1911-04-28

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I deem it my duty to call attention to an article which appeared yesterday in the Toronto ' Telegram,' in which direct reference was made to me. The article is a long one, and I need not read it all. It will be sufficient to read the matter which has reference to my name. The article proceeds to say that on the 2nd of March this letter was addressed to me:
My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-I see that you are having troubles of your own by the defection of the 'young Napoleon' on the trade question and in other ways. The other ways are the more serious. Only in one instance in the history of Canada has the trade question played a part in making or unmaking a government, and that was in 1878. Even then, as you will know, there was contributory negligence on the part of the government.
Clifford Sifton's defection on the present occasion will not count against your government. He is a squeezed lemon politically, and without patronage, controls no following.
Neither your government nor any other government will fall, except from weakness on the inside. That was what happened to the Tories in 18S6. Ministers of the cabinet had become corrupt and the McGreevy-Lange-vin scandal, aided by the Manitoba School Bill and cabinet crookedness, did the rest. Recently evidence had come to me that one of your colleagues is a grafter and a boodler. I shall be in Ottawa for a few days, and am willing to submit the evidence to you as Tarte was willing to submit his evidence of the Langevin-McGreevy boodling to Sir John Macdonald. Should you see fit to take im-
Opposition.
Haggart (Lanark), Beattie,
McCarthy,
Northrup,
Osier,
Maddin,
Forget,
Lewis,
Kidd,
Daniels,
Meighen,
Wilsox,
Macdonnell,
Lancaster,
Clare,
Haggart (Winnipeg), Bristol,
Bradbury,
Campbell.
Gordon (Nipissing), Jameson,
Owen,
Sharpe (Ontario), Currie (Simcoe), Boyce,
Ames,
Foster,
Broder,
Marshall,
Lalor,
Worthington.

*mediate action it would go no further. The alternative would he to (place the document, letters and photographs of cheques, &c., in the hands of the opposition.
On the receipt of that letter, I instructed my secretary to send the following communication to the gentleman who wrote it:
Ottawa, March 3, 1911.
Dear iSir,-I am instructed toy the Prime Minister to inform you that he will toe in his office at .10 o'clock to-morrow, Saturday morning, and ready to see you.
Tours very sincerely,
E. J. LEMAIRE, Private (Secretary.
The gentleman in question waited bn me, as stated in the rest of the letter, several times. Without committing my memory as to the number of times, I know it was more than once, but the tenor of each conversation between us on these occasions was of the same nature. The gentleman in question, with whom I had in former years friendly relations, but with whom I have not been in communication for many years, called on me and gave me the name of one of my colleagues and said that he had lost the confidence of the party, particularly in his own province, that he was a boodler and a grafter, and for these reasons should go out of the government. I said that I had no reason to doubt the honesty of my colleague, who was not only a colleague but a personal friend, and that I would not accept the alternative he mentioned, namely, 'should you see fit to take immediate action it would go no further; but the alternative would be, to place the documents, letters and photographs of cheques in the hands of the opposition.' I .stated to my informant that I would not take any such action as he suggested under such terms, that I had the fullest confidence in my colleague, that I believed in his honesty, and that if it were shown that my confidence were misplaced, he would have to take the consequences. My informant was free to take such steps as he pleased, to place the papers and documents in the hands of the opposition and do anything he pleased with them. If my colleague were then proved to be dishonest, he would have to take the consequences, but if not it was my duty to stand loyally by him. This is the gist of any conversation that took place between us. This is the position I take and I leave that position in the hands of parliament and the country.



THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to inquire of the right hon. the Prime Minister what his intentions are with respect to attendance at the approaching Imperial Conference and Coronation?


Wilfrid Laurier: I may suy that I deem it my duty to attend the Conference, not only because I have been invited, but because in the last Conference in 1907, the permanency of the Imperial Conference was assured. It was decided that it should meet every four years and be attended by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Colonial Secretary, the Prime Ministers of the self-governing dominions, and such members of the cabinets as should be selected. It is now over six weeks since I have taken my passage on the Virginian to sail on the 12th of May, and it is my intention to sail on that day unless prevented by public business. I have come to the conclusion that should my presence here be required, as indeed there is every indication it may be, it will be my duty to forego the privilege of attending the conference. My first duty is to Canada, but I still hope that nothing will prevent my sailing on the 12th of May.


Robert Laird Borden: In order that our own position on this side may be made quite clear, I now move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the (Subject which my right hon. friend has just alluded. I am very happy indeed to concur in the hope which he has expressed that he may be enabled to attend the approaching Imperial Conference. As we all know, it was originally designated as a Colonial Conference, and in its original idea consisted of the Prime Ministers of the self-governing dominions and the Colonial Secretary or some other member of the British government. The Prime Minister has referred to the circumstance that the conference was made permanent in 1907; that is entirely correct. But there was a further change made. It became an Imperial Conference instead of a Colonial Conference in its designation; and while the Prime Minister of each of the self-governing dominions is necessarily a member of the conference, other members of the governments of the various dominions who previously were admitted purely on suffrance, have now become members of that conference when so designated by their respective governments. It is quite true that the vote is by government, that is, each government has one vote, as I understand it; but nevertheless, other designated members of the governments of the various dominions are admitted, in. addition to the Prime Ministers, to full rights as members of that conference. The present constitution of the conference is set forth in a resolution which was unanimously agreed to by the Imperial Conference of 1907. I will read a portion of the paragraph which relates to the constitution of this conference.
That it will be to the advantage of the empire if a conference, to be called the Imperial



Conference, is held every four years, at which questions of common interest may he discussed and considered as between His Majesty's government and his governments of the selfgoverning dominions beyond the seas. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will be ex-officio president, and the Prime Ministers of the self-governing dominions will be ex-officio members of the conference. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will be an ex-officio member of the conference and will take the chair in the absence of the president. He will arrange for such imperial conferences after communication with the Prime Ministers of the respective dominions.
Such other ministers as the respective governments may appoint will also be members of the conference-it being understood that, except hy special permission of the conference each discussion will be conducted by not more than two representatives from each government, and that each government will nave only one vote.
Now the House will observe that the Prime Minister of Canada is ex-officio member of that conference, he is the only member of this government who occupies that position in the conference. I need not dwell upon the importance of the position of the Prime Minister in the latter day development of parliamentary institutions, both in the mother country and in the various self-governing dominions. The development of those institutions has been along very much the same lines, whether in the mother country, in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. One feature of the development of parliamentary institutions in modern times has been the increasing power of the cabinet as distinguished .from that of parliament, and within the cabinet, the increasing power, importance and influence of the Prime Minister. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that the presence of the Prime Minister of Canada is entirely necessary at the approaching conference, if this country is to be represented as it should be represented in that conference. In his absence, no definite or	important action can very well
be taken; it will be a question of reference to the Prime Minister after the conference is over, and in my humble opinion the absence of the Prime Minister from the approaching conference would be a blow at the continued existence of this great factor in the solution of Imperial problems. Now the Prime Minister has alluded to possible reasons of public urgency on account of which it is within the bounds of possibility that he will not be able to attend that conference. It is quite true that we have matters of very great importance pending before parliament at the present time; it is equally true that we on this side of the House do not see eye to eye with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House with regard to one matter of very great moment which is now Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
occupying the attention of parliament and of the country. It is only right to say in passing that the particular subject to which I allude is the proposal of the government for closer trade relations with the United States of America. These proposals were not introduced into this House until the 26th day of January last, nearly two and a half months after the session had opened and parliament had commenced business.
Now, there are three courses which would permit the Prime Minister to attend the approaching Imperial Conference. If the present session of parliament should not have some to a conclusion at the time when it will be necessary for him to leave, he could proceed to the conference, leaving his colleagues in charge of the business of the House; that is one alternative 's to the desirability or expediency of which I am not so good a judge as the Prime Minister himself. I frankly concede that that is a matter upon which it is his right, his duty, to exercise his own judgment. In the second place, he can bring the session to an end, leaving some of these very important matters unfinished and letting them stand over to another session. It has already been intimated to us that the Bank Act will not toe pressed at the present session. If that is to stand over to another session, there can be no particular Teason why the proposals for closer trade relations with the United States should not also stand ove' until another session. I do not wish to enter into any controversial observations with regard to that, I only mention it as another alternative which is open to the Prime Minister in that regard. Then in the third place, he can adjourn this session of parliament for two or three months, or whatever length of time may be sufficient to enable him to attend the Imperial Conference and the coronation. After the coronation and after the conference, the session can be resumed; and I desire to say now that for the purpose of facilitating public business we would be prepared to give interim supply to such an extent as the public interest would demand, in case the Prime Minister should see fit to follow that course.
So far as reciprocity is concerned, I have already stated that we do not see eye to eye across the floor of this House. Our own attitude with regard to that is one of uncompromising opposition, for the reason that we have no doubt that the results of these proposals, if they should be carried into effect, would be disastrous, not only to Canada, but to the empire. I am not uttering that as a controversial observation, but merely for the reason that I desire to make our attitude perfectly plain.
Then in addition to the Imperial Confer-I ence, there is another great occasion which

will occur in the month of June, on the 22nd I think, that is the coronation of his most gracious Majesty King George V., an occasion of great importance, not only to the mother country, but to every dominion of the empire; and I would say in conclusion that in my opinion it would be doubly regrettable if Canada were not represented at the coronation by the Prime Minister of this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: I entirely agree, and everybody will agree, that under existing circumstances, under the present conditions to which the British Empire has attained, the Imperial Conference having been adopted as a permanent feature of our relations, it would be unfortunate that any of the Prime Ministers of the self-governing dominions should not be present at that important event. If it is not possible for me to attain to that, the fault will not be mine. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has been kind enough to make several suggestions which would allow me to go to the conference, but each involving this principle-that it must agree with the view of the opposition. He offered three alternatives. The one thing that separates us, apparently, is the trade agreement with the United States. The hon. gentleman has stated that he and his friends offer an uncompromising opposition to that agreement. I may tell him that on this side we offer an uncompromising support of this agreement. He thinks it would be a bane to Canada and a possible danger to the empire. We think it would be a boon to Canada, and the danger to the empire we do not regard as serious. What I have in mind which may force me not, to go on with my present plan of attending the conference is this:	As I
stated more than six weeks ago I obtained my passage. It never occurred to me at the time that there would be any possibility of my not going. But, Sir, since that time rumours have come to us which have been afloat about the corridors of this House that the opposition will not allow this measure to go through. It is well known that the rules of this House are the old rules of the British House of Commons in 1867. Those rules then were not abused. But in Great Britain abuses arose; the rules were taken advantage of by a minority to block legislation which, in the view of the majority, was necessary for the good government of the country. So, I would like to say, it is in the power of the opposition here to block legislation almost indefinitely. I have said that it has come to us that the opposition have such an intention. The corridors have been full of these rumours. I have not paid any attention to these rumours, nor have I attached any importance to them. But I have in my hand the report of a 2541
speech delivered yesterday in the city of New York by one of the most important members of the opposition in which we are told practically that the opposition will not allow this agreement to be carried into effect. That is what the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) said yesterday:
The government of to-day in Canada has introduced the measure into parliament. It therefore stands pledged to carry it and if it fails, it loses the reins of power, which will be taken up by its opponents. You can therefore easily understand how strong is the feeling of the supporters of the government even though they disapprove of the measure, to consider it the lesser of two evils and to vote for it rather than vote the government out.
It is therefore altogether probable : hat, if the government can force the measure to a vote, it will be carried. On the other hand the opposition can, if it sees fit, probably prevent a vote. There are 300 items which will give opportunity for illimitable discussion. P e have already granted supplies up to the first of June, but money cannot be spent for public purposes unless first voted by the parliament. If we would decline to pass further estimates, the public treasury would be emptied on the first of June. Public officials would have to borrow instead of receiving their salaries and public works would be at a standstill. This, of course, in any event, would be only a last resort not to be adopted unless considered absolutely necessary; but at the same time every one will admit that if the opposition felt that any measure was of such tremendous importance as to seriously affect, perhaps directly, the future history of our country, it would then be justified in refusing to grant any supplies or pass the measure until there had been an appeal to the people.
I do not know how far the hon. member for East Hastings has the right to speak for the opposition, but if I am correctly informed he is voicing the decision of the caucus held only a few days ago. If such be the temper of the opposition, I think it will probably make it necessary for me to resign my determination to go to England, and stay in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to make just one or two very brief observations in reply to what the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Ahy hon. member who wishes to speak should speak now, for under the rules of the House, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) speaks to close the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister has alluded to the fact that he took his passage six weeks ago, and he intimated some surprise that the conditions to-day are not what he expected at that time they would be at this date. At least that was the impression I took from his remarks, and I do not desire to misquote him. If, in making that statement

he alludes to the debate which has been proceeding from day to day for some time upon the proposed trade agreement with the United States, then I would like to inform him that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have been taking their turn in that debate, and have had their fair share in it. Although I have not taken the trouble to compute the columns of ' Hansard' that have been occupied by the two sides of the House respectively, I venture the statement, that if, the right hon. gentleman were to make such research, he would find that as much of the time of this House had been taken up by his own supporters as by hon. gentlemen on this side.


Some hon. MEMBERS: More.


