1914-05-08

FARMERS BANK PAPERS.

Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance):: I have laid upon the table a
list in detail of the depositors of the Farmers Bank in Canada, both on current and .savings accounts. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) asked me to furnish him with information as to the amount of deposits payable on demand .and of deposits payable after notice as of the last day of each of the years 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910. I have obtained that information and laid .a. statement of it upon the table. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition asked for a return of all papers, documents and correspondence relating to the matter of the Farmers Bank. I find upon inquiry that two returns have been brought down to the House, one in 1912 and the other in 1913. Of the former I have obtained a copy, and as my right hon. friend may desire to look at it I laid it also on the table. The return which I laid on the table in 1913 was on the motion of

the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and I (believe that he has or had it in his possession. I have been unable to locate it. In addition to the documents which I have mentioned I have made a careful search, and I find that I have several printed appeals or applications for aid. No doubt these have been furnished to the members, but as I have them among the documents I lay them upon the table. In addition I lay upon the table an approximate statement of affairs as of May 1. I think that completes all the documents I have in my possession or shall be able to obtain.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I remember seeing
the return to which imy hon. friend refers after it was brought down, but I have been unable to find it among my papers. It may be in my office at home. I have communicated with my office and shall endeavour to find out. I presume that the minister will) have a copy of the return.


William Thomas White: I find I have mot a copy, the reason being that I laid my copy upon the table, and I think my hon. friend then got his copy. In some way they have both been mislaid. The information now asked for was brought down, and I do not know that it was of especial importance; but if any member requires anything in addition to what is now before the House I shall be only too glad to endeavour to get it.



CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY PAPERS.

Mr. BORDEN:: My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday of the desirability of having the documents in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway proposals printed and laid upon the table of the House. We had provided a number of copies which it was anticipated might be sufficient for the use-of those who desire to discuss the question, and this was done in the hope that I might take up the resolution on Monday. My right hon. friend has represented to me that it is desirable to have certain portions of the documents printed, and accordingly my colleague from Halifax and the Solicitor General have gone over the papers and made a selection, which, in order to expedite the matter, has already been placed in the hands of the printer. It is necessary, however, to make a motion to have the matter regular; therefore, I beg to move:
That such portions of the documents laid upon the table of the House in connection with the proposed resolutions relating to the Canadian Northern Railway system as have been selected for the purpose shall be printed forthwith, and that the provisions of rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: That will be quite satisfactory. I may say to my right hon. friend that he will find the trust deed of December 28, 1913, which yesterday he said he could not find, in schedule 2, part 2, item 3. It is not necessary to have it printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DOHERTY moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 180, to amend the Canada Temperance Act. He said:
There are several purposes for which it is sought to amend the Act. The first amendment is to make such provisions .as are necessary to make the Act applicable in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Under the dispositions of the law as it now stands, the Act is not susceptible of practical application in those provinces. The second amendment looks to the providing of a list of electors for use in the election for the adoption of the Canada Temperance Act in different districts. The difficulty that has arisen, and that is sought to be obviated, has arisen in those portions of the province of Ontario which constitute unorganized territory. The general provision of the Act is that persons who would be entitled to vote at a Dominion election if such an election were being held, are entitled to vote on the election for the adoption of the Canada Temperance Act. The lists in unorganized territory for use in the Dominion elections are, under the provisions of the law, to be made each year, unless the Governor in Council decides in any particular year that it is not necessary that they should be made; and in practice such an Order in Council is passed save in years where it is anticipated that there will be an election. The result is that it may happen, and it has happened, that where it is desired to adopt the Canada Temperance Act in any district composed in whole or in part of unorganized territory in the province of Ontario, there is as regards that part no list of electors in force, and it is necessary to have one made which may serve at the election for the adoption
[Stage Direction]


of the Act. Under the law as it now stands, even if only a portion of a riding forms part of the district in which it is sought to bring the Canada Temperance Act into force, it is necessary to make a list of that entire Dominion riding, which entails a very large and useless expense. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that when an election has been ordered for the adoption of the Temperance Act a list shall be made for such portion of the unorganized territory as is included in the district in which the election is to take place; and, further, that that list shall be for the purpose of that Temperance Act election only. The reason of that last provision is that where for a purpose of that kind a list was made of the electors in only a portion of the riding, in the event of a Dominion election coming on in that riding, it did not seem proper that there should be one list for one part made at one time, and the balance made later on. There are, in addition, two provisions made to settle doubts; that is to say, provisions with regard to contestations of the election for the adoption of the Canada Temperance Act. These provisions declare that the superior courts of the different provinces shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such contestations; and further provision is made as to the procedure, in substance enacting that any person entitled to vote at the election may attack the validity of the election, and that he shall be bound to advertise notice of his contestation during a period of two weeks. As there are no persons who have any special quality to be defendants on such contestation, it is provided that any interested person may appear to contest the petition; and power is given to the judge, in the event of more than one such qualified person appearing, to make such order as may be required for the consolidating of the defences or contestation, and such other orders as may be necessary to prevent the incurring of unnecessary expense as the result of multiple contestation.
Mr. OLIVER:: May I ask if the conditions in the prairie provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, where municipalities are nor organized, are recognized in the amendment?	*


Mr. DOHERTY:: The provision is that the word 'county' in the Act, as regards Alberta and Saskatchewan, has the meaning of electoral riding.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (acting Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 181, respecting the entrance of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company into their joint terminals at the city of Winnipeg.
Wilfrid Laurier: Explain.


Mr. REID:: On April 10, 1911, the Minister oif Railways and Canals, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern entered into .an agreement by which the Grand Trunk Pacific would have running rights over, and the use of, the terminals in the city of Wininpeg. This Bill is simply to ratify the agreement. The Bill has just one clause ratifying the agreement, and a .schedule setting out the whole agreement.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. EMMERSON:: I would like to ask if the Government have any official information in respect to the appointment of a Governor General to succeed the present incumbent of the ofiice? I .see rumours in the press, and I presume that the people of Canada would like to know what foundation there .is for them. I hope that the rumours are not true. 6-till, I .speak individually.


Robert Laird Borden: There has been a telegram received by His Roy.al Highness the Governor General, announcing that His Majesty has been pleased to approve of the appointment of Prince Alexander of Teak to succeed His Royal Highness as Governor General.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. KNOWLES:: Mr. .Speaker, I rise to a question .of privilege. During the remarks of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Sam. Hughes) yesterday afternoon, he referred to a conversation between himself and myself in regard to the appointment of certain honorary lieutenant colonels. I wish to call attention to an omission .in 'Hansard' at page 3535.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. gentleman would .be good enough to state what the question of privilege is, we would know whether it is a question of privilege or only

a correction of something, which, I take it, would not be a question of privilege, but which he has. properly the Tight to do.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not understand; 1 was doing the best I could to tell you.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My request to the hon. gentleman was to state what the question of privilege was bdfore going on with the reading. If it is merely a correction, it would not be a question of privilege. Very often a request is made by an hon. member to rise to a question of privilege, when in reality it is not a question of privilege at all, but simply a correction of something that is wrong in 'Hansard,' or a misprint in regard to something that the hon. gentleman had said.


William Erskine Knowles: You will have to watch me closely, because if I say something that is not a question of privilege you will have to stop me. I cannot do anything better than I am doing. I said that I had risen to correct an omission in the 'Hansard.' There is something left out that I want in 'Hansard.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is quite proper to
draw attention to an incorrect report and to ask for a correction, but it would not ordinarily be regarded as a question of privilege.


William Erskine Knowles: Do I understand you to rule that I am to go on?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is quite in order for the hon. gentleman to go on and make the correction.


William Erskine Knowles: I will have to start
again, for I have forgotten where I was stopped. Yesterday the Minister of Militia and Defence made a speech, and in the course of that speech he took occasion to make some allegations with reference to a conversation which had occurred between himself and myself, with regard to the appointment- of an honorary colonel. On that occasion I controverted the minister's statement, but it is not on that I wish to dwell. In corroboration of what I said, I made a further statement of a matter of fact, which is entirely omitted from ' Hansard '. In corroboration of my rendition of the fact, I stated that a certain gentleman named Colonel Williams-there is no reference to Colonel Williams in ' Hansard '- I said a certain gentleman named Colonel Williams, who is connected with the Militia Department, and who is a member of the Militia Council, sought me out. I never 218i
heard of Colonel Williams before. He sought me out in my room, 212, bringing a file with him and saying he was instructed by the Minister of Militia to seek me and introduce himself to me, and he asked my views on the suitability of this gentleman as an honorary colonel. I told him my views, which were favourable to this gentleman. I never asked Colonel Williams directly or indirectly, I never asked the minister or anybody else, to appoint any person honorary colonel. I simply answered the question, giving my opinion as to the suitability and character of this gentleman. The whole reference to this interview of Colonel Williams, who was sent as an emissary from the minister, with me, is entirely omitted from ' Hansard '.



INSPECTION OF PICKLED FISH.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the inspection and branding of pickled fish, for the appointment of inspectors and the making of regulations, the nature of brands and the capacity of barrels, and penalties for infraction of the regulations.
Mt. HAZEN. The purpose of this resolution and the Bill which is to be founded on it is to give an impetus to the pickled fish industry throughout Canada, more especially the pickled herring business. At the present time, herring put np in Scotland and other parts of the world -sell for prices far in advance of the prices that are obtained for herrings and other fish pickled in Canada. It is believed that this is due entirely to the absence of proper methods in pickling this fish in Canada, because the fish that are taken in Canadian waters are quite equal to those taken in Scotland or anywhere else. Scotch herrings bring a price of $10 a barrel as against $3.50 a barrel obtained for Canadian herrings. The object is to provide for a proper system of inspection so that fish put up in a certain way will bear the hallmark, as it were, of the Canadian inspector, and people buying this fish will know that proper inspection of it has taken place.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Will the Bill prescribe the character of the package?


Mr. HAZEN:: Yes.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the inspection be compulsory?


John Douglas Hazen: No; but we hope and believe that the result will be that after a short time those who put up pickled fish will see the very great advantage of having it inspected and bearing the mark of the inspector. As a result it is hoped that the prices obtained for this inspected and branded fish will be very much higher than present prices.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Will there Ibe inspectors named for this inspection?


John Douglas Hazen: The inspectors will visit
different parts of Canada where fish is put up. For example, if the inspector is advised that at some point in Gaspe, or Bonaventure, or in the Maritime provinces fish are ready for inspection, he will go there and put his mark on the barrel according to the grade of the fish. When the Bill is introduced it is my intention to move that it be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries, so that it may have the advantage of its details being discussed by that committee, and the opinion of the officials of the department presented. I have no doubt it will receive careful consideration from the committee, and if any amendments are offered in the public interest they will be considered, because although the Bill is, I think, very carefully thought out at present, there may be improvements made in it.
The pickled fish industry of Canada, which includes the trade in salted herring, mackerel, alewives and salmon, has been for years in a languishing condition. Dealers in many cases refuse absolutely to have anything to do with the cured product. The cause of this is to be found, first, in the poor, leaky packages of varying size, which are in common use and which invariably ruin their contents in the course of transportation; and, second, to the lack of a proper system of grading the fish, together with careless, unsystematic packing.
This Bill, as I have pointed out to the committee, is intended to bring into general use an improved standard barrel for curing and marketing pickled fish, and to raise the standard of curing and packing to such a degree that the cured article shall secure the confidence of dealers at home and abroad.
To carry out the provisions of the Bill, when it becomes law, a small staff of inspectors will be appointed and duly drilled and instructed in their duties. These will

thereafter form a sort of travelling school of instruction in their several districts, for barrel-makers, fishermen and other packers. In addition to this, regulations in the form of a book of detailed instructions will be placed in the hands of packers, etc., for their guidance.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How will these inspectors be paid ?


John Douglas Hazen: They will be paid by the Department of Marine and Fisheries out of the general appropriation placed at our command.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will any charge be made to the packers for the inspection ?


John Douglas Hazen: It is not proposed to do so at present. The inspectors will thoroughly examine all pickled fish presented to them for inspection, while the goods are still in the hands of the original packer. If the barrel is of the standard size and make, and the fish are graded in accordance with the regulations contained in this Bill, they will apply to each barrel so conforming to the requirements, a brand or guarantee of quality, which will show the grade of the fish, the year in which the fish was packed, and the inspecting officer's initials or number.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What will be the cost of administration ?


John Douglas Hazen: We do not think that the cost will be at all large. Some of the officials at present in the department can be utilized for the purpose, and a few other inspectors may have to be appointed who will not only act as inspectors, but go about the country preparing for this work by meeting the fishermen in the different sections; pointing out to them exactly what the provisions of the Bill and the regulations are and educating them on the subject in the same way that lecturers go to the farmers to-day and give them instructions in regard to agriculture. It is not anticipated that any large additional number of inspectors will be required.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the Bill the same as the Act in force in this country some years ago?


John Douglas Hazen: I am unable to answer the question of my hon. friend, because I do not know the provisions of that Act. My attention has not been called to it.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the Bill provide for a standard barrel?


John Douglas Hazen: The Bill and the regulations under the Bill will provide the sort of barrel that will have to be used in order that the inspector will be justified in putting his mark on it, showing that it has been inspected by him and contains a certain quality of fish. It will have to be a barrel of a certain quality and of a certain kind, because I believe the great difficulty in the putting up of pickled fish to-day is that they are put up in barrels that are leaking in many cases, so that the pickle runs out and the fish become rusty. The term 'rusty' is familiar to all of us who live near the sea. Our friends from the interior will hardly know the expression as applied to fish. Unless you get the proper barrel to put up the fish in, you can not be sure that the fish will continue to be of good quality, because when a barrel full of fish with pickle in it is sent about the country by train, etc., the staves work loose; the pickle runs out, and the fish are destroyed. It is largely due to that fact that pickled fish put up in Canada brings such a very small price as compared with the pickled herring cured in Scotland, wnich in very considerable quantities are sold in this country and on this side of the Atlantic for a sum fully three times as large as is obtained for pickled fish put up in Canada at the present time. There is of course also a difference in the method of curing.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the inspection in
Scotland done by the Government?


John Douglas Hazen: The pickled fish industry
in Scotland was built up under legislation of this character. A good many years ago there was the same trouble with the pickled fish industry in Scotland. Under Acts which are somewhat similar to this Bill, but which I believe .also provided for a bounty, the pickled fish industry in Scotland, from being a comparatively small industry and one that did not give very large returns to those engaged in it, haB become a most important industry. This was largely brought about by the passage of legislation, the object of which was to give assurance to the man buying the products that what he was buying had been properly inspected, and that he was getting an article up to a certain standard of excellence.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At the start it referred only to herring.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. As a matter of fact, if this Bill 'becomes law, it will foe used
chiefly in connection with herrings. It mentions alewives. 'Hon. gentlemen know that alewives, also known as gaspereaux, are smoked and cured and sent down to the West Indies. There is very little sale for alewives ini this country. There is also a provision in the Bill that any other class of fish may be brought within its scope if it is thought desirable to do so. It will also apply to mackerel .and salmon; and it is possible that in the future, although it is not likely, because the shad is not an important commercial fish in this country, it may also be applied to shad.


John Howard Sinclair: If the Government
stamp is placed on a barrel of fish, I suppose that the Government will be responsible that there is good fish in the barrel; and if there is anything WTong with the fish, that the Government will pay the damages. It is something in the nature of a guarantee-like the Farmers' Bank.


John Douglas Hazen: If the Government stamp is put on a barrel, and if it turns out that the goods contained in the barrel are not up to the proper standard, it will be perfectly clear that we have appointed somebody as inspector who is not fit to perform his duties, and that he should foe removed -and another inspector appointed in his place. A great deal will depend upon the efficiency of the inspectors and upon the fidelity and care with which they discharge their duties.


Mr. MARCIL:: Will the appointments of the inspectors be political?


John Douglas Hazen: The appointments will be made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Charles Marcil: Will they be political appointments?


John Douglas Hazen: No. The inspectors will be men qualified to fill the position. If we do not get men of that class, this legislation will certainly not foe a success.


Charles Marcil: Will codfish be included?


John Douglas Hazen: Codfish are not put up in barrels; they are dry-cured.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) says that they are pickled at certain seasons of the year.


John Douglas Hazen: My experience with codfish is that they are dried sometimes in the sun and at other times by process of steam.

All these matters will be considered by the Committee of Marine and Fisheries when they meet. If, in the opinion of that committee, which is composed of gentlemen who have more or less acquaintance with matters relating to fisheries, this legislation should be extended to other fish, I shall be very glad indeed that the Bill should be amended in that respect.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What I mentioned to the hon. member (Mr. Marcil) was that in my part of the country in the fall of the year large quantities of codfish are caught. They cannot be sun-dried, and are pickled and put up in barrels and sent to the market in that shape, which is termed ' green-cured.' That is what I have in mind.


Mr. LOGGIE:: Does this Bill contemplate a specification for the construction of the barrels, which I think is a most important matter?


John Douglas Hazen: It does.


William Stewart Loggie: How thick are the staves to be?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not wish to take up too much time, but perhaps I had better run over the Bill section by section, that the House may understand the nature of its provisions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does not this inpection imply at the same time the proper curing of the fish?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some years ago the
department established curing stations and secured the services of some Scotch experts. I know that in the county of Gaspe the assistance thus afforded was well received. Will the minister maintain that organization?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend will see at once that you will have to have something more than the right sort of barrel; you will have to see that the fish is properly cured.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And to that end you will have to teach the fishermen.


John Douglas Hazen: We will do that as far as possible. The inspectors will go through the districts concerned and will get the fishermen and those interested in fishing together to explain the matter to them. If this were in relation to the agricultural industry, we would call such meetings farmers' institutes. Similar gatherings to the farmers' institutes will be held among 
the fishermen. A certain amount of missionary work will have to ibe done before this new system can be brought into successful operation. These inspectors will not only distribute literature showing what the regulations are and what requirements must be complied with before the brand can be placed on the barrels, but will have to explain the matter by word of mouth and answer questions as far as possible, so that the fishermen may have complete and accurate information.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the hon. minister
give us an idea of the number of inspectors that will be required?


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot tell exactly, but the opinion in the department is that the number to be appointed at the present time will not be large.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I have 4 p.m. had some experience with these inspectors


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me first to explain the Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the explanation is entered upon will the minister please state whether this measure has been submitted to the Fishermen's union or any opinion obtained upon it from them.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so. I know that requests have been made of the department from time to time that something should be done for the purpose of developing the herring fishery to a greater extent than at present. And this measure will apply, as hon. gentlemen know, not only to the East but to the West. There are exceedingly valuable herring fisheries in British Columbia. In some places there thg waters teem with herring, but little use is made of them.


John Howard Sinclair: Are they the same fish as in the Atlantic ?


