1915-03-18

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	How many officials were employed in Banff Park office on September 1, 1911?
2.	How many are employed there at the present time?
3.	How many officials were employed in the Dominion Lands, Irrigation, Customs and Post Offices, respectively, in Calgary, on September 1, 1911?
4.	How many are employed there at the present time?


Mr. CODERRE:: Customs:
1 and 2. None.
3.	Twenty-eight in the Customs.
4.	Forty-four, of whom two are absent on active military service. The employment of the sixteen additional officers was necessitated by the increase in the customs business at Calgary, as follows, viz.:
Customs revenue: Fiscal year 1910-11, $1,104,916.56; 1911-12, $1,707,751.10; 1912-13, $2,522,902.56; 1913-14, $1,910,385.09.
Number of import entries: Fiscal year 1910-11, 22,132; 1911-12, 30,710; 1912-13, 42,561; 1913-14, 41,066.
Interior:
1. 8.
2.	17.
3.	Dominion Lands office, Calgary, 21; Irrigation office, Calgary, 11.
4.	Dominion Lands office, Calgary, 27; Irrigation office, Calgary, 24, including 6 officers engaged on the Canadian Pacific railway reclassification work, whose services in connection with this work will not be required after the 1st April next.
Post Office:
1 and 2. The department is not aware of the number of assistants employed in the Banff post office, as the assistants are employed by the postmaster, and not appointed by the department.
3 and 4. Calgary post office, number of employees, 1st September, 1911, 97; 1st March, 1915, 180.
Note: Due to expansion of the service, the revenue of the Calgary post office in 1911 being $158,513; in 1914, the last year for which definite information can be given, $308,874.


ARICHAT MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	When did the contract expire for carrying the mails between Grandigue Perry, Arichat and Vest Arichat, recently held by Joseph Parker?
2.	Were tenders asked for in respect of this service during the year 1914?
3.	If so, when were notices calling for tenders posted, and what was the last date for receiving such tenders?

4.	From whom were tenders received, and what is the amount of each?
0.	(a) Who performed the service since the expiration of Parker's contract, (b) and what is the amount paid for same?
6.	Why was not the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?
7.	What was the amount of Parker's contract ?
8.	When will the new contract be awarded?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	31st December, 1914.
2 and 3. Tenders were invited twice. The first notices were dated 20th August, 1914, and tenders were due at the department on 2nd October, 1914. The second notices were dated 3rd November, 1914, and the tenders were due on 18th December, 1914.
4.	The tenders in both cases were considered excessive, and the department has been endeavouring to obtain more reasonable offers. It is not considered advisable to give the names and amounts of the tenders until the new contract has been awarded and executed.
5.	(a) Cassie Parker, executrix of the late Joseph Parker, who was responsible for the service, under the former contract, from 1st April, 1913, to 31st December, 1914. (b) $3 per day.
6.	Answered by No. 4.
7.	$495 per annum.
8.	As soon as a reasonable offer has been received.


STONET MOUNTAIN PENITENTIARY.
Mr. EDWARDS:: What officials of Stoney Mountain penitentiary have been dismissed since 1911, and what were the reasons in each case for such dismissal ?


Mr. DOHERTY:: One keeper, three
guards and one industrial guard. One for violation of the Penitentiary Act and selling intoxicating liquor to officers. Two for coming on duty under the influence of liquor. Two for violation of the provisions of the Penitentiary Act.


A. GENEST.
Mr. McOREA:: .
1.	How many days' actual service has A. Genest, an employee in the Post Office Department at Sherbrooke, given to said position from April 1, 1912, up to present date?
2.	What is the total amount of salary paid to him for his services during the said period?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	From the 1st April, 1912, to 15th March,
1915, the records show that Mr. Genest reported for duty 481 days.	-
2.	The total amount of salary paid for his services up to the 28th February, 1915, was $3,973.31.


PETAWAWA MILITARY CAMP.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	From whom are the supplies for the Petawawa military camp purchased?
2.	Are tenders asked for before purchasing them, and who are asked to tender?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Meat from Harris Abattoir Co., Toronto, and D. Braseh, Pembroke; bread from Jas. D. Leitch, Pembroke, and English & Davidson, Pembroke; groceries and vegetables from Hunter Co., Pembroke.
2.	Yes, tenders were asked from local firms.


JOHN KRANS.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Is John Krans in the employment of the Department of Agriculture, or any other department of the Government?
2.	What are his duties, and what salary does he receive?
3.	Who recommended his appointment?


Mr. REID:: I am informed that Mr. Krans is not in the employ of the Department of Agriculture. If the hon. member will let us know the name of the department in which he believes Mr. Krans to be, the answering of the question will be expedited.
Question stands.


SHERBROOKE-SHEET HARBOUR MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Who was contractor for carrying the mails between Sherbrooke, N.S., and Sheet Harbour, in June, 1896?
2.	When was that contract made?
3.	Had such contract been renewed without tender on a former date? If so, when?
4.	When did the contract existing in 1896 expire?
5.	What is the name of each contractor for this service since 1896, the date and amount of each contract, the date of the expiration of each contract, and in what case were public tenders called for?
6.	At what date in 1911 was the cancellation notice received by McGrath?
7.	How was it served on him?
8.	On what date was McGrath's contract cancelled?
9.	Was any compensation made to McGrath to make good his loss arising from the cancellation of his contract?
10.	Who recommended that McGrath's contract be cancelled?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	John S. Cameron.
2.	April 1, 1890.
3.	No, but the contract entered into on the 1st April, 1890, was renewed on the 1st April, 1894.
4.	Due-to expire on 31st December, 1897, but it was cancelled 31st March, 1897.


*Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	When in the year 1913 was D. A. McDonald appointed foreman of construction on the wharf at North Side East Bay, Nova Scotia?
2.	Was he removed from the foremanship before he completed the work? If so, for what reason ?
3.	Upon whose recommendation was he appointed?
4.	On whose recommendation was he dismissed?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	October 13, 1913.
2.	Ne, his services, as foreman, automatically expired at the end of the fiscal year.
3.	John McCormick, of Sydney Mines.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any applications been received from any of the judges of the Superior Court of the

province of Quebec for superannuation or retirement within the last twelve months? If so, from whom?
2.	Has any action been taken? If so, what is it?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Chief Justice Sir Charles P. Davidson, Hon. Mr. Justice Cimon, Hon. Mr. Justice de Lorimier and Hon. Mr. Justice Cooke resigned.
2.	The above mentioned resignations have been accepted, the first three retiring with full pay, the last mentioned on pension equal to two-thirds of his salary, in accordance with the provisions of the statute in that behalf.


WAR SUPPLIES-MOTOR TRUCKS.
Mr. DESLISLE:: 1.	How many motor trucks did the Government purchase for the second contingent?
2.	From what company did it purchase them?
3.	What is the name of the trucks?
4.	What price was paid for each truck?
5.	Is the price paid for the complete truck, tires, lamps and necessary utensils belonging to each?
6.	If not, what price was paid for the tires, lamps and utensils, and what price was paid for the body of, each truck?
7.	From what company were such bodies of trucks purchased?
8.	Who was appointed to receive them?
9.	Have they all been delivered?


Major General HUGHES:: 1. One hundred and fifty.

2.	Kelly-Springfield Motor Truck Company, Springfield, Ohio.
3.	Kelly-Springfield 34 ton.
4.	$2,550, less $259.32 for tires and tools which are being purchased in Canada.
5.	For the complete chassis without body, tires and tools, but with side and tail lamps.
6.	The tires cost $247 per set; the tool contract is still under consideration. The bodies contracted for cost $168 each.
7.	The Massey-Harris Company, McLaughlin Carriage Company, the Oxford Motor Car Company.
8.	Lt.-Col. Hurdman, inspector of carriages.
9.	No.


QUEBEC COUNTY TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Has the Government built a telegraph line in the county of Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the cost of it, and what revenue is derived from it?
3.	Does that line extend beyond the county of Quebec ?
4.	Does that line compete with other already existing lines which, for a long time, have given local and long distance service?
5.	What is the quality of the materials that have been used in the construction of that line?
6.	Have the workmen been all paid?
7.	Who was the contractor of that line for the Government?


Mr. ROGERS:: The Government has built no telegraph line in the county of Quebec.


CALMER AND TELFORDVILLB MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	How many tenders were received in connection with the contract for carrying mails between Calmar and Telfordville?
2.	What are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?
3.	Who received the contract?
4.	Who is carrying out this contract, and to whom is payment being made?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Three.
2.	J. H. Yanalstyne, $400; F. M. Grant, $468; I. J. McKinney, $700.
3.	I J. McKinney offered to reduce his tender to $398, and the contract was awarded to him. The post office inspector reported that McKinney refused to sign a contract and submitted the name of W. J. Dent as a suitable person willing to accept $398. Mr. Dent's offer was accepted.
4.	W. J. Dent.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. J. Gauthier:	For a copy of all documents, letters, messages, correspondence, petitions. recommendations, tenders, etc., for the
75£
purchase of clothing by the Militia Department from the 4th of August, 1914, to date.
Mr. Copp:	For a return showing the names
of all officials, assistants and clerks, employed in the railway offices at Moncton, N.B., and the salary paid to each; also the names of officials formerly employed in said offices who have been retired on superannuation allowance, and the amount of retiring allowance being paid to each.
Mr. Dglisle: For a copy of all petitions, telegrams, communications and other documents [DOT] relating to the dismissal of Mr. Hubert Paquin, postmaster of St. Gilbert de Portneuf.

[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister; moved:
That this House shall meet on Saturday, the 20th inst., and on all Saturdays until the end of the session, the hours of sitting and the order of precedence for business to be the same as on Fridays; and that on and from Monday, the 22nd instant, and until the end of the' session the House shall meet each day at 11 o'clock in the morning, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock, p.m., there shall be an intermission from one to three-o'clock, p.m.
He said:	I make this motion with the
view of expediting the business of the session, and with the feeling that hon. members on both sides desire to make the necessary progress. As far as I can gather, the only possible objection to it would be that some of the committees might have to meet while the House is in session. That after all is not a very great inconvenieence as far as a good deal of the business is concerned. It is proposed also that we should meet on Saturdays until the end of the session. That, of course, imposes a very much greater burden upon the members of the Government than upon any other members of this House, inasmuch as Saturday is the day reserved for meetings of Council, and as a matter of fact practically the whole day is taken up for that purpose. Nevertheless, in order that business may be expedited, we will endeavour on convenient occasions to get through with the work usually done on Saturdays. I hope this motion will commend itself to the House.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Mr. Speaker,
I assume that this motion means that the Government has no more business to bring down and that we have before us on the Order Paper all the business we shall have to deal with this session. Am I right in. that?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: There will have to be a Bill with regard to seed grain. I am informed by the Minister of Justice that it will be necessary to correct some clerical

mistakes in the Redistribution Act of last session, but nothing that affects the substance of the measure. My hon. friends from Prince Edward Island spoke about a motion with regard to the representation of that province, and it is possible I may bring forward a resolution with regard to that. I cannot think of anything else at the moment.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the intention of the Government is to bring down no more business than that stated by my right hon. friend-seed grain, the possible amendment of the Redistribution Act, and the representation of Prince Edward Island -I assume that these measures will not be contentious, and therefore I see no objection at all. But if any contentious measures were to be brought forward I should *object very strongly to our sitting in the morning. I am satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. gentleman. "We now know that what we have to deal with is the programme before the House. With these explanations we on this side of the House-


Robert Laird Borden: With the right hon. gentleman's permission I would interrupt for a moment. The Minister of Justice says that there is necessity for a Bill with regard to the appointment of judges in certain provinces.


