1914-03-17

Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved:: That a Select Committee composed of Messrs. Baker, BClarid, Boyer, Bradbury, Burrell, Hazen, Kyte, Lesperance, McKay, McCraney. Molloy, Murphy, Northrup, Sevigny, Warnoek and Wilson (Wentworth), be appointed to inquire into the prevention of the pollution of navigable waters and to consider all matters relating thereto, with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.
He said: Hon. gentlemen will remember that a committee of this character was appointed at the last session of the House. That committee held a number of meetings and made a report to the House recommending that the Government be requested to call during the recess, a convention composed of the members of the committee, of representatives of the different provinces of Canada, of representatives of the International Waterways Commission and of representatives of the Conservation Commission, for the purpose of discussing this matter with a view of seeing what joint action might be taken between the provinces and the Dominion. That convention was called and met in the city of Ottawa on October 30 last. There were present the following representatives: the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), Chairman of the Committee of the House on the subject, the hon. member for McLeod (Mr. Warnoek), and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Baker); representing the province of Manitoba-Hon. Mr. Howden, At-

torney General; Prince Edward Island- Hon. Mr. Mathieson, Premier; British Columbia-Hon. William R. Ross, Minister of Lands; Quebec-Dr. E. P. Lachapelle, President of the Provincial Board of Health; Mr R S Lea, member of the Provincial Board of Health, and Dr. E. Elzear Pelletier, Secretary of the Provincial Board of Health; Saskatchewan-Mr. P. Aird Murray, Civil Engineer, and Dr. Maurice M. Seymour, Commissioner of Public Health; New Brunswick-Hon. Mr. Flemming, Premier; International Joint Commission Mr. C. A. Magrath and Mr. H. A. Powell,
K C. * Conservation Commission-Mr. James White and Dr. A. Hodgetts. Mr. Thomas P Owens was appointed secretary of the conference. There were no representatives present, I regret to say, from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia.
A good deal of discussion took place with regard to matters of public health in so far as navigable waters are concerned, and with regard to the jurisdiction of the respective provinces and of the federal authorities. It was brought prominently to the attention of the convention that the matter of the pollution of navigable streams constituting international boundaries was being considered by the Internationa Waterways Commission. It was very strongly pointed out that the question of the pollution of navigable waters is, brought down to its final analysis, a matter for international consideration and international agreement. In a great many cases the pollution of navigable waters in Canada is caused by towns 'and villages situated on waterways which form part of the international boundary line, such as the at. Lawrence river, the Detroit river, the waterways of the Great Lakes, the rivers St. John and St. Croix in the province of New Brunswick, land others. In order, therefore, that any regulations which might be passed with a view to preventing the pollution of these streams should be effective, it is necessary that similar legislation should be enacted by both countries, because if legislation were enacted by one country and not by another, while there might be some mitigation of the evil that undoubtedly exists, there would not be any effective means of totally doing away with
the source of trouble.
All these matters were discussed at the convention and the following resolutions adopted:
Moved by Mr. Howden, Manitoba, seconded by Mr. Flemming, New Brunswick:
This conference views with great satisfaction the study now being made, through the medium Of the International Joint Commission, appointed under the treaty between the United States and Canada of the 11th January, 1909, of the subject of the Pollution of International Waterways.
That the secretary be instructed to send a copy of the resolution to the International Joint Commission.
A resolution was also moved by Mr. Pelletier, of Quebec, seconded by Mr. Flemming, commending the valuable services rendered by Mr. Bradbury in relation to the prevention of the pollution of navigable waters and expressing appreciation of the efforts of the Special Committee of the House of Commons in reference to Bill No. 2 of the session of 1912-13. The conference suggested that a similar parliamentary committee should meet this session to continue the investigation. Another resolution, moved by Dr. Lachapelle, of Quebec, seconded by Mr. Seymour, of Saskatchewan, reads as follows:
Whereas in the past questions affecting sanitation and public health, to be dealt with concurrently by the federal and provincial authorities, amongst others the question ot protecting water courses from pollution, have suffered from the non-existence of a federal
department of health ;	.
This conference considers that the erection of a federal department of public health might well receive the early attention of the Dominion Government.
This conference believes that such a department would be of assistance in solving interprovincial problems as to the protection of public health.
Addresses were made by different gentlemen present, including specialists on the subject representing the provincial health authorities of the province of Quebec, one of the resolutions, as I have said, recommended the appointment of a committee at the present session to inquire into the pollution of navigable streams, and it" is in line with that recommendation that the appointment of this committee is now asked for. Until the report of the International Waterways Commission, which is investigating the pollution of international waters, is received, probably no progress can be made. But when we get that report, with the evidence of all the experts, it is hoped that with the co-operation of this committee and of this Parliament some practical solution may be worked out to remedy what is undoubtedly a very groat evil and a great menace to the public health of Canada to-day. Some of the rivers and water courses of this country are being used simply as receptacles for

sewage, and their efficacy for domestic pur- ends with that condemnation and that poses is to a large extent being destroyed, nothing is being done to remedy the evil two Bills in regard to this matter are complained about. I could name some now before Parliament. The one intro- cities in other provinces in the same posi-duced by Senator Belcourt has passed the tion. It is a difficult question to deal with, Upper Chamber, and has been sent down I admit; but what are governments for if to this House for consideration. I think not to deal with difficult questions? This that Bill should be referred to this com- is not a matter affecting one party or the mittee for further consideration, and also other; it affects the lives and health of our the Bill introduced by the hon. member for people, and we are not showing a full belkirk (Mr. Bradbury). It is for these appreciation of our responsibility if we
reasons I am moving the resolution asking for the appointment of this committee.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM: Does not my hon. friend think there may be a disposition throughout the country to question the usefulness of the House of Commons if pass a Bill already passed bv -he Senate? I know the reverse of that has occurred. Sometimes the action of the Senate has been questioned because it wished to refer to the people themselves a measure passed by this House, and we must be careful not to get the House of Commons in a similar position.
This is a question of more than ordinary importance, and it has been before the public of Canada for a great many years. It will be .admitted that the International Waterways Commission has a very important connection with this subject so far as international streams are concerned, but the International Waterways Commission certainly has nothing to do with a stream like the Ottawa river, for instance. The provinces of Quebec and Ontario and the Dominion-of Canada are the only parties that can^ possibly be interested in the Ottawa river, and with all deference to the minister, it strikes me that this is merely sidestepping the issue. Our newspapers are full of the water question; we should have it at our meals if we dared drink the water; and it strikes me that the Government is not fulfilling its duty in postponing this matter any longer. If there is anything this Government, in conjunction with the Governments of the two provinces, can do, no time should be lost. The evil is here and has been here for years, with very disastrous results so far as this city	is concerned.
In dealing with streams wholly in Canadian territory the provinces must take a very important part through their board of health. I recollect that the water supply of various towns in Ontario has been absolutely condemned by the Provincial Board of Health; but it seerris that the matter

allow it to be put off for one year longer, for that is what it amounts to. I think our action would be universally approved if we at once took measures for dealing with this question of the pollution of streams in Canadian territory.
As to the question of pollution of international streams, that is, as my hon. friend says, a matter in which both countries are interested, and it is a very serious matter. Those of us who live on the St. Lawrence river think we have pure water, and, comparatively speaking, we have; but year by year as the population of the towns along its banks increases our water will become polluted. What are we going to do to remedy that? Are we going to sit still till the International Joint Commission does something? The Board of Health of the province of Ontario acts pretty strongly in these matters, and I think we should uphold their hands rather than shrink from our responsibility. There are many towns and incorporated villages in Ontario and other provinces that have no streams like the St. Lawrence running by them. They are under the control of the Board of Health and are taking care of the problem of sewage in a modern way. The longer this matter is delayed, the more expensive it will be to the people of this country, and I think the time has arrived for us to insist that no more sewage pipes be run into these streams. That is the first step. The next step would be for the people to take care of that question in another way just as soon as they could stand the taxation. I think, with all due respect to the hon. Minister of Marine and .Fisheries, we are not taking the proper course in side-stepping this great and important question for one more year; but we ought to take up the Bill which is now before the House and deal with it this year.


Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) :: I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) does not give proper credit to his own intelligence, if he understands my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and

Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) as suggesting that the International Joint Commission was to deal with problems which relate only to our own waters. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries was not alluding to the work of the International Joint Commission in that regard at all, but he was alluding to it in connection with the work which is properly within its scope, that is, the investigation of the condition of the international waterways between the two countries. It is only with that, in so far as I am aware, that the International Joint Commission has concerned itself up to the present time, or is likely to concern itself in the future.
The subject is of very great importance, and a committee was appointed at the last .session of Parliament to deal with it. My [DOT]hon. friend seems disposed to be rather captious about the matter. He says that it has already been delayed too long. I am not aware of any steps that were taken during the fifteen years of the Administration which preceded this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: These gentlemen are so sensitive that if one refers to their record it disturbs them. They seem to be under the impression that the slightest reference to their record is an insult. I am not disposed to deny that, if my hon. friends look upon it in that way. I remember that the Bill now before the House, which has come from the Senate, was brought down under the late Administration, and that not the slightest notice was taken of it. My hon. friend was not so keen upon the responsibility of the Government then as he is now. He is capable of playing the petty part of trying to make a little political capital out of the matter if he can.


Mr. GRAHAM:: No, no.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as I understood his observations, they could have no other purpose or object. The subject of this motion is one that should come properly under the consideration of a committee of this House, and I would be glad indeed if a committee of the Senate were added for the purpose of making a proper investigation, As my hon. friend has said', such conditions have been allowed to prevail in this country for so many years that it is yery difficult t-o reverse them by sudden legislation. That is no reason, however, why we should not proceed, after careful investigation and inquiry, to deal with
this subject in a reasonable and effective
I appreciate as much as my hon. friend does the very unfortunate condition that has prevailed in the city of Ottawa for several years, and I very greatly regret that during the past three or four years, while these conditions have prevailed, so little progress has been made by those who are responsible for the civic government in bringing about better conditions. In saying that I am making my observations entirely in a general sense, and they have application merely to the citizens as a whole, because I know there are a great many earnest persons, citizens of Ottawa, who have laboured most indefatigably and earnestly, and, I hope, effectively, to bring about a better condition in this city. The Government of Canada is very actively concerned in what has been done in Ottawa in that regard, because the large number of civil servants who reside in this city, the people who continually come here in connection with public business, and all the members of both Houses of Parliament who reside here during a portion of the year, are subjected to very great danger of infection unless we have a proper water supply. Indeed, it is conceivable that the whole public business of the country might be brought to a standstill by the enforcement of quarantine regulations; and I do express the hope now, in which I know that the members of this House will concur, that something will be done by the city of Ottawa in the immediate future to provide a suitable remedy for these conditions and to bring into the city an abundant supply of absolutely pure water.
As is disclosed by documents which have already been laid on the table of the House, the Government has pledged itself to submit to Parliament proposals for assisting in that purpose if it is absolutely assured that the supply of water will be both abundant and pure, because both of these are first considerations. As far as the appointment of a committee is concerned, it seems to be an absolutely correct motion at the present time. Indeed, the labours of the committee at the last session of Parliament, and the report which they made to the House, disclose, to my mind, the necessity of a full investigation and inquiry before we can deal effectively with this matter. I believe the thanks of the House and the country are due to those members of Parliament-Senator Belcourt in the Senate,' and my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and others in this

House-who have undertaken at all times to impress the importance of this question *upon the attention of the House.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: It was not my intention to intervene in this discussion; but I think it is due to the members of this House that I should clear up a misapprehension which seems to exist with reference to the cause of the typhoid epidemics that have occurred in Ottawa during the last few years. The discussion here this afternoon, as far as I could gauge it, has proceeded on the assumption that the epidemics were due to the pollution of the Ottawa river. As has been pointed out several times at investigations under oath these epidemics would have happened if the Ottawa river were as pure as distilled water could possibly be. These epidemics were not due to the water of the Ottawa river, but were caused by sewage being put into the water pipes supplying the city of Ottawa at the corner of Lloyd and Ottawa streets. The people were supplied with sewage instead of water, and I do not think that the condition of the water of the Ottawa river had anything to do with these epidemics.


Right Hon.   S@: I understood the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) exactly in the same sense as they were understood by my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Graham), that is to say-if I am in error I want to be corrected-that while the Minister of Marine and Fisheries seemed to put great stress upon having a report as to the Ottawa river from the Waterways Commission, he believed that the first step to be taken was to preserve the purity of the St, Lawrence river, and that after this had been secured we could deal with our own water. I differ altogether with him in this respect. That was the reason why my hon. friend was justified in charging the Government with side-stepping this question. The hon. minister will not, after consideration, argue seriously that we must wait until action has been taken in regard to the St. Lawrence river, and that if no action is taken to get pure water in the St. Lawrence river, we shall not be able to take any action here. On the contrary, we can and we ought to take action immediately with regard to any of the waters over which we have jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not paying close
attention to what my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said, but when 
the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) was speaking, I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether he intended any such suggestion as that, and he told me that he certainlv did not.	*


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Well, I will
accept the correction.


Robert Laird Borden: He (Mr. Hazen) is here now, and he can speak for himself.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly. I was going to say in his presence what I said a moment ago. Am I right in understanding the Minister of Marine to have said that the first thing to be done was to regulate international streams? What about the Ottawa river?


John Douglas Hazen: I said that the question
in its widest aspect could not be dealt with except by international agreement, but 1 made no reference to the Ottawa river.


Wilfrid Laurier: The first
stream to demand our attention is not the river St. Lawrence, because the volume of water in that river is so enormous that up to the present it has not become polluted, notwithstanding the sewage from municipalities which is poured into it; our first attention should be given to the waters over which we have jurisdiction, and one of these is the Ottawa river, from which we obtain our water supply here. The Bill of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) could, I think, be voted upon right away, and the Bill of Senator Belcourt is almost similar in its terms. Is there a man in this House, including the Minister of Marine, who is of the opinion that in this age we should allow sewage to be put into any stream? The time has come for us to take action. We do not require any more investigation; we should have legislation at once to force all municipalities to dispose of their sewage in some other way. The only thing for us to consider now is whether or not we should give the municipalities time to get rid of their present systems; but I protest against any further deferring of prohibition against municipalities allowing their sewage to go into the rivers. I hold up both hands in support of the Bill of the hon. member for Selkirk. Why should we have a committee at this late date, to inquire whether we should allow pollution or not? I, of course, consent to the motion that Senator Beloourt's Bill and Mr. Bradbury's Bill should be referred to this committee, but I consent to it in the strong hope that the committee will report favour-

ably oil the passage of such a law. We have abundance.of water in the Ottawa river for the supply of the city. Let the Ottawa river be no longer polluted by sewage, and we shall have the best water in the world; there is none better. That is the whole question. I shall not allude to the usual refrain of hon. gentlemen opposite, that when we were in power we were not diligent in this matter, nor do I believe that that, if true, would be justification for the inaction of the present Government. I know that we had a hard battle to fight against the lumbermen of Ottawa, who insisted upon polluting the waters of the river with the refuse from their mills, and it took us years to get the mill-owners to correct their practice in that respect, but in the end we succeeded. If the late Government was not diligent, is that a reason why the present Government should be so dilatory. I am sick and tired, hearing these comparisons between the present Government and the late Government. So much was expected from this Government, so strong was the hope that the new broom would sweep clean, that the people of the country are disappointed at their constant excuse for dilatoriness, which every time is summed up by the retort: We are just as bad as you are. The elections will come by and by, and we will know what impression that excuse will make on the people of Canada.


Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk):: I did not expect this question to come up to-day, but I feel that I should say a word or two about it. I have had a Bill on the Order Paper since the House opened, and I expected before this to have had opportunity to present it for a second reading. However, I heartily approve of the motion of the Minister of Marine to refer the Bill to a committee, although I regret that the motion was not made six or eight weeks ago.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear;
see how dilatory they are over there.


