1910-04-05

COMMITTEE ON MINES AND MINERALS.

Mr. RALPH SMITH moved:: That the Committee on Mines and Minerals have leave to sit while the House is in session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ralph Smith: That in view- of certain representations made for the passing of an Act for the consolidation of the laws relating to mines, &c., under federal control, the question of such consolidation be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Mines and Minerals, with power to report by Bill or otherwise.


Mr. SPROULE.: It is rather an unsual proceeding for a committee to bring in a Bill. The function of a committee is to report to the House its conclusions and recommendations. For a committee to go further than that is, I think, rather contrary to the practice of parliament.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Let the motion stand as a notice.
Motion was allowed to stand as a notice of motion.



DRY DOCK SUBSIDIES.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolutions:
1.	Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the repeal of chapter 24 of the Acts of 1908, The Dry Dock Subsidies Act, and that in substitution therefor it be provided, as an aid to the construction of any dry dock approved as to location and capacity by the Governor in Council, that a subsidy, as hereinafter set out, may be paid out of consolidated revenue fund to any incorporated company, approved by the Governor in Council, which 6hall enter into an agreement w-ith His Majesty to construct the same with all necessary equipment, machinery and plant, the cost on which subsidy is to be calculated to be determined by the Governor in Council before the agreement for construction is entered into, the Governor in Council being satisfied that such dry dock is needed in the public interest;
2.	That as an aid to the enlargement and extension of anv dry dock, subsidized under any Act of the Parliament of Canada passed before the date of these resolutions, a subsidy, as hereinafter provided, may be paid out of Consolidated Revenue Fund to any incorporated company, approved by the Governor in Council, which shall enter into an agreement with His Majesty to enlarge and extend any such existing dry dock and to furnish the same with all necessary equipment, machinery
6'277

and plant, the cost on which subsidy is to be calculated to be determined by the Governor in Council before the agreement for the enlargement and extension is entered into, the Governor in Council being satisfied that such enlargement and extension is needed in the public interest;
3.	That dry docks constructed or dry docks enlarged and extended under the provisions of any Act founded on these resolutions, shall, for the purposes of such Act, be divided into three classes;
1.	Dry docks of the first class, for naval
and general purposes, costing for the purposes of subsidy calculation not more than four million dollars, being-	*
(a)	Dry docks, other than floating dry docks, of dimensions when completed not less than the principal dimensions next hereinafter mentioned, that is to 6ay-clear length on bottom from caisson groove or hollow-quoin to head 900 feet; clear width of entrance, 100 feet; depth of water over the «ill at high water ordinary spring tides, 35 feet;
(b)	Floating dry docks in which vessels of a tonnage displacement of at least 25,000 tons can with ease and safety be received and repaired:
Provided, however, that any dry dock shall not for the purposes of such Act be deemed to be a dry dock of the first class unless capable of receiving and repairing therein the largest vessels or ships of the British Navy existing at the time at which the contract is entered into;
2.	Dry docks of the second class, costing for the purposes of subsidy calculation not more than two and one-half million dollars, being-
(a)	Dry docks, other than floating dry docks, of dimensions when completed not less than the principal dimensions next hereinafter mentioned, that is to say-
Clear length on bottom from caisson groove or hollow-quoin to head, 650 feet; clear width of entrance, 85 feet; depth of water over the sill, 30 feet at high water ordinary spring tide6 if constructed on tidal waters and 18 feet at ordinary low water if constructed on non-tidal waters;
(b)	Floating dry docks, in which vessels of a tonnage displacement of at least 15,000 tons can with ease and safety be received and repaired ;
(3) Dry docks of the third class costing for the purpose of subsidy calculation not more than one and one-half million dollars, being-
(a)	Dry docks, other than floating dry docks, of dimensions when completed not less than the principal dimensions next hereinafter mentioned, that is to say-clear length on bottom from caisson groove or hollow-quoin to head, 400 feet; clear width of entrance, 85 feet; depth of water over the sill, 22 feet at high water ordinary spring tides if constructed on tidal waters, and 18 feet at ordinary low water if constructed on nontidal waters;
(b)	Floating dry docks m which vessels oi a tonnage displacement of at least 3,500 tons can with ease and safety be received and repaired;
4.	That the subsidy payable in respect of dry docks, which have been constructed under the provisions of any Act founded On these resolutions, shall be-
(a) If of the first class, a sum not exceeding 31 per centum of the cost of the work as
fixed and determined by the Governor in Council, each year during a period of thirty-fire years from the time the Governor in Council has deterfiiined under the provisions of the Act that the work has been completed;
(b)	If of the second class, a sum not exceeding three and one-half per centum of the cost of the work, as fixed and determined by the Governor in Council, each year during a period of twenty-five year6 from the time the Governor in Council has determined under the provisions of the Act that the work has been completed;
(c)	If of the third class, a sum not exceeding three per centum of the cost of the work, as fixed and determined by the Governor in Council, each year during a period of twenty years from the time the Governor in Council has determined under the provisions of the Act that the work has been completed;
5.	That the subsidy payable in respect of dry docks which have been enlarged or extended under the provisions of any Act founded on these resolutions, shall be-
(a)	If of dimensions or capacity when enlarged and extended not less than the principal dimensions of a dry dock of the first class under such Act, a sum not exceeding three and one-half per centum of the cost of such enlargement and extension, as fixed and determined by the Governor in Council, each year during a period of thirty-five years from the time the Governor in Council has determined under the provisions of the Act that the work has been completed;
(b)	If of dimensions or capacity when enlarged and extended not less than the principal dimensions of a dry dock of the second class under such Act, a sum not exceeding three and one-half per centum of the cost of such enlargement and extension, as fixed and determined by the Governor in Council, each year during a period of twenty-five years from the time the Governor in Council has determined under the provisions of the Act that the work has been completed;
(c)	If of dimensions or capacity when enlarged and extended not less than the principal dimensions of a dry dock of the third class under such Act, a sum not exceeding three per centum of the cost of such enlargement and extension, as fixed and determined by the Governor in Council, each year during a period of twenty years from the time the Governor in Council has determined under the provisions of the Act that the work has been completed;
6.	That the work of construction or enlargement and extension be done under the supervision of the Department of Public Works;
7.	That the Governor in Council be empowered, after a subsidy becomes payable, if such dry dock is not in a state of efficiency and repair, to take possession thereof, and to expend out of consolidated revenue fund a sufficient sum to repair the same, and thereafter operate such dock until the cost of suqh repairs, after payment of operating, expenses and maintenance, is received by the Crown ;
8.	That the tariff of tolls and rates for the use of the dock prescribed by the company shftll be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and that the company shall make an annual statement to the Governor in Council of the operations of the company with a statement of receipts and expenditures in detail;
[Stage Direction]
9.	That, on the application of the government of Canada, or any minister thereof, ships in the British naval service, in the naval service of Canada, or other vessels the property of or employed by His Majesty, shall at all times be entitled to the use of such docks in priority to all other vessels.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER moved second reading of Bill (No. 193) to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. minister be good enough to explain the purport of the Bill?


Mr FISHER.: When I moved the resolution on which this Bill is based, I explained that the amendments are almost entirely of a verbal character. There is no change of principle at all, and the amendments would be better considered as they are detailed when we are in Committee going over the Bill clause by clause. They are due to some little difficulties which have arisen in the administration of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1, interpretation.
Mr. FISHER.: The only change in the first subclause is to add the word ' game ' tc the list of animals. The next subclause in the Act as it stands at present reads:
' Export' means export out of Canada or out of a province in which the establishment is situated to another province.
The Act applies to some goods which have never been in what is technically called an establishment. The word ' establishment' is not necessary in the administration of the Act. We therefore propose to leave out the words defining an establishment. The next subclause is a new' one and defines a farmer. The Act permits the slaughter and sale of animals by farmers without inspection, and w'e have found some difficulty in defining clearly what a farmer is. \\ e therefore insert this definition:
A farmer is a person whose recognized occupation is that of farming, and who slaughters only such animals as are fed bv him on his own premises.
Some dealers have been claiming to be farmers, and we wish to define distinctly those who have the privilege allowed to farmers under the Act.


Mr. BLAIN.: Will this definition take in the Minister of Agriculture?	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think so.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Will the minister explain why he uses the wmrd ' goats ' in this Sir WILFRID LAURIER: ~
Bill? Is it intended to can goats as food, or what is the object? 1 am afraid this would open the door a long way for adulterated foods. Some people make cheese out of goat's milk, but I am not aware that they have come dowrn to eating goats. I think the minister ought to explain why he is giving the men who are running these canning factories an opportunity of palming off goat's meat instead of other meat which the people usually eat. Perhaps the minister could explain whether he intends this goat meat for export or for local consumption. So far as Ontario is concerned, he need not bother about it, because we have not vet got dowm to eating goats or horses either. But at the same time I do not think we should send from Canada to the old country canned goats. Surely the minister has made a mistake.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place, this is not an amendment because the word ' goats ' appears in the original Act.


David Henderson: Why not take it out?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It could be taken out. I do not think there is any quantity of goat [DOT]meat used in Canada, but there is a good deal of it slaughtered in the United States and it might be shipped in here. This clause simply enables us to deal with that if it should be sent into our market. I know, as does m.y hon. friend, that goat meat is not used in Ontario or in Canada at all for that matter, but it might be imported, and, as is well known, there are ai number of flocks of goats being encouraged in the country for other purposes, and as some of them might be slaughtered and put upon the market we could not deal with such a case unless this word were in the clause.


David Henderson: Is there anything in this Bill or in the original Act w'hich prohibits those engaged in the canning industry from canning goat meat?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not so long as they cal! it goat meat.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This Bill defines a farmer as a person whose recognized occupation is that of farming. There are many people in Canada wdiose recognized occupation may not be farming, but who, nevertheless, are carrying on farming extensively, and who if under this Act they were deprived of any rights which a farmer might enjoy, would be treated unjustly.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think, subject to correction, that if a man was running a farm in any way this clause wrould include him. For instance, my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is a doctor, and if he ran a farm as well I think he would be recognized as engaged in the occupation of farming. I would not wish to restrict the interpretation in that

sense, and there is no such intention in the drafting of the clause.


Air. J. D. REID.: This Bill applies to food, that is exported, but so far as the Canadian consumers are concerned any kind of diseased animals may be sold to them. I saw a case in Toronto not long ago where diseased meat was sold for 11 cents per pound for the purpose of canning it, and the vendor was brought before the magistrate and fined $20. Then, calves only a few days old are put on the Canadian market. As I understand it, the Minister of Agriculture is using all his efforts to see that the good meat goes to a foreign country and that the refuse is left in Canada. The minister has promised session after session to provide a remedy, but he is not doing so in this Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Aly hon. friend is bringing up the old, old question which has been discussed time and again in this House. The question of local slaughtering and of protecting the health of the people is a provincial matter and it is only the export and interprovincial trade that this Bill professes to deal with. The case which my hon. friend mentioned is a local matter and we have nothing to do with it. I have no hesitation in saying that while we might have the power, it would be inadvisable and impracticable for Dominion officials to interfere in such matters. If we attempted to do so we would very soon have a most violent protest from the provincial and municipal authorities.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: The minister does not think it would be unconstitutional for us to do it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It may be that we could constitutionally do it, but it is inadvisable.


John Dowsley Reid: And the minister now says he refuses to do anything to protect the health of the people of this country?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not a correct definition of what I said.
Mr. 3. D. REID. Then make it plain.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said that so far as the making of local arrangements are concerned these are in the hands of provincial and municipal authorities and that it was not for us to interfere with them in that work. As to export trade and interprovincial trade, this Act deals with that and we have been trying to enforce it.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister is not dealing with municipal matters in this Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is just what I said.


John Dowsley Reid: It is the first time in the history of the minister that he has been anxious not to put on more government officials and to exercise patronage.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no, quite the contrary.


John Dowsley Reid: Every time he has a chance he has been creating new officials.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend knows better.


John Dowsley Reid: I don't think there is a member in this House who would dispute that fact.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, there are.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister in this case is willing to appoint officials to protect the health of the people of foreign countries, but he will not appoint inspectors to safeguard the health of our own people. I think that is an awful condition for a minister to be m who has charge of the Agricultural Department, and is supposed to do something for the farmers. I cannot see yet where we have ever had any benefit from the department. Here is a chance now where he can protect both tlid farmers and the community if he would put on a horde of officials and see that we get decent meat to eat. The Prime Minister knows that we ought to have pure food in Canada. [DOT]


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: And more patronage.


John Dowsley Reid: If it is necessary to have more patronage in order that we may have pure meat, I am willing to have more patronage. But the Prime Minister agrees with me that we should have pure meat, and yet his Alinister of Agriculture sitting beside him, absolutely refuses to give it. The result is that if the policy of the Alinister of Agriculture is carried out, we will have rotten meat to eat. Now, I think the Prime Alinister is just as guilty as his Minister of Agriculture, because, while he is trying to get all the patronage he can, he does nothing to compel his minister to give us pure meat. It is a notorious fact that the Alinister of Agriculture has always been guilty of putting on officials wherever he can possibly do it; but in this particular case where more officials are necessary to protect the health and lives of people, he refuses to put them on.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Aly hon. friend in one part of his address exactly contradicts what he says in another part. He abuses me foxasking for more patronage, and then he abuses me because I won't take it. Here is an evidence that I do not want patronage. I may say to my hon. friend that none are so blind as those who do not wish to see. He cannot see anything good in the Department of Agriculture.


John Dowsley Reid: I may mention one thing that the minister did do on behalf of this country. He undertook to show the people how they could make a profit out of



hens. Now he has got 323 hens out there, and he pays $4,500 a year for looking after them. He has a general superintendent that he pays $1,500; then he has a foreman that he pays $1,000; then he has a man to cary water to these liens, and he pays $800 to him; then lie has another man to feed the hens, and pays him $800; then he has another man to clean up the hen house, and pays him $600. So altogether lie pays $4,500 a year for looking after these 323 hens, and all the return he gets out of them is $350. There is something that lie is doing for the farmers of this country, and there is also a glaring case'of patronage. But now that he has a chance to do something to give the people pure food, the Minister of Agriculture stands up here and absolutely refuses to protect the lives of the public, and probably the lives of their children, by allowing them to continue to eat this diseased meat.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: The logical sequence of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture is this, that so far as interprovincial trade is concerned, he has jurisdiction now. I would like to ask him if he is exercising that jurisdiction in regard to provincial trade. This question has also arisen in the United States, where one of the great industries is that of slaughtering cattle for meat. It has concentrated itself in the great centres of the United States like Chicago and Kansas City. They have now a federal act for the inspection of meat largely used for domestic purposes, even when it is not exported but is sent into other states. Now that thing must come in Canada. The slaughter of the meat supply of Canada will be done largely in some centre like Winnipeg, and is being largely done in the city of Toronto to-day. There is a great interprovincial trade originating in those centres, so the minister will have to take jurisdiction more or less in this matter, and exercise official supervision of meats for the interprovincial trade. He is seized of that authority now. I wish to know now if he is enforcing the law as regards the product of abattoirs in our present meat killing centres, when that product is sent into other provinces.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. Every establishment which does any interprovincial or export trade has in it an inspector of the Department of Agriculture, whose business it is to supervise and watch the animals when they come in, their slaughter and their preparation for food. We do not touch abattoirs or slaughter houses which are purely local in their character, leaving that to provincial or municipal authorities. Imnorters are also subject to this Act.


William Findlay Maclean: In about how many meat killing centres now is this jurisdiction asserted?


John Dowsley Reid: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About 40 establishments are under inspection in various parts of the country, including these large ones in Toronto.	[DOT]


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I quite agree with any effort that is made on the part of the Department of Agriculture to ensure that the public shall get pure and healthy meat, for consumption. One objection to the inspection made by the department, is that, while in the large cities there are inspectors of abattoirs where the meat is exported or liable to be exported, the bulk of the meat that enters into local consumption in cities and towns is not subject to any inspection at all. As a consequence, animals that are liable to be diseased in any way are overlooked. The owners of these animals sell them to the small butchers and they are consumed all over the country as human food, while the best of the meat is nearly all shipped out of the country. On this occasion I would like also to voice a complaint and bring it to the attention of the minister to see if some method cannot be adopted to secure a more equitable distribution of the loss and expense of inspection. It is manifestly in the interest of the public that meat should be inspected, but the expense and loss incurred in that connection is not borne equitably by the public. There are over 400 drovers in the province of Ontario. Those 400 men purchase their cattle on the farm. The farmer sells a bullock to the butcher, the animal looks quite healthy, it goes to the stock yards, it there passes a visual inspection by an inspector who looks at it and passes it as a healthy animal. The drover purchases that animal on the condition that it passes inspection, and that is the inspection that it has to pass.
After it has passed the visual inspection from the car, it is sold to the packer or exporter, but the purchase is made from the drover on the distinct understanding that the animal must pass inspection as dead meat. But, when the animal is sent to the abattoir and slaughtered, it is discovered that it has had a touch of tuberculosis or some disease of that kind, and so the drover, having sold it subject to the inspection as dead meat, must lose every dollar that he paid for it. It may be said that he can go back to the farmer from whom he purchased it, but that is impossible, because the, animal wras not tagged to identify it as coming from any particular farmer. The result is that last year, in Ontario alone, the drovers lost over $400,000 from this inspection. For my part T quite believe that it is very proper that the department should conduct this inspection and proper that wre should make every effort to have wholesome meats; but I think also that a plan should be devised

whereby the party who loses this money should be compensated in some way. It is manifestly unfair that the man who lias purchased the animal in good faith from the farmer should lose, because after the animal has passed the visual inspection by the inspector, an official of this government, mind you-a defect which nobody has been able to discover and for which the drover is certainly not responsible, causes the condemnation .ol that carcass. The drovers of Ontario are seriously considering going out of business because they lost an average of about $1,000 each last year.


Mr. SEALEY.: Do not the packing houses lose that?


John Allister Currie: Not a dollar; every cheque they give to the drovers is marked ' subject to inspection.'


William Oscar Sealey: In our locality, the pack' ing houses bear that loss.


John Allister Currie: The drovers, I understand, held a meeting in Toronto last week, when this grievance was talked over, and it was there shown that last year they had paid over $400,000 on this account. Now, this dead meat inspection is for the protection of the public, and it seems to me that the drovers ought to be compensated by some one for their loss. I thought that, as this matter was under discussion, I would call the .'attention of the minister to the point, because I do not think that, at heart, he is opposed to the view I take as a matter of justice. Every one knows that it is for the public good that this inspection occurs. Why, then, should these poor men be called on to pay the penalty for providing proper food for the whole community?- especially when you consider that most of this meat is exported, and so -our drovers are penalized in order to insure the purity and wholesomeness of {he food of foreign people. As I have said, there w'as over $400,000 worth of this meat condemned last year after having passed the general inspection at the yards where the cattle were unloaded from the car.


Mr. BRADBURY.: What became of the meat?


John Allister Currie: It was destroyed tanked. But the man who pays for it gets nothing for it. This matter should claim the attention of this House, and some means should be devised by the Department of Agriculture to remove this cause of hardship in the case of an important class of our citizens.


Mr. OWEN.: I am more anxious about the health of the people than about compensating anybody at the present time. I drew the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to this question of diseased meat a year ago. I told him that 2001
j 1 _ knew of a number of animals affected ; with tuberculosis being butchered and sold to the people of this country. And I tell him that now. If he wants to take the matter up-and I wish he would-I will prove my statement by the men who are buying these cattle and who are ready to come here to Ottawa and give their testimony on the subject.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Owen) makes a statement which I do not dispute. I know that many animals are slaughtered that are not in perfectly sound health, and, no doubt, the meat is sold in many cases for human consumption. That is not the case in any abattoir ot meat packing house under the operation of this Act. If the municipal councils and the provincial authorities do not choose to prevent what the hon. gentleman has mentined in the slaughter houses under their control, I am sorry for them, but I am not responsible. If these slaughter-houses were under the operation of this Act for export lor interprovincial trade, what my hon. friend has stated could not occur.
I may say to my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) that this question of the difficulties of the drovers, packers and farmers, as to who is responsible for the losses to which he has referred, is a very complex one, but one which I consider to be more -a matter of trade arrangement amongst the parties concerned in the business than for governmental interference. I know that statements are made such as my hon. friend has made here today. We had a deputation of the packers and men representing these packing establishments for which these drovers buy, and these gentlemen said that the . loss fell on the packing-houses.


John Allister Currie: That is not so now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not saying which of these statements is right; I am only stating what these gentlemen said. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Sealeyl has just stated that the packing houses in Hamilton suffer this loss. In any case, it seems to me that it is properly a matter of commercial arrangement among the parties interested. I do not see how the government could step in and undertake to bear the loss in regard to these dead animals. For it is to be observed that the loss does not occur until the animal is made into meat. Under the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act, which has to do with living animals, we do certain work and pay certain compensation, for the reason that these living animals are likely to spread contagious disease if allowed to live. Where we order the slaughter of the animals, in the interest of the health of animals and of the people of the country at large-but only in such cases-we pay compensation. But in



COMMON.'

[Stage Direction]
this case, the discovery of the unfitness of the meat for human consumption is not made until the animal is dead and there is no further danger in the way of spreading disease; it. is simply the loss of the value of the carcass or of that part of the carcass which has to be destroyed. My hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) spoke of the drovers of Ontario as having lost a very large sum of money. My own observation would lead me to believe that the figure the hon. member gives is much larger than could possibly have occurred. Those interested may talk that way, but no such figures as he mentions have been given to me, and I think that the figure is exaggerated. Of course, I do not mean that it is exaggerated by my hon. friend; I do not know from whom he got his information.
Mr.   .T. A. CURRIE@: I have had the information from the chairman of the association.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They have not given me such large figures as that. I know they have made large payments and suffered great loss, but the incidence or the loss is not yet thoroughly established, and I think in some eases it is on the one hand, and in some cases on the other according to the bariruins that were made.
Mr. .1. A. CURRIE. I understand the courts have decided that the farmer is not responsible, because the distinction is made between selling a diseased animal and selling diseased meat. Then the question arises, whether the abattoir man or the butcher, or the drover is responsible. But the abattoir man endorses every cheque he issues that the animals are sold subject to inspection, and consequently the whole loss is thrown on the drover. To my mind, it is the consumer who benefits in the end, and. therefore, the beneficiary should pay for the protection. If the department approaches the matter from mat logical standpoint, it will reach a solution of the difficulty much quicker than by attempting to trace responsibilty from the time the bullock was born, in its passage through many owners, until it gets to the market.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not agree that the consumer is the principle one concerned, because it is the export trade of the country we are trying to protect. In the case of interprovincial trade it is the Canadian consumer, but this Act is chiefly intended to safeguard our large and important export trade which supports large industries in this country, which in their turn are of great value to the original producer, the farmer. Without this law the export trade would be in serious danger.
Mr. .1. A. CURRIE. I quite understand that but the man who is suffering at present Js the drover who is being driven out Mr. FISHER
of business. It is not in the interest of this country that the poor drover should be taxed $1,000 a year to protect the public from diseased meat. It is a hardship on them and if the minister considers the matter carefully and brings in legislation to remedy that hardship he will, I believe, meet with general support. The poor drover has a wife and family to support, his whole capital may be only $3,000, and if he has to pay $1,000 a year out of his business he s;mply will be driven to the wall. The minister should give this matter grave consideration and not take a stand one way or the other until he has thoroughly sifted all the facts. The government assumes the cost of protecting the lives of the people on the ocean, on the railways and in various other ways, and I do not see why they should not assume the cost of protecting the lives of the people in this case.


William Oscar Sealey: In considering this amendment without the original Act before vou, it is hard to thoroughly understand the intention of it. If any portion of the amendment is intended to deal with any portion of the subject that has been under discussion recently, I feel that if the hon. member for Simcoe is correctly stating the conditions in Toronto, he is certainly not stating them correctly with regard to Hamilton or many other places I know of. Nor is he stating the correct position of some drovers on the Toronto market. Our packers in the vicinity of Hamilton claim that they lose all the meat rejected by the insoectors, and while I have sympathy with any person who meets with a loss which might be averted, I cannot endorse the reasoning that the loss should be on the farmer. I think the drover who purchases the animal from the producer has the right to make all the examination and inspection he wishes before he buys the animal, but when he has bought the animal and taken possession of it the farmer's responsibility should cease. Then, when the drover sells on the market to the packer, unless he willingly agrees that he should stand the loss, I do not think the law should compel him. The packer on his part has the right to make the most minute inspection of the animal he wishes, and the moment he buys it and assumes possession the responsibility of the drover should cease. I am satisfied from the information I have had that the loss is now borne by the packer, and I think he is best able to stand it. I am quite satisfied that he gauges his buying and selling price by an estimate of that loss, and no doubt the producer and consumer pay in the end. I do not want the House to look upon the matter from the point of view that the-drover is standing that loss now. He may be in some eases where he agrees to, but
6*289

if it be a fact that be is bearing the loss then the law should be amended so that when a man buys and assumes possession of an animal the responsibility of the seller should cease.


