1910-03-17

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 166) respecting Insurance.- Mr. Fielding.
Bill (No. 167) to incorporate the Montreal, Kapitachuan and Rupert's Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Gervais.
Bill (No. 168) respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Mac-donell.
Bill (No. 169) respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company. -Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Timiskam-ing.-Mr. George Gordon.
Bill (No. 171) respecting the Dominion Bank.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 172) respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Black.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I ask leave to lay on the table the report of the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works, the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, and the chief engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, upon the original petitions and plans submitted by the -St. Lawrence Power Company. This is dated Ottawa, December 15, 1908. I lay this on the table at the suggestion of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson) and, as there is 'great interest taken in this matter, and as the original report of the amended plans has been placed on record in 'Hansard', I will read the present report that it may appear in 'Hansard' also:
Department of Public Works of Canada, Chief Engineer's Office,
Ottawa, December 15, 1908.
Sir,-We have the honour to report in regard to the petition of the St. Lawrence Power Company, Limited, to His Excellency 178
the Governor General in Council, for permission to erect certain dams on the St. Lawrence river, as follows:-
No detail plans are before us and our report is predicated upon the information submitted.
First. A rough computation shows that it is possible to develop, approximately, 800,000 effective horse-power by the proposed dams; and that the creation of such an enormous quantity of power would be of great importance to the district in question, as experience has shown that in the proximity of such large developments of power, great industries are created; towns and cities grow up. The objections which arise, however, are somewhat serious.
First. The plans as submitted, contemplate interfering with the present Cornwall canal, and this, we take it, cannot be tolerated. The integrity of the Cornwall canal must be preserved, without any alteration whatever, and consequently, the plans submitted would have to be modified so as to preserve intact this most important navigation channel. It is true that the company contemplate the building of a separate lock above lock 20 to enter into the proposed new level, but such a lock requires navigation to pass along parallel with an over-flow weir darn which, necessarily, must take care of the great bulk of the discharge of the river; in consequence thereof, the side currents would be so great as to render navigation exceedingly dangerous. Furthermore, an accident to any of the dams would throw the whole system of navigation out of gear for a long time.	.
Second. The plans contemplate a single lift-lock on the American side, in the south channel, to take the place of the Cornwall canal. The channel from this proposed lock to the foot of Cornwall island has such a swift current and is so crooked as to render such a route dangerous; and it is not, therefore, in our opinion, a suitably located lock, having regard to the difficulties named. It does not seem needful at this stage to point out a more suitable site where a lock might be had, and where the difficulties of navigation would be lessened.
Third. The upper dam provided for in the proposed plans, running from the Long Sault island to the upper end of Barnhart island, is practically parallel with the thread of the stream, and is intended to be an over-flow weir, with ten stony sluices at each end of it. There can be no doubt whatever that this dam will, of necessity, have to take care of the regulation of the level of the river above it. The lower dam at the easterly end, which is in the form of a letter ' A,' connecting the mainland on the Ontario' side with the lower end of Barnhart island, would not, in our opinion, be of material assistance for regulation.
Every advantage has been taken of the natural channels for the purpose of providing an economical development of the power, practically closing up the entire Canadian channel by this means and throwing the whole of the discharge into the American channel on the south of Barnhart island, the



water to the north of Barnhart island being thrown into a pool.
The discharge over the upper dam in conjunction with the stony sluices would be of such volume, and the cross current so great, as to make it risky for a steamer to attempt to pass parallel with this dam, through the channel south of Sheik's island.
Fourth. The effect of ice and frazil on the up-stream end of the river is one upon which it would be most difficult to express any decided opinion. There is no doubt that frazil forms in the Galops rapids, and the Rapide du Plat; and that a large mass of more or less broken ice floats down the river continuously. The channel in the vicinity of Broekville is usually kept open for the ferry; but after the dam in question has been built, a field of board ice would be formed above its crest), and it will be difficult to say where the small cakes of ice, frazil, and anchor ice would go, if it did not fill up the space above the dam. The report of the Montreal Flood Commission of 1889, states that on the 8th of April two or three feet of board ice and from ten to twenty-four feet of frazil were found; that between the Lachine rapids and Var-ennes, in March, 1S87, a distance of twenty miles, there were 99,216,000 cubic yards of field ice, and 252,601,000 cubic yards of frazil, and water amounting to 467,212,000 cubic yards, or a total of 819,029,000 cubic yards; which gives some little idea of the relative proportions.
The conditions for the creation of frazil were greater in the district just above described, than in the one we are considering. Nevertheless, there is ample opportunity for the creation of great quantities of frazil and broken fragments of solid ice at the points named, so that the up-stream eflect likely to be created is something that no one could very well predict, but would, no doubt, be approximately similar to that found by the commission, with resulting damage at the foot of the Rapide du Plat and the Galops.
Fifth. The Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company run a daily line of steamers from Kingston to Montreal, and do a fairly large tourist business, which, we understand, is increasing. One of the features of the trip is running the Long Sault rapids, which, of course, would be destroyed by the proposed dam. Aside from this we question if a boat could make the trip from Kingston to Montreal, in a day, provided she had to be locked through the Cornwall canal or the proposed lock on the American side. Strenuous objections have been raised by the interests in question against the project.
Sixth. The possible destruction of the proposed dam by natural forces, or by the malice of any evil-intentioned person; (an earthquake might be the means of destroying the dam) certainly a very few pounds of dynamite in the hands of an intelligent man would be most disastrous. The volume of water which the dam would contain would be sufficiently great, if liberated in the form of a wave to at any rate destroy the greater portion of the town of Cornwall; certainly the canal, or that portion of it below the dam; and without doubt, the means of flooding Lake St. Francis and a large section of the land Mr. PUGSLEY.
on the river bank protected by the Hungry bay dyke; besides unquestionably the Soulan-ges canal, as well as the villages fronting the river between Lake St. Francis and Lake St. Louis. Whether the effect of such a sudden break would be taken care of in Lake St. Francis and Lake St. Louis, is a question. Experience had on a very much smaller scale would lead one to expect that the damage would be continued on through the lower portion of Montreal, with the possible destruction of the Lachine canal as well.
Seventh. The plans show a very small percentage of development on the Canadian side; we should judge that over eighty per cent (80 per cent) is contemplated to be developed in the United States; and of course, this would be a very unfair distribution of the power in question. In any event, should the project receive consideration, considerable revision of the plans would have to be made, so as to secure a more equitable division of the power development.
Eighth. A vital point in connection with the whole scheme would be that all the plans of the dams, locks, Ac., on the proposed works must be approved in advance by engineers responsible to Canada and to the United States, respectively, and upon which they must agree; the detail of the works in question should be passed upon by the joint approval of engineers from both countries. Whether this is a practical thing to secure we are unable to say, but it is obvious that the interest of Canada is such that no portion of the work in question could be allowed to be gone on with unless it received a most strict examination and inspection by engineers acting for this country. No doubt the Undid States authorities would take a similar attitude with regard to the question, although their interests are trivial compared with ours, on account of the fact that they have so little land on the St. Lawrence below the power in question.
Ninth. No private corporation should be permitted to have under its control the regulation of the height of water in such an important river as the St. Lawrence.
We are, sir,
Your obedient servants,
(Sgd.) EUGENE D. LAFLEUR, Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works, Canada.
(Sgd.) M. J. BUTLER,
Chief Engineer, Department of Railways and Canals.
(Sgd.) WM. P. ANDERSON,
Chief Engineer, Department of Marine and Fisheries.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BEAUPARLANT moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 175) to amend the Civil Service Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. BEAUPARLANT.: Mr. Speaker, the object of thi'3 bill is to make liable to seizure a proportion of the *wages earned by any person employed in any shape, manner or form by the government. There is something intolerable under the present

system. A man earning a dollar and half a day as a labourer, doing sometimes the *most painful work on the street or elsewhere, is liable to have his wages seized if he owes any person, while a public official earning a much larger salary in a much easier way may laugh at his creditors. A few days ago there was lying sick in the hospital a poor man to whom were due three small bills. These bills were presented to the three debtors employed in the public service and earning from $1,200 to $2,000 a year, and not one of them would give even a penny to this poor man. I contend that the _ law should prevent such a denial of justice. I am aware that there are some objections to this legislation, but notwithstanding those objections I believe that the principle of justice and equal rights to all should prevail. I have studied the question somewhat and I intend to speak more fully upon it at the second reading. I contend we ought to end the present system, and in my opinion the best way is to amend the Civil Service Act, chap. 15 of the statute of 1908 by adding section as 4a the following:
All moneys or salaries due or accruing due to any person employed by the government of Canada shall be liable to attachment in each and every province in the Dominion of Canada according to the laws and rules of procedure in force in such province.


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

Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 174) to amend the Railway Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: The House and the public are aware that the legislation of last session providing for the slowing down of trains at level crossings where accidents have occurred within the last ten years, has been a cause of great inconvenience not only to the railway people, but to the travelling public. The commercial travellers and others have objected to the delay caused, and those who are engaged in the receiving and despatching of freight are experiencing great difficulty by having their freight delayed a week or ten days because of this clause which was enacted last year, perhaps hurriedly. The section in the Ac! now reads:
No train shall pass over any highway crossing at rail level at a greater speed than ten milee an hour, if at such crossing an accident has happened subsequent to the first day of January, 1900, by a moving train causing bodily injury or death to a person using such crossing, unless and until such crossing is protected to the satisfaction of the board; and no train shall pass over any highway crossing at rail level at a greater speed than 1781
ten miles an hour in respect of which crossing an order of the board has been made to provide protection for the safety and convenience of the public and which order liae not been complied with.
The Bill which I now move proposes to add in the first line of that clause the words :
If so ordered by the board.
The majority of those crossings where accidents have occurred are crossings at which the train can be seen half a mile both ways, but through carelessness of individuals, possibly through drunkenness, an accident has occurred, and automatically under this section the railway companies have to slow down their trains. The amendment which I propose would give the Railway Board authority to order the railway company to run at slow speed at certain crossings which have been pronounced dangerous, until such time as the crossings are protected. I think this provision will meet with the approval of the House, and my reason for presenting it now is that it may be considered when the Minister of Railways brings down his amendment to the Railway Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
DREDGING-A. & R. LOGGIE.

[Stage Direction]
2.	(a) No.
(b) Caraquet, $3,162.64. Dalhousie, $31,352.50. Loggieville, amount claimed, $10,691.10. Bathurst, amount claimed, $24,710.29; the two latter items are in process of adjustment, the amounts not being admitted by the department as correct.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Campbellton, N.B.
(c)	Nothing paid.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved that tomorrow the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
1.	Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council, may, from time to time, advance and pay to the harbour commissioners of Montreal, hereinafter called the corporation, in addition to the money, if any, heretofore authorized to be advanced to the corporation by the Governor in Council by any Act, and which has not at the date of the passing of any Act founded upon these resolutions been so advanced, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of six million dollars, as are required:-
(a)	to pay off and retire debentures of the corporation of the par value of one hundred thousand dollars, maturing in the year 1910, and,
(b)	to enable the corporation to complete the construction of the terminal facilities of the port of Montreal, for which plans, specifications and estimates have been approved by the Governor in Council, and to construct 6uch additional facilities as are necessary to properly equip the said port, and in respect -of which plans, specifications and estimates shave, previous to advances being made, been approved by the Governor in Council.
2.	That during the period of construction of the terminal facilities mentioned in these resolutions the interest payable on the debentures receivable by the Minister of Finance in exchange for such advances shall be deemed to be money required to complete and to be part of the cost of construction thereof, and such interest may be paid out of the said sum of six million dollars.
3.	That the corporation shall upon any advances being made deposit with the Minister of Finance, debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable half yearly, at the rate of three and one half per centum per annum.
4.	That the principal and interest of any sums advanced under any Act founded on these resolutions shall be payable, subject to the second of these resolutions, out of the revenue of the corporation mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896, and shall be charged thereon as if the sums so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under said chapter 10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER moved that tomorrow the House go into Committee of the' *Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the testing, marking, sale and use of glass-icere used in connection with the testing ot milk, and to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations with respect Mr. PUGSLEY
thereto, and for the impostion of penalties for offences in contravention thereof.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. HAGGART.: Before the orders of the day aTe called I wish to question the government on a matter of some urgency. Some weeks ago, in answer to a question upon the order paper, the answer was given that representations had been made by the bar of Manitoba that there was urgency for the appointment of a judge, and that the arrears of litigation were increasing. Those who are suffering, the profession, and interested litigants, would now hear with respect, any further statement which the government has to make as to when they will take the necessary legislative, or executive action to fill the vacancy.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: This is not by any means the first experience I have had in the short time I have occupied the position of Minister of Justice, in which upon a provincial legislature providing for the appointment of another judge, a desire for great haste has developed on the part of people interested, that the appointment should be made without delay. This judgeship in Manitoba, to which the hon. gentleman alludes, was created, I think, more than fifteen months ago. I may not be exactly accurate as to the time, but certainly it is not of any recent date. It was created by a provincial statute which was to come into force upon its being proclaimed by the provincial government; and having been put on the statute-book of the province in that condition, it so remained without anybody hearing of any grievance or difficulty in regard to the litigation of the province until the 9th of February, of this year, when it was proclaimed, and on the same day I received a telegram from an official of the Manitoba government stating that the Act has been brought into force. Every one knows, I presume, that upon provincial legislation taking place establishing a judgeship, no appointment to that position can be made until the salary is provided. Such an appointment would be very liable to be nugatory if theie were no salary assigned to the position by competent authority. The salary can be attached only by legislation of this parliament, and I would respectfully submit to the consideration of the hon. gentleman that there has not been any undue dela>
since the 9th of February last, on the part of this parliament in passing such legislation, which is a step necessary to be taken before it would even be a proper thing on the part of the government or the Minister of Justice to consider the selecting of an individual to fill this position. I have no doubt that in

due course this parliament will take such legislative action in the premises as to it seems right, but I do think that if the Manitoba legislature, which created this judgeship, or the Manitoba government, which contains the Attorney General of the province who is responsible for the administration of justice in the province, could sit quietly for more than twelve months with this statute on the books inoperative before any action was taken to bring it into force, there should not be any particular outcry if this parliament waits two months before it passes the necessary legislation to make the provincial statute effective.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I wish to ask when I may expect twojretums to orders of this House, one of December 15, and one of November 24. One is in reference to the appointment of a government weigher in the port of Montreal, and the other, I imagine, is in the Department of the Secretary of State.


Mr. FIELDING.: We will have the information looked up.


NEW YORK STATE CANALS.
Mr. GEORGE H. PERLEY.: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the short debate which we had the other day on the New York State canals, I have received a letter from the deputy superintendent of public works at Albany, which I have shown to the Minister of Justice, and which he has suggested should be put on ' Hansard.' Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will read it:


Frederick C.: Stevens, Superintendent.


Winslow M.: Mead, Deputy.
State of New York,
Superintendent of Public Works, Albany, March 15, 1910.
Discrimination against Canadian boats.


Mr.   G@: Perley,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear sir,-I am in receipt of a copy of the House of Commons debate of Friday, March 11, and have noted the discussion which appears on page 5323, with reference to the subject of discrimination against Canadian craft by the New York State canals, and I note with pleasure that the communication which I sent you bearing on this subject under date of February 16, which I endeavoured to have clearly stated all the facts, was placed in tlie records by you.
As additional information I would state that there are no navigable canals in New York State which are not owned and controlled by the state. The Delaware and Hudson canal, which was formerly owned by the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, which later became the Delaware and Hudson Company, operating a system of railways, has; passed out of the hande of the Delaware and Hudson Company, and is not at the present time operated as a canal. There are numerous other small canals in different parts of the State, but these are all power canals in which your government would be in no way interested.
If after your full statement as to the attitude which this department takes there is any' question in any one's mind as to the fair treatment which would be accorded Canadian-owned craft I can only suggest that your Canadian interests put the matter to test by offering Canadian-owned craft for clearance upon the State canals. I can assure you that no discrimination would be shown, but that all that would be required would be compliance with the provisions of section 172, of chapter 13 of the laws of 1909, known as the Canal Law, and whose provisions apply to boats owned in other States of the Union as well as to Canadian craft. Certainly the provisions of the Act referred to are not difficult of compliance.
Yours very truly,


WINSLOW M. MEAD,
[Stage Direction]
Deputy Supt. Public Works-
I understood that the Minister of Justice would have his department look into this, question and report to the House concerning it. I therefore thought that, if agreeable to the minister, this letter should be considered by the department at the same time.