George Henry Bradbury: This question is of
great importance to the people of the country; it is a question the solution of which affects the health and the lives of our people, and which ought to be dealt with in the most expeditious manner possible. There is no doubt that our streams are every day being polluted, and the committee appointed last year took a great deal of evidence from the best experts in Canada, who all agreed that some legislation ought to be passed by the federal Parliament to prevent this frightful nuisance. It was decided by that committee,
that a conference of the representatives of all the provinces should be convened, and last September that conference, attended by some of the premiers of the provinces, by the representatives of the boards of health, and by scientists and experts generally, met in Ottawa, and decided that the matter should be again brought before the House of Commons, and the committee of last year reappointed to take further evidence. I believe that decision of the conference was a wise one. But at this late period of the session, I do not know that we can hope to be very successful in getting evidence to warrant us in bringing down legislation this year. I had hoped that the matter would have come up earlier, and that we could have decided upon a Bill prohibiting this pernicious practice of polluting streams.
With regard to the water supply situation in the city of Ottawa, I think that the conditions in this city are a disgrace to civilization. To think that in a great city, the capital of the Dominion, the taxpayers should have to pay a heavy tax to the city for pure water, and then either have to buy their water for drinking purposes or carry it from wells to their homes, is an absurdity, inconsistent with modern ideas. I believe it has become quite evident that the officials of this city who are responsible for providing pure water for the inhabitants, are utterly incapable of doing so. This is the capital of the Dominion; we have a large number of representatives coming to Parliament for six or seven months in the year; we have thousands coming here to transact business with the Government and the departments; we have thousands of employees in the Civil Service, and I do not know that under the circumstances it would not be wise for the Government to undertake to provide pure water for this city. I believe the people of Canada would justify the Government if they took hold of this matter, and took it out of the hands of the city. I do not know just how it could be done.


Wilfrid Laurier: Pass your Bill.


George Henry Bradbury: There is what appears to be a debatable question regarding obtaining the supply from the Ottawa river or from Thirty-One Mile lake. Personally I believe we have a body of absolutely pure water in Thirty-One Mile lake, which can be availed of for our supply, and knowing what has already taken place from the use of the Ottawa river water, I think we

should provide for taking our water from an unquestionably pure source. My hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) has stated that the Ottawa river water was polluted by the sewage from the city itself, and I believe he has ground for that charge. But I am not prepared to believe, that even with all the sewage from the city eliminated from the Ottawa river, that water is fit for the citizens to drink.
I do not believe that it is. In face of the evidence that we have, I believe that, if we adopt the Ottawa river water, a large quantity of chemicals will have to be used to purify the water. We are told that there is an opportunity of getting absolutely pure water for which no chemicals will be required. If the people of this country or of any country are to be healthy, they must have pure water to drink. I consider that the Government will be perfectly justified in taking hold of this matter and, if possible, in bringing pure water into this city in its own defence and in defence of the representatives who come here year after year. Only a short time ago it was suggested that this Parliament should adjourn until pure water was provided by the city of Ottawa. It is almost a duty devolving upon the Government of Canada to see that pure water is provided not only for their employees, hut for the members and others who are forced to. come to Ottawa to transact business. This is an important question, and one which I know has the sympathy of this House, and I am satisfied has the sympathy of the country. The Government that will legislate in a practical way to prevent the pollution of our streams will receive the commendation of the people of Canada.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: This matter is very much more important in the western provinces than in any other part of the Dominion. In the western provinces, where water is less abundant than it is here, and where cities are now in the building, there exists first the necessity and then the opportunity to make provision for the future. No doubt it is desirable that there should be very full consideration of this question, not from the point of view that I understand the examination of last year was conducted. There is no question about the harmfulness of drinking polluted water.
The questions to be considered are the
scientific and economic possibilities, and I imagine that they must be considered in (conjunction with the provincial govern-

ments. The province cannot act alone, nor can the Dominion act alone. The question is a very great one, and without introducing controversial matters, I .would follow my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) by saying that, the matter having been brought up at last session, the Government is certainly entitled to censure for not having brought it forward for consideration at an earlier period of this session. But better late than *never; and I merely wish to emphasize what I said at first, that it is in the western provinces where the great opportunity and the great necessity for the work of preventing the pollution of streams lie to the hand of the Government, should they undertake that work.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: I would like to say a word in regard to the two sides that this question assumes. There is the question of the pollution of waters, which may be and ought to be in the jurisdiction of the Dominion; but that the Dominion is to undertake the responsibility of providing pure water for the cities of Canada is another proposition, so wide that it frightens one when it presents itself.


George Henry Bradbury: The cities will pay for the water.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the Dominion to
mother all the cities of Canada and make them pay for the water?


George Henry Bradbury: Ottawa is the capital.


William Findlay Maclean: I know it is the capital, but we have municipal institutions in this country. Ottawa is under the municipal institutions of Ontario.


George Henry Bradbury: They do not seem to be able to provide pure water.


William Findlay Maclean: That may not be the fault of the municipal institutions, but of those living under them. If so, we ought to know it; but it is a most serious proposition to say that the federal authorities of a great country like Canada must undertake to make good the water of the various cities of the country. If that is the proposition, I want to have it fully discussed. But I agree with the hon. gentleman in saying that the [DOT] pollution of waters is a federal question, and the cities which pollute the water ought to be prevented from so doing. In the city of Toronto, we are doing it now in a way: we are putting the sewage into the bay and we are pumping the water from the -bay. Now we have a system by which we hope to get the water

for the city away down the lake where it cannot he contaminated. If this city is doing wrong in that respect, it ought to he stopped. If the towns up the Ottawa river pollute the water of that river, they ought to be prevented from doing so. It does not seem to be good doctrine to allow everybody to pollute the water, and then have a generous paternal Government provide pure water for every city that requires it. I would like to have enunciated a clear-cut policy in the matter


Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: It is very refreshing to see the House of Commons diverted from the consideration of commercial questions to the discussion of the question before us to-day-one to my mind of very much greater importance than most of the questions on which we are spending our time in this House, the question of the lives and the physical well-being of the citizens of this country. It is gratifying to me, as I know it will be to a very large percentage of the citizens of this country, to see that the Parliament of Canada is waking up to the fact they have a great duty to perform to our citizens in respect of the preservation and the conservation of their health and physical welfare.
I am very glad that the Government are taking just the course that they propose of referring these Bills to a special committee of the House. We had a committee last year dealing with this matter, and a good foundation was laid for the continuation of the investigation this year. We got a good deal of information, which will be very valuable, and we are prepared to receive further information this year which will be still more valuable. For example, the medical officer of the Conservation Commission of Canada, as well as the provincial medical health officer of Ontario, visited Great Britain during the past summer. I believe that, when the committee meets, it will receive from these officers a report on the conditions as they found them in the old land, and especially on the question of the disposal of sewage when not put into streams and waters. This information seems to me very important, and I think that when the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr Graham) ask this House immediately to vote on these Bills and pass them, they are doing so without knowing what that means. These Bills refer not only to the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, but to every stream in the Dominion of Canada. This
is a matter affecting not only the city of Ottawa, but every town and village situ, ated on the inland streams of our country, because, when these Bills are passed, no sewage can be put into a stream which flows into a navigable stream. When these gentlemen ask that these Bills be passed at once, they are asking that something be done which is going to create very great difficulties for our municipalities, for this reason, that, so far as we know, tljere is no system for the disposal of sewage at present known which we are confident will be entirely satisfactory to the towns and cities of this northern country. With our severe winter and heavy frost, it is recognized by all sanitary engineers that it will be very difficult to find a satisfactory method. We all agree that our streams and drinking water should not be polluted; but when we stop the placing of sewage in our streams, what is to be done with it? There immediately arises this very serious question; and before we ask our villages and towns, especially our smaller centres, to expend from $15,000 to $100,000 each for a sewage disposal plant, this Parliament, I think, ought to be in a position to recommend to these municipalities a system which, when erected, will be absolutely satisfactory. We cannot afford to have our municipalities experimenting in this matter for fear that, after experimenting, they will find that all their expenditure has been useless. That is a serious matter, and one upon which this committee can do a great deal to enlighten our people, and which, before these Bills are passed, should be dealt with by this Parliament.
If the epidemic of typhoid in Ottawa two years ago has aroused this Parliament to its duty in this matter, then perhaps that epidemic may not have been without benefit. But, while it was a serious visitation, let us not forget that every year in Canada from 2,000 to 2,500 people die from typhoid fever. Many of these cases are caused by impure water. Practically every one of these lives could be saved if the Parliament of Canada did its duty, and if the people of Canada were awake to the fact that these lives could be saved and that typhoid is a disease which can be eradicated if proper measures are taken to preserve
4 p.m. the health of the people. This matter is sufficiently important to claim the time and attention of this Parliament, even if no other feature in connection with the health of the people were to be considered.


John Douglas Hazen: My right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has urged this measure as though it were a question that could be dealt with very easily and expeditiously. In fact, the right hon. gentleman has given the impression-I think he said it in so many words-that he sees no reason why the Bill of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) should not be voted on without further consideration, except such as might be given in Committee of the Whole House. It is somewhat surprising to note the contrast between the easy and airy way in which the right hon. gentleman disposes of great questions with a wave of his hand now that the re-ponsibilty of government has been removed from his shoulders, and the deliberation and consideration which he insisted upon for im portant measures of this kind, when he was Prime Minister, and chiefly responsible for the legislation of this House. It seems to me that in submitting seriously to this House the contention that this measure should be voted upon practically at the present time the right hon. gentleman shows that he has not given the subject due consideration. If this measure were adopted, the result would be that no raw sewage could be discharged into any navigable water in any part of Canada. Let us consider that for a moment. Is the House prepared to say that there are no navigable waters in Canada into which sewage should be discharged? Is the House to say that the raw sewage shall not be discharged into salt water in places where there is a large rise and fall of the tide, where these waters are not used for domestic purposes, and where no harm whatever is done by the discharge of sewage of towns and cities? Yet, under the Bill which the right hon. gentleman says he will vote for at once, no sewage could be discharged in a raw state into any navigable water in Canada; and so the towns and cities on the seacoast which, at great expense and under legislative authority, have provided means to discharge their sewage into these waters would be prevented from doing so two years after this Bill were passed. I would call attention to the fact that while raw sewage is being discharged into many of the waters of Canada which have to be used for domestic purposes, yet there are towns in Canada which, in discharging their sewage into these waters, subject it to a certain amount of treatment before it is discharged. That is true, I might say to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), of a good many 
towns in the West. And before a Bill is passed which will prevent these towns from discharging their sewage into these navigable waters, surely means ought to be taken to find out whether the method of sewage treatment adopted by them is sufficient to purify the sewage to such an extent that its discharge into the waters is harmless; that is, that its effect is not poisonous and does not interfere with the use of these waters for domestic purposes.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. minister
please say which cities treat their sewage as he has indicated?


John Douglas Hazen: When a Bill similar to this was before the House last year, I gave a general statement of how the different towns throughout Canada were discharging their sewage and what they were doing with it. From that statement, I take the following
Brandon discharges its sewage into the Assiniboine, Carman into the Boyne river, Portage la Prairie into the Assiniboine, St! Boniface into the Red river. In the case of Souris, the river is not named, Winnipeg discharges into the Red river and Assiniboine river. In no case is the sewage treated, but I And in regard to Souris that it is proposed to put in a filtration system. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta seem to be rather ahead of the other provinces in this matter in that they are making provision, and in some cases have made provision for treating the sewage before it is discharged into the water. At Moosejaw, the sewage which runs into the Moosejaw creek is treated in septic tanks. Prince Albert discharges its sewage into the North Saskatchewan river, and I have no record of any treatment of it. At Regina, there is treatment by means of septic tanks, sedimentation, disinfection tanks and biological filters. Saskatoon discharges its sewage into the South Saskatchewan river and has sewage disposal works under construction at the present time. In Alberta, Calgary discharges its sewage into the Bow river, Edmonton into the North Saskatchewan river, and part of the sewage of that city is treated in septic tanks. Lethbridge discharges into the Belly river and there a sewage purification plant is to be installed at once. The sewage of McLeod goes in to the Old Man river, and nothing is said about treating the sewage there. Medicine Hat discharges into the South Saskatchewan river, and has a sewage plant under consideration. Red Deer discharges into the Red Deer river and has a purification plant under consideration. Wetaskiwin discharges into Bigstone creek and is proposing to erect sewage disposal works.
This information, I may say, I obtained principally from the Commission of Conservation. It would be a great injustice to the people of various towns, who have expended money in the erection of plants for the purifying of sewage, if we were simply to pass a bald law stating that no sewage shall be deposited in any of the

navigable rivers throughout the country. All this will require the very greatest possible consideration. The interests of towns discharging sewage into navigable waters which are salt or unfit for domestic use, and the interests of those towns which have gone to the expense of installing sewage treatment plants, will all have to be considered, and scientific opinion would have to be obtained as to the efficiency of the sewage treatment in these particular towns before this legislation would be justified in interfering with the rights that these towns have exercised by legislative enactment for the purpose of discharging their sewage under the conditions mentioned. It would not be a troublesome thing, now or at any time, to pass a law providing that in future no raw sewage should be discharged into any navigable waters used for domestic purposes. But by doing that you would not be striking at the root of the evil, because many of the streams throughout the country are so filled with sewage that has been discharged into them that the prevention of further sewage being put in would do little to minimize the evil which exists to-day. There are, therefore, more things to be considered than simply the question of preventing the placing of more sewage into the streams. What would be the result if, at one stroke, we were to say to various cities and towns throughout Canada, as has been pointed out by the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House, that they must tear up the sewage plants which they have installed under legal authority, and find some other way of disposing of their sewage? Take the case of Montreal, with a population of about 600,000 inhabitants. If this Bill should become law, within two years that city would have to dispose of its sewage in some other way than by discharging it into the river St. Lawrence. I quoted figures last year to the House and to the committee-figures, the authenticity of which, I think, can be relied upon-to the effect that in a city like Montreal it would cost at least 86 per head of population to change their sewage system to some other system under which the sewage would be treated in septic tanks, by sedimentation or some other process. Would it be fair and right to ask Montreal to spend $3,600,000, which is the amount it would have to spend in order to make the change, without considering whether or not more time ought to be given within which to change the system which they have adopted in a perfectly legal manner, under the laws 111
cf the provincial legislature, and to consider what system they ought to adopt for the purpose of dealing with their sewage? The same applies to Toronto, and to very many cities	in	Ontario and Quebec. My right hon. * friend's suggestion that this matter should be disposed of without any further consideration shows, as I have said, that he has himself given very little consideration to the subject. That was not the view taken by the convention that met in Ottawa last year, a convention composed of scientific and public men representing most of the different provinces of Canada, who, after full discussion, passed a resolution to the effect that the matter should be further considered by a Committee of the House of Commons. In view of the immense sums of money that have been invested by different towns and municipalities, under the authoTty of law, for the disposal of sewage by having it flow into navigable streams, and in view of the other questions involved, I submit that it is only right and proper that the most careful consideration should be given to the matter, and that we should not hastily pass a Bill like that of the hon. member for Selkirk, which, passed in its present form, would undoubtedly do a great injury and wrong to the different cities throughout this country, and might not accomplish the very desirable object which the hon. gentleman has so much at heart. For these reasons, I submit that the right course has been taken in asking that this committee be again appointed.


Frank Oliver: What steps have the Government since taken in line with the resolution of last session?


John Douglas Hazen: The Government took the
step that was recommended by this House. In the month of October it called together the convention which this House recommended should be called. If my hon. friend had been in the House when I moved the resolution, he would have heard me read the report of what occurred at that convention, the names of the delegates who were present, and the different resolutions which they adopted. Amongst the resolutions they adopted was one urging that at this session of the House the committee should be again appointed for the purpose of giving further consideration to the matter.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I would like to suggest an amendment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There cannot be any
amendment now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It would be adopted
unanimously, I am quite sure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The submitting of an
amendment now would be a violation of the rule, which provides that the mover of a substantive motion closes the debate wnen he makes his reply. The announcement was made to the House that if any hon. gentleman desired to speak he would have an opportunity of doing so before the mover closed the debate.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood that the minister himself was going to move that the Bill of the hon. member for Selkirk be referred to the committee.
Mr. HAZEL': It was my intention to move, when the Bill from the Senate comes before the House, that it should be referred to this committee, and that the Bill of the hon. member for Selkirk also should be referred to the committee. It makes no difference when it is done; I would just as soon do it now as at any other time; but I did not intend to make such a motion a part of the resolution which is now before the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps the House may consent to my offering the amendment.


