that the parties were not able to fulfil them. That showed that the government which issued those licenses was safeguarding the public interests sufficiently to require the licensees to do certain things which they were not able to do, and consequently the licenses were cancelled. This has been the case with other licenses. The present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in the reorganization of his department, which he has carried on in such a splendid manner, and which he is continuing to improve, so far as his health permits, has also dealt with the issuing of these fishery licenses.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: It did not appear quite clear to me what my hon. friend is asking for. He seems to point out a grievance, but the main grievance he pointed out, if I understand him, was something over which this parliament and government have no control. He informs us that fishermen fishing in Lake Winnipeg and in some of those inland waters, are allowed to send their fish into the United States Mr. SPROULE.
market without paying any duty, providing the fish are caught in American nets and American bottoms. Now this is not a matter which this government can control, although it may seem a hardship to Cana dian fishermen.


George Henry Bradbury: The law of this country is very distinct, that no man is permitted to fish in Canada except he is a. British subject, and except he is the actual owner of his boats and gear. Now, if he is the actual owner, how can an American own the nets.? As soon as the department becomes aware that these fish are going into that country free of duty, on account of the American owning the nets, then! it is the duty of the department to cancel the licenses.


John Howard Sinclair: It may be their duty. The business, as pointed out by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), appears to be fraudulent, because these fishermen are representing themselves to be Canadian fishermen catching fish in Canadian waters, and then in the United States, he says, they produce evidence that the fish are caught ini American nets. If that is the case, of course there is fraudulent fishing carried on, and that would be good reason for cancelling the licenses. I have no doubt that if a case of that kind is brought to the attention of the minister, the license will be immediately cancelled.


George Henry Bradbury: I have brought cases before them from time to time.


John Howard Sinclair: No one proposes to stop granting licenses altogether. I assume from the fact that the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) supports the Ontario government that grants the licenses, he is not opposed to granting licenses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take the ground that there is no justification, from settlement or any other cause, to grant licenses to fish, whether it be to fish on the Great Slave lake or in Lesser Slave lake, or in Hudson bay.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand my hon. friend was also criticising the method of granting licenses in the Georgian bay as well as in the great lakes to the north.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said fishing had been carried on there to the detriment of the people, and I spoke of the evils that have resulted. I also snoke of the far distant country where there was no settlement, and where it would be a wrong thing to do.


John Howard Sinclair: If my hon. friend will examine the law and the regulations in the department, he will find that the licenses

granted in this northern country must be operated or they are subject to cancellation at any time. It is a condition on which licenses are granted, and if there are cases in which the licenses are not being operated, then they are subject to cancellation. It is easy to work up complaints in a matter of this kind, but hon. members ought to be in a position to propose a remedy. If they are serious about this matter, if they have any complaint for which they can find a remedy, then I would like to hear what the remedy is. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Selkirk, but it did not appear to me clear that he had anything to propose to the department that would remedy these complaints.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to inform the hon. gentleman that I was simply emphasizing the report of the commission appointed by the government to investigate this matter. I approve of the commission. The commission brought in very drastic recommendations, and I was asking that the government should carry out those recommendations in the spirit of the report. I also pointed out that there was another commission appointed under the old government in 1884-5, and the report of that commission is lying in the department to-day; it was never carried out, it was burked by the influence of this American fish trust.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Harbours and rivers, Prince Edward Island -Belfast pier-renewals and repairs on pier head and general repairs to approach-revote of $1,800 lapsed, $2,000.
['I want to inform the hon. gentleman that I was simply emphasizing the report of the commission appointed by the government to investigate this matter. I approve of the commission. The commission brought in very drastic recommendations, and I was asking that the government should carry out those recommendations in the spirit of the report. I also pointed out that there was another commission appointed under the old government in 1884-5, and the report of that commission is lying in the department to-day; it was never carried out, it was burked by the influence of this American fish trust.']
William Pugsley: This is to reconstruct portions *of the face of the pier at Halliday's wharf, and to make some other general repairs. The total estimated cost of these repairs is $3,000. Some work was done and there was an appropriation last year of $3,000, of which amount there has been spent $1,200.
Belle River harbour - repairs to and strengthening works oil either side of entrance, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is asked for by the resident engineer to strengthen the works on either side of the harbour entrance.