[Stage Direction]
The House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
['The House will be moved into Committee of Supply. We will take up first the remaining items of the supplementary estimates, and after that the Minister of Public Works will continue with his estimates.']
William Stevens Fielding: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution reported-read the first time and the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 173) for granting to His. Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years ending respectively the 31st March. 1910, and the
[Stage Direction]
31st March, 1911. He said: This Bill includes both the items dealt with previously. We did introduce a Supply Bill yesterday, but later withdrew it in order to introduce a Bill in a more comprehensive form this afternoon.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 20) to prevent the introduction or spreading of insects, pests and diseases destructive to vegetation-Mr. Fisher-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. FISHER.: I gave some explanation of this measure at its introduction. On a former occasion, an Act known as the San Jose Scale Act was passed by this parliament for preventing the introduction of that particular pest. That Act has proved effective, but within the last year we have been menaced by some other pests, notably the brown tail moth, which was introduced into the United States from Europe, and has already created a great deal of damage to orchards and trees in that country. Fortunately, only a few have got into the Dominion. Last year we were threatened with an invasion of that pest, and I appealed to the importers of nursery stock to allow their stock to be inspected and any of it destroyed on which the eggs or nests of this moth were discovered. To the credit of our nursery men, they co-operated willingly with the experts of the department. At the same time I had no authority to proceed by Act of parliament, and we were not able to do what I think is right and fair, that is pay compensation to the men whose stock we destroyed. The same condition has obtained this winter. I have had several men out examining the importations of nursery stock, and again the importers showed their willingness to acquiesce in the necessary steps taken in their own interest and that of the country. I consider it necessary, however, that there should be power given the department by parliament to act in this matter, because at any moment any individual importer might refuse to take the steps necessary and we would be powerless to compel him. Such refusal might result in the introduction of the pests and thus render almost completely useless the sacrifices of other people. Under these circumstances, I had this Bill drawn up, after consultation with the law officers and the expert *officers of the department on entomology and botany. I might add that by reason [DOT]of the fact that we never can tell what form these insect menaces will assume, we cannot define in the Bill clearly and dis-Mr. FIELDING.
tinctly the steps necessary to be taken. Certain steps are required to protect us against the San Jose scale and certain others against the brown tail moth, and in the case of other insect pests, we would have again to take different steps. Therefore, I ask that power be given the Governor in Council to define what is necessary to be done and authorize the department to do it. In that respect we have followed very much the line of an Act which has become law in Great Britain recently, and which I believe has worked satisfactorily there.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will this necessitate the appointment of a number of officials at different ports, and if so, how many will be appointed? Will any of the government officials now at these ports be able to undertake the work without making new appointments?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not anticipate the appointment of any officers at the ports of entry. We would have to frame regulations so that we would be notified of the arrival of packages of nursery stock and would then have to send some one to inspect the stock before it was forwarded through the country. We have now stations at which nursery stock is permitted to be imported and fumigated against the San Jose scale. We might have to take some steps, perhaps by proclamation, that in cases where there was danger of the importation or the invasion of an insect, nursery stock from an infected country could only come in at these ports, and then the officers who are now at these ports dealing with the San Jose scale would be able to deal with the nursery stock. Sometimes we might have to send an expert entomologist to a port when occasion arose, but there is no expectation or intention of appointing a large number of officers for this purpose.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot help feeling that the Bill is a step in the right direction.


William Stevens Fielding: It will facilitate the passage of the Supply Bill if I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day .
Progress reported.


THE ROYAL ASSENT.
[Stage Direction]
A message was received from His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General by the gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows;
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of your honourable House, in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate Chamber.

And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that his honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
An Act to amend tlie Inland Revenue Act.
An Act respecting the Phoenix Assurance Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Kamloops and Yellow Head Pass Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.
An Act respecting the West Ontario Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.
An Act respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Saint Maurice Valley Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Columbia and Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Eastern Townships Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Merchants' Bank of Canada Pension Fund.
An Act for the relief of George Robert Buttonsliaw.
An Act for the relief of Hope Eileen Moreland Drinkle.
An Act respecting the Union Life Assurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Merchants and General Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Vancouver and Coast Kootenay Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Seed Control Act.
An Act respecting a patent of the Mond Nickel Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Central Ontario Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Maud Mary Maxwell.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Joseph Gustin McArthur.
An Act to incorporate the Northern Mortgage Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Improved Paper Machinery Company.
An Act to incorporate the London and Lake Erie Railway and Transportation Company.
An Act to incorporate the Congregational Union of Canada.
An Act respecting the Western Canada Power Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.
An Act respecting the St. Clair and Erie Ship Canal Company.
An Act granting .to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1910, and the 31st March, 1911.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 20) to prevent the introduction or speading of insects, pests and diseases destructive to vegetation.-Mr. Fisher.
Mr. BURRELL.: The object of this Bill, as I gather, is to give the Minister of Agriculture greater power to deal with insects and all pests and diseases destructive to vegetation. The Bill, 'by section 10, repeals the San Jose Scale Act of 1898. This Bill gives very much larger powers, is wider in its scope and it is possible that in the exercise of those powers there may be some clash with the provincial jurisdiction. I would, therefore, like rapidly to run over the considerations that one is anxious to put forward with regard to a measure of this kind. About the year 1895 the San Jose scale was first discovered on this continent, or rather in the eastern part of the continent, by Professor Howard, of Washington, and those of us who are interested in commercial horticulture are aware how rapidly this particular insect spread all over the United States and Canada. It was about 1897 or 1898 that the first case was discovered in Canada, not very far from where I lived in the province of Ontario. The second case happened to come under my personal notice about four miles from St. Catharines and it proved that this insect had become established in Ontario. After some discussion, which I do not want to go into now, and after all the information that Professor Howard and other authorities could give with regard to the danger involved in the establishment of an insect of this kind, the government introduced what was called the San Jose Scale Act of 1898. There have been some steps taken to try and control this insect pest by the provincial government of Ontario, and very vigorous measures were adopted which have cost the government of Ontario a great many thousands of dollars since. But the Bill introduced by the government in 1898 dealt

only with this one insect, the San Jose scale, and the operations of the Bill were directed against it in only one way, that is to say, by the inspection of importations of nursery stock at certain points of entry designated by the minister. Therefore, as far as federal powers go. the only method under which they dealt with inspection or with any comprehensive system of inspection with regard to insect pests and diseases was that which I have outlined. This Bill, now before the committee, gives power to inspect and deal with all insects, pests and diseases destructive to vegetation, and it gives wide powers which, if exercised indiscriminately, may perhaps lead to unfortunate results. We have these powers given in sections 5, 6, 7 and 8. The minister may appoint inspectors and other persons to perform this work and may exercise certain other powers which are set out clearly in these four clauses. The minister, under this Bill, would have ample power to deal in a very comprehensive way with this _ matter in any province in the Dominion. I may add that I am aware that the jurisdiction is concurrent, that is to say that while the various provinces have power to deal with all these things, apparently the power lies also equally with the Dominion authorities. Of course, the minister will understand that I am not speaking in any spirit of hostility with reference to Dominion regulations or to the powers given under this or any other Bill, but I just want to make clear to the minister and to the committee what the position is in British Columbia in regard to these various matters. The minister himself is familiar with many of the conditions there. In British Columbia 21 years ago we established what is known as the Board of Horticulture. There was a special Act passed for that purpose and that Board of Horticulture was composed of three members representing the various portions of the province and also having as members the Minister of Agriculture and the deputy minister of agriculture. We have two statutory meetings a year, but during, last year we held about five meetings. The members act in an advisory capacity to the government, that is they advise them on every kind ot question and every piece of legislation with regard to horticultural matters. They formulate and alter regulations from time to time in the best interests of the horticultural industry. We have also established under the authority of the Act and under the authority of the board, fumigation stations, a central inspection office with a chief inspector and something like thirty sub-inspectors. I have been a member of that board for something like four years and I am fairly familiar with its operations and what was aimed at in its Mr. BURRELL.
creation. We have been so careful and so rigid in our methods and in our control of the fruit industry under this Act and under this board that I think I am safe in saying that it has resulted in a cleanliness in our orchards and fruit production that places them second to none on the whole continent. We have followed the practice of systematically inspecting, examining and fumigating nursery stock from any part of the world or from eastern Canada, because, although it is true that the Dominion government has fumigating stations we do not take that as a sufficient safeguard of our own horticultural interests. Then, we also	have a thorough
system of inspecting every tree that comes in because the tree itself may be a medium of danger and infection either by fungus or insect pest. We, also, examine all the fruit which comes in from the Orient, the United States, Australasia, Eastern Canada, or any other point. We met with a great deal of opposition from the wholesale importers of fruit in the establishment of a thorough system of inspection, and that opposition was so strong at times as to be unpleasant. It is not uninteresting to our eastern friends to know that the result of our efforts has been the importation of a better class of fruit than formerly; the growers are not exposed to the same danger of infection, the dealers have been benefited by handling a superior class of fruit, and the consumers get a better quality. The horticultural Board Act has been recently amended so as to increase the membership of the board in recognition of the continually increasing development of the industry in our province. We have appointed several trained inspectors, entomologists and hortieulturalists who have been trained in the eastern colleges, and in this way we have -strengthened very much the machinery with which we are working. As a result of all this, the status of the British Columbia fruit industry is now so high that I do not believe there is another fruit area of equal extent-we have 100,000 acres now under orchard-in America or in the world that is so free from the leading fungus or insect pests. The Minister -of Agriculture has been through our province, and he has had excellent opportunities for seeing our virtues, and perhaps our faults.
I may say that it is a matter of very much regret to us that the minister was not able . to visit one or two of our prominent -districts, such as Kelowna, -of -which he only got a cursory glimpse, for reasons which he himself understands. I regret that all the more, because at Kelowna we have a large acreage under tobacco, and a very interesting tobacco industry there. I think the minister will admit, from his experience in British Columbia, that every word I have said is true, and that we are producing a

remarkably fine commercial product which will hold its own in any market in the world. By the way, there is one little touch I would like to give to the Minister of Agriculture, and I do not think it will do any harm. I quote from a horticultural magazine which has been recently established, the following excerpt from a leading article :
The ' Star ' of December 11, in its report of a meeting of the Pomological and Fruit Growing Society of the province of Quebec, held in the Macdonald College on the 10th ultimo, quotes the Hon. Sydney Fisher as saying that 'the prairies offered a great market for apples, and British Columbia was recognizing this. But the flavour of the British Columbia apple was not to be compared with that of the province of Quebec.'
Of course it is just possible that the Minister of Agriculture regards the British Col umbia apple as so much superior to that of Quebec that it is not to be considered in the same class. But considering that it was a Quebec audience to whom the minister was speaking and that he referred to British Columbia in the negative sense we are forced to conclude that Mr. Fisher, if correctly reported, intended his audience to understand that in his opinion the British Columbia apple was very inferior to that of Quebec.
If one of Mr. Fisher's subordinates were to commit an indiscretion like that he would not only be promptly called to account by the press of the country who knew better, but in all probability he would be severely reprimanded for a breach of etiquette by the minister himself.
Of course, we have to make allowances for the Minister of Agriculture giving an ex parte utterance to an audience in his own province, but as a British Columbian, he cannot expect me to assent to any such heretical doctrine as he lays down there. As a matter of fact, the questions as to the superiority of fruit are in a sense rather dependent upon local conditions in every province, and these local conditions make enormous differences. I venture to think that I could go into one province and take certain samples of fruit and say they were superior to anything produced in another province, and similarly in another province, I could find the result reversed. This, of course, depends altogether on the conditions under which the fruit was grown. I am very certain, however, that the Minister of Agriculture had no ground for making such a sweeping statement as is attributed to him here.


Mr. BLAIN.: Did he say anything about the Ontario apple?


Martin Burrell: That was probably too delicate a question for him to touch. I would like to call the attention of the minister, and of the committee, to what we have done in British Columbia in the matter of inspection and. fumigation, because it will be of interest to the country as a
whole. Under the provincial methods of inspection, from January until May of last year we inspected 660,000 seedlings and grafts, and 250,000 standard trees, and a large amount of mixed nursery stock. Out of this amount we condemned-and the committee will understand that except those which came from eastern Ontario, all were fumigated in the Dominion station- we condemned 12,500 standard fruit trees.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What were they condemned for?


Martin Burrell: I have not the information here to answer that. No doubt some of them would be condemned because of fungus and insect diseases.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is only fair to say that the Dominion fumigation station only fumigates for the San Jose scale and does not pretend in any way to deal with any other disease.


Martin Burrell: I quite understand that, but there is a general feeling that the strength of the fumigation required for the San Jose scale would practically insure safety against all other insects except perhaps the brown-tailed moth.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Unless the hon. gentleman can show that his organization found San Jose scale on the plants that went through the Dominion fumigation station, it is not fair to cast any reflection on the work of that station.


Martin Burrell: I will touch on that point in a moment. From the month of January to October we inspected 96,600 boxes of fruit and condemned 12,200 boxes, and in addition to that, we have also carried the work of inspection to rice, for the weevil, and out of 163,000 sacks of rice we fumigated 14,500. I hope the minister will understand that I am not particularly reflecting on the work of the Dominion fumigation station, except that I would point out that for other reasons (unless a change has been made within the last year) that station has never been satisfactory. To my mind, and to the mind of a great many of our leading fruit growers, the Dominion fumigating station has not been quite up to the mark in the past. We do not want to run any risks in the province of British Columbia, and when we established our fumigating station, we took care to get all the latest methods and improvements to effectually meet the evil, not only in regard to the actual fumigation itself, but also in regard to packing and unpacking, drying out, subjection to frosts, and things of that kind. The actual fumigating room in the Dominion station is 8 by 8, 16 by 8 by 6 by 4 high, and as I think the minister knows, a great part of the platform where the stock is unloaded from the railway cars is exposed and open, and there is

comparatively little room to move along it. The consequence is that only a small quantity can be fumigated at a time in a chamber of that kind. The stock has to be put on the floor, generally in bundles, and fairly tightly packed, and it is pretty hard for the gas to penetrate, in a thoroughly effective wav, all the nursery stock under these conditions. Then there is the further disadvantage of the stock being exposed to drying out, and the difficulty of handling it. The minister apparently did not want to trust us entirely with the duty of fumigating, probably he saw difficulties in the way. However, when we put up our fumigation station we consulted Dr. Willis Johnson the state entomologist of New Jersey. The fumigation station has four rooms. The actual fumigation room was 11 feet by 16 feet by 18 feet. The stock is put on racks, where the fumes penetrate it very freely. The rooms are all air-proof and frost-proof. So that we have a good many advantages in that way. I do not say whether or not we discovered the San Jose scale alive after the stock passed through the Dominion fumigating room, though I think we did. However, we did discover the borers, the aphis and other pests; so that we have had to make a very thorough and systematic inspection of the stock after it nassed the Dominion fumigation station. I do not want to delay the discussion of the Bill now, as it will be taken up later clause by clause. I simply say that we have all this elaborate provincial machinery, and we hope for development on sound lines of our valuable and increasingly valuable fruit industry. 1 have endeavoured to get into as close touch as possible with the leading men connected with the fruit industry in the province, and there is a strong feeling among them that although the jurisdiction is concurrent, we should be very loath to relinquish any of our organization or our methods or our efforts, and we hope that under this Bill, which gives the minister much larger and wider powers, there will not be any clash between the federal and the provincial authorities. I desire to say here that I recognize that the minister, in bringing forward this Bill, is earnestly desirous of coping with anything injurious to the fruit industry of Canada. I frankly make that admission; but I thought it well at this stage to point out -what our general attitude was, so that the minister might give a full explanation of the modus operandi of this measure in order that we should have a clear understanding of it before it went into actual effect.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I appreciate fully the position which the hon. member takes, and I take no exception whatever to any of his statements. In fact, I rather welcome Mr. BURRELL.
them, because I think that his description of what is' being done in British Columbia is one of the best proofs of the advisability of a Bill of this kind being introduced and made applicable to the whole of Canada. I will not delay the House by any reference to my hon. friend's personal opinions of British Columbia fruit, and that of Quebec; but I do not hesitate here, in the face of my hon. friend and others, to maintain the character and quality of the fruit of the province from which I come. I consider the apples of Quebec, as far as quality and flavour are concerned, to be infinitely superior to anything produced not only in British Columbia, but in the whole world.	,


Martin Burrell: I cannot allow that.