Robert Laird Borden: I am corrected by hon. gentlemen beside me who say that more time has been taken up by hon. members on that side of the House. I do not need to go that far; I say that up to the present time the debate has proceeded regularly on both sides of the House, and there was no occasion for the Prime Minister to make what I regarded as an insinuation in expressing surprise that the debate has been so protracted. I would like to say to him further that he did not meet in a very gracious spirit what I regarded as a pretty fair and even generous offer on my part. I said to him that we would consent to the adjournment of this Blouse for two or three, or four months, in order that he might have the opportunity to attend the conference, and the coronation. But I said something more; I said that we would consent to grant such interim supply as would provide for the public necessities of the country in the meantime, and until the session could resume. And the only answer to that offer, is an insinuation from the Prime Minister, and a quotation from, some newspaper containing an alleged report of remarks by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). Well, it does not strike me that that is exactly the spirit in which such an offer should be received.
I would like to quote to the Prime Minister from the observations of his own Minister of Finance in 1907 when this same question was to the fore. The hon. Minister of Finance said:
There are duties to Canada which can heel; he performed in Canada, and chiefly in the parliament of Canada; hut there are also duties to Canada which can be performed in other parts of the world, and notably in the capital of the empire.
I think this is an occasion when the Prime Minister of Canada might have regard, not only to trade relations with the United States, but to trade relations with Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
this great empire to which we belong What are the subjects which are to be debated at the conference? They are some eighteen in number.
Merchant shipping and navigation laws.
Cheaper cable rates.
All-red route.
A special object of consideration by the right hon. gentleman.
Imperial Court of Appeal.
State-owned Atlantic cable and telegraph lines across Canada.
Imperial representation.
Commercial co-operation for the encouragement of British manufactures and shipping.
Emigration and the position of labour exchanges.
Co-operation between the naval and military forces of the empire and the status of Dominion navies.
There is also the subject of naturalization, although it is suggested that the question of uniformity of naturalization laws is essentially a technical one, and as such may more properly be remitted to a committee of the full conference sitting as a subsidiary conference. Nevertheless, that all-important subject of naturalization is one which should command the attendance of the Prime Minister of Canada in order that the anomalies which now exist, and which exercise a disintegrating influence upon this empire, may be removed at the earliest possible moment.
The Prime Minister suggests the importance of this trade agreement with the United States. I am willing to concede that from his point of view. We, on this side of the House, entertain a precisely contrary view, and, under the privileges of parliamentary institutions in this country, we are entitled to the full expression of our view, and we propose to exercise that right. We have been told by ministers of the Crown that the honour of this country has been pledged to the President and government of the United States of America in connection with that agreement. Well, I do not propose to deal with the controversial aspect of that question except to say that I do not know when the people of Canada gave any mandate to the Prime Minister or the government of this country to pledge the honour of Canada to these proposals. But, I would like to say to the right hon. gentleman that if the honour of this country is pledged to the United States in respect to this matter, it is also pledged to the empire in respect to all the matters which I have just enumerated. It would seem to me that the question which must present itself to the Prime Minister is whether or not our trade and other relations with the United State_s of America are more important in his mind than our trade and other relations with this empire
_:1

of which we form' a part. I have made an offer to him which is as reasonable an offer, I think, as could tie made by any man standing in my place, under which he can attend the Imperial Conference, and go on with his determination, if he persists in it, to force these reciprocity proposals through this House. I have made that proposal to him for two reasons; because I know that his trade proposals appeal to him, but, on the other hand, because our relations to the empire and the importance of Canada's representation in the Imperial Conference appeal to us on this side just as strongly, and more strongly than his trade agreement appears to him. Therefore, conceding to him his right to attempt to force this agreement upon us by his majority if he is in a position to do so, I assert that, without any interference with that right-, he would also be able under my proposal to charge, as Prime Minister of Canada, the duty which he owes not only to this country, hut to the empire as well so long as he continues to act in that capacity. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Prime Minister will reconsider the intimation which he gave in the concluding portion of his remarks and that Canada, at the approaching Imperial Conference and at the Coronation as well will be represented as it should be represented 'by its Prime Minister.
Motion to adjourn negatived.



DISTRIBUTION OF SEED GRAIN.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
M.r. HERRON. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), and I had hoped also that of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), but I am sorry to see that the Minister of the Interior is not in his seat, to a matter that has come to my attention in connection with the supply of seed grain to settlers in the Northwest. I received a communication to-day from a settler in my constituency complaining of the quality and cost of the seed grain supplied by the government to settlers in that vicinity. I have here a sample of the wheat which was supplied, and I suppose that the sample would be one which would appeal more particularly to the Minister of Agriculture. I have -also a complaint with reference to the price. As I understand this grain is supplied through the Department of the Interior, and their officials in the Northwest, and the complaint made to me is to the effect that this wheat, laid down at Gleichen, a station on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway near Calgary, at a cost of $1.25 per bushel is of a rather inferior grade, and from my own knowledge of wheat, grading and price, I would say
that it would grade probably No. 2 Northern, and not more than that if it was clean which it is not. It is tainted very badly. with weed seeds. I am not capable of judging whether they are of the noxious kind or not, but I presume they are. The wheat is mixed very badly with weed seeds. For the last two or three years wheat of this quality has been sold at the stations in the locality where this wheat is supplied at 75 cents, or at the most, 80 cents a bushel. It seems to me that this is entirely too much to pay for that quality of seed wheat. My correspondent has not given me very full information regarding the seed. Whether it was purchased in Manitoba, or in some of the western provinces, or in Ontario, I have no means of judging. But I think that the two points which I have mentioned, quality and price are worthy of consideration. I shall be glad to hand over the sample to the Minister of Agriculture, and see if he would not consider that it was very injurious to the interests of the Northwest to have seed of that quality supplied and distributed among the farmers of that country. I think the Minister of the Interior would be justified in investigating closely the price charged because, as far as I am capable of judging, it is much above the standard price.
Mr. FISHER.: As this seed is distributed to the settlers with whom the Department of the Interior is in close touch, the whole work in connection with the distribution is managed by the Department of the Interior.
I have not, therefore, the information at my command at the moment to reply to the hon. gentleman, but I would be very glad if he would let me have a sample of the seed he has, and I would consult with my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, and investigate the matter.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Fisheries Act, chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, he amended by enacting that in the province of British Columbia" no one shall engage in the manufacture of oil or other commercial products from sea-lions, hair seals, sharks or dog-fish, nor operate a salmon cannery or salmon curing establishment, except under license from the minister; that the site of reduction works must be approved by the minister ; that operations must proceed within one year from issue of the license for which annual fees shall be required; that the annual fees for a lobster fishing license be increased and based on the total number of pounds of canned lobsters; that the annual returns to the minister by the owner or manager of a lobster factory, through the inspector of fisheries oif the district, shall furnish more details and be submitted not later than the 31st day of
[Stage Direction]
May, each year, and penalties for failure to make such returns shall he imposed; and that licenses unust he obtained for maintaining lobster pounds, with an annual fee for the same.-iMr. Brodeur.
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: In this resolution we first ask for a provision authorizing the government to enact that in British Columbia no one shall engage in the manufacture of oil or other commercial products from sea lions, hair seals, sharks, or dog-fish, without taking out a license. from the department. This has been asked by some people who are willing to take up that industry. So far nothing has been done with regard to the reduction of sea lions and similar mammals. I think we should encourage any person or company willing to start works for the purpose of destroying those mammals, which are a menace to the food fish generally. It has been suggested to us that such a thing could not be done unless we could establish regulations by which the reduction works could be established at a certain distance, one from the other, in order to give each factory an area large enough to ensure a catch which would maintain the reduction works. We have now similar legislation in regard to the whale fisheries, no whale reducing works may be established within a certain distance of an existing reduction works. By having power to license reduction works we can at the same time determine the area within which they may fish and the distance at which other works may be established. This legislation has worked very satisfactorily in connection with the whale fisheries. We are now asked to apply the same regulations to reduction works on the British Columbia coast for the handling of sea * lions, hair seals, sharks and dog-fish. The fee proposed is a nominal one, $1. I think there should be no objection to that proposal.
The second proposal is to authorize the government to impose a license upon salmon canning or salmon curing establishments. Some years ago we had in British Columbia a very extensive commission which inquired into the whole question of fisheries in that province. That commission recommended that the salmon canning establishments should be licensed, and the owners of these establishments have themselves asked for the imposition of a license. The license fee proposed is $50. This license is the result of the unanimous recommendation of the commission, and it is accepted, as I have said, by the cannery establishments themselves.
The other change is with regard to the annual fee for lobster fishing establishments. This proposal is the result of the report and recommendation of the Committee on Marine and Fisheries last year. Lobster fishing licenses were the subject of a great Mr. FISHER.
deal of discussion in the maritime provinces. For years there were complaints that the regulations were not sufficient and that amendments should be made. The House referred the whole question to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries. The committee sat during the session of 1909. A very long inquiry was then made by the committee, and they suggested to the government that during the recess a commissioner should be appointed to visit the different portions oi the maritime provinces and continue the investigation, securing especially the evidence of the fishermen. Dr. Wakeham was appointed to make this investigation. He went through all the maritime provinces and made a report, which has been submitted to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries. The committee at the end of last session recommended some changes in our regulations. These changes have all been carried out by an order in council passed in September last, which - was amended some months later with regard to a certain feature. The commission recommended the increase in the licenses which I am now proposing.


Robert Laird Borden: To what extent is the industry of manufacturing oil from dogfish carried on?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the maritime provinces we have dog-fish reduction works exploited by the government at three places. But in the province of British Columbia there are to-day no dog-fish reduction works, properly speaking.


Mr. CROSBY.: Will the minister give us some information with regard to the dog-fish reduction works in the maritime provinces-how they are carried on, what is the general result, and under whose charge are they being conducted?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the maritime provinces there are three places where dog-fish reduction works are being carried on- Canso, Shippigan and Clark's Harbour. At each of these places we have an establishment under the control of a superintendent. We purchase the dog-fish from the fishermen, and from them produce two by-products, oil and fertilizer. The fertilizer is offered for sale at a very low price to the farmers, and any balance that is left is advertised for sale. The same procedure is followed with regard to the oil, which we sell at the price offered to us.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Is it the intention of the department, after this system is introduced, to offer a bonus for the establishment of works for the manufacture of oil as it did for the establishment of the fertilizer works?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are not proposing any bonus, because we hope that the people

who are willing to go into the business may make it a success, as in the case of the whale fisheries.


James Davis Taylor: The reason I ask is that it is very essential to the prosperity of the fisheries m British Columbia, particularly those in the vicinity of the Fraser river, that such works should be encouraged. The sea-lions particularly are increasing there to such an extent that the object which the minister has in view will not be accomplished if there are only one or two of these reduction works, or if the work is carried on on a limited scale with the idea of making a profit for the proprietors rather than with the idea of giving the utmost freedom in the reduction of these pests to the salmon fisheries. If the hon. minister had the authority, he might do as he has done in the case of the salmon fisheries, so restrict the number of licenses as to create a monopoly, which has not operated to the best interests of the industry. I would like to hear the minister say in this connection that he will not re' strict the number of these places, but that subject to the proper regulation every person who wishes to engage in this industry shall have an equal chance with every other person.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I agree with my hon. friend that it is very important that some of these reduction works should be successful, as these dog-fish and sea-lions are a great nuisance to the salmon fisheries. The intention of the department is not to restrict these establishments in such a way that there would not be a sufficient number of works to deal with all the dog-fish that might be found in some localities. I know that in the locality my hon. friend has mentiohed this pest has caused considerable disturbance to the salmon fishery, and I am willing to take the necessary steps to encourage any establishment for its reduction.


James Davis Taylor: This clause refers also to the licenses of the salmon canneries and salmon-curing establishments. Does it differ in any respect from the present regulations governing the salmon fisheries?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not at all. There was some doubt as to whether or not it would be necessary to have regulations to authorize us to collect these sums, and this is to give us power for that purpose.


Mr. FOSTER.: Are the dogfish on the Pacific coast similar to those on the coasts of the maritime provinces?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, they are supposed to belong to the same species.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that scientific authority as well as individual taste
have decided that dog-fish is an excellent food. Of course the finest way of getting rid of dog-fish is to make it a popular article of diet, so that fish dealers and fish eaters will be spurred to activity to exterminate the species. The times change in that respect; a few years ago the suggestion to eat sword-fish would be treated something like a suggestion to eat the swords themselves, but sword-fish to-day is a somewhat luxurious food and sells at a high price. Dog-fish are most disreputable looking animals when you see them, and when you put them through a process which is not curative, they are worse than ill looking; but if dog-fish are good to eat you have solved the problem of their continued existence. Has the minister made any efforts to educate public opinion up to getting dogfish off the index expurgatorius and put on the edible list.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that efforts were made some years ago to can dogfish, but those engaged in the industrv put them on the market labelled as whitefish, and although we had no legislative authority to prevent that we discouraged it, in the fear that it would compete with the excellent whitefish of the Great Lakes, and give our excellent whitefish a bad name. I should mention, however, that the intention of those who engaged in the trade was not to sell the dog-fish in Canada, but in a foreign market. Since we have established dog-fish reduction works to make oil and fertilizer, the fishermen who formerly disposed of dog-fish for canning find a ready market for it at the reduction work's, and that no doubt has some influence on the discontinuance of the experiment.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest to the minister that you might almost as well hang a man as give him a bad name, and when you set up a public enterprise for turning dog-fish into manure no decent Christian wants to have anything to do with a fish that seems to be fit only for that particular purpose. I would suggest that the minister should change the name and call it, say, Pisces Canadensis, and start it off with some fair chance of making a'success of itself. Has the minister himself ever eaten any dog-fish?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


George Eulas Foster: I have no doubt the minister is prejudiced against it because it is called dog-fish, and you might just as well call it some other name because no one wants to eat dog if he knows it. The scientists say it is a fine fish and it teems in our waters. Why, if you were to see a shoal of dog-fish after you, down off Grand Manan, you would run more quickly than if you were in the Niobe with a hostile

fleet chasing you. The minister should, I think, take away the bad name of the thing and give it a start in life, or rather in death.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Dog-fish is of course inferior as compared with our other commercial fishes, and being destructive of the superior fish we started reduction works to make some economic use of the dog-fish and to diminish their numbers.
Mr.FRASER. Did the whitefish suffer in competition with the dog-fish?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. The whitefish is a product of the Great Lakes and is not found on the Atlantic coast, so that there was no competition between them. But the canned dog-fish were put on the market under the name of whitefish.