Wilfrid Laurier: What provinces?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provinces of
British Columbia and Alberta have created new county court or district court districts, and it will be necessary for us to make provision for the salaries of judges for these courts.


Wilfrid Laurier: There can be no objection to that.


Robert Laird Borden: And I understand from the Minister of Justice that a small amendment will be necessary to the Winding-Up Act; but that does not involve any controversy.


Wilfrid Laurier: I wished to-know if there was any legislation of a contentious nature to be expected, and I understand from my right hon. friend that none such legislation is to be brought down. We know now what we have to deal with. Speaking for this side of the House, we have no objection to expediting the end of the session, and to that end to begin morning sittings. There will be some inconveniences with regard to the committees, 
but there are always these inconveniences, and we will try to get along. I would suggest that it would be inconvenient to (have a sitting next Saturday, as some members have made engagements which will prevent them being here on Saturday or Monday morning. If the right hon. gentleman will agree not to sit on Saturday next but on the Saturday following, and that the morning sittings shall commence on Tuesday next instead of on Monday, I will agree to the motion.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Will not some legislation be necessary in connection with pensions? I have not looked into it particularly, but it did strike me that some further legislation would be necessary on that subject. I would make the suggestion that instead of sitting at eleven in the morning we should begin our sittings at two o'clock in the afternoon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know that would be agreeable to some members, and I am further of the opinion that we should accomplish as much work as by commencing at eleven o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought I heard some hon. gentlemen opposite suggest that we sit at nine o'clock instead of at eleven.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Only one.


Robert Laird Borden: Eleven o'clock is the hour which has usually been fixed in the past, and I think that would be a convenient hour for members generally.
As to pensions, so far as the troops in Canada are concerned, there is power under the Pensions Act to make the amendments. With regard to the men beyond the seas-we make no distinction as to rate of pensions-I think there is power by Order in Council to deal with them. If it was desired that the proposed Order in Council should be brought down and placed before the House in advance of being assented to by Council we would have no objection. The pension rate has been practically agreed upon after receiving very careful consideration from the proper officers of the Department of Militia and Defence, and from the members of the Government who have had it under consideration a great many times. At present it is in the form in which we shall be prepared to pass it unless we should have suggestions from hon. members on the

subject. We should be glad to consider such suggestions.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I notice by the newspapers that certain railways have been acquired to be operated as a part of the Intercolonial railway. Does not the Prime Minister think that legislation may be necessary?


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister oi Railways and Canals had not brought that to my attention, and therefore I did not mention it as part of the proposed legislation of this session. I shall 'have to make a reserve with regard to my previous answer to the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I am not aware at the moment that any legislation is necessary, but my hon. friend from St. John city (Mr. Pugsley) would probably be better able than I to speak as to that necessity, and I would accept his opinion upon it.


William Pugsley: I think it would be necessary. While there was a vote last year for operating the railway, there has been no distinct measure passed by Parliament authorizing the purchase. Therefore, I should think legislation would be required to legalize the operation of the road.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) permit a correction of what I said before, by reserving the consideration of that matter? I shall speak to the Minister of Railways about it at the earliest moment. But I should assume that any Bill brought down for the purpose indicated would not be of a controversial character.


Wilfrid Laurier: To anything that it not of a contentious character, of course, we have no objection. But, if anything of -a contentious nature is proposed, we must have time to breathe.


Mr. PROULX:: "Last year the Minister of Finance brought in a Bill with reference to the Civil Service, and that Bill was left over for consideration at this session. I can well understand that this is not a proper time to deal with it and that it might be left over, but I would suggest to the minister that he should propose some temporary measure for the lower grades, especially the male officers who are not given salaries sufficient to enable them to support their families. The minister proposes to put them on a salary of $600 instead of $500 as at present. I suggest that, pending the proposed reclassification of the whole service next session, the Finance
Minister make provision that the salary paid to employees of this grade shall be increased from $500 to $600, to take effect April 1.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