Mr. RHODES.: What about Nova Scotia?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not going to make an exception of even Nova Scotia. My hon. friend must not accuse me of having made ad captandum statements to the people of Quebec, because when I was in British Columbia I told the people there that if they obtained great prizes abroad, for their apples, it was only because the fruit of Quebec had not been shown at the same exhibition. I appreciate the quality of the fruit of British Columbia, I recognize the great fruit-growing capabilities of that province, and I congratulate it not only on the quality and beauty of its fruit, but on the fact that in recent years especially the increase in fruit-growing in British Columbia has been enormous, and that its prospects in the near future are still brighter. Under these circumstances I do not hesitate, while standing up for my own province, as far as quality is concerned, to recognize the superior producing character of the great province of British Columbia in regard to actual production. My hon. friend twitted me with not having visited Kelowna. I could not visit every place in the province, and the connections were such that I could not make it convenient to visit Kelowna; but I can assure my hon. friend and the people of Kelowna that I have not forgotten them nor their hospitable intentions, nor their great interest in fruit-growing, and tobacco-growing, and I hope very soon to give an evidence of the value I place on their tobacco-growing work by aiding it in some substantial way. Having disposed of these extraneous matters. let me come to the Bill before the House. I accept my hon. friend's compliment in the spirit in which it is given; but I have introduced this Bill in the interest not only of fruit-growing, but of treegrowing in the Dominion of Canada. Insect pests attack other things than fruit trees and fruit, and it is just as important to protect our forests and shrubbery as our

orchards, and our fruit trees. But I recognize also the good work being done in British Columbia, under the Provincial Act. If as good work were done all over Canada as has been done in British Columbia, under that Act, the necessity for this Bill would be to a large extent removed. I believe that the inspection under the British Columbia Act is as good as any on the continent of America, or perhaps, even better. I have watched it with great interest, and have sympathized with the efforts of the British Columbia people to legislate for the protection of their orchards and forests. I think the work done there has been excellent for the province, and has had excellent results. In that respect my hon. friend and I are absolutely at one.
I would like to remind my hon. friend that when the fumigating station at Vancouver was established, the importations of nursery stock into British Columbia were far less than to-day, and the station was then established on a scale which Dr. Fletcher considered sufficient. I am aware that its capacity and arrangements are today not quite what they might be, and had it not been for my expectation of passing this Bill this session, I would have taken steps last year to re-arrange and improve that station. I thought it possible however, that when this Bill came into force we might have to provide for other work besides fumigating the San Jose scale. In these fumigating station's we have not attempted to more than protect against the introduction of the San Jose scale and for that purpose there is just one kind of fumigation. But in dealing with other pests, we may have to use other methods, because that which might be effective in the one case might not necessarily be in others. I am not sufficiently familiar with the insect pests to say what these are, but it is quite possible that there are other pests which the fumigation would not destroy. It is therefore quite possible that the provincial government inspectors may have found in nursery stock that passed through our fumigating stations in Vancouver other insect pests. My hon. friend seems to think it possible that they have found the San Jose scale. I do not think so. Since the establishment of these stations, not only in British Columbia but in the other provinces, not one case of San Jose scale has been in any way traced to imported stock, and all imported stock goes through our fumigating stations.. Under these circumstances, I am justified in assuming that these stations have been effective and that mw hon. friend's impression is not founded on fact. I can only regret extremely that if, on any occasion, the inspectors of the provincial government found anything of the kind, they did not take trouble to report fio us, so that we might investigate and remedy any deficiency or carelessness which might have oc-cured at any of our stations. We have no report that anything of the kind has oc-cured, no complaint has been made to us, and I think that I am justified in assuming that the impression under which my hon. friend labours is absolutely unfounded.
The provisions of this Bill are very similar in a general way to those of the British Columbia Act which my hon. friend has praised. I did not take that Act particularly as my model although it was thoroughly studied by us. What we took was rather the Act of Great Britain which seemed to suit our purposes here, and we have drafted a Bill which we think will cover the same ground and accomplish the same purposes as the British Act.
The conflict which my hon. friend thinks possible between this parliament and .the provincial legislature I trust will not arise. As far as I am concerned, wherever it can be shown that the provincial authorities are taking all the necessary steps, I shall be very loath to interfere. I am not at all anx'ious for unnecessary w ork, and Jf have no desire to assume any responsibility or labour which does not fall naturally to my lot. If a provincial legislature takes the necessary precautions and carries them out efficiently, as I think the British Columbia people are doing, I shall not interfere with its work or try to overlap or duplicate it. But at the same time I think that an Act of this kind should, in the interests of the whole country, be passed and applied bo the Dominion at large and not merely to one province. Otherwise while British Columbia might be very well safeguarded, the rest of the Dominion might not, and the danger of spreading infection elsewhere is entirely outside the purview of the British Columbia authorities. By means of a general law we can protect the whole Dominion much better than it can be by any number of Provincial Acts. I do not understand that my hon. friend objects at all to the passage of this Bill. I am sure he recognizes that it is quite within the competence of this parliament. That opinion I do not presume to give on my own authority, but I have the assurance of the Department of Justice that this Bill is absolutely within our jurisdiction. British Columbia may have no doubt a similar jurisdiction within the limits of that province, but I understand that by the British North America Act, where jurisdiction is given to both provincial and federal parliaments, and a conflict arises, the federal authority must prevail. I can, however, assure my hon. friend that I shall not undertake to interfere in any way with the provincial work. It would be only when I found it necessary in the interests of the country at large, that anything should be done in any province, that I would take

such steps as this Bill empowers me to take.	.
As the results of our work, done with the concurrence and assistance of the importers, willingly given to us-hut possibly given to us because they anticipated a Bill of this kind and felt that the sacrifices they made this year would be followed up by continuous safety in the future-by reason of that wfOrk, we have been able to inspect 1,700,000,000 seedlings since the first of January, and found 293 nests of the brown tail moth. I have no doubt that each nest contained 200 to 300 caterpillars which would mean some 60,000 caterpillars or more, and if these had gone abroad throughout Canada and had been able to reproduce themselves in the way these insects do. we might easily have had this coming season a very severe and expensive visitation of this pest. That was done by volunteer work with only one official in addition to our regular staff, and I have no doubt we will be able to do our work more efficiently by having it legally recognized.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have already said I am in favour of this measure, and since the minister has given us to understand it is not going to be interfered with in any way by the provincial governments, we can more readily acquiesce in it. I was sorry to hear the minister say that he has stated that the apples of the province of Quebec were very much superior to those of any other part of the Dominion of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of any other place in the world.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I consider that that statement is a very narrow statement for a minister of the Crown to make. I certainly feel justified in criticising and condemning it in the strongest kind of language.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Go ahead.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Because while the minister may take the position that the apples of Quebec are superior, and may believe it, yet such a statement from a minister of the Crown sent broadcast throughout our land, and possibly through other lands, is not justified. It would be wise for him to retract that statement and place himself in a correct position before the people.


Mr. MILLER.: Why should the minister be asked to retract it? I do not think there is anything narrow in it. If he believes it to be true that is the statement he ought to make.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. gentleman believe it to be true?


Henry Horton Miller: It does not make any difference whether I do or not. If the minister believes it to be true he had a right to say so. I have no doubt that if the minis-Mr. FISHER.
ter had been speaking in the Northwest Territories, or in Quebec, or in Ontario, of the wheat of the west he would have said there is no wheat grown in Canada equal to the No. 1 hard.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman forgets that the apples from the county which he represents bring the highest price in the English markets of any Canadian apples.


Henry Horton Miller: I am not arguing that because I have not sufficient knowledge. If the Minister of Agriculture thought that the apples grown in Quebec were the best it was not narrow to express that opinion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) is in a different position from the Minister of Agriculture. It is quite right for the hon. gentleman to make a statement about fruit grown in his riding, but the Minister of Agriculture is a prominent man to whom the apple growers look for reasonable, and fair statements, and for him to make such a statement is narrow. [DOT]


Henry Horton Miller: An opinion expressed by the Minister of Agriculture has more weight than a statement by a private member, but I think the Minister of Agriculture has just as good a right to be frank and honest in the statements he makes as any private member, and it seems to me rather a sign of narrowness to criticise the statement than to make it.


John Allister Currie: The minister has said that the apples from Quebec are the best in Canada, or in the world. That is his individual opinion.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


John Allister Currie: He should get the English buyers, and the buyers of the world to agree with him on that point. The apples from the upland in Grey, over to the Georgian bay are known as Georgian bay fruit in the apple markets in England and Scotland, and bring the be3t price, except the handpicked apples from British Columbia. These are facts that cannot be gainsaid, and it ill becomes the hon. member for Grey to speak as he did. I consider that comparisons of this kind are very odious, as we used to write at the head of our copy books, and I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture would begin making comparisons as between the products of different sections of the country when they are not borne out by the facts. Does the minister not think it w.ould be better, instead of bringing in a Bill providing for an inspection of, at the most, a casual kind, to stop the importation of seedlings or fruit trees, except those of a special kind that should be admitted by special instructions of the Department of Agriculture? We all

know that some years ago the black knot was introduced in that way, and it has destroyed all the plum and cherry trees, and is to-day to be found in the wild trees along the roadside. Moths of various kinds, the San Jose scale, and other pests have been introduced, and the only way to prevent this is to prevent the importation of seedlings. We can produce plenty of them in this country, and if we keep out the foreign seedlings and grafts of trees of this kind we will be doing the farmers a great benefit. The fruit growers can buy Canadian trees as cheaply as American. The only reason they buy in the United States is because they get the trees cheaply, and to prohibit the importation of seedlings would encourage the nursery business, especially in the province of Quebec, where, I believe, they could grow better nursery stock than can be grown in New York state or any state where they produce this stock. Shut them out for a given time, five or ten years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is perhaps not familiar with the facts of the case. In the first place this stock came from France, not from the United States. Of the nursery trees grown in Canada, I am well within the mark when I say that not one-tenth of one per cent of them are not grafted on imported stock. Now, if my hon. friend's statement were to be carried out, it would absolutely put a stop, for a number of years, to the growing of nursery stock in Canada. My hon. friend is not aware, perhaps, that this stock -is imported by the nurserymen of Canada in the form of little seedlings, and on these are grafted, when they arrive, the scions taken from Canadian trees. They have not got this stock in Canada.


John Allister Currie: Why?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because they do not grow it.


John Allister Currie: That is, they can buy it abroad cheaper than they can grow it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE But these seedlings can be grown here.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But, if the nurserymen were debarred from bringing them in, it would stop the growth of Canadian nursery stock for several years. They might get back to it, but they could not do it at the present time. That is the first point. The second point is that the suggestion which my hon. friend makes was carried out with the introduction of the San Jose Scale Act. At that time, we absolutely .prohibited the importation of any trees or stock from the countries infested with the San Jose scale. But the very men on whose behalf my
hon. friend is now speaking petitioned this government and parliament to relax the law and make arrangements by which they could import nursery stock.


John Allister Currie: Who did that?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The nurserymen, the farmers, the fruit growers-everybody concerned. And the result was that during the next year-I feel confident that it was within eighteen months of the passing of the Act-we had to amend the Act so as to provide stations at which this nursery stock could be imported. I sympathize with the view taken by my hon. friend, but if he will go to the people who are engaged in this business and make the proposition he makes here, 1 am sure he will find them unanimously against it.


John Allister Currie: That may be so. But it is because it happens to enable them to make a few dollars. Many of these institutions are quite willing to sacrifice the fruit industry of the whole country to make a few dollars for themselves. But the minister should look at it from the point of view of the whole country, and not from the point of view of a special interest. Another point I would like to ask about is whether the minister has taken steps to prevent the importation of potatoes from Newfoundland? For I understand that, according to the report of his own department, the potatoes of Newfoundland are infected with a disease which would ruin the crops in Canada in a very few years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All the steps have been taken that I have power to take, and I am asking for this Bill to be enabled to take further steps. I have notified the customs authorities, and have asked them to inform my department immediately when entry is made of potatoes from Newfoundland. I do not, think that any have been made, but if any should be made I will send my inspector there to destroy them. I have notified the people of the maritime provinces, who sometimes do get potatoes from Newfoundland-they are the only people in Canada who do-and have told them of the danger and warned them against using any such potatoes. So, I have taken every step that it is competent for me to take. I have not been able to forbid the entry of potatoes from Newfoundland, for the very reason that I have not an Act such as is here proposed. It is because I wish authority to go further that I am asking the House to pass this Bill.


John Allister Currie: So far, so good.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are conditions when absolute prohibition may be necessary, but there are others when inspection is necessary, and still others when fumigation is sufficient. This proposed measure will en-

able me to take whichever of these steps seems necessary. I must trust to my expert advisers, the entomologist and the botanist of the experimental farm, who are men of eminence in their several domains, first for information as to the existence of a danger, and second, as to the means to be taken to meet it. Among other things, I ask authority to destroy any infected or infested stock or vegetable matter which may come in, and, when necessary, to destroy packages, and also to grant compensation, as is only fair and right, in some cases to the people who lose thereby. I repeat that if absolute prohibition were exercised to-morrow and the bringing in of these seedlings for the purpose of grafting were completely prohibited, it would paralyze the nursery trade of Canada for some years. I am sure my hon. friend would not wish to do that, and I have no doubt he has spoken without full consideration and without the intimate knowledge which, by reason of my connection with this work, I have necessarily acquired.


John Allister Currie: I would also ask whether the minister intends to cover grain under this Bill. He might as well take power in relation to seed grain as well. Medical men claim that the corn grown in certain of the states, especially in the southern states, is at present giving humanity a terrible disease known as pellagra. Also, I believe, a great many of the noxious weeds brought into Canada are brought in with foreign grain. The minister should be empowered under this Bill to stop this traffic, as a policeman on the corner stops the road traffic in order to prevent danger!


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill covers that. It provides in relation to 'any vegetable matter.' As to weeds, the Seed Control Act applies pretty thoroughly to that, as it covers seeds imported as well as seeds grown in Canada.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I hope the minister (Mr. Fisher) will retract the statement made as to the province of Quebec and the apples grown there. It seems to me a narrow, provincial view for a minister of the Crown of this Dominion to take. The hon. minister represents the whole Dominion, and not one province or a part "of a province only. On what authority does the hon. gentleman base his statement? Let the hon. minister come into the western part of Ontario, even into the district of Grey, represented by the hon. member (Mr. Miller) who took exception to the statement I made some time ago, and he will find that the apples grown there are being disposed of in the markets of the world at prices above even those that the apples of the province of Quebec can command. And, if he will look at the returns, Mr. FISHER.
he will see that a very small proportion of our apples are grown in the province of Quebec. I am really surprised that the minister should take the position he does. As an instance, take my own district. The men who are engaged in the fruit industry there have to take into consideration this fact, that the Minister of Agriculture says that the best apples that can be grown are grown in the province of Quebec, and I suppose he means to infer that the best place to engage in that industry - is the province of Quebec. If that is not a narrow, provincial policy for the minister to take I do not know what a narrow, provincial policy is. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller; would not dare to go up in his riding and confirm the statement made by the minister.