Mr.   .T. A. CURRIE@: I do not wish the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sealey) to run away with the idea that I am wishing to impose this loss upon any single section of the community. The hon. member says that the packer loses and. if that be so', I say it is a great hardship on the packer, and it is unjust. I am creditably informed the drovers have lost .$400,000, and that I say is a serious loss and a great injustice to them. We have been told, on the other hand, that the farmers have to pay the loss, and I quite agree that if that be so it is a great hardship on the farmer, because the farmer may have brought that animal as a young animal and it may have passed through two or three different hands, and it would be difficult to trace the first point from where the animal became diseased. It is a hardship then on the farmer. After the animal passes visual inspection the responsibility for the animal should pass to the owner. But when the matter is such a serious one and when it has such an important bearing upon the interests of the community, the community should hold itself responsible for a share of the loss. It is the community that is being protected, the safety and health of the people are being ensured, and I think the community should help in some degree to pay for the loss that is occasioned by reason' of their protection. I do not think the cost should be borne by either the farmer, the drover or the packer. It is neither fair, just nor equitable.


William Oscar Sealey: The transfer of the property after inspection should settle the responsibility.


Air BLAIN.: I suppose there will be a variety of suggestions with respect to the inspection of beef. I have one or two complaints from my own county, one from a very prominent drover who complains that the drover is at a loss. For example, he goes to a farmer, buys a half dozen beef animals, gives his cheque for the animals, the cheque is taken to the bank, and the farmer receives his money. When the drover gathers his carload of cattle together, takes them to Toronto, and disposes of them to the abattoir, the abattoir people give him a cheque upon which is marked the condition that these animals are subject to government inspection, and if they fall below the government standard the abbatoir man goes back to the drover and asks for a recompense. The drovers in my section claim that they should be relieved in some way-I am not prepared to say how. The drovers venture to say that
the farmer should bear the loss if they can trace the animal back to the farmer. ' I do not agree with the drovers in that respect. It is a matter that should be very carefully considered. I have no doubt that it has been carefully considered by the minister, and I hope he will continue'to give it careful consideration. I believe that the government should take some considerable responsibility in this matter. I do not want to ask that the farmer should be the loser; I do not think he should be. I think it is a case where the farmer should not be the loser, I do not think the drover should be the loser, but it is a matter that should receive such consideration at the hands of the government as will result in the introduction of some amendment that will cause this loss to be shared by those who are entitled to pay it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The question of the cheque paid to the drover, as described by the hon. gentleman, must be a matter of arrangement between the packer, and the drover. I do not think that parliament or the government should interfere with an arrangement of that kina. If the drover does not choose to take a cheque of that kind from the packer he need not do so.


Richard Blain: I understand that the abbatoir people do not give any other cheques.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It may be a matter of coercion.


Richard Blain: I speak subject to correction, but I understand that in Toronto, when a drover disposes of his cattle to the abbatoir people, the trade is based on the condition that the animals are subject to government inspection, and this condition is marked on every cheque.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, the abbatoir people may be so strong, and have such a complete control over the trade that they can do that, but the drovers have a perfect right to say that they will not buy for an abbatoir that does that. It is a matter of private agreement. I know that in Toronto there is a system-I think it is managed by the Union Stock Yards Company-of insurance by which a small fee of twenty-five cents per head is paid in, and out of the fund thus secured losses are paid. I know that in England, where this question has been threshed out for years, a system of insurance has been arranged by which there is a small fee paid, and these losses are completely covered in that way. In Germany a similar system of insurance obtains, and all the parties engaged in the trade between the first sale of the animal to its final slaughter, and inspection, are insured in that way. I have not the full details of any of these schemes. I think that my director general of veterinary af-

fairs has the full details of the Toronto scheme, but I do not have them in my mind at the present moment. We have not the details of the English and German schemes. I think that is probably the best solution of the whole thing, but it would be extremely difficult for the government to interfere, and lay down rules or laws on a subject of this kind. My hon. friend must not think for a moment that I take either one side or the other. I am not taking sides against the drover or the packer. I appreciate the losses of all of them, and I would be extremely glad to see these losses equitably met. The way to do it seems to me to be on the insurance principle, or by a mutual arrangement between the parties who are engaged in the trade. I have not found my way to any proper, and effective interference in the matter on the part of the department. If I could find a way that seemed to be effective, and quite proper, and fair to all parties concerned I would be only too glad to consider it. But it is because I have not been able to find such a way that I have not proposed any legislation.


William Oscar Sealey: In connection with the cheques that are issued by the abattoirs, if these cheques are drawn, obliging the the drover to assume any loss that may afterwards occur. Now, while I am not a lawyer, I do not think they carry the obligation of the drover to make good these losses if any occur after delivery. But, if they do, as has been said by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) the drover should refuse to sell to the establishment which imposes such conditions. Perhaps those conditions are imposed by all of the packers. If they are it is a case of combination among the packers to impose an unfair condition upon the drovers and upon a section of the people that cannot very well help themselves under the circumstances. If that is a general condition, then it is a fit subject for inquiry, and prosecutions under the Combines Act, and it may call for the passage of legislation by this House to prevent such an unfair condition existing.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I am pleased to be present on this occasion when this interesting discussion is going on. There is no doubt that some one is suffering. I know that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is doing his best to find a solution. There is only one proper wray out of it, and that is for the government to pay the loss. You slaughter a man's cattle to protect his neighbour. Then, his neighbour should contribute to the loss. I think this is the only way to do it, although I realize the great difficulty there must be in carrying out such a plan. As we say in the cattle trade, it all depends on whose ox is being gored. But, there is no question Mr. FISHER.
that some one is losing. If the animal is destroyed entirely, some one loses on it, and I think the country should contribute in some way towards the loss whether the loser be the abattoir, the drover or the farmer. If the meat is destroyed for the benefit of the public, the public should contribute towards the recompense of the one who loses.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with what the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) says. In my own county there was a case where a farmer had to destroy three or four of his cattle on account of some contagious disease. An inspector comes from Ottawa and says:	You have
to kill those animals, but it does not come within the category of those that are paid for.	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 'My hon. friend is in error. No officer of my department orders anybody to kill an animal unless we are prepared to pay the compensation given by law.


John Dowsley Reid: Supposing one of the officers of the department goes out and pronounces it a contagious disease, does the law not pirovide that the animal must be destroyed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not necessarily.


John Dowsley Reid: If it is a contagious disease, as I understand the law, the animal must be destroyed. Does not the man say that it must be destroyed? At all events in the interest of the public it must be destroyed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


John Dowsley Reid: If the animal has a disease which makes it necessary to destroy it, the farmer must lose it. He comes to Ottawa and gets the officials to examine the animal, and the official requires the animal, in the interest of the community, to be destroyed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Whenever we order an animal to be killed we pay compensation. We do not order the destruction of all animals which are effected with contagious diseases. Mange is a contagious disease, but we do not 'order a mangy animal to be killed. It is only when we order an animal to be killed that rve pay compensation.


George Henry Bradbury: This question of the health of the public seems to me to be a very big question, and this House ought to consider it very seriously. I am not very much interested in diseased cattle; in my county we do not have any; but I infer from what the minister said in the early part of this discussion, that the matter of regulating the sale of diseased meats rests very largely in the hands of the different

provinces. I do not pretend to be a constitutional lawyej-, but I would say that if it is possible the federal power ought to control the sale of all foods from one end of this Dominion to the other, as one province may be a little more zealous than another in protecting the public from diseased meats. There has recently been a great deal of discussion in the United States and Canada regarding cold storage systems, and this House, while it is discussing diseased meats, might very well at the same time consider that subject. We have learned from the press that the public have been eating meat, eggs, poultry and fish which have been in cold storage for two years. 1 myself have known fish which is I suppose the most delicate kind of food produced, and which has come from the Manitoba lakes, that has been stored in Chicago for three years and has then been sold to the public. This is a matter of very serious importance, and I think that Canada might well take the initiative in regulating in some way the cold storage system. I think there ought to be a law that would make it impossible for any one to hold meat or other food products in cold storage longer than a certain period. The date when any food product is put in cold storage should be tagged on it. I believe that the manner in which our cold storage systems have been allowed to store up meat and other food products has had a great deal to do with the increased cost of living. There has been some agitation on this subject in Montreal, and I understand that the provincial government have practically said that they cannot regulate the cold storage system, as it is a Dominion matter. If that is so, it is up to the Minister of Agriculture or the government to formulate a policy and introduce legislation to regulate these cold storage systems all over the Dominion and place them under strict government inspection.


Mr. BLACK.: The unsettled and chaotic state of the law in regard to the foods of the public, to which this discussion has led up, is just another voice crying out for the establishment of a bureau of public health. No man who has intelligently considered the question of protecting the life of our people, both adults and children, can fail to realize the deplorable loss of life all over Canada for the want of some guiding hand in protecting the people in the food they eat and the water they drink. As truly as the sun is shining, the day is coming, and it is not verv far distant, when a federal bureau of public health will be established. The public cry out for it, the government see the necessity for it, and I think there are only two individuals within a radius of a good many miles of the seat of government who are opposed to it. No man can look^at the meat exposed for sale in our meat markets
without seeing that much unfit food is sold. No man can see the conditions under which the milk supplied to our homes is produced and handled without concluding that there ought to be a reform there. I am not using extravagant language when I say that the awful slaughter of the innocents which goes on in Canada every summer during the hot weather, is crying aloud to this government to establish a bureau of public health. More Canadians die from the first to the fifth year than trom the fifth to the fifty-fifth; and the cause of this awful slaughter of children is in most cases impure food, impure milk, ignorance in feeding, ignorance in preparing food. I think the day ought not to be far distant when the government will undertake to educate mothers how to feed their babies and women generally how to cook our' food. There is no question on which we legislate that is of such importance as this question. You cannot make a nation without having healthy people, and you cannot have a healthy people unless you protect them in the food they eat in infancy and childhood. You have only to look at a baker's wagon going about the streets of this citv or anywhere else to get an idea of present conditions. I have watched a man carry into a house loaves of bread, with the same hands with which he has probably attended to his horse in the morning. and with a pair of mittens that have probably not been washed for months. I would not like to say how much of the filth - of the stable or the streets is in it but it is there. Look at the meat in the shops exoosed to every breeze that blows filth upon it; look at the candy that is sold to your children exposed in the same way. We should have an authority on public health that would regulate all these things. Those who know how to protect the public should protect the public who don't know. There are people who cannot be expected to be educated in these things and it is the duty of this government to protect them. To my mind this is a question of paramount importance. If we consider it only from a monetary point of view; if we consider the enormous loss every year from unnecessary sickness and death; if we had no higher motive than mere dollars and cents it is a profitable thing to preserve the lives of our people. Then from the humanitarian point of view consider its vast imnortance; consider the alleviation of distress, the prevention of sickness; consider the enormous number of babies that are dying in this country every year who should grow up to be men and women and gbod Canadians.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it is fair for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blackl to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture

should be placed in the humiliating, position of being forced to go round Canada to teach the women how to feed their babies.


Judson Burpee Black: I did not say that.


John Dowsley Reid: That is what I understood the hon. gentleman to say. I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture has much experience in that line, but I judge from what I know of him-at least from what I have seen and heard of him that he has not yet sufficient experience to enable him to teach the women of Canada how to feed their babies on milk.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You show great appreciation.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: Well, I do not like the minister to be placed in a false position. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Black) that a public health department should be established by the government because there is no doubt that a number of our people are developing tuberculosis and other diseases from eating diseased meats. In every constituency of the Dominion the old and diseased cattle are being sold for practically the value of the hide, and the meat is canned and sold. I feel very strongly that the Minister of Agriculture must change his attitude, and that he must, devise some scheme whereby the people of Canada will be protected in their food. He should not devote all his energy to the protection of the people in foreign countries who eat our exported meat. For some years the custom is that calves about a day old have been sold to these eanners, and the meat turned out as chicken. Does the minister know that that is going on at the present time?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not in any place where our inspection goes on.


John Dowsley Reid: I tell the minister that they are being shipped every week right into Montreal, and his inspectors are inspecting them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


John Dowsley Reid: I know men who have been shipping them there.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does the hon. member state that calves of the character he describes are sent to Montreal, and are allowed to pass my inspectors. If he does I say it is not so.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes it is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I deny that.


John Dowsley Reid: And they pass your in spection.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


John Dowsley Reid: 


John Dowsley Reid: I say they do.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Give me an instance.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not looking after your inspectors, and if you had proper inspectors it would not happen, but the trouble is that you appoint shoemakers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do nothing of the kind. There is no one acting as an inspector who is not a veterinary surgeon, except a few laymen


John Dowsley Reid: Ah.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Wait a minute-these men have been butchers, or something of that kind, and they are entirely under the control and management of the veterinary inspectors. I deny that any calves such as the *hon. member has described have been allowed to pass into Montreal by my inspectors.


John Dowsley Reid: The trouble is that you appoint a tailor, or a shoemaker, or somebody like that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is again making a reckless statement.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not.
Mr. FISHER, Yes, you are.


John Dowsley Reid: You allow such men as Mr. Biclcerdike, the member for Montreal, St. Lawrence, to appoint that kind of men, instead of the proper men.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, Mr. Bickerdike would not send me a man who is not of t*he right kind.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: The member for 3t. Lawrence knows as well as I do if he would like to state it, that such calves as I have mentioned are going right into Montreal every week.


Robert Bickerdike: I must protest against that statement so far as Montreal is concerned. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) is entirely mistaken. That is not the class of food that is used in the city of Montreal. My good friend (Mr. Reid) made the statement that I have recommended men to the Minister of Agriculture who were not competent for their positions. Let me tell him that if I recommended a man to the Minister of Agriculture my recommendation would be sufficient for him not to get the job.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Bickerdike: When many applicants for positions come to me for a recommendation I tell them they had better not have it because the minister would be sure to keep them out of the position. They get their recommendation from some Tory %nember on the other side of the

House. Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) that the inspection in Montreal is first class in every way. The only objection I have to the thing is that when the government destroys a man's property in the interest of public health they do not pay him for it. As to Montrealers eating the class of food described by the hon. member (Mr. Reid) he is entirely wrong; most .of it is consumed in Ontario. It does not come to Montreal at at all.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I am greatly encouraged by the certificate given me by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence, Montreal, (Mr. Bickerdike) that the Minister of Agriculture accepts recommendations to office from Tory members of parliament. While I cannot claim to have a very profound knowledge of this subject, I quite agree with my hon. friend that, in cases of this kind, where, as the result of an inspection made for the protection of the general public, a man who has bought in good faith- of course, I say nothing of those who have not acted in good faith-finds his merchandise confiscated, or condemned, and consequently confiscated, and thrown valueless on his hands, it would be perfectly fair and proper that, to some extent, at all events, he should receive compensation from the public so protected. If I understood the Minister of Agriculture, he stated a few moments ago, in answer to the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) that where it was found necessary to destroy a living animal for the protection of the public, compensation was invariably paid. Now, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what is the difference in principle between these two eases. In one case the living animal is destroyed for the protection of the public and compensation is paid; in the other case, the carcass of the dead animal is destroyed for the general protection-or rendered absolutely valueless-and no compensation is paid. It seems to me that, while this inspection is most desirable, the people who, for the protection of the public find their property destroyed, have a claim to reasonable compensation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a very great difference between paying compensation when we order the living animal to be destroyed, and paying compensation when the dead meat is found to be unfit for food. In the case of the living animal, the owner may say that the animal can be cured, and the value not lost, but the veterinary authorities consider the risk to the public too great, and the slaughter of the animal is ordered. This not only prevents the spread of the disease, but is a step towards stamping out the disease altogether. In the case of hog cholera we have conquered the disease. In the case of glanders, we* have reduced it so much that the compensation paid now is only one-fifth of what it was when we began, and we hope within a year or two to get the disease completely within bounds. On the other hand, the dead animal cannot spread disease. The meat is a merchantable article which can be sold or not sold. It is in the interest of the public that it should not be sold, because, in many cases, the consumer could not know that it was diseased and unfit for food. Therefore, in the interest of the public, we order it to be condemned.	And
in regard to this Act this applies only to the export and interprovincial trade. The reason why we deal with interprovincial trade is because the provincial authorities in the province where the-animal is slaughtered could not control it in the province where it originated. The opinion that is given me by the Department of Justice, while no definite statement is made, is that it is probable that the question of public health and the control of food products in a particular locality, is rather under the control of the provincial authorities than of the Dominion. Therefore, we have avoided undertaking anything in connection with what I may call purely local affairs. We hold to the general principle that it is better the local authorities should deal with local matters; and for this parliament to undertake the-making of a general law, such as has been-suggested by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) would be a new departure which, I must confess, I am not prepared to present to parliament, and would not like to see carried out. The question, of' course, is fraught with difficulty. When this law relating to meat packing was passed a few years ago, the question was thoroughly threshed out, and the House decided, without serious objection, on the-line which this law has taken. The amendments here proposed do not deal with the general principle, but are simply amendments of detail intended to facilitate the operation of the law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was not suggesting that the minister should extend the law so as to interfere with provincial affairs. And I am quite prepared to recognize that there are more reasons why it should be necessary to order the slaughter of the living animals than'can be cited for the condemnation of the dead carcass. But I fail to see that the minister has answered the question as regards the difference in principle. In both eases you are destroying a man's property for the protection of the public. While the consumer might be deceived in the meat he purchases if this inspection were not made, is it not equally true that the packer, when he buys diseased animals, is equally deceived? For. of course, we are speaking of cases in which the bad quality of the meat is ascertainable and ascertained only by pro-

fessional inspection after the animal is slaughtered. I am not saying a word for the man who, with his eyes open, buys animals that are diseased. But, when it comes to the government making an inspection of meat for the protection of the general public, and condemning-properly condemning-some meat as unfit for food, it seems to me that it would be quite proper that the public, for whose protection this is done, should compensate the individual who, acting in perfect good faith, is made to suffer that the public may be protected.


David Henderson: Possibly we have drifted away from the subject which was brought to our attention earlier in the day by the Minister of Agriculture. At the same time, I feel sure that the time has not been wasted, for information has been given to members of this committee, and I hope it will find its way to the country. The minister was good enough to explain the^ system of compensation under the Contagious Diseases Act where animals become infected, and have to be destroyed. I have just one complaint to make with regard to the law 'as it is now framed, namely, that not only should the animal that is ordered to be destroyed by the government official be paid for, but that other animals in the same herd that may have died before the government inspector has reached the farm, should also be paid for. Now I am going to _ cite a case with which the minister's chief veterinary is quite familiar. Remember I am not taking exception to the administration of the law, but to the law itself. On the 11th day of the month a farmer noticed that his hogs were sick, and he called in the nearest veterinary who, by the way, is the quasi official of the government, because subsection 2 of section 3 of the Act respecting infectious or contagious diseases of animals, says:
Any veterinary surgeon practising in Canada should immediately, on ascertaining that an animal is labouring under an infectious or contagious disease give similar notice-
To the notice he gives to the minister, -to the nearest veterinary inspector.
So I say the veterinary is a quasi official of the government, and the government should in some way be responsible for any neglect of duty on his part. In the case I refer to, the farmer called in the veterinary on the 11th day of the month. He examined a carcass, and I understand a portion of it was sent to Ottawa for inspection. Before the officer of the government reached the farmer to examine his hogs, some ten days had elapsed, I think the veterinary from Ottawa did not reach there until the 21st day of the month. In the meantime, out of a herd of twenty-one hogs fifteen or sixteen had died, and only five or


Charles Joseph Doherty: six hogs remained which were ordered to be slaughtered. I understand the government paid, or promised to pay, and will, I presume, pay for those animals that were slaughtered. But what about the other two-thirds of that man's hogs which died before the veterinaary reached the place, and for which the farmer gets no compensation, though he had done his duty in the matter. My contention is that so long as compensation is to be granted, and so long as people carefully observe the law, and give notice to the proper officials, a man whose animals die before the inspector reaches there, and before the slaughter is ordered by the government inspector, should receive compensation for those that died previous to the inspector's arrival. I think the minister would not go far astray if he amended the law so as to permit of compensation being granted under conditions of this kind. The minister may tell me that he would be flooded with applications. Suppose he is. The object of the law is to stamp out disease, and I think the country can better afford to pay compensation for all these animals rather than that a poor tenant farmer should be compelled to sustain the loss himself. Not only does he sustain the loss, but he is actually prohibited for the next three months from keeping an animal of the same kind upon his farm, and probably loses the use of that class of product for the whole twelve months.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This subject of course is entirely aside of the question before the committee, but I am not complaining of that. I may remind the hon. gentleman that when the law was amended so as to permit payment for animals killed by order of the department, perhaps not the hon. gentleman himself, but others around him, pointed out that unless that provision was carefully safeguarded it might lead to great abuse, and I promised that no compensation would be paid for animals slaughtered except they were slaughtered by order of one of my permanent officers. In the case my hon. friend refers to, the veterinary was not an official of the department in any sense of the word. My hon. friend says he is a paid official. We have given him authority to issue certain certificates, but that is all, he is not an official authorized to order the slaughter of animals. The law says that every veterinary who hears of a contagious disease must report it to us. but that does not constitute him a government official in any way. I can understand my hon. friend's dissatisfaction, when one of his constituents perhaps has suffered in the way he has described, and there may be occasions where it would be only fair and just to pay some compensation. But I fear that any relaxation in the law in that respect would lead to such demands, and

such difficulty in the verification of the reasons for slaughtering an animal, that enormous expense would be incurred which .would be unjust to the community at large who would have to pay the expense.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: Although the question of compensation may not arise under this Bill, I may perhaps be allowed to sav that I agree with the sentiments which have been expressed by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), to the effect that the present law is quite inadequate. Many cases have arisen, and do arise, where, through the action of the government or its officials, serious direct loss is suffered by farmers and no compensation is paid, and where, I am sorry to say, I do not think any effort is being made in the direction of paying compensation. I have rather a pointed case in my own county which I drew to the attention of the House last session, and have brought it to the attention of the department before, a case in which compensation has been refused. I think if there ever was a fair, just and reasonable case, to use the minister's language, in which compensation should be paid, the case I have submitted, and will again mention, is that case. In November, 1908, either one or two carloads of cattle were ordered for export from Fergus to Liverpool, fine cattle, all ready for export. At Niagara Falls, on the frontier, a veterinary inspector of this government stopped them, examined the car and reported, not that an animal was diseased, but that he suspected that one of the animals had the mange. The shipment was delayed at the Falls. It was ordered from there back to Toronto, for some reason that I have not yet been able to ascertain, from Toronto ordered back to Fergus, there it was kept for a considerable length of time, three or four weeks, the farmer had to procure special stables and to comply with the special quarantine regulations, and in the end it turned out that the animal was not diseased and did not have mange. The whole loss arose from the mistake of the inspector of the government at Niagara Falls. The farmer lost his opportunity of making a sale, he lost his freight from Fergus to Niagara Falls and back via Toronto, he was put to large expense for providing special stables and complying with the quarantine regulations; in fact, his loss has run from $1,000 to $1,200. That is directly attributable to the action of the inspector who made the mistake. Why should not the government compensate in a ' case of that kind? A man might make a mistake and act bona fide and I have no doubt that it was a bona fide mistake. Why should the farmer bear tlie loss? The minister informs me that it was for the security of the public. Well, then, why should the public not pay? If the animals
had been slaughtered two thirds of the value would have been paid, but as the matter stands to-day the man has lost from $1,000 to $1,200 on one shipment through no fault of his own, he has a fair, just and reasonable case and I think that either by special vote or otherwise that claim should be paid.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All I have to say in regard to that particular case is that it was not a case of slaughter at all under Animals Compensation Act, and we have not the right to pay compensation for that loss.


Hugh Guthrie: You should have the right.


Mr. LEWIS.: 
Mr. SCHELL.: The discussion has taken a very wide Tange and has introduced a good many questions that are of a very complex nature. I just wish to make a few remarks in regard to compensation. The government, I am sure, deserve credit for appointing inspectors to inspect meats and animals which are slaughtered in our slaughter-houses, and I presume that when thev appointed these inspectors_ they had little idea of the number of animals that

would be found to be diseased and the loss that would fall upon our packing-houses. As to whether the packing-houses or the farmers should be remunerated is certainly a very difficult question to determine. Primarily, I suppose, the farmer is liable but after the stock leaves the farm it is not always easy to trace the particular farm to which the loss is attributable and the fact at once is presented to our mind that the farmer cannot be made responsible. The drover certainly should not be, and those who conduct the packing-houses, 1 think, are unfairly dealt with when they are compelled to stand all the loss.


Richard Blain: Do the packing houses stand the loss?