John Douglas Hazen: They may not be exactly the same, but they are good fish. The only fisheries that are developed in British Columbia to-day are salmon and halibut fisheries. Very little is done with the herring. This Bill will apply to the Pacific as well as to the Atlantic coast, though results will perhaps be made sooner apparent on the Atlantic than on the Pacific. But it is believed by gentlemen from British Columbia interested in the fishing business with whom I have discussed the matter that there is a great future for the herring industry on the Pacific coast.
Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill are the title

and interpretation clause. Section 3 provides that the Bill shall apply to salted herring, alewives, mackerel and salmon and the barrels or half barrels in which such fish are salted and marketed. It provides that the Governor in Council may extend the provisions of the Bill to any other kind of fish. It may be deemed advisable to extend it to the codfishing industry, though, speaking subject to correction, from what I know of that industry I think that will not be necessary. Section 4 provides that the Governor in Council may appoint a general inspector and other officers for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act. Section 5 prescribes the form of oath of office to be taken by these officers. Under section 6, the Governor in Council may make such regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, as to him seem necessary for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act. Section 7 enacts that the brand provided by the Act shall not be put on any barrel containing herring, alewives, mackerel, salmon or any other-fish that may hereafter be brought under the provisions of this Act, or on any half barrel of the same, unless such fish have [DOT]been cured and packed in Canada or on board a Canadian vessel. My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), I think it was, asked a question about the place of inspection. Section 8 provides that the inspection shall take place at the port or place where such fish may have been cured and packed, provided that when curing and packing have been performed at sea the inspection shall take place at any port oE landing in Canada. The system of inspection is as follows: Any curer or packer of the fish referred to, desiring to obtain the brand provided for, shall give notice in writing to the nearest inspecting officer of the number of barrels or half barrels of each of the kinds of fish named which lie desires to present to the officer for inspection. The inspecting officer shall require the owner or packer to sign a statutory declaration that the fish were cured and packed in Canada or on board a Canadian vessel or boat within the period prescribed for the various classes of fish by the regulation. The brand prescribed shall not be placed on any barrel or half barrel the capacity of which is not as prescribed under the regulations, and which barrel or half barrel is not made and marked in accordance with such regulations. When these barrels are presented to be inspected they shall be opened and the inspector may remove as many fish as
are necessary in order to gain the information required and to make a thorough inspection. If the inspection is satisfactory, the inspector shall place the brand provided for upon the barrel. Inspecting officers may enter curing places. Penalty for unauthorized using of the brand or the falsifying of official documents is provided, and there is a provision that barrels cannot be used without destroying the official brand. Forfeiture of barrels of fish may be enforced in case of alteration or defacing of marks. Section 20 of the Bill provides that in case of dispute arising between any inspecting officer and the owner or packer of fish with regard to the quality or condition of the barrels or the fish they contain, the dispute shall be forthwith referred to another inspecting officer whose decision shall be final, provided that no appeal shall be considered where the identity of the article in dispute has not been preserved. It is provided that the Governor in Council may make rules for re-examination. Penalties are provided for the infraction of the Act, and provision is made for the fixing of venue. Section 26 answers a question that was asked me. It is as follows:
Nothing contained in this Act shall compel any person to present for inspection any fish or barrels or half barrels in which they are contained.
It is provided that the Act shall come into force on the 1st of May, 1915, but the officers referred to in the Act may be appointed and regulations made at any time after the passing of the Act.
The reason for that is that it is important that between now and the coming into force of the Act the inspectors should be actually travelling through the fishing districts, affording the people information which they ought to have before this Act is put in force, of the actual work of inspection, so that the people may understand the proper steps to be taken.
Then, there is a provision with regard to penalties. As I have said, it is my intention to move, after the second reading, that this Bill be referred to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries. I think that most of the members interested in the fishing industry are members of that committee. Of course, the Bill is absolutely non-political, and it is desirable, in the interest of the preserved fish industry, that the gentlemen who are interested in it should give their best thought and consideration to the Bill with the purpose of perfecting it as far as possible.

Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hazen thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 182, to provide for the inspection and branding of pickled fish.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Hazen, the Bill was read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to grant from the first day of April, 1914, during her natural life, an annual allowance of $500 to Mrs. Alice Joynson, widow of the late J. H. Joynson, in his lifetime a guard in the British Columbia penitentiary, who was killed in the performance of his duty.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill which it is
intended to found upon this resolution provides an annuity of $500 for Mrs. Alice Joynson, who is mentioned in the resolution. This lady is the widow of a man named Joynson, who was employed as a guard in the British Columbia penitentiary. Something over a year ago, this man was killed in endeavouring to prevent the escape from the penitentiary of two very desperate criminals. In their endeavour to escape, one of the criminals was killed and, very unfortunately, this man Joynson was also killed. I may say that his conduct on the occasion showed what I think may be properly described as conspicuous bravery. These two desperate men had succeeded, in the first place, in depriving one of the guards of the penitentiary, who was in immediate supervision over them, of his revolver, and then, by threatening other guards as they passed through different portions of the penitentiary grounds with this revolver, they succeeded in possessing themselves of the revolvers of those guards too. They had reached the final gates which separated them from liberty and were threatening the guards upon the wall when this man Joynson came to the rescue and at the risk, and, as it proved, at the price of his own life, intervened to prevent the escape. As I said, one of the two men endeavouring to escape was, after the intervention of Joynson, shot by the guard who was upon the wall. The other one was captured and subsequently tried |for the murder of Joynson, convicted, and hanged. Mr. 
Joynson left a widow, who is in poor health and has two or three small children. She is, as I am reliably informed, incapable really of earning her livelihood and has no one to whom she may look for support or assistance. It has seemed to us that this was a deserving case from every point of view. Apart from the needs of this unfortunate woman and her young children, we have been very much influenced by the consideration that bravery such as that displayed by this man in the performance of his duty calls for recognition. It would seem to me in the public interest that guards in our penitemitiaries who may be called upon to perform a duty similar to that which this man so courageously performed should have the encouragement of realizing that if, in endeavouring to perform that duty, they sacrifice their lives, those who are dearest to them and are dependent upon them shall not be left in want by their conduct.


Wilfrid Laurier: I certainly
will not offer any objection to the resolution, -and I think the widow who is to be given this pension is fully entitled to it. Nobody, I -am sure, will question the propriety of the Government encouraging bravery such as was- shown by this particular officer, but I would suggest that instead of dealing with isolated cases in this way it would be better to have a general law providing that the widow and children of any man who loses his life in the performance of his duty shall be properly rewarded.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to offer
any objection to the Bill, but I might remind the House and the leader of the Government that the Minister of Justice is more generous than the Postmaster General. Three years ago a mail carrier perished in trying to save the mails during a storm on -lake of Two Mountains-, between Ottawa and Montreal. He left a widow and five or six children. The case was brought to the notice of the House by the hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier). He begged the Government to do something for the widow and children, but the minister refused. More than that, the people of Oka petitioned the Postmaster General to transfer the mail contract, formerly held by her husband to the widow of this man. The petition -was turned down, the widow has received nothing, and there she is to-day.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly concur in
what the minister has said, but there is just one thing I would like to ask, and that is whether any provision is made for the administration of this money. It is quite possible that while this money is voted by Parliament it may not be properly administered, and I would like to bring to the notice of the minister the desirability of having the money put in the hands of a proper person so that it will be spent in a proper way, and perform the functions we hope it to do in the way of looking after this woman and her children.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite realize the force of what has been, said by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition as to the desirability of making some general provision for cases of this kind. We shall probably have to deal with the subject of these institutions very shortly, and I shall bear my right hon. friend's suggestion in mind. This is the method that has been adopted in the past; for instance, in the case of Laviolette, who was warden of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. The present case calls for immediate action and justifies our dealing with it by itself, pending the adoption of a general system. I am not in a position to give any information in regard to the case put before the House by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), I may say that we did consider the matter from that point of view, but on reflection it was thought that as our purpose after all was to give this money to this woman-not to constitute her a ward of the State-we thought we would allow the woman to enjoy in her own way the money that we feel has been honourably and fairly earned. There is no reason to apprehend that she will not make good use of it. The amount of $500 a year goes to the woman herself, and we are obviating the complications that might arise from the appointment of a trustee; and possibly it might be difficult to find a trustee to act gratuitously. The woman appears to us to be competent to be entrusted with this amount, and we feel that we can safely grant the money to her to Ibe used in her own way. We are giving it not as a gratuity, but in recognition, not of course of a legal right, but of a most justifiable claim on the part of this woman, and as payment of a debt of gratitude to the unfortunate man who gave his life in the performance of his duty, and for whom all
we can do is to make this modest provision for his widow.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Suppose this woman
gets married, what then?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Even in that case, the fact will remain that her deceased husband deserves this recognition. This is not done merely because the woman is in want. If she were not in want, I think it would be a proper thing to do. I may instance the fact that under the Militia Act the widows of those officers who die while still in office are granted an allowance of an amount similar to this, and all that is required of them in order to be entitled to this amount is that they shall not be wealthy. In this particular case the money is not intended as a mere dole of charity to an indigent person; it is intended as the recognition of a service that I think may be not unfittingly characterized as heroic, at all events as regards the manner in which the act was performed.


Mr. NESBITT:: How are the payments to be made? Does the woman get the money annually in a lump sum?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The proposition is that the allowance should be paid monthly.


Wilfrid Laurier: I agree with the minister in everything he has said, but I would strongly recommend to him the case brought to his attention by the hon. member for Rouville. It is not in his department, I know, but the circumstances are very much the same. Here is a man who lost his life in the performance of his duty. The circumstances may not have been heroic, but, after all, the case is deserving of attention from the State, which has benefited by the performance of this man's duty. If the hon. minister could prevail on his neighbour, the Postmaster General, to do the same for this man's widow, he would win the gratitude not only of the widow but of every member in this House.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be very glad to call his attention to what has been said.


Wilfrid Laurier: Calling his attention to it will not accomplish much.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 183, to provide for the payment of a yearly allowance to Mrs. Alice Joynson, widow of the late J.

H. Joynson, a guard in the British Columbia penitentiary


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Doherty, Bill No. 175, to amend the Supreme Court Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the Minister of Justice please explain this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Last year an amendment to the Supreme Court Act was passed, the purpose of which was to remedy a condition existing with regard to appeals in certain cases. The difficulty that called for remedy was that it was held, under the Supreme Court Act as it stood previous to that amendment, that under the definition of a 'final judgment ' there was no appeal from a judgment which did not ultimately dispose of the case, even though it might finally determine some substantial right. The result of this holding was that there being no appeal from what in Quebec we would call an interlocutory judgment, a judgment which did not finally terminate the suit though it decided a substantial right, the parties going on after the rendering of that judgment to a final judgment, and having taken an appeal from the final judgment, were in the position that the judgment which had settled the substantial right was not appealable by itself, and that their appeal from the final judgment did not bring up that judgment. They found themselves with an appeal merely from the ultimate or final judgment, which was possibly the necessary consequence of the preceding judgment from which they had no appeal. The amendment of last year so modified the law as to make any judgment which in whole or in part decided any substantial right of the parties to be considered a final judgment for the purposes of the Act. This further amendment is now proposed for the purpose of making the amendment of last year applicable to pending eases begun before the enactment of that amendment, as well as to cases begun after it was enacted. The Supreme Court has held that that amendment was without application to cases instituted before the amendment of last year. It is considered that the provision, granting the right to appeal,

should be made applicable to all pending cases without distinction betwieen those which were begun before the passing of the amendment and those "which were begun subsequently. The judges in a particular case seem to have held this amendment inapplicable, not , by reason of .any opinion on their part that it should not propetrly apply, but merely because they considered themselves bound by judgments that had been rendered in previous cases with regard to analogous situations. One of the judges expressed himself that he would be inclined to treat the amendment of last year as applicable, were it not for these judgments. From the point of view of what is desirable, I think this amendment ought to be recognized as applicable to pending cases. There is an addition which I think ought to be made to the Bill as printed. The Bill is made applicable to all cases, as well those begun before as those begun since the amendment, .and I think there should be an addition made to reserve the right of the court to adjudicate as regards costs.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will you require an enactment for that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not clear that it is absolutely necessary, but I think it might be wise.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the
provision itself is a very wise one, but I do not think there is necessity for putting it in the statute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am disposed to agree that it is really not necessary, but I think it may be wise to preclude any possiblity that because the parties proceeding under this amendment succeeded as a matter of law, they ought as a matter of right, to be entitled to the costs. I move that the Bill be amended by .adding a second section as follows:
The costs of any appeal instituted before the passing of this Act in any such action, suit, case, matter, or other judicial proceeding, to which the said paragraph (e) of subsection 2 of the Supreme Court Act, would not, save for the enactment of this Act have been applicable, shall he in the discretion of the court.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 84, to amend the Export Act.-Mr. Reid. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Robert Laird Borden: When this Bill was under consideration some time ago, it was suggested that there should be some amendment which would give the House of Commons control at the then next session imi respect of any regulations that might be made by the Governor in Council under the provisions of the Bill. I have prepared an amendment which is taken ipsissimis verbis from the Dominion Lands Act in respect to similar powers conferred on the Governor in Council by the provisions of that Act to make regulations in regard to important matters. It seems to me it would be proper to amend this Bill by a similar section, and therefore I move:
That section 7 as proposed he amended byadding thereto sub section 2 in the following words:
2. Every regulation made by the Governor in Council in virtue of this Act shall have force and effect only after it has been published for four consecutive weeks in the Canada Gazette, and every such regulation shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within the first fifteen days of the session next after the date thereof, and such regulation shall remain in force until the day immediately succeeding the date of prorogation of that session of Parliament and no longer unless during that session it is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. .


Frank Oliver: I do not think that this amendment, if I remember correctly, touches the point that was in my mind when I raised the question on a former occasion. Section 7 provides:
The Governor in Council may by regulation prohibit the exportation from Canada of petroleum, in its crude or partly manufactured state.
My objection to this section as it stands is that the parties who are to-day proposing to invest in the development of petroleum fields in Canada may be deterred from making such investments by this unlimited, unconditional authority given by Parliament to the Governor in Council to prohibit the export of petroleum, if produced. I iam not in -any degree objecting to Parliament giving the Governor in Council the right to prohibit the export of petroleum ; but I am pointing out the very detrimental effect that the giving of that right unconditionally and without limit must necessarily have on the minds of those whose money is necessary to secure the development of petroleum production.
What I urged before was that the exercise of this authority should be made conditional on the existence of specific contingencies, so that the prospective investors would know exactly under what circumstances they would be limited, as this section will give the Governor in Council authority to limit them. Perhaps I do not need to repeat what I said before. We think we are, or hope we are, on the eve of very large and important petroleum developments in Alberta; but those developments have not yet taken place. They may come as the result of a comparatively small investment of capital, or it may be that they will come only after the investment of a very large amount of capital. At the present time capital is being attracted towards those possible oil fields; and I think it will be very unfortunate if, by an Act of Parliament, we tend to deter the investment of capital, as I am sure the terms of the Bill put before the House will do. I again ask the Government to take into consideration the propriety of making the exercise of this authority conditional.


Robert Laird Borden: I remember distinctly
the occasion when my hon. friend put forward the reason which he has just now suggested. I found this difficulty in meeting his views as fully as I would have desired, that it is extremely difficult to express conditions in such a way that the section will be effective without leaving matters very much as they are at present. It might be suggested that we could insert in this Bill some such expression as that found in the Militia Act or in the Naval Service Act.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I think so.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it would be desirable to do that, and I will explain my reasons to my hon. friend. Conditions might arise which,, in the opinion of the Government, after consultation with the proper authorities, would justify some such action as this, and it might be undesirable, in the interest of Canada and of the whole empire, that the particular action of the Government should be publicly based upon the consideration which would thus be set	forth in	the Bill.
An explanation has been given in this House of the policy upon which the Government will exercise the powers con-ferried Iby this Bill; and, inasmuch as the Government renders itself amenable, with the least possible delay, to have its action in that regard considered by Parliament, I think that on the whole the proposed terms

of the Bill ought not to deter persons proposing to invest. I agree with my hon. friend in what he has said in regard to oil development, with a certain qualification. I would go a little further than he would go, .in this respect, that, so far as my limited 'knowledge leads me to have any opinion on the .subject, it would not seem to me possible that any very extensive oil development could take place in Alberta or in any other province of Canada except by means of the investment of large amounts of capital. A discovery of oil may be possible with the expenditure of a moderate amount of capital, if the discoverer happens to have exceedingly good luck; but the prosecution of the discovery of oil, as I understand it from persons with whom I have conversed on the subject on many occasions during the past summer, is proceeded with on thoroughly scientific lines-on geological surveys, and on the consideration of the elements which are usually found where oil is discovered in large quantities. Even when you find from the surveys all the geological indications that oil is present in large .quantities, it is nevertheless possible that you may not find it. Now, the prosecution of the search for oil involves a very considerable investment of capital, and, if oil be found, the carrying on of the business of production, as I understand it, involves, the investment o;f further large amounts of capital. A proposal such .as .this was discussed with some persons who purported to represent, and who, I am credibly informed do represent, large amounts of capital, and I did not find that they were deterred by the proposal that the Governor in Council should he invested with such powers as are set (forth in the Bill. That was my experience, and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche), who had even more experience in that regard than I had, derived the same impression from his. conversation with these persons. My hon. friend from Edmonton and I have precisely the same object in view. It seemed to me that, for the reasons I have indicated, it would be reasonable that we should meet his views, as provided in this .amendment; for no government would for a moment think of placing itself in a position to take action of this kind except for the gravest possible reasons. There is another consideration that I may mention: no government would undertake to exercise powers such as these 
unless there was need of that particular product (for very important purposes. It .seems to me that that consideration should be .a re-assuri.ng one to those who .might be disposed to invest their capital in such enterprises. That itself .is a further guarantee. Then, the Government exercising extreme powers of this kind must have regard to private interests which, if affected prejudicially, would be affected for the common good of the whole country.


Wilfrid Laurier: The amendment proposed by my right hon. friend certainly minimizes in great degree the objection we on this side had to the Bill. It does not wholly remove that objection. Our difficulty in the case of this legislation is that it is impossible to conceive why the export of oil should be prohibited. Oil is a commodity that is coming more and more in use, and at the present time, as suggested by my hon. friend 5 p.m. from Edmonton, the development is commencing to be more general. New fields have been found in Alberta. These will probably be found profitable; but no doubt with a blanket of this kind on the .statute book men may think twice before they invest their capital in these fields; the question will be asked at once by all investors: Why does Parliament contemplate prohibiting the export of oil? As I say, not sufficient reason has been given why such a thing should be contemplated. We have had the resolution debated, we have had the second reading of the Bill and are now in committee upon it, yet nobody has been able to tell us why the Government thought of this measure contemplating the possible prevention of the export of oil. There must he a reason, but what it is. I do not know. The only thing stated by my right hon. friend on a previous occasion, was that possibly circumstances might arise that would make it advisable to prevent this export. That is a very vague reason, and the circumstances alluded to seem very, very remote. If that is all, it seems to me the Government is taking a large power in advance of time and for contingencies which may never arise. As I have said, for my part, though I object to the Bill, yet the amendment proposed will minimize my objection. For, if the Government exercise the powers given them by the Bill to prevent the export of oil, their action cannot go beyond

the summoning of Parliament, and then the matter must be before Parliament and the entire subject will come up for review. That is a safeguard which ought to be effective.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps if the Bill should be reported and allowed to stand over for a third reading, I would be pleased to give further consideration to the views of my hon. friend from Edmonton, to ascertain as far as I can whether there is any danger that persons otherwise disposed to invest capital in oil fields would be deterred from doing so by this legislation, and I shall also consider whether qualifications such as have been suggested might be inserted.


Charles Marcil: I read in a newspaper
some weeks ago that the possible reason for this legislation was the prospective use of petroleum in connection with defence. The British navy, it was said, is going in for warships with oil-burning engines, and the taking of this power is suggested in case difficulty -should arise. In the county of G-aspe several efforts have been made to discover oil, and the discovery has been made. Last week I received a letter from one of my constituents saying that oil had been discovered in that part of the country at Port Daniel. I referred the matter to the Department of Mines to investigate, but I have not yet received an answer. Should legislation of this kind injuriously affect the development it would be unfortunate. Beyond doubt, oil exists in the Gaspe peninsula. The Geological Survey has so reported, and the latest discovery to which I have referred adds interest to the subject. Considerable money has already been expended in this matter. The reason for the legislation to which I have referred was only in a newspaper paragraph and may or may not be true.