Mr. FRASER.: Not by the department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, no; quite the contrary. Some one started in the maritime provinces an establishment for canning dogfish and they labelled it as whitefish.
Mr. FOSTER, I really think the minister might arrange it in this way:	There
are practically no whitefish in the maritime provinces. There are a few in some of the lakes, but they are not a commercial quantity. If a fisherman goes up through the lakes and spends a fortnight, he may get enough whitefish to feed him for that time. These fish can never compete with the whitefish of Manitoba, nor would they be likely to compete with the whitefish in Ontario. But let the minister give them some other name-say: 'Sea Whitefish' or ' Maritime Whitefish,' and let them go.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But foreign countries which purchase our fish will not be able to make the distinction between sea white-fish and the other.


George Eulas Foster: Foreign countries do net buy our whitefish.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, they are being sold in foreign markets-in the United States they are sold in large quantities. Besides, this is not within our jurisdiction. We have nothing in the law which would authorize us to give the fish a particular name. So far as that is concerned we have no inspection law. It is much to be desired that we should have inspection law, and that is a matter which is engaging, I understand the consideration of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


George Eulas Foster: I would have the fishery experts make a thorough investigation of it. Let us understand the quality and see if anything can be done.


James Davis Taylor: I think if the hon. member for North Toronto
. Mr. FOSTER.
(Mr. Foster) could see and smell the dogfish of British Columbia waters the fish would lose a champion, and I do not think that by any other name it could be made to smell sweeter. For the information of the hon. gentleman I may explain that dogfish are not regarded on the Pacific coast as valuable except by the Japanese, and they will not use them if they can get any other fish. Any measure the minister can take for the extermination of the dog-fish will be very heartily welcomed by those engaged in the fisheries, on the Pacific coast. I would like to ask, going back to the section in connection with the licenses for salmon canneries or salmon curing establishments, whether the minister proposes to m-ake under these regulations a uniform fee for establishments of whatever capacity, or whether he has it in mind to accede to the request of petitioners to him that exception should be made in favour of establishments, curing establishments particularly, carried on in a semiprivate way by one or two fishermen. I may remind him, that, as I am informed, he has been petitioned on this subject, and it has been represented to him that hardships are worked on men who wish to cure fish within their own establishments by compelling them to take out a license and pay a fee equal to that paid by a large establishment.


Mr. BLACK.: Before the question of the dog-fish is passed, I would like to say a word or two on behalf of that fish. I have had some experience with the dog-fish on my own table and in other homes. I consider the dog-fish one of the best edible fishes we have. Its flesh is fine in appearance, and is of excellent taste, comparing, I think, with the salmon. There is nothing against the dog-fish except its very nasty n-ame, given to it by some ignorant fishermen. It is a bad thing to have a bad name, as some people know, and its bad name is the only thing that I know of- except its lack of beauty-that is the matter with the dog-fish. I have had it served to guests at my table without letting them know what it was; and after receiving high encomiums on its taste I have told them it was dog-fish-and then they were sorry they had breakfasted. But we have no better food fish in our waters, in my opinion, than the dog-fish. Its liver is very valuable for the production of oil which is equal to cod liver oil for medicinal purpose's, and its yield is to cod as five to one. The odour of the oil of the dog-fish liver is bad, but that odour is very easily taken out, so that dog-fish liver oil and cod liver oil cannot be distinguished one from the other.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask a question. Am I right in thinking, in refer-

ence to the oil taken from the dog-fish, that it is not suffused through the flesh of the animal, but is in the liver?


Judson Burpee Black: I have never noticed any rank taste in the flesh. It is an oily fish, but the oil in the liver is not that in the flesh. If it was not for the name, it would be a food fish, there is no doubt. It is something like our Intercolonial railway, which was named by foreigners before confederation, a railway between ' the colonies ' of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec-' don't you know '-and the name has stuck to it ever since. I am afraid it has been a hoodoo to it all along.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In answer to the question of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), it is not our intention to fix different license fees for different sorts of canneries. The fee of $50 seems to be a very small one, and I think could be paid by all the canneries that will be established.


James Davis Taylor: I think the minister does not understand. I referred to the inclusion of salmon canning and salmon curing establishments in the same sentence. I speak particularly of salmon curing, which, as the minister knows, is different from canning. A man may carry on salmon curing in his back shed, but not salmon canning. I know the case of a man who attempted to carry on salmon curing in his own premises on a domestic scale, simply by his own labour, and was confronted with a demand for a heavy license fee, the same as if he had a large commercial establishment. It is on behalf of the salmon curer that I wras appealing to the minister, and I think his case is deserving of consideration.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is the first time, I think, that the matter has been brought seriously to my attention. I will look into it and see if it is desirable to make the changes to meet the cases mentioned. But I believe the hon. gentleman will admit with me that it is important that we should have some control over these establishments, and the only way we can do it is by license.


James Davis Taylor: That is correct, but it is a hardship -for these men who have facilities for curing to be told that they must not carry on this operation unless they pay a prohibitive license fee. I would like to refer again to the restriction of the number of establishments. I understood the minister to say that it is not the intention to make any change in the present regulations as to salmon canning. If il understand it, there is a restriction in the number of salmon canning licenses, which works out in this way-the men presently engaged in the salmon canning have formed themselves into an absolutely close corporation and no person aggrieved by the operations of the combine can start any new establishment, because when he applies for a license he is informed by the local officials that the policy of the department is to give no more licenses. The department takes the ground that it is not to the advantage of the industry to have a greater number of canneries. While an argument may be made on that score, yet the minister will see that when, in the only field of production of this class of salmon, he limits the licenses to persons already having canneries and licenses, he creates a monopoly. -I would like to ask him whether he is prepared to make his regulations more elastic, and to consider each application for a license on its own merits, without regard to whether or not that man has been in the business before.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend will see by the regulations we have passed on regard to the canneries that the public is absolutely protected. If there was any suspicion, or any ground for a monopoly by which the fishermen could be in any way affected, of course we are authorized to issue other licenses. But it was represented to the commission, when the commission sat in British Columbia, that the number of canneries which were then existing on the Fraser river especially was large enough. I do not know whether that is correct, my hon. friend is more familiar than I am with the condition of affairs there. He can tell the committee whether he thinks the number of establishments there is sufficient or not. At all events, that was the report made by the commission, and as a result we acceded to the request that no more licenses should be given, on one condition, namely, that if we found that there is a strong suspicion of a monopoly existing, we will certainly exercise the power we have of giving new licenses in order to prevent a monopoly which would be detrimental to the industry itself.


James Davis Taylor: The minister doubtless knows that at present there is a monopoly, whether bad or ill, I will not discuss now; but there is an absolute monopoly of the salmon canning industry in British Columbia, allied with the Alaska salmon canners, thus creating an industry protected on all sides by the government that is, perhaps the most profitable industry in connection with fisheries any where in the world. The profits are very large, very easily and quickly made, and with very little risk. I know that the fishermen are subjected to injustice on the Canadian side because of the

existence of this monopoly. We think we are superior to the United States in the matter of monopolies and trusts, but they must yield the palm to us in connection with the -salmon fisheries. On the Washington side the monopoly is not so complete, as there are quite a few of what are known as independent canneries, which are always available to fishermen who wish to sell their catch to them. The effect on the Washington side is to make the price to fishermen very much larger than it would be otherwise. I do not think that -any person except those making financial profits by this operation would suggest to the minister that the fisheries are protected in -any way by restriction in the number of licenses to foe issued, and there is no reason to suppose that there would be any greater number of fishermen, or any greater quantity of salmon caught, if there were more^ canneries than there are at present. I do not suggest that there are not enough canneries to can all the -fish to be caught along the Fraser river, because it is the work of a very short time to duplicate or to increase to an indefinite quantity the. capacity of any cannery. But since no new person can get a canning license, the minister fosters a monopoly which works detrimentally to the men who ought to get whatever benefit may be legitimately derived as their reward for catching the fish.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am surprised to hear that there is a monopoly in the Fraser river. My hon. friend is aware that so far as the Fraser river is concerned, there is an association called the British Columbia Packers' Association which is a very large one. I do not know whether it is successful financially.


James Davis Taylor: They are getting on very well indeed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I always understood that of course they are controlling a very large number of canneries on the Fraser river, but there are also -some independent canneries. I do not know whether the independent canneries -are as large as those under the control of this association.


James Davis Taylor: The independent canneries to which the minister refers -are largely the work of Scotch capital. The independent packers' and the British Columbia Packers' Association are combined in another association called the Fraser River Canners' Association, which includes both the British Columbia Packers' and those he terms the independent canners.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend says that all those canneries are in that association.


James Davis Taylor: 


James Davis Taylor: They are all in the Fraser River Canners' Association.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the information we have in the department.


James Davis Taylor: They control the buying price and the selling price.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The information we have in the department is to the effect that there is a British Columbia Canners' Association, and outside of that .an independent canneries, and of course the general association of which my hon. friend speaks, the Fraser River Canners' Association. The information we have in the department is to the effect that all the canning establishments of the Fraser river are not included. I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought this matter to my attention, and we will look into it.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to make it plain to the minister that the Fraser River Canners' Association is not an investing association at all, but it is an association in which the British Columbia Packers' Association, the great organization there, combined with the independent canners under the name of the Fraser River Canners' Association, with their separate officers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I thought the Fraser River Canners' Association had disappeared, and became merged into the British Columbia Canners' Association.


James Davis Taylor: No, it is the other way about. The British Columbia Packers' Association was organized with Toronto capital, by Henry Doyle, seven or eight years ago. Outside of that, the canneries controlled by the Bell-Irving interests have continued to exist, and there is also the St. Mungo cannery' on the Fraser river, established by Scotch capital, and which never sold out to the British Columbia Packers. But they are all joined to -form the Fraser River Canners' Association, with a paid secretary and an office in Vancouver. From that central office all these canners fix the price at which they will buy and sell their salmon. They are allied with the Alaska Packers' Association and with the operators of the canneries on Puget Sound. The proprietor of several canneries on Puget Sound is the manager of the British Columbia Packers' Association. The minister will see that there is an absolutely close ring-I was going to say, but that is regarded as an offensive term.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Cordiality.


James Davis Taylor: Yes, an absolutely close association so that

they can impose whatever condition they like upon the fishermen as respects the price of fish, and the quantity to be taken. That is another point which might well engage the minister's attention.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Who is the secretary of this British Columbia Canners' Association?


James Davis Taylor: My last information was that it was Mr. W. D. Burdis, of Vancover. He has been secretary of the Fraser River Canners' Association for several years. I have not heard of any change.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The information we
had in the department was that Mr. Burdis was secretary of the Fraser River [DOT]Canners' Association, but that it had changed its name to the British Columbia Canners' Association.


James Davis Taylor: Was that this year?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: About a couple of
years ago.


James Davis Taylor: I got a circular from them last year and my information is certainly direct up to the close of last year. They have an absolutely close buying and selling combine. It is well known to all engaged in the business out there. Another way that the minister's kindness to this monopoly affects the fishermen is this: When there is more than the ordinary run of fish jour fishermen are absolutely prohibited from getting any advantage from that by title limitation placed bv these canners. upon the number they will take from each boat. As the minister knows, no other canners are allowed to come in, and no>
other licenses are issued. There are no canneries in reserve to be opened up if there is a glut of fish. There comes an extraordinary run,' and every man out fishing will receive 500 of 600 fish in his boat, but when he goes to the cannery wharf he receives notice, and it is the same with every cannery, that the managers have placed a limit of 200 to each boat. That means that they can sell 200 to the canners and must absolutely destroy the other 400. The fisherman cannot even throw the fish into the river because that is against the law.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Could he not sell them to the independent canners?
Mr. TAYLOR ' /New Westminster). There are no independent canners because they are all in this buying and selling combine. On the American side he can sell them to the independent canners, but on , the Canadian side he can not. The result is that the fisherman is at the loss of all these fish, and the community loses this
valuable product which has to be destroyed because of the regulation of the canners. That goes on every season, and it is the cause of very great heart burning to the fisherman that after he has made an exceptionally large catch he finds that he is deprived by his government of any opportunity of selling the fish he has caught.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a matter over which we have no control except by way of granting new licenses. We have the power to grant new licenses. If we found that the Fraser river could stand more canneries, and that fishermen were obliged to destroy their fish we would be willing to consider very seriously the granting of new licenses. But, as to the refusal of some of the canners to take more than a certain quantity of fish, that is a matter over which we have no control.