John Douglas Hazen: If my hon. friend's amendment is that these Bills should be referred to this committee, I am quite willing to accept it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Bills are not now before the House; therefore it would be quite irregular to move such an amendment. In my judgment, it would be quite in order to do so when the Bills are before the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know when the Bills will be before the House. The Bill of the hon. member for Selkirk will not, under the rules of the House, be called this session.


Mr. PELLETIER:: We may have the Bills called by consent of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: We can do
anything by consent.
Motion of Mr. Hazen agreed to.


John Douglas Hazen: Although the Bill has not been called, what objection could there be to a motion that the Bill of the hon. member for Selkirk, which is on the Order Paper, be referred to this committee?
fMr. Lemieux.]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it were desired to refer these Bills to the committee, I think the proper way would be to move to have the Bills called, and then make the necessary motion. That could be done now, or at some future time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that there is an abundance of consent, Mr. Speaker. I beg
to move:
That Bill No. 5, and Bill No. 106, letter B of the Senate, respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters, be referred to the said committee.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I move that these Bills be now called, for the purpose of hawing them referred to the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the Bill can bereferred to this committee, it must be read a first and a second time. That has not been done.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We might do that
with the consent of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If an hon. member will make a motion that Bill No. 5, Public Bills and Orders, be now called, we can go on in the regular way.
Mr. PELLETIER thereupon moved that Bill No. 5, Public Bills and Orders, be now taken up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. BRADBURY moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters. He said: In moving the second reading of this Bill I desire to say a word or two.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that could only be done with the consent of the House, because this Bill is being taken up out of its order for one purpose only viz. to refer it to this committee. I understood the object was merely to refer the Bill to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and referred to the committee appointed to consider the question of the pollution of navigable waters.
Mr. PELLETIER, with the consent of the House, moved that Bill No. 106, letter B of the Senate, be next considered.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. PELLETIER thereupon moved the first reading of Bill No. 106, respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters.

Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The second reading can only be taken with the unanimous consent of the House.
Mr. PELLETIER thereupon moved the second reading of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and referred to the committee appointed to consider the question of pollution of navigable waters.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
George Perry Graham: I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Naval Affairs to a despatch in to-day's papers and to ask whether he can give any explanation concerning it. The despatch reads:
London, March 17.-The Sydney, New South Wales, correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, states that there is much satisfaction in Australia at the message from Toronto indicating that members of the Canadian Cabinet favour a joint understanding with Australia, New Zealand and the motherland for the defence of Imperial interests in the Pacific. It is not thought that Canada will stand aside if a conference is arranged.


Robert Laird Borden: We have received no
communication on the subject, neither have we sent any.



CIVIL SERVICE INSURANCE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act, chapter 18, of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide that the minister may contract with any person to whom Part 1 of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act applies on the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, or who was appointed to a permanent position in any branch of the public service of Canada, whether civil or military, after the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, for the payment of a certain sum of money to -be made upon the death of such person ; that further provision be made as to the apportionment of insurance among beneficiaries ; that the minimum and maximum amounts payable at death shall be one thousand dollars and five thousand dollars respectively, and that moneys received shall form part of, and moneys payable shall he paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Mr. WHITE:: There are two chief features in the Bill which I shall introduce following the adoption of the resolution. One is 1114
that female members of the Civil Service are made eligible for insurance under the Act, so that the sexes are placed upon an equality in .that regard. The other is that the maximum amount of insurance payable upon death is increased from $2,000 to $5,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are these the only features of the legislation?


William Thomas White: There is a further provision for the apportionment of the insurance in the event of the death of the insured. There are no other important features of the resolution.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some people have insured up to the maximum of $2,000 and have retired from the service. Can they, under this proposed legislation, increase their insurance up to the maximum of $5,000?	,


William Thomas White: The wording of the said Act is as follows:
Section 13 of the said Act is repealed,-
That section refers to the minimum and maximum amounts payable at death, which, under the existing legislation, are $1,000 and $2,000 respectively.
-and the following is substituted therefor: The minimum and maximum amounts payable at death which may be provided lot-under this Act shall be $1,000 and $5,000 respectively.
This new section takes the place of the old one. Offhand, I am not prepared to say whether the insured persons mentioned by my bon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) would be permitted to increase the amount of their insurance or not. That is a matter that has to do with the interpretation of this amendment. I shall look into it, and if it is considered proper that they should be so permitted, we can make the necessary amendment to the Bill.
Resolution reported- and concurred in.
Mr. WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. Ill, to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell. (Minister of Agriculture), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to consolidate and amend the laws relating to dairy pro-
[Stage Direction]
ducts, and to prohibit the manufacture or sale of butter substitutes.
Mr. BURRELL:: The Bill to be founded upon this resolution is to make a revision of Part 8 of the Inspection and Sale Act, which was a consolidation of all the dairy laws previous to that time. We take it out of the Inspection and Sale Act as a matter of convenience, because it practically has nothing to do with the general terms of that Act and especially with Part 1, which applies to the whole of the operations with respect to the Inspection and Sale Act. It is much more convenient in administration to have a separate Dairy and Sale Act. There are some amendments of this Act, bringing it up to the different terms of the dairy industry which have been modernized and expanded in the last few years. There are also some rather important clauses dealing with the manufacture of butter substitutes, because the old law was so weak that we never could secure convictions against a large number of people, notably in Montreal, who were putting an excessive amount of water in butter, the amount going as high as 40 and 50 per cent. The judge held that under the old section of the Act we had not the proper authority to convict; so that we are remedying that. The other provisions I can explain when the Bill is printed and the second reading comes up.


Frank Oliver: There are no more radical changes?


Martin Burrell: No more radical changes.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. BURRELL thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 112, to regulate the manufacture and sale of dairy products and to prohibit the manufacture and sale of butter substitutes.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Agriculture), 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 control and inspection of cold storage warehouses and food products preserved in cold storage.
Martin Burrell: The Bill with which
this resolution is concerned, is drawn for the purpose of exercising reasonable con-IMr. Burrell.]
trol and supervision over cold storage warehouses. The Bill will provide for the making of regulations, dealing with such things as licensing cold storage warehouses, the inspection of the food products therein, or after they have been removed from the warehouse, the compelling of returns of the quantities in storage by the owners, and for purposes such as limiting the time of 'Storage. Last year, Senator Taylor had a Bill dealing with cold storage matters before the Senate, and it was withdrawn on the understanding that the Government would take the matter up. This session, my hon. friend from Selkirk also has a Bill on the Order Paper dealing with the matter, and I understand that my hon. friend is willing to withdraw his Bill, in view of the proposal of the Government. I need nardly say to him that the Government will gladly adopt in this Bill such provisions as may be applicable to the legislation, and listen to any suggestions which he, in common with any other members of the House, may make.


Frank Oliver: Is it a long Bill?


Martin Burrell: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I consider this to be
one of the most important Bills of the session. For months and months the people of Canada, in view of the hign cost of living, have been blaming the cold storage warehousemen foT exacting high prices for products, and I should like to know if there will be any provision in the Bill forcing the cold storage people to sell their products at fixed periods. When my hon. friend from Selkirk introduced his Bill at the beginning of the session, I promised nim my earnest support, but unless the Bill now proposed by the minister is as stringent as that introduced by the -hon. member, I would not promise him the same isupporfc.


Martin Burrell: The main provisions of this Bill are to give power to .make regulations dealing with the subjects the hon. gentleman has mentioned. I do not want to discuss now the reasons why it was deemed more advisable to do by a regulation than by specific mention within the four cornel's of the statute, but there are no good reasons. The Bill will give us power to make regulations concerning the very things, my hon. friend '(Mr. Lemieux) has referred to, but I think it would be very much better to leave further discussion until the Bill is printed when I will give a com-

plete statement, and ask that the Bill be referred to such committee as may give its provisions through ventilation. Our object is not to make it unnecessarily drastic, so as to cripple any justly established industry, but at the same time to give proper control over a thing connected so intimately with the food supply of the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are there in force in the United States any such regulations as the minister will propose?


Martin Burrell: Individual states have passed legislation, some of which work well and some of which do not. It is largely in the experimental stage.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. BURRELL thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, to regulate cold storage warehouses.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. B. Nantel (Minister of Inland Revenue), Bill No. 96, to amend the Weights and Measures Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair. .
Frank Oliver: Will the minister give a general statement as to the purpose of this Bill?


Mr. NANTEL:: I explained on the first reading that the only object of the Bill is to substitute the meter and kilogram of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures for the standards now used in the Department of Inland Revenue.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does this mean that the metric system is making any progress in Canada?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly. This law is urgently requested by the universities and the scientists of the Dominion. The metric system has been found very applicable to the measurements of electricity, and at present we are obliged to send to Paris to have comparison made with the original standards deposited there. When the Bill passes we will have these standards deposited in Ottawa, and the comparison can be made in the Department of Inland Revenue.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the Government intend to adopt the metric system in full? some years ago, when Mr. Justice Brodeur was Minister of Inland Revenue, he distributed throughout the country samples of weights and measures according to the metric system.
I understand that he began his campaign of education by distributing them to the various educational institutions of the country, so that the people would come to understand the system which is acknowledged in Europe to-day to be the best and most perfect system. We all know that a change in weights and measures is always attended with many difficulties. In fact, if any one travels to-day in France, he will find in some of the old communes and villages people who still use not only the expressions but the measures themselves of the old regime. There have been three changes in France in three centuries, and yet there are people there who still use the old measurements which were in use at the time of the monarchy in France.
In Canada, in the province of Quebec, as my hon. friends, especially those who belong to the legal profession know, there are people in our villages who still use the old expressions, so many ' francs,' so many ' louis,' and others who use the old English system, that we had about fifty years ago, when we adopted the American system of currency. I mention these things only to emphasize the fact that any change in weights and measurements is a very difficult problem indeed.
What progress has been made, and what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the metric system? Will that system some day, not too far distant, be made compulsory, or will the campaign of education begun some years ago, be proceeded with? The object of my hon. friend's Bill is to adopt one feature of the metric system. I understand that the provisions of this Bill apply to the classes mentioned a moment ago by my hon. friend, especially electrical instruments, and instruments used by engineers. Certain new instruments in engineering have recently been invented, and the metric system is universally used in connection with them. But this is only one phase of the question. Will my hon. friend inform the House whether or not the,metric system proper is to be made compulsory at no distant date?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: This Bill is in that
direction. The metric system is used universally in electricity. It is not the in

tention of the Government to have the metric system made compulsory, in trade generally. When the people are properly educated to the fact that the metric system is more accurate than the old system, we will consider the advisability of making it compulsory. It is the intention of the department- to have a distribution made of the metric system, in order to make it known to the people as the best system. We do not at present consider it advisable to make the metric system compulsory in business generally.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the observations of the minister in respect to the metric system. I cannot profess to understand the necessity for this change in the law, but I presume that there is a good reason for it. The statement of the hon. minister, if I understand him aright, that there was a proposition to make the metric system compulsory in Canada, is more serious. The question of measures, of how people shall calculate the weight or quantity of anything they have to sell, such as lumber, boards, or anything else that is to be measured 'Superficially by feet or yards, is a very important one in this country. It is a question that enters largely into the education of the people; it is a question strictly of education. Therefore it is a question not belonging altogether to this Parliament, but a provincial one. Consequently the minister should move very cautiously in creating any revolution in this country by adopting the metric system for the Dominion while it is not the system recognized by the different provinces.
The old style of currency of pounds, shillings -and pence, is not yet dead in the province from which I come. In the province of Newfoundland I am told that the people do a great deal of business in pounds, shillings and pence. I am told that they buy their cattle in dollars and cents, because it sounds better to say, 'I will give you $12 for your cow,' but that when selling they -say, 'I only ask three pounds.' Thus it 'sounds better to buy in dollars and to sell in pounds. I wish to .bring to the notice of the minister that ithose old institutions are very firmly fixed, ami, if he would ask men in the lumber yards of the province of Nova Scotia to sell their lumber by the metric system, there would be war. They would take years to get used to it.
I have no doubt at all about the beauty and scientific nicety of the method. 1

believe that it is a first-rate' system, highly scientific and highly educative. At the same time, I would urge upon the minister that he should not move too fast in compelling the old Scotchmen in the province of Nova Scotia to educate themselves in the use of that system.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is in no way the intention of the department to have the metric system made compulsory. But the department considers that it is committed to the acceptance of the system to the degree now proposed. In 1907, Canada became a member of the International Conference of Weights .and Measures, an association now composed of twenty-seven nations, whose object is to study and control weights and measures according to the metric system; and Parliament every year voted $400 as a contribution to that conference and to the International Bureau. That International Bureau, by study, has discovered that there is a discrepancy between the meter which we have in the department and the one deposited in the Ihternational Bureau in France. So, we wish to have exact copies of the meter and kilogram now deposited with the bureau in France. That is the reason for the present Bill.	' -
' i


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of the twenty-seven
nations, excluding Canada, are all governed by the metric system of weights and measures?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Some of them have declared it compulsory, and, with the exception of Canada and one or two others, all the others have adopted some such legislation as the measure now before the House.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Do all these nations
adopt this system merely for the purpose of the International Conference, or generally?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: They have adopted it
because they consider it the best system. There is a treaty amongst these nations, one of the obligations of which is to adopt the metric system standards of the International Bureau.


Frank Oliver: There is no question about the great convenience of the use of the metric system as compared with the system we now have. At the same time, there seems no possibility of securing the adoption of the metric system by simply making a statutory declaration that it may be adopted or ought to be adopted. It

seems to me that what my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) suggested is the only way. Until the provinces take the matter up and provide that the children in the schools shall be taught the metric system as a part of their education we cannot make very much progress. We certainly cannot force the system upon the people when they are not ready for it. The alternative is to get them ready for it by educating them in the schools. This action, of course, can only be taken by the provinces. My suggestion would be that the matter be discussed by this Government with the governments of the
5 p.m. provinces with a view to having the study of the metric i?ys-tem made a part of the arithmetical course in the schools. It would be no serious matter, a very trifling matter; and if the children were made acquainted with the system, then when they grew up, realizing its great convenience, they would of course be ready and willing to adopt it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the British Government considered the advisability of adopting the metric system ? I remember that some years ago a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in England, in which a date was fixed for the compulsory use of this system. There was a long discussion on the Bill; but I do not recall what became of that measure. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), I think, has gone to the very root of the matter. If the education of the people in the metric system goes on only as it has gone on for some years past, not much progress will be made. The progress of education has been, so to speak, spasmodic. When I was a private member on the other side of the House, durng the first years I was in Parliament, I made a request of the then Minister of Inland Revenue to secure instruments in use for the metric system that 1 might furnish them to the various academies and colleges with which I wias more or less connected. I did secure this distribution to a number of colleges and academies, but this method is not very satisfactory. As my hon. friend from Edmonton says, if the Government intends to have this system made the law of the land, a decided effort should be made with the provincial authorities to have the system made part of the educational curriculum in the various provinces. The metric system is to-day almost universally used. A few
countries have so far resisted, including Great Britain, but even in these countries the question is very seriously considered. But if in Canada we intend to adopt the system, a decided movement must be begun. The duty of the Government, it seems , to me, is to make arrangements with the provincial authorities so as to make as wide an advertisement of the metric system as possible through the public schools. This is a matter, perhaps, more provincial than federal. Of course, the weights and measures system is, by the constitution, placed under federal control. But education appertains to the various provinces, and through the provincial authorities the effort should be made to make the system as widely known -as possible. As my hon. friend from North Cape Breton stated, there is no prejudice so deeply rooted in the minds of the people, not only in the rural sections but in the cities, as that against any change in the system of weights and measures. As I stated ia moment ago, there are people in France to-day who still use the measurements which were in use under the monarchy; there are people in the provinces of France who speak of ' tant l'aulne,' while in other parts the metric system is in common use. In the province of Quebec land is still sold by the habitants	for so many	francs,	or
so many louis, or so many sterling. The old measures, weights and currencies are deeply rooted in the minds of the people, and if we want to have a new system we will have to teach the very youngest people from the start. Otherwise, the effort will be spasmodic and' of no consequence, and the Government will be spending money on this metric system with no result.	Unless there is a
well-defined policy; unless the young people are provided with the means of studying the system and of incorporating it, so to speak, into their education, I do not think the metric system will ever be used in Canada.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: England and Denmark are the only nations of Europe that have not adopted a metric system, but in 1897 the use of the system was declared permissible in England.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the United
States ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is permissible in the United States. It is used in matters connected with science, electricity, and international commercial relations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where is the central office of this bureau ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: At Sevres, a suburb of Paris.
Mr. MARCILE. A few years ago we had in our province a metric system of weights and measures. I received a letter yesterday from officers of the academy at St. Liboire, asking whether it is possible for the department to furnish the academy with maps and scales such as were used a few years ago.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I will attend to that request.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



PROHIBITION OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. W. Crothers (Minister of Labour), Bill No. 103, to prohibit the manufacture and importation
of matches made with white phosphorus was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
George Perry Graham: When the Bill was first introduced, I think the Minister of Labour said that on the second reading he would give some information with regard to the manufacture of matches in various parts of Canada.