Robert Laird Borden: I gave such explanation
as seemed desirable when I had the opportunity to discuss the Bill before. And I do- not know that it is desirable that I should say anything further upon the subject. I said that oil, so far as it might be produced in Canada, might be required for special national purposes, and that representations had been made to us from very important quarters in that regard. Oil has been discovered in more than one province in Canada. It has been discovered in my own province, in the island of Cape Breton, but up to the present time, I believe, not in
paying quantities. In Alberta there is strong prospect that it will be discovered in very large quantities. I hope it may be so. On consultation with my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, he corroborates my view that the persons who were here last year -and who represent, as we understand and (believe, very large amounts of capital were not disposed at all to object to the insertion of a provision of this kind, and will not be deterred from investing capital by the conferring of such powers upon the Governor in Council.


Mr. PARDEE:: No doubt the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that nearly all the crude oil that is to-day manufactured into the finished product in Canada comes from the United States. This legislation is being enacted at a time when, so far as the -section to which reference has been made is concerned, it is not known whether there is a producing field or not.
It would appear to me, therefore, that this kind of legislation is not desirable, because, if the United States were to retaliate with the same class of legislation and put it into effect, it would cut off the Dominion of Canada very largely from a supply of crude oil. The Canadian oil fields are now falling off so rapidly that they are reduced almost to a minimum, and we are wholly dependent upon the United States for our crude oil supply.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not proposed to exercise this power by way of retaliation, nor except under very grave circumstances which would be supposed to affect the public interest. The legislation was not introduced in this general form at first. It arose out of the fact that certain new regulations were made by the Minister of the Interior in respect of prospecting for oil in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. In the course of the debate, the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) pointed out, what was absolutely true, that the reasons were of a general character, and that the resolution should be in a more general form. This legislation had its origin in the fact tKat the Minister of the Interior, in the regulations lately established for Alberta and Saskatchewan Dominion lands, inserted -a provision of this kind with the full concurrence of persons who desired to invest large amounts of capital. But it was found that the powers conferred upon him by the Dominion Lands Act and other statutes did not go this far, and so we are obliged to come to Parliament in order to make effective the

regulations already established by the Department of the Interior.


Frank Oliver: I appreciate everything that the Prime Minister has said, but of course he will admit that there is an Alberta point of view as well as an Imperial point of view, and in any further consideration he gives to this measure I would like him to recognize that so far as Alberta is concerned there is a condition of emergency at this moment-that we are on the eve of great expectations and are very timorous as to the possible non-realization of those expectations. I would urge that, unless the empire is going to go completely to smash for lack of oil within the year, the Prime Minister should hold his hand until we see Whether or not we shall strike oil in Alberta.


Robert Laird Borden: We will let it stand for a third reading in the meantime.
Bill reported.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 178, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, was read the second time, and 'the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The entire purpose of this Bill is to substitute the word ' Truro ' for the word ' Halifax ' as the location of the reformatory in Nova Scotia.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	*



FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 149, to amend the Criminal Code, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this Bill is to constitute false statements, knowingly made in advertisements, an offence where the statement is of a nature to enhance or misrepresent the price or value of any property of any description or any interest in it. The occasion which has led us to 'think it was desirable that this Bill should be submitted to the House for adoption is that there appears to have grown up a very widespread abuse in connection with the advertising of properties for sale. Of course, every one understands that persons advertising will make the very best of the things they have to sell, and we do not

propose to restrict a man's good opinion of his own goods or his right to express it. But the Act proposes to make it a criminal offence for a man knowingly to make a false statement of a nature to deceive people as regards the value of the thing that he has to offer. I have had representations from all parts of the country, and I think more especially from the western provinces, that there was really a system of deception carried on in the advertising of properties for sale, such as townsites. A person under the law as it exists at present is of course liable for obtaining money under false pretences, and I would not undertake to say that if you can connect the actual obtaining of money with the false statements in an advertisement, you could not convict under that law. I would be disposed to think you could. The purpose here is to make it a criminal offence to publish as actually existing facts things that do not exist.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose that
would cover the case of a man who advertised his goods as all wool when they were not, or the case of a man who advertised his shoes as the best in the town when such was not the fact.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should think not.
Whether his shoes are the best in the town is necessarily a matter of opinion, it is hardly a question of fact. People's opinions differ as to the respective qualities of goods. In the other case mentioned by my hon. friend if a man obtained money by saying that ' his goods were all wool when really they were not, I think he could be convicted under the law for obtaining money under false pretences.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend mentioned real estate. Every one knows that many people-perhaps I am one of them-buy property without seeing it. It is well known that many of my hon. friend's friends have invested in real estate in the West, having been induced to do so by the prospectuses or advertisements issued, or on the representations of the agents. Is it necessary to pass special legislation to protect people who will go blind into buying town lots in the far West without seeing them? Does not the minister think he is protecting a little too muoh those who ought to protect themselves? Is it not a fact that those who deal in real estate do so moTe for speculative purposes than for any other? ,A man will invest money in town lots in the West with the expectation of a rise in

value. Does my hon. friend mean to say that this legislation is made to protect those who, for purely speculative purposes, invest their money in such real estate transactions with the hope of a rise in value in two, three, or four years, as the case may be? I want to be set right on this point, because I.have several actions to take under this amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The object is not to protect people from going blind into real estate speculation, but to punish the liar who absolutely misstates the facts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That would apply to a very large section of the community.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not saying that a very large proportion of the community do that; but if they do they ought to be punished.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does this amendment apply to selling anything whatever?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The man we want to get at is the man who deliberately lies. If they have no fear of the Lord, we want to put into them a little terror of the law.


Charles Marcil: It would apply to patent medicines and things of that kind?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It applies to deliberate misstatements of existing facts with regard to any goods.


Charles Marcil: I called the attention of the Government a week or so ago to a clear case of swindling in Montreal. A gold-mining company, incorporated by the Dominion Government, published advertisements in Montreal and Quebec about a gold-mining proposition. They held a guessing competition, offering to anybody who paid five cents, and sent in a proper solution of the guess contained in the advertisement, 100 shares in a gold-mining company in Quebec. The person who informed me of this told me on good authority that the first day after the publication of the advertisement 2,000 answers were received at the Montreal post office, the next day 3,000, the next day 4,000, and so on. Two or three weeks afterwards I saw the same advertisement in Quebec papers. This is a case of sheer swindling, such as some papers will not handle. A certain number of patent medicine proprietors would pay almost any price to a newspaper that would publish their advertisements. Would the case I have mentioned come under this Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should think it is a clear case of obtaining money by false pretenses, that is, if there is no gold mine in existence and the facts have been deliberately misstated. I am not certain that such a case would not come under the law as it exists at present; it verges very closely on a gambling transaction, but I could not pronounce definitely on that without looking into it. The new law we are proposing would certainly cover the case mentioned by the hon. gentleman if the advertisement contained any false statements as to existing facts.


Charles Marcil: The distribution of circulars would not be covered by this?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I take it that the distribution of circulars is one method of advertising.


Charles Marcil: I would like to read for the benefit of the minister, who is a good French scholar, a copy of a circular sent to me by friends in Montreal to show to what use the Montreal post office is being put:
Firmness-Audacity.	Success-Happiness.
French Scientific Bureau.
P.O. Box 169, Hochelaga, Montreal, Canada.
Audaces fortuna juvat.
Montreal, Canada.
Madam,-In going over our hooks we find that nine only out of the hundreds of people who had written to us, have deferred ordering our marvellous home treatment against selfconsciousness, bashfulness and self-diffidence.
You are one of them, ahd as we have as yet no one in your locality or in that neigh-oourhood who has been in a position to experience the happy results ensured by our treatment, the Bureau has decided to let you have the benefit of our treatment at a loss, for the sole purpose of advertising it. We shall send you our twelve lessons in ' Auto-Suggestion' with fifty three of our tablets ' Anti-Geno ', the full treatment for one dollar ($1), under the express understanding that you will refrain from imparting this information to any one.
Now then, if you are a sufferer from the thousand inconveniences inflicted by shyness, if you find that you are beaten in the race by your neighbour, though she may not be more clever than yourself, if in love, as well as in business matters you do not attain that measure of success which your sterling qualities would seem to warrant, you alone will be to blame for it. As for us, we have done all that it was in the power of human beings to do.
Please accept our best compliments,
Bureau Scientifique Frangais.
P.S.-Please address all letters to P.O. Box 169, Hochelaga, Montreal, Canada. All correspondence is considered being strictly confidential.

Order Form.
Bureau Scientifique Frangais, P.O. Box 169, Hochelaga, Montreal, Canada.
Gentlemen,-You will find herewith $1 for your full home treatment against self-consciousness, bashfulness and self-diffidence (including twelve lessons in 4 Auto-Suggestion * and fifty three tablet ' Anti-Geno ' as described in your pamphlet intituled 4 The Road to Success \ I agree, moreover, to spread as much as I can a knowledge of your treatment among my friends and acquaintances, when cured.
Name
Address	
I have reasons to beldeve that this circular has been distributed by thousands in the working centres of Montreal and as it is ,a pure case of swindling, I thought it my duty to call the attention of the Government and especially the Postmaster General to it. I would ask the Postmaster General to put an end to the use of the mails for this purpose. I hope that the Minister of Justice will see that the law is applied to a case Off this kind. I would like to have an answer from the minister, because I believe that this swindle is going on very extensively in the city of Montreal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You cannot expect me to say offhand what provision of the Criminal Code already in existence is applicable to a case of that kind. I am disposed to think that if on the statement made money wa3 obtained, under the law as it stands now there might be a conviction for obtaining money under false pretenses. In so far as this circular might be said to contain a statement of something as being a fact which is not a fact, I think it would come under this Act. I do not know that it is humanly possible to make legislation that will prevent people exaggerating the qualities of the goods which they offer to sell provided they keep within the limits of an expression of opinion and provided they do not undertake directly and knowingly to misrepresent the facts. I do not know that I could say very much more in regard to that circular. I shall be glad to call the attention of my hon. friend the Postmaster General to what the hon. member has said.


Charles Marcil: I thought it my duty to read this circular, because the gentleman who sent it to me takes a great interest

in protecting the working classes and the innocent girls who -axe being swindled.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We passed some legislation last session in regard to -advertisements of certain medical preparations, and I -am inclined to think that a careful examination of the document would show that it came within the provisions of that legislation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the provisions
of this Bill apply to those who make false representations during political campaigns?


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Not unless they sell their services.


Rodolphe Lemieux: During the election in Chateauguay-my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) was there

a promise was made solemnly that a bridge would be built by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) from Caughnawaga to Lachine. As a result of that, of course, the hon. member for Chateauguay secured a large number of votes. I must say to the credit of the hon. Minister of Public Works that when the question was put the other day -by my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napiexville (Mr. Lanctot), he said that he had never heard about it before. What would happen if this legislation should-pass? Could we use it against the -member for Chateauguay who made that promise?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am afraid there are
several reasons obvious to my hon. friend why this -could not be done.


Mr. GERMAN:: I think the Bill of the Minister of Justice is- quite right, but I think that one word should be -added to it. It -says, * or any interest therein, containing any false statement.' The false statement is a statement in words. The greatest falsity, as- far as my ob-s-ervation goes, has been not so much in words as in pictorial advertisements. We have had a considerable boom in real -estate in the county and town of Welland -and if there was any swindling, as to which I hope there was none, it was in advertising and picturing conditions that did not exist. There are many people in the -section of country from which I come who were perhaps not swindled, but who invested money in lands in the Northwest, not by reason of the statements that were made, but by reason of pictorial advertise-

merits. I think that if the section read, 'any false statement or representation,' it would meet the case. The word 'representation' would cover a photograph, for instance, showing a large number of factories, railway trains running in a certain locality, or street cars miles away from the centre of the town. If the hon. gentleman's Bill is to be effective, it .should contain not only the words 'false statement,' but the word 'representation.'


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had occasion to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice, at the instance of the advertising clubs which have recently been formed in Edmonton and Calgary. These clubs represent the best newspaper men of western Canada, and they concluded that the .use that had been made of their papers had had a very bad effect upon that western country. False statements had been made touching the value of real estate particularly, as the hon. member (Mr. ('German) has just said, with the Tesult that many people are suffering very great hardships by reason of investing small sums of money in real estate on highly coloured representations, pictorial and otherwise. The Bill that had been passed by several of the states of the American Union was sent to me, but it went further than we could go in this country by reason of the divided jurisdiction between the provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament. The Bill that has been prepared goes as far as it is possible to go, having regard to the fact that expressions of opinion should not in any event be called criminal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is the newspaper held responsible?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This Bill aims only at persons who knowingly publish false statements.
iMr. MABC'IL: Do you not think that a newspaper proprietor should use some judgment as to the propriety of the advertisements that are published in his paper?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a rather difficult thing to say that a respectable newspaper man should be held criminally responsible in relation to every advertisement that, in the ordinary course of business, is handed over the counter and paid for. This Bill says:
Every person who knowingly publishes or causes to be published any advertisement for either directly or indirectly promoting the sale or disposal of any real or personal movable 219
or immovable property, or any interest therein, containing any false statement-
-is liable. I think that will meet the difficulty we have experienced in the West. It gives me much pleasure to say that this Bill has been promoted by the gentlemen who have charge of advertising matters in western Canada-not by any person interested otherwise, but by the press itself. I think the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Welland is a most admirable one, and if the Code, as it now stands, does not cover the point, it should be embodied in the Bill. I am not sure, speaking offhand, whether a pictorial representation would be regarded by the judge as an advertisement. The crux of the offence now constituted is misrepresentation as to real or personal or movable or immovable property by way of advertisement. I think that a picture would be regarded as a part of the advertisement. That view does not quite agree with what the hon. member for Welland has said, but in any event I think we should make provision to meet that case. What he says is certainly true in western Canada. I have seen advertisements sent down to eastern papers containing representations of new towns in which great industrial activity is shown, when, in fact, there was not a single smokestack there.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be quite willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Welland. I have no doubt that a representation made by a picture should be treated in the same way as an actual statement in words, and even if it be possible that some other disposition might protect us in that regard, there can be no harm in inserting it here. I understand that the suggestion is that the section should be amended >by inserting the words 'or representation' after the word 'statement.'


William Manley German: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I am not anxious that
newspapers publishing advertisements should be relieved from any fair measure of responsibility, and I understand that the word ' knowingly ' is introduced for their protection, but will the minister give some idea to the committee as to how far that word carries protection? A newspaper is an organization for the publication of news, and for giving business publicity, and the individuals who constitute a newspaper organization may have personal knowledge of the falsity of statements contained in an advertisement. How far



would that knowledge of the falsity of the advertisement, on the part of one of the men connected with the newspaper, render the newspaper itself liable?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the hon.
gentleman has in mind some company or organization that publishes a newspaper?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think an
enactment of this kind is intended to reach a corporate body, but I do think that any individual participating in the publication, with knowledge that a statement was false, would be liable under this article.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does not the word ' corporation ' include any person, under the Criminal Code.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not prepared to
say offhand. If you want to get a corporation convicted for knowingly doing a thing, you must prove that the corporation, in its corporate capacity, knew it. We are dealing with a very special case. The purpose oAhis law is to get at a person who knowingly publishes a false advertisement, and I do not believe it would be found in the working out, that the newspaper would be so much brought under this provision as the person who advertised. What it says is: Any one who publishes or causes to be published any advertisement. There is a sense in which a newspaper publishes an advertisement, and if you could get any individual who participated in the publication, with knowledge of its falsity, I think he would Ibe liable under the section, and I think he ought to be. If you could charge the corporation with knowledge as a corporation, and prove it, I do not know that you could not get at the corporation.


Frank Oliver: It is not directed primarily against newspapers; it is not intended to place restrictions on newspapers.


William Erskine Knowles: Under this a man is
liable before he has had any results from his false advertisement. I think this is very dangerous legislation, and for the reason that there are a great many such clauses in the Criminal Code whim are used by speculators and by people who rue their bargains. In my own practice I have defended quite a number of people who have been accused when the purchaser has rued his bargain and is not ready to stand by his speculation. In such cases, the purchaser endeavours to have the vendor restore the money by threatening crim-

inal proceedings, and eventually in some cases criminal proceedings are taken. I went this year to British Columlbia to defend a citizen of my own town who was arrested, though innocent, as innocent as could be, on a charge of obtaining money under false pretenses. It is next to impossible to .succeed afterwards in an action for malicious prosecution. When you come to take action against a person for malicious prosecution you are met with such hazy conditions that it is impossible to drive your case home. I do not know if my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) happens to have had that experience in his very much larger legal practice, but I sincerely believe it is dangerous legislation and liable to be misused by persons who have had the bad end of a deal. There is always a remedy under the civil law if a man makes a false statement but irresponsible people will grasp at a provision like this to have a person arrested and perhaps committed for trial, when there is not the slightest foundation for the charge. Grave injury is often done.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend is suggesting a case where a bargain has been effectively carried out. If there has been a bargain effectively carried out and one of the parties contends that he was led into the bargain and induced to part with his goods or his money by false representation, he may to-day prosecute before the criminal courts. What we are doing here is merely making it an offence for a man to publicly and deliberately lie, and scatter his lies broadcast in an endeavour to inveigle people into investing in worthless things, whether he succeeds or does not succeed; The evil that is sought to be stunned is an evil which in its effects
reaches a large number of small investors, none of whom will be sufficiently interested, even if he has the means, to bring criminal prosecution, if you leave the law in a condition where the transaction must have been actually carried out before there is any criminal responsibility. What we want to try to do, if it can be done, is to suppress the lying . advertisement without regard to whether the liar succeeds in getting something or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With what my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has said, I desire to associate myself, because his experience is a common experience in legal practice. But the hon. gentleman has, I think, overlooked one line

in the section which says that the advertisement ' must be of- a character likely to, or is intended to enhance the price and value of such property or any interest therein.'
The mere false representation is not sufficient; it must be of a character likely or intended to enhance the value of the' property. That, it seems to me, puts it into the hands of a judge, in the case of any prosecutions under this section to determine that there has been a misrepresentation which in fact has enhanced the value of the property or is likely to enhance it. That is the essence of the offence-not a false representation or a false pretense, but a statement of something which is intended or likely to enhance the value of the property.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for Calgary has referred to a newspaper cluh in the West. I might say that the rural parts of eastern Quebec, last year or the year before, were overrun by agents offering town sites and lots of all kinds in Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Saskatchewan. Each one made representations that the town in which he was interested was the great town of the future, and so on. In my own riding to my certain knowledge, these agents drew considerable money from the people through these representations, without any further guarantee. I suppose those who have invested in those lots have bad no returns so far


Mr. CARVELL:: Yes, the\ will have to
pay the taxes.
Mr. MARCIL. The minister has said that these are the smaller investors. He can not expect them to take a trip to the West to lay a complaint, and therefore those people who have been swindled out of their money have no recourse.


William Erskine Knowles: Practically all the misrepresentations made to these eastern people have been made by eastern agents.


Charles Marcil: They are western syndicates.