Mr. GOODEVE.: Granting for the sake of argument that there is absolutely no monopoly, I would like to hear from the minister what he considers the advantage to be in leaving to a certain number the privilege and right to enjoy a natural resource such as that of our fisheries. It is the encouragement of monopolies of that kind that starts the growth of those enormous trusts that have been of such vital injury to the United States. Not only do these monopolies exist with respect to the fisheries, but with respect to timber and all natural resources of that kind. What is the supposed advantage? Why should I not be able to go down there without any question at all, merely as a matter of absolute right under the statute, and say that I want a license, tender my money and get it? Why should ten men have the right to erect canneries, and the eleventh man be shut out in a supposed free country such as this? What are the reasons for such a regulation?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These regulations have been framed upon the report of the Fisheries Commission which sat a .couple of years ago, and came to the conclusion that such regulations were in the interests of the fisheries. It may be that the argument of my hon. friend would apply just as well to the ease of our regulations generally, or to the restrictions which we have made with regard to the preservation of the fisheries. We adopt regulations for what purpose? For the purpose of protecting the fisheries, for the purpose of preventing the destruction of what I consider a national asset. It was represented to us that if the number of car-neries was larger than the requirements of the Fraser river it would mean that perhaps at some future time, not very far distant, the fisheries there would be destroyed. This is a measure which has

been adopted for the purpose of protecting the fisheries, but if the fisheries are not treated fairly by these canners, we have the power, under the existing regulations, to prevent any such injustice being done to the fishermen by granting new licenses. Every man will have to apply, and his case will be considered.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The minister has not answered the argument at all. As he has said, he has made general regulations for the fisheries, and if that is so the whole country should be treated alike. In this particular case the canners already in business, and who are supposed to know the conditions advise the commission that it would be in the interest of the fisheries to adopt these regulations. Of course they give that advice, and it would be very foolish of them not to. That is the whole argument of the minister now. Then he says that if he finds that those who are in the business now are not able to take all the fish, he may consider the question of letting somebody else in. As my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has pointed out, it is an easy matter for the canners already established to enlarge, double or quadruple their capacity, and still hold the monopoly. It is not only unfair to the people of Canada, but it is the very beginning of the most vicious system that it is possible to introduce into any country. The evil of this system has been pointed out by your own Dominion Conservation Commission, and I think that one of the first duties of that commission is to direct attention to this grave danger to the people of Canada. If you take this very question now, the whole cry, from the President down, is that they, through monopoly, have practically destroyed and wasted the natural resources of the United States, and the argument of the minister this afternoon is exactly that argument. I am taking a general stand regardless of details, not going into that question at all, that it is a very vicious system whereby you allow a limited number of men to have the absolute, and sole right of such an enormously profitable industry, and a natural resource that belongs to the people as a whole, a food producer as is suggested by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) who is vitally interested.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has made out an absolute case. I was down last summer and he had the courtesy and kindness to drive me around to see some of the canneries which were open. Some of them were closed down as it was towards the end of the season. He called my attention to fishermen coming there bringing fish and at that time, he said, unfortunately these canneries were Mr. BRODETTR.
not taking all the fish of these men, only a limited number because there were too many offering, there happened to be an extra late run, they were getting a large number of fish, some of which were being destroyed. That should not be allowed, the regulations should be absolutely general. You cannot place this industry on a par with liquor licenses where there is considered to be a certain evil and, therefore, you limit the traffic, that does not apply here. Here is a food for the people at large, a natural resource belonging to the people, and you say to a certain limited number of men, I do not care whether it is a monopoly or not, that they shall have the sole right to carry on this industry. They thus get established, they grow stronger every season, they accumulate more wealth and power to build up the very trusts which are recognized as an evil in every country in the world, and which we are endeavouring to fight against. I claim that it is the duty of the minister not only to take it into his serious consideration, but absolutely to have free trade as far as establishing these canneries' is concerned. My hon. friend has made that point clear in regard to curing. He points out: Here is an individual fisherman with enterprise who by frugality and industry has got an extra boat or has been successful and undertakes to cure a few fish and start to build up an industry. That is the way we have built up all our industries throughout Canada. But immediately the regulations of the department step in and say to him [DOT] Unless you pay the full license of one of these great trust magnates, you are net allowed to cure a single fish. In other words there is a penalty on their enterprise, and the enterprising fisherman is immediately choked off. That is a fair argument. My objection to the resolution is that it takes over the power to continue that monopoly and increase it. What is. going to be the advantage of a regulation giving certain ones and only certain ones a license to manufacture, for instance, this oil and not allow everybody to enter into that industry? Why have they not all the same free right? Why bring in a resolution providing for an enactment to place them in exactly the same position as you have already placed the fish canning and curing industry? In other words, you are going to make a complete monopoly of the fisheries of British Columbia. The individual fisherman cannot can or cure and now you take power to enact that no man can make oil unless he gets a license, and thus to make a hard and fast, hidebound monopoly of fishing in British Columbia. What is the ground for the proposed monopoly? The hon. member for New Westminster has pointed out exactly how it works and is bound to work

on the general principle and I object to that principle because it is vicious.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The principle which we adopted concerning the whale fisheries, which we are now proposing to apply to the sea-lion reduction works is based upon the experience of Newfoundland. Newfoundland some years ago started whale reduction works on a very large scale. There was no restriction at all, every one could go and catch whales in every part of the gulf, and in a few years there were the number of reduction works and the consequent fishing became so extensive that the whale fishing was practically destroyed. In order to avoid a repetition of that in Canada we thought it well to adopt this law which was passed some years ago by which we took power to license the reduction establishments for whales and to declare in the statute that a certain area of the Gulf would be practically at their disposal. Reduction works were established at Seven Islands on the north shore. We would not then allow license to another establishment within 100 miles of Seven Islands. Of course if one was established beyond 100 miles they would have the right to go and fish any place in the Gulf, but that was a restriction that prevented the destruction of whales and promised good financial results to the reduction works themselves. In spite of that protection it was found in a few years that this establishment which was licensed at Seven Islands was not a success financially and it had to close. I am informed, however, that it will likely be reopened very soon. If we had permitted at that time every company to go there and carry on the fishery there would have been no success financially, and besides that we would have destroyed the whales, although, of course, it is not of great importance that the whales should be destroyed On the British Columbia coast there are companies or a company which is applying for permission to reduce sea-lions, hair-seals and sharks. This company is willing to go into business, but they say that if they start business in a certain area then in a few years, when they have made a success, some one else may establish himself alongside of them and they may lose the capital invested. Consequently they ask us to establish regulations by which reduction works would not be established in the same area so that the same thing would happen as in the Gulf. It is thought that with some restriction the companies will likely be successful. This is a new industry which would not be started unless they had this protection which they are seeking. I think it worth while to give them an opportunity to start these works.
That is the reason for the policy we are now introducing.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I cannot see why the principle of the survival of the fittest should not apply there as in the general trade and business of the country. The minister himself said that even when they granted this restriction in the case he named, the industry was not a practical success. He seemed to think that might yet be made a success. There should be a general regulation so that every man would have an equal opportunity. If you insist that it is in the interest of the public to give monopolies of this kind, then you must, to be logical, and in order to secure for the fishermen fair value for their labour, regulate in some way the prices in connection therewith-in other words, regulate the trade. That has certainly not been done, and the neglect to do that leads to the evils that we see on every hand. I do not think that any man who has studied the question fails to realize that the creation of monopolies of this kind has brought about very great and evil results, and that is my chief objection in a general way to this resolution.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When my hon. friend applies the word 'monopoly' to the legislation now proposed, I must tell him that that expression is absolutely uncalled-for. The regulations will provide that the licenses shall be for every 50 miles of coast. As there are about 7,000 miles of coast in British Columbia, that certainly could not be considered as a monopoly. So far nobody has been willing to go into the business; but some enterprising men are willing to go into it. It may be a failure or it may be a success; we do not know; but they ask us to give to them the same regulations as we are giving with regard to whales, and we think their request is a fair one, and is not to be considered as one for a monopoly.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I am not saying that the resolution itself is a monopoly, but I say that it may lead to a monopoly. I am only pointing out that that has been the practical result in similar cases, in order to warn the hon. minister of the great danger of legislation of this kind, and that it must be very carefully considered. If he finds that there are sufficiently logical reasons advanced for it, then he should be careful to hedge it about with other restrictions and regulations that will protect the general public and the fisheries themselves. I think the hon. member tor New Westminster has laid down the basic principle, which is that the actual producer, and not the manufacturer, if I may use that word, is the one we must protect. It is the million fisher-folk in the North Sea that makes the fisheries valuable there, and it

is the fisher-folk on the Pacific coast that we should carefully protect.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The preservation of the nsn too.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Yes, because without the fish we would not have the fisher-folk. But the great danger is that in protecting the fish you may be protecting men whose interest is to become a trust or a monopoly as against the fisher-folk.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have the same regulations in British Columbia with regard to the whale fisheries, and so far we have not had sufficient applications for licenses to cover the whole coast.


James Davis Taylor: The minister mentioned a certain application that had been made to him for permission to go into this industry. I would like to know if he has given any promise to those people that no matter who else is refused a license, they will get one.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I never made any such promise.


James Davis Taylor: They are going it blind, then?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, they are going to apply if this legislation is passed.


James Davis Taylor: And the minister feels in honour bound to give them a license?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


James Davis Taylor: Then the minister creates a monopoly at once.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not at all.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminister).: Because if you have 7,000 miles of coast line in British Columbia, and one license is allowed for every 50 miles, the minister will not contend that each 50 miles throughout the whole province is of equal value to every other. There must be a choice. For instances, so far as the dog-fish and the sea-otter are concerned, a site that would be infinitely more valuable than any other would be one at the mouth of the Fraser river. Surely the minister has some order of value of these sites. If there are a dozen applications, those persons to whom he has already committed himself will get all the valuable sites, and the rest of us who want to take part in this industry will be told to go away off and choose locations where there are no fish. I think the minister will see that he has told the committee too much, because these regulations are actually laid down to suit certain interests who have promised to go into this business. I think the minister should promise that if he issues- these licenses he will put them up to competition so that everybody will have a chance. The Mr. GOODEVE.
Minister of Marine and Fisheries controls only his own department; but as a member of the government he has to do to a certain extent with other departments, and if he will assure us that regulations of this kind will be acceptable throughout all the departments, that might make a difference to some of us. For instance, I know I have a sympathetic listener in the Minister of Inland Revenue, and I would appeal to him. He and I are engaged in the same' business, that of producing newspapers. We are bothered by the fact that as soon as we get our business established, some other fellow comes into the field and starts another newspaper and cuts down our profits. Besides the extraordinary size of some of these papers is having an appreciable effect on the supply of pulpwood. If the Minister of Inland Revenue could assure us that he would apply to the Department of Trade and Commerce or some other department, or take authority to limit the number of newspapers, so that we might make whatever profits we chose to make, we might look with a more kindly eye on the proposed fishery monopoly. I do not say that we would; but we are all human, and if the minister should tempt us in that way, there is no knowing what might result in the way of softening our opposition to this proposition. But, joking apart, if the minister is going to limit the number of these licenses, he should advertise for tenders for them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If two applications were made the proposition of my hon. friend might be very well considered, but we have neveT had more than one application and this did not refer to the Fraser river which my hon. friend does not consider a good place for dog-fish, or sharks, or sea-lions. I do not know a good site would be found at the imouth of the Fraser river, but if an application comes from there it will be considered. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), will find that as in the case of the whale fisheries, everybody will be fairly treated and no favouritism shown.


James Davis Taylor: What is the present position of the lobster fisheries in British Columbia?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have no lobster canneries so far in British Columbia.


James Davis Taylor: This resolution merely anticipates that there will be lobster fisheries in British Columbia?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It refers to the Atlantic coast, but of course it is a general law for the whole of Canada.


James Davis Taylor: That is what it is intended to be, but I under-

stand the English language and the resolution only applies to British Columbia.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Bill itself will remove any doubt on the point.


Adam Brown Crosby: I have been struck with the logic of the arguments advanced by the bon. gentleman from British Columbia. The minister stated there were about 7,000 miles of coast line in British Columbia, and that he intended to grant a license for each 50 miles. Of course, there must be extents of that coast where it would not be worth while placing a factory in 500 miles for any kind of fishing, and the location of a factory must depend on the conditions as to 'fishing, &c. The fact that you have 7,000 miles of coast would not at all indicate that you would have one applicant for each 50 miles. If an application can be had- to establish an industry on that coast would it not be fair to specify a limited time, say three years, for the /monopoly, if it is to be a monopoly.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is only one year.


Adam Brown Crosby: That would relieve the difficulty somewhat. I understood the minister to say that in Newfoundland they have restrictions on the whale fisheries?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I said quite the contrary, and I believe that is why several reduction works have had to be closed.


Adam Brown Crosby: When the whale fisheries were first established on the Newfoundland coast and the Newfoundland-LabTador coast, some of those engaged in the industry earned as high as 150 per cent, and some of course earned nothing. People should have an unrestricted opportunity of going into that class of business if they desire to take chances, and I do not think the government need worry itself much about that. The success of the business will depend on the experience, and on the brain and energy that is put into it. When the whale fishery was first established in Newfoundland people were rushing into it with their money just as into a gold mining enterprise, and the chances of gain or loss were about the same. Some became rich, and some lost.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What percentage became rich?