Henry Horton Miller: I will dare to make any statement in my riding that I dare to make here, no matter what it is, and I say again that the hon. gentleman is not as wise on this question as he really thinks he is. I wish that the Minister of Agriculture would come into my riding and say anything that would spur up the agriculturists there to pay much more attention to their orchards than they do.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That has nothing to do with this statement.


Henry Horton Miller: It has this to do with it, that it shows that the hon. member for East Lambton does not know the condition in my riding as well as I know it myself. I believe that in my riding they can grow apples to very good advantage, and I believe that if the Minister of Agriculture will come up there, as I trust he will, and say something that will spur the farmers there to greater activity and cause them to take a greater interest in their orchards, it would be very much better for them, and when he comes I want him to be as honest m my riding as he is in the province of Quebec, and if he tells them that while they can grow good apples in Ontario, they can perhaps grow apples of a somewhat better flavour in Quebec, I do not believe that any one will object.
Mr^J. A. CURRIE. How many thousand barrels of apples were shipped out of your county?


Henry Horton Miller: Not very many from my riding. In the northern part of the county there may have been a larger quantity-shipped. I do not think that the farmers pay anything like the attention to their orchards, as "a general thing-there may be exceptions-that they ought to.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The statement made by the hon. member for South Grey is far from being in line with the statement made

by the Minister of Agriculture. The statement made by the hon. member for South Grey is that he will ask the Minister of Agriculture to come up into his riding and tell them that they ought to get to work and improve their orchards and perhaps improve the quality of fruit. But what would he think if the minister came up into his riding and said: Gentlemen, though you can produce apples in a way, this place cannot compare with the province of Quebec, because we can produce much better fruit in the province of Quebec than you can here? I have asked the minister, and not the member for South Grey, to answer the question or take back the statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I really do not know whether it is worth my while. I am amused by the hon. gentleman's reference to this matter. I cannot imagine that the hon. gentleman, although he looks so serious, is serious.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, Sir, I am serious.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, all I can say is that I am sorry for his narrow-mindedness and small comprehension. I have no hesitation in repeating what I said. I may be wrong, the hon. gentleman is welcome to think otherwise, and everybody else is welcome to think otherwise, but I still believe, as far as flavour and quality are concerned, some of the apples grown in the province of Quebec, and the apples generally in Quebec, are the best m the world. I am going to repeat it and repeat it to the hon. gentleman, and I do not care what he thinks about it, one way or the other. He and everybody else may think differently, but I repeat it, as I have repeated it everywhere. I have done it a thousand times, and I am going to do it a thousand times again, whether I am Minister of Agriculture or not, and whether the hon. member criticise me for it or not. I do not think it makes the slightest difference. Where-ever I am, and whenever I am dealing with matters of this kind, I will say just what I think, I will give expression to my opinion to the farmers as to everybody else, and I will defend the interests of the people of Canada in regard to agricultural production to the fullest extent possible. I have my own opinions, and I have my own tastes in regard to things, and I am not going to deny them or withhold them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that after listening to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, I feel that the vigour of my own remarks was justified. A paper has been read here this afternoon condemning the minister in the strongest possible way, and I cannot help but think that not only will that paper condemn him, but that practically every paper interested in agriculture throughout the country will be strong of the condemnation of his action in this House. The hon. gentleman knows that he has adopted a narrow-minded policy. What authority has a minister of the Crown, who is supposed to represent the people of the Dominion and all of the provinces, to say on the floor of this House that as far as his opinion of the apple growing industry is concerned, the province of Quebec is the place to grow apples?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not say that,


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is practically what it meant.


Mr FISHER.: Confine yourself to what
I say.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is all right, but the minister knows that that is practically the idea that the people in general will get out of the remarks he has made here this afternoon, and I myself emphatically wish to say that it ill-becomes a minister, who represents the different provinces 'of the Dominion, to get up and make such a narrow provincial statement as that.


Henry Horton Miller: I think the farmers of my own riding, and even the farmers of the riding of my hon. friend from East Lamb-ton, are sufficiently intelligent to want from the Minister of Agriculture, when he addresses them, either by going before them, or through the press, or from the floor of this House, not flattery but truth.


Richard Blain: I rather agree with my hon. friend from East Lambton, and I must say that I am very much surprised at the cautious Minister of Agriculture in stating to us that the province of Quebec is the province in Canada that grows apples of the best flavour. I am not quite sure whether my hon. friend is discharging his duties as Minister of Agriculture in the best possible way when he makes a statement of that kind on the floor of this House. I am not going to offer any criticism as to whether he should hold that opinion or not; that is a matter for himself. Before the Agriculture Committee occasionally very pointed questions are put to the officials of the department who are there giviqg their evidence. When a pointed question is put-such as, which province grows the best wheat?-the official hesitates and says: I do not wish to make any comparisons; I am only here to make a statement of facts. Some of the lessons that my hon. friend has been giving to his officials m the department perhaps might be learned with advantage by himself, and while my hon. friend may say that it is his right to express an opinion, and while it may be endorsed by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), who comes from a part of the province where, as he states himself, they

do not pay any very special attention to apple growing, my hon. friend must remember that there are parts of Ontario
where they are devoting a great deal of attention to apple raising, and where there are very large exporters, such as there are in one part of my own county, where men have a thousand trees, some a great many more, and where they sell the output of their orchards for $2,500 and $3,000. These men are very much interested in the apple export trade. I am not quite sure that my hon. friend is giving fair play to other parts of Canada when he allows it to go abroad from his high position in the government of this country that he has no hesitation to state on the floor of this House from which province the best apples come, which are being sent to the old country. I think my hon. friend has rather forgotten his usual caution. For myself, I agree with my hon. friend from East Lamb-ton, and I do not agree with the hon. member for South Grey m this matter. It may be that my hon. friend's constituents require a little prodding up. I think they do in many ways. If the agricultural interests of his constituency are not taken care of, he must blame either himself or the Minister of Agriculture, and not the member for East Lambton, who is advocating the principle that the Minister of Agriculture, having a better opportunity than any other single man in Canada to protect agricultural interests, should not single out any one province and say that it produced the best apples for export trade and home consumption, thus instituting an invidious and injurious comparison. That is going a little beyond his duties, and I do not think it will be endorsed by the people. The hon. gentleman is used to having the commendation of the people of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear hear.


Richard Blain: But there were other days-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Before they had the experience.


Richard Blain: But there were other days coming, and perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will learn bv experience later on.


Mr. GOODEVE.: I certainly would not have spoken on this question were it not for the statement which the Minister of Agriculture has made on the floor of the House. I can quite understand that as a minister for the province of Quebec, and speaking to a Quebec audience, he might assume an optimistic tone as regards the conditions in that province, and I would not take exception to what he said then. But, when he speaks from his place in parliament as a minister (of the Crown and when, in cold blood he reiterates the (statement that the province of Quebec does grow the best apples, thus making invidious comparisons between the provinces of Mr. BLAIN.
the Dominion, I do think it is at least an error of judgment on the part of the minister. Naturally my people will see these reports in the press, and coming as I do from what I think to be the best fruit growing district in the best fruit country in the Dominion of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, you ought not to say that.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Coming as I do from what I believe to be the best fruit growing district in Canada, my people would very properly want to know why I allowed an expression of that kind to pass without protest. I do not pretend to be an expert as is my friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) but I would direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that within the last two years they have established in the city of Spokane what is claimed to be the largest exclusively apple show on the continent of America and perhaps in the world, and at that show at which apples from all parts of the continent competed, my particular district received a large number of the first prizes in many lines. The district of Kootenay, my own particular district, received the first award for apples at the Spokane apple exhibition. Again, the minister well knows, (for if I am not mistaken I have seen it in one of the government reports) that the province of British Columbia took the gold medal at the British show, and only last year that province was awarded a special medal for the best 50 boxes of the best fruit and the best packed fruit. I do not know if the province of Quebec was represented there, but if so I would be only too delighted to hear that it also received an award, because, I do not think that in a great country such as ours there is room for these small jealousies and invidious comparisons. I feel that the remarks made by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) were only faiT and I was rather surprised at the attitude assumed bv the Minister of Agriculture in replying to him. I like to hear a minister representing a province in this great Dominion giving words of encouragement to his own people, and I would not take very great exception to what was said by the hon. gentleman in his own province of Quebec, but when the minister reads in Hansard, the statement he has made on the floor of the House and which he does not withdraw, that there is no other province in which they grow apples on the whole equal in quality and flavour to the apples grown in the province of Quebec, I think the hon. gentleman will, on reflection, admit that from his own standpoint and the standpoint of the country, he has made a mistake.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would remind my hon. friend that although I am Minister of Agri-

culture I am still the representative of a county in Quebec; and if the hon. gentleman is permitted to say that his part of British Columbia grows the best fruit and is the best fruit growing district in Canada, I do not see why I should not be permitted to make the same claim for my own province.


Richard Blain: There is a great difference and the minister knows it. It is one thing for a private member to say that in his opinion his district grows the best apples in Canada, but while the Minister of Agriculture represents a county in Quebec he has a wider field and is a minister of the Crown for the whole Dominion He can very well see that when the English importers of apples, having British Columbia fruit on hand, advertise the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in parliament, it might be a serious detriment to the fruit coming from other provinces. Then, the minister has not attempted. to support his statement by any documentary evidence.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I simply gave my own opinion, my own taste.


Mr. LENNOX.: Your taste may be vitiated.


Richard Blain: If the minister could show that in competition with the fruit of other parts of Canada the apples of the province of Quebec had carried off all the awards, then he might have some foundation for the statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I told the hon. gentleman over and over again that I gave my own opinion and my own taste and nothing more.


Richard Blain: I have nothing to do with the hon. gentleman's taste, but I have something to do with his opinion as Minister of Agriculture. When my hon. friend repeats and re-repeats in this House that in his opinion the best apples produced in Canada are from the province of Quebec, he makes that statement as Minister of Agriculture, and in so doing I have no hesitation in saying that he is not giving fair play to every other province in Canada. I would have no hesitation myself in expressing my opinion that the best apples to be found in the world are to be found in the province of Ontario.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Just the same as I have.


Richard Blain: No, I occupy an entirely different position. I am merely a humble representative of a constituency in the province of Ontario, while my hon. friend is Minister of Agriculture. When the people of the world are looking for a statement in regard to the agricultural capabilities of this country, they are not looking for it from an ordinary member of this House;
they look for it from a man in authority like the Minister of Agriculture. Time and again, in the Committee on Agriculture, when questions- have been put to officers of his own department, as to which province produced the best of this or the best of that, my hon. friend has always said, you must not make comparisons, and the committee endorsed him; because it would not do for any official, who is an official of all Canada, to make a statement, even in the Committee on Agriculture, that one province produced better crops of fruit or potatoes or anything -else than 'another province. My hon. friend recognized the propriety of that, and he would not go through the country and make statements of that kind. He is too good a politician for that. And if my hon. friend will not allow the ordinary officials of hia department to single out one province aa being superior to another in this respect, my hon. friend as Minister of Agriculture should not on the floor of this House single out one province, and say that it produces better apples than any other province in Canada.


Mr. CROSBY.: In the absence of Sir Frederick Borden, representing Kings county, and in the absence of Dr. Black, representing the county of Hants, and in the absence of Mr. Pickup, representing the county of Annapolis, I am bound to stand up for the province of Nova Scotia; and the first thing I want to say is that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has- no right to assume that he occupies the same position as the hon. member for Peel or any other member who represents a county in this House. The Minister of Agriculture represents the whole Dominion. I am sorry for him, but nevertheless he does.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We cannot help it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I cannot help it now, but I hope some day to help it. My hon. friend, however, need not feel so safe that he can come here and make any statement he likes. My hon. friend said a moment ago that he had as much right to say that the best apples were grown in Quebec as the hon. member from British Columbia had to say that the best apples were grown in that province. I say that neither has the right to say anything of the kind unless he has the facts to back up the statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: How about Nova Scotia?


Adam Brown Crosby: My hon. friend knows enough about Nova Scotia to know that it is a straight statement that the best ap- . pies in the world come from Nova Scotia. Any man who knows anything about fruit knows that Nova Scotia apples do not take second place to any apples in the world.



If the hon. minister had said that the apples grown, in Quebec, were as good as any grown anywhere else in the Dominion of Canada, no one would find fault with him; but to say that the best apples are grown in Quebec is I think, quite unfair and unreasonable, in view of the fact, which he knows himself, that apples from Nova Scotia are at least not second to any grown in Quebec or in the world. I am not an apple grower, but I am an apple eater, and I think I have a better taste than the Minister of Agriculture. I think his taste must have been interfered with when he was eating those apples.


Haughton Lennox: What time of the evening was it?


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not know what time of the evening it was, but I always eat apples in a reasonable hour. I have not had the pleasure of eating any apples grown in Quebec, but I have eaten apples grown in Nova Scotia, and I am quite sure that the province of Quebec cannot beat the province of Nova Scotia in the production of apples or in their quality.
Mr. FISHER Hear, hear.


Adam Brown Crosby: And the Minister of Agriculture agrees with me; so he has taken back what he said. I have no desire that Nova Scotia apples should be stated by the Minister of Agriculture or anybody else to be the best that are grown, but I say that thev are equal to any that are grown, and anybody who watches the market knows that there are none that bring a higher price; and that is not a question of taste, but a question of ' money talks.'


Mr. PRICE.: I am very sorry that I have to differ with members on this side of the House who have spoken. I quite agree with the Minister of Agriculture that the best apples are grown in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) talks about taste. I really thought he had better taste. But I must say that I think the Minister of Agriculture has better taste as regards apples than the hon. member for Halifax.


Martin Burrell: I ought almost to apologize to the House for throwing an apple of discord into this debate. Let me say that I do not feel called upon to indulge in any lofty panegyrics of British Columbia apples, although I hold my own opinion, as other gentlemen hold theirs. But as a matter of fact we who know the results recognize frankly that the Nova Scotia Gravenstein, the Ontario Spy, the Quebec Fameuse and the Cox's Orange or Jonathan of my own province-any of these apples, grown under the best conditions, will satisfy any taste, perhaps even that of the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is a mis-Mr. CROSBY.	;
take to make these comparisons. There is one common ground on which we can all stand, which interests those who are not apple growers, but apple consumers. By striving in the best way we can to give the consumer what he wants we shall hasten that millennium * described, by Oliver Wendell Holmes-and this may appeal to the lawyers in the House-a millennium which will arrive;
When legislators keep the law,
And banks dispense with bolts and locks,
And berries, whortle, rasp and straw, Grow bigger downwards through the box.
Whatever else we dispute about, I think we in British Columbia, not only so far as flavour goes, but by the excellence of our packing, have the satisfaction of getting our fruit to the consumers in such shape that we can give pointers in this respect to most of the other province^. I regret these sectional differences, because in my opinion we should all join together in making this industry a national one, and give it predominance in the markets of the world, and I credit the- hon. minister with having the like intention. ,


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: This discussion has been a revelation to me because I thought it was thoroughly and generally understood that the best apples in the country were produced in the county of North Grey and that it was one of these which caused the mischief between Adam and Eve, but I must admit that the British Columbia members have the best of us because I understand that the apple which Eve ate was B. C.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I have here a photograph which I want to show the Minister of Agriculture of apples shipped to my constituency this year. I think this photograph is really worth being, presented to this House. This photograph was taken not by myself, but under my direction, of apples packed in Ontario and sent out to the northwest.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I really think the hon. minister should withdraw the statement he has just made. There is no reason in the world why a minister of the Crown, representing the whole Dominion, should make a statement of that kind. Such a statement will be used in the markets of the world as an advertisement. Is it statesmanlike on the part of the hon. gentleman to advertise certain districts where apples are grown in this country, and have it go out to the world on his authoritv that Quebec is the place where the best apples are grown in the Dominion?