Mr. CROTHERS:: The following statement will give the desired information:
-	1871	1881	1891	1901	1906	1911No. of establishments	24	22	12	5	3	5Capital	$106,015- 1,127 92,801 78,449	$564,847 1,062 145,640 222,497 511,250	$336,650 1,039 143,064 215,018 434,953	*240,064 471 68,501 174,507 312,655	$480,475* 460* 93,551*Wage earners	, 	278 69,093	Wages for labour	Cost of material	Value of product	229,137	226,743	1,072,527
* Exclusive of the E. B. Eddy Company, Limited.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend
made any decision with regard to the proposed delay in the application of the Act?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: On the first reading the right hon. leader of the Opposition and,
I think, some other members suggested that the provisions of the Act should come into force at an earlier date, and I promised to consider the matter. Some manufacturers whom I have seen since have urged that the time should be lengthened; others have urged that at any rate it should not be lessened. They pointed out that it would require considerable time experimenting on different substitutes for white phosphorus, and that owing to business contracts they have undertaken it would be very injurious to them if the provisions of the Act became effective before January 1, 1916. The length of time we are giving is usual in the United States and other countries in cases of this kind. Of course, I am familiar with the argument, if this is so very injurious, why not stop it at once? But we cannot act like that in matters of this kind,
rilr. Nante!.]
Hull, Que.
and I have come to the conclusion that we should leave the date as it is.


George Perry Graham: If we could get pure
water in Ottawa and get rid of white phosphorus in Hull, this would be a good place to live in. I think the Minister of Labour is getting on faster with white phosphorus than he is with pure water.


Mr. WTRIGHT:: I would suggest to the minister that if the use of white phosphorus is prohibited at the end of two years, another year should be allowed for the distribution of the matches then manufactured.
On section 4-importation prohibited:


George Perry Graham: What does this mean?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Matches made of white phosphorus will be excluded.
On section 6-petition for compulsory license:


George Perry Graham: This seems to deal largely with applications for patents. Has the

minister considered possible collision between these sections and the Patents Act?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The most general substitute for white phosphorus in countries where that is prohibited is a substance known as sesqui-sulphide of phosphorus, a compound of sulphur and phosphorus. That substance was patented in this country and later was assigned to the Diamond Match Company in the United States. The patent has since lapsed, owing to nonpayment of the fees, so that any one is free to use sesqui-sulphide now. There are ten or twelve other substances used as substitutes. Some of these are patented, and this provision is put in so that other people may secure a license to use these substances already patented. A similar provision is in the English Act. I do not think there will be any collision with the Patents Act.
On section 7-regulations:


George Perry Graham: Under this section the Governor in Council can almost make a new law. The efficiency of this Act will depend largely on the recommendations made by the Governor in Council. Subsection 3 provides that every such order or regulation ' shall be published in the Canada Gazette. With all due deference to the Canada Gazette, that is not real notice to the people who are interested. Of course, if they were looking out for the regulations, or had a lawyer watching for them, they might find them in the Canada Gazette, but as a matter of giving information to the people interested, the regulations might be buried in the Canada Gazette. I suppose, in addition to that, the minister will see that the manufacturers engaged in the industry will be supplied with a copy of the regulations.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is a very reasonable suggestion. We will see that each manufacturer gets a copy, especially as so few are engaged in the trade.
On section 8-proof by certificate:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is very wide. I
am anxious to support the statement of the hon. gentleman who is now leading the Opposition with respect to legislation by regulations. We had the same subject up a few moments ago from the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), but I did not care to make objection then, because I understand he is not of the legal profession. I wish to bring the matter up now because my hon. friend the Minister
of Labour, who has charge of this Bill, is a lawyer of practice and experience, and eminent in his profession. As a practitioner myself I desire to point out how extremely awkward it is for a practitioner to know that there is a body of law in the country that is not to be found in any statute. It is not at all improbable that questions arising under this law may come into court some day. As a lawyer you are . expected to go to the statute and find the law, but you are placed in a very awkward position by reason of the fact that the law is not in the statute. The law is in the form of regulations, Orders in Council, and that sort of thing, and you are unable to advise on the subject until you put yourself in possession of these regulations, which you cannot get from law books, which you cannot buy from people dealing in law books, and unless you are careful in looking into the Canada Gazette and compiling these regulations it is impossible for the lawyer to keep himself in touch with them. I would recommend the Minister of Labour, and any other hon. gentleman who is bringing legislation before this House, as a matter of general principle, to try as much as possible to put their legislation in the Bill itself. Then we have it in the Act of this Parliament. I cannot see why it is easier to make regulations than an Act of Parliament. We are here as a body to make laws and the draughtsman who is going to draught regulations upon the authority of a Bill will find it just as easy to draught them in the shape of a section of the Bill and put them into the Bill itself. I make this suggestion, not only to facilitate the work of the profession to which I belong, but in the interest of the public itself, so that everybody will know what the law is without waiting to find out what has been done by regulation. It may be said that it is always easy to make a regulation on short notice, that matters will arise that cannot be foreseen and that it is necessary to make the regulation. That is the only excuse I can see for a regulation at all. But when Parliament meets once a year it cannot be a matter of very great hardship to wait from one Parliament to another in order to make any amendment that is necessary. I do not suppose I can switch the Minister of Labour from any well defined idea he has about this Bill, but I wish to put myself on record as protesting against making laws by regulations when these regulations should be in the Act itself.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I sympathize very fully with my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), who.

has just taken his seat. I have no doubt he has experienced, as I have many times, the inconvenience of, for instance, having to look up by-laws passed by various municipal councils. In the province of Ontario, under our Municipal Act, municipal councils are given power to pass by-laws on almost every conceivable subject and I have often experienced inconvenience in this regard. When you wanted to find out what a law really was you would have perhaps to write out to the municipality and get copies of the by-laws that it had passed. But that is a somewhat different matter from this. It would be difficult to avoid that in reference to municipal by-laws. You can go into details more readily in drawing up regulations than in passing a statute. In almost every department we have regulations. In the Interior Department they have extensive land and grazing regulations and in almost every department of the Government you will find statutes conferring upon Council the power to make regulations, and providing that these regulations shall have the same force as if they were embodied in the statute. I cannot conceive of any other reason for the authorization of these regulations than that they are very extensive, that they go into details and that it would perhaps Ibe very inconvenient to have these details enumerated in the statute. I assume these are the reasons why power is given to make these regulations and why they have the same effect as if they formed a part of the statute. My hon. friend will have noticed the power given to inspectors under certain sections of this Act. I suppose it will be necessary to have regulations directing the inspectors and going into detail as to the discharge of their duties and it might be inconvenient to spread these out on the statute. I quite sympathize with my hon. friend, as I have suffered in actual practice, as I have no doubt he has, but it is rather impracticable,
I am afraid, to get it all into the statute.
On section 11-penalty, not exceeding $500 and costs, for violation of the Act:


George Perry Graham: There is no minimum penalty in this Act.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No; that is left to
the magistrate.


Mr. HENDERSON:: It is a very high
power.
On section 12-venue of proceedings:


George Perry Graham: I presume the object of this section is, that a person who might be

guilty in one province, having gone to. another province, may be prosecuted for a violation of this Act in the province in which he is located.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes.


David Henderson: Before the Bill is
reported, would the minister give us his impression as to how this will affect the price of matches P I have heard it said that this may create a monopoly in the manufacture of matches, and by increasing the price to a considerable extent work a hardship upon the consumers. No doubt the minister has taken this into consideration.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The only extra cost
involved in using sesqui-sulphide instead of white phosphorus, would be from the fact that greater skill will be required in mixing the materials. I have had communication with match manufacturers, and the maximum increase in cost was placed by them at five per cent. It is not a matter of any consequence.
Bill reported, and read the third time.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The title of the Bill on the Order Paper is: 'To prohibit the manufacture and importation of matches '; I wish to have the title amended so as to read:
' To prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of matches.'
Motion agreed to and title amended by adding the words, ' and sale.'
Bill passed.



EXPORT OF PETROLEUM.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. R. L. Borden (Prime Minister), Bill No. 84, to amend the Export Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Robert Laird Borden: The resolution on which this Bill is founded originally provided for regulations prohibiting the exportation of petroleum procured on Dominion lands. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) pointed out that this should be in somewhat wider terms, and the resolution was accordingly amended, and the Bill drawn on the resolution in its amended form.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do I understand this
applies only to Dominion lands f


Robert Laird Borden: It is general in its terms now, because of the suggestion which emanated from the hon. member for Guysborough, and which was agreed to.


Frank Oliver: The leader of the Opposition raised a point as to the propriety of stating in the Act the conditions under [DOT]which the authority, as given, would be exercised. I made some observations along the same line myself. This industry in the western provinces is in an experimental or exploratory stage. It is necessary to attract capital, and my feeling is that by passing this Bill in its present form, we would leave capital, which might be induced to invest, under an unspecified danger, which I think will have a detrimental effect.
I see no reason why the object of the Government would not be as well attained, as the Premier stated on a former occasion, by specific indication in the Bill of the conditions under which the authority would be exercised. I would urge very strongly that that be fully considered by the Government, even if it were necessary to hold the Bill over for another day.


Robert Laird Borden: I would certainly not desire to press the Bill with undue haste, and I would be anxious to accept any modification which would preserve the object [DOT]and at the same time would not deter the investment of capital. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Edmonton has looked over the amended regulations -which have been laid upon the table of the House.


Frank Oliver: No, I did not happen to see them.


Robert Laird Borden: My recollection

.and I am speaking without the acquaintance of the subject possessed by the Minister of the Interior-is that the matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of the Interior during the past year on many occasions by .persons who were prepared to invest very large amounts of capital in oil production in the West, and who thought that it offered a very promising field for investment. The regulations as they formerly existed were not conducive to the investment of capital. Certain reasons were assigned, the details of which I could not give; the only thing I remember about them is that they impressed me .at the time. It was strongly urged that the regulations with regard to the production of oil had been originally prepared, by merely copying, from regulations with regard to the production of minerals of various kinds, and that the industry of oil production differed in several essential features from the industries alluded to. They pointed out that the regulations in various parts of the world where this
industry has been a success have been essentially different from those in force here. It was very largely for these reasons,
I think, that the Minister of the Interior made these amendments. At the same time, it was represented to us that, for certain reasons. which were alluded to and which it is not necessary for me	to dwell upon	at the
present moment, it might be important for us to keep oil within the country for purposes of defence; and so the resolution was introduced in the first instance purely with regard to Dominion lands and in connection with what had been set out in the first instance in the regulations themselves in that regard. The law officers of the Crown, however, advised that the Minister of the Interior had no power to make such regulations. Therefore the Minister of the Interior, after communicating with the Minister of Customs had the last mentioned minister bring in this resolution to accomplish the purpose which could not be accomplished in the regulations that had been framed in the Department of the Interior.
I would be very glad indeed if my hon. friend from Edmonton, who has had experience in these matters, and who was for a number of years at the head of the department, would look over those regulations and confer with the Minister of the Interior with regard to this particular-feature, because we are anxious to have the best knowledge and experience available in this House brought to bear upon the proposal, and to put this legislation in such form as will secure a certain purpose which has been alluded to and at the same time will not in any way deter the invest-men of capital.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I certainly agree with the object of the Bill. I would like to know from the hon. gentleman two things: first,, if similar measures will be adopted in the other overseas dominions, and second, in case the prohibition of exportation takes place, if the owners of the wells will be compensated.


Robert Laird Borden: The last consideration
was a little under discussion when the resolution upon this Bill was before the committee. The idea was expressed at that time by myself that it would be impossible to enforce such a prohibition without due compensation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a special contingency not likely to happen very often, and

the Government would certainly take that fact into consideration.


Mr. BOEDEN:: I would like this to be borne in mind, that, in the ordinary event of changes in rates of duty, it is not held in this or any other country that people affected by such changes are entitled to compensation. It would be idle to lay down a proposal of that kind. This is a proposal, however, to prohibit absolutely for a national purpose. It would seem to me that it differs in that respect from the principle to which I have alluded just now.
So far as the other part of my hon. friend's inquiry is concerned, I am not sure as to the present existence of any regulations of this kind elsewhere in the empire; but I am quite sure that representations such as have been made to the Government have been made elsewhere, and I have no doubt that they will have the same result.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
At six o'clock, the House resumed and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 73, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Currie. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
George Perry Graham: In reading this Bill over rather hurriedly, I gather that it merely authorizes a different method of attaching the signatures to securities issued.


Mr. LANCASTER:: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Insurance companies and all sorts of companies do the same at the present time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The explanation given to the Railway Committee was that in case of securing capital in England, lenders are accustomed to the officers named in the Bill signing. Under section 2 of section 136 of the Railway Act, signature was limited to the secretary and presiding officer. The company wish that in the case of the issue of bonds or debentures, notwithstanding what is in the Railway Act, they

may be signed by the officers named in this Bill. The Bill passed the Railway Committee exactly as presented. I may add that the new consolidated Railway Act introduced in the Senate is the same as this, except that this Bill provides that these securities may be signed by the 'Assistant Local Secretary ' of the Company. The description in the new proposed railway law is ' Secretary or Assistant or Local Secretary.' But the committee saw no harm in putting the other in so long as there were also the signatures of the head officers.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Miscellaneous-Expenses under the Canada Temperance Act, $5,000.
George Perry Graham: Will the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Coderre) please explain the increase of $4,000 in this item?


Mr. CODERRE:: This is to meet the cost of elections under the Act. There is a great deal of interest in the Act and a considerable amount for elections will be necessary. Elections have taken place this year in Peel, Welland and Huron counties, and the department has under its consideration petitions from Algoma, Sudbury, Parry Sound, Muskoka and Niagara Falls.


Mr. CARROLL:: Have there been any
elections in Nova Scotia?


Louis Coderre: Not this year.


George Perry Graham: In Ontario we have
what is called the local option law, which relates to townships, villages, towns and cities, while the Canada Temperance Act relates to counties. In some cases in Ontario, as I understand the situation, where the local option law may possibly not carry in one of the smaller municipalities, the temperance people are going back to the Canada Temperance Act, under which a vote for the entire county is taken, and the Act may be carried over the vote in the local town. In Ontario we have what is known as the three-fifth clause, under which the local option law requires a three-fifth vote, but under the Canadian Temperance Act only a plain majority is necessary to secure application of the law. I imagine my hon. friend will find the expense increasing during the next ten or fifteen years instead of decreasing. No doubt the temperance

people will.take advantage of the Canadian Temperance Act, and drop the local option on account of that handicap.