Malcolm Smith Schell: Yes, they do in most cases. I have in my mind especially the packing houses that kill hogs. I know' as a matter of fact that they have sustained the losses up to the present time in almost every instance, if not altogether. If the government were to undertake to meet these losses it would be ratheT difficult to determine what should be the proper amount of compensation. The packing house men might make a demand for compensation that would perhaps be more than would be fair. Some portions only of hog carcases are condemned, and the loss is sometimes comparatively small on individual animals. But w'hen the staff of inspectors is ample in the various packing houses they could arrive probably at a fair basis of valuation, and I think that the government might fairly undertake to compensate the packing houses, say, to the extent of 50 or 75 per cent of the loss without incurring the danger of paying them more than should be paid. I think that the consensus of this House and the opinion of the country generally would be such as to justify the government in taking the matter up, and, in a measure, compensating those who are compelled to lose on account of the diseases which are to be found to exist amongst animals. Of course, I know there is a great work to be done in the education of farmers in regard to the better ventilation of stables and the better caring for their stock in order to prevent the loss which is occurring from diseased animals, and unless the farmers are made to bear some of the loss perhaps the incentive will not be as strong as it should be to compel them to adopt the best possible methods of caring for their stock. If the packing houses feel that they are only being remunerated to the extent of, say, 50 or 75 per cent, they must pay that much less for the stock which they purchase from the farmers, and the farmers must expect to obtain less for their stock than if it is known that the stock is free, or compara-tivelv free, of disease. The packing houses,


Malcolm Smith Schell: after a year or two years' investigation and inspection, can determine fairly correctly what the percentage of loss is. But I think the best solution of this question w'ould be to pay the abattoirs a fair percentage, and the drovers who purchase from the farmers should enlighten the farmers, and the farmers should be led to understand that if their animals are absolutely free from diseases they would obtain even a better price than they are obtaining under the present regulations. I know' the government has done and is doing valuable and important work in educating the farmers in the care of milk, and the result is that the conditions under which the milk of this country is now' handled are infinitely better than they w'ere some years ago. It is the rule rather than the exception, that in every dairying district in Ontario the stables are thoroughly up to date in every respect, the ventilation perfect, and the dairy properly equipped w'ith every modern appliance. Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe this to be a very important discussion because it deals with the protection of every class of the community. It is a question of very great financial concern also, and anything that can be done by the government to properly distribute the loss as well as to better educate the people must prove most valuable in connection with this branch of our agricultural industry.


Mr. STAPLES.: I direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the particular case cited by the hon. member for Wellington as being worthy of further consideration. In that case the farmer lost $1,200 through the neglect or inability of officials appointed by the minister and in such a case it appears to me only fair that the government should compensate the farmer for that loss. An item of $1,200 is a very important consideration to a farmer. I can speak with a good_ deal of sympathy as to that ease because''I know' a farmer who through the neglect of the government officials lost to the extent of about $1,500. The officials were advised of the case, but it took them four days to get there, and w'hen they arrived they ordered the animals destroyed, but about 20 per cent of the animals had died during the four days' delay. I believe that if that farmer took an action in the courts he would recover damages because of the neglect of the officials of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the question of amending the Act in the direction of stamping all food that goes into cold storage, any one wdio has paid attention to w'hat has appeared in the press during the last few' months must conclude that great injury is being done to the trade of the country by the abuse of this cold storage system which amounts practically to a

conspiracy to enhance prices. Then, there is the health aspect of the case, because in my judgment as a medical man, food may be so deteriorated that it becomes unhealthy if it is kept in cold storage for an undue length of time. We had a statement as to the length of time food products arc kept in cold storage in Chicago and Kansas, but I saw a statement recently that the carcases of animals were kept for two years in cold storage in Montreal. It is very easy to verify that statement and it should he inquired into. It seems to me that it is the imperative duty of the Department of Agriculture to amend the law so as to compel the stamping of the date upon all food that is put into cold storage, and, providing that it shall not be kept there longer than a certain period. This is an opportune time now to legislate in that direction.
At- one o'clock committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: A matter was brought to my attention some time ago which I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. A farmer sold a very valuable beef animal to a drover. Some ten days or two weeks afterwards, the drover, who had taken his cargo to Montreal, sent a notice to the farmer that one of the animals he had bought from him had tuberculosis, and asked the farmer to refund the purchase money. The farmer had no evidence other than the word of the drover that it was his animal that was diseased, but rather than go into a lawsuit he decided to refund the money, amounting to some $80. He asked me if I would bring the matter up here at an opportune time, and find out if some remedy could not be provided for cases of this' kind. He hacl raised a great many beef cattle, and so far as he could see all the animals he sold to the drover were in perfect health. The animal in question may have been his or it may have been somebody else's. I want to bring the matter to the minister's attention, and ask him if he thinks the farmer should suffer the loss of his animal under these circumstances?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not knowing all the circumstances, I could not say anything about it. I suppose it is a matter for the courts to decide.


John Albert Sexsmith: It seems to me that a farmer in selling his animals to drovers runs a great deal of risk. When the drover tells him that any of his animals are diseased, he has to lose the money or else perhaps go into court, and if he handles thoroughbred cattle he probably prefers to pay the money than go into court. I should imagine that a drover should be compelled
to give some evidence that an animal is diseased, or else notify the farmer immediately after the purchase.
r


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should think that if the farmer defended himself, the drover would have to produce some evidence before he could collect; but I would not care to give a legal opinion on the matter.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: What is right and honourable, and just should be law. Now, the government appoint Inspectors to inspect meat. They do that for the benefit of the general public. The government, representing the general public, pay these inspectors, and it is through them that the general public receive the benefit. Those who receive the benefit should pay the cost. The government, in appointing inspectors, have gone a certain distance. Any one who employs another person to do work for him, whether the government or an individual, is responsible for what that servant may do under their instructions. When an animal is condemned, there may be considerable difficulty in knowing to whom it belonged in the first place. It is utterly im-IKissible that one hog among 400 or 500 can be traced to the farmer from whom it was purchased. Even if that could be done, a farmer who had any suspicion that the animal was diseased, would not offer it for sale to a drover who would be likely to take it to a point where it would be inspected. The result is that diseased animals are retained on the farm. In that way the present practice really results in propagating disease, because the animal thus retained by the farmer is sold to the local butcher, and by the local butcher to the people of the neighbourhood. Thus meat for export is being inspected while the meat being sold to our Canadian citizens is not being inspected.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Whose fault is that?


Thomas Chisholm: I am just pointing out what the natural result of the present condition of affairs is. I am not saying that it is anybody's fault in particular. The meat supplied to our Canadian citizens is not inspected. They get the discarded beef, while the inspected meat is exported. The consequence is that if the farmer is made responsible, the result which I have pointed out will naturally occur, while if the government would pay a percentage of the value of the meat that is condemned, when it gets into the hands of the final purchaser, the farmer would not have 'such a fear to sell his animals, and more effective inspection would take place. I think that the government, as representing the general public, which is being benefited, should pay a percentage, say 50 or 75 per cent, of the value of the animal destroyed. The farmer would not be subject

to the loss, the drover, wlio now receives cheques which are only payable on certain conditions, would also be relieved, and the man who packs or cans the meat would not be such a heavy loser as he is. I quite approve of the government appointing these inspectors; I am one of those who think that the government cannot do too much along that line. I believe that a bureau of health should be established, and should 'be put under the charge of a man who would take a position in this country at some future time equal to that of Koch or Pasteur in Eurpoe. I believe we have in Canada young men of enthusiasm who are competent for such a position. Then we would not have so many halting attempts, and failures as we have at the present time. Such a man would make his work his life study, and the result would be that a great deal of good would he done, and a great many valuable lives saved.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend says that the local market has all the diseased meat thrown upon it. If it has, that is due to the laxity of provincial or municipal inspection. The municipal authorities have JuM as much power to inspect as the Dominion Agricultural Department, and if taey do not do it, it is their own fault, and I must protest against responsibility being thrown on the Dominion parliament or the Dominion government for a duty which is the duty of the provincial authorities. If that is to be thrown upon us we ought to assume the whole range of provincial legislation and administration. I must protest against the idea that because the provincial government do not do their duty therefore this government should do that duty. If it is their duty, and they neglect it then it becomes the duty of the provincial electors, and supporters of whatever government it may be, Liberal or Conservative, to force that provincial government to do its duty, and not to appeal to the administration of this government to perform a duty which is essentially provincial or municipal. It is our duty to deal with the export trade, and we are trying to do it, and do it effectually, and I believe to-day that the complaints which are being made are largely due to the fact that the local inspection is not as severe as our inspection. Severity of inspection is quite in line with what my hon. friend has said, and I take it he is supporting me in making a severe, and properly efficient inspection. If the local authorities are not doing the same thing, that is no reason why I should be asked to do their duty, and their work.


Thomas Chisholm: I certainly am supporting the minister in having a very rigid inspection, but I am not supporting him in the idea of destroying property for Mr. T. CHISHOLM
the general benefit of the people of Canada and not making compensation, because the result is that the effect of the loss goes back through the different purchasers until finally it reaches the farmers, and there as a consequence the diseased meat i3 allowed to stagnate, as it were. I have no doubt the provincial authorities may possibly be responsible, but the result is that the effort that is being made by the minister in these lines is increasing the trouble that we have from the inefficiency of the local authorities if there is such inefficiency. The present system is undoubtedly increasing that trouble. There is no doubt that by throwing the responsibility on the producer, on the farmer finally, the local market is congested with the diseased meat, and a medical man who understands what he is talking about, must understand that it is a very serious thing to the people of Canada. We can better afford to pay a percentage of the cost of this diseased meat when it is found at its final resting place where the animals are slaughtered much better than to have our people living on it and being injured. Those who are benefited should pay. The general public are benefited, and, therefore, the general public should pay the cost. I will not say that they should pay the whole cost, because that might lead to irregularities, Jnit we should certainly pay a percentage of the cost, and it should be paid to those who slaughter the animals. We know it is almost impossible when a steer or fat beast is leaving the farm to know what diseases it may have. When the animal comes io be slaughtered, the defects will be disclosed, and I quite approve of what the minister is doing. His course, however, is having results that he evidently did not intend. I think the chief source of difficulty lies in not paying a percentage on the discarded meat.


Mr. BEODEE.: I think we are dealing with matters under Dominion Acts that have a local effect. For instance, we have our inspection of canned fruits and canned goods of all kinds. That is an article that enters into local consumption, and yet it is inspected under this government.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When it is for export.


Andrew Broder: You go into a man's grocery and test his goods as to purity, &c., you deal with them as inspectors


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not under this Act.


Andrew Broder: No, not under your department. It seems to me you will never rid the country of diseased cattle until there is some more definite understanding as to what remuneration will be given by the government for animals destroyed. I can quite understand the necessity of guarding against the possibility of extrava-

gant values, &c., that would be imposed on the government if they opened the gate to any considerable extent. The value of animals would increase very rapidly if they were being paid for by the government. A case came to my notice a few days ago on which I would like to have some information. A farmer having a large herd of cattle called a sale and sold to bidders in different parts of the country. It turned out that the cattle were badly diseased with tuberculosis, they went into different neighbourhoods miles apart, into different herds. I know one man who found that the animals were diseased shortly after he purchased them. He called in an inspector, the animals were condemned and killed for tuberculosis. What recourse has that man against the man who sold the animals?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not give a legal opinion.	.


Andrew Broder: I will have to pay for my law. There is more of this disease in some localities than we are aware of, and I do not think we will get rid of it until we give the people more of an incentive to make it known that their animals have the disease. A farmer battling hard to make a living realizes that if it is known that he has tuberculosis among his cattle, his herd will be destroyed and he will be put out of business. As long as that condition exists, he will not be inclined to make known the fact that his animals are diseased, but if it was possible to arrange it so that the country would not be imposed on, it would be a good thing to grant compensation. If it cost the country two or three millions to get rid of the disease, it would be a wise expenditure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that compensation for dead animals would help to get rid of the disease.


Andrew Broder: It would have some effect. I am aware that ventilation of stables, &e., all enter into this matter, but it seems to me that the other would be a more effective way.


George Henry Bradbury: Make the farmer raise good cattle.


Andrew Broder: You cannot make him do that any more than you can make him have good children. It is all very well for men to talk about things as they ought to be, but public men have to deal with things as they are.


Richard Blain: How many inspectors has the minister in Toronto?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Inspectors and assistants iu Toronto, about 22 or 23.


Richard Blain: Has the Minister in his department any information as to how the abattoir people pay the cattle dealer for his cattle?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have no records in the department.


Richard Blain: Does not my hon. friend think that it would be a fair subject for investigation? There might be a tendency toward a monopoly. I have a letter from a constituent in which he states that the abattoir people in the city of Toronto always give a cheque in payment of cattle to the cattle dealer, with the reservation that these cattle must pass inspection, but that the cattle dealer does not give any such cheque to the farmer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think a case of that kind is a matter for interference on the part of the department. I do not see how we could dictate to people making a bargain or trade arrangement as to what they should do. If there is a combine, then that would be a subject for investigation under the Combines Act. But I do not think it is the function of the Department of Agriculture to investigate a bargain which exists between a cattle drover and the abattoir company.


Richard Blain: I agree with the minister that it would not be the duty of the government, if they found such a state of things, to take any steps to correct it. But I do say that the government could afford valuable information in discussing a question of this kind. If there is such an understanding with the abattoir people, then it removes the loss and responsibility from the abattoir people and places it either upon the farmer or upon the cattle dealer.


John Albert Sexsmith: I realize that it is a difficult matter to adjust the loss and responsibility between the farmer and the drover. I do not mean to. say that a farmer who sells a diseased animal should not lose that animal, he certainly should. But many farmers, such as the one I referred to a moment ago, put animals on the market perfectly satisfied that they are in a healthy condition. I am satisfied that this man I referred to, if he had the least suspicion that an animal was diseased, would never have offered it for sale, because he is a very large breeder, and has some of the best cattle in the province, and it would never pay him to put a diseased animal on the market. Yet the drover goes out into the country and buys 50 or 100 head of cattle and ships them to Montreal, and if he finds when he gets there that some of his animals are diseased, it is unfair to require him to suffer the entire loss. He cannot bring them back to the farmers, because he does not know which farmer sold the cattle. If the government orders those animals to be destroyed, I think they should make compensation in some way.


Mr. CROSBY.: This Inspection Act has been on the statute-book for two or three years, and I beard the Minister of Agriculture say, in answer to my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) that he had twenty-one

inspectors in the city of Toronto. I would like to know how many inspectors he has in the city of Halifax.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think we have any there. There are no establishments in Halifax which have asked for an inspection.


Adam Brown Crosby: It is rather an odd thing that, in the city of Halifax, which is quite an exporting town, sending goods abroad from the province of Nova Scotia and also from Prince Edward Island which are sent to Halifax, that this Act has been on the statute-book for two or three years, and we have never had it enforced. We never had any intimation of an enforcement until about two months ago, when the collector of customs at Halifax got instructions not to permit any goods to be exported to any foreign country unless they had the government inspector's stamp on them. This is rather an odd thing to do, after the Act has been on the statute-book for two or three years. It seems to me it would have been up to the government to make some provision for carrying out that Act and to give the people reasonable notice of their intention, so that they might have their goods and canned meats ready for inspection and ready for export. Now we get an intimation from the collector of customs that no goods can be exported from the city of Halifax unless they have the government inspector's stamp, and the consequence is that our export trade is closed up. There is nothing to prevent them selling their goods to the people of Nova Scotia or of any other province; the government apparently does not care whether our native Canadians are killed off or not. But the very instant you start to sell to the West Indies or any other foreign country, that .instant the government becomes anxious for the welfare of the foreigners, and proceeds to provide inspected food for them. Some application was made to the department, and a letter was written to the Minister of Agriculture to which he replied, and in his reply he was good enough to say that the junior member for Halifax did not know what he was talking about, and did not know what he ivas writing about, or he would have known that there was an Act on the statute-book for two or three years that demanded this inspection. Well, all I have to say is that if the government have put that Act on the statute-book and allowed it to be broken for two or three years, I would not like to tell what I think of their action, because the chairman might say I was out of order. But I think it is only fair to ask that those who have been sending goods to foreign markets for two years, should now be allowed at least two or" three months in which to dispose of their present season's goods of cured meats and canned goods on hand, and be allowed to ship them


Adam Brown Crosby: to the markets they have hitherto been supplying without any complaint; and then let these provisions be made applicable to Nova Scotia. The collector of customs at Halifax is an excellent officer who has had much experience in the export trade, and I think the government might well have allowed him to exercise some discretion in this matter. I hopb that the Minister of Agriculture will see his way, by some method that is reasonable and fair, to permit the export of these goods to go on for a month or two longer. I ask that especially in view of the fact that no complaint has ever been received from the foreign market of the goods supplied.
Another thing is that, as I understand, we have no inspector there. A gentleman in Halifax told me-I will not mention 'his name, as it is not necessary, and no doubt the Minister of Agriculture or some of his officers will know to whom I refer-that he wrote to the department to have an inspector appointed to inspect the abattoir in which he was killing animals, particularly lambs, and sheep, commencing with the month of May. He was told that he could have an inspector if he made an application; but, on making an application, he was told that he would have to give some guarantee of the quantity he would be prepared to export. I have not the correspondence here, but it could be got within a day or two. While this gentleman kills many cattle and sheep and is to some extent an exporter, a great deal of his product is sold to people in Halifax who are exporters. He frequently -sends to other provinces also. I understand that meat of this class cannot be sold in the province of Ontario unless it has been inspected. I am not complaining of the inspection; the only complaint I make is that the people had not sufficient notice of the intention to enforce the Act. I think that, in all fairness, some opportunity should be afforded to our people to get rid of the goods they prepared at a time when it was not generally known that the law would be carried into effect. The collector of customs of Halifax is a man who has the confidence of the people, and 1 am sure he ha3 t<he confidence of the government, and I would suggest that the matter be left in his hands in the meantime. It will be a great advantage to the city of Halifax, and to the province of Nova Scotia, and also, I believe, to the provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick as well.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not wonder that the hon. member (Mr. Crosby) should be anxious about the matter to which he has referred. This Act is new to him, but no complaint can be made of him on that gcore. The facts he has mentioned, whilo

in the main correct, are astray in some important points. In the first place, the Customs Department was notified of the coming into force of thi3 Act, and the Customs Department, I believe, notified all its collectors. But the customs collector at Halifax does not appear to have taken any account of it, at any rate, no report of export was made to us until recently. We were obliged to draw the attention of the customs collector to the provisions of this Act, and intimate that the law must be enforced. This Act deals with exports, and interprovincial trade only. The people of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick do as they like about selling animals, or meats within these provinces; that is a matter of provincial legislation and administration;-the subject has been discussed here to-day, though, I believe, my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) was not present. To facilitate the work under the Act in the maritime provinces, and acting under power given by the law the maritime provinces were regarded as one province for the purposes of this meat inspection law. Consequently, sending from one of the maritime provinces to another would not be considered interprovincial trade under this Act. This was done at the request of the people there. A little while ago- I have forgotten the exact date-a certain firm in Halifax received some goods from Prince Edward Island which they wished to export to the West Indies. The customs collector said they could pot export these goods without a certificate of inspection. These goods had not been inspected for the purpose of sending them from Prince Edward Island to Halifax. We are quite ready to inspect goods and to appoint an inspector in Halifax, or anywhere else where there are goods for export business. But the goods referred to in this case were not in condition for our officers to inspect them. We cannot inspect goods which are turned into bacon or packed in cans; inspection must take place not merely of the whole carcass together, but of the carcass with what are called the attachments, the heart, liver, lungs,. &c. These goods were in Halifax ready for export and it was impossible for us to inspect them a3 required under the law. Whenever animals are being (Slaughtered for export, it is our duty to provide" an inspector, and we >have never failed to do so. The hon. member (Mr. Crosby) mentions the case of one gentleman in Halifax who asked for an inspector. We asked him whether his goods were for export or not. We have had a number of requests from local butchers to send inspectors, but it is not our duty to inspect for the local market. We asked that gentleman whether he was going to be exporting regularly, so that we would be 201
justified in appointing an inspector for the purpose of inspecting his goods for export. We have not yet received that information. We did not ask for a guarantee. We did not ask for any statement of just how much he was exporting, although we had to ask to find out what his trade was expected to be. That was necessary before we could appoint an inspector because for all we knew the trade might be a local trade and we could not appoint an inspector to deal with that. That is the reason we delayed sending an inspector. When we get that information from that gentleman, and if he shows us that he is engaged legitimately in the export trade, we will provide an inspector at once. That explanation perhaps has given my hon. friend the information regarding the details of this matter, which, of course, 'speaking from memory, he could not be expected to have, but I can assure him that we are just as anxious to provide all facilities for inspecting in Halifax or anywhere else in the maritime provinces as we are in Ontario. If, to-day, there is no inspection in Halifax it is simply because we were not aware of the existence of packing houses or establishments packing for the export trade. We are ready to give an inspector and to inspect immediately they are doing that trade. But, it is impossible, after the [DOT] animals have been slaughtered and the meat cut up and packed for us then to inspect it efficiently and be able to judge whether it is diseased or not. That is the reason why we could not give a certificate, for these goods for the purpose of export. That the collector of customs, estimable and competent for his work though he may be, would be' able to examine these goods and give a certificate for export is quite out of the question. Thisj can only be done by a properly qualified veterinary surgeon and the Act requires that the certificate shall only he signed by a properly qualified veterinary surgeon. Even though I thought it advisable the statute would forbid me to do it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I may not know very much about this Act and I am very glad to have the information which the Minister of Agriculture has given me in regard to it, but I do know something about business. I must say that an Act which has been on the statute-book for upwards of two years and never put in force until within perhaps the last six or eight weeks would seem to me not to be an Act based on very good business principles. I would not consider it good business were I dealing with the affairs of the country, and I would say to the Minister of Agriculture, although he is always busy when he is being addressed by some one from the eastern part of Canada



BBV1SED EDITION.

Sydney Arthur Fisher: I must protest; that is not a fair insinuation. I pay just as much attention to the people from the eastern part of Canada as I do to people from any other part, and if for the moment I was asking a question of my officer it was not because I was not listening to the hon. gentleman.


Adam Brown Crosby: When I was addressing the committee a few minutjs ago I noticed that the Minister of Agriculture and a gentleman near him were talking all the time.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because l was asking questions in regard to what the hon. gentle-was saying to inform myself so that I might answer him.


Adam Brown Crosby: After the reference that the minister made to me, to the effect that what I said was of very little account, I would think that it would not be worth while to ask any questions of anybody in order to answer me. I confess* I do not know much about the matter but I do know something about business. This Act does not strike me as being a very good one any way. An Act, which, while providing particularly for the inspection of all kinds of goods going out of Canada, makes no provision for the inspection of the goods at the time they should be exported, seems a very extraordinary Act. An Act that is on the statute-book for upwards of two years and is never put in force until the last three or four weeks does not seem to me to be an Act to which the government attach very much importance; otherwise, they would have put it ini force long before this. That Act having been on the statute-book some three years and not having been put in force, surely the foreign customers of the Dominion would not have suffered very much by that same condition prevailing until the people interested had shipped the goods which they had prepared for export. There are two large concerns in Halifax putting up goods particularly for certain markets abroad. Their brand is asked for and their goods are accepted on the strength of this brand, sold in the markets in competition with goods from every part of the world, and I may add that they compare favourably with goods produced elsewhere. The people of the West India markets to which these goods are principally sent know the goods and they, are willing to come to Halifax and buy them. But we cannot sell these goods because they have not government inspection and there is no way of getting government inspection. I quite understand that if you are to have an inspection of swine or cattle the animals must be inspected before they aTe killed. But there should be some way whereby the people putting up these preserved meats, hams, bacon, &c., should be Mr. CROSBY.
permitted to ship these goods. When I referred to the collector of customs I did not suggest that he should be allowed to inspect the goods; it was a question of the collector of customs being able to distinguish between a creditable packer, a man who had a reputation of putting up high-class goods, and a stranger who might come in there and about whose goods he did not know anything. The collector of customs might be able to say of the goods, of a well known packer:	I know these
goods, they have always met with commendation, they have been always well received in the foreign market and sold there on equal terms with goods from any other part of the world and therefore thev might be allowed to be exported out of Canada without fear of any difficulty or trouble arising. That was my reason for referring to the collector of customs. The Minister of Agriculture states that the Act has been on the statute-book and that the collector at Halifax did no*t put it in force. All I have to say in regard to that is that the customs house at Halifax is a very important custom house and the collector is a very important man, perhaps second to none in the Dominion. I am quite sure that if he had been notified by the Department of Customs or the Department of Agriculture he would have carried out the instructions of the department, but not having been notified he did not know anything about this Act until about three or four weeks ago and therefore the Act has, only recently been put into force. The Act, having been on the statute-book for two or three years and it not having been put in operation, surely this condition can be continued for a month or six weeks to give the mercantile community of Halifax, Nova Scotia and perhaps New Brunswick an opportunity of getting rid of the goods which they have put up for certain markets. These markets want them, their customers want them and are ready to take delivery in the city of Halifax and it* is unfair that the government should prevent trade and commerce in this way.