STATUS OF CANADIANS IN CALIFORNIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. WILLIAM GRAY (London) asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the recent announcement in some of the states of the United States of laws which deny to Canadian citizens resident in those states the right of enforcing through the courts of those states their claims or contracts against persons and corporations in those states.
And leave having been granted, he said:
I desire to bring to the attention of the Government a very serious condition of affairs detrimental to our fellow-countrymen and, I may say, to all Britishers in the state of California, which I am satisfied will have not only the sympathy but the unanimous support of every Canadian citizen in having the matter thoroughly investigated at as early a date as possible, and I am sure the Government will use their good offices and do all in their power with the proper authorities, to bring about, a satisfactory adjustment of this matter, which is a gross injustice to our fellow-citizens.
I have received the following letter from Mr. William S. Short, of London, Ontario, under date of March 10:
Dear sir,-I want to interest you as member for London, dn case of several hundred Canadians who are in trouble in California regarding a law that has been dug up from an old statute, and on the strength of it the county and state authorities are disregarding contracts made with aliens though holding aliens to contracts they may have happened to make.
I enclose a copy of a letter from my daughter who is teaching school in California, and which will explain the situation very fully. You are pretty well acquainted with California and have large interests there, and can sympathize with these people who find themselves out of work, unable to collect even the wages they have earned, and standing to lose property they have struggled hard to pay for.
The following letter was written to Mr. Short by his daughter, from Mendocino, California,, on February 28:
Will you try and interest your representatives in Parliament in the following matter of very great concern to me and to a large number of other Canadians in California?
In 1901 a law was passed providing that no
[Stage Direction]
state or county money should be paid to aliens. Among others, I have been teaching here since 190G, and no cognizance was taken of the law. In fact, no one seemed to know of it. It seems that this year the city of Bakersfield found out about the law and asked the Attorney General for a ruling on the subject. He said that the law was plain that no money should be paid to aliens, nor should contracts be made with them. But they had made a contract with me to teach until the end of May, knowing I was a Canadian and not naturalized. Yet this week the county office here notified me that they would not pay me for work performed since February 20th, and have held up my warrant for the whole month.
If this affected me only I would perhaps have not said anything, but it affects about 1,500 people in the state, a large majority of whom are Canadians. It also affects 28 full professors in the State University, among whom are Professors Henry Morse Stevens and Gayley, Both British.
A declaration of intention to naturalize is not sufficient, and it takes two years to obtain final papers. We fear that it is the right of California to make what laws she pleases against aliens.
The Legislature meets March 8, and it should be a simple matter to pass a relief bill covering past actions and to the end of this school year. If pressure is brought to bear, this will be done. It will be hard enough on me not to be able to teach here again, as I have done it so long it is almost impossible for me to do anything else, especially since San Francisco is so congested with visitors; but the worst part for me is that I have bought property on which I have been paying taxes for three years and which has been purchased on the contract plan. If I cannot teach I shall not be able to pay these monthly instalments as they come due, and as time is the essence of these contracts I shall probably lose what I have worked so many years to make. It does seem to me that the Canadian Government ought to remonstrate and by so doing help to protect the contract rights of its citizens in a foreign country.
Will you get our member to do what he can to interest the Government on behalf of these citizens and greatly oblige?
I have before me the laws of the state of California referred to by Miss Short. I quote from Act No. 127 of 1901:
1.	No person, except a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States, shall be employed in any department of the state, county, city and county, or incorporated city or town government in this state.
2.	It shall be unlawful for any person, whether elected, appointed or commissioned to fill any office in either the state, county, city and county, or incorporated city or town government of this state, or in any department thereof, to appoint or employ any person to perform any duties whatever, except such person be a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States.
3.	No money shall be paid out of the state treasury, or out of the treasury of any county, or city and county, or incorporated city or town, to any person employed in any of the offices mentioned in section two of this Act, except such person shall be a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States.
tMr. Gray.]
If the officials of any state, county, town or village, disregard the laws of their country, why should the innocent suffer? I have a letter from Mr. J. Norman Dean, of Havelock Court, Havelock and College streets, Toronto, written on March 16, in which Mr. Dean says;
I notice by a press despatch from Ottawa under date of March 15 that you are laying the case of Canadian teachers in California before the House of Commons.
I would respectfully call your attention to the fact that on June 20, 1914, my employment as statistician of the Industrial Accident Commission of the state of California was terminated by virtue of this law. Whatever possible objection there can be to Canadians being employed in California municipal or state service, evidently lies behind this law.
Needless to say it is about time that a protest was made on behalf of Canadians in the same position.
It is also interesting to note that the writer was refused the opportunity of applying for a school certificate in the state of California and that many of the Canadians -in California are in the same position.
I note in the Ottawa Journal of the 16th an item:
Officials in the university of California denied yesterday the charge made by Wm. Gray, member of the Canadian Parliament, that 28 professors and instructors in the university were unable to receive their salaries because they were not American citizens.
I just wish to say that this is a quibble arising out of section 3 whereby no moneys are to be paid out of the State Treasury, and university employees are not paid out of the state fund but out of the specific fund denoted as the university fund.
In conclusion I have to say that if the United States are, as we believe, a Christian and civilized nation, when this gloss injustice being done to our fellow countrymen is put before the proper authorities the matter will, I believe, be speedily adjusted and the jug handled Act wiped off the statute book.
Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there can be any doubt that the matter which the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House is one of importance and one in reference to which we are called upon to interest ourselves. If the facts alleged are found to be true, and it appears that Canadian citizens even through the operation of a law which may have been properly enacted and may have been perfectly justifiable from the point of view of those enacting it, suffer injustice, it is certainly a proper matter for us to look into. The matter has come to my attention through

the press and from other sources of information, and I have already given instructions that it should be carefully looked into; and, furthermore, that it should be taken up through the proper channels with a view to having put before the proper authorities in the state of California any cases of injustice towards any of our Canadian fellow subjects which may have arisen under this law. The matter certainly will have the careful attention of this department and, if upon verification it proves necessary or desirable or proper that representations upon the subject should be made, they will be made in proper course. I think we must assume that there can be no intention on the part of the proper authorities in the neighbouring states to cause any injustice to any Canadians.
Motion to adjourn the House negatived.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE TARIFF.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
['Here is a petition signed\nby seventy-five to eighty farmers from the township of Cleveland, the people who have sent me here, asking me to take this up with the minister and to help the farmers to get seed grain. Was I to answer these', 'petitioners that they had no business to write to me, but that they should write to the provincial member? I am not trying to make politics out of this. I do not know whether these petitioners are Liberals or Conservatives-I hope they are all Liberals. But I do not draw any distinction, because when I am elected it is my duty to represent all. It is on those grounds that I was elected, and on those grounds I hope to be elected again if I am a candidate.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Friday.\nFriday, March 19, 1915.']
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Chairman, I think you have
before you the resolutions which I moved yesterday referring to the proposed special taxation. There is one item in it, No. 16, which, for reasons which I shall give when we reach it, I propose to drop. I would suggest that we take up each resolution separately.
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide:
1. That each bank to which the Bank Act applies, exclusive of hanks in the course of winding-up, shall pay for Consolidated Revenue Fund quarterly a tax equal to one-fourth of one per cent upon the average amount of the notes of the bank in circulation during the three months preceding, the greatest amount of notes in circulation at any time during each of the three months being the basis of the average, provided, however, that where the greatest amount of notes in circulation exceeds the amount of the paid-up capital then an amount equal to the paid-up capital shall be the basis used in calculating the average;


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What revenue
does the minister anticipate from this source?