Mr. EMMERSON.: That was the apple of discord, apparently.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Apple sauce as far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned. I hope that he will have the decency to withdraw that statement. He is well aware that in Ontario we raised some 15,000,000 barrels last year, which is the largest amount of apples grown by any province; but if the Quebec shippers can put a stamp on the apples they send to Great Britain to the effect that the Minister of Agriculture of this country stated emphatically on the floor of parliament that the apples grown in that province are the best in the Dominion, you may depend upon it the Quebec apples will thereby gain an advantage over those of the other provinces. I would like the hon. minister to at least state whether he is going to withdraw that statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Carried.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would ask him what authority he has for making it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Carried.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have asked a reasonable and fair question, and I think the minister ought at least to give an answer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have answered the hon. gentleman and am not going to answer him any more on that subject.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is certainlv a verv strange position to take. We are well aware that the hon. gentleman has made some statements ill becoming a minister of the Crown. I am sure that when he sees those statements in print to-morrow, he will regret having made them. I represent a large agricultural district where quantities of the verv best apples in the Dominion are grown, and I feel it my duty to point out to the minister that he has been making statements contrary to the best interests of the apple growing industry. I sincerely hope that during recess he will take the opportunity to reflect and that when we resume at 8 o'clock he will have come to the conclusion that he had better admit he has made a mistake and is willing to show fair play to the whole of the Dominion.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess. [DOT]
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I hope since the minister has had his dinner he will be in a little better humour, and will withdraw the remark he made in reference to the apple industry, and also the insulting remarks he made about myself. I did not know until after the House had risen that he had made use of the words that I was narrow-mind-1794
ed, and of small comprehension. If he thinks that is becoming to a minister of the Crown, it is high time we placed him where he belongs. He considers that he is at liberty to come into this House and bulldoze, and browbeat members as he would perhaps some of his own constituents in the province of Quebec. It is high time he realized the position he holds in the House. I will ask the minister if he will be good enough to withdraw that statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then I say his words ill become a minister of the Crown in the House of Commons. In referring to the hon. gentleman I took care not to make a personal reference, I said that his policy on this question was a narrow and provincial policy. In the face of that the hon. gentleman says: Your remarks are narrow-minded, and of small comprehension. Will he say the same about the Montreal ' Star ' or this ' Fruit Journal ', or the dozens of fruit journals or agricultural papers that will attack the statement of the minister, and criticise it in its proper light. Are they narrow-minded and small of comprehension? If the hon. gentleman will look over his record he will see what a narrow-minded policy he has been carrying on ever since he took office. Let him go back to his position as manufacturing squirt guns to feed chickens and scissors to cut peaches off the trees, and his primitive cold storage apparatus. Follow him all down through his career, and you cannot come to any other conclusion than that it ill becomes him to make such statements of an hon. member. Has the hon. gentleman seen this statement in this paper referring to his statement in Quebec, and in British Columbia?
That certain varieties of the apple are more successful in certain parts of the fruit-growing area of the Dominion than in others is true, but to make the broad statement that ' the flavour of the British Columbia apple was not to be compared with that of the province of Quebec,' or vice versa, is certainly taking a rash plunge into the deep and chilly waters of odious comparisons.
The hon. gentleman made use of these words this afternoon:
I consider the apples of Quebec, as far as flavour and quality are concerned, to be better than anything produced not only in British Columbia but in the whole world.
If the hon. gentleman was a private member of the House it would be a very different question, but he is a minister of the Crown, and ha3 to deal with the different districts throughout the Dominion. Let us carry that to its legitimate conclusion, let him, if he dares, pick out certain qualities of agricultural products produced on the farms of Canada, and say that they are

adapted altogether to one certain province. He knows he would not dare to take any such position as that, but he thinks it proper to take that position in reference to the great apple industry. Only a few years ago we produced 20,000,000 barrels of apples and 15,000,000 of these were produced in Ontario, and the minister would place a stigma on the apples of that province by stating that those of Quebec are superior; he is simply as it were, advertising, or booming the products of one province in direct opposition to the products of another province. If the minister has not the manliness or backbone, or good judgment to withdraw the words he used, I leave it to the judgment of the House as to who is the man of narrow mind and little comprehension. I am satisfied they will leave it not very far from the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. JAMESON.: I was, I must confess, a little surprised this afternoon to near the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in resDect to the apples of Quebec. While I have a verv high admiration for the various farming communities and horticultural communities of this Dominion, at the same time I do not think it is wise or seemly, or fair, that a gentleman occupying the position of Minister of Agriculture of Canada should single out any particular province for his commendation. His statement was: ' I consider the apples of Quebec, as far as flavour and quality are concerned, to be infinitely superior to anything produced, not only in British Columbia, but in the whole world.' So long as [DOT] this difference was only between the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) and the hon. minister, and affected only the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, I felt it no duty of mine to make any comment with respect to it; but when the minister made so broad and sweeping a statement as he finally did, it seemed that in justice to the province of Nova Scotia, which has an enviable record with respect to the fruits produced there, I should enter a protest. I do not know whether the minister has visited that province of recent years, and ha3 seen the fruit which is grown there?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Clarence Jameson: If the minister has, I fear that his observations of the Annapolis valley, and other sections, must have been of 'a' very cursory nature, or else he has done an injustice to that province with his eyes open, because the Annapolis valley, as a fruit growing district, is not excelled by any part of Canada. I feel it is only right, on behalf of the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley, and other sections, that I should enter a protest against the statement of the minister, and say that I Mr. ARMSTRONG.
do not think that their fruit is excelled in any part of the Dominion.	,
I make that statement, of course, as a private member. I have not had the same opportunity as the minister to visit all parts of the Dominion where fruit is grown, but I make the statement as the result of reading such reports as have been available, and after such investigation as it has been within my power to make. I think it would be well if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who representes that province, the hon. member for Hants, (Mr. Black), the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), representing, as he does, the county of Kings, and the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Pickup), were to rise and endorse the statement I make that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has, possibly all unwittingly, done the province of Nova Scotia, and particularly the Annapolis valley, and other fruit growing sections a grave and serious injustice in the sweeping statement which I have just recited. Such a statement, coming from the Minister of Agriculture, comes as an authoritative statement; and it goes out not only to the people of Canada, but to the people of the whole world as the statement of one who might well be said to be in the position of an expert, and to make the statement as a result of investigation, and inquiry, and with the very fullest knowledge that it is possible for any man in Canada to possess. And because of that, it becomes my duty to challenge, and I do challenge the statement which the Minister of Agriculture has made, so far at least as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned. The fruitgrowers of the Annapolis valley and adjoining sections about which I am specially concerned, and about which I know most, have been doing a splendid work during the past few years. They have been raising an excellent variety of fruit, and placing that fruit on the market in the best of condition, gaining thereby a most enviable reputation. I do not think it fair or just-yes, I agree with the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) in saying that I think it is not seemly- for the Minister of Agriculture to discriminate in his remarks against the fruitgrowers of Nova Scotia, as he did. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will not misunderstand me in making that statement. He will understand that I am merely doing what I believe to be my duty to the people of Nova Scotia, and the fruit growers of the districts I have mentioned. It may not be a very agreeable task for one to gainsay a statement of an hon. minister who should have full knowledge of the subject on which he speaks, but I only regard it as a duty, and I trust that other hon. members from the apple-growing districts of Nova Scotia will endorse my statement

and will join with me in asking the Minister of Agriculture to modify at least, if he will not withdraw, the statement he has made in view of the fact that it is undoubtedly a discrimination against the province of Nova Scotia, and an unfair discrimination, and that it will prove a detriment to these apple-growers when they seek to place their fruit on the market.


Mr. BLACK.: This appears to be a little worse than a temnest in a tea-pot. When I came in, and heard the excited and exciting declamation of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), I thought that surely the Minister of Agriculture had been guilty at least of high treason. Surely, for a man to praise the fruit of his own county is no crime. I myself represent the county that grows the best fruit in the world, yet I do not imagine for a moment that the Minister of Agriculture or the member for East Lambton is going to take offence at my saying so. I think it is a very loyal thing for a man to believe that his own country is the best, and that the apples grown near his own door are better than any others.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. member (Mr. Black) think that the influence his statement will exert will be as widespread as that exerted by the statement of the Minister of Agriculture?


Judson Burpee Black: Some of the members on the other side are cultivating a very bad habit. The moment a man gets up on this side to speak, they immediately ask questions. Now I like to make my speech in my own way. I do not speak very often, and I think I set a very good example to some of the newer and younger members on the other side who rise on every question. I would not take part in this discussion were it not that-I say it truthfully and without boasting-I represent one of the best fruit counties in Canada. Indeed, 'as a pastime, I have been a fruit grower myself. It is a very profitable business in my county. I would as soon own a good fruit orchard in the county of Hants as own stock in the Bank of Nova Scotia. I am sorry I was out for a few minutes this afternoon, so that the apple industrv had to be defended by that eminent fruit grower the hon. member for the city of Halifax (Mr. Crosby). I am sorry also that this duty of defence had to be assumed by the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson). If it had been a question of Digby chickens, or smoked herring, or dried fish, the hon. member for Digby would certainly be in a good position to speak. But I have always noticed, as soon as I crossed the line of Annapolis county going west, that the apple blossoms cease and the apple'trees were nowhere to be found in the county of Digby.


Clarence Jameson: The hon. gentleman must have had his eyes closed.


Judson Burpee Black: No, I have gone there many times, and I have not seen much farming land there. They have a splendid summer resort, they have the magnificent Annapolis basin to look at, and many other fine things, but they do not grow fruit, and it is not a farming county. The Annapolis valley would seem to be the fruit growing district of Nova Scotia according to the hon. member for Digby. But the Annapolis valley is a little strip of Nova Scotia about twenty-five or thirty miles long; the great fruit-growing belt takes in the county of Hants and the county of Kings, neither of which have anything to do with the Annapolis valley. Indeed, there are four or five great apple growing valleys in Nova Scotia. There are the Annapolis valley, the Cornwallis valley, which, perhaps, produces the greatest quantity of any part of Nova Scotia, and which is in the county of Kings, the Gaspereau valley, which is noted for its beauty and its apple growing all over eastern Canada; the Avon valley in my own county, and many others where fruit is grown. I will not take up time now; this is a trifling discussion, and almost unworthy the members taking part in it. I take no offence at what the Minister of Agriculture has said concerning the apples of his province. He deserves credit for standing by his own. I say as much for the apples oi my own province, and I do not think that anybody would take offence at that. I am glad that so many parts of Canada can show to the world such splendid results in apple-growing. We export from Nova Scotia 750,000 barrels to London alone, and we are increasing that year by year, and are capable of growing at least twenty times the quantity we now grow. Orchards are increasing and new orchards are being set out. Men come in to buy the apples, m fact, they will advance you money on your fruit. They tumble over one another in trying to get your apples.


Mr. SCHELL.: I do not propose to discuss this question at any great length. Of course, in Ontario, we think we grow the best apples that are grown in the Dominion. especially in the county of Oxford. I know that in Nova Scotia they grow very fine apples. I think their Gravensteins will compare favourably with some of our best apples. They have very beautiful looking apples in British Columbia. I think they beat us as far as appearance goes; I will not say as far as flavour goes, because I never tasted many of their apples, but certainly they grow nice looking apples. I know that they grow exceptionally fine apples on the island of Montreal, and especially the Fameuse, which is perhaps equal to anything grown in Canada in more

ways than one. I was not here this afternoon, and I am not very well posted on what has been said, but evidently there is some feeling regarding a statement that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has made with respect to the quality of apples grown in the province of Quebec. I think the question is viewed entirely from the wrong standpoint, ana that is the point I wish to make. If the province of Quebec is growing the very best apples in the Dominion of Canada so much the better for the rest of the Dominion. If the province of British Columbia has better apples than any other part of the Dominion so much the better for Ontario, Nova Scotia and Quebec. If we have the best apples in Ontario it is better for every other province that we have the best or at least good apples. The better the apples we produce the better it will be for every province in the Dominion. If the minister says that the apples grown in the province of Quebec are the best, he has not done us any injury in Ontario, but he has done us good. Place 100,000 barrels of apples on the market in Liverpool and if they are all good you can get rid of them at a good, big price, and follow them with another 100,000 barrels and get another big price for those. But if half of them are poor all the good apples the following week will bring less money, because there were poor apples placed on the market the previous week. If we can give the impression abroad that any other province is producing better apples than we are it will only be an incentive for us to do better and to try and produce good apples in every province of the Dominion. Instead of the minister being open to criticism he has a perfect right to say that apples in one province, for some reasons, suit his taste or idea better than the apples of another province. I would not hesitate to express an opinion myself regarding the apples of any province if I thought they were the best, whether it was in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, or Quebec.


Adam Brown Crosby: It is not the question of which province grows the best apples that we are here to discuss. The Minister of Agriculture is not the Minister of Agriculture of Nova Scotia, Quebec, or Ontario or any other province, but of this Dominion, has made a statement without producing anything to back it up or to show that it is a statement of fact, and that is the question that we are discussing at the present moment. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) has said that he was sorry that the defence of the fruitgrowing industry of Nova Scotia had been left in the hands of the hon. member for Halifax. I can only tell him that there was no member from that part of the province on that side of the House to look Mr. SCHELL.
after the matter when it came up. I confess that I am not an apple grower, but I am an apple eater. If the hon. member for Hants had the facts before him as had the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) he would have understood distinctly what the hon. gentleman had said.


Judson Burpee Black: I heard the Minister of Agriculture, because I was here when he made the statement.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then you should have been here to defend your province.


Judson Burpee Black: I was glad I was out when some of the speeches were made.


Adam Brown Crosby: The hon. member for Hants was born and brought up in a county that is noted for raising peaches. The Minister of Agriculture makes himself a judge for this whole Dominion and undertakes to declare that the best apples are raised in Quebec. 1 am not here to say a word against the apples in Quebec. I have no doubt they raise as good apples in Quebec as they raise any place else, but the minister has no right to make that statement in this House. If he were to make that statement in the province of Quebec we might forgive him, because he is given to saying one thing in one province and another in another. But we cannot forgive him when he comes into this House, and, in cold blood, makes a statement such as he did make and which is without foundation. I believe that if the Minister of Agriculture made a slip he should not be so stubborn as not to stand up and say: Well, boys, from all the other provinces, forgive me; I did not Know what I was saying and X_ will take it all back. One of two things he must do; he must take that statement back or prove it by some facts, because he is not supposed to be a judge of apples. He may be constituted as Minister of Agriculture, through no fault of mine, but he has never been appointed by anybody as a judge of apples, and he must either take the statement back or produce evidence to show that it is a statement of fact. They ao have fish in the county I come from, and I would advise some hon. members on the other side of the House to eat a little fish. If what they say about fish is true, they need a little. We raise apples m Halifax county, but we have so many other things that we pride ourselves on that we do not particularly worry about our apples. It is unfair that the statement which the minister has made should go abroad. We forgive the minister when he goes to Quebec and makes a statement of that kind, and I believe that they will forgive him there for it, he might make it when he goes to Ontario, but I do not think he has any right to make it in this House.