Mr. MACDONELL.: I would bring to the attention of the minister what is at least one inequality in the working out of this Act. It seems to me that the person who is really hurt by the operation of the Act has not yet been heard, because the man who loses the money as a result of the inspection of meat, is the packer, and I think I can safely say he is the only one who loses. Inspection takes place only with regard to meat for export, and it takes place in the abattoir, where the packing is done. The number of packers in Canada is comparatively few, but they have reasonably large establishments, and it is quite impossible for them to tell from whom they buy any particular lot of hogs

or cattle. They certainly cannot identify from whom they purchase the hogs and generally speaking it is not reasonably possible to identify from whom the cattle are purchased. As these animals go through the various stages of slaughtering and packing the inspector stands there and condemns a whole carcass as tubercular, or he may only condemn parts of that carcass, and the meat so condemned is rejected, and its value lost to the packer. The packer has no guarantee or warrant, and he cannot look to the drover from whom he bought, so that he alone is the loser. I quite approve of a proper inspection of meat for export, so that our exports may be all of first-class quality, and in so much as that commodity is an advertisement for the trade of this country generally, it is not just that the packer should be the man who has to lose everything. It seems to me that the system of government compensation for slaughtered animals should in some way be extended so as to compensate the packer. His establishment is a clearing house for diseased animals, and as it is in his possession the meat is found when it is condemned, he is the loser. I am not altogether of the minister's opinion that this is not a matter for Dominion interference. Under section 95 of the British North America Act, the Dominion has concurrent jurisdiction with the provinces in all matters regarding agriculture, and, if the minister takes control to regulate the export trade under the authority of the trade and commerce provision of that Act, I do not see how he gets away from the responsibility of protecting the public against diseased animals, under the clause which gives the Dominion control over agriculture. Then again, if it be a misdemeanour to have diseased animals for sale in one's possession, it would come under the Criminal Code, which would give the Dominion jurisdiction. I hardly think the Dominion government can clear its skirts by saying that it has no authority to inspect meat for domestic consumption. Look at the conditions: a man is engaged in the business of slaughtering hogs, which he sends to all places within a certain province, and he is not subject to inspection, but his next door neighbour, who packs for export or interprovincial trade, must submit to a rigid inspection. The inequality is so glaring that I do think the government should take the matter into consideration, and, if possible, equalize the present conditions. The farmer is not hurt, because any diseased animals he disposes of he gets paid for.


Mr. A. W. SMITH.: What about those he cannot dispose of?


Angus Claude Macdonell: He would have to bear the loss, I suppose, in such a ease.
But, even where the government orders his animals to be destroyed, the farmer gets some substantial compensation.


Alexander Wilson Smith: [DOT] They do not get compensation in some cases.


Angus Claude Macdonell: But that is the law.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They get compensation if the slaughter of the animal is ordered by one of our inspectors.


Mr. McCOIG.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonell) is mistaken as to compensation being paid for hogs. If the hogs are alive and they are condemned to be destroyed, the farmer gets compensation, but he does not get any compensation if the dead hog is rejected by the government inspector. In that case he has to stand the loss just the same as the packer.


Angus Claude Macdonell: It is only in cases of packing for export that inspection takes place, and therefore it can only be in such case that rejection takes place.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The farmer gets some compensation when live hogs are condemned, but he gets no compensation when dressed hogs are condemned.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The farmer may kill his hogs and send them dressed to the market, and if it is found that these dressed hogs were diseased the farmer would not get compensation any more than the packer.


Angus Claude Macdonell: It is quite impossible to make an efficient inspection unless the inpsection takes place right when the animal is slaughtered. At all events, it seems to me the present condition is unfair to the packers, and the whole subject is one which should be properly considered. There is no question but that it is a matter which the Dominion might work out, possibly in co-operation with the provinces. But inspection for home consumption is not necessary, and it is a very invidious distinction that the people who consume our products in the foreign markets should be protected, and that Canadians should be left without protection. I may have eaten meat to-day which was not fit for food, but I am not in a position to know whether it was or not. Of course I escape that risk one day in the week, and as the Minister of Agriculture probably indulges in meat seven days in the week ho probably may be taking a greater risk than I do. However, I think there should be inspection of meat for home consumption. That shows that the man who buys for export buys the best meat he can get. He buys, if possible, superior meat to that bought by the man who slaughters and sells locally. It is not desirable that this should be. If inspection is good for for-' eigners, to whom we sell our meat, surely it is good for our own people. The whole
63!0

matter is one which I think should fully engage the attention of the government, with a view to devising some equitable law which might be worked out if necessary in co-operation with the provincial authorities.


Mr. STRATTON.: I have listened to the discussion that has been going on for the last three hours upon this subject, and with many other hon. members I have come to the conclusion that the government should do something to meet a condition that is unfavourable, not only to the packer, but to the farmer as well. There i3 no doubt in my mind that if a proper inspection were made of all the meats in the packing houses, and if the government assumed a reasonable responsibility for the loss sustained by either the packer or the farmer they would be doing what the public expected them to do. I have no doubt that the minister is endeavouring to do the best he can under very difficult conditions, and I have been hoping that something would be arrived at to meet the conditions complained of by some hon. members to-day. I have felt, whether my judgment in the matter is right or not, that if there were a system of inspection and compensation, the packer would be able to pay to the farmer a better price for hogs or cattle than he is paying at the present time, although there is not much reason to complain of present prices. I have been in packing houses where I have been surprised at the large number of diseased animals that have had to be destroyed, and the meat of which has not been disposed of to the public for consumption, either for export or domestic use; and I have endeavoured to see whether it would not be possible to have these animals ear-marked, so to speak, so that it might be known from what drover or from what locality they came. While that might be possible, it would be very difficult. I hone that the Minister of Agriculture, who usually works out these problems in a satisfactory manner, will be able to devise seme method by which the packers shall be properly compensated for diseased animals ear-marked, so to speak, and destroyed in the public interest. In this event the buyer would be in a position to offer better prices since he would be assuming no risk of having his profits decreased by the possible destruction of diseased meat.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I agree largely with what the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) has said in regard to allowing compensation to packing concerns for diseased carcases or hogs or cattle; but the packing houses are not the only parties who should be considered in this matter. We have in the southwestern part of Ontario a large number of farmers who them-Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.
selves go quite extensively into the dressing of hogs. These dressed hogs are inspected by the government inspectors at the different shipping stations, and when a hog is found by a government officer to be wholly diseased, it is sent back to the farmer who is shipping it or is destroyed on the spot, and the farmer suffers the entire loss, not the packer or the buyer. So that if the government are considering the advisability of compensating the drover or the packer they should not overlook the farmer. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) found fault with the government for allowing interprovincial trade between some of the provinces in meat that has not passed government inspection. I may say that we in Ontario would like to have accorded to us the treatment which the hon. gentleman is objecting to for his particular province, that is, allowing it to trade in uninspected meat with Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, or some of the other provinces.


Adam Brown Crosby: I did not say that we were allowed to do anything of the kind.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that an interprovincial trade that was not subject to government inspection was allowed between some of the provinces.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Between the three maritime provinces.


Archibald Blake McCoig: That is what I understood; and the very conditions which the hon. member for Halifax was finding fault with in this particular section of the country are the conditions which we would be glad to have in the province of Ontario, under which we could trade with the province of Quebec in our heavy carcases of dressed hogs without government inspection; and if the government continues to allow the maritime provinces the privilege in that respect which they are enjoying at the present time, I hope they will extend the same privilege to our province. If they do, I feel sure that their action will meet with general satisfaction. We do not ask for favours which other provinces are not getting; but if Nova Scotia is granted the privilege of sending its meat products without government inspection to other provinces, the producers and packing houses of the province of Ontario will be placed in an awkard position if they are not granted the same privilege. If the government consider the advisability of qom-pensating packing houses for the loss of diseased carcases, I hope they will also take into consideration the advisability of compensating the producer, who at present very often is obliged to lose carcases of dressed hogs which are rejected by the government inspectors.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Maedonell) has said about the packers was most vigorously denied this morning by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), who stated that the packers did not suffer the loss, but that the drovers did. That is a matter I know nothing of; it ia a matter of private agreement between the packers and the drovers or between the drovers and the farmers. The different information given to this House this afternoon is a clear indication that we have not any decisive or accurate information to go upon. I want to say a word on the general question of compensation. If we once began to pay compensation for meat, not living animals, we would, as the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. McCoig) says, have to pay compensation for any animal that any one might find diseased-the farmer, the butcher or the packer. If we do that we may be perfectly certain that hundreds of animals will be killed, and dressed which the owners who killed and dressed them knew perfectly well were not fit for human food. We will have to pay hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars for animals, which before they were killed would be known to be unfit for human food. I would be glad to pay compensation wherever it seemed justified, but I again point out that when we were discussing the payment of compensation for animals killed I was warned by hon, gentlemen opposite, and by some on this side that there was great danger of a large expenditure of money with no particular advantage to the public, and that we must be very careful to safeguard the public against that kind of thing. I would not like to propose an amendment to the Act providing for compensation of this kind without having some shrewd suspicion of what the cost would amount to. When asking for authority to pay compensation for animals slaughtered on account of disease I was able to estimate the probable cost, and I am jjlad to say that experience has shown that the estimate was fairly accurate. Losses of this kind in the case of dead meat should be arranged by private bargain between the buyer and seller. If we took authority to pay compensation for dead meat we should logically pay for fruit, vegetables, &c., condemned, and the cost would undoubtedly Teach half a million dollars which I am sure parliament would not endorse.


Mr. HERRON.: I have had some requests along the line of the discussion this afternoon. I think it is strange that men who come under the operation of this Inspection Act should be the entire losers of animals condemned when it is done to protect the trade of Canada for beef, and hogs. I do
not see why a man engaged in that line of business should be the entire loser. He is an innocent party just as the man who has live animals killed on account of disease. In that case you compensate to the extent of two-thirds the value of the live animals slaughtered to protect the public against disease, and there has been no complaint against the government compensating people who are unfortunate enough to own such animals. I do not see why you should not be prepared to compensate an innocent man for loss in the case of something that is done to protect the lives of people just as in the case of guarding against the spread of disease among live animals. The arguments in favour of compensation are even stronger. I think the country would be justified in paying the amount. I understand this question was laid before the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Agriculture last summer, and the government gave very favourable replies to those asking that such compensation should be provided for. As far as I am able to see, the minister is not making any provision for it in this Bill. It is also strange that wholesale dealers trading in, and slaughtering stock to be consumed by our own people are not brought under inspection to the same extent as men engaged in a larger business for export. One is as important as the other, and they should be treated alike. I would like to see the minister provide compensation for the man who suffers heavy loss in order that the trade of Canada may be protected, when he meets with this serious loss in an innocent way.


Adam Brown Crosby: I did not rise to oppose the Act, but to try if possible to secure the removal of an interruption of trade brought about by certain conditions. My hon. friend from West Kent (Mr. McCoig) evidently misunderstood me. I did not state that we have an interprovincial trade. We may have, and I understand from. the minister that we have, but the province of Prince Edward Island sometimes sells products to merchants in Halifax ot may send them there for export. On that we have no complaint. The complaint I made if any was that the products of the slaughter house or meat preserving factory or canning factory were permitted to be sold to the local dealers, and those living in the province even if they were not fit for export. The minister says that the province ought to attend to that. The contention of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. A. C. Maedonell) is that if the power lies not with the Dominion government, but with the provincial government, and the provincial government does not make provision, it must reasonably fall to the Dominion government if there be an Act for food inspection to put

.it into operation wherever there does not .seem to be a local Act in force or else to ask the local government or authority to bring in such an Act. I am not contending about that, my contention is simply that we had an interruption of trade and commerce. The most beneficial trade is the export trade, and it should be properly guarded. My hon. friend will say that is why he has brought in this Act. Perhaps that is a good reason for having the Act. But here we have a trade and commerce that has been going on for many years, and the suspension of that trade might be delayed for two or three weeks in order to allow men in the export trade to have an opportunity to ship goods they have on hand. The people of the West Indies are ready to take these goods-, and to pay for them. I would like it distinctly understood that I am not complaining of the Act. It is all right to have the Act in force, and we do not ask for any treatment different from that given to everybody else. But, when there has been a delay in the enforcement of the law, apparently through somebody's neglect-not that I am trying to cast blame on anybody-I think it is only fair to allow those concerned a short time to adapt themselves to the new conditions under the law.


David Henderson: Does not the minister intend to strike out the word ' goats ' in this section? He might as well include dogs.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We know that goats are slaughtered, and, if a goat carcass should happen to come before us, with this word in the law, we could deal with it.


David Henderson: It is generally rumoured that dogs are slaughtered.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not believe that they are slaughtered for food purposes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister intend to make clearer the definition of the word ' farmer '?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If m.y hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) would suggest a change, I will be glad to consider it. The clause was drafted by the law clerk and is supposed to be as good a definition as we can make.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take the case of the hon. member for South York (Air. W. F. Maclean). He is a journalist to all intents and purposes, yet carrying on farming quite extensively, breeding, growing and fattening animals. But farming is not his recognized occupation. Would he come under this definition?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is recognized as a journalist, but recognized also as a farmer. I am glad to say that farming is an occupation so attractive that many engage in it with their other occupations. But such people, 1 Mr. CROSBY.
think, are recognized as farmers. There are many members of this House who are engaged in other occupations, who yet claim the right to be considered farmers.
Mr. SPROLrLE. It speaks of ' his recognized occupation.' Can a man have two
recognized occupations at the same time under the law?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should feel surer of it if some eminent lawyer in the House endorsed that opinion.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is quite a common thing in legal documents to have a man described of two occupations. I recall the case of a man being described as a ' farmer and mill-owner.'


David Henderson: , If this man should slaughter hogs, what would be hi-s occupation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is a farmer.


David Henderson: I am afraid that is one of these things we will have to let go; 1 do not think we will get anything that will exactly fill the bill.
On section 3,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This provides for the striking out of certain words in the existing law. The words to be struck out are ' animals slaughtered by retail butchers on their own premises.' This is a section which allows farmers to slaughter without an inspection. At first it was supposed that retail butchers might be included, but we have found that retail butchers have been entering into the wholesale trade while free from the provisions of the Act, and it is necessary that they should no longer have the privilege which was intended originally for farmers only. The striking out of these words will prevent retail butchers from exporting from one province to another without inspection.


David Henderson: The minister, I understand, has a law clerk in connection with his department, or'some person to draft a Bill?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have left that to the Justice Department or to the law clerk of the House.


David Henderson: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: If that were the general practice of the House, I should be glad to follow it. But the custom is where the amendments are not long or important, to do the work in this way. The amendments in this case are almost wholly minor amendments. I think the one we have under discussion is the only one that affects any class of people directly; the others merely have the effect of making the administration of the law more easy.


David Henderson: But does the minister himself think that my plan would be better? The people in the country may not have the statutes. They send down here and ask the King's Printer for a copy of the Act, and instead of getting one they get two. Why do not the Department of Justice, and the law clerk of the House of Commons get together and once for all accomplish the whole thing? If it is not the usual practice, I think the minister could inaugurate a new system.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will consult with the Justice Department about it.


Richard Blain: Could the minister tell me what proportion of the cattle that are exported from Canada are inspected?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All live cattle that go across the water are inspected.


Richard Blain: Why not those going to the United States?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The trade in live cattle to Great Britain is so much more important, and the British authorities are so particular about the landing of animals there we have to see that no animal affected in the slightest degree with disease is sent across the water. Unless we did that we might be shut out from their market.


Richard Blain: At what points are export cattle inspected?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At different places, but they are finally inspected when they go on board iship. Those that go by United States ports from Canada to Great Bjitain are inspected in Canada.


Richard Blain: Are we then to understand that it is impossible for an exporter to send cattle from Canada to the old country without a rigid inspection?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so.
On section 12,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Thi3 section is practically the same as in the old Act, but it gives the authorities access to the books and bills
of lading of the firm, 30 as to be able to check their exports, and to see that everything they send out of their establishment has been inspected in accordance with the law.
On section 13,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest as the interpretation of the word ' farmer ', a person whose recognized occupation is farming, because he might be engaged in more than one occupation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The intention of this clause is to prevent men who are dealers having the advantage of it. A dealer might have a little piece of ground and pretend to be a farmer. But still I would not think there was very much objection to the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be a rare thing for a man to occupy a small piece of ground and palm himself off as a farmer if in reality he was not doing the general work of a farmer in all lines. But, if a man is doing the usual work in all lines of a farmer he is entitled to be considered a3 a farmer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to change it without consulting the law officers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could it not be left an open question while the minister consulted the law officers?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill might go out of committee and on the third reading the amendment could be introduced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be all right.
On the preamble,


Edward Norman Lewis: I see that this Bill refers to canned goods. I have here a number of labels with reference to canned articles which are, to a certain extent, deceiving the public. I do not wish to present these labels to the House because there are a great many others probably of the same character, and it might affect individual firms who may he actually within the law. But I would ask the minister if he could not see his way clear, while this Bill is under consideration, to add something in reference to this matter. I have here a label which says: ' Unfermented native wine'. This is a label placed on goods which are being sold by a firm in Toronto and elsewhere for medicinal purposes. One would judge that the ingredients are the produce of the grape, but this is not so. Here is another:	'Fine domestic port.'
You would infer from that that this was manufactured from the juice of the grape for medicinal purposes. I merely suggest to the minister that something should be done to cover this point, and I would ask if he could not do it in connection with this

Bill. I would suggest that any article which is canned or bottled must bear a label declaring whether it is a mixture or a pure product, or whether, as in the case of these wines, it is from the grape or otherwise. Large quantities of these mixtures are being bought for use by the sick, I believe, under the impression they are juice of the grape. I would also projpose that the label on canned articles should bear the date of their manufacture. The label should specify exactly what is contained in the can, and the date at which the goods were canned, sc that the inspector would be able to form some idea as to the age of the goods.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Goods such as my hon. friend describes do not come under this Act at all. They would come under the Adulteration of Foods Act, which is under the administration of the Inland Revenue Department. I think that any such statement as that which my hon. friend has read from those labels w7,ould render the parties responsible for them liable to attack under the Adulteration of Foods Act, on the ground of misrepresentation. However, I would not like to give a legal opinion.


Edward Norman Lewis: My remarks as to the age of canned articles would apply to this Act, would they not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The question as to requiring the date to be placed on canned goods was discussed for a long time upon the introduction of this Bill and parliament decided against requiring it to be put on the cans.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Speaking earlier on this question I suggested to the minister the wisdom of making some amendment to the law or some provision with regard to labelling meats in cold storage and putting upon them the date on which they were placed in the cold storage. Has the minister considered that question? It seems that this is a very proper place to bring it in if he desires to do so. The information which we have justifies action by the government or parliament with reference to this very question. It is an evil that is perhaps much greater in its proportions than we are aware of, but what has been brought to our notice justifies some provision of law to compel the stamping of the date on the goods at which meats were put in cold storage, and also a provision as to the length of time it was held in cold storage before being disposed of.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that at the present time we have sufficient information to go upon to enable us to introduce any such legislation. I see a great deal of that subject in the press and I know that it is attracting a great deal of attention. But, I am prepared at the present moment to express a very positive opinion Mr. LEWIS.
upon it. I have always understood that some goods in cold storage might deteriorate while other goods might not. If some goods were kept in cold storage for a few months they might be unfit for human food while in another case they might be there for a year and be perfectly good. I do not know enough about it to express an opinion or to undertake to draft any legislation upon the subject. Whether such legislation ought to come in connection with this Bill or not I am not certain. It is of another character and yet perhaps it might come within the pur-vievv of such an Act as this. It is a large subject and I have not come to any conclusion upon it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the subject not of sufficient importance to justify the minister in making careful inquiry in regard to it, because the allegations are so specific that if thej be true there is no doubt that it is one in which this parliament should act. Take, for instance, the statement in regard to the length of time that carcases have been held in cold storage; 2,000 carcases were held in cold storage in Montreal for two years. That is a specific statement which is capable of being verified or -disproved.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do -not think that it is accompanied by the allegation that these carcases are unfit for use. They may be, or they may not be; I do'not know.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not say that it is, but I say as a medical man, that unless the temperature was kept absolutely below a given point and not allowed to go up and down, as it very frequently -does in cold storage places, that article would be unfit for food after a given time.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But even though the quality of the article might not have been deteriorated to any extent, does the minister not think that the very fact that it is kept in cold storage for that length of time, during which foods are very dear and the public is prevented from using it and that it could only be held for one purpose and that is for the purpose of trying to control the market, would justify the passing of some law to prevent that being -done? Would the minister not think that that would be of sufficient importance to justify him in making some law to control that and to say that goods shall not be kept in cold storage beyond a reasonable times before being sold?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are two points which my hon. friend has brought up and which are entirely different. One is as to whether food is fit for human consumption after a certain time. That is a question of public health and perhaps might come

under an Act such as this. The other is a question of affecting the market price. That is entirely apart from the question of whether food is fit for human consumption and that certainly -would not come under an Act in regard to the inspection of food. It is another question whether such legislation ought to be passed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The inspection of food for export is for the benefit of our trade generally. If food is kept in cold storage for a few years and is then exported, has the minister any guarantee that the food is perfectly wholesome? The minister has a perfect right to deal with that class of exports.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On the question of quality, yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And as one object of cold storage is to enhance prices, could the minister not get at that practice under the Jaw which deals with restraint of trade and unduly enhancing prices?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Possibly, but that has nothing to do with this Act.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To my mind this is the proper place to put in a clause dealing with the abuses which exist in reference to cold storage.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
. GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES.


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved the second reading of Bill (No 155) to amend the Government Annuities Act, 1908.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Explain.


Mr. FIELDING.: This Bill has been carried through the Senate by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and is designed to provide some improvements in the Government Annuities Act. which have been found to be necessary. The amendments are not very important, but they will help to make the system work more simply. One change is the provision that one may buy an annuity, not merely for himself, but for another. The law now provides that the purchaser of an annuity may contract for an annuity to himself, but it is desired that he may have the privilege to buy an annuity for another person. For example, a missionary society may desire to make provision for an annuity to a missionary, and there are many other cases of that character. Another amendment provides that a contract may be made for a fixed period; you not only make an arrangement for an annuity to a man during his lifetime, but you may make an arrangement that that annuity may be paid to some one for a fixed period, and if the annuitant dies in the meantime, the annuity may be continued to some other person designated by him.
Another provision is with reference to annuitants far advanced in life. At present, an annuity may be granted to a person above 80 years of age, but if he were 85 years old he would pay the same amount as the man 80 years old, whereas the former, of course, should get the cheaper rate. There is a provision in the existing law that the husband may convert a portion of his annuity for the benefit of his wife, and this amendment proposes that the wife shall have the same privilege of converting part of her annuity for the benefit of her husband.


Richard Blain: What amount is in force?


William Stevens Fielding: The number of annuitants outstanding is 614, of which 374 are males and 270 females. The purchase money received to date is $483,359.44; the amount of the annuities represented by this payment is $160,500, and the average annuity $250.


Richard Blain: Can you give that information by provinces?
AH. FIELDING. A statement to that effect could be prepared. Applications have come from every province in the Dominion, and from the Yukon.


Richard Blain: Hqw many men are out soliciting annuities?


William Stevens Fielding: There are four men and one lady in Ontario, one in New Brunswick, one in Nova Scotia, two in Quebec, in all, 9 agents.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that annuities may be obtained through postmasters, but have you recognized agents who are paid a commission for soliciting annuitants?


William Stevens Fielding: The agents are all paid salaries and travelling expenses, but the postmasters and other officials who send in business are paid a commission at the rate of one-third of one per cent on the amount of money which they collect or receive.


David Henderson: What officers are employed by the government at headquarters for managing this branch of the service?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a return already before the House giving information in every detail. In the office at Ottawa there are twelve clerks.


David Henderson: What is about the gross expense here?


William Stevens Fielding: From $12,000 to $15,000 is the expense of the salaries at Ottawa.
On section 2-purchaser defined,


William Stevens Fielding: The purpose of this is to enable a purchaser to provide an annuity not merely for himself, but for another person, as a father for a child. This broadens the definition of purchaser so as to cover that point.	.


Richard Blain: How will this affect those who have already taken out annuities?


William Stevens Fielding: There have been several contracts made that would come within the amendments, and section 9 makes thi3 Act apply to annuities entered into prior to the passing of this Act.
On section 3-sale of annuities authorized,


William Stevens Fielding: This is a re-enactment of the section. It is so worded as to make it clear that an annuity may be granted not merely for the life time of the annuitant, but for a definite period, so that the annuitant, in anticipation of death, might arrange that the annuity should pass to some other person for the term of the annuity.