William Thomas White: Approximately $1,000,000.
There is $100,000,000 of bank note circulation and one per cent of that would be $1,000,000. I would think approximately that amount would be derived.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I understand the last paragraph of the resolution aright, the tax is not to be imposed on note circulation in excess of the paid-up capital of the bank. What is the reason for this?


William Thomas White: Under the Bank Act as
amended by the Government of my right hon. friend a chartered bank may issue normal note circulation to the amount of its paid-up capital and there is also an excess circulation privilege under the authority of which, during certain months of the year, the banks may issue circulation in excess of their paid-up capital. The banks are obliged to pay now 5 per cent upon that excess circulation. It therefore appeared to us that, as we are already taxing the privilege of excess note circulation, it would be unjust to add to that 5 per cent an additional one per cent. The effect of that would be to discourage banks from issuing that excess circulation.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not
know that the banks are being treated severely, but that may ue a very good reason.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
That every loan and trust company incorporated under any legislative authority, including the banks subject to the Quebec Savings Ranks Act, 1113, shall pay for Consolidated Revenue Fund a tax of one per cent, upon the gross amount of
(a)	interest, the property of the company, from loans and investments in Canada, and
(b)	Income, other than interest, on business transacted within Canada received by the company on and after the first day of January, 1915 ;
['I do not\nknow that the banks are being treated severely, but that may ue a very good reason.']
Wilfrid Laurier: How much
does my hon. friend expect from this?


William Thomas White: About $150,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose you
will have some method of obtaining the necessary information. Forms will be supplied to the loan companies, I suppose?


William Thomas White: The Bill contains provisions under which returns must be made upon the forms supplied.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3:
That every insurance company other than life and marine companies, fraternal benefit societies and purely mutual companies shall pay for Consolidated Revenue Fund a tax of one per cent upon the net premiums received by the company in Canada on and after the first day of January, 1915 ;
['The Bill contains provisions under which returns must be made upon the forms supplied.']
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much is expected from this?


William Thomas White: About $350,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On what grounds were life and marine insurance companies ex-

eluded and fire insurance companies not
excluded?


William Thomas White: Marine insurance companies have to compete with American companies in the lake and ocean carrying trade, and it was thought that the imposition of a tax would place them at a disadvantage, as their competitors would not be subject to this tax. I think the matter is of some importance, especially in connection with the trade upon the upper lakes, where there is keen competition between American and Canadian bottoms.


Mr. PARDEE:: Do not our Canadian fire insurance companies have to compete with outside companies that come in here and take risks at a very much lower rate?


William Thomas White: We had a rather extensive discussion of this question last night, when I pointed out that these companies were not domiciled here and had not agents here. My hon. friend was absent last night, but he will see by Hansard that the matter was very fully discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4:
That every cable and telegraph company shall pay for Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum equal to one cent upon each despatch or message other than press despatches or messages originating at the offices of the company in Canada and transmitted thence over the company's lines for which a charge of fifteen cents or more was imposed, the company having the right to charge the one cent to and collect the same from the person paying or liable to pay the regular charges for the transmission of the despatch or message;
['We had a rather extensive discussion of this question last night, when I pointed out that these companies were not domiciled here and had not agents here. My hon. friend was absent last night, but he will see by Hansard that the matter was very fully discussed.']
Wilfrid Laurier: My objection to this tax is that it is not upon the company, but upon the clients of the company. The company will of course pay the tax to the Government, but they will take care to charge it to their clients. I understand that telegraph and cable companies are doing a very profitable business, very profitable in every sense, and I think my hon. friend would do well to reverse his policy and tax the company instead of the senders of the messages.


William Thomas White: We have given this matter very careful consideration. I think my right hon. friend will find that the profits of telegraph companies are not large. They have to compete with telephone companies, and perhaps my right hon. friend had in mind that telephone companies should also be directly taxed; but the difficulty that arises in connection with directly taxing

telephone companies is that there are, as my right hon. friend knows, joint stock telephone companies doing business in Canada which have franchises and privileges from this Government or from other Governments. There are also co-operative telephone companies to compete with, and, in addition to that, Government-owned telephone systems. I considered very carefully the imposition of a tax upon telephone companies, v.ut when I pursued the matter I found myself brought up against the co-operative telephone companies and the Government-owned telephones in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. It appeared to me that it would be unwise, even if we had the power, which I very much doubt, for the Government to tax the Government-owned telephone systems in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan; and after a very full consideration of the whole question we reached the conclusion that we could not properly tax the telephone companies. Any legislation of that kind should be general in character, and not aimed at one or two individual companies. Speaking generally, those who use the telephone and the telegraph are the well-to-do members of the community; there are exceptions, of course, but what we had in mind was the levying of the tax upon those of the population who might reasonably be expected to contribute to this war taxation. Under the circumstances, therefore, we imposed the tax, as my hon. friend has said, upon the sender of the message.
There is another consideration that I am sure will appeal to my right hon. friend. The question of tolls Charged by telegraph and cable companies has been very frequently discussed in this House, and it is one of great concern to the commercial community. For reasons that it is not necessary to go into here, as they have been so often put forward in this House, I think it is extremely advisable that our cable tolls should be as low as possible,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much do you expect from this ?