Mr. M. MARTIN.: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that many members of the opposition who have discussed this matter should ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to withdraw the statement he made last fall at the pomologicial convention, that the best apples in Canada and even in the whole world, are raised in the province of Quebec.
Everybody knows that the ' Fameuse,' an apple grown in the neighbourhood of Montreal, has the preference on the English market and that it is the English consumers themselves who have styled it ' Beauty of Montreal ' and looked upon it as. the best apple in the world.
If the best apple be raised in the province of Quebec, that is no reason to find fault with Quebec.
I regret, however, that the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is not in his seat, because these apples are largely grown in his constituency; I am certain that for once he would have given credit to the minister on account of that statement.
On section 4, scope of regulations.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What kind of inspection will be given to these articles when they are brought in?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would certainly consider that for the purposes of this Act any inspection to prevent disease of insect pests must be made by a qualified entomologist or botanist. I would not like to trust to anybody who had not these qualifications to decide as to whether an insect pest or disease existed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister gave us to understand this afternoon that he did not expect to have any new employees in connection with this matter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hardly that; but still I may say to my hon. friend that I already have in the service of the department several officers who have the necessary qualifications.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the minister has sufficient employees to undertake this work, what is the need of clauses 5 and 6? Why not wipe them out altogether?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There might at any time occur an outbreak, which would be a very dangerous menace to the country, and in that case I would have to employ additional officers to be in a position to carry out the purposes of the Act. I would only do so, of course, in case the staff in the em-plov of the department were not sufficient to cope with the situation.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Could not the minister employ them in the department or use the employees he has? It seems to me
that if this is left in the Act, it only gives the minister the opportunity to use his handiwork and give places to his own pets.
' Mr. FISHER. Additional officers will be amjointed only in case the situation demands them, and they will be appointed only because of their qualifications for the work.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then why not appoint them in the department instead of under this Bill?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because they may not be
needed all the time. I propose to employ men only when it is necessary, and only so long as it is necessary.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the minister any officers such as he has suggested at the ports of entry at the present time?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not at the present time. I have not power to have them.


Clarence Jameson: The minister, in introducing this Bill to-day, referred to an insect known as the brown-tail moth. This insect has been in some way introduced into the western part of the province of Nova Scotia within the last three or four years, and has been giving a good deal of trouble there. I do not know just how it was introduced. I do not think that it was traced to any fruit trees that were brought in. The statement was made to me by some people who had made very careful investigation of the matter that so far as they could learn it was brought in by some steamer trading between some United States_port, I think Boston, and one of the ports in western Nova Scotia. It secured quite a foothold there before it was recognized, and thereafter some efforts were put forward by the provincial authorities, which although they were fairly vigorous, do not seem to have altogether checked1 its spread and development. The question suggests itself to my mind that as there is a danger of the introduction of this pest in some other way than by bringing in of fruit trees, possibly the minister may have some information in regard to the matter generally which would be useful if it were placed oil ' Hansard ' at this point.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mv hon. friend is quite correct. I am not able to say offhand just when the pest was introduced into Nova Scotia, and I do not think I have had any knowledge of how it was introduced. But I think the cause suggested by my hon. friend is quite probable, because this moth has been known to obtain a foothold in the New England states some years before it was known in Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia government has, I think, now three men employed in trying to stamp out the pest. The entomologist of the department

here is in constant touch with them, and is giving them advice, and the late Dr. Fletcher, the late ent-omoffigist of the department, visited Nova Scotia, and described the moth and its habits and helped the paonle there by# advice, information and instruction to combat it; but up to the present time there lias been no law under which we could take any steps to stamp it out. This law will provide the necessary machinery for that work. I wish, without in any way interfering with or depreciating the effort of the provincial government, to help them in every possible way, and as soon as this Bill passes into law, I think we shall be able to work very effectively. Such a case as that mentioned might be one in which I might have to appoint an officer to aid the local authorities, or to carry out the provisions of this law, which might be more effective, especially in a case of the introduction from abroad of an insect pest, than a provincial or local law would be.


Clarence Jameson: I am pleased to hear that statement of the minister. I think it will be of very great assistance if he does make a move along that line. The pest was not very much known in this country until it was introduced into Nova Scotia three or four years ago, and the seriousness of it was not realized until a year or two had elapsed. It is a very serious pest, and any measures that would tend to stamp it out should be taken. In the county of Digby, although my hon. friend from Hants does not seem t-o have remembered it, we raise a good many apples, and I may say that the fruit is of a very excellent quality, particularly in the districts of Bear river, Hill Grove, Acaciaville, and other places. In these districts specimens of this moth have been found; and so far as I have been able to learn it has not only been spreading amongst the fruit trees, but is believed to have taken hold of the general forest growth. I do not know whether that is really the case or not, as I am not sufficiently well informed respecting the habits of this moth; but at all events there is a very suspicious looking insect, which bears a close resemblance in many particulars to the brown-tail moth. I would like to ask the minister whether this moth has beqn discovered in any of the other provinces of Canada, and if so, what measure of success has been met with in the endeavour to stamp it out?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would say to my hon. friend, in the first place, that this moth does not attack only fruit trees. It attacks all forest trees and shade trees just as much as it attacks fruit trees, except that it does not attack conifers; but deciduous trees it does attack. The moth is not known to exist anywhere except in that Mr. FISHER.
region. Nests have been discovered in some nursery stock, and this has been destroyed. I think my hon. friend was not here this afternoon when I explained that this year and last year we have been fighting this pest without any law. We have been aided, and very handsomely aided, by the importers of nursery stock, who have been willing to have our inspectors inspect their importations, although we had no authority to do so, and they consented to the destruction of such stock as- was affected. It was stated that this winter, during the importing season of nursery stock, we have inspected 1,700,000 seedling trees, and that 293 nests were found, in each of which there might have been from 200 to 300 caterpillars. These were all destroyed. Similar work was done last year. If they had been allowed to come in, there is no dcrubt that by this time the moth would have been thoroughly established in different parts of Canada. The permission of the people to allow us to do that work was purely voluntary. It is in consequence of that experience that I am introducing this Bill. I have here the last farm report for 1909, and it says:
In 1902, Mr. William McIntosh, of St. John, New Brunswick, took a single male specimen of the brown-tail moth (euproctis chry-sor'rhoEia, L.) about 20 miles from St. John, New Brunswick. About the same time another specimen was taken by Mr. Gordon Leavitt, at St. John; and in July of 1905, Mr. John Russell took a third specimen at Digby, Nova Scotia. Up to the present time these have been the only authentic records of this much-to-be-dreaded insect having been taken in Canada. Recently, however, I have received from Mr. C. Perry Foote, of Lakeville, Nova Scotia, one of the winter nests of the brown-tail moth, filled with the living caterpillars, thus proving that this insect has established itself at one place at least in Canada.
Dr. Saunders, in his report, says:
With the exception of the San Jose scale, there are no two insects which have attracted so much public attention, nor with regard to which so much money has been spent in America by the state and federal governments of the United States, as the Gypsy moth and the brown-tail moth. Both of these are pests introduced into America from Europe-the Gypsy moth about 1869, and the brown-tail moth somewhere about 1890. Millions of dollars have now been spent on fighting the Gypsy moth and the brown-tail moth in Massachusetts and the adjoining states. Dr. Howard, when treating of this insect and of an effort which is being made to introduce European parasites says, in the Year-book of the Department of Agriculture for 1905; ' The brown-tail moth has become even more abundant and injurious than the Gypsy moth, and, owing to the fact that the female flies readily, whereas the female of the Gypsy moth does not fly at all, the brown-tail moth has far exceeded the Gypsy moth in its spread/

It is this we are trying to fight against, and it is necessary to give us the *power to do this effectively. I again give credit to the importers of nursery stock for the manner in which they have co-operated with us in keeping the moth out, but at the same time in case of objection, we must take power to do this authoritatively.


Clarence Jameson: I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has read that statement from the report. If the seriousness of this pest were fully understood by the nurserymen and orchardists of this country generally, as we are beginning to understand it in Nova Scotia, I feel sure -that their assistance would be given to the department and to the minister in every effort he makes to stamp it out. If it got a foothold in this country, it would mean that the work of years, I might say the work of generations, would in a measure go for naught, so far as fruit raising is concerned.
I am glad to know that an energetic effort will now be made to destroy this pest in the country. I understood the minister to say that when he gets the legislative authority he thought it likely he would appoint an officer who would act in Nova Scotia, either in conjunction with or independently of the provincial authorities. I trust the minister will appoint that officer, and appoint him as soon as possible, so .that the most vigorous measures will be taken to aid the provincial authorities in reducing, in numbers, if not altogether exterminating this pest.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may be able to do the work with my present staff, but if the present staff is not sufficient, I will consider it to be my duty to appoint an officer. Last year, and again this year, circulars were sent to a list of about 25,000 orchardists, which we keep in the department, drawing attention to the dangers of this moth and how to detect it. In the agricultural press, and in the press generally throughout the country, information of a similar kind was published, and I believe it is largely due to our efforts that during the last few years, so far as we know, the moth has- not become established in Canada.
On subsection (d),


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why does the minister propose to give compensation to those who are sending in nursery stock from the other side, which is not fit to come into the country?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The loss would generally fall upon our own people. We believe that the cases and the packing in which the nursery stock comes will be pretty sure to contain moths, and consequently we think it necessary to destroy them. The owners complain that they would have been able to use this packing again and that its destruction was a serious loss to them. If these
things are destroyed in the interests of the public at large the owners ought to be compensated in the same way as we compensate owners of animals when we order their destruction. If we did not give compensation, it is not likely that our efforts would be very enthusiastically seconded.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would not the granting of this compensation be just as likely to make them careless about the goods they pack? If it is only the boxes and casings that are involved, they would only amount to about $2.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would include compensation for the stock also if that were destroyed.


Martin Burrell: In our province we have never given any compensation ^ but of course I am not referring to exceptional cases such as the brown-tail moth. Where we destroy, as we do sometimes, quite a heavy percentage of nursery stock importation, we give no compensation, and the importers usually insist on the goods being, sold under a guarantee to pass inspection.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The brown-tail moth has been discovered in shipments which come almost altogether from France, and the practice in the French trade is that the goods must be paid for before shipment. The importers have these two seasons suffered very considerable loss, which they have voluntarily undergone, although they protested very strongly that it was veTy unfair that they should not only lose the stock itself but the packages as well. But we found it absolutely necessary to destroy the packages as well as the stock because the eggs might just as well come in the packages. If no compensation be given, the temptation would be great to avoid the law, and it would be impossible to indentify these packages when used in enveloping other goods.


Martin Burrell: Is the minister applying compensation only to this particular case of the brown tail moth?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to say that. That would depend on the conditions and circumstances. I might find similar reasons for compensation in other cases.


Martin Burrell: The hon. gentleman will see that if the Dominion is going to compensate for all the nursery stock . destroyed, that would make it rather em-barassing for our province which gives no compensation, but of course, I admit that in certain circumstances it would be only fair to compensate.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Suppose, for instance, a certain potato disease, which has been discovered in Newfoundland, should find its

way to Canada, it would be my duty to destroy any crop of potatoes infected in order to prevent that disease from spreading; and it would be rather hard to enter on a man's farm and destroy his crop without giving him some compensation.


Martin Burrell: I am not opposing the principle because I admit that in certain special cases, it would be only just to compensate, but I would like to know whether that compensation is to be general. In the case of the San Jose scale, for example, the hon. gentleman would not compensate. What other particular cases are there in which he would?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not undertake t< say what cases absolutely should be compensated _ and what not. That will have to be decided by order in council.


Mr. WEIGHT.: Why should not the inspection take place in the country from
which the importation comes? How would it do to have a regulation requiring a certificate from a qualified inspector in the country where the goods were bought9 That certificate could be forwarded with the goods.
stroyed and no compensation paid. Then the exporters of these fruit trees would be more particular. If we are going to compensate to the extent of two-thirds of the value, these people would send over any amount of diseased stuff which they could not sell in their own country and get two-thirds of its value; I think the importer should be held responsible and should look to the man from whom he is buying to sell to him an article that would pass government inspection here, making that a condition of payment. Then, if no compensation for stock destroyed was granted, a better quality would be sent to Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We do not destroy the stock but only the packages and packing.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Is there no danger of this brown-tail moth escaping from the packages before the shruibs are inspected?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They could not get out of the packages.


John Albert Sexsmith: Thev should be inspected immediately on arrival here to avoid that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We would then be at the mercy of inspectors over whom we have no control. When the San Jose Scale Act was introduced, it was suggested that we might accept the certificate of, United States inspectors, but I was not quite prepared to do that. I prefer to have our own inspection than accept certificates from a class of men of whose appointments and qualifications we knew nothing.


Aaron Abel Wright: Suppose vou had your own inspection in addition when the goods arrive?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have just been informed that in seeding stock imported from France, in which were found a large number of nests of the brown-tail moth, every case was stamped with the official statement that the brown-tail moth had no existence in the region from which that nursery stock was shipped.


Aaron Abel Wright: Was the certificate by some qualified appointee of the Franco government?
Mr.	^es>
it is the certificate
of the Minister of Agriculture for the arrondisement from which the shipment came.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is it not a little out of the usual to compensate importers who bring in diseased stock? I would suggest that the importer should be responsible and that any fruit trees imported from France or the United States, which did not pass government inspection, should be de-1 Mr. FISHER.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are inspected as soon as possible.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I move that no compensation be received for the boxes in which they are packed or the packings. It seems folly to attempt to pay foreigners for boxes and packing which amount to only $2 or $3.


John Albert Sexsmith: If this moth is as dangerous as the minister has represented, would it not be better to entirely prohibit the importation of trees or shrubbery from infected countries altogether? That would not only keep out the moth but would give employment to a large number of people and encourage a new branch of industry.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Bill gives me that power which I have not at present. That stock is- raised iby the million in France and exported to the United States and Canada, and as I have said the prohibition of its importation would put a stop to the nursery business for some years. We tried the prohibition of importation when first combatting the San Jose scale, but as I have explained the fruit interests made such strong representations that we were obliged to establish stations where stock could be imported and fumigated.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: If the exporter were required to make good to the customer in Canada stock destroyed on account of this moth, the exporter would be very careful in the stock he sent to Canada. But, if the importer were allowed compensation

and the exporter -were thus freed from the loss, he would not take the same care. I think it would be worth the minister's while to consider whether it would not give better results if no compensation were allowed. I think this was a little different from the Diseases of Animals Act cited by the Minister of Agriculture, for in such cases the disease develops through no fault of the exporter, and yet may affect the whole country. But, in the case of this stock, the exporter is directly responsible. There is competition among the exporters whether in France or in any other country, and, if a man sends out stock that has to 'be destroyed on reaching Canada, knowing that the importer will probably, try to find some other sources of supply, he will be more likely to grant compensation to the importer. Looking at it purely as a commercial transaction, I think it would be a mistake for the country to decide to give compensation as a general thing. It would probably encourage rather than discourage carelessness in the shipping of stock into the country. I may be wrong, but that is the way it appeals to me.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Some ol the older members of this House will remember Mr. E. D. Smith, of Winona, who was a member of the last parliament and, I think, of some parliaments before that. I have his letter applying for compensation for the cases which he burnt last year. I felt a good deal of sympathy with Mr. Smith who, in this public-spirited way. destroyed these cases without hesitation. I have the invoices and statements and find that the loss from these importations came to $92. Of that, under this proposal we should pay about $60. When this application came in, Dr. Saunders, director of the experimental farm, wrote to the chief of the bureau of Horticulture of the State of New York, and found that under their old law they could not pay nursery men for cases, burned, but they found so many instances of hardship and such a movement in regard to the matter that they were amending their old law so as- to authorize the Commissioner of Agriculture to pay for such losses. I believe that the amendment has since been made. I am perfectly satisfied, from my experience both with the San Jose Scale Act and the Contagious Diseases of - Animals Act that we axe likely to secure the much more hearty co-operation of nurserymen and importers in our work by giving compensation. The small cost that is likely to be involved will be amply repaid by the greater willingness on the part of these people to give us information. My hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) speaks of the effect of the commercial system. I dare say that works in some ways, but I am informed by those importers that, as a matter of
fact, they have to send the money before they gqt the goods. These are perishable goods, and the people who ship them, I suppose, do not want to run the risk of the voyage and handling. There may be cases where compensation can properly be given -I mean a general class of cases, not individual cases-and others, in which it would not be necessary or proper. It is for that reason that we take the power to do this by order in council. That order in council, of course, will not provide that John Jones shall get compensation, and Peter Smith shall not get it, but will declare what line of occurrences would call for the payment of compensation. I considered this matter very carefully before deciding to put it into the Bill, and, for the reasons I have given, I think it in the interests of the efficient carrying out of the Bill that we should have power, undeT certain circumstances, to pay compensation.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I can see why exporters should sometimes demand payment in advance. Fruit stock is perishable and the handling may easily cause loss. But, from my own experience of the commercial side extending over a good many years, I should think that if a man were importing from a house, doing business with them from time to time, and wrote back making a claim, pointing out that through their own fault the loss had occurred, he could secure payment for the damage. Where the fault was their own in sending diseased stock any reputable exporting firm would make an allowance. In the cases cited by the minister, where the importer voluntarily destroys cases, I agree that there should be compensation. But what I contend is that the general order allowing compensation would work along the lines I have indicated. If the importer has the government's own certificate that the stock has been destroyed because of disease, he has final evidence that his claim for compensation is just. I am not sure that an absolute legal claim could mot be made, though that would depend upon the conditions of the bargain. But, on general principles, I believe compensation could be had from the importer. 1 can see that granting government compensation might give rise to difficulties on the lines I have suggested.