William Erskine Knowles: It happens that it is our land about which they are talking; but the liars are, generally speaking, eastern liars.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill does not endeavour to locate the liars.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to bring
to the notice of the minister one thing in regard to this amendment. If this action is to be made a crime, then the minister is 219i
creating a new crime. It might possibly be a crime at common law, but it is now by this Bill to be crystallized into a crime under the Code. It is the same kind of a crime as obtaining goods under false pretenses. The minister, I think, stated that it might even be covered by the section of the Code dealing with that. My memory of the section is that the punishment meted out or the manner of procedure in regard to obtaining goods under false pretenses is not the same as is provided here. I.would suggest to the minister that, if he is making this a crime, the mode of punishment should be exactly the same as for obtaining goods under false pretenses. If this is to be a crime at all, it is a very serious one. The court should be the same and the procedure also should be the same. This Bill, as it stands, is placing too much responsibility upon a mere magistrate's court, because summary proceedings are provided. A crime of such a serious character should be dealt with by a Superior Court; at least, a man coming under this provision should be allowed to go before a superior court if he desires to do sc.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What I said in comparing the two offences was that, I thought, as we had now a very well defined doctrine as to what was a false pretense in the ease of obtaining goods under false pretenses, that doctrine would find its natural application in the determination of what is a false statement or representation under this Bill. The difference between the two things, it seems to me, is this, that the obtaining of goods by false pretenses deals with an offence that is consummated and carried to its ultimate conclusion, and whereby somebody is actually fradulently deprived of goods or money, whereas, here we are limiting ourselves to the attempt to do that. A man is to be punished here for his advertisement, even though he never makes a dollar out of it. As I think I said before, I am not quite clear that, if to-day an advertisement could be traced as being the direct and immediate cause or the means whereby the person advertising obtained property from another individual, and if the statement upon which he obtained the property could be proven to be false, he could not be prosecuted under the law as it now stands. I am inclined to believe that he could. The purpose of this Bill is to make the false advertising, in itself and by itself, without regard to its successful or unsuccessful re-

suits, an offence. Therefore I think we may fairly differentiate between what after all is an attempt fraudulently to obtain from somebody goods or money and what is an actual accomplished obtaining of somebody's goods or money.


Mr. McKAY:: I am in favour of what the hon. minister says with regard to this section creating an offence, but I am afraid that the method of procedure to enforce the penalty, if adopted, is rather dangerous legislation. Following out what the hon. member from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has just stated, namely, that a person who may feel that he has got the worst end of the bargain may take advantage of this section, I notice that it says that the man ' shall be liable upon summary conviction.' If we bear in mind what the procedure with regard to summary convictions is, we see how it adds to the opportunity for getting even with a person who may feel that he has been wronged. In my province-and the same thing holds good in the other provinces, according to my recollection-the procedure is this: If a magistrate has made a conviction and .we think the conviction) should not stand, the method of appeal is that the informant as well as the convicting magistrate has to be served with a notice of appeal within ten days. It may be that some person from one of the adjoining provinces is the informant. He comes West, lays an information, and, as soon as he gets a conviction, goes back East. If the person desiring to appeal cannot locate him, he cannot serve him within the ten days; consequently he loses his right to appeal; the conviction stands against him, and he goes to jail. It is true, he has a remedy by way of certiorari, but frequently it is very difficult to get a conviction set aside.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is limited by the regulations.


James McKay: Yes, he cannot go into the merits by way of certiorari; and, by the mere technicality of not being able to find the informant and serve him within the time fixed by the code, he loses his remedy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Service on an agent will do.


James McKay: The statute says personal service upon the informant as well as upon the magistrate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Service on the agent.


James McKay: I think the statute does not say that service on the agent is sufficient-

speaking from memory. If the statute says there shall be service on the informant, I think it would be well for the minister to consider that portion of the procedure and whether he could not be proceeded against in the usual way by summary or speedy trial, going before the county or district court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The object is to make it as simple as possible.


James McKay: But there is danger of simplifying to the extent of causing a man to lose his right to appeal. In my limited practice I have had a case of that kind. The man was certainly innocent, yet the only remedy he had was by way of certiorari.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I correctly grasp the objection of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. McKay), that objection would be met if we made some amendment of general application with regard to the delay within which the notice of appeal must be served. With regard to the objection of the hon. member for Cape Breton, there is no doubt it is somewhat difficult to lay down any principle by which you shall determine what shall be an indictable offence and what shall be an offence punishable upon summary conviction. If we went through the code to-day, I do not think the method in which the distinction is made would indicate any principle. As is said by the hon. member for Calgary, the desire is to simplify the procedure, not to make this a heinous offence with extremely severe penalty, but to make it a matter of prosecution before a Criminal Court and provide what is a relatively mild punishment, enforcable in a proper, and we hope, effectual way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is as a deterrent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the hon. member
suggests, I think that what most of us look to in this measure is its deterrent effect- bringing it home to people that they must not recklessly say anything and everything in an advertisement, but that in their statements of fact they must keep within the limits of the truth-that they must not, in their desire to laud their goods or property, overstep the limits in statements of fact. Of course, there would be a wide field left of exaggeration of their appreciation of the value or advantages of the goods or property they have to offer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Once you admit the principle of the amendment I do not see very much objection in the manner of working

it out; for the penalty is not very great. I do not see why you cannot trust the ordinary police magistrate-and most cases of this kind will come before police magistrates-to settle the question whether misrepresentation was made as well as a jury. I would as soon have the decision of an ordinary police magistrate as that of a jury in such a matter. As to the objections of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. McKay), that difficulty will be thrown in the way of appeals, I think the policy should be to discourage appeals. The object, as the minister says, is to provide a deterrent of false statement. I think the Bill is nearly all right.


William Erskine Knowles: I desire to ask a question. It is a very common thing to advertise a fire sale which is not a fire sale at all but is merely so-called in order to draw the crowd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not without some fire.


William Erskine Knowles: No fire whatever-simply open up a store, put in a brand new stock of goods, and advertise a ' fire sale.'


Mr. SEXSMITH:: That is among western people, not eastern people.


William Erskine Knowles: That is not a compliment to the morals of eastern people; if they do not do it, it is only because they are slow. But is anybody hurt by such a thing? The people go there and get better goods than if there had been a fire. Yet, the seller has made a false statement to 'promote a sale/ which is forbidden under the Bill. It is not to 'enhance value' but to ' promote a sale.' But though he is not doing any harm, he would be in violation of this proposed law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is there any section of the people who would rather have goods that have been through a fire?


William Erskine Knowles: They think they get
better bargains, and so go to the store. The sale is promoted in that way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I had not conceived of the existence of such a thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You do not want to put a premium upon lying.
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 165, respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company and the Alberta Pacific Railway Company, Mr. Blondin in the chair.
Mr. WARNOCK:: At the last meeting of the Railway Committee I gave notice that I would ask for information in regard to the financing of this road, and also whether Mr. Edward Bath, of London, England, and Mr. Wm. Peter, of New York, were cooperating in financing the road.


John Dowsley Reid: A telegram was shown me today stating that the contract has been signed and that arrangements have been made for the financing of the road in England. If I remember rightly, Mr. Bath has no connection with the road. The other gentleman has.


David Warnock: It has been reported
that Mr. Bath was associated with Mr. Peter, the original promoter. As far as the minister knows, Mr. Bath is not associated.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I know, Mr. Bath is not associated.


David Warnock: Has the minister any information as to when they are likely to commence construction?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I have not.


David Warnock: Last year it was announced on two or three occasions that the tenders had been let, but what I understood from the statement of the company's agent the other day in the committee was that they were prepared to ask for tenders, but tlie tenders had not been let. Last year the facts were misrepresented.


John Dowsley Reid: I would think there was
every likelihood of their starting almost immediately, because they have arrangements made for the financing of the road, and, having a subsidy which lapses next August, it is altogether likely they will proceed at once in order to be able to hold the subsidy.


David Warnock: We have been told so often that financial arrangements have been made. I was asked to oppose the granting of an extension of the charter by a number of settlers located along the proposed road between Calgary and the international boundary; but I am not opposed to the road, we want the road and now that

they have been given a year's extension of time I sincerely hope that they will proceed to construct.


John Dowsley Reid: That information was given to me and I shall urge that they proceed with the work at once. A telegram having been shown me to-day I shall communicate immediately with them and ask them to carry out the promise they have made in their telegram. Perhaps that will have a little effect in inducing them to proceed.


Frank Oliver: For what length of road was it said the finances had been arranged for, and what section of the road is it proposed to build?


John Dowsley Reid: The telegram did not go into details; it just said: 'have made financial arrangements for the building of the road.'


David Warnock: I think they are bound to commence on the first hundred miles south. That is what the subsidy was given for last year.


John Dowsley Reid: They will commence where the subsidy is given, there is no doubt about that.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE W. C. EDWARDS COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 132, respecting W. C. Edwards and Company, Limited.

Mr. Fripp.	Mr. Blondini in the
Chair.
Mr. BOYS:: In the absence of the Chairman of the Private Bills Committee and [DOT]at his request I have been asked to explain the situation of this Bill. When it was before the Private Bills Committee, there was a very considerable discussion. Mr. Pope, secretary of the Hydro-Electric Commission, was there and also the Mayor of Ottawa, Senator Edwards and his solicitor. After a considerable amount of discussion certain amendments were agreed to, and it was finally left to the chairman to put the amendments in shape with the parties interested. But it appears after further consideration, that wha't was intended by the committee has not been accomplished by the amendment. In so far a3 the province of Ontario is concerned, the Bill is now made subject to all provincial laws and municipal regulations existing and it was intended that the company should also he made subject to laws existing in other provinces. But it has been found that there are no such laws in some of the other provinces. In submitting that amend-
	.
ment, first the provisions of paragraph 5a were amended and this language was struck out ' and subject to the provisions of section 247 of the Railway Act.' Under that section it is necessary to secure the consent of the municipal council by by-law. That feature has entirely been wiped out in the belief, as the committee had thought, that the language that was inserted, namely, that the exercise of the right should he subject to provincial authority and municipal regulations, would meet the case. But I understand there are no such regulations in some of the provinces. For that reason the company now can go upon the highways of any municipality in any province, except Ontario, and without even the consent of the municipal council, to say nothing of a vote of the people, string a line of poles and distribute electric current for light, heat and power. The promoters of the Bill made no objection to its being referred back to the committee for further consideration, and I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Fisher, that the committee rise and report progress. I understand that later on I will have an opportunity of moving that the Bill be referred back to the committee for further consideration.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Have those who appeared for the W. 0. Edwards Company before the Private Bills Committee had notice of the intention of my hon. friend and are they agreeable to it?


William Alves Boys: I am informed by the clerk of the Private Bills Committee that Mr. Green, the solicitor who appeared 'before the committee, is quite satisfied that this course should be taken.


Frank Oliver: What is the purpose of this Bill? I am surprised to hear about stringing wires.


William Alves Boys: The purpose'of the Bill is this: The W. C. Edwards Company, who were incorporated in 1892, principally as a lumber company, desire to distribute electricity for light and power, and the committee thought that, this power being foreign to the original purpose of the company, should be governed by the existing provisions in letters patent in which, I understand there is a standard clause which brings all companies getting letters patent within provincial laws and municipal regulations. That is the difficulty and therefore it is necessary to send this Bill back to the committee in order that the matter may be put right.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I was present at the committee when this 'Bill was before it for consideration. As I understand, any objection that was brought to this Bill was brought by the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario. The W. O. Edwards Company tried, as faT as they were able, to agree to the terms and conditions imposed by the Hydro-Electric Commission. It is a good commission, I have no doubt. I know very little about the commission except what has been explained, but I do think that in matters of industry, where companies come before this Parliament for charters, this Parliament ought to have the right to give a charter without having to submit to provincial laws. I would like to place myself on record on this matter. I do not want to make any objection to the motion of my hon. friend, but I do not think this Parliament ought to be altogether subject to the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario. It is a very bad precedent.


Mr. BURNHAM:: As one who took a certain amount of active interest in this matter when it was before the committee, let me say that the question is of the utmost importance to the province of Ontario, for which, however, I do not pretend to speak. But I do speak for the electoral district from which I come. That fact was recognized. The Hydro-Electric Commission were communicated with, and they appeared on the scene at once and maintained stoutly their Objection to the general character of the legislation. If there is any likelihood of this Parliament enacting legislation which will conflict seriously with the interests of the people of the province of Ontario, certainly that likelihood ought to be removed if possible. It is a very serious thing for Ontario, and especially for the district from which I come. We are very anxious to safeguard the public interests. They all come to the surface in this Bill. The objections to the Bill that were urged by the HydroElectric Commission were finally admitted and the suggested amendments agreed to by the Edwards Company, but, notwithstanding that, it more or leas leaves the question open. As to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) says, I do not know how far this matter may be settled. There is a question of interprovincial relations; there are legal relations existing between the provinces and the Dominion, but I can say that something ought to be done, if there is any possibility of a risk being run in this particular by which the Dominion
regulations, as embodied in statutes, may conflict with the public interests of the people of Ontario.


Mr BOYS:: Just one word in reply to my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin).


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am not objecting.


Mr BOYS:: 
Mr OLIVER:: provinces-the powers of the provincial authorities should certainly be safeguarded.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Boys, Bill No. 132, respecting W. 0. Edwards & Company, Limited, was discharged from the Order Paper and referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for further consideration.



TORONTO, NIAGARA AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 59, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Currie. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 3-limitation:
Mr. CARROLL:: An amendment was moved to this by the Chairman of the Railway Committee, and it was held over until the member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) could be here. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is opposing this Bill, but' as he is unable to be here to-night, I would like the Bill to stand over.


Mr. MACDONELL:: Although I am not authorized to -speak for the hon. member for South Wellington, I may -say that he told me on two occasions, on Tuesday -and ag-ain to-day, that he had no desire to participate further in the discussion.


William F. Carroll: He did not speak to me to-day about it. There is a very important principle involved in the Bill, and this being Friday night -and not more than one-third of the members- of the- committee being present, I think the Bill should stand over. If there were not am important principle involved the Chairman of the Railway -Committee would n-ot have- moved the -amendment he did.
Mr. -MACDONELL: This Bill was three times before the Railway Committee and twice before the -Standing Orders Committee, and no Bill this -session has received so much discussion and consideration as it ha-s. The Bill passed the Railway Committee by a vote of twenty-five- to fourteen, an-d not later than this evening the promoter of the Bill told me he was -quite satisfied to take the Bill with the amendments.


William F. Carroll: The fact that the promoters of this- Bill assent to its going

through as amended does not mean that it is good legislation. I am not pressing that the Bill should stand, but I think it is-worthy of further consideration.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was one of the twenty-five who voted for the Bill in committee, but I had not them -seen clause 7 which say-s that the railway shall cross only above or below a highway and that in case of dispute between the engineers of the railway and the city, the matter -shall be referred to the Railway Board. This clause restricts the Bo-axd of Railway Commissioners to putting the railway either over or under the highway, an-d they have no room to -use their judgment.


Mr. CURRIE:: The Railway Board has
already given a ruling that the railway must go over the highway.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was not addressing myself to the hon. member, who we all know knows more than the Railway Board; I was drawing the attention of the hon. member for South Toronto to the fact that the Board of Railway Commissioners are confined to ordering the railway to go over or to go under the highway, while in my opinion the matter should be left to their judgment without restriction.


Angus Claude Macdonell: My hon. friend is
right in his appreciation of what the Bill means, and that point was discussed ad nauseam in the Railway Committee. The object is that level crossings shall ,be put an end to in Toronto. The. city is now contributing over four million dollars to aid the railways in elevating or depressing their tracks, and when the work now undertaken in Toronto is completed there will be no such thing as a level crossing in that city. The cost to the city, to the railways, and to the Toronto Terminals Company, when the works are completed, will aggregate between -twelve million and fifteen million dollars.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would any of that money be applied in connection with this railway if it came into the city?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I do not think it
would but I cannot say offhand. The idea is that there -shall be no level crossings in the congested area of -the city of Toronto. This line passes over twenty-four -streets in the two and a half miles it has already acquired as right-of-way. The intention is that this railway will -be compelled to go over or under the highways. If the engineers of the city and of the railway com-

pany cannot agree as to the method of crossing, then the Railway Board is to settle how the railway shall go over or under.
M>r. NESBITT:	My hon. friend from
Toronto (Mr. Maedonell) is always fair and reasonable, and I wish to call his attention to that point.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The best testimony
I can give as to this proposal being fair and reasonable is that the railway company have accepted it.


Frank Oliver: We agreed to take up this Bill on the understanding that it was not contentious, and it has been found to be contentious, -and as it will interfere with passing the other Bills on the Order Paper, I think my hon. friend (Mr. M-acdonell) should postpone the consideration of it until Monday.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I thought the discussion on the Bill was pretty well finished.


William F. Carroll: As I understand it, the Railway Board has already made an order with regard to the entrance of this road into the city of Toronto.


Angus Claude Macdonell: They have made an order for the first two and a half miles of this road after it enters the city of Toronto, but that is only half the distance it will travel through the city. It enters at the extreme west, some five miles from the centre of the city, and they have acquired a right-of-way and have had their plans approved by the Railway Board for two and a half miles. That was in 1909 and they have not done anything since. They will doubtless ask for further approval of plans, and, it is only asked that this company be put upon the same basis as all the other railways which have been granted charters to come into the city of Toronto in recent years.


William F. Carroll: I understand that it is one of the functions of the Railway Commission to deal with crossings of all kinds. On January 28, 1910, in reference to this very railroad, the Board of Railway Commissioners made the following order:
That if the tracks of the Canadian Pacific railway are at any time elevated, then the tracks of the applicant shall be likewise elevated along the course of the line where the rights of way lie adjacent to each other, upon such terms as the board may direct; protection to be approved at such crossings as the engineer of the board may require before the road is open for traffic, and if protection is recommended at a crossing any other road is interested in, then the proportion of the cost of such protection is reserved.
Section 7 of the Bill says:
The railway of the company may be constructed across any such highway, or along any easement acquired for public works in the said city, but only above or below such highway or easement.
The order of the Board of Railway Commissioners distinctly says that, where the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have been compelled to elevate their road in the city of Toronto, this road must do likewise.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Is the hon. member aware that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have now been compelled to raise their tracks in the place of which the hon. member is speaking ?


William F. Carroll: The Board of Railway Commissioners have not seen fit up to the present time to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to do that.


Edmund James Bristol: I think my hon. friend is misinformed. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company are elevating their tracks.


William F. Carroll: If they are, this railway will be compelled to elevate their tracks, so far as they are running along the Canadian Pacific railway. The order goes further and says:
That protection is to he provided at such crossings as the chief engineer of the board may direct.
Is it not more proper to have as the judge the chief engineer of the Board of Railway Commissioners, who, I presume, would be an unbiased judge, rather than the engineer of the city of Toronto, who would have a personal interest and prejudice in the matter ? If we are going to bring in legislation which will virtually be an appeal from decisions of the Board of Railway Commissioners and render void an order of that board, I am inclined to think that the board will be worthless. The city of Toronto cannot be more impartially looked after than under the order made by the Board of Railway Commissioners on the 28th of January, 1910. The board are very specific. They say that wherever they have compelled the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to elevate their tracks, this road shall do likewise. They say that, where there is more protection asked for at a crossing, the chief engineer of the Board of Railway Commissioners shall be the judge as to whether that protection is

necessary or not. I think we are going a long way to render worthless that order. In this case I am looking at the principle involved. I understand that the railway company is willing that section 7 should stand, but that does not do away with' my opposition to the section, because there should be some clear, well-defined distinction as to when we should interfere with the decisions of the Board of Bailway Commissioners. I think that is something which hon. members should consider before 'they adopt section 7.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. member allow the Bill to stand and let us go on with the others?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I would like to get . the Bill through; but as it is requested that the Bill be allowed to stand, I will certainly agree to that.
Progress reported.