William Thomas White: We calculated, but it is only an estimate, to receive something in excess of $100,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: I must say that I am not thoroughly convinced, and for the good reason that my hon. friend has been discussing telephone, not telegraph, companies. The two things are very different, but I will take up what my hon.

friend has said about telephone companies.
I would not suggest that we should tax the * Government telephone systems. I would doubt our authority to do that, though I believe we might find authority. Government telephones were established because it was supposed that the tolls of the telephone companies were too high, and that a better service, or at all events a cheaper service, could be given by the governments. I understand that the experiment has not been a very great success in some parts of the country where it has been tried, and I do not for a moment suggest that we should tax the government telephones or the .co-operative telephones either. But let us come to the concrete fact that there are telephone companies in Canada; and there is reason to believe, I .may say it is a well-known fact that some of them, and I think all of them, are very successful. Their stock is one of the best that can be had on the market to-day, and I see no reason why under the present circumstances these companies should not be subjected to the imposition of the taxation which is being placed upon every citizen. It is expected that under this tariff, which is a war tariff, every citizen shall contribute his quota to the undertakings we have in mind. I cannot see any good reason why the powerful companies which I have just mentioned should not pay their share the .same as any other member of the commuity, and I believe my hen. friend would have been well advised if he had brought these companies under the operation of the Bill.


William Thomas White: After all, these companies are owned by their shareholders. Their shareholders are subject to this taxation because they will pay the tax, just as other citizens will, in the telegraph and cable messages which they send.


William Pugsley: They do not pay it as
shareholders.	*


William Thomas White: No, not as shareholders.


William Pugsley: Those who are not shareholders pay the same.


William Thomas White: I agree, but they are shareholders of the company and they will pay their share of the tax in the telegrams and cables that they send. I do not agree with my hon. friend that there are many telephone companies that are doing well in Canada. The Bell Telephone Company is a fairly strong institution, and probably! that is the company that my hon. friend had in mind. My view is that tolls imposed
directly upon public service corporations will be shifted upon the public. Having regard to considerations of that character, namely, the existence of co-operative companies and of government systems, which in competition with the telephone companies have had their effect upon tolls, it occurred to me that it would be invidious to select one company and impose a special tax upon it and not deal with the telephone or telegraph companies as a class. When I am framing legislation I like to deal with a class and if I find I cannot deal with a class I feel reluctant to proceed with the measure. If you pursue such a course you select from a class one, two, or more, and impose your tax upon them. This tax seems to me to be a very reasonable tax which will fall upon a body of citizens who are well able to pay it-business houses, commercial firms, railway companies and individuals who are comparatively well-to-do-and who can afford to pay this comparatively small tax upon telegraph messages and cables.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN-What is the gross income of the two leading telegraph systems in Canada-the Western Union and the Great Northwestern, which are looked upon as one-I may not be correct in that-and the Canadian Pacific railway?


William Thomas White: I am unable to give my
hon. friend that information.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would it not have been just as fair to have taxed the income of telegraph companies at such a rate as would yield the $100,000 that the minister anticipates getting from this source as to levy a tax of one per cent upon the gross income of loan and trust companies as provided in clause 2 of the resolutions? It is the same principle and I would have thought that it would have been a very good principle indeed to have applied to the telegraph companies. I think they might very well pay that.


William Thomas White: I do not agree with my
lion, friend. I think there is a clear differentiation between the case of financial companies and that of companies such as we arc now considering. We make the companies our collectors of the tax. I do not desire to go over 'he argument, that 1 have aiready advanced as to the competi-tl .n which these o ninecies meet. It is not true in the case of financial institutions, i or it is true to a very limited extent. It
Imay be true as far as the post office savings are concerned but in practice there is no active competition to be met by finan-

cial companies while there is a very active competition prevailing with respect to telephone companies.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am eliminating the
telephone companies.


William Thomas White: Well then the telegraph
is in competition with the telephone. Telegraph companies have complained to me that we have not taxed telephone messages.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend says " of course." There is a great deal of wisdom in that remark because we all like to have the taxes put over on the other man. That is human but I have to hold the scales of justice as fairly as I can.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what my hon. friend does not do.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend, if
he were less biased, would see that I have held them very evenly. My right hon. friend should know that justice is blind.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see that
now.


William Thomas White: Does my right hon. friend suggest that he is blind? He is blind to the merits of the proposals that .this Government bring forward. There have been complaints made to me that we have placed a tax upon telegrams and not upon telephone messages. I considered the question of placing a tax on telephone messages but I encountered the government-owned and co-operative telephone companies throughout the country. I considered a wide range of companies for the application of this tax but I found difficulties in connection with a great many that I should very much liked to have taxed.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has given a very good reason why this whole attempt at taxation is wrong. Instead of placing his tax upon telegraph companies he places it upon the clients of the companies and he says that it will not weigh very heavily upon the clients of these companies at all but that it will be paid by the wealthy corporations, the railway companies, mercantile firms and other firms of that kind. It is very true that they are chiefly the clients of the telegraph companies but if these parties have to submit to taxation why not the telegraph companies also who are wealthy companies? It would have been fairer to have placed the tax upon the companies themselves. If you have a

tax it should be placed upon the stock of the company and not upon the clients of the company.


William Pugsley: We find that the Minister of Finance proceeds in regard to the tax on railway tickets along the same lines. He will not tax the railway company but he is going to tax the individual, the man who buys the ticket, and he is going to tax the man who sends the telegram. That is the whole trouble with my hon. friend. He wants to exempt these corporations. He says that railway companies, telegraph companies and telephone companies should not be taxed but that if there is any tax to be paid at all it ought to be paid by the people who use these services. The minister says they are quite able to pay. That is true if that were the only burden placed upon them but, under this measure, they have to pay an increased tariff upon what they wear, upon their clothing, upon practically everything they use, if they travel on the railway they have to pay the extra tax upon their railway ticket, if they send a telegram they have to pay the extra tax on the telegram, and the result is that you are going to burden the common people, the mass of the people, with this tax to such an extent that if they want to live at all they will have to get down to a pretty low diet-something like the Germans, pancakes, potatoes and buttermilk.