Mr. JAMESON.: Where is this?


William Pugsley: It is in Queens county, Prince Edward Island.
Brudenell-wharf on north side of river- revote of $2,000 lapsed, $5,400.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the construction of a wharf at
Brudenell. The total estimated cost is $5,400, of which $2,000 is a revote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there any vote for this last year? I do not see any amount in the revote column.


William Pugsley: The reason it does not appear in the revote column is that the amount was voted in a previous year; it lapsed and it was not voted last year. We put this in to show the committee that there is a revote.
Cove Head-repairs to and strengthening shear dam, $1,250.


William Pugsley: This is reported by the resident engineer to be necessary to prevent damage to the existing work.


Clarence Jameson: Where is this?


William Pugsley: It is in Queens county.
China Point-pier-renewals and repairs,


William Pugsley: This is to make necessary repairs.
Haggerty's wharf-repairs to existing work and enlargement of pier head, $2,500.


William Pugsley: This vote is asked for by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the work is also reported as being necessary by the resident engineer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this item sufficient to finish this work?


Mr. PUGSLEY  .@: No; this will cost $4,000. We are asking for $2,500.
Harbours, rivers and bridges, generally- repairs and improvements, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is a general vote for all the different wharfs and bridges that are not specially provided for.
Lennox island and Port Hill - wharfs on Lennox Island Indian reserve and on main land opposite, near Port Hill; the Indian Department to contribute $2,500, $5,300.


William Pugsley: This is to pay our portion of the construction of wharfs on the Indian reserve.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it customary for the Department of Public Works to construct wharfs and roads and make repairs on Indian reserve.


William Pugsley: No, we do not build roads, but we do contribute very frequently, and I think as a general rule, towards the construction of wharfs where they are used by the public as well. Of course, if a wharf were regarded as one which would be absolutely private to the Indians, I presume that Our department would not contribute, but ordinarily we do contribute towards these wharfs.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My object in making the inquiry is that in my riding we have two large reserves and the people on either side of them are seriously in need of roads being opened up through them. If it were customary for the Department of Public Works to spend money on Indian reserves for roads and bridges it might be able to assist in this matter to which I have just called the attention of the minister.


William Pugsley: The federal government does not build roads as a general thing, while it does build wharfs, as they are an aid to navigation.
Miminegash harbour-repairs, $2,500.


William Pugsley: This is to repair and strengthen the works on either side of the channel entrance, also to extend the brush work and repair the approach.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are the expenditures on these works going to be made?


William Pugsley: By day's work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mean with reference to these votes generally.


William Pugsley: If it is new work, even although it may be small, as a general rule, we ask for tenders, but if it is repair work, as a general rule, we do it by the day because it is impossible to tell what will be the extent of the repairs to an old wharf. You caimot tell until you begin to tear it away to see what the under timber is like, what the extent of the repairs will be, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to let a contract for such work.
Naufrage pond - protecting entrance to channel with bridge across piers and roadways of approach, $4,000.


William Pugsley: We require the $4,000 to complete it. There was an appropriation last year of $14,500 and it is probable that up to the 31st March next, there will be an expenditure of $11,000, leaving $3,500 which constitutes a revote; so that we are only asking $500 additional. The work is under contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this complete the
work?


William Pugsley: Yes.
New London-repairs to breakwater, &c., $1,500.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for repairs to the protection work on either side of the harbour entrance. These works are generally damaged by the fall and winter storms and the resident engineer reports that the work is needed.
Port Selkirk pier-repairs, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the repairing and covering of the floor stringers of this pier, &c.
Mr. iPUGSLEY.
Red Point wharf-general repairs-revote of $1,500 lapsed, $1,000.


William Pugsley: One thousand dollars will be necessary for this work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much is in that vote? There is a revote of $1,500 and there is only $1,000 now voted, what do you mean by that?