THE PRUDENTIAL LIFE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill 150, to incorporate the Prudential Life of Canada.- Mr. Nickle. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-incorporation:
Frank Oliver: What is the purpose of
this Bill? Is it a new incorporation or an amending incorporation?


Mr. NICKLE:: The object of the Bill is to give Dominion incorporation to a company hitherto incorporated in the province of Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7

continuance of officers and by-laws:
Mr. GUTHRIE:: From statements made when this Bill was before the committee, and more particularly from statements made by the promoter of the Bill, who said that he would take no responsibility whatever for the financial standing of the company, also from statements appearing in insurance reports in Manitoba, I think the Minister of Finance should look into the affairs' of this company rather carefully before any license is issued, because the statements made and the figures given show that this company is as near dissolution and financial disaster as any company can well be.
I have received one or two letters on the subject.


William Folger Nickle: I have no knowledge as an accountant that would enable me to ex-piess an opinion that would carry any

weight; but when I took charge of the Bill 1 asked that some evidence be produced to me to show that this company was solvent. Those interested gave me a telegram from Mr. Miles M. Dawson, an actuary of the American Government, who was employed by the Armstrong Commission when they made .their inquiry and also by the Canadian Government Commission. That telegram reads as follows:
I strongly recommend Dominion charter. Your company has ample resources to provide for all liabilities and a handsome surplus. It has secured a good volume of business with exceptionally low mortality and remunerative premiums, which are now sufficient to assure its success under a continuation of prudent and enterprising management.
I would deem it a favour if, before a Dominion license is granted to this company, the Finance Department would conduct the most rigorous examination. I think it only fair to the committee that I should explain that I have no knowledge of its finances except assurances from those in authority ,and from this actuary that the condition of the company is 'solvent.


William Thomas White: I think the request of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is only reasonable in view of statements which were made before the Committee on Banking and Commerce when the Bill was under consideration. I have no knowledge whatever as to the standing of the company, because it has not hitherto had Dominion incorporation. It is a Manitoba company. The matter to which my hon. friend from South Wellington has referred was discussed at some length in the committee, and I there made a statement as to the course which would be pursued by the Finance Department before a license would be issued to this company. I think it only fair to say that nothing was proved, at least in my judgment, against the company before -the committee. There were assertions and counter assertions but the committee had not the evidence before it of experts on which alone it could reach any conclusion as. to the financial condition of the company. Prima, facie, therefore, we are entitled to assume that the compainy's standing is i&atisfaictory. But in view qf the charges which have been made yesterday morning, I directed a letter to the superintendent of insurance which I shall now ask to be allowed to place on ' Hansard ' because it beans directly upon

the inquiry of the hon. member from South Wellington as to what steps the Finance Department would take, before a 'license was granted to this company. I did not understand the hon. member to make any specific charges with regard to the financial responsibility of the company, but to say that from information which came before him it would appear to be not overly strong. Yesterday I directed this letter to the superintendent of insurance:
Ottawa, May 7, 1914.
W. Fitzgerald, Esq.,
Superintendent of Insurance,
Ottawa.
Prudential Life of Canada.
Dear Sir,-The Bill respecting this company was passed by the Banking and Commerce Committee this morning. As you are aware certain allegations have been made to the committee calling in question the financial standing of the company whose assets and business are to be acquired by the new company, the Prudential Life of Canada. As minister I was asked to state what would be the requirements of the Insurance Department before a license would be granted to the company and I made the following reply as to the action which would be taken by the Insurance Department:
Re Prudential Life of Canada.
' If this company is incorporated by the Dominion Parliament it will have two years within which to get its license from this department. Before granting such a license the department will visit the head office of the company and make a thorough and complete examination of its affairs. It will make a complete actuarial valuation of all its liabilities, examine its assets, and satisfy itself that its assets exceed its liabilities, other than capital stock, of every kind, by at least $100,000, that is, that it shall show a wholly unimpaired capital of at least $100,000.
* From the assets above mentioned there will be excluded all shareholders' notes for capital or premium on capital as well as all capital or premium unpaid or in course of collection and any agents' balances and outstanding premiums believed by the department to be doubtful or bad. Such assets as these are not allowed according to the standard of this department.
' We will also require that a deposit of $50,000 in Government or municipal securities or other securities acceptable to the Treasury Board be made with the minister, and all the other requirements of the Insurance Act and of its Act of incorporation complied with.'
Please see that before a license is issued to the new company the requirements mentioned are strictly complied with, and in this connection, as the matter has been made the subject of public discussion, I would suggest the advisability of associating with your own officers an outside actuary of reputation and standing in his profession. Please inform the member or members of your staff who may have to make the examination referred to of this instruction on my part so that it may by no chance be overlooked during either your or my absence on vacation or otherwise.
Yours truly,
(Signed) W. T. White.
I think it is only fair to this company to say, as I stated before, that in my judgment nothing was established against them before the committee. The committee, of course, were not in a position to pass upon the financial
9 p.m. strength of the company.
They could only do that with the assistance of experts. I think that the matter is now in such shape that any one who has to deal with the company will be entitled to rely on the Insurance Department having seen that the terms of that letter are strictly complied with before a license is issued. With reference to one sentence in the letter, I think it entirely unnecessary that any expert assistance should be secured by the Insurance Department, because I have the greatest confidence in the staff of that department; but as the matter has been made the subject of so much discussion before the committee, I thought it would place it beyond all doubt if the course which I recommend were adopted.


Hugh Guthrie: That is entirely satisfactory.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am very pleased, because, while I supported the Bill in the committee, I moved an amendment that they should have $100,000 over all liabilities. That amendment was voted down in the committee for certain reasons, and I therefore congratulate the minister on the precaution he has taken, and I am quite satisfied that he will act in the interests of the people.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think that the House ought to depend altogether on a letter written by the Finance Minister to his department. That strikes me as a purely internal matter between the minister and his officers, with which we have nothing to do. We have responsibilities of our own to discharge, and the question in my mind was in regard to the construction of clause 10 of this Bill. In clause 10 it is provided that a new company shall not commence business until at least $100,000 has been paid up on its capital stock.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 164, respecting the Berlin,
[Stage Direction]
Waterloo, Wellesley and Lake Huron Railway Company, and to change its name to The Grand River Railway Company.- Mr. Weichel.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Bertha Hetu.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Elizabeth Chausse.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Beatrice Mae Stinson Fotheringham. - Mr. Mc-Craney.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Eva Jane Bateman.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Florence Relf.-Mr. Douglas.

Angus Claude Macdonell: With the permission of the House, and if it is not too late, I would like to mention the last order on the list of private Bills, Bill No. 172, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The time for the consideration of private Bills has expired.



FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 179, to amend the Criminal Code.-Mr. Doherty. Mr. Blondin in the chair.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would suggest to the hon. minister that the offence referred to in section 404 is so closely allied to that provided for under this Bill that there should be no difference in the procedure and punishment.


John Allister Currie: Carried.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman
may know something about making nails, but I should think he should leave the making of laws to those who know something about that profession. Section 405 of the Code provides for the procedure and punishment in the case of an offence defined in section 404. Under the new law there should be the same procedure and the- same punishment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I pointed out before
six o'clock the difference that I see between the two offences. Section 405 provides for the offence of obtaining goods by false pretenses. Section 404 merely defines what is . a false pretense. The offence provided for in section 405 is committed when a person does by false pretense obtain money, goods or other valuable consideration. The offence that I am now dealing with goes no 
further than the attempt to do this. The offence which this Bill provides for is committed when a person falsely advertises with the view of promoting the sale or disposal of property. So, under this Bill a man may be guilty even though he does not succeed in gaining any advantage whatever. It seems to me that the difference between the offence provided for in this Bill and the offence under section 405 of the Code is clear. In one case a man must actually obtain something, he must get a benefit from his false representation. But in the case provided for in the Bill a man is guilty even though he may never succeed in gaining anything at all.


John Hampden Burnham: Would the hon. minister mind my asking him if it is not the fact that the Criminal Code and the quasi criminal statutes deal with the details of the moral law? That is to say, would it not be practicable and advisable to lay down in a general way a statutory enactment endorsing the moral law which we all understand, or are supposed to understand, and enacting that one guilty of the infraction of the moral law shall be liable to a penalty, say of imprisonment for not less than ten days and not more than six months? This being provided for the magistrate or other judicial officer before whom the offender is brought may say: I can find nothing in the Code to apply to your case, but you have perpetrated a fraud or infringement of the moral law, and therefore I send you -down for ten days. Carrying out that idea in detail, the crimes may be classed as of grade 1, 2, 3 or 4, and suitable penalties provided for each class just as in the Criminal Code, but, strange to say, though in this age we are getting down to first principles, even to defining primal matter, we have not yet got down to the necessity of enunciating first principles of law, at least so far as I am aware. The national law, the international law, the municipal law, and so on, all specify certain things. The criminal law in the same way specifies certain things, but I repeat that no penalty except what is laid down in the Scriptures is provided for an infraction of the moral law. I would ask the minister, therefore, whether he does not consider it possible and advisable to lay down a sort of open penalty which may be made use of when such a case arises for which there is no specified punishment. Many cases, we know, arise for which no punishment is prescribed. Men learned in the law will scratch their heads in vain, and turn up tomes and statutes galore look-

ing for some remedy which they cannot find, all because the general principle itself has not been laid down, and a penalty provided in case of its infraction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestion of the hon. member certainly opens up a very wide field for consideration. At the first glance, what strikes me as being the practical difficulty in applying the suggestion is that it involves the leaving to every magistrate the definition of what is the moral law, and what constitutes a violation. I am afraid we should find that different magistrates would take different views of what the moral law requires of the individual. I might be convicted of a violation of the moral law before one magistrate, and the hon. gentleman having the advantage of appearing before a different magistrate might be acquitted, although we had both done the same thing. It seems to me that is the danger that would attend on the adoption of the suggestion. However, as I said before, there is no doubt that the suggestion opens a very wide field for consideration and if the time should come when we shall deal in a general way with criminal law-and I may say that I think that time is perhaps very near at hand- the suggestion that the hon. member has made certainly will have the consideration that it deserves.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 114, to amend the Indian Act-Mr. Roche. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-power to establish industrial, etc., schools:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There was to be an
amendment, I think, to that clause. I received a letter from the Minister of the Interior a week ago or more making a suggested amendment, but I have not got it in my desk just now.


Robert Laird Borden: We will let the clause
stand. The minister happens to be detained this evening, and I am not very familiar with the Bill. I do not propose to go on with any clauses that are controversial.
Section stands.
On section 2-taking land for schools:


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to delay the Bill at all, but I think this is really a
trivial reason for interfering with what should be considered the sacredness of the right of the Indian to his reserve. There are reasons why there should be such an amendment, but I think the reasons against it are much stronger. This is a provision whereby land on a reserve can be expropriated for school purposes. It is very desirable that there should be a school in certain places, but on the other hand it is very desirable that there should be no interference with the right of the Indian to his land.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman made known his objections to the minister?


Frank Oliver: No, we did not come to that clause before.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. member will state his reasons as fully as he desires, and we will then let the clause stand.


Frank Oliver: I am not insisting that it should stand, but I simply wish to put on record my views in regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: As the hon. gentleman
has some consideration which he regards as cogent, I would prefer that the clause stand in order that hi.s observations may receive the consideration of the minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may say for the information of the right hon. gentleman that when this Bill came up the first time I took upon myself to read a communication from the chief of the Caughnawaga band, protesting most vehemently against any expropriation of that reserve. The Caughnawaga Indians have owned their reserve almost from time immemorial. It was given to them, if I mistake not, by Gov-enor Frontenac under the French regime. The Caughnawaga Indians consider that they should not be threatened with being removed from where they are. They are quite near Montreal and are practically white men. By referring to ' Hansard ' when this Bill was first introduced my hon. friend will see the protest of their chief.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the
object, it is to enable the department to provide facilities for establishing schools for the advantage of the Indians. I would not suppose that any very large area of land is required to be taken for the purpose.
Section stands.
On section 4-withdrawal from band:


Mr OLIVER:: There is a feature in connection with section 4 that I am afraid the right hon. the Prime Minister does not

realize. There has been a considerable traffic in half-breed scrip. I do not know whether that traffic still goes on. A halfbreed has the Tight to the issue of 480 acres of scrip. At the price of land it is worth a considerable amount of money, and there have been a great many withdrawals from the Indian bands by members of the bands, who are really half-breeds, having white blood and getting this scrip as half-breeds. It should be understood that a very large proportion of the Indians of the West have an admixture of white blood, so that really they would be entitled to be dealt with as half-breeds 'but they had chosen to be regarded as Indians and as members of the Indian band, which they were in all particulars except in the mere matter of some admixture of white blood. But in case they had a small admixture of white blood they were entitled to scrip. Therefore, speculators would induce them to withdraw from the band with the result that the scrip would be given to them, then sold to the speculator and the profit would be made by the speculator rather than by the Indian. The effect of this amendment is that when that arrangement is made with the man it will also be effective with his wife, if I understand the meaning of it aright. When the man withdraws from the band the wife is automatically withdrawn. It seems to me that when the man withdraws from the band and is given scrip, the wife is thereby withdrawn under the authority of Parliament and she will almost automatically be entitled to the scrip as well thereby doubling up the advantage of the scrip speculators.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the wives of halfbreeds, as well as half-breeds themselves, entitled to the scrip?


Frank Oliver: Yes, properly speaking,
unless the wife had white blood she would not be entitled to scrip but it seems to me that when you provide that, when her husband withdraws she must withdraw also, you are establishing a situation in which you would almost have to give her the same recognition as her husband. I am not saying that this is not right, I am not seriously objecting to it, but I am putting before the committee the information as to how far-reaching this provision is in a direction that possibly is not contemplated. It may be that under present conditions no scrip is issued. If the issue of scrip has ceased then the objection I see does not exist, but if the scrip is actually issued that condition would continue 
and I think it would raise considerable objection. It would foe well for the minister to look into that side of it before he puts the section through.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite possible that that particular consideration may have been overlooked. Apparently, as far as I can appreciate the object of the section, it is designed to ensure that the wife of an Indian when withdrawn from the band would have the same status as her husband.


Frank Oliver: Yes, which is very proper.


Robert Laird Borden: Which is very proper-just as a wife acquires the domicile or national status of her husband. The considerations which the hon. gentleman has brought to my attention may have been overlooked. I shall ask that the section may be allowed in order that it may have the consideration of the minister.
Section stands.
Section 6 stands.
On section 8-selling, etc., of live stock:


Robert Laird Borden: Has my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) considered this section ?


Frank Oliver: I think it is going very far, but I suppose the minister has considered it thoroughly. It prohibits the Indian from selling his live stock. My objection to it would be that it establishes too great a condition of paternalism. It does not give scope to the Indian to grow in his sense of proprietorship, of personal ownership, which is really essential to his progress and civilization. The sense of ownership, after all, is the very foundation of civilization. Ownership, selfishness, which is foreign to the mind of the Indian in his normal condition, is really the foundation of civilization.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman considers that it tends to keep the Indians in a condition of tutelage ?


Frank Oliver: Yes


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I think we had better let it stand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would not this go so far as to extend to the Indian, say, in the Maritime provinces so that he would not foe aJble to sell his live stock without the consent of the agent ?	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: It is restricted to the four provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It says:
No Indian or non-treaty Indian in the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Alberta.
It might be construed to mean a nontreaty Indian in the four provinces and any Indian all over Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it would be held to have that meaning.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a subject for consideration. I know that in the Maritime provinces there are some Indians who are trying to lead civilized lives and own property, and it would be a great hardship if these people were not allowed to dispose of their property.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it does mean what my hon. friend suggests, but in order to avoid any doubt it might be proper to transpose the words of the section so that it would read:
In the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Alberta, no Indian-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That will make it all right.


Frank Oliver: This only applies to live stock that had been given them under treaty,' and not to their private property?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Frank Oliver: That is better, but it still carries the objection I have raised.
On section 9-restriction Indian dances, etc.:


Frank Oliver: As this section reads, it ostensibly is to prevent the engagement of Indians in public shows, except with consent, and I think that is proper, but if it is the intention of the department to prevent their assembling on different reserves for the purpose of participating in their festivals, religious or otherwise, that ought to be specifically stated, and this section ought not to be interpreted to prohibit that. The various bands visit each other on their reservations, to take part in ceremonies, religious or otherwise but that is in a different class altogether from their participation in a public show for pay. I know there are many people who object to allowing the Indians to participate in their tribal festivals and ceremonies, but, personally, I think it would be an injustice and a wrong to make a statutory provision preventing them from engaging in these traditional customs, to which they are much attached.
Mr. CARVELL.: An eastern man naturally wonders why an Indian should not be allowed to join a show and make a few dollars as well as a white man can. There must be some reason for this prohibition, and I would like my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) to explain.


Frank Oliver: The merit of the Indian is in the maintenance of his dignity, and when the Indian consents to join in a public show for money he degrades and demoralizes himself to an extent that would not be present in the case of a white man doing a similar thing. The Indian is either a gentleman or very much the reverse. As long as his dignity is maintained he is a gentleman and he is amenable to reason and argument and good influence, but when he loses his self-respect, and he certainly does lose his self-respect when he makes himself a public show, then he gets to a point where neither the Government nor anybody else can do very much with him or for him. There are exceptions of course, but I think those who are acquainted with the western Indians will agree that their participation in these public exhibitions has a degrading and demoralizing influence on them, whch is very much to their detriment and to the detriment of the Government that is doing the best it can for them. I am aware that very much of what I have said may be argued against permitting them to assemble in their tribal or national festivals, but in the celebration of these ceremonies, while they may look grotesque to us because we do not understand them, they have to the Indians a meaning, and they do not detract from their self-respect or from their dignity, and therefore do not demoralize them to the same degree.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the difference
between their dances and tangoing?


Frank Oliver: The difference between
the white man and the Indian is that the Indian is naturally a gentleman.


Mr. BRADBURY:: I endorse what has
been so well said by the hon. member for Edmonton. I suppose the intention of the clause must be not to prevent the Indian holding a festival on his own reserve.


Frank Oliver: Or going from one reserve to another.


George Henry Bradbury: Yes. The clause, I
suppose, is intended to prevent the Indians from taking part in these public exhibitions, and with that I agree, but if it should be interpreted to prohibit his national and

tribal festivals, then I think it would be harsh and unfair to the Indians. I do not think we have any right to step in and prevent our wards from indulging in these immemorial customs of their race. In so far as it prevents persons from engaging Indians for these public shows, the clause is a good one. Many years ago I happened to be in Ottawa from the West, and the man who had charge of the Indians in one of these shows made a failure of it, and the Indians were stranded. They made their way from some town in Ontario to Ottawa, and I happened to meet them in the corridor and I knew them and they knew me, and they told me their plight. I took them to see the Big Chief, Mr. Dewdney, who was then Minister of the Interior, and he had to take charge of them and send them back to their reserves.
I think the intention of this Bill is to prevent things of that kind from occurring. I hope it is not intended to prevent the Indians from exercising their old customs and privileges on their own reserves or from visiting other reserves. I do not think it would be fair to do that.