Louis Coderre: I believe my hon. friend is right; if I am well informed the Scott Act has been invoked only within the last few years. Before that, the temperance people used to make their petitions under the Local Option Act. I do not know why they have changed their minds, unless they believe that in this way it is easier for them to reach their aim, which is, of course, temperance. The reason why the item is larger this year than it has been in the past is because we expect that some elections will take place under the Federal Act.


Frank Oliver: Under what conditions would elections under the 'Canadian Temperance Act be held in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where there is territory not organized into municipalities?


Louis Coderre: Some parts of the counties which I have already mentioned- Algoma, Sudbury, Parry Sound	and
Muskoka-were unorganized, and a special
list had to be prepared to meet the purposes of the Temperance Act. I believe the same thing would have to be done in those unorganized parts of Saskatchewan	and
Alberta to which my hon. friend has referred.


Frank Oliver: There are no counties in those two provinces; would the municipalities in Saskatchewan and Alberta be considered as counties under the Act?


Louis Coderre: According to the law, the election takes place on the list in force at the time the petition is filed with the Secretary of State. In those unorganized parts of a county or riding there is, of course, no list available, and a special list for the purposes of the Act is made.


Frank Oliver: I understand from the minister that in the cases which have occurred in Ontario, a part of the territory in which the vote was taken was organized and a part of it was not. Would the Act cover a case where no part of the territory in which it was proposed to make the vote applicable had been organized, and, if so, at whose discretion or on whose decision would the boundaries of the district be made?


Louis Coderre: If those portions of the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta
which the temperance people wish to bring under the Act are not organized, the same principle which it is found necessary to apply to the unorganized parts of those counties which I have mentioned should apply to them. As soon as the petitions reach the Department of the Secretary of State instructions are given to the judges to prepare the list. In such cases the list which is used is the one which is used for the purposes of a general election.


Frank Oliver: Supposing the population of a certain area of the province of Alberta, unorganized municipally, desires to have the Canadian Temperance Act applied, would the petitioners define the boundaries of the territory to which they desired the Act to apply, or would that be subject to the decision of the minister or of the judges?


Louis Coderre: I believe I am unable to answer that question.


Frank Oliver: I do not want to be understood to be asking this merely through curiosity; the condition I have stated does prevail in those provinces. There is a strong temperance sentiment; the people have been dissatisfied with the success they have achieved so far ' in attempting to secure the application of temperance enactment. I should like to be able to say definitely what the condition is under this law, which has not yet been tried in those provinces.


Louis Coderre: I do not know of any case in point, and I cannot give the hon. gentleman an answer.


Mr. WRIGHT:: It is proposed to submit the Canada Temperance Act to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, a part of which is under what is known as the local option law, and a part under the Canada Temperance Act, in case the Canada Temperance Act should carry. What I want to know is whether local option would still be in force in that portion of the country, or whether the Canada Temperance Act would wipe out local option in the district altogether. The two laws are not on all fours; what would be a misdemeanor under one Act might not be under the other. I would like to get an opinion on that from the Department of Justice.


Louis Coderre: I wish the Minister
of Justice were here, as I cannot speak definitely on that point. I think, however,

that if the Canada Temperance Act were enforced in the whole country it would wipe out local option in all portions of the country. I must get an opinion from the Department of Justice on that point.


William Wright: This is a matter of vital importance to the people I represent, and I would like to get the opinion of the Department of Justice.


Mr. BLAIN:: I think the law is pretty
well understood in Ontario. For instance, if four municipalities in a county are under local option, and next month the Canada Temperance Act is carried in the whole county, the whole county comes under the Canada Temperance Act, and local option disappears.


George Perry Graham: I am not so sure of that. My hon. friend and myself are farmer lawyers. The question raised by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) is some question, for this reason: to carry local option in a municipality in Ontario a three-fifths vote is necessary, and to repeal local option in Ontario there has to be a a three-fifths vote, and the question is, can a majority vote repeal an Act that must be repealed by a three-fifths vote? That is a question that has not, I think, been decided yet. I am not so sure that the carrying of the Canada Temperance	Act	would affect	localoption at	all.	Suppose the	Canada Temperance Act were tried in a county and failed to carry, it is evident that' that would not interfere with the local option law in force in any municipality- at least, I think it is evident. On the other hand, if the Canada Temperance Act carried, would it override the local option law? So far as the results for the time being are concerned, it would make no difference; but when it comes to repealing the Canada Temperance Act, only a majority vote is required, while a three-fifths vote is necessary to repeal local option. It is quite a large question, and it is of interest to us in the province of Ontario to know just how the Canada Temperance Act stands, legally, in regard to local option.


William Cameron Edwards: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to say what steps have to be taken in order to try to pass the Canada Temperance Act in a county as a whole?


George Perry Graham: A petition is necessary, but I forget just what percentage of electors have to sign it.


Louis Coderre: Twenty-five per cent of the electors.


William Wright: That might have to be qualified. In a fully organized county it might be twenty-five per cent, but I do not know that that would apply to counties or districts a portion of whose territory is-unorganized.


Louis Coderre: I do not know whether the department's decision is right or wrong, but the first petition sent to the department was signed by only twenty-five per cent of the electors whose domicile was in the organized parts of the county. This election has been postponed to give time for a list to be prepared of the electors in the unorganized parts of the riding, and not until twenty-five per cent of the electors on the new list have signed the petition will the department act.


William Wright: I do not know whether I understand the situation rightly, but it has been put before me like this: Those who get up a petition have to get twenty-five per cent of all the electors, organized and unorganized, but they are only allowed to count those voters who are in the organized districts.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps my hon. friend will get us an opinion on the question 1 raised. It is of very great importance to us in Ontario to know just what is the status of the municipalities and counties on this question.


Louis Coderre: I do not know in what form and when I could bring that opinion before the House as my Estimates may go through to-night.


George Perry Graham: Maybe not; we might keep one item in order to get an opinion.


Louis Coderre: I will get an opinion to-morrow if I can.


William F. Carroll: In regard to the question raised by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), in my opinion it is an impossibility to bring the Canada Temperance Act into force in Alberta and Saskatchewan under the present Act. I just want to bring this to the attention of the minister, as a case might arise and he would not have the necessary legislation. Section 2 provides for bringing it into force in British Columbia, but at the time that was passed there was no province of Alberta and no province of Saskatchewan. There was some provision for unorganized territories such as the

Northwest territories are at the present time, but I do not think that any amendment has been made to the Act in regard to the two new provinces. If it ever becomes necessary to introduce the Act in those provinces, the minister may have some trouble.


Frank Oliver: If after examination the minister decides that there is not sufficient authority in the Act at the present time to bring it into force in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, I would suggest to him that such amendments be made as would be necessary to put those provinces on an equality with the rest of the Dominion so far as the possibility of the enforcement of the Act is concerned.


Louis Coderre: I will do that.
Expenses under the Naturalization Act, $6,000.


George Perry Graham: This item is a very important one to 'this extent, that for some years there have been negotiations carried on between the Government of Canada and the British Government as to having a uniform naturalization law. I may not use the proper legal phrase in expressing my views, but as far as I understand the situation as it has been for years, a person coming to Canada and wishing to be naturalized may -be naturalized as far as Canada is concerned, but the minute he would go to another portion of the British Empire he would not be a British subject in the full sense of the term. He would be a British subject as far as being a Canadian is concerned, but the naturalization law which has been in existence in Canada would not create him a British subject throughout the empire. I think that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture in the late Government discussed that suo-ject at length with the British authorities and that an agreement was arrived at by which a law would -be introduced that would obviate the difficulty. I think that the hon. Minister of Justice has had the matter in hand and that he has made some progress. Has the progress been sufficient up to the present date to enable us to say that hereafter the naturalization of an individual in Canada makes him a British subject throughout the empire? It is very desirable that he should be so considered. An immigrant from a foreign land comes to Canada. We only impress upon him the fact that he is a Canadian-it is limited to that practically-while the desire of all Canadians is that he should also be regarded as a British subject wherever he goes because to him it means a great deal to be a British subject away from home as well as at home and sometimes it would be a great protection to him. That matter has been under the consideration of the present Government and of the British Government and I would like to get some information from -the minister as to what progress has been made.


Louis Coderre: This question was
brought before the Imperial Conference two years ago. I know that, generally speaking, we are unanimous in the view that in such a case as that which has been cited by my hon. friend (Mr. Graham), a Canadian should be a British subject the world over. I could not say more now than that which was said lately by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). I know that certain correspondence has taken place between the imperial authorities and the Department of Justice with a view to coming to a final settlement upon this point in a sense favourable to the opinion which has been expressed by my hon. friend; but I do not know of anything else in connection with the matter.


George Perry Graham: It struck me that an
agreement had been practically arrived at by which there would be concurrent legislation in the British Parliament and in the Parliament of Canada. It was merely to get some definite information if I could concerning it that I put the question to the minister.


Louis Coderre: I do not think the Minister of Justice has received the good news that a final settlement has been reached.


David Henderson: I was not in and did not hear all that was said by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). This is a question in which I have felt a good deal of interest, but I do not think it is fair that we should pass legislation to make a man a British subject throughout the whole British Empire. I think that sometimes we are rather lax in our laws regarding naturalization. I understand that in the West a year's residence -qualifies a man for naturalization. Is that correct?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


David Henderson: Then, I am mistaken. I thought that was the case and if it was I did not think that we would have any reason to claim that a man should be declared to be a British subject on a short

residence of that kind when in other parts of tne British Empire perhaps a longer residence would be required. I think it proper that each country should deal with a matter of this kind according to its own opinion. I would not urge that we should declare a man to be a British subject the empire over simply because conditions which might be less onerous might suit our purposes very well. I do not think we would be justified in asking other portions of the Britisn Empire to accede to our request. I do not exactly share the view which was thrown out by the hon. member for South Renfrew.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid that my hon. friend has been led into error by the fact, as stated by himself, that he was not in when I was speaking.


David Henderson: Possibly.


George Perry Graham: The object of the British and Canadian authorities, as well as those of other overseas dominions, was to arrive at a basis for uniform legislation so that a man naturalized in any part of the British Empire would be a British subject where-ever he went. But it is not so easy to do that as it might appear on the surface. The governments of the overseas dominions and the Imperial authorities have been discussing it for some years and I had rather thought that they had arrived at a solution by whch we could have uniform legislation that would apply to all the overseas dominions as well as to Great Britain.


David Henderson: Would my hon.
friend be perfectly willing that the Parliament of South Africa should declare that a man should become a naturalized citizen of the Dominion of Canada? I think we should reserve that power to ourselves. We do not know what they might do in other parts of the British Empire; they might perhaps do something not at all satisfactory to us. I would rather retain the power within ourselves to say that a man should be,' or that he should not be, a British subject.


George Perry Graham: Well, then, we do not
make him a British subject altogether ; we only make him a piece of one.


David Henderson: We only make him a Canadian subject.


George Perry Graham: That is all.


William F. Carroll: I should like to call the attention of the Secretary of State to what

seems to me to be a hardship inflicted upon people who make application for naturalization. I have not taken the trouble to look into the Act, but in our part of the country, if you get into court to get a person naturalized and give the ordinary notice, before the certificate is issued, the clerk, if it is in the county court, or the prothonotary, if in the Supreme Court, makes it necessary for the applicant to appear in his office to sign some documents and get his certificate. I suppose this is a uniform practice all 'over Canada and no doubt it is done under the Naturalization Act. But it is a great hardship. The application is always made in the shire town of the county and the applicant may reside one hundred and fifty miles away from the shire town. If the law is put into effect, as it has been in our county of South Cape Breton, it will necessitate the applicant paying out $2 or $3 for transportation, in addition to the loss of a day, .in order to. oome into the shire town to get his naturalization certificate. I would ask the Secretary of State to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice who may be able to do something to make it easier for these people. In my part of the country, they force us to bring the applicants to the shire town after the certificate has been granted, and I do not see the necessity for that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is this money
for?


Louis Coderre: There is a semi-annual return of the persons naturalized throughout the Dominion, furnished by some 400 officers at various ports, and this is to pay their fees, which are fixed by Order in Council.
For supply of Canadian publications to library of High Commissioner's office, $500.


George Perry Graham: There is no High Commissioner, and I think we ought to be told who is going to read this literature.


William Findlay Maclean: The High Commissioner.


George Perry Graham: Who is he?


David Henderson: He may be the member for South Renfrew.


George Perry Graham: No chance, under present conditions. The position of High Commissioner for Canada in London is a very important one, and it ought not to be left longer vacant. It may be that there is a surplus of men longing to sacrifice themselves in that office, particularly as the Government press announces that the sal-

ary Is to be raised to $30,000 a year. The Government would have been well advised, I think, not t-o have announced that until the appointment had been made, because it only multiplies their troubles. There are gentlemen who would be likely to accept the office at $30,000 per annum who perhaps could not see their way clear to take it at the modest sum of $20,000. Many rumours are rife as to who is to be High Commissioner, and now that we are undertaking to supply him with literature, it becomes a question as to whether we should supply reading material for a man who is not on the job. My modest business has been running a newspaper foT a number of years, and the difficulty I had was to get pay from actual subscribers.


William Findlay Maclean: You could always get cord wood.


George Perry Graham: Yes, but short length
usually. We on this side of the House will have nothing to say as to who should be appointed to that honourable and important position, but we can at least urge, with some degree of reasonableness, that the vacancy should no longer be allowed to exist.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Have you any suggestion to make?


George Perry Graham: If we need a High Commissioner in London, as'we do, we need him all the time, and if there be men in Canada, as there are many, who are able to fill this position, they are available now just as much as they will be available three months hence. In all seriousness, I think the Government should give us some idea as to who the High Commissioner is to be. The names of several members of the present Government have got into the public mind, through an aperture created by some person, and we ought to know if the present array of Ministers is to be depleted. If the next High Commissioner is to be a member of the Government, why not say so at once and allay the lingering suspense and fears of a number of aspirants who are on the outside. I think myself that some of the present ministers might be spared without doing any serious injury to the ship of state. There are two of the ministers present, and perhaps they can tell us, without breaking faith with their colleagues, and without creating any jealousy between them, who, in their opinion, should be High Commissioner; of course, they need not mention their own names. If a member of the Government is to become High Corn-112
missioner, it should be announced now, so that the Prime Minister may have ample time to look around him for a substitute. For example, if it is to be the Minister of Public Works, he might get a gentleman from Calgary to succeed him. I would not say that he would be my selection, but he would fill the vacancy in the Government without having a gentleman move from Manitoba to Saskatchewan to get a constituency there, as has been suggested. If the Minister of Militia is to be High Commissioner, I can see two or three prospective Ministers of Militia from the province of Ontario, who would be willing to take the portfolio and relieve the situation.


William Findlay Maclean: What would you do with the others who would be disappointed?


George Perry Graham: They would have to wait until some other member of the Government got an office of emolument. Suppose the next High Commissioner should be a member of the Government from Nova Scotia.


David Henderson: Never.


George Perry Graham: Well, it has been intimated that the position might be filled by a prominent member of the Government from Nova Scotia, and if that be so we ought to know it at once, because I think I could find a Conservative from Nova Scotia who would be willing to take office in his place.


Louis Coderre: This money is voted for the next fiscal year, which starts only on the first of April next.


George Perry Graham: April fool.


Louis Coderre: We will have plenty of time in the interim to make the appointment.


George Perry Graham: Will the hon. gentleman promise that the appointment will be made before the first of April?


Louis Coderre: I cannot swear to that, but I can say that the Government will do its utmost to make a speedy and a good appointment.


George Perry Graham: You had better leave out the word ' speedy.'


Louis Coderre: I remember that an
appointment made by the Conservative Government some years ago was considered to be so good that, when the Liberal party came into power, they thought they



could no do better than keep the appointee in his position.