William Pugsley: The session before last we had a vote of^ $1,500, none of which was used and we are now asking for $1,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it cannot be a revote of $1,500.


William Pugsley: No, that is perhaps rather erroneous but all that means is that the total amount has lapsed. The object is to show the committee that it was once voted and not used.
Rustico breakwater-protection block at outer end, $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the extension of the present block at the outer end of the breakwater on the northern side of the entrance to the harbour.


Mr. DANIEL.: What are these blocks made of ?


William Pugsley: Timber, plank covering, cross-ties and ballast, bolts, close piling,
&c.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are the stones cemented together or will they be loose?


William Pugsley: Loose.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has this breakwater been broken away by storms to any extent?


William Pugsley: No, I think not. The extension is necessary to prevent the forming of a channel which would otherwise be formed. It is to change the direction of the current so as to preserve the navigable channel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this finish the work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will it be done by tender and contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Souris-rip-rap protection on seaward side of Knight's Point breakwater and renewals and repairs-revote of $5,800 lapsed, $7,500.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this finish the work?


William Pugsley: So it is estimated.


Clarence Jameson: The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Fraser) has something to say with regard to some of these items and more particularly, I think, with the item under consideration. The hon. gentleman is unavoidably absent at the present moment, and I would ask the minister before

the items for Prince Edward Island are passed to allow one item to stand so that my hon. friend may have an opportunity for discussion.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend will not press to have the item stand, hut I will undertake that if the hon. member for Kings desires to speak on any item for Prince Edward Island, he can do so when any item for Quebec or Ontario is called, or, upon the dredging vote, or any convenient opportunity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Or the supplementaries?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Clarence Jameson: That understanding is perfectly satisfactory.
Summerside harbour-for completion, &c., of breakwater extending from Indian Head to outer end of Lighthouse Spit, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the work which is under contract.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the 'total amount of the contract?


William Pugsley: 


Clarence Jameson: How long is this breakwater?	.	[DOT]
' Mr. PUGSLEY. 3,240 feet.


Clarence Jameson: Is it merely a breakwater?


William Pugsley: It is to afford protection to vessels lying at the wharf in the harbour during westerly and southerly gales.
Tignish-extension of harbour channel protection piers inwardly, $25,000.


William Pugsley: The estimated cost including superintendence is $25,000, and we are asking for the full amount.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this contract work?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Harbours and rivers, New Brunswick-Bay-side wharf on Johnston Cove, $1,500.


William Pugsley: This is for a new wharf on the St. Croix river which will accommodate quite a number of farmers.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: $1,500. It is expected this will cover the whole expenditure.


John Waterhouse Daniel: A portion of the cost of this wharf is not paid by the provincial government?


William Pugsley: No.	'
Buctouche-channel through beach, inclusive of breastwork and breakwater repairs, $3,500.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the expenditure on this last year?


William Pugsley: To the 31st September, $2,169.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When did the work beJ gin?


William Pugsley: May, 1905.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the total expenditure to date?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure on harbour improvements at Buctouche has been $39,123, but I cannot say over what period that extends.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the object of this work?


William Pugsley: The object of the cut through the beach was to effect a saving of ten or twelve miles in the sailing distance of the Buctouche fishing boats on their way to the fishing grounds, and the same distance is saved in the towing of logs. It also forms an entrance into a convenient harbour of refuge.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the length of the channel?


William Pugsley: The length of one of the breakwaters is 2,800 feet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the width of the channel?


William Pugsley: It3 width is fifty feet. I cannot give my hon. friend its length.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this appropriation complete the channel?


William Pugsley: It is expected that this will complete it. I should correct the statement which I made. The $39,123.75 which I mentioned was the total expenditure on Buctouche harbour works up to the 31st March, 1909. The total cost of this work to that date was $16,933.66.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there to be any dredging in connection with it?


William Pugsley: Yes, 1,000 cubic yards.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who does the dredging?