William Erskine Knowles: This Bill seems to prevent them from visiting other reserves. These people must have their pleasure, and if they are to be bound down so that they cannot visit brother and sister Indians on other reserves, they will be very apt to run away altogether. I suppose the department has in mind, for example, such festivals as those that occur at Banff. I have seen them and they are very harmless. I presume it will come within the discretion of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to permit the Indians to visit other reserves. I think the Indians ought to be allowed to visit other reserves. These Indian dances are far ahead of the turkey trot and the tango that we have in Ottawa, and we permit these dances. If you go down to the Bussell House and buy a cup of tea, you can see white people go through these so-called modern dances that are much inferior to the Indian dances, as far as my judgment goes. Of course, I am not going to say anything against the people who indulge in these dances, because I do not want to step on any one's toes. I would be glad to see preserved and protected the rights of the Indians in their innocent dances, because I think after all they are as good dances as the tango and the turkey trot.


Mr. BOBDEN:: Of course, those who par-
[llr. Bradbury. ]
ticipate in the turkey trot and the tango, as has been suggested, are not doing so outside of their own reserve.


William Erskine Knowles: That is the very point I had in mind. In the city of Ottawa people are employed on certain nights of the week

I do not know, because I do not go, but I have been so informed-to dance these dances in public in the restaurants.


Frederick William Borden: I was regarding the city of Ottawa as a reserve. As far as the purpose of this Bill is concerned, it certainly prohibits an Indian from participating in any Indian dance outside the boundary of his own reserve, except with the consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, or his authorized agent. How far it may be desirable to go in that regard I am not prepared to say, not having very much knowledge o|f the evils which are intended to be prevented 'by this section'. In addition to the reasons already adduced by hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the subject, it appears from the explanatory memorandum attached to this section that the preparation for an engagement in the exhibitions, stampedes and pageants alluded to, are very unsettling to the Indians; that the preparations for the celebration of these engagements very often occupies many days and, in some instances, weeks of the Indians' time, at -a season of the year which should be spent in sowing or reaping their crops, and that there has been a systematic practice of utilizing the Indians for the profit of persons who are engaged in getting up such shows. The main object of the section, as I understand it, is to prevent that. I do not know to what extent it is desirable that the Indians should participate in ceremonial dances outside of their own reserves. I have no opinion on that whatever. Tberejfoie I should prefer that this section should stand in OTder that the minister may make fuller explanation, as the subject seems to have engaged the attention of the minister and his officials In any case, the members of the committee will understand that there will be no difficulty at all about the Indians participating in these ceremonials upon their own reserves, and also that there will be no difficulty in their doing so outside of their own reserves with the consent of the Indian agent or of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs himself. Whether or not a provision of that kind goes too far, I will

leave for the minister to determine and I ask that the section stand.
Section stands.
On section 10-'French version of section 135 corrected:


Robert Laird Borden: It seems that there has been some omission ini the French version which it is desired to correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. R. L. Borden (Prime Minister), Bill No. 138, to amend the Irrigation Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. IBlondin in the Chair.
Robert Laird Borden: I am not very familial with this Bill, and I propose merely to run over it and examine the sections. Any that require discussion or are of a controversial character, I will ask to stand until the Minister of the Interior is here. Those to which my hon. friends opposite do not see any objection, if there be any such, may be allowed to pass.


Frank Oliver: I am very glad of that, because the hpn. member for Medicine mat (Mr. Buchanan), who is most interested in this matter, is not here to-night.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend prefer not to take the Bill up at all?


Frank Oliver: I have no objection to running through it, as the Prime Minister has said, and anything that we do not consider controversial may go through. Perhaps we would gain something if we ran through this Bill, as long as we are not committed to what we do not understand.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly not. If we pass any sections that are found afterwards to require further consideration, they may be brought up again.
On section 5-minister may permit diversion of water:


Frank Oliver: As to this section, to use a legal phrase, as at present advised, the section does not strike me as being such as I would wish to see. When an application is made to construct irrigation works with a view to securing a license to use water, as the Act stands the applicant must carry out his part of the contract, he must complete the works which he undertakes to 220
construct before the license is granted that will enable him to dispose of the water for which he has applied. But the effect of this proposed section is to allow him to dispose of water before he has completed his irrigation work-that is before he has carried out the contract with the Government requiring expenditure on his part. Suppose I apply for the Tight to take water and make a contract to construct certain irrigation works. Before I have half finished these works, I may begin to use the water and, though I never finish the works which I undertook to construct, may continue to use the water. That is to say I have the benefit of the contract without having completed it. It does not seem to me that that is a business-like proposition and I do not think it will work out well in practice. I have no doubt that the reason for this section is that in some certain case the applicant has found it difficult to complete his works, or completion has been delayed, there has been a demand for water, and it has been said: What is the difference?-we have got enough of the works constructed to allow a partial use of the water; let us use what we can use and we will finish later on.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these licenses for a definite term?


Frank Oliver: No, once issued, they are perpetual. That is the reason why, as the Act has stood, the licenses are not issued until the work is completed. This, it seems to me, breaks in on that principle, and I am afraid it leaves the situation in a condition that, I should say, would not be satisfactorily workable to all interests concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the object of this section would be this-
10 p.m. During the construction of the works, when partially completed, it might be regarded as in the public interest that water should be used for the purpose of irrigating a certain portion of the land that might otherwise have to await for a considerable period the completion of the work. I -see, however, the force of the objection that the hon. gentleman has mentioned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose the water were allowed to be used for a specified period.


Robert Laird Borden: I was just about to suggest that. Some words might be inserted which would subject the license to such conditions as the minister might regard as proper in the public interest, and also the



DEVISED EDITION '3486 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
license could be granted only for a certain term. In the meantime, the section should stand, and the minister will take into consideration the suggestion made.
On section 6-minister may waive public notice:
William Erskine Knowles: I do not wish to criticise. It is, however, hard to know what some of these sections mean without an explanation. Probably the minister will look at ' Hansard,' and I might mention now that it would be convenient if he would give a short resume of the purpose of the Bill.
When we are at home, people very often ask us what changes have been made in these Acts. I generally make a practice of looking up ' Hansard ' for the speech of the minister on the introduction of the Bill. I am not clear about many of the points that have been gone over to-night. If Mr. Drayton, the chief man in the Immigration Branch, were here, he would probably be able to give the minister the information. For instance, what is meant by ' municipal purposes?' Then, I am hazy about section 6. I have not the slightest suspicion of its being wrong, but it requires some little study and explanation. The right seems to be taken here that the minister may, whenever he considers it expedient, waive the necesssity of public notice for filing the memorial or the memorial and plans. The footnote says this is necessary in comparatively trivial cases where the water is required for washing gravel or taking out ice. That qualification, however, is not in the section of the proposed legislation. I would like to know more particularly the answer to the points I have raised. In Moosejaw, for example, we have had quite a municipal problem. A year ago last winter a company was engaged in taking out ice where it always has been taken out, and all of a sudden an injunction was taken out against them by the Canadian Pacific railway. It appears that the Canadian Pacific railway had some old water licenses for damming the water for their railway operations; and, not for the sake of all the ice which they could take out, but for other reasons, they wished to put a block in the way of these men, and took advantage of this Act to stop them by injunction. A very great wrong might have been done to the city, and possibly was done for all I know, by puAting the ice trade into the hands of a nonopoly. They made it possible to take ice from a pond

a mile long. Some powers should be taken by the Government to grant relief against any arbitrary assertion of rights that go to the grantee of a water license. I mention that because the explanatory note refers to the cutting of ice.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman's suggestion that the minister should give an explanation of the whole Bill is a proper one, as the second reading took place by consent and without the usual explanation. I may be able to make this section clear by reading subsection 1 of the present Act, which is as follows:
In the case of applications for water for domestic or irrigation purposes, the minister may, if he sees fit, waive the necessity for filing the plans required by this Act, and may require the applicants to file a memorial only.
It is proposed to amend that by striking out the word ' irrigation ' before the word * purposes,' and then the subsection would be as follows:
In the case of applications for water tor domestic or other purposes, the minister may, if he sees fit, waive the necessity for filing the plans required by this Act, and may require the applicants to file a memorial only.
Then there is section 2, which is not touched:
The minister may order that such memorial shall contain all the information necessary to a full and complete understanding of the rights applied for.
The third subsection as proposed, is set forth in the Bill. This section had better stand until the minister comes.
Section stands.
On section 7-S. 29a amended:


Frank Oliver: If the explanation in the footnote explains thoroughly, there seems to be no objection to this section; but I would suggest that, instead of the section being drafted as it is, the old section should be repealed and a new section substituted conveying in so many words exactly what the intention is. It makes it much more simple, and I think is better in every way.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend's suggestion is carrying out a principle that I have advocated a great many times myself. I think it is the better way to carry out an amendment in most cases.


Frank Oliver: It is for laymen; I do not know how it is for the men of the law.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Agriculture-For the development of the live stock industry, $400,000.
Charles Marcil: The minister will allow
me to call attention to a statement in La Patrie to-night. It gives an account of a visit to the horseflesh abattoir in the county of Chambly. I think there are two of them, both in a very flourishing condition. Four to six horses are sent there every day, some to be canned and some to be salted. It is claimed the meat is sent to Sweden. It is also stated that the minister has sent an inspector down there and that he has made a report to the health authorities of Montreal. I would like to know if it is a fact.


Mr. BURRELL:: I am afraid I cannot
tell my hon. friend. I have no knowledge of one of our inspectors going down there, but I will make inquiries.


Charles Marcil: The papers are making
such a splurge over this that the people of Montreal are getting frightened. The price of meat is high, I know, but they are not accustomed to eating horseflesh.


Martin Burrell: We are not authorized
under the Act to deal with horseflesh.


Frank Oliver: Notwithstanding the lateness of the session and the amount of legislation we have on hand, I am sure that if there is a business enterprise in Montreal such as my hon. friend mentions, the House will agree to spare the time to pass legislation authorizing the Minister of Agriculture to take the necessary steps.


Charles Marcil: There are two of these
enterprises in the county of Chambly. The horses are bought at from $8 to $20 a head, and some of them can hardly limp to the abattoir to be knocked down.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: La Patrie has a story about it to-night.
' Mr. MARCIL: They claim that the meat is exported to Sweden, but we have no guarantee that such is the case.


Frank Oliver: I think the minister will realize that this is an emergency.


John Douglas Hazen: When the Agricultural Estimates were before the House on the 26th February last, there was some discussion with regard to the purchase, or 220i
rather the non-purchase, of a property in the county of Carleton for an experimental farm. The hon. member for Carleton made some remarks which reflected on the conduct of two gentlemen ih that county, and suggested that the reason the property was not bought in Carleton county was that ii it had heen a rake-off would have to be paid to Mr. B. P. Smith. I will read what my hon. friend from Carleton said:
I want to make a correction in the statement I made before dinner, because I want the record to be correct in every way. I said the minister had an offer from Mr. Charles L. Smith to sell 500 acres of land in Woodstock-the very best land that could be required for an experimental farm, including all grades of soil for $20,000. I am wrong in that. I think the offer the minister has in his department is $30,000. The difficulty was that another gentleman, this time the postmaster at Woodstock, Mr. Norman W. Winslow, was the medium; he was the commission merchant in this case. Mr. Winslow, and as he stated, my opponent, Mr. B. J. Smith, had to have $10,000 as a rake-off, and therefore if the farmer wanted to sell his farm he was compelled to put the price at $30,000 so that the politicians could get $10,000 as a rake-off; he would get but $20,000 for his farm. These are the facts of the case.
I do not propose to enter into any discussion of the matter, but I have been asked by Mr. Winslow and by Mr. Smith, both of whom are reflected on by this statement, to place side by side with that accusation against them the statements which they make in regard to the matter. On the 28th February I received this telegram from Mr. B. F. Smith:
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa, Ont.
Referring to the discussion in the Commons on the twenty-sixth instant, as reported in Hansard, regarding the purchase of land in New Brunswick for experimental farm, cowardly allusions made to myself by F. B. Carvell are absolutely false in every particular. Would ask for an investigation.
B. F. Smith.
Later on, Mr. Smith wrote me a private letter dated March 4, but in a subsequent letter, dated March 6, he asked me to read his letter of March 4 to the House, as he has nothing to conceal. This letter reads as follows:
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Hazen,
With reference to the statement which appears in ' Hansard,' made by Carvell, regarding the purchase of land in New Brunswick for experimental farm. I beg to say that the statements, so far as I am concerned, are false, in every particular. I cannot see why he should be allowed to get by with that kind of talk. The files of the Minister of Agriculture will show that I never recommended the purchase


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am afraid that the gentleman referred to by my hon. friend, Mr. Winslow, has been in so many little land deals around Woodstock since he became postmaster.


William John Macdonald: Is he the postmaster of Woodstock ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, he is the postmaster at the present time.


William John Macdonald: What does the Postmaster General say about that ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Postmaster General does not care as long as it is a Tory who is doing these things, Mr. Winslow has stated that he was acting for Mr. B. F. Smith. I make no reference now to what Mr. B. F. Smith may have said. But my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries very kindly told me that he had received letters from Mr. Smith and Mr. Winslow which he wanted to read to the House, and, without giving me copies of the letters, he told me that they claimed that the difference between $20,000 and $30,000 included in some way the Upham farm. Inasmuch as the matter might come up in a day or two, I wired to Mr. Smith the general result and I received this letter from him which I purpose placing upon ' Hansard.' Fortunately I have something else beside this, which, I think, will convince the minister that his friends in New Brunswick are very badly muddled over this real estate transfer. I will read the letter first.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What Mr. Smith is this?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is Mr. C. L. Smith, who owned the farm in question:
Woodstock, N. B., March 9, 1914. F. B. Carvell, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Frank:
At your request about the selling of my property for an experimental farm.
Mr. Holyoke, a real estate man of the town of Woodstock, told me that he wanted my farm for an experimental farm as the Government was going to have an experimental farm in the province of New Brunswick. I gave him a price of $20,000 for my farm, Including the Upham interval.
I hope you will remember that Upham interval and Upham farm are two different transactions entirely. The Upham farm originally was^one of the oldest grants on the river St. John, and next south of it was the Smith farm, or the Smith grant. Some years ago, the Upham interval, consisting of about one hundred acres on the Lont of the Upham farm, was sold to Mr. C. L. Smith, who thus owned not only the Smith homestead which had been in the family for 125 years, but the interval in front of the Upham farm.
Afterwards, I was sent for by Mr. Winslow, postmaster of the town of Woodstock, and he made the same request. I told him that Mr. Holyoke was ahead of him. Mr. Winslow said

that Mr. Holyoke could not put the deal through, as he (Mr. Winslow) had B. F. Smith with him.
Mr. B. F. Smith is the gentleman who now controls the patronage of the county.
Mr. Smith having the patronage of the county, and being with Mr. Winslow, I told Mr. Winslow to go ahead that I wanted to sell the farm. My price was $20,000 including the Upham interval, and I did not care which one sold it. Mr. Winslow took the matter up and Mr. Grisdale of the Department of Agriculture was sent here. I was told by Mr. Winslow that Mr. Grisdale would he here, and that I was to ask him $30,000 for the farm of 400 acres, at $75 an acre, including the Upham interval.
Tours truly,
(Sgd) C. L. Smith.
As far as that goes, we simply have the word of one man against another. I would not have made this statement had I had nothing else than simply the ordinary gossip that may go around the neighbourhood, but I have always tried to back up with documents any statement that I have ever made in this House. I have knowledge obtained from a source which, I think, will satisfy even the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that I was justified in making this statement.
During the summer of 1913 a railway company required a certain portion of the Smith farm for right-of-way, and as they could not agree upon the price it went to arbitration. I was Mr. Smith's solicitor and counsel, and naturally Mr. Smith was trying to make his farm as valuable as he could, because like every other landowner he felt that great damage was being done him, and as the value of the farm played some part, it became important, in my opinion, to show the arbitrators everything that could be shown to give them an idea of the value of the farm and the consequent damage caused by the taking of the right-of-way; this being a stock farm and the pasturage being behind the railway. I have here the record of the case which was decided on sworn testimony. Before I had any idea at all of what Mr. Winslow or Mr. B. F. Smith was going to say, Mr. 0. L. Smith, the owner of the farm, gave evidence as to the value of the property. I read from page 29 of the case, part of the evidence of Mr. C. L. Smith:
Q. In your opinion how much will the building of this road across the land as you have described depreciate the saleable value of your property?-A. I say $4,000. I wouldn't have it there for $4,000 if I want to stay there and farm.
Q. Have you had any offers for your farm of late?-A. Yes I had an offer this spring in writing, and one last June, I think.

Q. From whom?-A. Mr. Winslow, postmaster.
Q. Norman Winslow?-A. Yes.
Q. How much?-A. $20,000.
Q. For your whole farm?-A. Yes.


The CHAIRMAN:: With the railway there
or not there?-A. They would have whatever they got from the right of way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did you have any other
offers?-A. Well parties had an option last June for $30,000.
Q. Who did?-A. Mr. Winslow, $75 an acre for 400 acers. No writing about it but he was to have the land for that amount.
Q. Then he came back this year and offered you $20,000?-A. He did.
Q. Did you accept his offer of $20,000?- A. I told him at first that-I didn't understand that he wanted the whole thing, and when he wanted the whole 600 acres I wouldn't let him have it.
Q. How much did you suppose you were offering to sell for the $30,000?-A. The same as a year ago.
Q. How much?-A. 400 acres.
You have there the sworn testimony of Mr. C. L. (Smith given in a case, in which this matter about the $10,000 rakeoff played no part whatever, and he said he offered his land to Mr. Winslow for $30,000, including 400 acres.


John Douglas Hazen: Was there any agreement in writing?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
John Douglas Hazen: Where does he say that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He says that in the
letter.


John Douglas Hazen: That statement is not contained in the evidence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The statement is contained in the evidence that he asked $30,000 for 400 acres, and that 400 acres included his main farm and the Uham interval. Mr. Winslow sees the difficulty he is in and he says now that the $30,000 offer was on account of the George W. Upham farm, but that >farm never was mentioned.


John Douglas Hazen: How do you know?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know it was not because I have the sworn evidence of Mr. C. L. Smith. I will tell my hon. friend more than that. I will tell him that George Upham would be insulted if any one went to him .and asked him to sell his

farm for $9,000 or $10,000; he would not sell the remainder of his farm for $15,000. When Mr. Winslow talks about the George Upham farm being included it is a pure fabrication. Mr. Upham is a client of mine; he was also in the courts and we fought out the matter, and we won, I am happy to say. I would know i(f. George Upham ever had any offers for his farm. There is not .a particle of this gentleman s business for the last ten years that I have not done for him. My own personal knowledge teaches me that the George Upham farm never was mentioned, and never was dreamed of until this matter was brought up and the postmaster saw he was in rather an unpleasant position in Woodstock, and then he writes this letter to the minister, dragging in the George Upham farm in order to account for the $10,000 rakeoff. I do not want to discuss this matter any further in the absence of the gentleman, neither of whom are here, but I think I have given sufficient evidence-the sworn testimony of Mr. C. L. Smith 'before thi3 matter was eveT thought of-to show that the offer he made to (Mr. Grisdale for $30,000 included only the 400 acres of his own farm, and that George Upham's farm never was thought of. I appreciate the position in which Mr. Winslow is. I know that this thing created certain consternation in Woodstock, because a great many people, Conservatives as well as Liberals, believed that if it had not been for the attempt to make a rake-off we would have had the agricultural farm in Woodstock instead of in Fredericton. Naturally, when the matter became known, a good deal of adverse comment was made on it and these gentlemen down there, seeing the box they were in, attempted through the medium of the minister-who I admit is perfectly innocent in the matter-to square the thing and make an explanation, but fortunately we have the sworn evidence of a court of record, given eight or nine months before this thing took place, entirely disproving the whole story. I would say, as a word of advice to my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen), he ought to know both these gentlemen well enough to be a little cautious how he reads letters or telegrams from either of them, to substantiate any proposition which looks a little fishy upon its face.