Adam Brown Crosby: Some of the Scotch firms that went into the business did well and others failed to succeed. The whale business is not now as profitable as it was because the fish are not now so plentiful as they were formerly. The resolution says that the annual fee for lobster fishing licenses shall be increased and based on the total number of pounds of canned
lobsters. I did not know that there was any charge previously for a lobster fishing license.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The existing legislation provides that the license fee shall be $2 per 100 cases or packages or fraction thereof.


Adam Brown Crosby: I know that, but what I said, was that I did not understand the lobster fishermen had to get a license.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Lobster establishments have. There is a difference between the lobsteT establishment and the lobster fishermen. The lobster fisherman has no license to can lobsters-that privilege was taken away from him years ago? .


Adam Brown Crosby: When I asked the minister if the lobster fishermen had to pay a license, he said. ' yes.'	.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I misunderstood my hon. friend. The lobster fishermen pays no license.


Adam Brown Crosby: The resolution is wrong in that particular.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Bill-


Adam Brown Crosby: I have before me only the resolution as it appears on the Order Paper, and that is what we are discussing, as I understand. This resolution speaks of curing and canning. Everybody knows there is a great difference. It is quite right that there should be a license for canning food of any kind. But I cannot see why there should be a license -for curing fish by smoking, pickling, or otherwise. No license is exacted for this at the present time, and I do not see why there should be any.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There has been a mistake in drafting the resolution. What was intended was the cannery license and not the fishing license, for we do not propose to compel the fishermen to pay a license. So, I would propose to strike out the word ' fishing ' in the eighth line of the resolution, and substitute the word ' cannery.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Adam Brown Crosby: I call special attention to this question of curing -fish. No license-should be imposed for this, and I must strongly oppose any such thing.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the existing legislation, section 35 of the Fisheries Act, it is provided ' no one shall at any time can or cure,' and so on. Section 36 determines the license which is to be paid for canning or curing. The two words are used, and we propose to leave them as they are.


Mr. LOGGIE.: It is limited to salmon curing or canning.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, lobster curing or canning.


Adam Brown Crosby: In that case, of course, the word ' curing ' in this connection means nothing, for there is no way of curing lobster except by canning. But from the resolution it might apply not only to British Columbia but to other provinces. In that case, the inclusion of the word ' curing ' would be of great interest to all who are interested in the fisheries of the maritime provinces or eastern Quebec, for in these places there is practically no salmon canned, it is all sold fresh, or cured by being smoked or otherwise. It would not be fair to ask the fishermen to procure a license for curing fish when the fish speaks for itself when it is presented to the customs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The first part of the resolution deals with the cannery establishments of the province of British Columbia only, -and the latter part deals with lobster licenses and nominally covers the whole country, so, in practice it affects only the maritime provinces for only there are lobster canneries in existence. The first part of the resolution .uses the words ' curing or cannery,' but this applies only to British Columbia.


Adam Brown Crosby: If that is settled, then, I have only a word in regard to the increase of the cost of the licenses. I take it that this license is not intended as a revenue producer, but is merely a nominal fee intended to give the government practical power of regulation. Of course, the increase quoted is not very great, but still it is an increase. Behind the lobster cannery is the lobster fisherman, and the higher you make the fixed expenses of the charges of the cannery, the less the establishment can afford to pay the fisherman. I would suggest that the minister should not increase that fee if he can see his way clear to do so. Then I would like to ask the minister how far we are going to increase these licenses, and whether we are going to do as was suggested in the Marine and Fisheries Committee, and as our fishermen desire, so that a man who catches a lobster will have the right to can that lobster if he wishes. For my part I never could see how a limitation of the number of canning factories, or any other kind of factory, was going to protect the fisheries. I can understand fish in the sea being protected by limiting the number of fishermen, or by using less destructive methods of fishing; but I never could understand how the limiting of the number of canning factories was going to preserve the fish in the sea. Therefore, I stand for as free a regulation as possible regarding the canning of lobsters. I think that a lessening of the number of factories would have no effect on lessening the catch, or on the yearly production of lobsters. When the number Mr. BRODEUR.
of factories is small they frequently force a man who catches a lobster at a -gertain port to -carry it to another port several miles away where he can ship it fresh. At the time of the change there were a number of factories located in different parts of Nova Scotia, and no doubt in Prince Edward Island a\jd New Brunswick, which, when this regulation came into force, simply closed up some of their factories, and said to the fishermen: If you want to sell your lobsters you must bring them to Charlottetown, or you must bring them to Canso, or you must bring them to Yarmouth. Therefore, the lobster fisherman was handicapped from the fact that competition was not keen enough. My hon. friend whom I see opposite is a canner of lobsters, and he knows what a nice thing it is to have that privilege exclusively. I do not blame him for that, but I am speaking for the mass of the fishermen generally. I do not forget the canner altogether, but he is quite able to take care of himself.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may tell my hon. friend that the monopoly he speaks of-


Adam Brown Crosby: I would not call it a monopoly.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But the restriction which exists in regard to lobster licenses has disappeared by the regulation we have adopted. This question engaged the consideration of the Committee on Marine and Fisheries, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that the restrictions which existed until then should disappear. In the last two years I have changed the regulations in that respect, as they are only departmental regulations, and I gave the privilege of acquiring a license to a number of fishermen combining together who applied for it. Several applications were made, and have been favourably considered. I will tell the reason why the increase was made, and I am voicing the unanimous finding of the Committee on Marine and Fisheries, of which I think my hon. friend is a member. That committee unanimously recommended 'that, in order to afford additional protection to the lobster fisheries, we should exact a little larger tax upon the canners. I suppose my hon. friend must he pleased to see that we are imposing a larger tax upon the canners, which was 'the unanimous recommendation of the committee.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am not in any way opposed to the canner, I want him to get all the advantage he can. But I do say that if the canner has to pay $5 for a license, he is certainly going to take that out in the price he pays to the fishermen. But I wanted to know more particularly why this additional tax was put on, if it is not intended for revenue purposes, and I

do not think it can be. Why should we increase it at all? I think it would be better to leave it as it was before.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was in order to give additional protection to the fisheries.


Adam Brown Crosby: I have a letter from Mr. John Berrigan, in the eastern part 'of Halifax county, who made application for a canning license to the overseer of fisheries there. Mr. Berrigan has written to me that he had not had any response to his application for some time. Perhaps the department would know whether that license has been granted.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The superintendent informs me that he has not heard of any such application.


Adam Brown Crosby: I will send the letter to the minister.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. BRODEUR moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 185) to amend the Fisheries Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved the second reading of Bill (No. 104) to amend paragraph (1) of section 2, and paragraphs (n) and (o) of section 9 of the Post Office Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) be good enough to give a brief explanation of the nature of the proposed Bill?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Mr. Speaker, I have already given an explanation of the purpose of the Bill, but as it was given some weeks or even months ago, I will be pleased to repeat it. This is a Bill which will bring officially under the jurisdiction of the Post Office Department a new device called The Automatic Stamp Vending Machine. This automatic stamp vending machine has been in use in England, in Germany and in Australia for a certain number of years. I think the invention is an Australian one. The box can be well described, as it has been described by an authority on post offices in England, as a conscience stamp vending box. The reason why this box is called a conscience automatic stamp vending box is because, when you put a cent in the slot, if it is a false coin, the box rejects it. If it is not a current coin of the country it also rejects it, although it might be a good coin in the United States or in England. It is really a remarkable invention. The machine has been in use in Gieat Britain for a few years. It is aimed to facilitate the sale of stamps in large 255
establishments and in post offices to prevent any rush at the wickets where stamps ire sold. For instance, we have already placed in some of the post offices, at Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver and in some of the large hotels, some of these stamp vending machines and the result's have been simply marvellous. The benefits accruing from that invention are two-fold. First of all, it prevents a rush at the wickets in what are called rush seasons. At Christmas, it may be, or at Easter, when a huge number of cards and letters is sent through the mails, the public cannot afford to wait. Secondly, it saves to the Post Office Department the large commissions which are being paid to stamp vendors. That, I must say, is a secondary consideration because after all we must expect that those who sell stamps for His Majesty must be paid a certain commission. The purpose of the amendment herein is to enable the department to place at the service of the public, as experience -warrants, a device for the automatic sale of stamps. Let me take the first amendment to the Post Office Act. As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is aware a postal box in the street is, according to the Post Office Act, a Post Office by itself. It is defined as such and when we have couriers who are charged with the responsibility of carrying the mails from one office to another, it often happens that on their route they have to take the mails from one, or two or three, or five of the boxes erected on the way. This stamp vending machine can be placed in the street and in the lobbies of large hotels, like the Windsor in Montreal, the Russell in Ottawa, or the new Grand Trunk hotel when it is opened, and in all the large hotels in the country. The moneys deposited in these boxes will be collected by our couriers under certain conditions that will be imposed by the department. Subsection (1) of section 2 defines a post office to embrace any building, room, post office, railway car, street letter box, &c., and the purpose of the amendment is to give street stamp vending boxes the same status. I hope I have made myself clear on that paragraph. Paragraph (n) of section 9 of the Post Office Act empowers the Postmaster General to establish and provide street letter boxes or boxes of any other description for the receipt of mailable matter whenever he deems it necessary and the purpose of the proposed amendment is to give the Postmaster General power to establish and provide boxes for the sale of stamps or other post office supplies whenever he deems it necessary. That is in order to see that the definition of the powers of the Postmaster General cover this additional case in the Post Office Department. Subsection (o) of



section 9 of the Post Office Department empowers the Postmaster General to grant licenses, revocable at pleasure, to agents other than regular postmasters for the sale to the public of postage stamps and standard envelopes. My hon. friends will know what standard envelopes mean. It happens that in the Post Office Department we sell to some large firms envelopes which are already stamped. This is in order to facilitate the business of large stores and it is very useful to the public. The purpose of this amendment is to allow of greater flexibility which will redound to the advantage of the department. These licenses, as stated in the section of the Post Office Act to which I refer, are revocable at pleasure. We wish to take away the words ' revocable at pleasure ' and for this very obvious reason.	.
The stamp vending boxes can be purchased by the. department, and placed here and there in the country; we have already purchased 50 as a trial, but our inspectors, and our superintendent of post offices, Mr. Ross, state that in certain sections of the country, especially where we have lumber camps, we may have difficulty in getting a regular post office, or even a regular agent for the sale of stamps to lumbermen. My officers say that we might well give the company which manufactures the boxes the privilege of installing those boxes in those remote sections of the country, the company to draw what commission we would pay to agents having stamp vending licenses. Of course the license will always be revocable whenever the Postmaster General, or the officers of the department find it necessary to revoke it, but the company state that they will have difficulty in establishing their business on a firm basis, if the words ' revocable at pleasure ' remain in the statute. I am explaining now the three amendments connected with this new machine. I must say that in the opinion of my officers this will be a great public utility. In our cities we have established some on trial, and the results have been simply marvellous. I have here a memorandum from one of my officers:
The Automatic Stamp-Vending Machines will not only prove a great convenience to the public, but in many cases, they meet an an actual necessity. They may be placed at any point where people require stamps in considerable numbers. They can be attached to pillar boxes on the street, in the halls of hotels, at railway stations, or in public buildings, and they are always available. Where access can be had to any of these machines, no person desiring to post a letter, and having the money to (buy a stamp, need go disappointed. At any hour of the day or night, at times when even the hotels or drug stores are no longer available, owing to the lateness of the hour, these machines are as Mr. LEMIEUX.
ready to do business with poople wishing to post letters as at mid-day. A very great advantage is that it fits in so completely with the habits of the people as regards correspondence. It is the universal practice to put off the posting of one's letters until the mail is ready to close. There is a rush to the stamp vendors, and in spite of every willingness to sell the stamps required, the vendor is unable to accommodate many, who apply to him. With automatic sellers near by, the situation is relieved for the vendor, and those desiring stamps are able to get what they want in time to post their letters to catch the outgoing mail.
In the principal cities of , Great Britain they are a boon to the public. There is a single box in Liverpool that sells on the average over 2,500 stamps a week, and another in Edinburgh from which the average issued is over 2,800 a week. In the crowded business sections of London, Glasgow, Dublin and Belfast, these automatic stamp sellers are doing thriving businesses to the great advantage of the public in these great centres of population. These machines are simple in construction and not liable to get out of order. One has been in use in the British House of Commons for two years, and has worked during all that time without a single failure.
A peculiar and very valuable feature, in these machines is that they reject, all spurious or foreign coins without operating the machine.	. '
In 1908, the parliament of Canada authorized the reduction of the rate on drop letters, that is, letters delivered in the city where they are posted; in cities, from 2 cents to one cent per ounce. This reduction has immensely increased the number of letters Pasted in our cities, and as a consequence the department is grateful for the opportunity which this device offers of serving the public better with the stamps which they want in such largely augmented numbers.	_
The machines have been set up experimentally in Ottawa, Montreal and, Toronto, and have given the utmost satisfaction. Two were placed in the exhibition building in Toronto during exhibition week and were worked at full pitch without a hitch. These machines quite outdid the British average mentioned. On one of the exhibition days, one machine sold 1,500 stamps, while a day or two later another machine sold 3,300 within 14 hours. The British high average, it will he remembered, were 2,500 and 2,800 in a week.