William Pugsley: It is hand-dredging, done by a mud digger,, operated by a steam winch.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the depth of water?


William Pugsley: Three feet at low water, and I am told about thirteen feet at high water.


Oswald Smith Crocket: My information is that the money that has been expended on this so-called public work is an absolute waste.


William Pugsley: For what reason?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will state it. The minister has stated that this work was begun in 1904, and that the object of it was to cut a channel so as to make a short cut for vessels going into Buctouche harbour. This expenditure has been going on year



after year since that time. There was expended in 1904 $2,438.93, in 1905 $1,895.17, in 1906 $5,960, in 1907 $1,998.92, in 1908 $3,500, in 1909, $3,773.75, a total of $19,556,27, and the amount asked for this year is $3,500. My information is that the work of one year is washed away in the following year and has to be completely renewed, and this has been going on during the past six or 3even years. When we look into the accounts for this work, we find that Mr. J. D. Irving, who was a witness in an investigation before the Public Accounts Committee the other day, has figured very largely in the money that has been appropriated for carrying on this work. I find that he has got out of it in these years $5,049, and that his brother, Mr. R. A. Irving has got out of it $1,538, or a total of $6,587, out of an expenditure of $19,556.27, a large proportion of which sum was for the rent of an engine and a scow.


William Pugsley: How much for the rent of the engine and scow?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Irving, for a little bit of a scow, which he told us had cost him $150, and which he has owned for several years, has got from this government $514 as rent; he has been receiving $2 a day for it while this work has been going on during all these years. For an engine which he valued at $500 he has received $8 a day, or a total of $1,778.


William Pugsley: Does not that $8 a day include the fuel and the hauling of fresh water for the engine and the wages of a man?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand that the claim is that it includes fuel and the wages of an engineer; but my information is that the man who runs the engine figures in the pay-roll. I do not say that absolutely, but that is the information I have. It seems to me that $19,556 expended in that way year after year is making a perfect farce of the expenditure of public money, If the work served any good purpose, there might not be quite so much ground of complaint; but I have it from reliable residents of that county that the work done two or three years ago was washed away and had to be done the following year and so on from year to year. It consists in getting a lot of brush and stone, for which Mr. J. D. Irving is paid $2.50 per cubic yard for large stone and $1 for small stone. Then his brother, who is a lawyer, has been supplying large quantities of stone also.


William Pugsley: His brother does a very large general business outside of being a lawyer. He owns a mill, I think.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think J. D. Irving owns the mill. It is a most extraordinary thing to find barristers of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick supplying stone Mr. CROCKET.
for public works, particularly at such prices. I do not think my hon. friend knows many reputable members of the legal profession in the province of New Brunswick who go into that kind of business. If you go into these accounts, you find that this money is being circulated largely among the Liberal managers of Kent county. The belief down there is that these appropriations year after year are made not so much in the public interest as to circulate the money among political friends of the government. Perhaps the minister can state exactly what condition this work is in. It has been of no service up to the present time; not a single boat has used the channel since it was started seven years ago. If the minister can assure us that this $3,509 will be the end of this expenditure, perhaps we will not have very such more to say. I do protest, however, against money being expended in such a perfectly useless work as this and expended in that wasteful manner. It seems to me that a work going on regularly year after year, consisting largely of what is spoken of as dredging done with a shovel-


William Pugsley: It is not an ordinary hand shovel. It is a mud digger of the kind used on the north shore for digging mussel mud and is operated by a steam winch.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who owns the mud digger?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it the property of the government or is rent paid for it?