Richard Blain: Will a person now having an annuity under the original Act have a right to convert it under the proposed amendment?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if he deems it desirable.
On section 4-payments by purchaser,


William Stevens Fielding: This refers to contracts made by employers for the benefit of those in their service. The clause a3 it formerly stood rather restricted their freedom of contract. This broadens the arrangement and enables the employer to make any contract respecting an annuity which is satisfactory to himself and the person concerned.
'On section 9, application of the Act.


Richard Blain: I understand there is no medical examination required in selling annuities.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no examination of the physical or mental condition of the individual.


William Stevens Fielding: I am told that there is no medical examination for annuities. It is not thought necessary. Of course, if the annuitant is not in good health and dies at an early period, he and his estate are the sufferers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you have provision that in some cases after his death the annuity may go to some one else?


David Henderson: 


William Stevens Fielding: For a limited period. In regard to life insurance, medical examination is important, but in annuities, a medical examination is not deemed necessary.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 185) respecting the Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources. He said: Only one or two small changes are proposed. One is to allow the annual meeting to be held in a different place than Ottawa. Another is that the chairman of a committee can summon a meeting of such committee at any time, and that when a committee is summoned members of the committee attending its meetings ^ may have their disbursements paid as in the case of the annual meetings. Another provision is to make mail matter addressed to the commission free of Canada postage.
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I would ask title Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) whether he has taken into consideration the clauses that I suggested should be added to this measure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I read carefullv the amendments proposed by the hon.' member (Mr. Armstrong). I have thought that something of the kind he suggests might be quite proper, but I fear that amendments as proposed by the hon. gentleman would have the practical effect of making such a commission as this impossible. His proposals are so drastic that I am sure nobody would accept a position on the, commission to be hampered in his private business in the way these amendments would make inevitable. It is well worthy of consideration whether some such amendments might not be properly adopted, but I confess that I have not had time or opportunity-nor has the chairman of the commission-to draw up amendments that would be proper, and feasible, and practicable. I am not- prepared to give a legal opinion concerning the amendments proposed, but I am under the impression that, if they were passed, no member of the commission could hold stock in a mine; I doubt if any could hold stock in a railway company. I fear that the amendments proposed are of such a character as to be entirely unworkable.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am afraid the Minister of Agriculture has not investigated the matter or he would have found the opposite of what he has stated. Of the amendments I have suggested to this Bill, one

is taken from clause 14 of the Geological Survey Act-which seems to be a workable Act-and the other from clause 376 of the Railway Act. These clauses are practically embodied in the amendments I have suggested. When the minister says they would have the effect of prohibiting a member of the commission from undertaking any work of his own, I do not see that anything of that kind is indicated. The position is simply this:	At present, the
door is wide open so far as these commissioners are concerned. The commissioners can expend any quantity of public money in developing certain resources of this country, investigating mines or timber tracts, and they can then make these their own practically, and without any one to forbid them. But if the amendments I propose were embodied in this measure, there would be no further trouble in that regard. I sincerely hope that the minister will see the wisdom of the position taken in regard to this matter, and will embody these provisions in the Bill.


Mr. SIFTON.: The question which my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) has brought before the House is undoubtedly an important one. If the commission of conservation is to serve a useful purpose for the people of Canada, the law relating to it must be of such a character as will give both Houses of parliament, and the people generally full confidence that the commission will not be made use of for any improper purpose. The idea which apparently runs through the Act constituting the commission, and which must be taken to express the mind of parliament upon the subject, was that men of affairs should be induced to act upon this commission gratuitously, and give the benefit of their judgment, and experience in the public interest. Every one will admit that the usefulness of the commission would be gone at once if there was the slightest suspicion, or could be the slightest suspicion, that any information which was gained or collected by the commission would be used, or is likely to be used, for any private purposes. But, let me point out to my hon. friend that the provisions of the laws which he has incorporated in his Bill are provisions which relate to branches of the Civil Service, they govern the employment of men who are technical employees of the government, who are paid a salary by the government which compensates them for their whole time, and the condition of their entering the services of the government in these classes of work is that no other business or calling shall be followed, and therefore, it is an easy matter to provide that these employees shall not make use of information to make investments which information has been secured in the course of their official employment. But the members of 'the commission of conservation are not civil servants or salaried employees of the government; they are business men, a considerable number of whom are engaged in affairs in a large way, and to whom the application of such a rule would be absolutely impossible. Let me give an illustration. ' Senator W. C. Edwards is chairman of the committee on forestry, and is giving a considerable portion of time to the work of the commission. He is recognized by everybody as an able, and experienced business man, a man very well qualified to do what he is doing, and to lender valuable public service, a man), moreover, whose time is extremely valuable, and who if he gives his time to the public service does so at a very considerable financial sacrifice. Senator Edwards is a lumberman. If I read the hon. member's (Mr. Armstrong's) amendment aright, Senator Edwards could not buy another timber limit, and remain a member of the commission.
The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is chairman of the Committee on Public Health. He has been giving a good deal of careful consideration to the important branch of the work which he has undertaken to supervise. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) is a director of the Canadian Pacific railway, and I think, a large stockholder. The Canadian Pacific railway deals in natural resources-mines water-powers, and so on-on a very extensive scale. I doubt that Air. Osier could buy another share of Canadian Pacific railway stock without making himself liable under the provisions of the Act. My hon. friend must remember that provisions of this kind, drawn in general terms, are very far-reaching. There is no difference of opinion between the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) and the minister in charge of the Bill, or mvself, or, I imagine, any member of the commission. What we would desire, and I think what we would insist on, will be that the law must be in a condition that is satisfactory to parliament. I would not, speaking for myself, remain in the position of chairman of the commission for a minute if I thought that the sentiment of parliament on the other side of the House was that the law was not in a perfectly satisfactory condition, or that the House generally was not satisfied with the condition of the law. Certainly, I do not think the members of the commission would hold their offices under a statute which was forced through by a government majority against the "wishes of the members of the opposition. That would be entirely contrary to the spirit in which the commission is organized, and in which, so far, it has been, very happily, carried on.
I would make a suggestion to my hon. friend the minister. I am speaking as a 1 lawyer who has had some experience :n

drawing statutes of various kinds, and I think you will find it very difficult to draw a provision which, when thoroughly considered, will prove to be satisfactory in regard to a matter of this kind. It will take a good deal of time and discussion, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that he, and perhaps the leader of the opposition, and the minister who has charge of the Bill, and myself, with perhaps one or two members of the commission, should get together and discuss the matter, and see if we can work out a provision which will be satisfactory; omit it can be fully and carefully considered, and brought in at the next session of parliament, and made a portion of the law. I do not think that the object can be attained without very careful consideration. I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) himself, would like to enforce an amendment which would have the effect of making the members of the commission feel that it was not safe for them to continue their ordinary business. In such a case as that they would simply resign from the commission, and a work which has been happily commenced, and with an augury of a considerable amount of good to the public, would be practically destroyed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to say distinctly I had no other object in view in bringing forward this measure than to promote the public welfare. I would like the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) be good enough to tell us whether he thinks that the present measure safeguards the people's interest sufficiently, and what suggestions he would make.


Clifford Sifton: I do not know exactly what my hon. friend means. There is no provision in the Act as it stands at present which in any way relates to what the members of the commission may do or may not do. They are appointed as a non-salaried body for the purpose of doing an important * public work. There are two ways of dealing with them. One way is for the House to put them on their honour and not make any legal provision at all; the other way is to make some provision of law which shall act as a deterrent to any person who might be disposed to do that which is contrary to the public interest. It will be for the House to decide which method they desire to follow. I would not say that the public interest is not protected simply because there is nothing in the statute which prevents the members of the commission from making use of their public position for their private ends.


William Findlay Maclean: I asked the Minister of Agriculture the other day if he would tell the House under what circumstances and in what way communications could be interchanged with, or advice ob-Mr. SIFTON.
tained from, this commission in regard to Bills that came before any committees of this House involving the great natural resources of the country; and the minister thought he would be in a position to do something when this measure came up. For instance, in the Railway Committee on several occasions the waterways question has come up, and we did not know in what way to proceed in order to get the advice of this commission. I think some system ought to be arranged whereby that can be done.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course this commission is a new thing, and the scope of its work, while fairly defined in the Bill, is still subject to practical experience. I understand that on one or two occasions during this session committees have asked for information or advice from the commission. I do not suppose that we would want to restrict the committees of the House from doing anything which they thought in the public interest. I can understand that it would be advisable, before the course of action proceeds much further, if it is going to be proceeded with at all, that some general line of action should be laid down. Just what that line of action should be I am not prepared to say. Perhaps it would be well for the committee of the House who strike all the committees, to consult with the executive committee of the commission, or the chairmen of the different committees of the House to consult with the chairman of the commission, and thus gradually to work out a scheme by means of which communications may pass between either House and the committees of the House, and the commission. I can understand that in the working out of a thing of this kind action may be taken by one body a little different from action taken by another body; one committee of the House may proceed in one way and another committee in another way, and this is an additional proof of the necessity of taking steps to see that a general line of procedure is laid down. I think before the next session of parliament something of the kind ought to be done, or at any rate, in the early days of next session, if the consensus of opinion in the House is that the commission should be consulted, that there should be established some means of communication between the House and the commission.


William Findlay Maclean: What we want is that committees of the House may have access to the advice of the commission, and to the statistics and information which the commission have collected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think one of the defects of the commission Bill is that they must report to the Governor in Counpil. It is true that they are appointed under statute, but I never could see the reason why they should not make their report to

parliament instead of to the Governor in Council, and then every member of parliament would have an opportunity of perusing their report. It may be presented to the Governor in Council, and I think there is some provision that it is to be laid before the House, but I am not sure. I think it ought to be presented to parliament, and then the Governor in Council might be the Intermediary between committees of the House and this commission. When we were dealing with a Bill last night, I asked the question whether this committee had considered it, and what report they had made on it, and I was told by the Minister of Public Works that they had it under consideration. But I got no information as to how long it had been under consideration, or what their views on it were. That leaves the commission practically worthless to parliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Their report has to be laid on the table of parliament immediately it is made.


Clifford Sifton: The idea of my hon. friend is perfectly correct, that is to say, the idea that the commission is not a portion of the administrative machinery of the government, or a political body, but it is directly, or indirectly responsible to the House as a non-partisan body. There must be some way of getting their report before the House of Commons, and under our system of government there is no other way except for them to present their report to the Governor in Council, and he to transmit it to parliament unless it should be done _ through Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend will see that the section in the original Bill is that the commission should make its report to the Governor in Council at the end of the fiscal year, and the Governor in Council should lay it before parliament. There is no other way in which it can be got before parliament. The method of sending it to the Governor General in Council, and having it transmitted to parliament, seems the most convenient one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there not a department which is the intermediary between the House and the commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then could the report not be made to the department and laid before parliament, instead of being made to the Governor in Council? The defect in it, to my mind, is that what might be given to the Governor General in Council might not be available for parliament. Section 13 provides that:
The commission shall make its report to the Governor General in Council at the end of each fiscal year, and such report shall be printed and laid before both Houses of parliament.
But we have current work going on, Bills before the Railway and Private Bills Committees, and there questions relating to the work of the commission, regarding which we desire to get the views of the commission who are clothed with authority to look into these questions at any time, and give the Governor in Council, or parliament the benefit of their knowledge, or inquiry. Between one session and another, all that work may be done, but parliament cannot avail itself of the benefits of that work for the current labours that are going on during the session until the end of the year, or until the beginning of the next session when the information is practically out of date as far as its requirements go, and when it is not likely to turn back and make a beneficial use of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committe on the Bill.
On section 1, short title,
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Before proceeding with the measure, I would like to know whether, it is not possible to have these clauses placed in the Bill. I have gone to a great deal of trouble over this matter; I made a thorough investigation from a lawyer's standpoint. I am satisfied that the clauses are reasonable, and I have no thought of objecting to the position taken by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton) in particular any further than that he cannot give us any good reason why they should not be placed in the Bill. The clauses read as follows:
14. No member of the commission or persons appointed as secretary or as officers or clerks under him, or person employed as an assistant for the purpose of any special work or investigation, shall, while a member of the commission or appointed or employed as aforesaid-
(a) Purchase, lease, acquire or obtain, on royalty or otherwise, any Dominion or provincial franchises, fishery rights, water-powers, water privileges, lands, mines, mineral lands or timber limits, or in any way contract therefor or acquire any interest therein, either for himself or as agent for any other person or corporation.
While this might appear to interfere to some extent with the members of the commission, yet 1 can readily say to the hon. member for Brandon that as far as interfering with the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is concerned, if he will refer to clause 376 of the Railway Act he will find these words:
Every railway director of a railway company who knowingly permits the funds of any such company to be applied either directly or indirectly in the purchase of its own stock, or in the acquisition of any shares, bonds or other securities issued by any other railway company in Canada, or in the purchase or ac-

quisition of any interest in any such stock, shares, bonds or other securities, contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall incur a penalty of one thousand dollars for each such violation.
The penalty in the Bill that I suggested reads as follows:
Every person guilty of any violation of any provision in section 14 of this Act shall forfeit to His Majesty all property or interest so acquired or obtained, and shall also incur a penalty of $1,000 for each such violation.
Largely the same wording -as that which appears in clause 376 of the Railway Act, while the first clause I read compares with clause 14 of the Geological Survey Act, which is as follows:
No person employed in or under the department shall-
(a)	Purchase any Dominion or provincial lands except under authority of the Governor in Council.
(b)	Locate military or bounty land warrants, or land scrip, or act as agent of any other person m such behalf.
If I read that aright, it includes the minister who has charge of the department, and if it includes the minister, why not include the members of the Conservation Commission? It further reads:
(c)	Disclose to any person, except his superior officer, any discovery made by him or by any other officer of the department, or any other information in his possession in relation to matters under the control of the department or in relation to Dominion or provincial lands, until such discovery or inhas been reported to the minister, and his permission for such disclosure has been obtained.
(d)	Make investigations or reports relating to the value of the property of individuals, or hold any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any mine, mineral lands, mining works or timber limits in Canada.
The hon. member for Brandon said that these are largely officials in the Geological Survey of Canada, but the hon. member for Brandon, -as chairman of the commission, will employ a large number of officials, and as this Act only permits them to be employed for a short space of time, they are more likely to dispose of the information that they obtain for an amount of money than are the members of the Geological Survey, who are in the employ of the government. I -am satisfied that if the Minister of Agriculture will take this into consideration he will readily see that there should be some clause which will at least control the men who are employed by this commission. At the present time members of the commission can have any -amount of money expended in investigating water-powers, mineral lands, or woodlands, and they can make these properties their own after having taken the people's money to thoroughly investigate them. Officers em-


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: ployed by this commission can do likewise. They can make discoveries and dispose of these discoveries, and there is no law to prevent them from acting in that way. A member of this commission has- a great advantage over the ordinary citizen. I am not reflecting on any member of this commission ; far from it, because a great many members of the commission are personal friends of my own, but I do think that they would be only too glad to have some such clause as the one that- I have referred to in the Act, so that there would be a guarantee that as far as the members of the commission and those employed by the commission were concerned, such proceedings as those which I have referred to would be impossible. I, therefore, trust that the minister will see his way to embody in the Bill the clauses which I have brought to his attention.


Clifford Sifton: The most important clause in my hon. friend's amendment is subsection (a), the effect of which is to prohibit any member of the commission, or any person appointed by the commission, from engaging in the:
(a) Purchase, lease, acquire or obtain, on royalty or otherwise, any Dominion or provincial franchises, fishery rights, water-powers, water privileges, lands, mines, mineral lands or timber limits, or in any way contract therefor- or acquire any interest therein, either for himself or as agent for any other person or corporation.
I think that it is very possible, looking at it from a legal point of view, if that were passed that as a member of that commission I would not be safe in buying a share of Canadian Pacific railway stock. The Canadian Pacific railway traffics in public franchises dealing with a number of these things, and my own judgment is that by buying that stock I would be acquiring an interest in it. Another member of the commission is a director of the Canadian Pacific railway and a very large shareholder, and possibly deals in the stock of the company, and he would be debarred. Senator Edwards is a large lumber man and he buys timber limits, and he would be shut out from the commission. If the hon. gentleman is desirous to put the law in such a way that men of affairs who are doing business extensively cannot be members of the commission, it is for parliament to say whether that shall be so or not. For myself, as chairman of the commission, I do not think this is a matter I should be called upon to discuss, and I do not intend to discuss it in the sense of expressing my opinion as to what parliament ought to do. I simply point out to my hon. friend the effect his legislation would have upon the commission at the present time. If parliament thinks that they cannot trust the commission as it



1'JIO

[Stage Direction]
stands, upon its honour, or that the law. should be such as would prevent men of the standing to whom I have referred, continuing membership on the commission, it is for parliament to say. It is not for us as members of the commission in this House to discuss what should be done. When you decide what you will do, then it will be for us to decide what we will do.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: This commission must necessarily employ a number of officials who will visit remote localities and gather data regarding timber limits, water-powers, mines and other resources. These employees seem to be under no restraint so far as the law is concerned, and they may at any time sell in advance the information they acquire without fear of punishment, unless there be something in the Civil Service Act which would provide for that. The employees of this branch of the service seem to be exempt from the penalties for wrong-doing which other civil servants are subject to. I can quite understand the embarrassment there would be in dealing with the commissioners, and that it is possible they would have to be left entirely to their own honour, but I do not think the same should apply to the employees of the commission. We have heard over and over again that subordinates have given out information which has been taken advantage of by their friends and themselves to make a great deal of money. In the case, however, of employees of this commission there is no provision to punish any one who may give out information when he should not do so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The contention of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) seems reasonable, and I think, perhaps, that the employees of this commission should be restricted in the same way as the employees of the geological survey. I will consult with the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) to see if we cannot draw up an amendment which would embody the idea of the hon. gentleman with regard to the salaried officers of the commission.
At. six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at. Eight o'clock PRIVATE BILLS.



ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 115) an Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Companv, Limited.- Mr. Pardee.
On section 1, incorporation.
Richard Blain: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if the government have any correspondence from the Hydro-Electric Commission of the province of Ontario in respect to this Bill?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: There has certainly been none with me, and I am not aware of there being any correspondence with any other member of the government, although it is possible that there may have been.


Richard Blain: Is it not rather important that the minister having charge of this Bill should place before the committee any such correspondence that may have taken place? As my hon. friend is aware, the government of Ontario are protecting, the rivers and streams in every part of the province for the people, and we accept with pleasure what the government stated last night by the Prime Minister, that the opposition were opposing this Bill because we were trying to impress upon this House and the country that we were in favour of a monopoly, I presume by the HydroElectric Commission of the province of Ontario. For myself I- am in favour of that kind of a monopoly. It differs entirely from the monopolies which lion, gentlemen opposite sometimes deal with in this House. The monopoly of the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario is the people of Ontario protecting their own, rights against all who would interfere with those rights, in taking possession of any ivaterway and manipulating it for private advantage. The government of Ontario are protecting all these streams, keeping in view the future development of electricity and the importance of cheap power for manufacturing; and, therefore, I think it .is not unfair that this committee should be put in possession of whatever correspondence there may have been between the Ontario government and this government, or between the Hvdro-Electric Commission and this government on this subject. I would have thought that the hon. Minister of Public Works would have been sufficiently interested in this matter to have inquired of the government if there was any such correspondence. I Avould have thought that my hon. friend would have been very anxious to communicate to this committee all correspondence that has come to the government or to any department of the government relative to this Bill, which has received so much attention in this House, and a greater amount of attention in the country, from the people of Ontario in particular. For myself, I want to go on record as being in opposition to any monopoly in this country.


William Pugsley: Except that of the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Richard Blain: Yes, I am fully in accord with that kind of a monopoly. It may be a kind of monopoly which my hon. friend, knows nothing about.


William Pugsley: I am opposed to any monopoly.


Richard Blain: Then there is a great opportunity for my hon. friend now, while this Bill is under discussion, to stand up and say that he is opposed to this monopoly.


William Pugsley: I do not see that there is any monopoly in this.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is very quick to recognize what he calls a monopoly in the province of Ontario, which is a monopoly of the people for themselves. I think this government should be the first to commend the government of Ontario for rising in their might and saying to any class of people, whether they belong to the province of Ontario or to any other province, or whether they come from the United States or any other country, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, that their policy is a clearly-defined policy, that every water-power and every other public utility shall be protected for all the people of the province. If the Minister of Public Works thinks that I am a monopolist of that kind, I am willing to accept that, -and would only hope that I might be able to convert my hon. friend to that view. I would rather believe in the man who would correct his own government, his own department and his own policy, than cast reflections on the nolicy of the Ontario government with resoect to the Hydro-Electric Commission. I shall await now for my hon. friend to place before this committee to-night whatever correspondence the government or any department thereof has had either from the Ontario government of the Hydro-Electric Commission with respect to this Bill.


Mr. HUGHES.: Before the Minister of Public Works makes his deliverance in answer to the hon. member, for Peel, may T ask him if he has ever considered the advisability of establishing a Hydro-Electric Commission under the auspices of the Public Works Department of the Dominion government, seeing that he is so much opposed to the one in the pmvince of Ontario?


William Pugsley: I am rather surprised at my hon. friend from Peel being so unreasonable as he is. He seems to take for granted that late on in the evening, after business hours, after the public offices are all closed, that is the appropriate time at which to ask for papers, and he wants them delivered not to-morrow, not next Friday evening, but to-night.


Mr. LENNOX.: We will wait until Friday.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that it is not at all convenient for me to send around to the offices to-night, after they are closed, to find out whether or not there is certain correspondence on file. But I may say to my hon. friend that I have not heard of either the HydroElectric Commission or the government of Ontario sending any communication to this government with reference to the Bill that is now before this committee.


Richard Blain: It sent a representative before the committee.


William Pugsley: That representative has been heard. Does my hon. friend say that he is on file and that I should get him and produce him to-night? I cannot do that.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to say that such a statement would be a very good argument if my hon. friend were introducing this Bill for the first time; but when my hon. friend remembers that this Bill has been before the House and the country for many weeks, and that he took part in an all-night discussion upon it, it might occur to him that it would be his duty to see that whatever information was in his department or in the possession of the government of which he is a prominent member should be laid before this committee for use in the discussion of this Bill.


William Pugsley: I would rather assume that since the Bill has been so long before the House there is no correspondence or I would have heard of it. And I would assume that my hon. friend, who poses here as the champion of the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario, and who has the courage to declare himself absolutely in favour of a monopoly so far as the transmission of electrical energy throughout the province of Ontario is concerned, who is strenuously opposed to the people being permitted to purchase electrical energy from any other person or body than the Hydro-Electric Commission, would have been the very first to be made acquainted of any correspondence by his friends of the commission, and the fact of his not being aware of any correspondence and of no correspondence coming to my notice, may, I think, be taken as very good evidence that there has been no correspondence. I take it for granted that the Hydro-Electric Commission, for reasons of its own, preferred to send counsel to appear before the Private Bills Committee to present their views. The hon. gentleman has also unwittingly fallen into an error of another description. He has stated that the Minister of Public Works is in charge of this Bill. My hon. friend surely cannot have forgotten that it has been stated over and over again that this is not a government measure, that

neither I nor any other member of the government is in charge of this Bill.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend disown it?


William Pugsley: It is impossible to disown what one never possessed. I have a duty to discharge just as my hon. friends have, and, when the Bill introduced as it was hy a private member, came before the committee for consideration, it was my duty to take the view of the matter which seemed to me to be the proper view to take.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend wish to draw a distinction between the gentleman having charge of this Bill and the government, the cabinet? If my hon. friend does, the committee would be very glad to hear him state whether he himself and his government are in favour of or opposed to this Bill.


William Pugsley: I can only speak for myself. I have not the slightest idea as to the views of the members of the government, except as they have been expressed on the floor of the House while.in committee. Some members of the government have expressed their views as individual members of the House. The government as a whole has not expressed any opinion, and as far as I am aware the government as a whole or as a government has no view's on the Bill and has not taken any attitude on it one way or the other. Every member of the government is free to vote as he pleases and, unlike the gentlemen on the other side of the House under the admirable leadersip which seems to be now prevailing and which excites the wonder and the astonishment of this country, every member on this side of the House is just as free to vote for or against the Bill as every member of the government is.,


Mr. MEIGHEN.: How will they vote?


William Pugsley: I am not able to say, but I will tell you how' I propose to vote. I propose voting for the Bill. While the Bill has been under discussion, I have been lost in amazement at the wonderful ingenuity of hon. gentlemen opposite in persuading themselves that there is something wrong or suspicious about this Bill, and that in some way it is connected with a Bill for the development of power on the St. Lawrence.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then why did you
amend it?


William Pugsley: We proposed to amend it for the very reason which the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) proposed an amendment which I have no doubt he had reason to believe would be unanimously accepted by his supporters; we amended it in order to make assurance 202 -
doubly sure, in order to make it impossible for any member of this House, or any person outside of this House to argue that the Bill was in any way connected with the damming of the St. Lawrence river. We wanted to make assurance doubly sure that no one would ever dream for a moment of arguing that the passing of this Bill was in any way committing this parliament to the approval of any scheme for the damming of the St. Lawrence. Speaking for myself I believe this Bill, amended as it is, with all possible sting taken out as the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson) so graphically stated, was never any more connected with the St. Lawrence Power Company Bill, or any measure for the damming of the St. Lawrence than it is at the present moment.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend was just as willing to support it in its original form as he is now to support it in its amended form.