Adam Brown Crosby: If a man wanted to buy a one cent stamp, and put in a five cent piece, would be get back four cents in change?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, but from my own experience I can tell my hon. friend that if you put a 25 cent piece in, the machine wiil reject it.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then I understand that this box does not give any change, but it is necessary to have the right com to put in the slot?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: What is the method of getting one of these boxes? For instance, suppose a hotel-keeper wanted one?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I intend to have special regulations for the leasing of these boxes. Of course, we must be very careful of them, because they are somewhat costly. We must for our climate have a strong metallic box, and we cannot give them away/ to every Tom, Dick and Harry. They are intended for the benefit of the public in large centres of population, at such rush centres as large hotels and railway stations, and also at remote points such ias lumber camps, where we have no agents. I had an application from a large firm in northern Ontario for one of these boxes, and I am just awaiting this legislation in order to place them in some of the lumber camps. It may be asked why we did not adopt a Canadian invention. The officials have been examining these machines for years, and they find the British pattern far the best. It is an Australian invention, and has been adopted by the British authorities and is used on the 'Continent in large centres.


Mr. PERLEY.: Do I understand that only Canadian cents can be used?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: If a man put in five cents he would not get it back?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It would be returned to him, but he would not get any stamps. It is for one-cent and two-cent stamps- until the happy day comes when we shall require the half-cent stamp, as advocated by my hon. friend from Hatton.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I was just going to ask the minister whether he has made any provision for the half-cent stamp which we require in the towns?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Later on.
' Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 45) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.-Mr. Eerement.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 172) respecting the Hamilton Provident and Loan Society.-Mr. Barker.
_ Bill (No. 162) respecting the Alsec and Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
255J
Bill (No. 167) to incorporate the Pacific and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).
Bill (No. 168) to incorporate the Ontario-Michigan Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 180) for the relief of Mary Kathleen Crittenden.-Mr. Rhodes.
Bill (No. 181) for the relief of Pauline Winslowe Saunderson.-Mr. Carvell.
Bill (No. 182) for the relief of Nellie Bridgland Morrison.-Mr. Harris.
Bill (No. 183) for the relief of Frances Whittington Truesdell.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).

[Stage Direction]
The hour for Private Bills being exhausted the House resumed in committee on Bill (No. 104) to amend paragraph (1) of section 2, and paragraphs (n) and (o) of section 9 of the Post Office Act.-Mr. Lemieux.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Before six o'clock I explained the various sections of the Bill, but if hon. members desire to ask any questions, I shall be glad to give any further information I can.
On section 1-'Street stamp vending box.'


David Henderson: It seems to me it would be proper to have a definition of the words 'street stamp vending box.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: We must provide something in the Act to bring this box under the purview of the Post Office Department. The ordinary post office box is a post office for the purpose of the Act, and we wish to have the same declared as regards to the stamp vending box.


Mr. BARKER.: So that, for instance, in case there should be a robbery it would come within the Act?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: How many of these vending machines are leased, and what amount of money is to be paid?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The machine is not leased but sold to the department. In certain cases machines are not under the entire supervision of the department. This applies to boxes located in distant districts, for instance in lumber camps. The Minister of Labour has several requests from people in lumber camps asking that they should be given the benefit of these boxes because nobody could be appointed postmaster in the deep recesses of our Canadian woods. The machines will be neither leased nor purchased by the department, but authority will be given to the company supplying the boxes to place them under our direction and the company will

be held to act as our agents. As my hon. friend is aware, each box is provided with -a roller of stamps. The company will buy the stamps from the department, and we will pay to the vendors the ordinary commission we pay to stamp vendors.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the cost of a box?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think $25 is the cost of the box with one slot. But Dr. Coulter, the Deputy Postmaster General and Mr. Ross, of Toronto, have stated that the experiments we have made this winter with the boxes have shown that the public prefer the double box, one that will sell both one cent and two cent stamps. These double boxes cost about $40 or $50; I can give the exact figure on Monday.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many does the minister intend to place?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We will have to create districts, and the demand, whatever it may be, will be met. The public desire to have devices to save time as much as possible. With the increase of population and the extraordinary expansion o'f letter writing, we have to meet that demand of the public. I do not say how many boxes. I suppose for the first year we will have two or three hundred. But at all events, we. will have a sufficient supply.


David Henderson: Is this a Canadian invention?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a British invention, and I said before six o'clock, that it was the best invention known up to date. That is the opinion of the British experts. At the same time, I may say for the benefit of Canadian inventors that we are not wedded to this particular box, and if they can find a better one we will adopt it. It is a conscientious box. We have never seen a box yet which would give back spurious coin or foreign coin. In this one, if you do not put in a Canadian penny or a Canadian cent, the box rejects it automatically. I intend to bring one of these boxes next week up to the House for the inspection of members. In Australia, in Germany, it has been adopted by the postal authorities. Last year when I was in Liverpool the postmaster showed me one of these boxes which collected, I do not know how many pounds a day.


Mr. KNOWLES.: The minister has told us about a machine which will sell stamps for the amount of money, one-cent or tw-o-cents, dropped into the box. Probably the minister knows that in the west there are no coppers nothing but silver money. I would ask him whether he has considered the need of a stamp vending machine that will sell stamps for a five cent piece or a Mr. LEMIEUX.
ten cent piece? There is perhaps greater need in the west of such a machine than in the east, for the reason that accommodation provided in the west in a very short time becomes inadequate, and something that would remove the congestion from the stamp vending wicket in the post office building would in a great many towns be much more of a necessity than it_ is in the east, on account of the more rapid development.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The object of this legislation is precisely to meet that contingency, namely, that in the west, and in cities where there is a rush at certain seasons, we may assist the post office authorities by placing this box in the lobbies. It helps them both in mailing letters, and it saves the government the commission we have been paying to vendors of stamps.-With regard to giving -change, this box is not adapted for that, but this is the latest device. If later on another better device is found which will sell stamps for a five or a ten cent piece, we will adopt it.


David Henderson: Has the minister committed himself to take this machine from only one particular firm, or may he purchase elsewhere if some other invention came out?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly. We are not wedded, as I have said, to this_ particular automatic machine. I have simply described the latest machine as being the best one yet discovered. But if in the future a Canadian inventor-and there are many Canadians working in that line-discovers a better device, certainly we will adopt it. The same with the rural box. We have adopted the red box called the ' King Edward ' box, which, according to experts, is the best up to date box. But if a better one can be found we will _ certainly adopt it. At present the American authorities have accepted our rural box because they think it is the best.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not speak of a box that would return the change. What I had in mind was a machine which would return the stamps for five, ten or twenty-five cent piece thrown into it. In the west where we have no coppers, we cannot buy stamps in a less quantity than five cents worth.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Many men are working on this device daily, and if my hon. friend will come to the Post Office Department he will see a number of new devices.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: The fact that this machine has a conscience will be no embarrassment to the government, I hope. Is there any way by which immoral literature can be rejected?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, it does not deal *with literature.
On the preamble,


David Henderson: The Postmaster General will remember that for several years past I have drawn his attention to the fact that in the cities drop letters were reduced from two cents to one cent. This saving was given to those who reside in the cities where there is a street delivery, and I think it is only fair that in rural sections the people should be given an equivalent. I see no better way of doing it than for the minister to give the same reduction on drop letters to people living in country villages and towns that he gives to those living in the cities. The people in the cities have the benefit of a free delivery, but in the country the people have to go to the post office for their mail matter. Yet they have to pay the same postage on a drop letter that is paid in a city where the letter is delivered at the door of the person to whom it is addressed. The minister told me a year or two ago that after he had a year's experience in the working of the one cent drop letter in the cities, he would be prepared to consider the propriety of accepting or rejecting my proposition. I have waited now patiently for more than two years, and I think it is time the country people should get this little benefit. Merchants send out a great many circulars, and half a cent on each circular would, in the course of a year, amount to considerable money. You may say that the government wants the money, but the government is rich and the revenue is abundant. It seems to me that this is something that the Postmaster General might meet the demand of the country in, by giving a half cent rate to medical men, lawyers, merchants and any others who had occasion to mail a good many letters; in fact, give this reduction to any one. There will be no difficulty in buying half cent stamps. If a man could not get a half cent stamp he could buy two and use the new machine the minister might require to have an additional roler so as to turn out half cent stamps.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That difficulty could be got over.


David Henderson: That difficulty could be got over. Can the Postmaster General tell me if he can get over the other difficulty?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is very persistent in his efforts for further reduction of the postal rates.


David Henderson: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; in the rural section we have not had any reduction for a long time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend must not forget that when Sir William Mulock was in office some years ago, he reduced the rate from three cents to two.


David Henderson: But that did not apply to the one cent rate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A further reduction was made three years ago by .myself for drop letters in cities. As to a half cent rate for the rural sections of the country, I may say to my hon. friend, without committing the government or any one, that I am seriously considering this question. Of course, it is a question of revenue and I must be very careful. I must be-well, let me say-conservative in this regard, but, when the proper time comes, if it is at all possible to meet the desires of the rural community, I will certainly be only too happy to grant the reduction. I am seriously considering the matter, but it is not one of the things that can be done in a haphazard way, and we must consider whether the reduction we are giving the people in, for instance, rural mail delivery, and other facilities which we provide, all of which must increase the expenditure, can be supplemented by a further reduction. It is true the revenues are abundant and increasing every year, but at the same time we must not lose sight of the fact that two cents is a very low rate. There is no country in the world where the people pay so little for the carriage of newspapers-one quarter of a cent a pound. Again I say I am studying this question with my officials. I know that the more you reduce the rates the more you are apt to get larger revenues. That is my experience, and that is why I have always been advocating a fair reduction of rates. It has meant for the Post Office Department larger revenues. If we had cheaper rates for cables I think that the cable companies would receive larger revenues. That is my policy and it is the experience of the experts we have ip the Post Office Department.


David Henderson: The minister refers to. the fact that in country places rural mail delivery is being introduced. But the reduction that I have referred to would have no connection with the rural mail delivery. Where I ask for a reduction is where a letter is dropped into the post office and taken out of the same post office, the Tesult being that the department is not put to any expense to carry it to any other place. I think the matter is a very simple one and one that should appeal especially to the Postmaster General. If he could reduced the postage to half a cent to such men as general merchants, I have no hesitation in saying that

he would find that he would get just as much 'revenue out of the half cent rate as out of the cent rate, because I believe they would make a great deal more use of the post office. I am glad to know that the minister has this under his serious consideration. I hope it will become more serious and it will not be long until we realize something out of it.


William Erskine Knowles: I desire to make a suggestion to the hon. Postmaster General which I hope he will also take under his favourable consideration. It is in regard to the correspondence which members of parliament have during recess. I do not know whether this matter has been brought to the minister's attention before, although I think that probably it has. I can see no reason why members of the House of Commons, carrying on correspondence during the recess upon public business, should not have the facilities of the mail just as well as during the time that the House of Commons is in session. If anything I believe that the correspondence of members in regard to public business is larger during the period of the recess, because, while the House of Commons is in session a member is in Ottawa and goes to the departments personally, and it is because he is away from Ottawa that the correspondence between himself and his constituents increases. I think the thing is right, and that it is in the interest of the member giving the best possible service to his constituents. It necessarily follows that if a member of parliament in carrying on correspondence with his people, has these facilities to which, I think, he has' a perfect right, they will get better service; not that_ any member is going to refrain from writing to his constituents for the sake of the cent or two postage that it may involve, and I do not know that it makes a great difference in that respect, but in this world with most men every dollar counts and it is scarcely fair to ask members to bear this charge themselves. It is nothing more than fair that the country should provide him with these facilities. Of course the question occurs as to how a man is going to draw the line. I do not think that any great practical difficulty is presented by that question. We know that in the United States they have a penalty envelope, that is an envelope Specially prepared for that purpose. I do not know that members of the House of Representatives or Senate use it, but I know that the Post Office Department does issue certain penalty envelopes which certain public officers residing away from the capital use. I do not know what the penalty is, it may be $40 or $50 for improper use, but that is immaterial to the principle of the thing.


David Henderson: I do not think that there will be any danger of members of parliament failing to correctly draw the line as between correspondence on public business and cor-responence on their own private business. As one who has a large correspondence- and I think all western members have, as I have no dloubt all members Jhave-I would suggest to the minister that it would be only doing what is fair, and following the principle that is already adopted while we are in Ottawa to make provision that members of parliament carrying on correspondence in connection with public business with their constituents should have the same facilities during twelve months in the year that they have while parliament is in session.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will take the suggestion of my hon. friend under very serious consideration. Of course, it has no reference to the present Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is the minister aware that during the past few days there has been some slight interference with the mails that are coming to the House? I understand that a number of papers which should have been delivered this morning in the Library and in the Senate library did not arrive either by the morning or evening mail. Possibly the minister will make some investigation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As my hon. friend is aware, the post office in the House of Commons is not under my jurisdiction. It is under the jurisdiction of the committee on internal economy. I am sorry to hear that there has been some mis-sent mail matter, but I will inquire. I found not very long ago that it took more time for a letter mailed in the House of Commons in the evening to reach the Post Office Department next morning than it took for a letter mailed in Montreal to reach my department. I saw the Speaker about it and found that the officers of the post office here closed the mails when the House adjourned, and the mails sometimes were sent only next morning from the Ottawa post office, while they could very well have been sent by the Toronto train until half past eleven at night, and the westbound train from Montreal passing through Ottawa about five o'clock in the morning. The Speaker was kind enough to call the postmaster, and to instruct him, with the help of one additional clerk, to keep the bag open until the early hours in the morning so as to give members the benefit of having their mails sent by those trains. As regards the error of this morning, I will inquire at once and see where the trouble lies.