William Pugsley: It was not used very long, and I understood there was some work done with scrapers. My information is that this work will be effective for the purpose for which it is intended. The member for the county of Kent (Mr. LeBlanc) in whose judgment I have a very great deal of confidence, has represented to me that the work is of very great importance, and that when completed it will be effective for the purpose. One difficulty has been that instead of taking the whole amount required at once, so .as to complete the work in a short period it has been carried on from year to year. I shall look into the allegations of my hon. friend and see exactly the condition in which the work is, but my information has been that the work will be effective and that this $3,500 will complete it.
With regard to the moneys that have been paid to the Messrs. Irving my hon. friend should not take too seriously the suggestions or insinuations made by political opponents. There is a general disposition-among many people who are opposed to the government to create an impression that moneys are being wasted by being

paid overto political friends. I suppose that will be the case with all governments, Liberal or Conservative. My information is that the Messrs. Irving are thoroughly reliable people. It is not a crime that they happen to be Liberals, they are just as good men as if they were Tories, and the mere fact that they are Liberals ought not to imply that they have been paid more for the stone, or the engine, or the scow than their services were worth. It was proved before the committee that the engine was used for only a short period each year and that the charge of $8 a day was a reasonable charge and included, in addition to the hire of the engine, the fuel, the labour and expenditure of hauling fresh water a considerable distance for use in the engine and also labour of the men, so that the charge of $8 a day was reasonable. With regard to the scow, it was proved to be a large scow, well adapted for the purpose. It was used by the government for only a short period each year and during the past season, instead of renting it to the government, Mr. Irving was asked to rent it to a private contractor and it has been used during the past year at Cape Bald in the county of Westmorland, where he receives from a private contractor more than he was getting from the government. Therefore I do not take too seriously the suggestions of my hon. friend because I realize that when he makes them he is not speaking from his own knowledge but from statements made to him by others.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not condemning Mr. Irving because he is a Liberal. I would not condemn any man because he is a Liberal or a Conservative. I am condemning the department. My opinion and the opinions of those who have stated their opinions is not based upon the party affiliation of the Irvings at all. So far as I am concerned, it is based on the bald facts that appear by the Auditor General's Report and the value that Mr. Irving himself before the committee stated as the value of the scow and of the engine. My hon. friend states it was only used for' a few days of each year. In 1909 alone, he was paid for seventy-three days, or $584-
"Mr. PUGSLEY. That is only a little over two months.


Oswald Smith Crocket: -an amount consider-ablv in excess of the whole value of the engine. For the scow he was paid for 95 days at $2 a day, and the scow was worth $150. I do not, however, speak so much of that as of the perfect uselessness of this work. I ask the minister if he does not himself think it very strange that a small work of this character, the cutting of a short channel through a
mud flat to make a short cut into Buc-touche Harbour has been in progress year after year from 1904, with no more evidence of its being completed to-day than at the time the work was begun.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is aware that this is tidal water, and it is not so easy to make and complete and make perfect against storms a channel which is in tidal water, you have to protect it thoroughly with brush and stone.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the reason is that the work which is done one year is as regularly washed away and must be renewed the next year.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is wrong. My information is right to the contrary.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister has no statement to make as to the necessity of this work. He has not shown that any boat or vessel has used this channel. It is not in a position to be used, notwithstanding the work has been going on for seven years, and all that time it has been carried on under this system of day labour and the purchase of stone from political friends in the neighbourhood.


William Pugsley: What is the objection to the purchase of stone?


Oswald Smith Crocket: It has been purchased at $2.50 a yard.


William Pugsley: These are very large stones.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I know one of the contractors at Riehibucto told me that some stone was bought from him at 5 cents a cubic yard. The minister should look into this matter and be able, before asking another appropriation, at least to state just what position the work is in, whether it is ever to be completed or if it is going to continue from year to year as in the past.


William Pugsley: Before the Committee of Public Accounts, Mr. Irving swore posi lively that out of the supply of stone during the past year, after paying for quarrying and hauling the stone a considerable distance, his total profits were $36.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did he quarry the stones?


William Pugsley: Yes, and it is very desirable in work of this character, exposed to the action of the sea and storms and heavy winds, that the stone should be as large as possible. These stones for which $2.50 is charged, as my hon. friend says-I have not a memorandum of the charge before me -were very large stones, and for those of smaller size the charge was $1. There is evidence that out of the total year's supply, after paying expenses, of quarrying and

hauling the stone this considerable distance, the profits were only $36, which, I think, no one would call unreasonable.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Irving's statement applies to the first year, but I think he has gone on supplying stone since that time. Who was the conductor appointed for this work?