William Pugsley: And for the reason that I stated that if we passed the Bill in its original form it would in no way be committing the House to the damming of the St. Lawrence, that this Bill was simply a power transmission Bill and nothing more. It has been amended so as to make that so clear and plain that not only the intelligent members of this House may understand it, but that every man who runs may read and thoroughly understand it. I would like to know whether hon. gentlemen who are opposing this Bill are prepared to lay it down as a principle which they are prepared to support that whenever in any province in Canada, or in any port of the Dominion either a provincial legislature, or the Dominion parliament creates a public utility then no man and no company shall be permitted to compete against the government of that province, or this Dominion.


Mr HUGHES.: That is not the question.


William Pugsley: That is the question.


Samuel Hughes: The question is damming the St. Lawrence.


Mr PUGSLEY.: Not at all. I thought my hon. friend had got ..away from that delusion. Do I understand that he is still under the delusion that thi3 Bill has something to do with damming the St. Lawrence?


Samuel Hughes: I am absolutely certain of it.


William Pugsley: I can only express my profound astonishment.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Some weeks ago the minister told us that the members of the



St. Lawrence Power Company waited on him in reference to the maps, &c. Would the minister be good enough to give the names of the men who waited on him?


William Pugsley: Would that be of interest so far as this Bill is concerned? My hon. friend is seeking to in some way erroneously convey the impression that these two Bills are connected together, in other words that the Bill now before the House is in some way connected with the Act passed some nine years ago. My hon. friend knows better than that.


Haughton Lennox: The amendment shows they are.


William Pugsley: The amendment does not. Some hon. gentlemen for whom the-promoters of this Bill are bound to have respect, and who, although they may be misguided and entirely in error, although their views are without foundation, have expressed the fear that if this Bill had been passed in its original form it would in some way be recognized by the public as being an approval of a project for damming the St. Lawrence. And out of deference^


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask a question?


William Pugsley: Wait till I get through this sentence. Out of deference to the views of these hon. gentlemen, the promoter of the Bill has moved an amendment which would make it impossible for any one to suppose that by voting for this measure he was in any way committed to the approval by parliament of damming the St. Lawrence either under the Act of 1901 or otherwise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister having finished his sentence, let me ask him this: Does he mean to tell this House that the St. Lawrence Power Company, and the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company are not practically the same company, one to develop power, and the other to transmit it? Does this company refer to any other company that are going to develop power? Is not this in effect, extending the right of the St. Lawrence Power 'Company to the transmission of power while the original Bill provides the right to develop power? The same names appear in both companies. And yet the hon. minister says there is no connection.


William Pugsley: These companies are incorporated, having distinct and separate entities. I do not know who are interested in these respective companies. The transmission company may be an entirely different entity from the power development company."


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is ' The St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company.'


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


William Pugsley: Well, suppose it had been the Jerusalem Power Transmission Company, what difference does it make? Does my hon. friend seriously argue that the fact that the name of a great river with which the whole country is identified is used in these two companies, makes those two identical?


Mr. GOODEVE.: I would call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that he himself has stated that these Bills were connected. I would also quote what the chairman of the Conservation Commission, to which this Bill was referred by the Private Bills Committee stated. Here are his words:
An examination of Bill (No. 115) indicates clearly that the introduction of this Bill is a portion of the St. Lawrence Power Company's plans. It is to he noted that the president of the power company and one of its engineers are the first named among the proposed incorporators, and the powers asked for are of an unusual and very sweeping character.
And, as I have said, the Minister of Public Works points out that these companies are undoubtedly one, and the same. In answer to the leader of the opposition, as reported at page 5510 of ' Hansard,' he said:
If the hon. member will pardon me: I saw it stated somewhere, that the chairman of the Conservation Commission had written a letter to the committee in which he pointed out this very fact, that they were undoubtedly connected together, referring to the fact of the incorporators being the same.
I think I can point to several other quotations here from the Conservation Commission's report. So, I think we can agree that these companies are undoubtedly connected.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) forgets that I was replying to a statement which some hon. members made that they had been taken utterly by surprise to learn that a company had been incorporated in 1901. The hon. gentlemen were stating-shall I say they were pretending-perhaps I ought not to say that-, for it might be unparliamentary-that the first knowledge they had of it was when my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) informed the committee that an Act had been passed in 1901. It was in reply to that observation that I made the statement that that could not be so, because the chairman of the Conservation Commission had stated that fact or alleged fact to the -committee. But if the hon. gentleman will do me the honour to read my speech from beginning to end, and, perhaps, if he does, it may induce him to take a different view from what he has taken tonight

he will see that I stated distinctly that I had no knowledge whatever of the

personnel of these companies. What. I was asked was if I thought that if the St. Lawrence Power Company should develop power this company would take its electrical energy for transmission, I said I did not know, but that I suspected they would. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has stated to the House very frankly that the object of this transmission company is to obtain electrical energy wherever it can. He has stated that there are a few thousand horse-power which might be obtained from the complete development of the works which the St. Lawrence Power Company already have constructed between Sheek island, and the mainland near Cornwall. He has also referred to the fact of the development by Mr. Beach, and has stated that at Waddington, there is a power which could be developed without interfering with the St. Lawrence river, and capable of yielding, if I remember rightly,
25,000	or 30,000 horse-power. He has stated also that it would be of enormous advantage to the people of eastern Ontario, who are desirous of establishing industries which can be established only by getting cheap electrical energy, and that these people are anxious to get this power from whatever source may be available. I repeat what I said when the Bill was before the committee yesterday, that it is only right and fair to the people of that section, who are clamouring for cheap power, that the Bill should be fairly considered. And I say-and I think I can speak with the authority of the promoter of the Bill-that if any hon. member opposite, or any hon. member on this side, can suggest, as the Bill is passing through the committee, any amendment which will make it more clear than it is now that it is a power transmission company, and that alone, that it shall have no power to develop electricity, but simply to transmit it, and can only transmit power which is lawfully developed by some other company, I believe my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) will gladly accept that amendment. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in order, I believe, to make the case so clear that, as he supposed, no one of his followers would venture to further oppose the Bill-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. PUGSLEY-proposed an amendment-


Samuel Hughes: One amendment.


William Pugsley: It is an amendment which is most important if hon. members' have the suspicion which they profess to have in regard to this Bill, and it provided that the St. Eawrence Power Company should have no authority to enlarge or increase any of its dams, wing dams, sluices or other works upon the St. Lawrence with- i 202J
out their plans first having been submitted to parliament, and the approval of parliament obtained. Now, I do think that the amendment which the leader of the opposition proposed ought to have been sufficient to satisfy every member on the other side.


Samuel Hughes: In that regard, yes. But there are other points.


William Pugsley: Unless hon. gentlemen opposite are so bound up in the creation, and maintenance of an absolute monopoly in the Hydro-Electric Commission against the people of Ontario, preventing them from being able to obtain power from any other source-unless they are bound hand and foot to the Hydro-Electric Commission, and determined to maintain its monopoly [DOT]-they ought, in all fairness, to consider this Bill on its merits, and, as it goes through committee, suggest any amendments they may think necessary in order to make it clearer that it is to be a power transmission Bill only. And it does seem to me that in that way, and that way only, will they be performing a real service to the country, especially to the people of eastern Ontario, who are so desirous of obtaining electrical energy.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I asked the Minister of Public Works a question a little while ago. If he does not care to answer it, perhaps the hon. member for Brandon would be good enough to give his views on the subject,


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: In reply to the minister, who asked me to read his own speech in connection with this matter, I have great pleasure in reading a paragraph which makes it still more clear that he himself considers these two Bills together:
I will answer as best I can. I do not know what is in the minds of the promoters of the Bill, but it does not occur to me that the Bill provides for great haste, because it is only to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council, and the Governor in Council will not issue that proclamation until the agreements are entered into, plans are fully considered, and it is understood that the works can be constructed in the public interest and without injury to navigation-and, I would assume-they would not issue the proclamation until these agreements were submitted and ratified by parliament.
That is a direct answer, a statement dealing with the Bill before us and referring back to the Bill passed in 1901.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will turn to page 5504 he will find that I stated distinctly that I had no knowledge on the subject, one way or the other. This is what I said in answer to the hon. member i for Peel:


Richard Blain: Where does the minister tliink they will get their power?


William Pugsley: My own idea is that they will get their power from a company which may develop it along the St. Lawrence.
Now there is a company that develops power along the St. Lawrence.
I do not know that to he the case, but I suspect it. This Bill simply incorporates a transmission company which would have to make an arrangement "with another company for its power. The development of power upon the St. Lawrence must be provided for bv another statute, but this Bill does not give the slightest authority to dam the St. Lawrence or construct any works in the St. Lawrence or anywhere else except such works as are essential for a transmission line.
That is the view which I took. I had no knowledge then on the subject, and I contended then, as I contend now, that by voting for this Bill, which is simply a power transmission Bill, no member of this House would be committed to a project for damming the St. Lawrence.


Samuel Hughes: The Minister of Public Works was wise in stopping where he did when he read from his remarks. Let him read right on to the end, and he will find a question by the leader of the opposition:
Mr. I!. L. BORDEN. Under what statute did the company profess to be acting when it submitted these plans?


William Pugsley: That is not this company.


Samuel Hughes: It is this company, and he knows it quite well. In answer to the leader of the opposition the Minister of Public Works says:
They did not state, but I understood it to be under the St. Lawrence Power Company charter granted by this parliament some years ago. I also understood from them that they expected to have to come back to parliament to get authority to dam the St. Lawrence.
And yet he knew' last year, and the First Minister last night admitted that they did have the authority to dam the St. Lawr-rence, and the Minister of Public Works must have known it; else why did he dare to receive a deputation talking of damming the St. Lawrence, without the authority of a statute of this parliament to allow them to approach him in that regard?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: It seems to me these are some of the things which make us on this side of the House suspicious. This Bill says that ' this Act shall not come into force until a day to be named by the Governor in Council.' Now, the Minister of Public Works stated on the floor of this House that this Act would not come into force until after the plans and specifications in connection with the St, Lawrence Power Company had been approved by Mr. PUGSLEY.
this government. If he says mat electricity may be transmitted, or is likely to be transmitted, over this line from any . other company than the St. Lawrence Power Development Company, than he is then unnecessarily- hanging up by this Bill. Here is what the minister says, page 5510:
The Governor in Council will not issue that proclamation until the agreements are entered into, plans are fully considered, and it is understood that the works can be constructed in the public interest and without injury to navigation-and, I would assume-they would not issue the proclamation until these agreements were submitted and ratified by parliament. .


William Pugsley: My hon. friend did not read the whole of it. Let him begin at the commencement and read the whole of it.


William Sora Middlebro: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to make my explanation.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. What I respectfully submit to you, Sir, is that when an hon. gentleman proposes to read some remarks made by another member of this House, it is his duty to read all the remarks which bear upon the particular subject, he must read the qualifying remarks as well.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The minister has a right to rise to a point of order, but I do not think the point he raises is a point of order.


William Sora Middlebro: What the minister did say in effect was this: that he would not recommend to the Governor in Council that this Bill should go into effect until the plans and specifications had been approved. I have read the petition, the petition is from the Long Sault Development Company from the St. Lawrence Power Company and the Minister has said that this Bill shall not become operative until the plans of these two companies -and they both signed the petition, they are the same company-the minister says this Bill shall not come into force until these plans have been prepared and approved, and at the same time he says this company may get electricity transmitted over its lines from some other source, when the Bill itself would not come into force until he approves the plans of the other two companies. In the face of that, the minister says that he has a suspicion that the electricity which is going to pass over the transmission lines will come from the St. Lawrence Power Company, although that company does not come into operation until the plans are approved by himself.


William Pugsley: I stated to the committee that I had not any knowledge whatever of what was in the mind of the promoters of this Bill we were all discussing. Its

terms were quite as new to me as they were to many other hon. members of this House. It stops there, and my hon. friend did not read that which, I say, qualifies entirely the remarks which I made. I said that I would answer some question which was put to me by my hon. friend from Westmorland.
I will answer as best I can. I do not know what is in the minds of the promoters of the Bill.
That is what I stated distinctly, and I did not know.


William Sora Middlebro: May I ask the Minister of Public Works now if that information which he gave was incorrect, namely, that the Bill will not go into force until the plans and specifications of the St. Lawrence Power Development Company and the Long Sault Development Company, now before the House, have been approved by the Governor General in Council?


William Pugsley: I will say to my hon. friend that my own view is that if this Bill passes the Governor in Council would properly bring it into force entirely irrespective of any other company, or any other power development.
tain gentlemen representing a company appeared before council, and I ask the minister to submit the names to the committee as he has made reference to them. It would seem to me that it would be the proper thing to do.


William Pugsley: I have no objection tu submitting such names as I can remember. I remember Mr. Leighton McCarthy, of Toronto, and a very eminent engineer-I forget his name.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Breakey?


William Pugsley: I do not remember the name. Mr. Holgate, of Montreal, was before the committee of council, I think Mr. McGuigan, was there also, and some other gentlemen, but I do not remember their names.


Richard Blain: Were they members of the company?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


William Sora Middlebro: Can the minister inform us whether or not the power which is now being developed by the St. Lawrence Power Company is being transmitted anywhere?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you must have given incorrect information before.


William Pugsley: When I made the remarks which I did make in the House, the matter had not come before the council, and I could not speak for council, or profess to speak for council. I was entirely in the dark as to what the views of the promoters were, but I cannot see the slightest reason why this Bill should not be brought into force entirely irrespective of any other Bill. It has nothing to do with any other measure, and it would be brought into force on its own merits and with the view of transmitting power from any source from which the company might be able to obtain it.


Richard Blain: Were not the promoters before my hon. friends' department?


William Pugsley: Of this Bill?


Richard Blain: Of the St. Lawrence Power Bill?
Mr. PUpSLEY. Yes, several persons on behalf of the company appeared before a sub-committee of council and asked for the approval of their plans. It was these plans which were submitted to the International Waterways Commission.


Richard Blain: Who were these gentlemen?


William Pugsley: That Bill has nothing to do with this Bill.


Richard Blain: Mr. Chairman, I ask your ruling. The minister has stated that cer-


William Pugsley: I am not aware as to that. I am not familiar with local conditions.


Mr. GRAHAM.: The power is used largely in the town of Cornwall, and to light the canal.


John Dowsley Reid: There is only 35 or 40 horse-power used for the canal.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is away wrong in his figures, but it is not unusual for him to be a little wrong in his calculations.


Samuel Hughes: He is not saying what is paid for it; he is only saying what is used.


George Perry Graham: As far as I know the power transmitted is for the use of the town of Cornwall, and for the canal under a contract made with the government some years ago. While I am on my feet I would like to put the situation very plainly before the House and the country. I do not believe there is an hon. gentleman in front of me but understands it thoroughly.


Samuel Hughes: I think we do, and if we do it is bad for you.


George Perry Graham: I think the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) might be excused for not knowing anything about it.


Samuel Hughes: If we do understand it it speaks very badly for the Minister and his party.


George Perry Graham: The minister and his party will always come out fairly well, if it he put on that basis, because my hon, friend is not quick at understanding things when he does not want to understand them. Those of our friends to the left, who have spoken, have opposed this Bill, because they do not want any interference with the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Samuel Hughes: No.


George Perry Graham: I am talking about those over here.
Mr. HUGHES Over where ?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), have made their objection very plain.


Richard Blain: Might I be permitted to
say


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Richard Blain: With the permission of the hon. gentleman.


George Perry Graham: It is pretty near nine o'clock, and I want to say what I have to say before Mr. Chairman calls nine o'clock. The hon. members for Peel and North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) made it very plain that they were arguing largely because this was an interference with the hydro-electric plan. The hon. member for Peel devoted his remarks to that one point. On the other hand, the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) says that he objects to it because they are going to 'dam the St. Lawrence. I want the country to thoroughly understand my position. What I ask for, as representing the constituency of Brockville, is that we should be given the right to get cheap power if we can get it, no matter from what source. 'The people want-I care not wnat my hon. friends say-the cheapest power that they can get. It does not make any difference whether it comes from one company or another, or from the Hydro-Electric Commission, and the man who says that it must come from only one source is not a friend of the people.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does it make any difference whether it interieres with the navigation of the St. Lawrence?


George Perry Graham: It is all very well for hon. gentlemen who are within a stone's throw of Niagara power and who are not in the position of having to seek for cheap power although when it does not come with that rapidity that was expected. They speak strongly in favour of the HydroElectric Commission only. The HydroElectric Commission has not yet come into that part of Ontario, no matter what is said to the contrary, and it has made no Mr. HUGHES.
serious attempt to come. No provision has been made in the estimates of the Ontario legislature for their coming. It is a delusion and a snare as far as the people of that part of the country are concerned. I have had some experience of this matter, and. I know of what I speak. If the Dominion has a power to lease to anybody, if it has a power to develop, these hon. gentlemen propose to take the ground that we must not give any person any right to transmit that power without going to the Ontario government and asking permission.


Samuel Hughes: Why not run your own hydro-electric?


George Perry Graham: For my part, I believe that the policy adopted by this House unanimously in appointing a board of railway commissioners to control the rates on railways has been a success. I believe that that board can control the rates for power developed in the Dominion just as well as they can control railway rates, and with just as good results. If they give us as good results with respect to electrical power as they have with respect to the railways, the people of Canada will be the gainers. All we ask is that the right be given to a company to transmit power, get it where they may. There is nothing in this Bill, and hon. gentlemen know it perfectly well, to enable any person to dam the St. Lawrence. That is a big question that would have to be discussed in another spirit altogether. It is not contained in this Bill. If it were, I would not now ask this House to pass it.


Samuel Hughes: Is there anything in this Bill that will strengthen the hands of the St. Lawrence Power Company and allow them to transmit electricity?


George Perry Graham: There is nothing in the Bill that will enable any company to dam the St. Lawrence, and the Bill further states in the amendment that they cannot add to the works heretofore constructed. They are confined absolutely to the works under construction. My hon. friend is trying to prevent me from saying what I wish to say before nine o'clock. I want to put the case plainly, because I want the country to understand it, a'nd I want my constituents to understand it, and I say that every member of this House does understand it. We ask for a transmission line, and whether or not they ever get power to dam the river St. Lawrence has nothing whatever to do with it. I have taken great pains to tell the promoters that I would not, in this Bill at least, have anything to do with a scheme which would enable them to1 get any more power than they had already on the St. Lawrence river.


Samuel Hughes: Did they propose it?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) has many a time proposed things that he did not get, and it is a good thing for himself that he did not get them.


Samuel Hughes: The point I make is this-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister per mit me to ask him a question?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: A question can only be asked with the permission of the member who has the floor.


Samuel Hughes: Well, I am asking him.


George Perry Graham: It is three or four minutes to nine o'clock, and I want to make my statement, and my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) is doing all he can to prevent me, but he can't. The House understands it, but I want to make it clear to the country and to my constituents who may not understand it. What we ask is that this company be given power to transmit power if there be any surplus now at Cornwall. I may be wrong, but I believe there is. There is a power at Iroquois owned by Mr. Beach not leased by the Ontario government, but leased to him by this government; there is a power at Waddington, opposite Morris-burg, that is to be developed, or that can be developed, and from which I am told we can get power to the town of Brockville; then there is another power at Messena, owned by this company or some of the same gentlemen who are in this company. We believe there is a surplus of power now, and if we cannot get any power from any of these works I mentioned, then no harm is done. But I say it is not fair; it is particularly not fair for the men from western Canada who have cheap power at their door to prevent us in the east getting the power which is running to waste and which I believe we can get if this company gets its charter.


An hon. MEMBER.: It does.


George Perry Graham: All that is asked for by this Bill is that we be allowed in my constituency and elsewhere to utilize, through the means of this company being allowed to transmit it, the power that is going to waste. It makes no difference who is in the company; their powers are curtailed absolutely in this Bill, and though these men may be in the company to-day, if they do not see fit to go on with the work, the charter is in existence and I believe we can get men of capital to take that charter and give us a transmission line and give us the power we can obtain from these other
points. I again appeal to the House. We want power in the vicinity from which I come. I believe it would be absolutely unfair if this House should prevent us from getting the means of having that power brought to our doors. I say again that it is particularly unfair for those members who come from a section of this province, where the whole province is assessed them cheap power, that they should prevent us in the east from getting power when we are not asking the province to guarantee a single dollar to pay for it.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I call attention to the fact that in the papers brought down by the Minister of Public Works, we have the statement made in the petition which appears amongst these papers, that the St. Lawrence Power Company has 3,000 developed horse-power and 2,500 intermittent horse-power, which means that at certain seasons of the year they can develop 5,500 horse-power, and they have a capacity for developing 6,000 regular horse-power. Now, out of this quantity they state that there is only 1,000 or 1,500 horse-power used out of the 6,000 horse-power capable of development. In that same Bill this same company is given the right to sell and transmit that power, so that if the only question raised here is the getting of competitive power against the Hydro-Electric Commission, as stated by the Minister of Railways, they already have that power developed, they have the right to transmit it, they have the right to sell it, they have the right to supply it in competition with any other company at this very moment. That being the statement in the papers brought down by the Minister of Public Works, I cannot see why, under the circumstances, we could not take time to see the exact standing of this company without doing any injury either to the constituents of the Minister of Railways or to his portion of eastern Ontario of which he has spoken. I admire the position he took in fighting on behalf of the people of eastern Ontario, and I believe that if we can reduce the price of power by bringing in competition we should do so.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: But I say his case is not sound because of the fact that he himself has already stated that that company has certain horse-power developed, and that all they require i3 that they may be able to transmit it to the localities that require it. As has been shown, under the section 8 of the Act of 1901, they have full power to do that, and that being the only reason advanced by the Minister of Railways why he is in favour of this Bill his contention falls to the ground. When



COMMON .3

[Stage Direction]
we take into consideration that the chairman of the Conservation Commission has reported absolutely against the Bill, and in view of all that has been said here, I venture to say that the Minister of Public Works is the only man in this House who has not yet become acquainted with the fact that the very same men who have asked for this Bill are the men who have control of the St. Lawrence Power Bill of 1901.

[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired the House resumed in committee on Bill (No. 185) respecting the Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources.
John Dowsley Reid: With the consent of the House I would ask the Minister of Railways if he would get a statement of the quantity of power used on the Cornwall canal by the department.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Perry Graham: In lighting?