John Albert Sexsmith: It seems to me we are running great risk in allowing this to go on. A gentleman who had raised some of this stock, speaking to me a year or two ago, said that if it were not for the competition from European countries, we could create quite an industry in this country. But, owing to the cheapness of labour in Germany and France, they could produce this stock at very low rates and our nurserymen insisted on buying it there. I do mot see why we should run the risk of im-

porting any further tests into our country when we can produce this stock equally as good if not better at home. If something were done to encourage the nurserymen or to comnel them to raise in Canada the natural stock of the country we would not be taking any chances of importing the brown-tail moth or any other pest.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend knows that there is a duty on these things which gives the home producer an advantage.


John Albert Sexsmith: Not so much as the difference in labour.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is twenty-five per cent, if I remember rightly.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot heln but feel justified in taking the position that I have. It would be a good thing if this clause could be amended so that people in Canada would receive a payment of two-thirds of the value of that which was destroyed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nobody but Canadians would receive it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, the minister said that he would like to have the privilege of paying the Canadian for his potato crop.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is all right, but if we pay the foreigner two-thirds of what his goods cost, I think we are going a little beyond what we should do. I feel that we would be justified in amending this clause so that the foreigners sending his goods into this country would lose the boxes, and the packing, which would only amount to a few dollars in each case, but which would make him more careful.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am afraid that the foreigners will not lose anything at all. The Canadian importer will have to pay the foreigner the full value, and he will not get anything back from him. He, and not the foreigner, will lose it. If the goods are destroyed in Canada in consequence of the existence of disease under this clause, the Canadian importer will lose the full value of them, and by this clause he may be compensated to the value of two-thirds.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He will be more careful.	.


Martin Burrell: This Bill gives the government the power that they never possessed before, not only of dealing with trees, and vegetables, and of entering upon any man's premises, but of destroying his crop, or orchard. This provision is followed by power to appoint inspectors, and by penalty clauses. While I am not personally familiar with the legislation in the various provinces, I know that Ontario is doing a very great deal of good work of this kind, and Mr. SEXSMITH.
that Nova Scotia is doing something. With Quebec horticultural methods I am not at all familiar, but I am thoroughly familiar with what we are doing in British Columbia. I recognize that it is in the interests of horticulture that if any province is not carrying on work of this kind, and if there are serious inroads being made by fungus diseases, and insect pests, it will be helpful to have power to do these very things; but where, as in British Columbia, we are doing these things with thoroughness and have a large body of officials, and knowing also, as I have reason to know, the difficulty in getting qualified men always to ascertain what is the real source of injury, the question arises as to the advisability of duplicating these services. When in 1898, 1899, and 1901, the province of Ontario appointed a large corps of inspectors under the San Jose Scale Act I do not suppose that there were half a dozen in the whole body who knew the difference between an armoured, and an unarmoured scale. There is the difficulty. If the minister should appoint a lot of inspectors to carry out this Act there may be the same natural difficulty from their want of technical knowledge. But where we have, as in British Columbia, a large body of inspectors, while we are anxious to co-operate with the Dominion, I think we want some reasonable assurance that this clause will not be put into effect in our case, as long as we are carrying on that work. I would like to see any possible clash of jurisdiction avoided.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I quite sympathize with my hon. friend. I tried to say this afternoon that where a properly constituted provincial authority is doing work of this kind, I should shrink from entering upon the field. I should only do so where I felt it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the whole country. As far as British Columbia is concerned I do not wish either to relieve the provincial government from the responsibility of this work, or to interfere with it. I would take great pains to see that we do not overlap where it can possibly be avoided. I take the words of the hon. gentleman as being almost authoritative,- because I know the influence that he would have with the British Columbia government, and I am quite sure that his influence would be in the direction of procuring thorough co-operation betweeen the officers, and authorities in British Columbia, and my own officers, and myself. I would welcome that not only from that province, but from all other provinces. I said to the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) that I knew what the provincial government of Nova Scotia were doing in connection with the brown-tail moth. If we can aid them in any way I shall see to it that we do so, but I shall not think of interfering with, or trying to override any

action that they have taken. I think, however, without absolute knowledge, that this Act gives a little greater authority than any of the provincial Acts do, except that of British Columbia, and that the machinery created, or to be created, by this Act, and the regulations under it will give me a little better facility for carrying out certain things than is in existence in any of the provinces, with the possible exception of British Columbia. The Ontario government has passed several Acts covering somewhat the same ground, but I do no't think any one of them is quite so complete, and I am not speaking with the idea of imputing any blame, or censure in the matter. I am simply speaking from having examined these Acts, while drawing this up, and I think perhaps this Act is a little more complete than theirs. From the fact that the regulations under this Act will apply to the whole country it gives a greater safeguard than could possibly accrue from the Act of any one province.


Richard Blain: Did the minister consult the different local governments when he was preparing this Bill? There is a feeling in Canada that there is too muclj overlapping legislation between the Dominion and the provinces, and that a great deal of ex-' pense and much trouble would be saved if there was more concurrent action on matters of this kind.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We sent to Mr. C. C. James of the Department of Agriculture, Ontario, a copy of this Act, and communications have passed between us on the subject.


Richard Blain: I commend the minister for that, and I trust that the -example will be followed in the future under similar circumstances.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I recognize the assistance such interchange of views lias always been to me in my departmental work.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


ELECTRICAL MEASURE.
[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the second reading of Bill (No. 7) respecting units of electrical measure.
Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN.: Since this Bill has been introduced, the department has ascertained that the provision with regard to electrical units does not meet with the unanimous approval of the international committee, and it has been suggested that it should be deferred for another year. I move that the order be discharged.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What are the reasons?


William Templeman: I have stated them briefly. At the congress of electrical experts held in London, representing nearly all countries in the world using electricity, a sub-committee was appointed to prepare a description of electrical units which should be uniform throughout the world, and that description is contained in the Bill before the House. Later, the sub-committee disagreed in respect to one or two of the measures of electrical units and they have recommended that this Bill shall not be proceeded with until after a meeting which within a few months will be held in Washington. In all probability the Bill will be introduced next session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and order discharged. MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
On the order being called for the second reading of Bill (No. 49) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: After this Bill was introduced, further representations on the subject came to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he has asked me to move that the order be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and order discharged.

Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY moved second reading of Bill (No. 103) to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. He said: This Bill repeals sections 4 and 5 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, chapter 115 of the Revised Statutes, and substitutes the following;
No bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier, or other structure of any kind, shall be built or placed in or across any navigable water, unless the site thereof has been approved by the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier, or other structure is built and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Governor in Council.
Section 5 is as follows:
Any work to which this part applies, which is built upon a site not approved by the Governor in Council, or which is not built in accordance with plans so approved, or which, having been so built, is not maintained in accordance with such plans, may be removed and destroyed under the authority of the Governor in Council.
I will read the sections of the present Act so that hon. gentlemen will see in what particulars the changes are made. Section 4 of chapter 115 is as follows:
No bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau shall be constructed so as to interfere with navigation, unless the site thereof has been approved of by the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau is built and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Governor in Council.

It will be seen that that is limited to bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau. It makes . no reference to a wharf, dock, pier or other structure. Then, strange to say, section 5 of the present Act simply reiers to a bridge. It says:
Any bridge to which this part applies, which is built upon a site not approved by the Governor in Council, or which is not built in accordance with plans so approved, or which, having been so built, is not maintained in accordance with such plans, in so far as the same interferes with navigation, may be lawfully removed and destroyed under the authority of the Governor in Council.
It will be seen that the object of this Bill is to give a larger measure of control to the Governor in Council over navigable waters. Section 4 of the present Act, while limited to a bridge, a boom, a dam, or an aboiteau, simply provides that it shall he constructed so as not to interfere with navigation. That leaves it doubtful as to what authority is to determine whether or not anv structure of this kind does interfere with navigation. I have had a number of cases brought to my attention where bridges have been erected across navigable waters. This has been so particularly in our western provinces, where, as -would naturally be the case in the early development of the country, there would not be steamers operating on the navigable rivers, or where, by reason of the necessity of certain improvements, navigation, while good in some parts, would not, on the whole, be suitable for the larger steamers; and some of the provincial governments have built bridges without coming to the Department of Public Works for approval. I have in mv mind a notable instance of a bridge being erected by a provincial government across the South Saskatchewan river. That was erected without any provision for navigation and evidently on the theory that as there was no navigation of the river by steamers at present, it could not be said that the bridge interfered with navigation.


Richard Blain: Near what point is that?


William Pugsley: Near Saskatoon, and a very unfortunate accident happened about two years ago. After the bridge was built, telegraph and telephone companies stretched wires across the river, which interfered with navigation to the same extent as the bridge; and a gentleman who owned a small vessel-I think he had built it further up the river-came down the river, and his vessel was caught in the wires and wrecked, and he sustained a loss of $11,000 or $12,000, for which he has not been able to obtain any redress. He could not obtain it from the Department of Public Works, because we had given no authority for the construction of the bridge or the Mr. PUGSLEY.
stringing of the telegraph or telephone wires across the river. It seems to me that in view of the great importance to this country of preserving navigation as far as possible, it is very desirable that there should be no works of any kind constructed in navigable waters without the plans being first submitted to the Department of Public Works, and approved by the minister and the Governor in Council. It is also rather extraordinary that section 4 of the Act at present makes no provision for wharfs, yet in most cases it has been recognized that the Department of Public Works has control over wharfs, and over and' over again we are asked to approve of the location of wharfs in navigable waters. This is, I think, as it should be. As the Dominion government is invested by the British North America Act with the control of navigation, it is most desirable, in the interests of the whole country, that when any person or company purposes to construct a work in a navigable water, that person or company should be compelled to come to the Department of Public Works and submit plans, and have those plans approved of before proceeding with the erection of the structure, whether it be a bridge, a wharf, a pier or any other structure that might interfere with navigation. I think the department and the Governor in Council ought to be the judge whether or not the work as proposed to be constructed would interfere with navigation or not. Of course, if it will not interfere with navigation it will be the duty of the department to grant its approval of the pronosed work. The Bill contains onlv the two sections which are to be in substitution of sections 4 and 5 of the present Act.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. minister refers to docks and wharfs in addition to the structures mentioned in the old Act. I would like to ask him whether he '"s quite sure that in adding these words he will not interfere with private rights. The words are not confined to public docks or public wharfs, but refer to all wharfs and all docks. It may be difficult at times to know whether the property of a private individual alongside of a navigable water might or might not come under the Bill. If this parliament is undertaking to interfere with private property in that respect, it may be a somewhat serious question m some eases. The department might undertake to dictate to the owner of valuable property alongside of a navigable stream what he should or should not do with his own property. Does the hon. gentleman think that this government should control the property of individuals alongside such waters, if in its opinion the structures might interfere with navigation? If they were public

docks or wharfs which he intends to deal with, that might be another question, but the language of the Bill, as the hon. gentleman has explained it, would seem to cover everything in the nature of a dock or wharf adjoining navigable waters..


William Pugsley: I do not see how we could properly safeguard navigation and make provision for the proper control over navigable waters unless we made the law general in its application. The present section provides that no bridge, dam or aboiteau shall be constructed so as to interfere with navigation. That gives the government control over work of that character, even although they might project from a shore belonging to a private individual. Of course the owner of a foreshore has no right to interfere with navigation because that is under control of the Dominion government, and therefore it is not unreasonable that before a private individual be allowed to build out into a navigable water a wharf or pier, he should come to the department and submit his plans. Let me give a case in point. A short time ago application was made to the department for approval of a wharf which the Grand Trunk Pacific proposed to construct in front of its property in the harbour of Victoria. That is just such a case as my hon. friend refers to.


Samuel Barker: That goes outside the Grand Trunk Pacific property as I understand it.


William Pugsley: Not any more than if a private owner proposed to build a wharf out into a navigable stream, and that is the only case to which this Bill would apply. That is what the Grand Trunk Pacific proposed to do. That company recognized that if the department had no control, it ought to have. They therefore took their plans to the Public Works Department for approval. I directed that their application should .be referred to the resident engineer, and he conferred with the other wharf owners, more especially with the Canadian Pacific railway and the harbour association of Victoria, and I think also with members of the board of trade. The objection was taken that if this wharf were allowed to be built as the Grand Trunk Pacific proposed, it would narrow the harbour and make it exceedingly difficult for steamers coming to the Canadian Pacific railway wharf to be handled with safety. The resident engineer then recommended that the dimensions of the proposed wharf should be cut down somewhat. The Grand Trunk Pacific agreed to this, the Canadian Pacific railway was satisfied, and so was the innei harbour association of Victoria, and the wharf, instead of being an injury to navigation, will be an aid to it. I only mention this as an illustration of a case where it is very desirable in the public interest that a plan of that wharf to be constructed in front of the property, owned by a private individual or a company, should be submitted to the department. Take the case of an individual owning property abutting upon navigable water and alongside of whom there was another individual also owning property. Bach might propose to build a wharf out into the navigable water and the result might be a very serious interference with navigation; but if application had to be made to the department, our engineer would have to examine and report and the wharfs would *have to be so constructed as to be an advantage instead of a hindrance to navigation. I think, therefore, that if the Dominion government is to properly discharge the duty it owes the public in this connection under the British North America Act, it is necessary to have the law amended as proposed. No public difficulty would be created and no private injury would be done because we must assume that the department would be reasonable and only exercise its power to prevent navigation being injuriously affected.


Samuel Barker: The case to which the hon. minister has referred is not one of those to which I alluded. He refers to a case in which the Grand Trunk Pacific propose to extend a wharf into navigable waters, not building upon its own property solely, but going beyond that into the property of the Crown. That was not the case I was putting. I asked whether the language of the Bill would enable the government to dictate to the proprietor of land adjoining a stream and prevent him constructing a pier or wharf on his own property without the approval of the government.


William Pugsley: If the structure were not to project into navigable water, this section of the Bill would not affect it because it says: 'Shall be built or placed in or across any navigable water'.