William Thomas White: And squid.


William Pugsley: When my hon. friend, being filled with glory, departs from this life there will be found graven on his heart the word "squid."


William Thomas White: As far as I am concerned I am going to declare a truce between my hon. friend from St. John and myself on the word "squid." We all make an occasional mistake and it should not be magnified. I have always had a great deal of admiration for the control which my hon. friend is able to exert upon his countenance, but I do not know that his features were ever so impassive as they were when he made the statement that this measure relieved the large corporations and placed the entire burden upon the common people. My hon. friend spoke in regard to the railways. He knows to what extent the railways of Canada, with one exception, are capable at this particular time of bearing a heavy load of taxation.
My hon. friend also knows, because it would not escape his observation, that we are im-

posing an exceedingly heavy tax upon the railways of Canada by our measure as a whole. If he will take the trouble to look into it, he will ascertain that the Canadian railways will pay no less a sum than $1,000,000 a year-I think $1,250,000-in increased duties upon coal. The charges upon their administrative offices in connection with the war stamp taxation upon letters will run into very large sums. I do not desire to elaborate that point too greatly here, but the railways of Canada have certainly not been overlooked in this taxation measure.
My right hon. friend has said that the banks have come off very easily. I would point out to him that a taxation measure, imposing a yearly tax of $150,000 on the Bank of Montreal, $135,000 on the Bank of Commerce, and $60,000 on the Imperial Bank, and proportionate amounts on the other banks, can hardly be regarded as a measure not imposing heavy taxation upon those institutions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Big amounts, but only one per cent.


William Thomas White: One per cent seems small, but the total amount is large, and my right hon. friend must remember that it is an annual charge. If my right hon. friend, during his term of office, had been of the view that the banks could well stand a higher rate of taxation than one per cent upon note circulation in return for the privilege of note circulation, he would not have hesitated to employ that method of raising money unless he felt unduly tender towards those institutions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Nothing of the kind.


William Thomas White: We are breaking new
ground.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend speaks about taxing the banks one per cent. Take the ordinary people of this country. Does not my hon. friend think they would be well satisfied if their taxation did not amount to more than one per cent of their income? The ordinary man with an income of $1,000 a year would be glad to get off with a tax of only $10. His share must be more than that, owing to the extra tax on food and clothing, and still more if he burns soft coal for heating his house, as many people do. In the town of Campbellton, N.B., hardly a ton of hard coal is used. People burning soft coal have to bear the increased duty just as much as the railway companies.
My hon. friend says that some railway companies will pay a tax of $1,000,000 a year.


William Thomas White: The three railways together.


William Pugsley: I suppose the total income of the three railways would be about $150,000,000.


William Thomas White: How much net income?


William Pugsley: I am speaking of the
total income. Very few of us have a net income. The ordinary man earning $1,000 a year has not very much left by the time he has paid out the various expenses incident to his living. If he makes ends meet by the end of the year, he has done well. The Minister of Finance is trying to single out the corporations for exemption. He has no regard for the mass of the people of this country; he puts the tax upon them without any apology at all. He does not endeavour to show how they can be exempted; but when it comes to great corporations, with a total income of $150,000,000 a year, he points out how heavily they are taxed. Take the Bell Telephone Company, which has for years paid a dividend of 8 per cent, and which is one of the strongest institutions m this country, operating in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and having a monopoly in cities like Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal.


William Thomas White: All taxed.


William Pugsley: It is certainly a monopoly, because there are no other companies competing with it to any extent. My hon. friend does not propose to put any tax at all upon that company. Take the Western Union and the Great Northwestern Telegraph Companies. The Western Union has an enormous capital. My hon. friend does not propose to make those companies contribute one cent of this tax; but if a poor man sends a telegram he has to bear the burden and pay the extra toll.
Take the street railways in Montreal, Toronto and all the other great cities of Canada. Are they not to contribute out of their handsome profits? Not one cent is imposed upon them. If it were of any use at this late hour, I would urge my hon. friend to impose a tax upon them, but he would say: Oh, see the burdens that those street railway companies have to bear. He forgets that those street railways carry hundreds of thousands of people every day, and that their incomes are enormous. If my hon. friend had considered ways and means

of getting a reasonable tax out of those wealthy corporations, he would have done much better than he has by imposing a tax upon the mass of the people who are least able to bear it.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend speaks of t|he great incomes of the railway corporations, but let me put the question to him fairly. In dealing with taxation measures, we have to deal with classes; we have to deal with institutions belonging to a class as a whole. We can not single out for special taxation a wealthy corporation or Individual, and pass over those less wealthy of the same class. How much taxation would the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company be able to stand to-day? My hon. friend says that the average citizen has to pay more for his coal; the railway companies, as I have pointed out, have to pay more for their coal. The banks will be subject to nearly all those taxes which are imposed in our fiscal measure, either by Themselves as institutions or by their shareholders who are the proprietors.


William Pugsley: I understand that the banks all heat their buildings with hard coal.


William Thomas White: We have levied a special tax upon the banks. My hon. friend knows, because his mind is too clear and he is too able a man not to know, that there is only one railway company in Canada able to sustain the burden of heavy federal taxation. He asks why 1 did not turn my mind to the question of street railway companies. I did consider that question. In Canada there are three or four street railway companies of a local character that might fairly have been made subject to this taxation; but the Dominion Government must not occupy the entire field of taxation. I want to leave something for the provinces. The provinces have to face the situation created 'by the war, and it was the object of the Government not to pre-empt or occupy the entire field to obtain a comparatively small amount from the half-dozen or less street railway companies in Canada. It seemed better to us that the Dominion Government in its legislation relating to taxation should take a broader sweep and deal only with those institutions and organizations and companies that are carrying on a Dominion business, and that it should leave something for the provinces, because it is increasingly apparent to me that the war has brought them almost as difficult 
problems as those with which the Dominion has had to grapple. I do net believe it would have been proper for the Government to have invaded the field of the provinces by imposing special taxes, say, upon picture-shows, theatres, and surface railways. I wish to leave those for the provinces, and I think it is sound policy.