David Henderson: A great many members of this House get copies of their

speeches from the Printing Bureau, where the type is already set up, for distribution through the post office. There is a provision in the regulations to this effect:
Members of either the Senate or the House of Commons may during the recess of parliament send by mail free of Canadian postage all papers printed by order of either House.
Will the minister inform me whether a member could during the recess send these copies of his speeches free of postage from the post office where he lives, in case he could not get them from the Bureau until after the House had prorogued.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is another regulation which permits a member, within a certain time after prorogation, I think a fortnight, to mail public documents, blue-books, &c., from his home office.


David Henderson: I think he can do that all the year round.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards the case mentioned, I will look into it and see if I can accommodate the members in that respect. Of course, it is better to have the mailable matter sent in bulk from Ottawa, and distributed from here. If necessary, we can provide some regulation which would meet the contingency mentioned. The trouble is that it might be abused; but of course we must believe in the honour of every member of the House of Commons, and I think I can frame a regulation that would meet the case.


David Henderson: If we could have the King's Printer stamp his impress on the copies, then I am quite sure the present regulation would be sufficient.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like to call the minister's attention to a fraudulent use of the mails in western Ontario. In yesterday's London ' Free Press ' there is an article in which it is stated:
Letters are finding their way from the United States to all parts of Ontario, offering counterfeit money for sale. These 'green-goods' men choose farmers principally for their victims, and in the letters, picture 'easy money' that can be made if the recipient of the letter will communicate with the man who has the goods.
If the minister would call the attention of the authorities in western Ontario to this matter, it might be of some service.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SEED CONTROL ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 167), respecting the inspection and sale of seeds.-Mr. Fisher.
On section 1,
Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Bill was considered by the Committee on Agriculture, and with
the exception of one or two small amendments it passed that committee unanimously-	.


David Henderson: Is the Bill now as recommended by the Committee on Agriculture?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Exactly.


Mr. JAMESON.: What is the object of exempting by the operation of sections 6 and 7, certain classes of persons mentioned in section 5?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is so that farmers may sell to their neighbours without coming under the operation of the Act. That is a provision of the old law.


Clarence Jameson: I presume that the object of this legislation is to prevent the use of seed which is not pure?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Clarence Jameson: Does the minister think that by the exception he makes in section 5 that will be accomplished?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, because the neighbours who buy from a farmer have had an opportunity to see the crop growing and they know whether the seed is clean or not. But the dealers sell the seed to purchasers who have no means of knowing how it was grown. This provision has been in the Act since its inception.


Mr. HERRON.: Does the case mentioned this afternoon come within the meaning of
the Act, so that if the peeople sell wheat for seed, containing a certain percentage of weeds

?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Any grain sold for seeding purposes comes under the operation of this Act.
On section (10a), a name on a paper of seeds must state name and year when filled.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), and accepted by the committee.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



INSPECTION AND SALE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act as regards the weight of a bushel and a bag of certain articles.-Mr. Fisher-read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Would the minister explain what changes have been made?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Artichokes were not included in the original Act at all. Beans are the same, 60 lbs. to the bushel. Beets

were 60 lbs., and are now made 50. Bituminous coal is the same. Blue grass seed is the same, 14 lbs. Carrots were 60 in the old Act, and they are now made 50. Castor beans are the same. Clover seed is the same. Hemp seed was 49, and it is now made 44. Lime is the same, 70 lbs. Malt is the same, 36 lbs. Onions are the same, 50 lbs. Parsnips were 60, and are now made 45. Potatoes are the same, 60 lbs. Timothy seed is the same, 48 lbs. Turnips were 60 lbs., and are now made 50. All these changes were made at the request of the yegetable Growers' Associations of Ontario and Quebec. They explain that the weights in the old Act were so high that the ordinary measurement never came up to the weight. They say that the weights now adopted are reasonable, and are in accord with the ordinary measure of a bushel.


David Henderson: I understand that the weight of lime is left where it was before. Has the minister ever had any test made as to whether that is the correct weight of a bushel of lime? I remember it was formerly 80 lb's., and I think that was made at the suggestion of some member of the Senate, but it was reduced at my suggestion, and I was wondering whether the minister has ever had it confirmed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say that I have officially. I have myself purchased lime and weighed it, and I know it was very rare that you could get a bushel of lime that weighed 80 lbs. I think 70 is the correct weight.


David Henderson: We had a test made in this way: I weighed a bushel of lump lime, and then took a bushel of fine lime and threw it in along with the larger pieces, and of course the smaller lime disappeared amongst the larger lumps, but, strange to say, it made no difference in the weight.
On subsection 2,


Mr. SEXSMITH.: You provide that a bag of potatoes shall weigh 80 lbs., unless a bag by measure is specially agreed upon. Is that the legal standard?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no legal standard to-day for a bag of potatoes, except in the province of Ontario. This will make 80 lbs. the legal standard all over the Dominion.


David Henderson: The minister knows that 90 lbs is the correct weight.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I always expected to get 90 lbs. if I bought a bag. But at the same time it has been 80 in the province of Quebec for a long time, and now we make it 80 all over the Dominion. Many representa-Mr. FISHER.
tions were made, both to myself and to the Department of Trade and Commerce, asking that the weight be made 80 lbs.


John Albert Sexsmith: Has 90 lbs. been the legal weight in Ontario?
Mr. FISHER There was no legal weight in Ontario.


David Henderson: I assume the min-siter knows why it was made 80 lbs.? In the province of Quebec it was made 80 lbs. because that was the weight of an ordinary bag of potatoes, and that weight was made to conform to the size of the bag. In Montreal I think they use a great many sugar bags, and the farmers who fill them with potatoes find that a bag will hold 90 lbs. So they made the weight 90 lbs. in order to conform to the size of the bag. Under our former legislation that weight was confined to the province of Quebec, and I am not sure but that it should be confined there still, and let 90 lbs. be the legal weight of a bag of potatoes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There have been a good many smaller bags in use of late years in other parts of the country than Quebec. Strong representations were made from farmers outside of Quebec to reduce the weight of a bag of potatoes to 80 lbs. The legular two-bushel grain bag, which is the well known cotton grain bag, holds two bushels of grain, and will hold 90 lbs. of potatoes if it is well filled and shaken down. But there are many smaller bags used now, and grain is now nearly all sold by weight without reference to bags. Grain is now put into any kind of a bag, whereas it used to be put generally into a two-bushel bag. Now bags vary in size. I know they are with us and I think they are all over the country. There is no fixed standard of capacity for a bag and it, therefore, has been thought well by people who are interested in this trade that a bag of these different things should have a fixed weight. It is proposed that a bag of potatoes shall be 80 lbs.


Mr. THORNTON.: The invariable rule has been that a bag of any kind of roots or fruit should be a bushel and a half. Now you depart from that with regard to a great many of the articles that are mentioned in this list. It will deceive the public greatly if this change is made. The change with regard to the weight of a bag of potatoes is a very drastic one.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The only standard that there ever has been for a weight of a bag of any of these articles has been with respect to a bag of potatoes in the province of Quebec. Until now there has been no standard weight for bag of any of these articles.


Charles Jonas Thornton: What was the practice?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It varied in different parts of the country. I think that in Ontario a bag of potatoes was usually a bushel and a half, or 90 pounds, and in other parts of the country it was not. In the maritime provinces I believe it was 75 pounds, while in Quebec, by the law of the land, it was 80 pounds. These people have requested that it be made uniform all over the country at 80 pounds.


Charles Jonas Thornton: As far as potatoes are concerned, it is going to lead to very serious difficulty as between buyers and sellers if that rule is adopted.


John Albert Sexsmith: I agree with my hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Thornton). The standard rule in the province of Ontario, as long as I can remember, has been 90 pounds for a bag of potatoes. The minister says that the ordinary cotton bag used on the farms has to be filled up and well shaken down to hold 90 pounds of potatoes. He has evidently not weighed many potatoes in ordinary cotton bags, because they do not require to be shaken down to get a weight of 90 pounds. But there is a flour bag which is used on the farms, and in order to put 90 pounds into that it has to be shaken down and tied very closely. It will cause a great deal of confusion for some time, throughout Ontario, at least, where the public have been so accustomed to dealing in a 90-pound bag of potatoes, if you adopt 80 pounds as the standard bag it will practically compel the farmer, who sells a bag of potatoes as a bag, to sell by weight. The old standard measure of a bushel and a half to the bag was considered correct, and no doubt was correct. In our pjart of the country they buy potatoes by the bag at 90 pounds, and it will cause confusion if you bring about this change.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These weights have beeni fixed upon representations of people interested who have come to us from time to time. A delegation came down to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to this Bill, and these are the weights fixed upon by them. I have received a great' many representations in the way of correspondence which I have transferred to the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because, this being an amendment to the Inspection and Sale Act, it comes under his department. I have had a great many representations from different parts of the country, a good many, I think, from Ontario. I do not remember* just now where they all came from, but I am sure that some came from Ontario, asking for this change.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Who comprised thq deputation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They called themselves the vegetables growers of Ontario and the vegetables growers of Quebec.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Not farmers?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, they were not farmers.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Were the dealers interested in the same way?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the dealers would be in that deputation. This will not hurt the farmer. It is the purchaser, not the farmer, that will be hurt, if anybody is hurt, because the farmer will be able to sell 80 pounds as a bag in future instead of 80.


Charles Jonas Thornton: The only objection I can see to it is that it will cause confusion and hard feeling between buyer and seller.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, it may take* a little time for the new standard to be understood, but evidently there has been a very positive request for this from the people who seem to be concerned in the trade.


John Albert Sexsmith: I do not see that it is a great detriment to the farmer, but hundreds of thousands of people will be buying potatoes all over Ontario, they will not know that this new standard has been fixed for the next five years, and they will think that they are getting 90 pounds when they buy potatoes from the grocer, whereas they are only getting 80 pounds.


Mr. NESBITT.: Will they not soon adjust themselves to the new conditions? It does take a good sized measure of potatoes to weigh 90 pounds. As a matter-of fact, dealers will accustom themselves to this change, and the price will be fixed accordingly.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These weights were also submitted to the officers of the Experimental Farm, Messds. Grisdale and Maeoun, and they tested and approved them.


John Albert Sexsmith: How would they test the weight of a bag? They could test the weight of a bushel, but I do not know how they could test the weight of a bag of 80 pounds.


Charles Jonas Thornton: What measures did they use in testing the bag?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, for the bushel, they took the regular bushel measure. The first part of this clause provides for the weight of a bushel. I do not know how they tested the weight of the bag.


Charles Jonas Thornton: What is the size of the bushel with which they made this test?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is the regular standard bushel. The Inspection and Sale Act says what the bushel is.


David Henderson: 2,142 inches, is it not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not sure.


John Herron: I can understand that if you provide for the use of the bushel measure in filling the bag, it will work all right, but if you do not I am afraid it will result in a great deal of inconvenience. A farmer will not be able to determine very accurately what quantity of potatoes he has in his sack except by having a pair of scales on the farm. A bushel measure is a very cheap article, and he can easily determine the quantity of potatoes that he is putting in the bag with the aid of the bushel measure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He requires to use scales just as much now as he will if this Bill is passed. The standard of practice in the province of Ontario, I believe, has been 90 pounds, and the 90 pounds is now required as absolutely as the 80 pounds will be.


William Sora Middlebro: I think this may cause great confusion, and that great publicity should be_ given to the changes made before the Act is put into operation. The coming into force of the Act should be postponed until some future day, perhaps a year from next January.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The proposition to postpone the coming into force of the Act is a reasonable one, but I think that next January would be a sufficient delay.


William Sora Middlebro: The other would be only one crop of potatoes.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Does it fix the weight of a bushel of apples?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. I would suggest that we should pass the other clauses of the Bill which are not controversial and leave it in committee until I have an opportunity of consulting the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the question of deferring the coming into operation of the Bill. I have not had charge of the drafting of the Bill.


John Albert Sexsmith: We should have some definite promise that it will not be brought into force until the 1st of January.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot promise that myself.
On section 2, existing Act repealed,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The royal assent was given during this session Jo a Bill introduced by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) fixing the weight of a barrel of potatoes at 165 pounds. The Minister of Trade and Commerce thought it best to include that enactment under this Bill, and so avoid confusion, and this has been done. This fixes the standard at that weight.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Clarence Jameson: What is the legal weight of a bag of potatoes in the United States? .


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know.


Clarence Jameson: If we are framing our legislation on the American legislation in this matter, we should know just what their standards are.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall find that out.


John Albert Sexsmith: Eighty pounds to a bag, and 165 pounds to a barrel seems inconsistent.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think there is any interchange between the bag and the barrel.
On section 3, weight of barrel.