John Douglas Hazen: It is perfectly clear from what has been stated that my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) has no charge to make against Mr. Frank Smith in connection with this
matter. As the matter appeared on the records of this House, after the statement made by my hon. friend on the 26th of February, any one reading that would come to the conclusion that Mr. Frank Smith, who has been twice a candidate in the county of Carleton, was a party to an arrangement by which an endeavour was being made to obtain a rakeoff of $10,000 on the sale of his farm. The statement of my hon. friend shows that there is absolutely no evidence; that there is absolutely nothing that resembles evidence, to justify any such charge against Mr. Frank Smith. As far as Mr. Smith is concerned there is nothing whatever to in any way reflect upon his conduct in regard to this matter or to show that he had any connection with it in any way whatever.
In regard to the other matter, it would appear from these proceedings, as we have them here to-night, that it is a question of credibility as between Mr Winslow on the one hand and Mr. C. L. Smith on the other.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Sworn testimony.


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. C. L. Smith I know
well, as I also know Mt. Upham and Mr. Winslow well. Knowing Mr. Winslow as I do, I desire to say that I do not believe that Mr. Winslow would deliberately make a statement that was not true in connection with this or any other matteT. I have known him for a great many years and that is the opinion I entertain of him. My hon. friend says there is sworn testimony, but that sworn testimony of Mr. Smith was given in connection with another matter altogether when this question was not under consideration. The only statement to the contrary is that made by my hon. friend, that he has been Mr. Upman's solicitor for years and that, if any such offer had been made, he would know about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does Mr. Winslow
state in his letter that Mr. Upham came to him and offered to sell his farm for $8,000 or $9,000?


John Douglas Hazen: That is what I understand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is simply preposterous.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend may state that it is preposterous. I think I am stating the matter correctly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will prove that it is preposterous.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend may say
that it is preposterous; but my hon. friend was not there. He does not know; he simply says that nothing of this sort could have occurred, because he has been for a good many years past Mr. Upham's solicitor, and therefore he would have known. I do not think that is a logical deduction from the fact that my hon. friend has been Mr. TJpham's solicitor. Mr. Upham might very readily, in connection with his property, have made in the course of conversation offers of which my hon. friend is not aware. Apar.t from that altogether, if we are to believe Mr. C. L. Smith's evidence given at the time as to the. value of the right of way running across his property, we have the statement made ;by Mr. Smith that there was an option on the property, but that that option was not in writing. In that case it would not be an option at all; it would not have the slightest bearing and effect in law if it had not been reduced to writing and signed by the different parties to the agreement. The option, if we call it an option, is simply a verbal one; there is evidence that there had been a conversation between Mr. Winslow and Mr. Smith with regard to this property; and the matter having never been reduced to writing, no contract having ever been entered into, it seems to me it is easily within the range of probability that there was a misunderstanding between these gentlemen as to what the oiler was for, or as to the amount of property embraced in the offer. Under the circumstances, it may be that each gentleman is honestly telling what he believes to be the facts with regard to the matter. We all know that in conversations of this sort, which are not reduced to writing, what mistakes occur, what misunderstandings take place. As I said before, while I am very glad to hear to-night that my [DOT] hon. friend practically exonerates Mr. Frank Smith from any connection with the matter; I might also say that having known Mr. Winslow since we were boys together,
I do not -believe he would make any statement that was not a true one with regard to a matter of this kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I stated in the beginning that I had no evidence that Mr. Frank Smith was implicated, except what Mr. Winslow told Mr. C. L. Smith. I think my hon. friend will find that I made the statement in February that Mr. Winslow said that Mr. Frank Smith was in it.

I did not state that Mr. Frank Smith was in it; I simply stated that Mr. Winslow said that he was. If my hon. friend can take any satisfaction out of that, I gladly give it to him; but I do not want to make any statement or claim about any gentleman at all which might injure him, without being able to prove it to the hilt.
When I come to the Winslow part of the matter, I cannot be so charitable. It is true that my hon. friend says that we have not any evidence here except a verbal statement of one gentleman against the other, and he rather tried to get behind the technical side of it and stated that it was not an option because it was not in writing. I am not arguing that it was a legal option; I am only stating the facts of the case. Mr. Grisdale will be able to tell the minister, if he will ask him, that Mr. C. L. Smith demanded $30,000 for 400 acres of his farm. Mr. 'Smith swore that he was willing to take $20,000 for it. As my hon. friend seems to have such a high opinion of Mr. Smith, and says that this $30,000 offer included Mr. Upham's farm as well, I do not think I am to be blamed if I give a little professional information I have on this matter. Within half an hour after that offer of $30,000 with $10,000 rake-off was made, I was consulted professionally about the matter. I told Mr. C. L. Smith that he was very foolish to be mixed up in any such transaction, because it would lead only to a scandal, and that I thought he had better write a letter to Mr. Grisdale stating that he would accept $20,000 for his farm. I wanted an experimental farm and I did not want any boodling out of it either. If my hon. friend wants an affidavit as to that fact, I can easily get it from the gentleman who gave it to me. I know what I state here is a fact, namely that Mr. Upham's farm was never though of in connection with the matter. All this talk about including the Upton farm to make up the $10,000 is a pure fabrication.


John Douglas Hazen: I can only tell my hon. friend that, knowing Mr. Winslow as I do, I will unreservedly accept his statements about the matter, until the contrary is proved.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Knowing him as well
as I do, I will place no confidence in him at all.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps my hon. friend
will place more confidence in Mr. C. L. Smith.


Martin Burrell: I would like to say to my hon. friend, 'because be made the statement before, that the minister had in his possession an offer of $30,000, $10,000 of which was to be a rake-off, that I have looked into the whole matter and I have no offer whatever on the Smith farm.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was made to Mr. Grisdale personally.


Martin Burrell: What conversation may have taken place between Mr. Grisdale and Mr. Smith I do not know anything About. As to any offer being made to the department, there is no offer at all in the records.
In regard to this item, I might state very briefly how it is made up, so that the hon. members of the committee will be informed. Somewhat over $40,000 of this is planned to be expended, as it has been in the past, in connection with the various winter shows throughout the provinces, including also all the judges of the different shows, whose expenses we pay, the fat-stock shows and stallion shows of each province. The record of performance work is estimated to take about $21,000. In that we have a number of men employed, the breeds of cattle being the Holstein, Ayrshire, Jersey, French Canadian and shorthorn, of which a record is being kept by our different inspectors. The sheep branch takes about $10,000. The poultry division takes about ,$20,000. I shall be very glad to deal with any of the matters that my hon. friends wish to know about a little later on. Then, there i's the horse industry, which takes about $80,000 or $90,000 this year. As regards this, I would like to say a word of explanation to the committee, because it is somewhat of a new departure.
Hon. gentlemen will probably remember that there was a good deal of criticism last year in regard to the action of the department in giving a bonus of $250 apiece for thoroughbred stallions, and it was thought to be somewhat of a discrimination .against other breeds. . On going into the whole matter and studying it as closely as we could in the department, we came to the conclusion that we had better adopt a different system this year. Accordingly we propose to adopt, in connection with this part of the appropriation, a system somewhat similar to that carried on in England and Scotland, with which system some of my hon. friends are probably familiar.
The conditions relating to horse breeding that at present obtain in Canada seem to
warrant the conclusion that the time is opportune for the breeders in each municipality or district to adopt more freely cooperative measures in providing for themselves the service of suitable stallions. It is generally admitted that improvement in breeding methods can be effected most rapidly and conditions permanently remedied by organized effort on the part of the owners of mares. In the past a number of breeders have, by their energy and enterprise, aided greatly in the advancement of the industry, and they deserve every credit for the splendid service they have rendered. Unfortunately, these men have been comparatively few in number and the business has not progressed, therefore, as rapidly as could be desired. It is now felt that by judicious and systematic assistance horse breeding as an industry can be greatly stimulated and benefited. Except in the more favoured districts, improvement in breeding practice has been hindered hitherto through the lack of such concerted action as would enable the farmers to procure and retain the services of good breeding sires. In a majority of sections, breeders wishing to grade up their horses are forced to use whatever stallions may by chance stand for service in their district. Many of these are faulty in conformation and lack in quality, while others, though of better type, remain, either through insufficient patronage or because of failure to leave colts, but a single season in each district. The fact also that there has been no systematic adherence to the use of one breed suggests another reason for the lack of progress in the breeding of high class animals.
It must be recognized, further, that the owner of a valuable horse, after paying for maintenance, insurance, interest on investment and the expense entailed in the collection of his fees, has frequently little left from his outlay, particularly in districts where he has to compete with grade and scrub stallions standing for service at a very low fee. As a result, really high class stallions can be maintained only in districts where the breeding of horses has been given serious and progressive attention. In view of these considerations it is proposed to enter upon a policy which may serve to place the horse breeding industry in Canada in a position comparable to that which it has attained in Great Britain and other European countries. It is believed that by encouraging the organization of breeders' clubs and by enabling such clubs to procure the services of good breeding stallions


David Warnock: Is it the policy of the department to discontinue the bonus?


Martin Burrell: Yes-discontinue it to
one special breed, but applying this method to all breeds, believing that it will have in the long run as beneficial effect upon thoroughbreds as upon other breeds, and put the whole on a fairer footing.


David Warnock: Will that interfere with the remount policy of which the Minister of Militia spoke?


Martin Burrell: Not necessarily at all.
Because, as I understand the proposal,-

though I would not undertake to discuss it at this time-it is not finally decided, or if it is decided I would prefer that the Minister of Militia should discuss it. I understand that it is left open for the Government to purchase from any farmer as before.


David Warnock: I am sorry the Minister of Militia is not here; but this matter can be taken up again. I understood this breeding ranch will be handed over to the National Bureau of Horsebreeding. And I understand that the National Bureau, the owners of this ranch, undertake to purchase the progeny of these ibonused thoroughbred stallions and develop them on the ranch. I think that the doing away with the bonus might interfere with that.


Martin Burrell: 
David Warnock: Would the minister state what price he paid for the horses he purchased from Mr. Lane?


Martin Burrell: Our price was $600, the maximum price that we pay.


David Warnock: I know Mr. Lane's stud of horses very well. He has imported some of the very best Percheron horses that could be purchased in France, and when he took that price for these horses he sold at a very great sacrifice. I know that for the past five or six years he has been selling these home-bred Percheron stallions at from $1,000 to $1,600 each. I have bought a horse from him for which I paid $1,600. I think it was simply his

public-spiritedness that induced him to sell these stallions at that price. He did it for the purpose of keeping out inferior low grade scrubs that would have been brought in had he not agreed to sell those horses to the department, and I think it was an act of very marked public spiritedness on his part. I am very much surprised to hear that he would accept that price.


Martin Burrell: It is well to hear that there are public-spirited men who will sell at a sacrifice for the public good.
In the matter of prices paid for Canadian-bred stallions, as compared with those for imported stock, and for Canadian-bred stallions sold at several sales held during the past winter and spring, some figures are given in a table which I shall place on ' Hansard.' It should not be forgotten in a comparison of these prices with those paid by the branch, that the former provide for a credit of six months or a year, while the latter represent cash payment. At the sales reported considerable paper had to be accepted, it being stated in one case that not a dollar was paid over at the time of purchase. The figures are as follows:
Regina sale, March, 1914 :
No. of stallions sold, 11.
Highest Price. Lowest Price. Average.
	$850	$437 50	$563	50
Calgary sale:				
Clydesdales .	700	475	554	00Percherons .	535	300	387	00
Total average, $504.
Both these were credit sales.
Toronto Union stock yards sale:
No. of stallions sold, 5.
Highest Price. Lowest Price. Average.
$480	$165	$295
Two imported stallions brought $480 and $250 respectively.
A particularly good Canadian-bred, from imported stock, brought $310.
The offering was considerably the best ever offered at this sale.
Smith Palls sale:
No. of stallions sold, 5.
Highest Price. Lowest Price. Average.
$340	$165	$234
This does not include a yearling colt which was sold for $80.
I think it quite desirable to place these figures on record showing that although we might fix our maximum price at a higher rate, on the whole the department thinks itself justified, at present at least, in fixing the price it has fixed. The figures at these sales that I have read would seem to justify our price.


David Warnock: When this item was up last year I did not offer any criticism.

I felt ut the time that it was best to await the practical working out of the policy. My reason for offering a few criticisms tonight is that I have had quite a lot of letters from breeders and farmers in the West pointing out that the policy is not at present satisfactory. I do not wish to be misunderstood and so I would point out that I am not opposed to the farmers of the West, or even of the East, if they cannot get good sires, receiving Government aid. But I think there is a better method than the purchasing of these Canadian bred sires. I think that the maximum price is $600. I do not believe that a stallion, suitable for a sire, can be bought for that price. Pehaps it is possible just at the present time, tout in past years it would not have been possible because I find that the Ontario breeders and breeders from south of the line have brought a great many stallions into Alberta and Saskatchewan in the past eight or nine years and they have been selling those horses, in some cases for cash in other cases on two or three years' credit at prices ranging from $1,500 to $4,500.


Martin Burrell: Prices on the average
horse, as my hon. friend knows, have decreased quite a lot.
Mr. WARNOCK; I have quite a number of cases in mind where they sold as high as $4,500. We have had in the past altogether too many low grade stallions in the western provinces. I think the hon. member for South Ontario will agree with me in that. We have altogether too many low grade stallions, and I think the federal Government is doing a good deal towards perpetuating the use of these low-priced horses by our farmers. The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and, I think, Ontario are doing everything in their power to discourage the use of these low grade stallions. In some of the provinces the stallion ordinances have recently been made very rigid and I know that in Alberta it is proposed to take steps, perhaps at the next session of the Legislature, to amend the stallion ordinance and make it much more drastic. The minister has said that his department proposes to purchase Canadian bred sires. I do not quite understand how that would effect the proposal to have a community system.


Martin Burrell: I do not think they would conflict at all. We are not going to purchase the stallions at all. That will be a matter for the clubs or associations. As some farmers are not in a position to pay

for the use of a first-class stallion, we are offering to pay to these clubs twenty-five per cent of the fee to encourage the farmers to patronize the best horses.


David Warnock: Would that twenty-five per cent be paid to the executive of the association?


Martin Burrell: To the secretary.


David Warnock: Not direct to the stallion's owner?


Martin Burrell: No, the association would have to pay him.


David Warnock: 
Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: Why would not the horses bred from imported sires be as good as the sires imported?


David Warnock: I will explain to my hon. friend. My experience has been-and I think it is the experience of every breeder
in Canada-that in order to keep the progeny up to the standard of excellence you must, from time to time, import pure bred stock from the land of origin of these animals, whether it is horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, or any other kind of live-stock. You must get in fresh blood. I think every breeder in this House will agree with me on that.


Martin Burrell: Does not my hon. friend agree that it would be better for the individual breeders to import stock for their own establishments?


David Warnock: quest the Hon. Martin Burrell, Dominion Minister of Agriculture, not to distribute any stallions in Alberta.
That resolution was passed almost without a dissenting voice on the 13th April, just about the time of the Calgary spring show.
Then, I have an excerpt here from a paper published in my own constituency, the High River Times, a paper which is not at all unfriendly to the present Government. I presume the editor penned this after the meeting of the Calgary Stockbreeders' Association. It is as follows:
Discouraging Breeders.
If the Dominion Department of Agriculture had for its object the improvement of livestock throughout the country they have evidently missed their mark. During the past year many stallions and bulls have been shipped here in Ontario, and placed in different communities where the homesteader had the privilege of using them. The idea would be a popular one if the class of stock being distributed were as good as Alberta bred and stock from the old country. There has been better stock imported into this province during the last ten years than in any other part of Canada, and it is to be regretted that importers and breeders of Alberta should be so discouraged m the laudable work in which they are engaged.
We understand that $600 is the highest price the department officials will pay Alberta breeders for their pure-bred stallions, and as a result very few choice animals are obtained. The outcome is that an inferior class of breeding stock is being distributed among the farmers. As an evidence of the unpopularity of the move, we may cite the instance of the horse breeders' meeting last week at Calgary, where practically every man present opposed the scheme.


Mr. MORRISON:: Is the Horse Breeders' Association of Alberta not largely composed of the importers of horses?


David Warnock: All the members, perhaps, have imported horses, hut a number of them have imported horses for their own use, <not for sale. Others are both importers and breeders'.


Martin Burrell: I would like to say very frankly that I could read scores and scores of resolutions from aJil over the West conveying a diametrically opposite opinion, but I do not want to go into a controversial discussion to-night. I think that my hon. friend's own criticisms are very fair, but when it comes to statements of this kind it must 'be' Temembered that sometimes resolutions are engineered and sometimes there is a misunderstanding as- to the work that is being done. I do not think that statement reflects' the general opinion off the people of the West.


David Warnock: Of course, the policy
has not been very long in vogue I want to be fair. I am referring to draught stallions. With bulls 'and rams any harm that may be done by a poor sire is very soon eliminated by sending the animals to the block as soon as they are in condition. But it is a different thing with a house. I have seen tery few of the sires sent out by the department, hut this year I intend to see as many as possible and form my own opinion. I believe that the minister will give my suggestions a little thought. I hope he will agree with me that the policy of bonusing good, heavy draught sires in the way that the department Rais been bonusing thoroughbreds in the past will be of far greater benefit to the horse-breeding interests of the West. I have no objection to the bonusing of thoroughbreds; we have a great scarcity of saddle horses and drivers in the West, but if the thoroughbreds should be bonused, the good heavy draught sires ought to be bonused as well.


William John Macdonald: In Tegard to this
question of assistance to better stock breeding, I would like to say to the minister that in my province, as in most of the eastern provinces, we have had for a long period of years a system of agricultural societies in which men meet together and, with a good deal of public spirit, devote themselves to the improvement of stock. I would like to point out to him in all kindness that in dealing with this question of the improvement of stock he ought to utilise this condition. I was very much surprised-personally I do not Tegard it as of any political significance or as being a disadvantage to me politically-to find that the Conservative local member for my constituency, during the winter, was writing letters to the newspapers announcing this policy of my hon. friend and putting it on as if it were some political arrangement. Letters from my county are to the effect that Conservative farmers are grouping themselves together and applying to my hon. friend to get a bonus for the stock.


Martin Burrell: We are not carrying it out along those lines.