George Perry Graham: And they did not appoint a commission to investigate that appointtee?
Mr.	CODERRE:	I think	members	on
both sides of the House and the general public will certainly find that we shall appoint a good successor to the late lamented Lord Strathcona.
Mr.	GRAHAM:	Which	minister	will
it be ?


Louis Coderre: I know some ministers who would be good successors to Lord Strathcona, but I do not know any who have expressed a desire to go to London.
Mr.	LEMIEUX:	The Government	can
appoint a successor to Lord Strathcona, but they can appoint no one to replace him. He was accredit not only to Canada but to the whole of the British Empire.
There is another	point to	be
9 p.m. considered in regard to this vote to add to the library of the High Commissioner's office. My hon. friend has not gone to London since he has been made a minister of the Crown; but some day he will go there and will see that the office of the High Commissioner of Canada is far too congested. It is crowded with employees, with newspapers, blue books, and the usual library containing books of general information about Canada. To all those who have been at that office, it is only too obvious that it is out of date and certainly not in keeping with the constant growth of Canada's business in Great Britain.
In regard to this question of a new office in London, my hon. friend is aware that a movement is on foot to provide our country with a suitable building. Some years ago it was a debatable question whether the office should not be removed from Victoria street, where it now is, to the neighbourhood of Charing Cross; and then, as the site was found a little expensive, the question remained in abeyance until of late our former Governor General, Lord Grey, took up the matter and was appointed president of a committee in London which had for its special object to secure a site known as the Aldwych site where the various dominions and notably Canada would erect a building. Practically all the members of this House have received plans and photographic views of that site, also resolutions, and expressions of opinion from the press of the various overseas dofMr. Coderre.]
minions, all favourable to the site selected by Lord Grey and his associates. Some weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister if any decision had been arrived at. He replied that no decision has yet been made by Council. Is my hon. friend in a position to say whether the matter has been considered by the Government, and when we are likely to know whether or not a new site will be provided in London for Canada? The late Lord Strathcona was opposed to a new building or site, I suppose, because, being quite an old man, he did not care to change his habits. He had been accustomed for the last eighteen years to go to 19 Victoria street to transact business there, and he was quite satisfied with his own office. I appeal to my hon. friend the Postmaster General, who has been to Great Britain last year on an official mission, to say whether or not the Canadian offices in London are adequate for the business of Canada there. You have in one row of buildings the offices * of New Zealand, I believe also those of South Africa, and those of one of the smaller colonies next to the offices of Canada. That the smaller colonies may be satisfied with such small offices is no reason why the greater dominions should be satisfied with them. They are not in the central part of London, and I think we are entitled to something more ornamental than what we have in Victoria street. The Canadian immigration office, although in appearance not monumental, yet is very centrally situated near the statue of Charles I. on Charing Cross; and at night, when the illumination of the office advertising Canada is seen, it is a striking advertisement for our country. I think the Canadian office proper ought to be at some similar point. I do not say that we should take the Aldwych site, although for my part I would certainly vote quite a large amount of money to secure for Canada in London, the nerve centre of the empire, the best site available. Delegates were sent here a few weeks ago to interview the Government. Perhaps my hon. friend, without breaking any great secret, will be able to tell us whether Canada will have a respectable office in London or not.
As regards the appointment of a High Commissioner, as I stated a moment ago, you can appoint a successor to Lord Strathcona, but you will hardly find any one to replace him. It is well known that for years Lord Strathcona never drew his salary; or, if he drew it, he gave it away for charitable purposes. The salary as it is now in the Estimates, is certainly not adequate to the position just as

the salary which we paid some years ago to our commissioner in Paris was not adequate to that position. You do not pay the salary of the man only, you must pay something for the office also. The man who is our commissioner in London or in Paris must spend some money to represent his country, and if you give him only a paltry sum, our country will thereby suffer. I learned with great pleasure that the Government had increased the salary of our commissioner in Paris. It is .admitted that the Hon. Mr. Roy is doing his best to represent our country worthily in that great city of Paris. In London, the centre of the empire, and one might say the centre of the world, the representative of Canada, the premier colony of the empire, surely should be adequately paid. I do not know whom the Government intend to appoint to that position. Several names have been mentioned. Not very long ago there was quite a campaign in favour of Lord Mount-stephen. I do not know whether he would be willing to accept the position, but certainly, if he could be induced to accept it, no better Canadian could be given the appointment. But he is rather old, and 1 do not suppose he cares for the office. The best man must be selected, and you' must pay him accordingly. Whoever is selected by the Government, I am sure, will be a creditable representative, for one who has [DOT]travelled on the other side knows full well that the High Commissioner for Canada occupies a very exalted position. At the time of the Coronation our commissioner was given by His Majesty the King the rank of an ambassador. Therefore, the representative of Canada is a man highly considered, not in Great Britain only, but throughout Europe. The appointment must go to the best man, and an adequate salary must be provided.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In what my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has said about Lord Strathcona, I heartily concur. Lord Strathcona rendered great service to Canada, and, as my hon. friend has said, he will not easily be replaced. He was a national figure; he represented this country in London for many years, not only to his own credit but to the credit and benefit of the country. Whoever is appointed to succeed him will find it difficult to fill his place. I hope we shall be able to find in Canada a suitable' man. If we listen to the suggestion of the hon.
member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), we shall certainly find somebody who will consent to accept the post. One of the difficulties is that the salary which the representative of Canada receives is, as my hon. friend from Rouville said, very small. Of course, in the case of Lord Strathcona, that fact had no importance whatever; he was so wealthy and so generous in spending his money for so many good purposes, including lavish expenditures in the interests of Canada. I hope that before long, as the office has to be filled and creditably filled, the Government will be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.
As to the Canadian office in London, I think that the members on both sides agree that our present offices are not all that they should be. As the hon. member for Rouville has said, they are small, and perhaps they are not on the street most-frequented by people who would have an interest in the affairs that centre in that office. As to the Aldwych site, of course that is a very big contract. Probably the House and the country are not aware that if we were to acquire that site from the Corporation of London under the option which Lord Grey has, and to put up a building under the plans of which the hon. member for Rouville spoke, the total expenditure would be not less than 114,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For Canada?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The total. But in this respect one thing is to be mentioned. Of course the idea which the delegates had in mind when they came here recently and were heard by the members of the Government, was that several of the overseas dominions might join in order to share the expense to a certain extent. But several of the overseas dominions have already provided sites for themselves, and, moreover, as in the case of Australia, have provided themselves with buildings; the Australian building is very suitably located and very creditable; and it is out of the question that Australia would join and share the expense of the Aldwych site. It has been suggested that the different provinces of Canada might join and have their offices in the same building. 1 am not in a position to say whether the provinces would accept that idea or not. As a matter of fact, the several provinces now have offices in London, some of them very fine offices. The province of Ontario is well housed, and the office of the province of Quebec,

in Kingsway, is so well located and so fine that we do not know that the provincial government would consent to undertake so large an expenditure as its share in moving to the Aldwych site would represent. So, the question is a big one, a very big one indeed; and while the Government is desirous of having as good a location as possible, it has not been decided, so far, that the Aldwych site will be accepted. At the same time, the mind of the Government is moving in the direction of having some suitable quarters on a suitable site. We all agree that our offices in London ought to be well situated. And I concur in what my hon. friend from Rouville said about our immigration office.
It has been hoped that we might possibly 'get a property on Trafalgar Square, but legal conditions and other circumstances make it difficult to do so. However, we are turning our attention in that direction, and we hope to be able to accomplish something. I am happy to join- in what the hon. member for Rouville has said about our representative in Paris. In that regard I think we have improved matters very much. Formerly the representative of Canada in Paris was also the, representative of the province of Quebec, and with the two salaries he received, one voted by this Parliament and one by the Legislature of the province of Quebec, the amount was not as much as it is to-day. Realizing the great importance of having a creditable office in Paris, such as we now have in the Boulevard des Capucins, we have asked the province of Quebec to appoint its own representative, having reached the conclusion that it is better for the federal Government to have a representative of its own. We have given Mr. Roy what might be called a decent salary and we are voting him besides some $3,500 in order to give him enough to do honour and credit to this country. Mr. Roy was appointed by the late Government. I saw his work when I was in Paris, and I have heard very many good things about him; consequently we ' have not only retained his services but have bettered his position as well. Mr. Roy has devoted all his energies to his work, and is a creditable representative of Canada in Paris. I am happy to say, to use a well-known expression, that he has made good. If in London we can accomplish something along the same line, and have in one of the great thoroughfares *of that city such an office as we have on the Boulevard des Capucins in Paris, the sooner it can be done the better for this country.
I Mr. Pelletier.]


Mr. DEVLIN:: Does Earl Grey's option include an outright title to the property, or simply an emphyteutic lease?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Fee simple.


William Findlay Maclean: The important question is not so much the selection of a Canadian palace in the heart of the empire as it is the securing of the best possible representative for our country, who will assume his duties more from a business than from a social point of view. I would like to see a native Canadian in that office, a man born in Canada-no matter in what part of it-a man with all the energy and vigour of youth, and, most important of all, a man thoroughly acquainted with our Dominion, its resources and its needs. We want a man in London not merely to entertain Canadians who happen to go there, but a man who knows Canada's requirements, who is acquainted with her trade and its development, and who can help to build it up; who will assist in getting the best class of immigration from Europe, and who will look at the office and the fulfilment of the duties it involves from a business point of view. I am not passing the slightest criticism on any previous holder of that eminent office, and I am not saying that holders of the office have been sufficiently remunerated in the past; but it is not so much a question of the remuneration as it is a matter of the office being held by a man who will look at it from the Canadian businesslike point of view. The man who represents Canada in London should, to my mind, be eminently acquainted with financial conditions; he ought to know how to aid Canada in getting what she most needs from the mother country and from Europe, that is, capital. A man competent to do these things is the kind of man who should be sought, and I think he can be found among the natives of Canada.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Much as I hesitate to differ from the hon. gentleman, allow me to protest, as a native Canadian, against the claim that he has made-that men who are not native Canadians are not qualified to represent this country.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say that.


John Hampden Burnham: I understood the hon. gentleman to say he would like to see a native Canadian sent over to Great Britain to represent Canada. From this I infer that he means that in order that we may have a man who is thoroughly Canadian, he will have to be a Canadian of the Canadians, as it is said, and one who is

not, as I think he meant to insinuate, tainted with foreign blood.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say that at all.


John Hampden Burnham: I have very great
respect for the hon. gentleman who has just spoken; I regard him as one of the most progressive men in Canada, but let me say that men who have come to this country from other parts of the British Empire have identified themselves in every possible way with Canada, and are just as good Canadians as exist in this country. We have in the old country men from Canada who are accepted wholly without prejudice, and who are accorded positions not with reference to their nationality, but because they are British subjects, who are loyal to the empire and faithful to their duty. The very moment you bring up the distinction at which the hon. gentleman has hinted, you will utterly break up the whole British Empire, because you accentuate or emphasize birth or nationality, and this we should not be too anxious to emphasize.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend suggest that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) would break up the British Empire?


John Hampden Burnham: I do not suggest that he wishes to do so; I do not suggest that other gentlemen in this House wish to do so, but I do suggest that if the course they pursue is followed, they will break it up. I speak with some feeling in this matter, for many years ago, when I had,. perhaps, a little less sense than I have now, I w'ent into this matter and, if I may be forgiven, I wrote a little book called, ' Canadians in the Imperial Service.'
I went over Canada and I went over the old country, looking the whole matter up, and I found a bond of sympathy between the men who are ready to serve the empire. They did not ask whether they were Canadians, or Englishmen. I found Canadians living in London wholly adopted by the English people and I find English people in Canada wholly adopted by Canadians, and I trust there never will be, especially at this time when we are seeking to acquire equality of naturalization, any attempt to differentiate between different sections and different nations. Let my hon. friend from Rouville remember that if we begin that sort of thing it might be bad for the French in Canada. If we are going to start that sort of thing there will be no welding of the nations. , We who are	anxious-as	English-speaking
Canadians-to take	to our inmost
heart our French	compatriots, are
forbidden by that doctrine to do so. Who will be the Canadians in this country, who will be the British subjects, if we are going to adopt doctrines like that? The people here will be Canadians and Australians will be Australians. The next thing, we shall have British Columbians howling that they belong to British Columbia only, and similarly with the middle West. We have had enough of that already; we must give up that idea. I am speaking perhaps hastily, because this matter has been flashed upon me, but I know I am right. It is a very serious question that is being broached, and I think a very wrong one.
Public archives, $48,500.


George Perry Graham: This is one of the items I would question a decrease in, not because I do not favour economy, but because I hope there is to be no cessation of the important work tin connection with the Archives.


Louis Coderre: There is a decrease of $4,500. Last year there were a few outstanding accounts in England which had to be paid. This year we have no outstanding accounts and the amount required is less on that account; that is the only reason for the decrease.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sorry that the Government does not appreciate the importance of the work done by the Archives staff. A year ago I inquired of the Government if the time had not come when we should enlarge the building now occupied by the Archives Branch. This building was erected only a few years ago, but the work of the Archives staff has been so productive that to-day it is overcrowded. Let us retrace our steps for one moment. Some forty years ago the Archives were put under the direction of Dr. [DOT] Brymner. The Archives Branch was at that time put under control of the Department of Agriculture- why, I do not know. Dr. Brymner certainly accomplished wonders with the money and the space at his disposal. I think he was given three or four small rooms. It was during Dr. Brymner's occupancy of the position of archivist that he began the study and the copying of our historic documents, chiefly in France and England. We secured some very valuable documents. Later on, when Dr. Brymner was superannuated, the Government was fortunate enough to secure the services of a gentle

man eminent as an archivist not only in America but throughout the world; I refer to Dr. Doughty. His special fitness for the position, his great culture, and his services to the country, are well known. I believe that any government in the world would be glad to secure Dr. Doughty's services. When a document does not exist he almost invents one. He has made discoveries which have baffled every historian and archivist, but unfortunately Dr. Doughty has not sufficient assistance in his work. I am not passing judgment on any of his subordinates; I think they are all able men; but I do not think he has the requisite number around him for the splendid work he is accomplishing. The building, as I said, is quite inadequate, and I wish to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to that point. We have erected a mint which is a credit to Canada, and I think we should have a monumental building for our archives. The present building is already full to the roof, as any one who goes there can easily realize. There is another thing: the public have recently been admitted to the museum on Sundays as well as week days, and statistics show that a great number of people availed themselves of that opportunity to visit the museum. I do not ask that the Archives Branch be kept open on Sundays, but I think the time during which the building is available to the public is not very long. The office closes at 8 o'clock in the evening and is opened at 9.30 or perhaps 10 o'clock in the morning. The student of history is not satisfied with such a short day's work, and if a limited number of students were permitted to avail themselves of these splendid collections for a longer time each day, I am quite sure they would heartily rejoice in that fact. Mr. Chairman, do you realize what a mine we have at the Archives? We have many important buildings in Ottawa; we have the Mint where we coin our gold and our silver, we have our library and we have our museum, but I dare say our most interesting building is the Archives building. Historians of the past, the Dents, the Christies, the Garneaus, the Suites, to name but a few of those who belonged to the older generation, if they had to write again the history of Canada, or one period of that history, would recast their work. They certainly deserve well for the work that they did, but had they had in then-day all the manuscripts and the original documents which have been collected of fMr. Lemieux.l
late by Dr. Doughty, it would have made the greatest difference in the world to them. Dr. Doughty, in writing a report some years ago and speaking of the importance of the archives in the preparation of any history, said:
In the course of an examination by a Select Committee of the British House of Commons many years ago, the chairman put the following question to a well known author. ' Do you think that owing to those causes a work so inaccurate as Hume's History of England, we And the currency in the present day that it did at the time it was published? ' The answer given was:	'I do not think it would. I wish
to speak with the highest respect of Robertson and Hume, two most eminent men. I have heard that the demand for their works is much diminished, and I believe the fact is so, but I think that it is to be ascribed, not to there being no demand for higher historical literature, but to these authors not having gone to the best sources from which historical truth was to be drawn: these sources were not opened to them at least not so open that they could easily consult them, and therefore I do not mean to say, they are to be blamed. Hume, I have heard, was shown the stores in the State paper office, or some other of the great record offices after he had gained a great reputation by the publication of his first volumes. He was in London, and about to continue his work, but his time was limited; he looked on the uncatalogued array of manuscripts in despair and contented himself with those printed materials which were accessible.'
Here you have the experience of Hume. Without the archives it would be the experience of every Canadian historian. The archives have changed completely the field of Canadian history. Documents of the highest importance which were not known to exist, which were not accessible to these historians, have been brought to light during the last eight or ten years. My friend, Dr. Doughty, has discovered in Mexico, in the far West, in Illinois, most invaluable collections which were supposed to be lost for one or two centuries, and which have a direct relation to the history of Canada. In the seminary of St. Sulpice in Montreal, in the seminary of Quebec, in the court house of Montreal, in the court house of Quebec, papers were buried in the dust for centuries of the utmost importance to every one who wishes to ' study the old regime in Canada, and nobody had ever thought of getting possession of these papers. I say nobody. Pardon me, the Americans had been enterprising enough to get those documents, and Dr. Doughty has found in Chicago, in Wisconsin, and in New Orleans papers which belonged to the court house in Montreal and the court house in Quebec. They had been taken by