John Dowsley Reid: For lighting and for use at the locks. I understand there is only between thirty-five and sixty-five horse-power used on the canal, and I would like to have a statement from the officials as to the exact quantity used.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I did not wish to interfere as I thought the hon. member was simply asking a question, but he appears to be proceeding to make a statement of some length. We are on Bill (No. 185).
On section 1,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Since six o'clock my hon. friend from Brandon has made some slight changes in the amendment proposed by the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) and with these changes I think we can add it to the end of the Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the change?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The only change is that it leaves out the reference to members of the commission. It applies the clauses of the hon. gentleman's amendment to the officials of the commission, but makes no reference to the members.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is a good deal of force in the observations of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) because it is apparent that no member of the commission could transact business connected with the affairs of the country generally, to any extent, if the amendment passed as proposed. What has been sug-Mr. GOODEVE.
gested by the Minister of Agriculture is no doubt eminently proper, but it did occur to me that the provisions of subsection (c) of the proposed amendment might with perfect propriety be made applicable to members of the commission.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no objection to that. It might be held that we were casting a little suspicion on the members of the commission, but they would probably not feel it in that way.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: On whom does the Minister of Agriculture mean that the suspicion would be cast?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot understand the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then I understand that the minister wishes to add to the Bill the clauses of my Bill entirely, merely referring them to the employees of the commission and not to the members of the commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, that is what I suggested.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then I also understand, as the chairman of the commission suggested previous to six o'clock, that he and some other members of the commission would get together and frame a clause that would mean practically what is contained in this measure, and would apply it to themselves?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a matter for further consideration. If such a clause could properly be framed and were thought suitable, I would have no objection to introduce it in a future session of parliament, but I would not want to introduce it in this Bill on the spur of the moment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It seems to me that the hon. minister might adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for East Lambton without restriction. I cannot understand how you can distinguish the officers of the commission from the members of the commission in regard to speculating in these matters. The injury to the country would be all the greater if the superior officers on the commission did it than it would be in the case of the minoT officials, who would be controlled by the commission. To invite the members of this commission to deal with matters in which they might be privately interested as against the people is about the same as to say that a judge might properly be interested in a matter which was in litigation before him. I think that is against public policy. It has always been a principle that the members of a commission shall not be interested in or be permitted to obtain any personal advantage from the things in which they are em-

ployed in the interest of the people to deal a with. A member of parliament cannot do c it; a judge cannot do it; an officer of the t Geological Survey cannot do it; and I can- i not see why any member of this commis c sion should want to do any of these things, t If he does, he ought to resign from the i commission. If that is what the hon. min- t ister meant when he could not understand t his own language, referred to by the hon. e member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), I can t see where the suspicion would be. If a c member of the commission is going to have his feelings stuck out so far all around j him, I would say that his feelings are too tender, he is not strong enough to do public work for the good of the people. Even 1 if any of the commissioners wanted to do 1 these things, this parliament should say 1 they shall not do them, any more than a 1 judge should try a case in which he is in- i terested, or a trustee should take a secret '[DOT] advantage from the matters over which he 1 is a trustee. I think it is a serious thing ] that the Minister of Agriculture does not ' rise to the occasion and say that the mem- 1 beTS of the commission, as well as their < servants, shall not be permitted to do these ; things. Again, we are legislating that the poor man must be honest, but that the rich man may be as crooked as .he likes.
It is absoluteiy wrong to say that the ordinary officers and servants of this commission are to be absolutely straight and square, while their superiors are to be allowed to do themselves the very things which they would be obliged to dismiss their servants for doing. I understand that before six o'clock it was stated here that the business of a member of the chief chamber would be interfered with if he were prohibited from dealing. I would say that if that is the case, he should resign from this commission, to which is delegated the business ot the people. We are told that one of these commissioners, a member of the upper Chamber, may take the benefit of information and do those things which -we seek to prohibit'any trustee from doing. There is where the suspicion comes in. We are told that the private business of one of these commissioners, a senator, may be interfered with if he is obliged to do what every trustee must do, and not make a secret profit or benefit from being a trustee. Be that man a senator or anything else, he should resign from the commission, and the law should be so amended that he could not do these things. It show's he is not fit to be a member of the commission when he wants to do these things.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The arguments of my hon. friend were advanced and disposed of this afternoon. The question is whether we shall have a commission or not. If we are going to preclude every business man in Canada from being a member we may
act as my hon. friend w'ishes us to do. The commission consists of men chosen for their prominence in various business walks in life and in the public affairs of this country, and it has been recognized that) the commission is valuable from the standing of the commissioners as well as from ' the nature of its work. I have no hesitation in saying that if we adopted the: amendment of my hon. friend from Lamb-ton we would cause one-half the members of the commission to resign.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: So much the better for the people.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that would be a great misfortune. The hon. member talks of the commissioners being like judges' or trustees. Neither of these descriptions applies. They have certain powers and rights to investigate affairs in the country and to take steps to find out about those things. The work they are doing is in the public interest, they are not paid for it, they do it voluntarily. If we are going to be suspicious of them, we have to concoct an amendment which will be workable and bind them down by force of law and I would not care to be on that commission under those circumstances, nor to ask any of my friends to serve. Men like the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) Senator Edwards, who has been spoken of, have large business interests in the country and they would have to. cease to be concerned in these important interests-if this amendment should become law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, they would cease to be commissioners.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would regret to see that. My hon. friend may want to turn, out the commission. It would seriously i impair the efficiency of the commission if
*	these men, were debarred from member-.
. ship. Under these circumstances I do not >
think it would be wise to accept the i. amendment proposed. I am quite ready I to accept it as it applies to the employees
*	of the commission. In that respect it is.
I directly in line with the clause in the.
- Geological Survey Act, which debars civil t servants from benefiting from information t acquired.
| Mr. LANCASTER. The minister says I r want to turn out the whole commission. I
*	want to turn out the whole commission if
*	it was a thousand people if they are all in-5 terested against the interests of the people.
of Canada. There are probably 2,000,000 'i other men in Canada who are not inter-f ested, and the minister would not say that c he could not select a commission out of, j those 2,000,000 of men who would not be. i interested against those for whom the com-. r mission are trustees. Members of parlia-

ment are prohibited from being interested in legislation; judges must not be interested in the suits to. be decided by them, but by this Act, senators and members are permitted to take an interest against the people and to feather their nests through secret information at the cost of the country. I do not say that the hon, member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) or the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) or Senator Edwards would do that. But I deplore the fact that the minister invites them to do so. What good is a copimission if its members will use information acquired for their private benefit? Whv is an Act, of parliament passed if it is not in the in-., terest of the public?
On the third reading of the Bill I shah vote against the minister's amendment and in favour of that of the hon. member for East Lambton.
On section 4, payment of disbursements of members attending committee meetings.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under the original Act it |
is provided that members shall be paid their disbursements in attending meetings of the commission. This follows out the same idea.


Mr. JAMESON.: Why was not this provision put in the original Bill?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When the Bill was passed there were no committees, but, at the annual meeting, the organization of the commission was perfected by forming some committees, each to deal with its -own subject. This section is only carrying out the original idea by providing that the members shall have the same privileges when attending committee meetings as in attending meetings of the commission.


Clifford Sifton: When the Act was drawn, the plan of work had not been fully thought out, and when the meeting was held we had to address ourselves to the question of how we were to conduct the work of the commission. The Act provided for the appointment of a chairman to be the executive officer of the commission. A difficulty that arose in connection with the practical work was that if the members of the commission met at the annual meeting, and passed general directions as to what should be done, thereafter the initiative would be left in the hands of the chairman, and the work and responsibility would devolve upon him. It was felt that that was not a desirable way to carry on the work. We desire to have the services of as many members of the commission as possible, and to have their judgment, and advice from time to time upon the various important questions with which we have to deal. After 'giving the matter the best consideration we could, we came to the conclusion that the best method of organization was Mr. LANCASTER.
to appoint committees to deal with the different classes of subjects, and to appoint a member of the commission as chairman of each committee. The logical corollary of that is that, from time to time, we shall be able to have meetings of the committees to discuss and deal with the particular subjects which these committees have in their purview. It will be seen that this will obviate the necessity of having more frequent meetings of the commission. Had this not been done, it would have been necessary to call meetings of the commission three or four times a year which would have meant bringing all the members of the commission here, and holding a large meeting when a small meeting might be all that is necessary. Under this scheme of organization, the practical work will be carried on by these committees, and the investigation and collection of information will be under their direction, and especially under the direction of the chairman of the committee. I may explain, as it will probably be of interest to hon. members, that the chairman of the committee on public health. is Mr. Osier, the chairman of the committee on forestry is-Senator Edwards, the chairman of the committee on waterways is Mr. Monk. Professor Robertson is chairman of the committee on lands and agriculture, and Mr. Has-zard, the premier of the province of Prince Edward Island is chairman of the committee on fisheries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not quite understand the connection which makes it necessary for a conservation commission to have a committee on public health.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The work of that committee is largely connected with the pollution of streams, and the conservation of the public health generally. This was one of the subjects submitted at the Washington conference of last year, and I have no doubt whatever that there will be a very important work to be done in connection with that by the commission through this particular committee. The public health is regarded as one of the most important assets of the nation, and the work of the commission in this matter, it is expected, will be of great value.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would that committee have any power to prevent a municipal corporation, for instance, from allowing the sewerage to be run into a stream?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the commission* has no power to prevent anything or do anything of that kind. All it can do is to obtain information, formulate that information for the public, and, perhaps, tender advice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To the Governor in Council?
6:365


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Or to the municipal authorities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They could only report to the Governor in Council according to their own Act of incorporation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as a formal report is concerned, yes.


Clifford Sifton: To give practical and concrete instances, I may say that, so far, the commission has considered two questions in connection with public health, tuberculosis, and the pollution of rivers, and streams. It is our desire to collect all the information that can be collected in regard to the best method of bringing about the prevention of tuberculosis, and the best method of giving the assistance of the federal government to the bringing about of that end. When subjects have been thoroughly investigated, we make our Teport to the Governor in Council. There our responsibility ends; it is for the Governor in Council to submit the report to parliament, and for parliament to take any action that it may think proper. Take also, for instance, the pollution of rivers and streams; that has come to a very serious point in Canada. The Senate has been investigating the matter. They have held a preliminary investigation, and brought in their reports, and have referred the report generally to our commission for further investigation, and that we may make a report on a practical method of dealing with it. I think I may say that the commission is well fitted to bring about an understanding between the provincial and the federal authorities, particularly in cases of jurisdiction over public health, the jurisdiction is concurrent by reason of the fact, that it comprises representatives from all the governments. There is a department that has some jurisdiction over public health under the administration of the Minister of Agriculture, and each province has a department of public health. But medical men say, and the fact- is clear, that there are gaps between the operation of the jurisdiction of the two bodies, and what they want is some complete plan agreed to by the provinces, and by the Dominion that will accomplish the purpose desired.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the word 'chairman' refer to the chairman of the commission or the chairman of the committee?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To the chairman of the commission.


Clarence Jameson: The member for Brandon referred to the committee on fisheries of the conservation commission; perhaps he would give us a little inionnation with respect to the functions which that committee will perform. There is a committee of this House to look after matters pertaining to fisheries and marine, and it would be interesting for us to know what is the nature of the work which this branch of the conservation commission will take up, and to whom it will report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: , The committee on fisheries has not yet taken up their work or laid out their plans. I have no doubt that during the summer this committee will meet. The chairman of the committee is the premier of Prince Edward Island, and, he has been so. busily engaged in his administrative work that he has not been able to leave, and consequently there has been no meeting of the committee. My hon. friend asked to whom they would report. All the committees of the commission will report to the commission, and their reports will be embodied in the general report of the commission.


Clarence Jameson: We have now a very elaborate Department of Fisheries which is divided up into a number of branches that are doing considerable work. We have also a committee of the House. Now, I cannot understand why another commission or committee should undertake to investigate matters which are now being investigated by a committee of this House. I sunpose there is at least an apparent need for the committee of this commission?


Clifford Sifton: I cannot answer my hon. friend with any degree of definiteness. The idea was that by appointing that committee on fisheries we would make a careful examination of all the regulations relating to the preservation of fisheries throughout the Dominion, both by the Dominion and by the provinces; and if they found on careful examination of the regulations, and the principles on which they were enforced in the various provinces, that it would be in the public interest to make any recommendation for their amendment, they would do so. They have not yet made any examination.


Adam Brown Crosby: It is strange that we should have this fisheries committee of the Conservation Commission when we have a standing committee of this House to deal with fisherv matters, summoning and obtaining evidence from all parts of the country. We are going to have another committee spending money in practically the same direction to get evidence in connection with the fisheries. 1 cannot see any necessity for a fisheries branch of the Conservation Commission. Are we going to appoint two committees to do practically the same work, or how are you going to separate the work of these committees? I protest against another committee being appointed by this parliament to waste the money of the country when w'e already

have a standing committee of this House, with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at its head, to look after the same interests. I do not see the need of appointing for the same purpose another committee which is a portion of this so-called Conservation Commission. If this Conservation Commission is going to do the whole business of this parliament we had better appoint it for that purpose. But we have already taken up that matter, we are dealing with it, and I see no good reason for appointing another committee, because there is no doubt that if the fisheries committee of the Conservation Commission is sent out to deal with fishery matters it will be a heavy charge upon this country. We do not desire to have that commission do work that is already provided for by this House.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: I would like to ask the minister if the commission has been paid for the work it has already done, and how much it amounts to? [DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the annual meeting cost about $1,600. I could not say how much has been paid in actual travelling expenses and how much in other expenses.


William Henry Sharpe: How many individuals drew that money?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are thirty-two members of the commission, but, of course, a number of them were here, and they would not draw anything.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The law says that the commission shall consist of twenty members.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are twelve ex-officio members besides, making thirty-two altogether, and, some of these being here already, they did not draw any travelling allowance.


Clarence Jameson: It would be well that the two committees-the committee of this House and the committee of the Conservation Commission-should not proceed along similar lines, and that we should not take up the time of these different committees in doing the same work. I dare say there is work enough for both of them, but I think that the chairman of the commission should see to it that, the committee of the commission does not go over the same kind of work that the committee of the House is doing.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend's suggestion is a very wise one. I am sure that the commission will find plenty of work to do without overlapping the work of the committee of this House. That would be far from their desire. My hon. friend from Brandon said a few minutes ago that one of the works that could be done by the Mr. CROSBY.
Fishery Committee was to find out exactly what are the various regulations, provincial and Dominion, with regard to fisheries, to see if at any place there was overlapping, or a break without any provision for proper care. A committee of this House cannot investigate provincial matters at all, but the commission being composed of representatives of the provinces, it is almost as much a provincial body as it is a Dominion body. The interests of the Dominion parliament, and of the provincial legislatures are all open to the investigation of this commission. Such work is not open to the investigation of a committee of this House. There is, therefore, an obvious possibility of the commission being able to do work which a committee of this House could hardly undertake.


Adam Brown Crosby: Am I to understand that there is some doubt as to whether this parliament has the regulation of the fisheries?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not express any opinion.


Adam Brown Crosby: If I understood the minister correctly, he stated distinctly that this committee could inquire into the rights of the provinces and of the Dominion in regard to the fisheries. The province has nothing to do with the fisheries of this country.


An hon. MEMBER.: You are wrong.


Adam Brown Crosby: They have not in the province from which I come.


Mr. CONMEE.: They are owned by the provinces.


Haughton Lennox: No, they are not.


James Conmee: By the old provinces.
Mr. CROSBY I am speaking of the only provinces that are worth speaking about in reference to this matter-the provinces on the Atlantic and the Pacific. The hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) stated that there was work for these two committees to do. I take issue with him there. There is no necessity for burdening this country with the expense of another committee, when we have a committee of this House to deal with the fisheries. It has cost this country a good deal for taking evidence and obtaining information in regard to the fisheries, and if this commission goes out and starts into the same thing we will be spending money which will not be well spent. I do not see the necessity for a Fisheries Committee working in conjunction with the Conservation Commission.
Mr. G0ODEVE. As representing the Minister of Public Lands in British Columbia I probably would be able, to a certain extent, to answer the question ask-

ed by hon. members. I feel that the question was amply justified and that they are entitled to the information asked for in regard to this particular committee of the Conservation Commission. Looking upon the fisheries as one of the great natural resources of thi3 country, and realizing that it is the object of this Conservation Commission, as far as possible, to conserve the natural resources, and get all the information available with regard to them, this committee was appointed in common with several other committees that have been referred to by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) as chairman of the commission. The work, as I understand it, of this committee, will be of a more general nature than the work which would be undertaken by a parliamentary committee, or a committee under the direction of the Department of Marine *nd Fisheries. It is to get a general id*a of the resources in fish of all parts of Canada, not only the information that they may get in connection with the fisheries of Canada but information in connection with the fisheries all over the world, information of rather broader nature than would be obtained by a committee of this House appointed to deal with the question of fisheries. The information that they would endeavour to collect would be on a broader and larger line. They might possibly act in an advisory capacity both to the Dominion government and the various provincial governments throughout Canada. If we get, for instance, statistical knowledge of my own province, and some other provinces as well, gathered together and reported to the general commission, I believe it would be very valuable to the provinces as well as to the Dominion in formulating policy. There has in the past been friction between the Dominion, and the province of British Columbia, as well as other provinces, and it is possible that an independent commission such as this might possibly get information which would enable these difficulties to be smoothed over and regulations framed which would be of advantage to the Dominion as a whole. As representing on the commission my own province I felt it my duty to state wThat I understood to be the prerogative of the commission.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In reference to the suggestion made by the hon, member (Mr. Armstrong) I would move as section 7 at the end of the Bill that the said Act be further amended by adding to it the following clauses which will make applicable Bill (No. 84) introduced by the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) to the officers of the commission, but which, according to the
understanding this afternoon, will not include the members of the commission.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understood that the minister was to take clause (c) in sec-tipn 18, and add it to this Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say that after the discussion the hon. member for Brandon had a short private conversation with the leader of the opposition, and he told me that that hon. gentleman had agreed with him that it would not be workable in that way, and therefore I left it out.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then, I understand from the Minister of Agriculture that before the third reading of the Bill he and the hon. member for Brandon will get together and try to devise some clause to cover it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not say that. I said that I hoped that before next session something might be worked out. I did not undertake to do it this session.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: I do not suppose it is the purpose of the Minister of Agriculture to ask the House to pass the third reading of the Bill to-night. It had better be reprinted and held over for further consideration on account of these important amendments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The purpose of this commission is a very laudable one, and we are all in sympathy with it; but why the servants of the commission should be penalized and the members of the commission left free from the operation of the Act I cannot see. .1 think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lambton should be accepted in toto, or the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Brandon might get together before the third reading and frame some compromise amendment that would meet the case. Am I right in saying that $50,000 is being appropriated for the purposes of this commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a vote of $15,000 in the main estimates, but I presume there will be a supplementary vote?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is for employing engineers and other experts and collecting information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Largely.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is that information going to be available to the members of the House in the various committees and in the House itself?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It will be available to the public, I think?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The reason I ask that question is that in the Railway Committee

the other day a very important measure, the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Rainy River, was being considered, and one of the members of the committee moved that it be referred to the Conservation Commission for an opinion. The Minister of Public Works, who was present, resented the suggestion, stating that the committee would have to assume the responsibility of the Bill, although a Bill had been sent previously by the Private Bills Committee for a report from this commission. Is the expert knowledge of the commission on questions of this kind going to be available?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That question was fully discussed this afternoon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If some means could be devised whereby we could get the benefit of the work and judgment of the commission during the session, I think it would be more valuable than their annual report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The commission has only been in existence during the last fiscal year, which is just ended, and has not yet made its annual report. I have no hesitation in saying that we ought to be in a position to avail ourselves of any information which the commission gets, and the sooner that is published after it is acquired the better.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Should there not be a provision in the Bill enabling or requiring the commission to do that?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for Brandon states that if the House wants any information from the commission on any subject, the commission would of course at any time obey an order of the House asking for anything of the kind; and, speaking for myself as a member of the commission, I have no doubt that the moment any information is acquired, in a form in which it could be published, the commission would not wait for its annual report to publish it, but would publish it perhaps in the form of a bulletin.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what wre have asked for time and again during this session.. We wanted a report from the commission on the Conmee Bill, but we were told that we had no right to demand or expect anything from them. I think there ought to be some statutory or parliamentary provision by which we w'ould be able to get the benefit of their knowledge at any time on any of these important questions if the House desired it. What the Minister of Agriculture says is, I think, in the right direction.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think we shall have to consider a little the machinery by which that can be obtained, but I do not know that I can get it in such shape as to insert it in this Bill. It is a matter that requires Mr. S. SHARPE.
some consideraion as to the manner and method to be employed by the House or by the committees to get that information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not amend clause 13 and say that the commission shall make its report to the Governor in Council at the end of the fiscal year or at any other time1 when requested to do so by the Governor in Council.


Mr. TURRTFF.: It seems to me that it is of considerable importance that we should be able to get information from the commission outside of the annual report. As I understand the members and officers of this commission will be making themselves familiar with questions concerning the conservation of the natural resources of Canada. Time and again this session in the Railway Committee a great many members have desired to get information that this commission might have had in their office, and I trust the minister will devise a means by which any committee of the House -wish-ins' information from the commission would get it at any time.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I certainly endorse the suggestion advanced by the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). It seems to me that as this commission goes on. they will become more expert and will gather around them a number of men expert in certain lines, who might be asked to furnish expert information on short notice, even although the commission might not have it at the time. Then, too, they would have a great deal of information on hand. A committee of the House might wish for information, and we could simply ask the commission and get a report immediately upon request,. It would be a great advantage to the House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Siftonl is drafting an amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest that the section read that they shall make their report at the end of the year or an interim report on any subject or subjects when requested by the Governor in Council.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has drafted this amendment as an addition:
In addition to the annual report, the commission shall report from time to time to the Senate or to the House of Commons through the Speaker thereof whenever desired to do so by resolution of the Senate or of the House of Commons as may he.
By that method the information would be always available to either House.
Bill reported. '



ROCKY MOUNTAINS PARK OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolytion:

Resolved, that the regulations of the 21st day of June, 1909, intituled: 'Regulations of the National Parks of Canada,' which were passed on the date above mentioned hv His ' Excellency the Governor in Council, under authority of section 4 of the Rocky Mountains Park Act, being chapter 60, R.S.C., 1906, copies of which regulations, as well as the necessary order in council, have been laid before this House, are, in so far as they relate to the Rocky Mountains Park of Canada, approved by this House, in accordance with provisions of subsection 3 of section 5 of the said chapter 60.-Mr. Oliver.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in understanding that this resolution merely legalizes the regulation I hold in my hand? No Bill is necessary to give effect to the resolution?


Mr. OLIVER.: No.
Resolution read the second time, and agreed to.



WATER-POWERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY BELT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 187) to confirm and declare the rights of the Crown with re spect to water and water-power, and relating to the diversion, acquisition and use of water in the railway belt, in British Columbia-Mr. Oliver-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1; this Act may be cited as the Railway Belt Water Act
Thomas Simpson Sproule: That means that it applies to no other locality than the railway belt? It does not apply to any other portion of the province or territory?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Will the minister explain the general purpose of the Bill?


Frank Oliver: Yes, the Bill, as was said a moment ago, and as implied by the title, affects what is called the railway belt of the province of British Columbia. But it affects also an area of three and a half million acres of land in. what is called the Peace river block. That is, it affects the whole of certain lands, which, under agreement between the province of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada were granted by' the province to the Dominion in connection with the construction! of the Canadian Pacific railway. The administration of these lands thus rests upon the Dominion instead of upon the. province in which they were situated. During many years it was taken for granted that, while the land was administered by the Dominion, the wTater was controlled and administered by t.he province. Under that supposition, the general legislation of the province regarding water and water rights was applicable to
the railway belt, and grants were issued from time to time by the province of rights to water within the railway belt. While the right of the province was always assumed to exist in regard to water there was always a question as io whether it really did or did not exist, and so, in the case of some grants that were made by the provincial government, of rights to water within the railway belt, the grantees, in order to- make themselves secure, while they got the grant from the provincial government, got a quit claim from the Dominion government of any rights that the Dominion might possess. The_ question as to whether the right lay m the province or in the Dominion, however, was brought to an issue by a certain case at law which was begun some years ago, and in regard to which iudgment was given by the Exchequer Court in May, 1909. By the judgment of. the Exchequer Court, the water in the railway belt was vested in the Crown in the right of the. Dominion not in the right of the province. Of course the decision of the Exchequer Court was appealed, but it has since been upheld by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ottawa. It is, of course, to be expected that this decision will be again appealed and carried to the Privy Council. When the decision of the Privy Council is rendered, of course the matter will be considered settled^ and the right to the water will be considered finally vested either in the Dominion or in the province as the case may be. Inasmuch as rights to water in the railway belt had been issued by the province during a long period of years, and that at the end of that period the courts have declared that the rights did not rest with the province but with the Dominion the grants which had been given by the provincial government are grants without valid authority. Consequently, what may be called a chaotic condition exists in the railway belt in regard to water rights. Rights which were granted by the province have been invalidated by this decision of the courts, and as the Dominion has not undertaken to grant any rights, those who have held legal rights to the use of water for many years now find that their right to that water is subject to question at law. This is a condition which it is undesirable to continue. In everybody's interest, it is desirable that there should be a validating of existing rights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister think it the part, of wisdom to pass legislation for that purpose during the time when the question is before the courts?


Frank Oliver: Of course, if anything better can be done, it would be better not

to pass this legislation. But there are very large and important interests


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the very reason why you should not disturb them.


Frank Oliver: We do not want to disturb them, but they are disturbed by the decision of the courts. What we want is to give them a legal standing, to carry their position forward at any rate until the final decision of the Privy Council has been given.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Is the Bill simply to validate, grants already issued by the province, or will it interfere with the case that is going before the courts?


Frank Oliver: No.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: It does not go further?


Frank Oliver: No, it is not intended to interfere with any matter in litigation, that is, it is not intended to affect one way or the other any matter in litigation; but unless there is such legislation as this there is no basis for litigation.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I do not like to ask this,, but not being a lawyer myself, and the member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) who went home for his Easter holidays and will be back to-night, and also the member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard), both lawyers, will be back to-night, I would suggest that the minister allow this Bill to stand until they arrive, for I am sure they would like to discuss it.


Frank Oliver: I have already arranged not to press the Bill through committee, but I was anxious to get it into committee, to explain its provisions in committee, and have it discussed in a preliminary way. Then I propose to leave it until those hon. gentlemen are present who are more deeply interested in the subject. As I was saying, we want to provide for a condition which exists for the time being. These rights which have been brought into a condition of uncertainty by the decision of the court, are of large financial importance, and it is not a sound policy that great interests should remain without legal standing, even for the space of a few months, when the authority of parliament is sufficient to cure that condition. One purpose of the Bill is to validate for the time being rights which were granted, but the foundation of which has been taken away by the decision of the court. The other purpose of the Bill is to enable the granting of new rights under the authority of the Dominion, so lcng as the authority rests in the Dominion, so that the development of water-power and water-rights in the belt will not be tied up or affected, pending a final decision of the Mr. OLIVER.
Privy Council. Briefly, the purpose of the Bill is to relieve a deadlock in the situation in regard to water-rights in the railway belt of the province of British Columbia, resulting from the decision of the court, and pending a final decision by the Privy Council.
Progress reported.