William Pugsley: There was a foreman, sometimes called a conductor.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister his name?


William Pugsley: Yes, Mr. A. Cormier.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the mud-digger there worked by hand or by this engine?


William Pugsley: The mud-digger in use was worked by an engine. My information is that it was not used very much. I think the work has been done with scrapers at low tide. Still as to that I may be wrong.
Campbellton-deep water wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: That is for completing the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the work under contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does this amount complete the work?


William Pugsley: It is expected to complete the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What wharfage will this give?


William Pugsley: It is 304 feet long by 35 feet wide. This is connected with the easterly end of the present wharf by a span of 15 feet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that the extension?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What will that make the total length of the deep water wharf?


William Pugsley: The Shives wharf would be 250 feet in length. And, as well as I can make out, this would be added, making a total of 554 feet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What depth of water have they there?


William Pugsley: I think it is eighteen or twenty feet. Some dredging has been done.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that independent of the present contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much has been paid up to date?


William Pugsley: To 30th of September last, the amount paid was $30,745.80.


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the total amount of the contract?


William Pugsley: It is $35,475.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister must be mistaken as to the amount paid, for in the last Auditor General's Report it appears that over $18,000 was paid.


William Pugsley: vious year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. PUGSLEY. Mr. CROCKET. Mr. PUGSLEY.
Yes, that is in the pre-
Who is the contractor? Mr. William Glover. Of Campbellton?
Yes.
Cape Bald-breakwater pier, $18,500.


William Pugsley: This is to build a breakwater and wharf at Cape Bald in the county of Westmorland, and is to make provision for the completion of the contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: The amount of the contract is $32,890, to which there is to be added superintendence, contingencies, &c., $3,110, and also the cost of making a road $2,729.36. The total estimated cost is $38,729.36. This is being built of concrete. It is in a place where the work will be much exposed to storms and where it is very desirable to have a work of a permanent character.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Was this a new contract in the year ending March 31, 1909?


William Pugsley: Tenders were called for in the fall of 1908 and the contract was let in the spring of 1909.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many tenders were received?


William Pugsley: Four, and the contract was, as usual, given to the lowest.


Oswald Smith Crocket: To whom?


William Pugsley: Mr. E. A. Wallberg.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the minister or the department have representations as to the necessity of the work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: From whom?


William Pugsley: Among others, from the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson). I think there were also representations from the farmers and fishermen. This is an important place in the county of Westmorland, and is situated between Shediae and Cape Tormentine. It is quite distant from the railway, and the people who raise large quantities of farm produce,

have had no means of shipping, and so were at a great disadvantage. It will be a great advantage to them to be afforded the means which this wharf will give them of shipping the prodfuce either to Cape Tor-mentine or to Shediac..


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there no wharf there before?


William Pugsley: None.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Why did the department decide to make it of concrete?
Mr. PUGSLEY, First, because it is in an exposed place. Concrete is rapidly becoming a favourite material for the construction of wharfs as well as buildings. Besides, this is in a locality where, as was represented to us, I believe, the .teredo was likely to do considerable damage to a wooden wharf. Taking all these things together, we thought it would be better to build a concrete wharf.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the department built other concrete wharfs in New Brunswick?


William Pugsley: I do not know as to New Brunswick. We have built them on the Ottawa river. There is one at Arn-prior. We have just completed one also at -Lakefield, a very fine wharf. It was not found to foe much more expensive than timber.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was this contract let in bulk sum?
Cape Tormentine-breakwater, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to rebuild the facing and replace the stone. It is asked for by the resident engineer. It was built many years ago, and requires annual repairs.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I see on V-182 that the department bought an old flat car from the Intercolonial railway for $150. What was that for?