David Henderson: You determine the size of the barrel by the number of pounds. Could you not give the capacity of the barrel by giving the height, and the diameter at the top and middle as with apple barrels?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reason that the size of the apple barrel is fixed by measurement is that apples vary greatly in weight, according to variety. The summer varieties of apples weigh 10 pounds per barrel less than the winter varieties. That difference does not exist with potatoes.


John Albert Sexsmith: How is a man buying a barrel of potatoes to know that it id a legal barrel?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If he had any suspicion he would have to weigh it.
Progress reported.



FOREST RESERVES.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 85) respecting forest reserves and parks, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. OLIVER.: The major portion of the provisions of this Bill are already contained in the Forest Reserves Act. The most important differences between the Bill and the Act are that provision is made for placing all present forest and park reservations under the provisions of the Forest Reserves Act, and then setting apart, within those forest reservations, park reservations with regard to which the regulations look to the enjoyment by the people of the natural advantages and beauties ol those particular sections of the reserves, while the regulations regarding the remainder of the forest reserves look rather to the exclusion of people from them.


David Henderson: Will the hon. minister pardon me? I think this is too important a Bill to proceed with in so thin a House. I do not see the men here on either side who are sufficiently acquainted

with the matter dealt with in this Bill to deal with it intelligently, and we might as well leave it entirely in the minister's hands and let him put it through himself. If he has some other measure of less importance, I would suggest that he take it up and let this stand to come up in a full House earlier in the day. .


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate the point of view of my hon. friend, and I do not wish to minimize the importance of the Bill. I would like to say another word. Besides the provisions which I have mentioned, there is another important feature of the Bill. It sets apart by legislation the .Rocky Mountain Park Reserve, extending .along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains from the boundary until it is crossed by the boundary between British Columbia and Alberta '


Charles Jonas Thornton: Will it be entirely in Alberta?


Frank Oliver: Yes. There is a reservation over a great deal of that country, by order in council passed last year; but since that time a careful examination has been made for the purpose of drawing what might be called a fairly scientific boundary between what is properly the park and what is not the park, and this Bill asks that this new boundary be adopted as the boundary of the park which will be set apart by legislative enactment.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Has the Conservation Commission recommended this Bill or been consulted in the matter?


Frank Oliver: The Conservation Commission recommended the setting apart of the reserve on the whole of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, and the Bill is in accordance with that recommendation. I am not aware that the commission made recommendations in regard to any other section of the Bill, because the Act now on the statute-book, which this Bill follows, with the exceptions I have mentioned, was in force before the Conservation Commission came into existence.


Mr. ROCHE.: Does this Bill interfere with the present boundaries of the Duck Mountains reserve, the Riding Mountains reserve or the Turtle Mountains reserve?


Frank Oliver: I was going to say that besides that reservation, which will include the present reserves of the Kootenay Lakes park, the Rocky Mountains park at Banff, and the Jasper park, a careful examination of the other reserves created by the Act of 1906 has been made, and as a result of that examination there have been some alterations in the boundaries, which I would of course be prepared to state to the House at length. There have been some considerable additions made, in some cases small portions have been taken out of the reserves, and in one case, the Manitoba reserve has been dispensed with altogether, and a considerable area of the Donald Forest reserve it has been decided to throw open to settlement. The legislative features of the Bill are not important, as they do not differ materially from the provisions of the Act now on the statute-book. At the same time, I do not wish to minimize the desirability of the full House having a complete understanding of the Bill, and therefore, in deference to my hon. friend, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister any map of the proposed reserve?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I have a map which shows all the reserves, with all the alterations and additions, which I can leave on the table for the information of the House between now, and the future consideration of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Do these reserves on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains comprise pretty nearly all the eastern water-shed of the Rockies?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I think they do. In setting apart the reservation we were guided by the principle that land at an elevation of 4,000 feet and over was not suitable for agricultural purposes, though it could still be used for grazing, because the grazing right does not involve alienation of the surface.


David Henderson: It is not intended to dispose of the timber on the reserve?


Frank Oliver: It is not open to the ordinary demand for timber, but the timber is to be disposed of at the option and on the responsibility of the department when it is mature. The idea is that the timber shall be administered with a view to preservation reproduction rather than to profit but it is not at all intended that the timber shall not be used.
Progress reported.



DOMINION LANDS ACT - ORDERS IN COUNCIL APPROVED.

[Stage Direction]
The House went again into committee to Consider a proposed resolution that certain orders in council under the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 20 of the statutes of 1908, are approved.
David Henderson: This seems to be a pretty big proposition to be taken up at a quarter past ten on Friday night when we were (here till five o'clock this morning, and especially when there are only one or two men in the House who can reasonably

be supposed to have any knowledge of the matter involved.


Frank Oliver: This matter was brought before the House some time ago, and, at the request of the hy>n. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), all the orders which approval is asked for were printed, and, of course, have been in the hands of members for several months. I do not wish in this case either to minimize the importance of the matter for which the approval of the House is asked; but I do think that in this as in other cases the House would be warranted in giving its approval, having had an opportunity to fully study these orders. I think that the formal action of the House is all that should be necessary, (because the orders have been in operation 'and the House is well informed as to the facts.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I quite recognize that the orders in council have been before us for some time. I got a copy of them quite two months ago. I went over them then and it did strike me that there weTe some matters of considerable importance and which it might be desirable from my own point of view to have some information. I consulted the representatives of western *constituencies better informed in these *matters, and they agreed with me. I made *some notes on the subject at the time. But I have mislaid that one copy of the resolution. I sent several times for another copy, *but was told it was impossible to get them. *We are not now in a very good position to take up this resolution, and, in the second place, the western members who are the men really interested in these things are not numerously represented here tonight. I think it would be well not to press the matter under the circumstances.


Robert Laird Borden: Why were so small a number of copies printed?


Frank Oliver: I think there was an ample number printed for the use that was contemplated. But as this document contains all these orders it may have been found convenient to give them out for general information, and the number of copies [DOT]printed that would have been ample for [DOT]the use of the House was not at all sufficient for the more general circulation.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose I fnust have received a copy, but I confess I did not know that they were distributed. The statutes, if I remember correctly, require that the resolutions shall be passed before the expiration of the session. So it is not really very urgent.
>
Mr. OLIVER. No, it is business that I [DOT]wish to have disposed of if possible, but I would not wish to force it.
Mr. HENDERSON


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman send a copy to the member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty)?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Progress reported.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On order for second reading of Bill (No. 107) to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Frank Oliver: This is a Bill for making minor amendments to the Dominion Lands Act, which authorizes the leasing of school lands for revenue purposes towards the school funds. Up to the present time we have been leasing school lands, and there is a question as to our statutory authority to do so. It was thought well to make statutory provision to that end, and a clause was prepared for that purpose. Since, notice was given of this Bill, circumstances have arisen that have made it desirable to secure certain other minor amendments to the Act. I now wish to withdraw this Bill, and at the same time to give notice of the introduction of another Bill of the same name, but which would contain certain other additional provisions, in all cases making minor amendments which are considered necessary to the successful operation of the Act. I move, therefore, that Order 18 for the second reading of Bill (No. 107) be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 132) to correct certain clerical errors in the French version of the Inland Revenue Act-Mr. Templeman-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: In the French version of the Revised Statutes, clause 252, the word * huit ' has been substituted for the word ' quatre.' The consequence is to impose an inland revenue tax of eight cents per gallon instead of four cents. We wish to use the word ' quatre.' This section also amends the French version of section 356 of the said Act by inserting after the word ' loi ' in the sixth line thereof, the words ' est eoupable d'un acte criminal et,' which words have been left out of the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I was much surprised to see in the report of the Secretary of State so extraordinary a number of errors made in the French version of the statutes. I cannot understand why they should occur so frequently. I think there were in that report two pages of errors in

recent statutes. It does seem a remarkable thing that the word ' huit ' should be substituted for the word ' quatre ' in the French version, and it seems equally remarkable that the very important phrase which the minister has quoted should be left out at the end of a section. I would like to know the meaning of it.


William Templeman: There is only one explanation, that is defective translation.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a translation at all when these important words are left out. But what I cannot understand is how they should occur so frequently.


William Templeman: I cannot account for it on any other theory than, carelessness somewhere, and I suppose on the part of the translators.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems important that whatever authority is charged with the supervision on this work should see that greater care is used in making the translation. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us how it is that these errors occur.


Mr. MURPHY.: I cannot give my hon. friend any other information than what he possesses. If there are errors in the printing, it is the fault of the printer.


Robert Laird Borden: Some of these errors are attributed in some way to the Printing Bureau. The Secretary of State will Temember that in his report there is a long list of errors, I think two pages. I do not know whether they are attributable to the translators or to the Printing Bureau.


Charles Murphy: They are attributable to the translators, and they were discovered by the officials of the Printing Bureau in Tending the proof.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Are the English and French editions of these statutes issued simultaneously?


Charles Murphy: Almost.


Charles Joseph Doherty: After they are printed, is anybody in a position to compare the two versions and see that they have been printed identically? Is there any system by which these translations are compared? We should not be running the risk of sending out two laws disagreeing with each other.


Robert Laird Borden: The question raised by the member for St. Anne is an important one. Are the statutes passed in this parliament in English and French at the same time, or are they passed in English and a French translation made
afterwards? Is there an English version and a French version of statutes at the time they pass this House, and the Senate, and at the time they receive the assent of the Governor in Council? It seems to me that is what should be done. Both languages are the languages of legislation in this country.


Mr. FIELDING.: Bills of course are always required to be printed in both languages, and in practice they are. So that at the time, parliament enacted it with that general amendment. I should think that there is no reason why these should not be published in both languages at the same time. Mr. Speaker, who has the supervision of this matter, informs me that he will have a memorandum prepared giving an [DOT]explanation of this error, and that he will be able to bring it before the House on some future occasion. There is no doubt that is a clerical error in translation.


Clarence Jameson: This appears to be a Bill to amend the revised statutes of 1906 for the purpose of correcting an error that has occurred in the French version. I would like to ask the minister when it was that this error was discovered, when he first knew of it and why this delay has occurred in bringing in this amendment to make the necessary correction?


William Templeman: Personally I have only known of it for the last six months. The Deputy Minister called my attention to it six months ago and he thought it was necessary to amend the French version. How long my deputy has known of it I do not know.


Robert Laird Borden: They have been paying eight cents?


William Templeman: No; four cents.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PROHIBITION OF OPIUM AND OTHER DRUGS.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 97) to prohibit the improper use of opium and other drugs.- Mr. King.
Robert Laird Borden: What are the amendments?


Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour).: These amendments do not affect in any way the principle of the Bill. The first amendment is the insertion of the words ' shall be guilty of a criminal offence ' in a number of the sections. The law as it stands states that a person doing

certain things shall be liable to summary conviction and to a certain fine. The senators thought that it would be just as well to put in the words ' shall be guilty of a criminal offence.' I do not think that they are absolutely necessary, but the Senate seems to think that they . will make the meaning clearer and as the prevention of certain evils is the object sought their insertion of these words is in line with the purpose of the Bill I do not see that there can be any objection to it. The second .amendment is to section 5 of the Bill, and it is the insertion of the words ' or to a bona fide wholesale druggist ' after the word ' dentist ' in the 15th line. Section 5 prohibits the sale of certain drugs to any person other than a physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, except upon conditions prescribed by the Act. It seemed advisable to the Senate to allow the same privilege, in the matter of sale, to a bona fide wholesale druggist and, therefore, they inserted these woris.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would not the words ' a druggist carrying on business in a bona fide drag store ' cover that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A wholesale druggist might not have any drug store at all; he might simply have a place of business and for that reason he comes within a different category. The remaining amendment is to the schedule. The Act specifies certain drugs in the schedule which it shall be unlawful to sell except under certain conditions. These drugs are cocaine, morphine and opium. The Senate thought it well to add, after the words * cocaine ' and ' morphine,' the words ' or any salts or compounds thereof.' That addition was made on the advice of the medical adviser of the Conservation Commission and also on the advice of the director general of public health. The intention of parliament in inserting cocaine and morphine was to deal with these two particular drugs and it was felt that unless the words ' or any salts or compounds thereof ' were added a violation of the intention of the Act might result. Then, the Senate provide in addition the words ' eucaine or any salts or compounds thereof.' Eucaine is a comparatively new drug much the same as cocaine and has much the same effect. It is in the nature of a powder which, I believe, is snuffed by people who use it and which has the same destructive effect as cocaine and opium. As these amendments, and particularly the last one, strengthen the Bill, and as they carry out the intention of this House, I am of opinion that they should be agreed to.


William Sora Middlebro: Are these not covered by section 14?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; section 14 says that the Governor in Council may add to the schedule of this Act any alkaloids, derivatives or preparations of the drugs named. Eucaine is not one of the drugs named. On the other hand I suppose that any salts or compounds of the drugs named could be added by order in council, but they are I think better specified comprehensively in the Act itself. The Senate thought it better to specify salts and compounds generally in the Bill.


William Sora Middlebro: The section which I have here says that the Governor in Council may add any compounds or substances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hen. gentleman has the Bill as introduced but not as passed. The Bill as passed was changed in some particulars. We confined the list of drugs to cocaine, morphine and opium.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I suppose that we can assume that the senators all know what eucaine is, because I must confess that I have no knowledge what it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The suggestion has come from the medical adviser of the Conservation Commission which has to do, enough other things with the conservation of human resourses.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 1, 1911.