Americans to their own country at the expense of Canada. In England, Dr. Doughty has discovered most invaluable documents-the Townshend collection, the Chatham papers, the Bagot papers, the Durham papers and the Dalhousie papers. The papers relating to the Riel state trial have been found in the Justice Department. They were about to be lost, and if Dr. Doughty had not laid his. hands on a box containing the record in that case, they would have disappeared. Some years ago he wanted to get some charts which were supposed to be shelved somewhere in the Militia Department. He was told that no such charts existed. Well, he went into the garrets of the department, and he discovered charts of the highest value, not only to Canada but to the empire itself.
These facts are not known, and yet it is well that they should be. We must help as much as possible the archivist of the Dominion in getting the necessary appropriation, first, to enlarge the building where he is now located, and, second, to increase his staff. No family in Canada can dispense wiith the archives. I dare say that there is no nation in the world to-day which can trace the genealogy of its citizens better than the Canadian nationality. As regards my fellow countrymen the French in Canada, it is well known that in view of the careful way in which the registers were kept by the clergy and the courts under the French regime, it is very easy for them to trace their ancestry. The English-speaking race, especially of the province of Ontario, will find here the titles of concession in every township. They have been discovered by Dr. Doughty, and they are in the archives building. The descendants of nearly every settler, including the United Empire Loyalists in Ontario, can find the original patents which those settlers got from the King, or his representative, at the time they settled in this country.
This is an important matter, not only for the Canadian families, but for the country at large and I am not satisfied when I see that the amount is decreased by my hon. friend the Secretary of State. I hope that this decrease only has reference to this one vote, and that there will be something in the Supplementary Estimates which will compensate for it. I may tell the committee that Dr. Doughty has also secured the correspondence of Sir John Macdonald. He has secured the papers of the De Sala-berry family, and he has been able from
that correspondence to establish some facts which heretofore have been contested. He
received considerable additions to his state documents from His Excellency Lord Grey when he was Governor General, and also from Lord Minto. That very excellent book, ' Constitutional Documents,' compiled by Mr. Shortt and Dr. Doughty, is due to the existence of the Archives. The instructions given by the home governments to the various governors of Canada, which, of course, had to remain confidential for a number of years, were recently made public and add greatly to our knowledge of the constitutional history of our country. It is of the utmost importance to students of history that they should be cognizant of such documents. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will give to the Archives what help he possibly can, and will induce the Minister of Public works to reconstruct the Archives building. There is no building in Canada that should be more monumental, because in it you have tne history of every Canadian family, and you have as well the papers of the nation. The people of Canada would be surprised did they know the extent of the treasures that have been accumulated during the past ten or fifteen years by the Dominion Archivist, and by some of his staff.


Louis Coderre: I can assure my hon.
[DOT]riend (Mr. Lemieux) that the interest he :akes in the Archives is not greater than he interest taken in that institution by the Government. It is a pleasure to me to in-iorm my friend that in the supplementary estimates for the coming year there will be found a sum for the extension of that building, which will make it three times as large as it is at present. I am m accord with the hon. .member when he says that the present building no longer suits the demands of the Archives Department. We have already there 13,000 old maps, most of them relating to the history of the country, and 20,000 volumes or manuscripts of all kinds. What has been said by the hon. member should be known to all Canadians who are proud of the history of their country The decrease of .$4,500 in the vote is according to the wish of the Dominion Archivist. What my hon. friend has said of Dr. Doughty, is not too much. I believe he is the right man for the position; he loves his work, and during the ten years he has been in office the number of maps and manuscripts and valuable volumes has

largely increased. Dr. Doughty reports that the officers in the Archives at present are sufficient to do the work properly. It has been a pleasure for the Government to have recently authorized the renting of offices in Montreal and Quebec, where the representatives of the Archives Department can carry on their work instead of working at home. We have in Nova Scotia, Mr. Milner, who is a well-known litterateur and historian, and he is doing splendid work. Lately we have appointed an official in Winnipeg, who will exploit the wealth of historical lore to be found in the records of the Hudson Bay Company, and which will prove a valuable addition to our history.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have the Selkirk papers been secured?


Louis Coderre: Yes, sixty volumes of
them are now in the Archives. There is a total sum of $109,800 voted for the Dominion Archives, and the Archivist believes it is sufficient. He has been refused nothing, and the Government have only been too pleased to do whatever was deemed necessary by the Archivist.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What Canadians are employed in Paris under the Dominion Archivist?


Louis Coderre: Messrs. Beauchesne,
Buron, and Dugas.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who in London?


Louis Coderre: Mr. Biggar, Mr. French, and five copyists.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a representative of our Archives in Washington?


Louis Coderre: No, but we have Mr. Lanctot in California,


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would urge upon my hon. friend that, when an appointment is to be made at the Archives, he should follow the judgment of the Chief Archivist. When the Liberal party was in office we did not select, for the Archives at least, any officer unless his appointment was approved by the Chief Archivist. When we appointed an assistant to the Archivist, we selected Mr. Roy of Levis, Quebec. He was a well-known Conservative; but, as an archivist and as a student in history, he was supposed to be a leading authority in Canada. I would like my hon. friend to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and not to impose upon Dr. Doughty any political appointment. If there is one sacred place in the departments where technical and special knowledge is re-
quired, it is in the Archives. If you impose upon the Archivist any political friend who has no special knowledge of history, you simply create chaos and confusion. Will my hon. friend give his word that he will always consult the Chief Archivist and not make him turn to despair?


Louis Coderre: My hon. friend knows that these appointments are made on the issuing of a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is a good old joke.


George Perry Graham: They come in under section 21.


Louis Coderre: Since I have come into office, I have followed the system in vogue. I know that in some cases Liberals have been appointed because they were deemed by Dr. Doughty to be the best qualified. My hon. friend knows Mr. Lanctot and what his political principles are. I feel that a permanent appointment should be made, because I think that he is only there temporarily. He has been sent by the Archivist to California to do special work for the Archives, and I believe that before long he will prove one of our best archivists so far as the history of Canada, at all events, is concerned. He has taken a great deal of interest in his work, and I have been only too pleased to do what I can for him. There are also young students belonging to different universities in Canada who have been helped in the same way. We do not take the trouble to go into the family records or old manuscripts to find out whether they belong to this or that party.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know Mr. Lanctot very well, and I hope that some day'he will bfe a permanent official of that de-
10 p.m. partment. Mr. Lanctot was a *student of mine some years ago at Laval University. He took all his degrees there and even was awarded a Rhodes scholarship. When the time came to select one of the three Rhodes scholars that Canada can send every year to Oxford, it was found that the Quebec branch of Laval University was entitled to the scholarship, and young Lanctot, who belonged to the Montreal branch, missed his turn, but was promised that the following year he would be sent to Oxford. When he applied the following year to Dr. Parkin for his scholarship, he was told that he was a year too old. After that he earned his living for some time, making a little money by writing for the press; then he went to

Oxford; was admitted to the University; followed the courses there for three years- and I may say en passant that one of the noble actions of Lord Strathcona was to help that young Canadian. He is the one who introduced lacrosse at Oxford. He completed his studies at Oxford, and has now returned to Canada. He does not know whether he will take up law, journalism or history; but he is certainly well able to fill a post in the Archives building. He does not seek the office; the office is seeking him; and my hon. friend is simply doing a good action, not only in the interest of Lanctot, but of the Archives and of the country. I can assure him that he will never have a better officer than young Lanctot.


Mr. BOULAY:: Is Mr. Lanctot a Liberal?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, when the former
Administration appointed Mr. Roy, of Levis, as assistant archivist, ihe was recognized at the time as a great authority in the held of historical research; and at the same time he was well known as a prominent Conservative in the province of Quebec.
That is exactly what I said a moment ago to the hon. Secretary of State, and if there is a department from which politics should be banished, surely that is the one. Office holders under that department should be appointed on account of their qualifications and not on account of their political colour.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: I would like to know from the minister who it is decides whether such or such a document and such or such a flag should be deposited in the Archives. I have gone through the Archives, I saw there the flag of Carillon, guns dating back to 1837 and a great many other things of very great interest. I wonder at times whether the Nationalists' colours is not to be found there, I mean that flag riddled with bullets.


Mr. BLONDIN:: Order.


Charles Avila Wilson: If it is not there, it might be of interest to know where it is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Louis Coderre: We have what is termed the Commission of Historical manuscripts, which comprises among others the hon. Mr. Chapais, legislative councillor, of Quebec; the Revd. Mr. Gosselm, of Laval University, Quebec; Mr. Colby, of McGill University, and several others, residing in various provinces of the Dominion. That commission is, as it were, the board of directors of the Archives. Mr. Doughty, the Archivist, is on the board. It meets at Ottawa several times in the year, and at such meetings, Mr. Doughty makes such recommendations as he thinks proper; he informs the board of what has been done since the previous meeting. It is that commission which acts as advisor to the archivist. In that way is the selection made in most cases of the manuscripts, which, as I stated a moment ago, number about 20,000, and also of the maps, numbering 13,000, which have been selected as having some historical value.
My hon. friend must have found highly interesting the visit he made to the Archives. Not only did he see there the old flag of Carillon, but he must also have noticed the large numbers of these manuscripts and charts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to find out from the Minister whether the statute which was passed a year or two ago, when the archivist was promoted to the rank of a deputy minister, providing that he should be allowed to enter all departments and to lay hands on all historical documents he might discover there, has been given effect to in the meantime. Has Mr. Doughty met with difficulties in securing such documents? I understand in every department there are exceedingly valuable documents which are liable to be lost or mislaid, but which the archivist has the right to have deposited in the Archives.


Louis Coderre: I may say to my hon. friend that last year a commission was organized, made up of Sir Joseph Pope, Mr. Jarvis and Dr. Doughty. The secretary of that commission was Mr. Justice Audette. That commission was appointed to go through every department, exhume any old documents which may be stored there and many of which are on the road to utter destruction. That commission has done a certain amount of work. When it is through it is expected it will submit to us a report, and I understand that will be

the proper time to decide what documents are worthy of a place in the Archives, and to obtain from the various ministers authority to transfer them to the Archives. Until that is done, I think it would not be possible to arrive at a decision.
Legislation-general-printing, printing paper and binding, $250,000.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON:: Has this to do with the printing of the reports?


Louis Coderre: This money is for the expenses of the Printing Committee of Parliament to pay for the printing and stationery they need from the Printing Bureau.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the hon. minister inform me whether we may have the list for the county of Jacques Cartier?


Louis Coderre: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I mean the latest list, not the one for the last election.


Louis Coderre: The hon. gentleman
wants the list of last fall?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I mean the list for the coming election. The hon. minister knows that there is a new law in the province of Quebec and that we have adopted tne one-man-one-vote system. This makes a great difference for such counties as Jacques Cartier, Chambly and Vaudreui/1 .surrounding the city of Montreal. There is a large floating population in these counties who have heretofore had a right to vote and whose names are now eliminated from the lists.
1 dare say there are 5,000 persons at least who were entitled to vote in the last election in Jacques Cartier who will be eliminated by the new system. I do not wish to conceal my demand: there will be an election in the county of Jacques Cartier, and I ask the hon. Secretary of State to have the list prepared according to the last revision.


Louis Coderre: I know that when there is a vacancy, it is customary for the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to prepare the list. If the hon. gentleman thinks it necessary for me to remind Mr. Foley of the custom. I will do it with pleasure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not criticising Mr. Foley, nor do I make any request of him. 1 make my request frankly and boldly to the Minister of the Department. There is a vacancy in Jacques Cartier; we shall have an election there; the lists will be required; both of the parties will want it. I now beg to make my request on behalf of the Lib- .
erals of the county of Jacques Cartier for the list, and I desire that it shall be supplied as soon as possible. It is known that there will be an election; it is known that about one-third of the electorate at the last vote will be eliminated. Now, why not have a proper list prepared at once? Will the hon. Secretary of State tell me that he will give the necessary instructions to that effect?


Louis Coderre: Yes, I will give the
necessary instructions; and as soon as the list is ready my hon friend or any other member will be given a copy.


Charles Avila Wilson: Are these lists printed every year, or is this a sign of an election?


Louis Coderre: According to law, I
understand, the lists of the whole country should be prepared annually. That would mean an expenditure of $80,000. It has been the custom for years not to prepare the lists in those years in which a general election is not expected; and as we do not expect a general election this year, the lists generally have not been made. But, in a case such as that referred to by my hon. friend from Rouville, the list will be prepared as soon as possible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman will give especial instructions to Mr. Foley?


Louis Coderre: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thank you.
Miscellaneous-plant, Printing Bureau, new, $50,000.


George Perry Graham: Will the minister please tell us just what he is going to buy, where he is going to buy it, and how he is going to buy it?


Louis Coderre: Three cylinder presses, at $3,500 each. We have been buying the Meihle presses. They are not made in this country, and we get them from Chicago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Printing His Majesty's documents upon American presses? I cannot believe it.


Louis Coderre: We are obliged to do
so, because these presses are not made in Canada.


Mr. CARVELL:: They are made in England.


Louis Coderre: Not the same presses.
Then there is an item for one automatic job press, composing room equipment, paper cutter, cutting machine, sewing machine, etc., total, $50,000.


George Perry Graham: The Meihle is a good
press, but there are many other good ones. The judgment of the department may be all right, but if I were buying presses I would not announce that 1 intended to buy only the Meihle, because by so doing I would shut out all competition and, besides. would have to pay whatever price was asked.


Louis Coderre: We have been buying
some of these presses, but I do not remember having announced it to be the intention of the department to buy these particular presses from the same company. There are special reasons why these presses should be bought. I am told that a man who can work on that press can work on any other.
Distribution of parliamentary documents, $2,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The members of the
House are allowed four copies of the unrevised ' Hansard.' I do not know what is the experience of other hon. gentlemen, but I have demand for a great many more than three times that number. Possibly the Government may not feel inclined to print a large quantity, but I would like to know if some arrangement could not be made by which a member could get more copies of unrevised ' Hansard ' than the four which are allotted to him every day.


Louis Coderre: I am not sure, but 1
believe that this matter is subject to regulations made by the Debates Committee. If this committee should think it desirable to make a change in the rule, I should c^tainly be pleased to adhere to their decision.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate the fact
that there must be a regulation of some kind; otherwise we would not get simply the four copies. I can understand that the officials at the Printing Bureau may require to know the number of ' Hansards ' that have to be printed. But most of us know enough about printing to know that the chief cost consists in setting up the type; when that is done the extra cost of running off three or four hundred additional copies is a mere bagatelle. If the Printing Bureau is given notice before 12 o'clock of the day after the unrevised * Hansard ' is printed, I do not see any reason why a member should not be able to obtain fifty or one hundred additional copies if he wished to have them. I do think they ought to be furnished, and when we consider the millions of dollars
that are scattered broadcast all over the city of Ottawa this is a very small matter.