William Pugsley: In 1908-9 the sum of $9,226 was expended in driving 74 creosoted piles along the pier head. Ballasting and covering the pier head was completed for about 2,200 square feet. A flat car was purchased from the Intercolonial on which to erect a derrick. This was used in handling and placing 823 cubic yards of large stone, to raise the slope alongside the face of the pier head.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would call attention to the fact that the stone that was obtained for this breakwater was paid at the Tate of $3.50 per cubic yard, whereas that used at Buctouche was paid for at the rate of $2.50. The money is being paid to Mr. H. C. Reid, I do not know if he is a lawyer.


William Pugsley: I think Mr. Reid is proprietor of the Stone Quarries at or near Sackville.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this work being done by contract, or by day labour?


William Pugsley: By day labour.


William Pugsley: It was a bulk sum contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who were the other tenderers?


William Pugsley: I cannot give the names. Four tenders were received, ranging from $32,890 to $62,000. The lowest was accepted.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It did not occur to the department to rent that car from the Intercolonial.


William Pugsley: We got it at a very reasonable price.
Chance harbour-to raise inclined low tide landing pier up to high water level, $2,800.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the government acquire the title to the land?


William Pugsley: We acquired the title on the 6th of October, 1908, for the sum of $310. It consists of six and a half acres.


William Pugsley: The present pier is 176 feet long, 25 feet wide and 18 feet high at the outer end, but it is covered at high tide, and this is to raise it up. It means the general elevation of the whole breakwater about 8 feet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister spoke about the right of way to the wharf costing $3,000.


William Pugsley: That would be for building the approach. This $310 would include the right of way and the site for the breakwater. The roadway was done by day labour, and is completed. That expenditure was made in 1908-9.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Most of it in October, I suppose?


William Pugsley: No, it Tan over eight months. We got through with it on the 30th of November.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this cover the whole expense?


William Pugsley: This will cover the whole cost.
Cummings Cove, Deer island-wharf, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision towards the construction of a wharf at Cummings Cove. It is for the building of a trestle approach 23 feet wide and 290 feet in length, consisting of pile work. The total estimated cost will be $19,400, outside of superintendence.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Was there anything spent on this last year?


William Pugsley: No, we called for tenders but the tenders submitted were considerably higher than the engineer's estimate, we declined to award the contract and propose to call for new tenders.
Dalhousie harbour-breakwater, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to build a breakwater at Dalhousie to protect the basin. There was a sort of breakwater there which had been built up with mill refuse and edgings, and that sort of thing, and it had been used as a roadway. The central part of that has been washed away and this has exposed the inner harbour, sometimes called the Ferry Harbour, to the storms. It will be very inconvenient, if not somewhat dangerous, for vessels unless this breakwater is built. It will be very useful, as it will give protection to the harbour.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This is called the Ferry wharf?


William Pugsley: No, not this breakwater. This leads from a point out to the island, and it is to be a new work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this to replace the old breakwater the minister spoke of as being composed of mill reluse?


William Pugsley: This will replace it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: By whom is that property owned?


William Pugsley: It will belong to the public. The title will be in the Crown. It was under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But, of course, that will be looked into carefully to see that the title is in the Crown. The Department of Marine, I believe, own the island. They have taken it under expropriation. I think this would be the foreshore extending out from the shore of the river to the island, but, of course, we will look into that carefully before expending the money.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When did the Department of Marine and Fisheries acquire the island?


William Pugsley: Perhaps about a year ago.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the intention of this work is to connect that island with the mainland?


William Pugsley: Yes, it will extend from the shore to Douglas island.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That extends from the property of the Dalhousie Lumber Company to Moffatt's Island, which has been purchased by the government?


William Pugsley: No, I think the property of the Dalhousie Lumber Company would be rather to the westward of this


John Waterhouse Daniel: breakwater. I do not think they own from the point at which this breakwater will proceed. Douglas Island was expropriated by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister know how much the island cost the Marine Department?


William Pugsley: I do not, but I understand the amount was not large.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The reason I ask the minister about this is that there is an impression that a large amount of the work that has been done by the Department of Public Works at Dalhousie has been for the benefit of the Dalhousie Lumber Company.
Mr.	PUGSLEY.	Who	entertains	that
impression?