Samuel Barker: There are a great many crown patents which extend to navigable waters and where a person building a wharf will build it on the margin of a navigable stream. It would be an infringement on civil rights if the government should say to him: ' You must not build your wharf except under our approval, you must build a particular class of wharf, we propose to build a wharf along there, and you must build yours in accordance with that. If the government wish to interfere with civil rights, with the property of individuals, with the right of an individual to build a wharf or dock on -his

own property adjoining a navigable stream, almost in the stream, but on his own water line, however much that may be in the interests of the public, it seems to me such interference should not be allowed against rights already acquired without expropriation and compensation. I do not sav that the Bill goes that far, I merely call attention to the matter which I would like to have discussed before the Bill passes.


William Pugsley: I think the words are such as will not raise this difficulty.
No bridge, boom, dam, &c., shall be built or placed in or across any navigable water.
If a man was building just upon the line *of the navigable water, he would not come [DOT]under the provisions of that section, but where he builds out into the navigable water, he would come within the section.


Mr. McKENZIE.: Is it not extremely difficult to determine in any navigable stream where the navigability begins? I take it that every drop of the St. Lawrence river is navigable water from bank to bank. No private ownership of the bed of a navigable river is recognized. Any ownership in the bed of a river is subject to the superior control of navigation, and it cannot be used however inconvenient it may be to the private owner, and. however much it may interfere with his private rights. The whole of the water is navigable, and I do not think it is wise to say that to a depth of perhaps three feet it is not navigable and at ten feet it is. You have to recog-1 nize that in any navigable harbour or stream every drop of water is navigable water, and all private rights are subject to the superior control of navigation. The argument of the hon. member for Hamilton strikes the harbour of North Sydney, where-we have a string of wharfs along the shore, and I realize this Bill will be putting people building wharfs along th4 water to inconvenience. However, I recognize that the bottom of that harbour is subject to navigation, and that private rights, as far .as these private rights can be exercised, must not interfere with the higher right of navigation.


Samuel Barker: On the Detroit river, for [DOT]example, there are most valuable properties where the freehold runs out into much more than two or three feet of water. There are properties at Windsor and Sandwich, and all along the river, where I fancy the owners would be very much surprised to hear they had no private rights although there were only two or three or even more feet of water. It is only that point I am guarding against. I think we must have a little regard to rights that have been acquired and perhaps enjoyed for a century.


Samuel Barker: 


William Pugsley: When we get into committee, I will be very glad to receive any [DOT]suggestions as to amendments.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved the second reading of Bill (No. 132) to amend the Gas Inspection Act. He said:	The only important amendment in this Bill is the taking power to test for the calorific quality of gas. Another amendment is to substitute the word ' district ' instead of ' city, town or 'place>' to conform with the districts of the Inland Revenue Department. Another amendment is to decrease the permissible limit of error in the testing of gas meters. At present the permissible limit of error is three per cent m favour of the producer and four per cent in favour of the consumer. That is being narrowed down to two per cent and three per cent, thus giving us better meters. The other amendments are merely substituting the word 1 district ' and repeahng_ the clause respecting inspection, which will hereafter be by regulation.
Mr. STEWART.: In Hamilton we have believed that there was no provision to protect the users of gas, that they could furnish us with any quality of gas, and that there was no provision whereby the city could have the gas tested.
Mr. BEATTIE, Every city has a proper protection for its gas supply, and it is tested for quality frequently. In London the gas is tested regularly.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Are you speaking of artificial gas?


Mr. BEATTIE.: Yes, that is artificial gas.


William Templeman: Under the present Gas Inspection Act all artificial gas is inspected as to its quality, and its illuminating power. One of the best inspectors we have in Canada is in Hamilton, and I have never heard any complaint from there as to the inspection of artificial gas. Natural gas is not inspected as regards its illuminating qualities as, under the law, it is not supposed to be used as an illuminant, although it is so used. It is inspected for the purpose of determining that it does not contain sulphuretted hydrogen, which is a deadly noxious gas. The gas Act now on the statute-book was passed long before natural gas was in use in Ontario, and it does not recognize the use of natural gas as an illuminant. Under this Bill, we seek authority to test natural gas for its heating power, which authority we do not now possess. I think it is a fact gas is less

and less used as an illuminant, unless it is used with mantles, and when it is used with mantles, the quality it requires to possess is heating rather than illuminating power, as the mantle is made incandescent by the calorific power of the gas, and it is this calorific power which should be the basis of the test of natural gas.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section l,
John Allister Currie: I desire to ask the Minister of Inland Revenue arr explanation with regard to certain matters. For instance, the law provides that there shall be no sulphuretted hydrogen or ammonia in gas. Then, the section here proposed provides that something must be added to the gas to give it an odour. 1 ask the minister to explain what authority he has for stating that sulphuretted hydrogen in gas is more deadly than ordinary gas itself or methane?


William Templeman: I did not say sulphuretted hydrogen is more deadly than other gas; I am not enough of a chemist to know that. But I said that under the law sulphuretted hydrogen was not allowed to form part of gas used as an illuminant. It does not appear in artificial gas anywhere in Canada that I am aware of.


John Allister Currie: The advantage of the presence of sulphuretted hydrogen in natural gas is that it gives the peculiar odour that enables people using it to detect a leak.


William Templeman: I do not know that it gives its peculiar odour to natural gas altogether. But I say that, under the law, it must not appear in gas used as an illuminant.


John Allister Currie: I am taking issue with the minister. That clause was put into the previous Act to prevent, so far as possible, the use of natural gas.


William Templeman: No.


John Allister Currie: I happen to be a little acquainted with this matter. What I want to know is why there is an objection to sulphuretted hydrogen?


William Templeman: My information is that sulphuretted hydrogen is a deadly poison. If used in illuminating gas, and there is any escape into the room, it is extremely dangerous. The object of the provision of the law which has been on the statute-book for thirty or forty years is to prohibit the use of gas characterized by this dangerous quality. That is entirely different from the department haying power to make an odorless gas odorous. I do not know * 180
that gas is made in Canada which is inodorous. I wmuld suppose that the object of making gas odorous is that you can smell it, because inodorous gas escaping into a room would be an extremely dangerous thing. It could not be detected. Death might result, but, as a matter of fact, I think all gas is odorous more or less. Mv deputy says that he has not been required to compel anv manufacturer to put anything into the gas to make it odorous.


Thomas Beattie: Of course natural gas is inodorous. You cannot detect it when it
escapes.


John Allister Currie: What makes the gas odorous is the sulphuretted hydrogen, and that sulphuretted hydrogen is not a particle more deadly than the natural gas itself. It does not form a new combination different from that which already exists?


Thomas Beattie: How is it put in?


John Allister Currie: It comes there naturally. It is born in the gas the same as sulphur is in petroleum. There is a certain amount of sulphur in petroleum. There is a certain amount of sulphur in natural gas which is merely a higher fraction than petroleum. This provision was inserted in the Bill a number of years ago to prevent the people from using natural gas. Some artificial gas makei'3 said that natural gas was dangerous, and for that reason they compelled the producers of natural gas, when the gas was to be used for illuminating purposes, to put it through a process. I cannot understand why if natural gas is deadly when it escapes into a room, it is any more deadly than sulphuretted hydrogen.


William Templeman: I do not know enough about the peculiar properties of gases to debate the question with my hon. friend. My understanding is that if sulphuretted hydrogen in artificial or natural gas escapes into a room or is burned in a room it is an extremely dangerous thing; in fact, fatal. There is not a particle of sulphuretted hydrogen permitted in any artificial gas made in Canada. If one of our inspectors found its presence there he would immediately notify the manufactur-ers^and a change would be made, or the manufacturers would be fined if they allowed such gas to go into consumption. It is a fact that in many natural gases sulphuretted hydrogen is present. As a matter of fact, some of the wells had to be closed down because of it. We do not recognize the use of natural gas as an ii-luminant. There has been a continuous contest between the department, and some of the owners of wells in western Ontario, but we have not recognized it. The owners of wells do not undertake to sell thej.r gas as an illuminant. They sell it



for heating purposes, and the parties who buy the gas light their houses with it. Recently we have been endeavouring to get the owners of some of the gas wells, particularly around the city of Chatham, to use a small purifier, which I think is working satisfactorily. I have not caught the point of my hon. friend. We do not permit sulphuretted hydrogen in gas. The law has not permitted it before, and it is not proposed to permit it now. My hon. friend says that this is put in the Act for the purpose of preventing the use of natural ga3.
I do not think that is so. My deputy assures me it is not so. The Act. i3 older than the use of natural gas as an illum-inant, which is of recent date. Therefore, it could not have been put in for that purpose. The amendments that we are making now are for the purpose of still further strengthening the Act. We are going to take power and that is the principal amendment-to test the heating, or calorific power, of all gases. As gas is coming into universal use for heating purposes, and as it is disappearing as fin illuminant it is very necessary that we should have that power. It is not absolutely disapnearing as an illuminant, but where it is still used it is used with a mantle, and you very seldom see an open flame now. Where the mantle is used it is the calorific poorer, and not the illuminating power that is important, because heat has to be produced to make the mantle incandescent.


John Allister Currie: The original idea of preventing sulphuretted hydrogen in gas was to prevent gas makers from selling water gas. Now the world is going largely into the manufacture of water gas, and producers are able to sell Mond gas at a very low figure, and it will continue to be sold as heating gas. I do not think that this sulphuretted hydrogen, which is contained in the gas is any more deadly than the gas itself, any more than fusil oil is more., deadly than whisky. Either one will kill a man if he takes enough. I cannot understand why this clause is put into the Canadian Act, except to compel the sellers of natural gas to put the gas through an expensive cleaning process. You have to use iron filings to take the sulphur out of it, and it must go through a purifier. This gas is just as safe as the gas that is used in a gas engine. The producer gas used in a gas engine has that sulphuretted hydrogen in it, and if you are going to have it taken out of illuminating gas you might as well say that a factory should have it taken out of the gas that it uses for industrial purposes. With what little knowledge I have of the practical use of gas in engines and of the use of natural gas, I am led to the conclusion that this is a fool provision. It is a fool provision that was put into the Act away back fifty years ago, and is still held on to.


William Templeman: 


William Templeman: What does my hon. friend want changed?


John Allister Currie: The objection-1 have to this Bill is the provision in paragraph ;(d) of section 31. We have not reached that yet, but you are dealing with it in clause (b) of the first section. 'You compel them to take the nasty smell out of the gas by clause 31 by removing sulphuretted hydrogen, and m clause 3 you compel them to put something else in the gas to give it a smell.


William Templeman: Subsection 3 has -been the law for many years, and I am advised that none of the gas made in Canada is inodorous, and every one knows that inodorous gas would be very dangerous if it leaked. In subsection 3 we have added ' for testing the calorific power of gas,' which is a very necessary provision. There is no inspection now for testing the calorific power of gas, and it is coming into general use for heating purposes.


John Allister Currie: Do you fix a standard?


William Templeman: We will fix a standard by regulation.


John Allister Currie: You have power to test and inspect in the Act, but so far as I see, you have no power to fix a standard.


William Templeman: I have no objection to add the words ' for testing the calorific power of gas and establishing standards therefor.'


John Allister Currie: That is right.
Clause, -as amended, agreed to.


William Templeman: In subclause (d), I add a new section: ' for testing the illuminating power of gas,' and to that I will add the words suggested by the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie), ' and establishing standards therefor.' Then, in subsection (e), to the words 'or testing the purity of gas,' we will also add the words ' and establishing standards therefor.'


John Allister Currie: That appears to be all right.
On section 3, meters to comply with true standard measure.


William Templeman: This is one of the important amendments. It limits the percentage of errors in the meter. The old law allowed 3 per cent in favour of the seller and 4 per cent in favour of the consumer. We are now narrowing the limit down to 2 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively, thus making the meter more perfect.
On section 4, undertaking of gas makers as to supply and quality of gas.


John Allister Currie: The complaint is made that sometimes natural gas is supplied at far too great a pressure. Has the minister taken into consideration an amendment to provide that it shall not be delivered to the consumer above a certain pressure?


William Templeman: I am advised that gas from a natural well could not be taken into a house at the natural pressure of the well, and that as a matter ot fact it is always reduced to a very small pressure.


John Allister Currie: Sometimes it is not reduced enough, and, therefore, causes leaks in the joints of the pipes, which in turn cause explosions in houses.


Samuel Barker: I would suggest that the minister use the words, ' proper and sufficient pressure.'
Amendment as proposed agreed to.


John Allister Currie: I have already taken exception to paragraph (d), which says that the gas 'shall exhibit no trace of sulphuretted hydrogen or any excess of sulphur and ammonia.' I think the department has sufficient power to make regulations without the necessity of a statutory enactment of this kind, and, moreover, this is not necessary, because I do not think that it can be shown that sulphuretted hydrogen is poisonous.


William Templeman: This clause is regarded by the department as most important. The very reason why we inspect gas is that no trace of sulphuretted hydrogen is permitted in it. These provisions, I am advised by the experts of the department, are essential to the proper inspection of gas. Its nurity and its illuminating quality are the two great points. My hon. friend says that we can make regulations covering these provisions. If so, there can be no objection to having them in the Act.


John Allister Currie: I say that neither the hon. gentleman nor any chemist can show me that sulphuretted hydrogen is poisonous.


William Templeman: I am advised that no chemist in the world will agree with my hon. friend. A year ago, when we tried to legalize the use ,of natural gas as an illuminant, the chemist of our department would not permit natural gas, with 1 per cent of sulphuretted hydrogen in it, to be used as an illuminant.


John Allister Currie: I take issue with the chemist of the denartment. I say that sulphuretted hydrogen is neither nois-onous nor does it form an element in the compound when burned. It happens to be a component of two very cheap gases which the public want to use: one is nat-i8oa
ural gas, and the other is Mond gas; and this clause is kept in the Act to compel these gases to be put through very expensive processes in order to remove the smell of sulphuretted hydrogen, which is not dangerous and thereby to make the gas more expensive to the consumer. I say again that, from my knowledge of chemistry, which is not very great and should not be any greater than the minister's, who is a doctor, sulphuretted hv-drogen is not poison, and I do not think he can find anybody who can show that it is.


William Templeman: I am not a chemist but nothing has been impressed upon me so much in the administration of this Act by the experts of the department as the fact that sulphuretted hydrogen is poisonous. The chief inspector gives me this memo:
Sulphuretted hydrogen is the one poison in gas which is not destroyed by combustion, but escapes into the room as sulphurous acid gas. The other poisonous constituents are destroyed by combustion.
The whole inspection of manufactured gas in Canada during all these years has been with the view of eliminating the very-last particle of sulphuretted hydrogen.


John Allister Currie: An ordinary coal stove will produce more sulphuretted hydrogen in a room than half a dozen gas jets, there is no question but that it is an expensive process to take the sulphuretted hydrogen out of natural gas, more especially out of the cheaper gas called Mond gas. The regulations are already sufficient. Clause 3 permits the department to 'take steps to protect the public so that it is not necessary to have clause 4. If at any time the department wishes to relax their regulations they can do so, but under this clause they cannot.


William Templeman: In accordance with the hon. gentleman's suggestion, I wpuld move that after the words ' by regulation made by the minister,' in the fourth line, the words ' or not in accordance with the standard ' be substituted.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


William Templeman: I also desire to add the general penalty clause which we have in all our Inland iRevenue Acts as subsection 3 of section 8:
Every person who violates any of the provisions of this Act, or any of the regulations established under this Act, or who neglects any duty imposed on him by this Act, or by any such regulation for which violation or neglect no penalty is specially herein provided, shall incur a penalty of not less than $25 and not more than $100.
Subsection, as amended, agreed to.

On section 9,


William Templeman: I move to substitute for this section:
Sections 35, 36, 37 and 38, and the schedule of the said Act are hereby repealed.
We have made certain changes in the Act that make these clauses unnecessary.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The House will be moved into Committee of Supply. We will take up first the remaining items of the supplementary estimates, and after that the Minister of Public Works will continue with his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 18, 1910.