Louis Coderre: Of course it would only be .a small matter. If the rule is changed I know the Printing Bureau will be glad to abide by it.


George Perry Graham: Would the mimster mind making a note of it so that he can discuss it with the Chairman of the Debates Committee. I have a grievance too, and my grievance is not spasmodic, it is chronic. It costs me about $50 a session to send copies of ' Hansard ' to people who take a live interest in what is going on in the House. Sometimes, I suppose, they are disappointed but nevertheless they like to get them. I pay $3 for the 'Hansard' for a good many people, not only in my own riding, but all over the province and in other provinces as well. They say ' We are interested in what is going on in the House and would like a copy of ' Hansard.' I paid my account the other day and discovered that I am quite a philanthropist. I am not sure that the country should not pay for the dissemination of this literature, which certainly the people are entitled to. It would not require a great deal of money. My idea is that a member should be allowed at least a dozen copies a day, and I think if each member knew he could get that number he would make arrangements to have them sent to those who taken an interest in our proceedings. I send out a good many more than that, and yet do not meet all the demands because I cannot afford it.


Louis Coderre: I will see the Chairman of the Debates Committee about the matter.


Frank Oliver: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that during this session and last session there has been a distribution of blue books to the members which, in my case at any rate, is not acceptable. Every morning a gentleman in the public service drives a wheelbarrow or cart up to the door of the room which four of us occupy, and insists on bringing in a large portion of the load he carries on this wheelbarrow. He deposits it in the room and goes on his way more or less rejoicing. I have tried to persuade him to keep the books but he says he has orders to deliver them at that room. I have tried every means in my power to keep these documents from being dumped into the room, but have not yet been successful. The only thing we can do is to wait until a cartload accumulates and then we issue an order to the chief whip of the basement and he proceeds to

have them taken away. What he does with them I do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He sends them to our
electors.
Mr. OLIVER. That is no doulbt the intention, but I do not think our electors would read them any more than we would.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is not my experience. My electors read them and then question me.


Frank Oliver: Some of these documents, no doubt, are interesting to the electors of my constituency, and some others to the electors of other constituencies, but I would like to have the privilege of choosing the documents to be sent to my electors. So long as the distribution office is available we can get all the documents we want for our electors, and we do not need to have the rooms we are occupying loaded up with wagon loads of material that we do not want to use. If it is necessary to get rid of that amount of printing and paper-I do not know what purpose there is in it-I would respectfully suggest that instead of insisting upon furnishing blue books that we do not read and which our constituents do not read, the number of reports of the debates could be increased to a proportionate amount. I do not say bring them in on a cart and put them in our rooms whether we want them or not, but let each man be entitled to a certain number from the distribution office. The Government would 'be no worse off, the paper mills would be called on for the same requirements, the Printing Bureau would have the same amount of work to do, and I am satisfied that the country would be better served, because, after all, there are people in Canada who have the more or less antiquated notion that the business of the country is transacted to a greater or less degree in Parliament; who are interested in the transaction of that business, and will be glad to be informed in regard to it by means of 1 Hansard.' They are quite ready to follow the proceedings of Parliament from day to day when matters of interest to them are up for consideration, but they are not prepared to go through the pages of a blue book in regard to, say, the Inland Revenue or some other department in which they do not happen to be interested. No doubt the Inland Revenue blue book is filled with facts and figures that are valuable and correct, but I do not find them interesting or informing in regard to matters in which 
I am concerned. So if the minister will arrange to have the blue books available for members at the distribution office and let them stay there until they are wanted, and will arrange for a larger number of ' Hansards,' up to a certain limit to be agreed upon, to be taken as required, he will be doing Parliament a very considerable service, and the public will not be at any greater expense, and the officers of the Administration will be at no greater inconvenience.


David Henderson: It seems to me that the hon. member for Edmonton is unduly critical. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman is not able to find some persons in his riding who will read these reports. I have adopted a plan in regard to these blue books and carried it out for a great many years. For instance, I get two reports of the Fisheries Department, of course, I have more than two fishermen in my county and I see that all of them, so far as I can, get a copy of that report. If it is a report of the Marine Department I send that to the marine men. I have several customs offices in my county and in order to keep them posted I send them a copy of the trade and navigation returns. I send the Postmaster General's Report to each of the postmasters in the county, and so on all along the line. I have no difficulty in getting rid of these duplicate reports-they are all issued in duplicate and, I think, without any waste. When it comes to an agricultural report you can get rid of a great many with great satisfaction. If a member does this systematically, from day to day as the reports are handed in at his door, he can dispose of these reports to advantage and without any waste. I confess that sometimes I have allowed them to accumulate for a few days or even a week but then I make a job of it, sort them all out and send them off.
But I would not like to see the number of these reports that are allotted to members curtailed. They are all required and they can be made good use of for the instruction of the public and the country generally. A member must not expect that he is going to get the fullest advantage of these reports unless he is prepared to' take a little trouble. I never employ a page to look after my ' Hansard,' I do it myself and I know it is done. I do not mean to say that the pages do not do it as well as I do. I am a believer in the old system ' if you want a tiling done, do it yourself; if you do not want it done hire somebody

else to do it.' I have for a great many years made up my own volumes of ' Hansard.' I have selected four different men in the county, who, I know, will take an interest in reading * Hansard. I use the string to bind the volume, start the volume for them and send the ' Hansard ' to them. Sometimes I am asked to send the ' Hansard ' to people. I keep every day sending the additional numbers of ' Hansard ' so that at the end of the session a man will have his volume of ' Hansard ' complete. I have done this year after year and I have found it very satisfactory. I am sure that sometimes I send the ' Hansard ' to a man who does not make as good use of it as he might, but I was told by an old farmer in my county that he read every one of them and that he was glad to get them.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Is Georgetown in that county?


David Henderson: Yes, it is, and I
generally see that there is one going to Georgetown.


Frank Oliver: Does it go to the quarry?


David Henderson: I could send it there and it would be appreciated because the people there are intelligent.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Are the quarries
working now?


David Henderson: My hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) wants to know if the quarries are running. I have not been up there for some time but I presume they are something like the coal mines in Nova Scotia; they lay off for a little while.


George Perry Graham: In both eases they bought the stuff on the other side of the line.


Frank Oliver: I am sure that one copy of the ' Hansard ' went to the quarry all
Tight.


David Henderson: It i.s quite possible. I see that the ' Hansards ' are scattered through the country. I take one man in one township and another man in another township and send ' Hansards ' to these men so that they will be available in different parts of the county. This is not a matter to be joked over. It is something that we ought to sympathize and do in a proper way so that through every county there will be general information given in regard to the proceedings of Parliament. If there is a political club I find the means of sending a copy of ' Hansard ' regularly to .it. To mechanics' institutes and
libraries I also send copies of the ' Hansard.1 When the session is over I have no hesitation in handing over the duplicate volumes to a library wheie the people in the to win or village have access to them. In that way the people are kept informed.
I think that the hon. member for Edmonton is very anxious to get rid of the little trouble involved in the service which he might do his constituents and which would be highly appreciated, by them. I have never received any complaints from my constituents about their having been overloaded with that sort of thing. Tney always seem to be looking for it and they want me to do it. It is surprising the amount; of information we get from these blue books.
I picked up a report, which I undertake to say not half a dozen here in this House have ever looked at-the report of the Geographic Board. I question if my hon. friend from Edmonton has ever opened that volume.


Frank Oliver: Never saw it.


David Henderson: Although the hon. gentleman received two volumes. I do not mean to say that I have read that volume through, but I have examined it, and I have picked out something in it that I thought was erroneous. I have written letters to the secretary of the Geographic Board calling attention to the errors that they made in the changing of names, and I got their reply. If I had not been satisfied with the reply I would have made another appeal. In one instance, not long ago, I had a promise that the matter would again be brought before the board. We can make use of these documents if we only devote a little time to the matter. I would not advise the Secretary of State, or whoever has control of the publication of these volumes, to curtail the number. I am always pleased to see the cart unloaded at my door and the quota that is allowed to me, thrown off, ready for distribution. I may be a little late sometimes in sending them away, but I always see that they are got away before the session closes. I think it is a very good plan, to keep your people informed, and if you do they will appreciate it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We appreciate the very kind advice which the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has given us, but he must remember that we are not all as industrious as he is. It is pretty hard for ordinary mortals to carry out the programme which my hon. friend prescribes

for us. There is no doubt that if we would work as hard as he does we would be able to disseminate a large amount of information among our constituents which would be of very great value to them. I think that perhaps he did not understand or appreciate the point made by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). My hon. friend wanted the documents printed, but he wanted the right to go and say what he wanted to have. If my hon. friend from Edmonton did not want the Geographic Board reports, my hon. friend from Halton would be welcome to them. But I want to come back to the innocent question which I asked of the minister and which started this discussion. I appreciate that it would not be fair to ask the department to publish, say, fifty copies of ' Hansard ' for every member every day. I doubt very much if that quantity would be taken care of by the members and sent out to their destinations. I would, however, suggest that some arrangement be made by which, if a member gave notice by noon of the next day, he could get fifty or one hundred copies. I was never in the Printing Bureau, but I presume the type must be kept there until the revised ' Hansard ' is issued. If it be there until, say, next day at noon, there should be no trouble in striking off whatever number of copies a member wants. In that way you might supply different members with what they required at a nominal cost to the country. I think that four to each member is not sufficient. I generally send out the ' Hansard/ and I have done so since I have been in Parliament. The persistency of my hon. friend from Halton and myself may be some reason why some other hon. gentlemen are sometimes short of ' Hansards.'


David Henderson: No, I never stole anything belonging to another man.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: However, let that be as it may, it is only another argument in favour of having more printed. I hope that my hon. friend the Secretary of State will appreciate the request I am making and see if something cannot be done to comply with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite agree with my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell), that more discretion should be given to the distribution office in supplying members of the House who require a larger number of ' Hansards.' I do not say that the daily edition of ' Hansard ' i-Mr. Carvell.]
should be increased in number, but a certain discretion should be used in regard to the distribution of a larger number when needed. Since we are speaking about ' Hansard,' I must congratulate the ' Hansard ' staff on the improvement that has been made this year in the Official Report of the Debates of the House. On the first page of ' Hansard ' you will find the word ' Canada,' which formerly did not appear there, and you will also find enumerated the subject matters of the day's debate, which is a new feature. Then, there is printed the name of ouf venerable Speaker, who was ignored in former years so far as ' Hansard ' is concerned.


George Perry Graham: That is the only way he has to get his name on 'Hansard.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then the hours appear, and you will find printed at the side of the column '4 p.m.' or '5 p.m./ as the case may be, which facilitates search. May I ask the Secretary of State if the Chief of the French translators has been appointed? I belong to the Debates Committee, but I find that our functions have been singularly curtailed of late. It seems to me that we should not be treated in that way. We are interested in having an excellent report of the speeches in the House, and generally speaking ' Hansard ' is well produced and is a credit to Canada, but I regret to say that the French version is not up to date. We have on the staff some excellent translators like Mr. Lasalle, Mr. Gorin, Mr, Hughes, Mr. LaRose, Mr. Gascon, and others whose names I forget, but unfortunately one or two have been appointed of late who are not up to the mark. I showed the Postmaster General one translation of one of my speeches, and it nearly turned his hair grey. This translation was made by a gentleman who has been recently appointed. Whether he passed the examination or not I do not know, but the important point is that the chief translator has resigned, and is now an ordinary member of the staff. As a translator he is excellent, but he had no authority over his staff. Some time ago the translators' staff unanimously signed a petition asking that Mr. Lucien Lasalle should be appointed chief. Mr. Lasalle is no political friend of mine. He is a well-known friend of the present Administration; but it is a question of ability and not politics. It is well known that Mr. Lasalle possesses ability and amiability as well; he is the oldest translator there; he was appointed in the

earlier eighties; he has authority over the staff, and I am sure that if he were appointed he would see where the laches are at present, and that no manuscript should go out of the office until it were sufficiently revised even for the unrevised edition.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This has nothing to do with the Secretary of State.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We were speaking of
public documents, and, anyway I have almost concluded. I would like the Postmaster General, the Secretary of State, and the Minister of Inland Revenue to take this matter into serious consideration and to confer with Mr. Speaker. I do not introduce any politics into this. I belong to the Debates Committee and have at heart the preservation of a good. French report of our debates. I trust that Mr. Lasalle will be appointed, and if not, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, or Mr. Hughes, or Mr. Gascon, who are all able. But, the senior is Mr. Lasalle and he should be given promotion. As it is at present I make bold to say that there are many pages of ' Hansard ' which are really a discredit to the French language.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This matter does not come under the control of the Secretary of State. I think we should heartily congratulate Mr. Speaker for the care he has taken and the success he has achieved in endeavouring to secure a first-class staff for the translation of ' Hansard '. It is only due to Mr. Speaker that I should say so. I do not controvert for one moment that some parts of the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) were poorly translated, but the translation was not quite bad enough to turn my hair grey, as he said. I would not like it to be thought that Mr. Speaker has not achieved success in his efforts to secure a competent staff, and as a matter of fact, and without giving any name, one of the first-class men on the staff was ill at the time, and he was replaced by a gentleman who translated the speech of my hon. friend about which complaint has been made. This gentleman is not a permanent member of the staff, and I understand that he is not going to be retained. I wish my hon. friend to know this so that there may be no discredit cast on the permanent staff.
As I said, I am not going to give any particular names, but this gentleman is not qualified. As a member of the Board of Internal Economy, I desire to express to my hon. friend my sincere regret that the speech which he made on that occasion, and which was an important speech, was not translated as it should have been-My hon. friend from Rouville will admit with me that the work of that staff is very well done as a rule.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the chief of that staff been appointed permanently or temporarily?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Trudel is temporarily in charge.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have nothing to say
against Mr. Trudel; he is a good translator.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Speaker of the House is taking a keen interest in this matter. He is trying to do the best he can in regard to it and for the moment Mr. Trudel, who is a great acquisition and a credit to the staff, is acting temporarily. The suggestions made by my hon. friend within the hearing of the Speaker of this House will be for the Speaker to consider. I understand that the Speaker last year was asked to give Mr. Lasalle some help on account of illness. Mr. Gerin is also a very good man; but on the whole I think that we may safely expect that the efforts made so far will be continued, and that the members will have occasion to congratulate themselves on very great improvement in that staff.


Louis Coderre: The hon. member foi
Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has found fault with the distribution of blue books in the rooms of the members. The Printing Bureau has nothing to do with that. All that the Printing Bureau has to do is to deliver the books here, to the Clerk of the House. I am told by the Clerk that it is not his fault either. Last year there was a very large room for the distribution of the blue books. That room has been given to the members, and the Clerk has now no room in which to place those blue books when they come in, and has to take other means to distribute them.


George Perry Graham: Put them in the clerk's room.
Miscellaneous printing, $100,000.
Mr. Oliver:	In regard to additional
copies of ' Hansard,' would it be possible to issue an order that would 11 p.m. enable members to get up, say, a dozen copies of the unrevised ' Hansard,' should we ask for them, or to make a further arrangement that by giving a notice we could get up to say 50 or 100 copies as the case might be? Suppos-

ing some special question came up of interest to my constituents, it would be in the public interest that I should be in a position to inform my constituents in regard to the matter. If it was arranged that an order would be honoured up to 50 or 100 or whatever number of copies might be decided upon, it would be distinctly in the interest of the people.


Mrf CODERRE:: The Secretary of State has nothing to do with that. I will see the chairman of the Debates Committee an regard to the matter, and I am sure that, if he will frame a rule that will be approved by the House, the Printing Bureau will act in accordance with it.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Wednesday, March 18, 1914.