William John Macdonald: That is what is going on. I do not regard it as being of any political disadvantage to me because any one foolish enough to be engaged in that silly business would not he elected in the constituency I represent. If the minister is really desirous of making the proposition

a success in our province, we have these organizations that have gone along entirely on non-political lines where men have worked together for the general benefit and if he is in a position to utilise these local agricultural societies he might supplement what is being done by the various provincial governments. Imported stock has been brought into all the provinces in the East, and, in connection with these agricultural societies, there has been a great deal of stock improvement. I think that the minister, if he would act along these lines, would be able to accomplish some good results by supplementing the efforts of the provincial Government.
I take advantage of this opportunity to call the minister's attention to another matter. A -friend of mine, Mr O. S. Campbell, K.C., of Montreal, has been largely interested in horse breeding. He is a well known gentleman who for a long time occupied a high position at the Bar. Becoming interested in the breeding of horses he has devoted himself to matters in connection with that line. He had some correspondence with the minister in regard to the matter. This correspondence was brought down in response to a motion for a return. Although I do not profess to be anything in the way of an expert in regard to this question, the correspondence which he had with the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Agriculture discloses what I think is a very ,grave defect in regard to the importation of pure bred stock into this country. The minister is familiar with the customs regulation which provides that no thoroughbred stock can be imported for the purpose of improving of stock breeding unless it is accompanied with a certificate from the National Association of Canada or some other association of like standing. Last year Mr. C. S. Campbell communicated with the Department of Customs in regard to this matter and stated that it was his desire and intention to bring in a thoroughbred mare from the United States. He wanted to bring her in free of duty. He wrote to the department for information and they sent him a copy of the customs regulation. I quote from his letter:
I am advised by the accountant of the National Live Stock Records at Ottawa that the American studbook of thoroughbred horses does not come within the list of recognized thoroughbred records, and I infer from his letter that the English, French, and Australian studbooks would come under the same ban.
If that statement is correct it seems incredible that some Canadian organization should undertake to decree that the certificates or studbooks of every English, French, Australian or American Association of horse-breeders would not be sufficient to permit entry into Canada of a thoroughbred horse free of duty. He goes on to say:
I was under the impression that the amendment to the regulations had been made with the object of facilitating the import of thoroughbred horses, but if books such as the English, American, and Australian Studbooks, which are recognized all over the world, are not placed by the National Record Committee in the class of books of record recognized as reliable, it is obvious that the importing of thoroughbred horses has not been made any easier by the amended regulations.
1 would be obliged if you would let me know whether it is the intention of the Customs Department, under the authority conferred by the minister as to the forms, that a British subject who presents at a port of entry an animal unquestionably thoroughbred, and who also presents registration certificates from such a book as the English, or American studbook, and makes the affidavit required, should be prevented from getting his free entry by the fact that the National Records Committee declines to certify that the English and American studbooks are recognized as reliable authorities.
To that letter my friend Mr. Campbell received the following from Mr. Me-Dougald, the Commissioner of Customs:
In reply I am to state that under the regulations as formulated by the Government regarding free importation of animals for the improvement of stock, it is necessary on each importation to furnish a certificate stating that the animal is recorded in the Canadian National Records or in a foreign record recognized as reliable by the National Records Committee.
Of course, that left the matter as it was, and apparently Mr. Campbell approached the Department of Agriculture, and it does not appear from this correspondence, but from what he tells me personally, he has not been able to get any change from that interpretation which, to use his own language, puts under the ban the certificate from the English, Australian and American studbooks. He writes to the Minister of Customs, and, after referring to the fact that he had received this letter from the Commissioner, he says:
It appears that I am by the Order in Council entitled to enter an animal duty free if I furnish an import certificate stating that the animal is recorded in a Canadian National record or in a foreign record recognized as reliable by the Canadian National Record Committee.
This proposition seemed to me to be absolutely fair and calculated to remove some serious difficulties that lay in the way of importers under the previous regulations. It never oc-cured to me, nor do I believe now, that it was the intention of the Government in passing the Order in Council that I should be placed in the power of the National Record Committee to-

exercise its duty of recognizing a foreign record as reliable or refusing it as a mere instrument to obstruct the importation of stock.
Probably ninety per cent or more of the thoroughbred stock in Canada are registered in the American studbook, a book which is recognized as reliable throughout the civilized world. Those who do not trace to this book, trace to the British studbook, a book, if possible, of still higher standing.
The Canadian Thoroughbred Register, which seems to be controlled by the National Record Committee, takes up the pedigree of an animal out of the British or American studbook and continues it, and it is inconceivable therefore that in good faith the National Record Committee could refuse to recognize the British and Amerian studbooks as reliable.
On application, however, to the accountant of the Canadian Live Stock Records, he advises me as follows:-'The accompanying booklet, (a pamphlet printed by Taylor Brothers, Queen street, Ottawa, Canada, 1913) beginning on page 37 shows a list of Canadian books of record, and beginning on page 39 is a list of recognized foreign books of record, consequently the American studbook does not come under the list of recognized foreign records.' A very widely signed petition was sent to the Minister of Agriculture from this district, signed by importers and breeders of thoroughbred stock, and by members of the Montreal Jockey Club representing that the difficulty of getting thoroughbred stock were enormously increased by the obstacles that were placed in the way of the would-be importer by the then existing regulations, and it has been understood that the new Order in Council was intended to accede to their wishes and to enable the purchaser of a thoroughbred animal abroad to bring it with certificates which showed it to be a thoroughbred to the port of entry and there to fmter it free of duty if the certificate was the certificate of a reliable foreign book of record, the importer making affidavit as to the identity of the animal.
You will see that the present attitude of th [DOT]National Record Committee makes such i system impossible and remits the importer ti the same position of difficulty that he stood ii before the new regulations.
My friend Mr. Campbell also addressed the Minister of Agriculture and practically at the^ same time he received a letter from the Minister of Customs acknowledging the receipt of this letter and stating that his letter had been transferred to the Minister of Agriculture. He wrote the Minister of Agriculture in the following terms, under date 30th May, 1913:
Montreal, May 13, 1913.
The Honourable,
The Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir:
I have the honour to enclose you herewith for your information copy of letter sent by me this day to Mr. D, Macrae of Guelph, a director of the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society.
It struck me as peculiar that a gentleman in Mr. Macrae's position saw no further into the question than to suggest that a difficulty about the fees was at the bottom of the discussion.

Anybody who knows Mr. Campbell knows what a splendid personal character he is and how truly unselfish he has been in regard to this question of stock, and indeed in every walk of life, and they will agree that for any one to think that he was quibbling about a question of fees is simply ridiculous. The letter continues:
I have been at some pains to endeavour to make it clear to him that this is not so, and it occurred to me that it might be advantageous to importers in this province if you had the same information before you.
I am to-day in receipt of a letter from the accountant of the Canadian National Live Stock Records which I frankly confess I am unable to understand. The Order in Council certainly^ grants free entry to animals that are recorded in the Canadian register or in a register recognized as reliable by the National Record Committee. This committee's accountant writes me 'It is not within the jurisdiction of the Record Committee to say in connection with the issuing of import certificates for free customs entry that the English, French, American or Australian Thoroughbred Studbooks are recognized foreign records. The reason of this is that these records are taken care of by the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society.
Upon what authority the National Board Committee can transfer its authority to the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society, I do not know. Colonel Hendrie, president of the society, admits that his register is obstructing duty free importations. If the National Record Committee has abdicated its functions and allows its accountant to remain under the impression that the business is to he taken care of by the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society it is quite easy to see how and why my importations are obstructed and also to make it clear that except action be taken by yourself I shall be left without any other remedy than to pay the duty and endeavour to recover the cost of it from Mr. Brant.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
C. S. Campbell.
The Minister of Agriculture is familiar with this matter, and all the correspondence I need not read in detail. But finally on the 30th of July last year Mr. Campbell wrote to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture:
I have parted with ' Long Ago,' the mare I had in the States, and have made arrangements to return ' Brynwood ' to the States. Will you kindly, therefore, return me the certificate I sent you in mine of July 8.
So far as I can see it the situation is such that there is no inducement to attempt to bring in new stock and a great many reasons for not attempting it, and as without new stock the possibility of meeting the American competition on an equal footing is taken away from us, I have concluded to give up breeding in Canada.
Mr. Campbell is a son of Sir Alexander Campbell, former Minister of Justice of Canada. Mr. Campbell is animated by the highest motives, and no one would think of

attributing to him any selfish idea in regard to the matter. Having leisure and means at his command, he laudably, with the idea of improving horse-breeding in Canada, entered into importing thoroughbred stock and raising thoroughbred animals. When he did so he found that by the operation of the Order in Council, when he went to England and when he went to the United States and got mares or stallions, the status of which was recognized by the studbooks of those countries, and brought them into Canada, he could not get them in free of duty, and was thus debarred from the encouragement which the country ought to give to the importation of stock of that kind. As a consequence, after going into horsebreeding for a year or two, he went out of it altogether. Not being an expert in this business and not speaking from that stand point, but having heard Mr. Campbell's story personally, having read his correspondence, knowing that there is no possibility of misrepresentation so far as he is concerned, I think that, if the condition of affairs, as asserted by Mr. Campbell, exists in Canada to-day, it is the duty of the minister to remedy it. I would like to hear from the minister his explanation of the case made out by Mr. Campbell in these letters; and whether or not, if that condition exists, he cannot by an amendment to the Order in Council provide some remedy so that a man who wants to do what Mr. Campbell evidently wanted to do may not be prevented-by some arbitrary and foolish regulation from doing so.


Martin Burrell: It is a pretty familiar
subject; and, as my hon. friend knows, and probably some other hon. members know, the brief that he has given to the House now on this matter is of precisely the same character as that placed in the hands of Senator Casgrain and read in the Senate a short time ago.


William John Macdonald: I did not know.


Martin Burrell: Yes. The whole matter has been gone into just as fully in the Senate; and as a result of that, a special committee of the Senate has been appointed to thresh the matter out in detail, and witnesses are to be summoned. At all events, Mr. Campbell is to be given the fullest opportunity to come here and have the matter gone into thoroughly Whether or not he has availed himself of that opportunity, I do not know. I would not like to go into the whole story. I quite agree 221
with my hon. friend that we are not disputing Mr. Campbell's honesty of purpose in this matter; but it is a case where one particular view has seized his mind and the department holds another view and we -cannot see eye to eye. I believe that Mr. Campbell, in his desire to get animals in here free of duty, has refused to conform to certain regulations, amongst which are that, when we have in Canada a national record system for any particular breed, an animal of that particular -breed that is imported, has to be registered here. As I understand it, Mr. Campbell will not do that. I might also point out-I think I am right -in this: I shall be corrected probably by my hon. friend if I am wrong-that the Government of the United States would not allow a man to bring an animal from this country duty free into the United States, unless it were registered in our Canadian record of that particular breed, whatever it m-ight be.
There was another very strong grievance of Mr. Campbell, namely, that he did not want to conform to our regulations, because they required that when a man imported an animal from the United States, he had to furnish a certificate of identity so satisfactory that it had been backed up by the transfers -showing the number of hands through which the animal had passed. It i-s particularly desirable that this should be done, because there are a great many horses syndicated in the West that have been brought in there ostensibly with certain registration -certificates which -can sometimes be -obtained pretty easily; people have been gulled; and no responsible party -can be got hold of -should the animal prove to be absolutely worthless. I think my -hon. friend (Mr. Warnook) w-ill bear me out in that. There has been a very strong request from every one interested -in the horse industry to have a system of identification so complete that the horse industry in this country will be thoroughly -covered. In some of these matters Mr. Campbell did not see eye to eye with the department. I do not profess to have sufficient legal training -to see all the fine points -of the matter; but the conclusion come to by myself and toy the officers of the department who were interested was that we could not take any action.
Mr.. MACDONALD:	I do not profess to
be an expert on this matter; but, on reading these- documents, it strikes me as an anomaly that there -should be any authority in Canada that will say: You can not



regard an animal coming into Canada as being thoroughbred in the sense that it may be imported free of duty, although the animal has a certificate of the English or the American or the Australian register. Why should not such a certificate toe sufficient?


Martin Burrell: That is not altogether the po:nt, although it may be one point. The policy has been laid down that Canada is now b.'g enough and important enough from a breeding standpoint to stand on its own feet and to have a national record system of its own. It is to the interest of ever}' one who wants to benefit by bringing in a breed of any kind to have a Canadian reg:ster of that particular breed. If a man gets a horse of a particular breed from somewhere else, he must have it registered on our Canadian books as well. On that point, however, my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Smith), if I am wrong, will be able to put me right. The subject is a rather involved one.


Mr. WILLIAM SMITH:: In the first
place, I wish to congratulate the Department of Agriculture upon the way in which the live-stock industry is being managed at the present time. A great deal of life has been thrown into the Department, of Agriculture within the last few years, which I think is having its effect upon the breeders and farmers of Canada from one end of the country to the other.
As far as the objections raised by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Warnock) are concerned, I would say that, whilst he was very moderate in his expressions- and I would, expect that from a gentleman of his standing and of his knowledge of Northwest conditions-I cannot altogether agree with him. In the first place I take it that the object of the department is to supply outlying districts, namely, where Canadian bred horses are being used and travelled, as is done in many places in the [DOT] West and in Ontario. Price does not mean everything in connection with a horse of this description, so that I do not think a great deal of harm can be done. There is this to be said, namely, that the policy of the Government is helping the farmers and the breeders of that class of horses, and they are getting a fair price for them. Therefore, I would scarcely believe Mr. Lane, as I know him, to be actuated altogether by sentiment in selling his colts for $600 each. In regard to the resolutions that were read,-1 think I see the hand of 
an old and prominent breeder of the province of Alberta. I refer to Mr. John A. Turner. When representations were made to Mr. Lane after the sale was effected, complaining that he had made it, his answer was that he was running his own business and running it in his own way. If the policy of my hon. friends opposite were carried out, instead of breeding these horses by our own people in the different provinces, the matter would be transferred altogether to another country, and there would be no object at all in a breeder crossing an animal so that it could be recorded in our registers, because there would be no special sale for such an animal. There animals have to be bought for Ontario in Ontario as long as they last; for Alberta, out of the province of Alberta; for Saska'chewan, the same, and so on in the other provinces. If there is not a sufficient number in a province, then the perple can go outside the provinces in order to get the balance.


David Warnock: When there is a good
imported horse in the district, would not my hon. friend believe that that horse might be used without bringing in an outsider if arrangements could be made with the owner?


William Smith: If I understand the policy aright the department would not send a horse to a section where there was already an imported horse.


David Warnock: I think that for this
year in a portion of the district south of Macleod application has been made for a stallion. I understand they wanted a Percheron, but they were informed by the department that a Percheron could not be sent, but the department could get them a Clyde. I believe there is a very excellent imported horse in the district, and I know that within thirty miles from Macleod there are a number that could probably ibe got for a small bonus added to the fee.


Martin Burrell: 
David Warnock: I assume that. But the policy is not being carried out quite in the way the minister has indicated. In that Macleod district I want them to get a good stallion and not have some scrub sent in there, because there are a lot of valuable mares and it would be regrettable to have a scrub sire get into the district.


William Smith: 
William John Macdonald: Does not he propose to record it when it comes in?


William Smith: No, that is one of the difficulties. One of the very strong positions taken by every association is that every animal must be identified. Mr. Campbell says that that is an utter impossibility. But we do not have any other record, finding fault or complaining. We say that unless every animal is identified, we lose the goodness of our records. Take, for instance, the Thoroughbred Association, of which, no doubt, at one time, he may have been a member. The matter was brought by Mr. Campbell before that association, of whieii Mr. William Hendry was the president.


William John Macdonald: Colonel William
Hendry, of Hamilton?


Air. SMITH:: Yes. In connection with that I wish to read Colonel Hendry's reply, which covers the whole ground:
The executive committee are fully advised as to the situation and the determined efforts on the part of Mr. C. S. Campbell to obtain his object through channels which might only inform your department of Mr. Campbell's side of the situation. I, therefore, was instructed to write you a personal letter giving you the personal view of the officers of the society. Briefly, the position is as follows: It is well to remember that when the society was formed, and when it was made a national one like other

breeds of live-stock, all the prominent breeders were in favour of the change, some of them largely interested and who had been both breeding and racing for many years before Mr. Campbell became identified m a similar capacity. Therefore, at this stage, why should not the past experience of these gentlemen and those comprising the society to-day, be of sufficient importance to warrant the affairs of the society being properly conducted? Mr. Campbell desires to have the privilege of bringing his animals into Canada 4 free of duty,' without recording such animals in the National Live Stock Records and paying the recording fee in the Stud Book of same. If his ground is well taken and his action supported by those in authority in your department, or any other department of the Government, then the whole system of importation of pure bred live-stock Into this country is nullified, and the breeding interests will receive such a setback as they will never recover from.
Mr. Campbell has stated in a letter to me that the society seeks to put obstructions in the way of importing into this country, pure bred live-stock. This is a serious charge, and one which, as president of the society, I desire most strongly to disagree with. On the other hand, if your department were to follow the advice of Mr. Campbell^ and some others from his province, the absurdity of his contentions would only be exceeded by the serious damage it would do to the breeding interests, not only of all breeds of horses but of other live-stock breeds.
The Record Committee published a list of Canadian records and all information pertaining thereto, and a list of recognized foreign records in their annual report which is spread broadcast to breeders, and may be obtained by any one else who may apply. Many foreign records, while on the list of recognized records issued by the United States Government, are not recognized in their entirety. An importer cannot tell whether animals are entitled to free entry into the United States until their pedigrees 9-re passed on by the authorities at Washington. While, generally speaking, all thoroughbred horses are admitted free to the United States, the Jockey Club, New York, practise a system of protection by making registration in their book compulsory within a certain period by a fine of $100. Transfers mean a chain of title to prove identity and prevent fraud by substitution. There has never been any difficulty with horses from Great Britain, as the Stud Book authorities in England issue an export certificate for all animals leaving the country, which absolutely proves his identity and ownership.
The first customs regulations in reference to the free importation of animals for breeding purposes came into effect on October 1, 1870. As to identification of animals, they .were as stringent as those of the present time. In the case of a thoroughbred horse, a certificate of purity of blood, a certificate of identity signed and sworn to by the importer and a certificate of registration in either the English or American book was required.
The National Record Board exists by an agreement with the Department of Agriculture.
The Record Committee has never declined to perform the functions delegated to it.
The Government, by incorporating the Cana-
IMr. Smith.]
dian Thoroughbred Horse Society, does not delegate to the National Record Committee authority to say whether the English, American, Australian, French or any other stud book is reliable.
The Customs regulations memo. 1713b and 1750b plainly state that if there be a Canadian record for the breed an animal must be entered therein.
An importer, before purchasing, can obtain from the National Record office information as to the eligibility of any animal.
Transfer of title is necessary to prove identity. The basis of all reliable records is the. transfer of animals when sold. Without transfers you might as well accept every man's private record and abandon National Records.
No difficulty exists but with horses from the United States. The American Thoroughbred Stud Book does not enforce any system of transfers. The American Stud Book has been described as having a foundation of sand. Only horses that are noted performers on race tracks can be identified by race track officials or race track followers. Canadian purchasers of American horses on American tracks are in tho same position as American purchasers of Canadian horses on American tracks. Canadian registration is required for Canadian horses entering the United States free of duty. It is doubtful if it is not illegal to change to a free entry for breeding purposes, a race horse that is under bond to be returned to the country from whence it came.
Most British and continental records were established because of exportations to foreign countries, principally to Canada and the United States. American records were established in many cases prior to those in the country where the breeds originated.
The National Record has passed the experimental stage. The paid membership reaches almost 10,000 persons and the number of people doing business with the National Record office is probably 35,000.
Pedigree registration is mostly based on honesty among breeders. The honest breeder insists on the most stringent regulations for his protection.
Animals already in the country at the time of inception of any record have the same system of identification applied to them as those that may come in later.
The progeny of unidentified animals upon which the duty has been paid, cannot be recorded.
If a mare is brought into the country in foal, is unidentified and duty paid, the foal cannot be registered until the mare is identified.
This pretty plainly shows the work of the Record Board and of the Record Committee and what is demanded. If any one thing was given up in connection with thoroughbred horses and their registration, everything in connection with it might as well go. There must be the identification of the animal in every case.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Saturday.

350b
Monday, May 11, 1914.