VOLUNTEER BOUNTY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 163) to amend the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908. He said: The Bill contains practically only one provision, it is a provision to allow the extension of one year for the location of bounty warrants, the issue of which was authorized under the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908. Under that Act the location of bounty warrants was authorized up to the end of 1910. The Act was passed in 1908, and the rights under it expire at the end of 1910. As the persons who were entitled to this bounty were scattered all over the world, you might say, it was a considerable time before they all heard of the rights that had been accorded them under the Act. As it took a considerable time in some cases to establish their rights, it has been felt that the time allowed for the exercise of those rights was at least not more than enough to do justice to the case. At the same time it must be admitted that there was sufficient time if reasonable energy had been used on the part of all parties interested. On the other hand, there was this precedent which was present in the minds of many of those who were interested, that in no previous case had the right to bounties which were granted by parliament been terminated at the end of the first term of the grant. In the case of the volunteers of the first, second and third Red river expeditions, and in the case of the volunteers of 1885, the rights which were terminable on a certain date were extended from year to year by further Acts of parliament, and in every case there was a number of extensions, so that when the time given for location was so comparatively short and when the beneficiaries were so widely scattered it was felt that it was perhaps hardly fair, that, there having been such precedent for an extension of time, there should be no extension of time in this case.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you not make it 1912 instead of 1911? There are only nine months until 1911. It is a very short time.


Frank Oliver: The request was made by a number of volunteers for an extension of time until the end of 1912; that is a further extension of two years. Against that the view is taken that it is not sound policy to

allow this privilege for any longer time than is absolutely necessary, and we agreed to ask parliament for an extension of one year chiefly for the purpose of removing any claim of hardship that might possibly exist and yet give no longer time than was absolutely necessary to enable the grantees to get the full benefits of their grants.


Samuel Hughes: What is the meaning of section 4?


Frank Oliver: For that reason the Bill asks merely for an extension of time for a period of one year. The amendment that I have spoken of is found in sections 2 and 3. Section 4 is a minor provision, and yet it is perhaps well that it should be ex^ plained. When the actual grant was issued, in some cases it was lost, and there is no provision for the re-issuing of any lost scrip. At the same time it is felt that if there had been an actual loss, the person who was entitled should not suffer if the loss could be proven in order to protect all interests. While the person who was entitled to this scrip was allowed to make entry for the amount of land that the scrip called for, before he was allowed to do so he was required to put up a bond with the department to the amount of $3,000 as security in case the scrip should actually turn up and its location be demanded by some person else. A guarantee company would charge a considerable amount of money as a consideration for putting up a bond of $3,000. It was felt that if we were going to extend the time for the location of this scrip, that is if we were going to lengthen the period during which this scrip shall be of value, that lengthening of the period was placing an added burden upon the person who had given the bond, so that instead of carrying the bond until the end of 1910 he would be compelled to carry it until the end of 1911, and we thought it was not fair that he should be required to carry the bond beyond the time for which the scrip was originally valid. So, by section 4 of the Act, we provide that in the specific cases in which the scrip has been lost and a bond has been put up with the department, the particular scrips mentioned in the schedule on the back of the Bill are not valid after the end of 1910. The provision in section 5 is to get over a flaw which occurred in the drafting of the Act passed in 1908 by which there was a contradiction in terms. While the Bill declared that the rights should only be in accordance with the Homestead Act, there was certain wording which seemed to indicate that the right oi locating under the Act did not require to be exercised until the end of the year 1910. As there was a contradiction in terms of the Act the department administered it in accordance with what was believed to be sound public policy, and in accordance with 203 ,
the intent of parliament. Therefore, it was administered in accordance with the terms of the Homestead Act. Occupancy of the land was insisted upon within six months after the date of entry. Under an order in council, before the scrip was granted an agreement was signed by the grantee that he would conform to that requirement, and section 5 of this Act is- for the purpose of validating that order in council. These are the three provisions of the Bill, one of major importance, extending the time for location of the scrip for one year until the end of 1911, the other two of minor importance, one arising out of the administration, providing for certain accidents which have occurred, and the third curing an error in the wording of the original Act.


Richard Blain: May I ask the minister how many volunteers have taken advantage of the bounty, and how many it is expected will take advantage of it before its expiration? I may say that there is some criticism in the press, and some circulars have been issued, stating that this extension of time is more in the interest of the speculator in this land than in that of the volunteer. No doubt all this information has been communicated to the minister. Perhaps he would be good enough to state to the committee whether, in his opinion, this extension is more in the interest of the volunteer or the speculator?


Frank Oliver: The answer depends on how many of these grants still remain to the benefit of the volunteer and how many have passed out of his hands into the hands of the speculator. If more than half are in the hands of the speculator the extension will certainly benefit the speculator more than the volunteers. If some are still in the hands of the volunteers it will certainly benefit the volunteers more than the speculators. However, that was not a feature of the case that was considered. The desire was that the volunteer should receive the full benefit that it was intended he should receive, and if he retains his scrip, whether he was in the majority or in the minority, our desire was that he should get the full benefit. That was the case that was pressed upon us by the representatives of the volunteers that called upon the government. In the original Bill the principle was accepted by the House that the person who acquired the scrip from the volunteer should stand in exactly the same position as to his rights as the volunteer himself. It. was the interest of the volunteer that it should be so, it was the will of parliament it should be so, and parliament having so decided in the interest of the volunteer the government in preparing the Bill did not draw any distinction between the scrip, which was still in the hands of the volunteers, and the scrip



which had passed out of their hands into the hands of speculators.


Samuel Hughes: When the Bill was introduced I drew the attention of the minister to that aspect of the case. These young volunteers had almost given up hope of getting scrip, because year after year excuse was given by the government: first they were not sure whether they would retain control of the Dominion lands when the provinces were established, and having retained control the government for years hesitated before they issued the scrip. Had the volunteers known when they returned from South Africa in 1900 to 1902, that the scrip would be issued in 1908, or had it been known in 1908 that they would have had until 1910 to settle on the homesteads, they would have laid up some money to enable them to make a start. But, they were only given to the end of 1910 when the scrip was issued, and many of them being unable to raise the necessary funds to go to their homesteads by that date, they sold their scrip at a sacrifice to these dealers all over the country, who like all other dealers, were some of them honest and some most unscrupulous. A number of these volunteers were practically swindled out of this scrip by these dealers. It would be a scandal to give these speculators the advantage of this extension of time provided for in the Bill. If any advantage is to accrue to any one it should accrue to the volunteer who sold this scrip. The volunteer who is not yet located should get two years extension, but the speculator should not be entitled to any advantage. He beat the volunteers -why in this very city one of these speculators got a young man to sell him the scrip for $10, and the Minister of Militia took the precaution to get the Minister of the Interior to provide in the Act that any agreement for the sale of the scrip before it was issued should be cancelled. That was done to protect the volunteers. It is very easy to provide that the speculator shall not get this advantage by adding a clause to that effect to the Bill. There is another aspect of the case to which I wish to call attention. Unfortunately two or three of these young fellows died on the way to South Africa, and in the case of one who died in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, his friends received the scrip, but it was refused to the friends of others, the excuse being given that in the first place the scrip was issued without understanding the technicalities of the law. I hold that as the minister granted the scrip in one case he is in duty bound to do it in the others, and if the law does not permit him to, he should have the law changed. I also maintain that the men who enlisted and went to Halifax, and through accident or illness were prevented from going to the seat of war, are entitled to the scrip. Then again, Mr. OLIVER.
I cannot understand why the civil surgeons did not get scrip. In the first place I do not know why the civil surgeons were not enrolled, because in the columns I had anything to do with they were all enrolled. However, in many localities, the civil surgeons remained civil surgeons to the end of the war. But, they were in the thick of the fight, and they are, in my opinion, absolutely entitled to scrip. Again, I say to the minister, that it would be a scandal to give this extension of time to the speculator, who practically got the scrip for nothing from the volunteers. I know two or three cases where the boys borrowed money and went out to settle, but in other cases they were not so fortunate, and were obliged to sell the scrip at whatever was considered to be the market value. Again I say that the speculators should not be allowed to still further profit at the expense of the volunteers.


Adam Brown Crosby: I hold that the men who garrisoned the city of Halifax before any volunteers were sent out to South Africa from Canada, and who took the place of the Imperial troops to allow them to go to South Africa, are entitled to scrip. These men enlisted as soldiers of the King and they could be sent to South Africa at any moment, and are entitled to consideration. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister last ye'ar, and I hope that tonight he will be able to tell us that the men who garrisoned Halifax will get their scrip the same as the others.


Mr. BURRELL.: Some time ago the minister told me that he was considering whether he would open a portion of the railway belt for location under this scrip. I would be glad to know if he has yet reached a decision on that point.


Frank Oliver: Nothing has been done in that direction. Provision is not made in either the Bounty Act, or the Dominion Lands Act for location within the railway belt, and I hardly think that it would be in the interest of settlement in the railway belt that such a provision should be made. There are some 7,000 of these grants which call for 320 acres of land each, and it seems to me that the injury, may I say, that is done on the prairies, where the land exists in millions of acres, is so serious from the establishment of this number of special grants, that if it were transferred to the limited area of the railway belt of British Columbia, I am afraid that it would tend against the development of the railway belt to a degree that would be very injurious to the interests of the province. I shall be quite prepared to discuss the matter at a later date, though I may say that it is not involved in any way in this Bill.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he did not give out the statement last year, when this House was in session, that there would be no extension of time.


Frank Oliver: Not that I have any remembrance of. .


Glenlyon Campbell: I regret that the minister has such a short memory. I would like further to know what reasons there are at the present time for extending the time. I object to that, at any rate with regard to scrip held by speculators. I think it is wrong in every sense of the word. I believe it is entirely justifiable that the men who went to South Africa and took their chances for the sake of the old flag, should be allowed all the opportunity possible to take advantage of the concession granted them by the government; but the speculators, as everybody knows, a3 the minister himself knows, bought the rights from these volunteers for a nominal sum; and I think it is a shame to enable these men to enrich themselves at the expense of the volunteers, and of this country by changing the law in this way. I know of my own knowledge that no later than January last a certain speculator of Winnipeg, representing the old grafting bunch there, came to Ottawa, interviewed this government, and then telegraphed to a broker in Winnipeg: Buy up all the scrip you can, at whatever price you can get it.' Scrip was bought at $750-320 acres of land for less than $2.50 an acre. I strongly object to that sort of thing, not because I happen to be on one side of the House, and my hon. friend on the other side, but I object to it as a matter of right and wrong. Protect the volunteers, and the people of Canada, but do not play into the hands of speculators. As I do not wish to detain the House, I will leave whatever other remarks I have to make until we go into Committee of the Whole on the Bill.


Mr. STEWART.: I would like to say a word on behalf of those volunteers who lost their lives at sea on the way to South Africa. In Hamilton there are two widows whose sons, the only support they had volunteered and started for South Africa. One of them died on the way, and was buried at sea; the other died after he had landed in South Africa, and was buried there. These widows I know to be very much in need of support, and this grant would be of very great assistance tojhem. When the Act was passed I do not believe it was the intention to leave out those volunteers who died at sea. I have spoken to some of the ministers on the subject, and they have practically admitted that it was a mistake to put through the Act in 203*
that form. I appeal to the minister to take into consideration these cases. There is no good argument why the grant should not be made to those who died at sea; they practically did as much as those who went to South Africa, and fought and came back. I do not think anybody will object to this, as it is only fair, and I would like the minister to add a clause to the Bill providing for cases of this kind.


Mr. ROCHE.: Few of us, especially from the west, have not received letters, and petitions from public bodies, and individuals opposing this Bill. Grain Growers' Associations all through Manitoba have passed resolutions condemnatory of such an extension of time. The Grain Growers' ' Guide,' the official organ of the grain growers of Manitoba, contains the following strong article condemning Ithe extension of time as a crowd of speculators will be the beneficiaries. The article is as follows:
Hon. Frank Oliver has introduced a Bill into the House of Commons to extend the time for settlement duties to begin on South African scrip until the end of 1911. This action is taken by Mr. Oliver despite the vigorous protests made by western farmers' associations. He knows that the scrip is now held by speculators and that his Bill will simply be a means of robbing western farmers still further. It is hard to understand how Mr. Oliver, with his eyes wide open, can take the part of the land grabbers against the bona fide farmers of the west. It begins to look as though the interests of the people were regarded very lightly at Ottawa. At the rate things are going a farmer will have to contribute more largely than ever to the support of the wealthy and privileged classes. Mr. Oliver is Minister of the Interior and is supposed to be looking after the interests of the settlers in the west. Instead of that he seems to be promoting legislation in the interests of the land grabbers.
This is a pointed and strong expression, no doubt elicited by the fact that these protests must have been sent to the Minister of the Interior, and his department, and apparently no attention has been paid to them. The principal reason advanced by the minister is that a precedent has been established in other land grants. I am not conversant with the conditions of other land grants, but present day conditions cannot be compared with conditions when the other grants were made. Immigrants are coming in by thousands; in a few years we will have little good land left for free homesteading purposes, and the speculators will utilize the scrips for their own aggrandisement, and to the disadvantage of the bona fide settler. It has been argued that if an extension of time is refused, all the grants will be placed on the market at the same time, causing a fall in price. If you discriminate, and allow the extension

only to the veterans who hold their land this will be obviated, whereas if there is an extension to include all grants, the prices will be enhanced, and the speculators will be the beneficiaries. I have seen it stated in a Winnipeg paper that since the Bill was introduced there has been a rise in the value of these land grants, and if the Bill passes there will be a further rise. At a meeting of the Grain Growers' Association at Shoal lake the other day a resolution was about to be put against the granting of an extension of time, but a prominent friend of gentlemen opposite asked the meeting not to pass the resolution saying it would not be necessary, because they had the assurance of the Prime Minister that no extension would he granted. By reason of that statement the resolution was not passed. I will not say such a promise was made, but that information, wherever obtained, was the means of heading off that resolution. We object to the speculator being the chief beneficiary as he would be if the Bill passed in its present form.


Mr. NESBITT.: In what way would it rob the farmers of the west if this extension were made?


William Roche: Some of the farmers are themselves desirous of getting the scrip as bona fide settlers, and if this Bill passes the price will be so enhanced that it will be beyond their reach. The speculator will not settle on the land, hut many farmers would like to get the lands, and this will put them beyond their reach.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would they not he speculators if they did?


William Roche: No, they would settle on the lands or purchase them for their sons.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If I had scrip I would have to place somebody on the land.


William Roche: If the hon. gentleman was trafficking in this it would not be either to locate some one or to settle there himself.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Suppose I were.


William Roche: You can suppose whatever you like, but the ordinary speculator is not putting any one on the land.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Men whom I know who have bought scrip have put people on the land.


William Oscar Sealey: There are two sides to the question, and the pressure has not all been from the speculator. I know of two cases in Wentworth of people who were unable to accumulate a sufficient fund to settle on the land, and who would be obliged to sell out at a very small price if they could not have an extension until they could accumulate a sufficient fund to go on the land.


William Roche: 


Glenlyon Campbell: We have no objection to that.


William Oscar Sealey: I fancy that a quite large percentage of the urgency for this extension has come from that source, and so far as I know none has come from the speculative side of the question. I think the minister's action is to meet the case largely of the genuine volunteer who has not been able so far to accumulate enough to settle. I think the speculative class is small compared to the bona fide volunteer who wishes to settle.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am not interested in scrip, I have never bought any because I have never had the money to buy it, but at the same time I know a number of young men who have scrip who have not sold it to speculators, but would be willing to sell it for a satisfactory price. If the extension would enhance the value the probabilities are that the original holder would also benefit as much as the so-called speculator. A few men from our section went to South Africa, and I do not know of any case where they were in any way defrauded about their scrip. A good many in my opinion got full value for their scrip, and the men who bought the scrip have not been able to get men to go on the land and locate for them. I know that they have been endeavouring, some of them very earnestly, to get men to go out and locate on the land. They personally do not want to go. For my part, I am not so much down on the so-called speculator. There is a speculation in everything we do, if we apply it in that way. I think there is nobody here who would not be ready to buy a lot in the city of Ottawa and sell it for an advance in price. I do not see why the man who bought this land from the young man who refused to locate on it should not have the same opportunity to get even with the money he has expended as anybody else. There is too much agitation against so-called speculation, but I do not know any gentlemen who are not perfectly willing to take an advance in price on anything they happen to buy, from a steer to a farm.


Mr. MACDONALD.: There are, as my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has said, two sides to this question. Hon. members on the other side should remember that when the Act was passed, everybody in the House and country contemplated that a very large number of young men who went to South Africa, would not go to the Northwest to settle. Indeed, many hon. members -would not have supported the Bill if they had thought that many of these men would remove from the places in which they resided. It was expected that a large number of these young men in the east would dispose of their rights and receive the money. I was one of those

who pressed upon the minister the importance of extending the time, and I spoke particularly on behalf of at least four young men in my own country entitled to receive this scrip, who had not made the location and were not in a position to get a title. 1 say that these young men had a perfect right to have this extension given.


Glenlyon Campbell: We all agree with you.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: But there is no good in agreeing that there shall be an extension," and at the same time preventing the sale of the scrip at a figure that will give the owner as much as he ought to get out of it. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) made it clear that his object is to lessen the value of the scrip in the hands of the bona fide veterans. I do not think that the House will agree with that. It may be that some gentlemen in the west would prefer to get this land cheaper than, it would be possible to get it with the whole Dominion in competition for it, including the bona fide speculator, as the hon. member for North Oxford has said I think the men to be first considered are the boys who went to South Africa, and I think the solution of this whole thing is to keep in mind the idea that they should get as much out of it as they can. I think there can be no reasonable objection to the extension. Some of these young men waited, thinking that they could go out, thinking that home conditions would permit of their going. I think it would be unreasonable to say that no extension shall tie given, and still more unreasonable to give the extension, and at the same time impair the value of the scrip.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I agree that we should not do anything to impair the value of the scrip in the hands of the volunteer, who originally got it, and whom parliament intended should be benefited. But, if I understood the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hnghes), his proposition was to deny the benefits of this Bill to scrip bought by people for speculative purposes before the passing of this Bill. And in that I agree with him. In answer to the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I would point out that, with regard to scrip already sold, the volunteer got the value of that scrip with its standing restrictions and limitations. If that scrip had been good for an additional .year, it would have been worth more money to the man who bought it-he -would have had larger opportunity. But the volunteer got just what it was worth as scrip giving the limited right to locate before the end of 1910. Now, this measure is going to add value to that, scrip by giving this extension of a year. That value ought to go to the volunteer who holds his scrip and wants to sell it. The day after this Bill is passed,
he ought to be able to sell it on the basis of the extended time. But I do not see why we should allow legislation to give to the man who bought the scrip for speculative purposes a greater value than he bought, none of that added value inuring in any way to the benefit of the man who sold it. If the volunteer had known that the time was going to be extended for a year, he could have sold his scrip at a higher figure. The country is- coming now to the rescue of the .man who bought the scrip with the knowledge that the period for location would run out at the end of this year, and paid a price accordingly. We are going to make him a present of an advanced value that will not benefit the volunteer. It would not be a difficult thing to make the amendment suggested. There is a section in the Act restricting its application with regard to particular cases mentioned in the schedule. The amendment could be made by introducing into the fourth section after the word * Act ' in the second line these words:
Or any bounty certificate that has been, prior to the passing of this Act, sold or transferred to any person acquiring the same for purposes of speculation or re-sale.
This would simply except cases where parties have bought this scrip as terminable at the end of the year. The expression ' for purposes of speculation or resale ' are introduced so as to make the exception inapplicable in case the volunteer has given his scrip to his children, or to a relative gratuitously. The holder of the scrip in such a case ought not to be prevented from getting all that is coming to him. But I do not think we ought to legislate in such a way as to give the speculator more than he bought and paid for.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN.: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Stewart), and the two cases of real hardship that he mentioned. These cases are ones for which, unfortunately, provision was not made in the original Bill. And, as the Bill before us simply provides for an extension of the time under the Act, for locating the scrip, such cases as the hon. member referred to cannot be taken into account at this time. With regard to the application of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby), he seems ts ask on behalf of men who remained in Halifax while others went out to fight the battles of the empire in South Africa. There was a point made by the-hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) with Tespect to the value of the scrip that was being sold, and he seemed to convey the idea that it was being sold for $2 per acre, and that carried the right to get 320 acres. I understand that the South African Volunteer Bounty Act carries the

right to locate 320 acres, but the man who locates it must go and perform homestead duty on the land. Now I am in favour of the Bill for the reason that there has been, particularly throughout the country from which I come, a general sentiment during the'past year that the time for the location of South African scrip would be extended. To draw a distinction between men who are holding scrip for speculative purposes', and men who will actually locate on the land, and live on it, and perform their residence duties, I think is impossible. I know a number of men who live near the city of Regina, farmers who have already homesteaded there, and who have bought that scrip for the purpose of locating, and going actually on the land. If a man does not locate on it before the end of this year, he would come under the head of what some hon. gentlemen are pleased to call speculators. I submit that those farmers who have bought that scrip honestly in open market are just as much entitled to consideration as the men who were original holders, and are still holding the scrip. Like the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), I have seen the resolution passed by the Western Grain Growers, though I have not had any representations made by them to me in opposition to the Bill as proposed. I have only had one letter protesting against an extension of time proposed in the Bill. It is quite true that the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' convention at Prince Albert did pass a resolution opposing an extension of time on the ground that the scrip had gradually drifted into the hands of speculators. I must say that I know in my vicinity some men who have bought scrip, and are holding it for speculative purposes, but they bought the scrip honourably in open market, and I do not see why they should not be entitled to consideration. I have had representations made to me asking for an extension of time. There is a South African volunteer association of Canada which sent out petitions for an extension of time, not to the end of 1911, but to the end of 1912. They do not ask that they alone be granted an extension of time, they do not ask that speculators be excepted from the Bill, but they ask for an extension of time generally. I have before me a copy of the petition, and one of the arguments used in it appears to be a very reasonable one. It says:
Unless the time is extended a premium will foe put upon speculation, and instead of the volunteer reaping the benefit of the grant he will foe forced in every case where he cannot arrange to make entry during the year 1909 to sacrifice his right and assign it for whatever unay foe offered at a time when the speculator in scrip is able to force a sale at a depreciation.


Mr.  W. M.@: It seems to me there is considerable force in that argument, which is used by the volunteers themselves. If they do not get an extension they will be forced to sell their scrip at a depreciated value, because many of these men are not in a position to perform their settlement duties.


Mr. BEATTIE.: If the case mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton is correct, a great injury would be done to_ these two men. He states that two families have lost a son each. Now, those men were passed by the doctor as good, healthy men, they started on the trip to South Africa, but Providene did not permit them to get there, and they died at sea. I think those men are just as much entitled to scrip as any man who arrived there and fought on the battlefield. They went there for the purpose of doing their duty, and had they arrived there no doubt they would have done their duty. I think a great injury will be done to the families of those two men if scrip is not granted to them. I look upon those two men as just as deserving as any men who were shot on the battlefields. If scrip is not granted to those two families more injury will be done to them than by extending the time in favour of any other persons. I hope tfte minister will take these two cases into his favourable consideration.


John Herron: I hope when the Bill reaches the committee stage that the minister will favourably consider the extension of these privileges to those men who enlisted and left their homes for the purpose of going to South Africa, but who, through accident or illness, became invalided. I think their legal representatives or nearest of kin should be entitled to the same consideration as those wrho served in South Africa and returned. In particular, I think that any man who enlisted in a regular way, who started out to perform his duties, who loyally obeyed orders, and was injured while doing his duty, should receive all the benefits of the Act. I think there are only a few cases of that kind, probably not more than a dozen, in the whole of Canada. I have only heard of two or three cases of that kind, and I hope the minister will consider them favourably.


Mr. WALLACE.: Is this the last extension there will be of this Volunteer Bounty Act?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that question. There is no extension yet, nor will there be an extension unless parliament should agree to the Bill which I now present to it. If my hon. friend wants my own view, I would say, certainly not, I would not think favourably of any further extension.


Thomas George Wallace: I think this Bill is rather unfair to a certain number of men who had to sell their scrip, and who had no knowledge that the time was going to be extended, while some others held on to it. I think the minister .should say definitely now whether this is the last extension or not. It is only fair that the man who holds scrip now should know whether this is the last extension. The government must have some knowledge of that, and they should say now what their intention is.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and" House went into committee thereon.
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We propose in the morning to take concurrence on the re-maiijing items of the supplementary estimates for the year just closed, including the special Supply Bill, and confined entirely to those items. That, I expect, will only take a short time, and after that, the Race Track Bill, I understand, will have precedence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 6, 1910.