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is the general impression prevalent at Dalhousie.
Mr.	PUGSLEY.	That	surprises	me
greatly.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Most of the dredging which was done at Dalhousie last year was done along the wharf frontage of the Dalhousie Lumber	Company. I wa3 informed that the Minister of Public Works is a stock holder of the Dalhousie Lumber Company. Perhaps the minister will deny that?
Mr.	PUGSLEY.	Why	does the	hon.
gentleman think that the minister would deny it?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister deny it?


William Pugsley: He does .not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is no question about the fact that A. and R. Loggie have been paid thousands of dollars for dredging for the benefit of the Dalhousie Lumber Oompany. I was at Dalhousie last summer myself and saw the Loggie dredge at work dredging out and making more valuable the property of the Dalhousie Lumber Company, and that work is being paid for, although it is entirely for the benefit of the Dalhousie Lumber Company, out of the public treasury. It is a matter that members of this House have a right to protest against. There is no doubt that much of this same thing has been going on all over the country. Item after item, involving thousands of dollars, is being asked and appropriated by this parliament year after year for the building up of private property. That is a fact in reference to the work at Dalhousie. It is true that the minister has spoken of the basin at Dalhousie that lies beyond the lines of the company's property but the major part of the dredging which was done last year was done right at the wharf of the Dalhousie Lumber Company. Perhaos when

the dredging items come up we can get some further information in reference to this matter, and discuss it more fully. I do not think that this House should be asked year after year to appropriate large sums for the benefit of private corporations. There are hundreds of places throughout this country where public money is being spent in this way while hundreds of other communities are crying out in vain for appropriations which are urgently required in the public interest.


William Pugsley: I think it would be much more convenient if the hon. gentleman would discuss the item before the committee. When the dredging vote comes up he will be able to discuss this matter.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I mention that in connection with the information the minister has already communicated to the committee that the appropriation which is now being asked is for the purpose of removing that old breakwater, as he terms it. In fact it is nothing more than a bridge which was for the convenience of the Moffat firm, from whom the Dalhousie Lumber Company acquired their property, and the work now proposed includes the replacement of the roadway of which he speaks. I have understood that it is a work in the interest of the Dalhousie Lumber Company, whose propery lies right at that point. That is the reason why I have said what I have in reference to the dredging, because when we have this vote in reference to the dredging and another large expenditure for this so called breakwater which is lying at the same point, it appears to add colour at least to the belief that public money is being appropriated in the interest of a lumber company of which the minister is a stockholder.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely in error in so far as this work is concerned. This work is to protect what is known as the Ferry harbour. There is a public wharf, the ferry runs there, there is a large traffic and this is for the erection of a public breakwater. In so far as it being a benefit to the Dalhousie Lumber Company is concerned I am not aware that it will be of special benefit to them, although, by reason of their owning one or two of the large mills at Dalhousie carrying on a very large lumber business, the largest lumber business there, and in view of the shipping constantly resorting to the port for the purpose of carrying away the lumber which they manufacture, I suppose, to a certain extent, they will derive a benefit from it. The Dalhousie Lumber Company will get the same benefit as any other firm carrying on business in the town. So far as I am aware this is not to be built on the property of the Dalhousie Lumber Company at all and the object of it is to protect
and improve the basin which is a public harbour. The hon. gentleman has asked me if I am a stockholder in the Dalhousie Lumber Company. It is true that some six or seven years ago I took some stock in that company. I paid my money for the stock the same as other people did and I can assure the hon. gentleman there was no watered stock' in connection with that company; every _ man paid his hard cash. That company is engaged in large lumbering operations upon the Restigouche river and its vicinity cutting some 25,000,000 feet per year. I happen to be one of the stockholders.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this involve the purchase of any property from the Dalhousie Lumber Company, or any rights?


William Pugsley: None whatever so far as I am aware.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have been here nineteen hours out of the twenty-four and I think it is time to adjourn.


William Pugsley: That is not a bad suggestion.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FISHER moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Monday will be private members day?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 31, 1910.