William Pugsley: Do not the masses of the people have to bear their burden of provincial taxation already? Why does not he leave the field so far as they also are concerned to the provincial governments and the municipalities? This is an extra tax by reason of existing conditions.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend's question is very easily answered. The provinces do tax the ordinary man for municipal and provincial purposes, just as the Dominion taxes the ordinary man through its fiscal system. What I had reference to was special taxation necessitated by the outbreak of this war, and I said it was advisable, in my opinion, that we should leave something of a special character for the provinces, which have to meet almost the same conditions as those with which we are confronted as the result of the outbreak of the war. I think there would have been complaints from one end of Canada to the other if the Dominion Government had invaded the field of the provinces and imposed a tax in addition to the tax, say, which the province of Quebec has recently imposed upon purely local undertakings. We must have some regard to provincial rights and necessities at a time such as this.


Wilfrid Laurier: I fail to see what connection there is between this kind of taxation and the provincial taxation. My hon. friend gave as a reason why he should not tax the large corporations, railways for instance, that one railway could have borne additional taxation. I have no doubt whatever that some of the railway companies, perhaps all but one, would have had some difliculty in meeting extra taxation; but does the hon. gentleman contend that the new taxation he is imposing on individuals will be met without difficulty? The same thing that applies to a corporation applies to an individual. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals who find themselves in the same circumstances as the Grand Trunk railway or any other corporation. The hon. gentleman argued strongly to prove that all classes should bear their share of the taxation. It is no answer to that to say that one class should not be called upon to bear its share of the taxa-

tion because it would find it difficult to pay. If that is what the hon. gentleman thinks, better wipe out this taxation altogether, for he knows as well as I do that many an individual called upon to bear this extra taxation will find it just as difficult to pay this ten dollars as the Grand Trunk railway would find it to pay half a million.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: If I see the point that the minister tries to make, I think there is something in his contention, especially as he supports it by citing the well-known fact that there is only one railway company in Canada that is earning a Teal income. He makes a distinction which I think ought to be made between the gross takings of a corporation and the actual income of that corporation. I think there is a great deal in that contention. But he can hardly expect me to point that out without going on to say that that very contention, supported by that fact, makes it obvious that for the taxing of these corporations the income tax would have had very great advantages. He contends that a tax upon gross takings would be an injustice to the corporation which in spite of its gross takings does not have an income. It follows equally-does it not,-that leaving incomes untaxed is something of a favour to the wealthy corporations that do have incomes. Clearly, the income tax would have caught the wealthy corporations and, quite properly, would have allowed those to escape that have no income. I am sure he will not think I am trying to hold up the work of the committee if I take the time to score a little point in favour of the form of taxation that I proposed in the course of the Budget debate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to read from this morning's Citizen something abouts the earnings of the telegraph companies :
The report of the comptroller of statistics, Mr. J. I.. Payne, shows that on a total capitalization of $7,100,000 gross earnings of the various companies were $5,983,204 and operating expenses $4,242,539.
Here is an excess of earnings over expenses of $1,740,665.
The Canadian Pacific railway telegraph earned $2,991,273, the Great Northwestern, $1,252,930; Western Union (Canada) $668,252; Canadian Northern $264,615 and Marconi Wireless $239,906. Land messages numbered 11,980,869 and cables 983,061.
One cent each on the total number of messages I have quoted would give the revenue the minister anticipates.


Edmond Proulx: If the income tax could be easily collected and without great expense I should certainly be in favour of it. I know something about it because my sessional indemnity was assessed some years ago and I fought the assessment, but the court held that my indemnity was assessable, and I have been paying taxes on it ever since. I think the income tax is a just tax, and all those that get sufficient income to enable them to pay ought to be made to pay. The great disadvantage that I see in it is that the minister would have to appoint a large number of collectors, and God knows there are enough civil servants already. Perhaps he could use a large number of those who are in the employ of his colleague the Minister of Inland Revenue, who are getting reasonable salaries and have nothing, or almost nothing, to do. The other night some hon. members from the maritime provinces told us that they had in their counties officers receiving from $200 to $400 a year who have nothing to do, and these could be easily employed in collecting the income tax. An income tax was imposed in the United States a few years ago on salaries over $3,000. I do not think there could be any injustice if men were taxed on income in excess of $3,000. In Ontario the municipal income tax reaches salaries over $1,200 in municipalities under 10,000 population an $$1,500 in municipalities of over 10,000 population. I think it is only just that persons who receive an income of more than $2,000 should pay a tax upon it for Federal purposes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the Government have to pay this one-cent toll on their
messages?


William Thomas White: No statute applies to the Crown unless it is specially so provided.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
5. That every purchaser of
(a)	a ticket or right entitling the purchaser to transportation over a railway to any place ir. or outside of Canada;
(b)	a ticket or right entitling the purchaser to transportation by vessel between ports or places in Canada or from a port or place n Canada to a port or place in Newfoundland, the West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras or the United States;
(c)	a ticket or right entitling the purchaser to transportation over a railway and by vessel to a port or place in Canada, Newfoundland, the West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras or the United States, whether such transportation be by railway and vessel,
[Stage Direction]
111..
or by vessel and railway, or by railway, vessel and railway;
shall, in addition to the regular charge for the ticket or right, pay to the person selling the ticket or right, for the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in respect of a ticket or right costing-
(i)	over one dollar and not more than five dollars, five cents;
(ii)	over five dollars

for each five dollars and in addition for any fractional part of five dollars, five cents.
['No statute applies to the Crown unless it is specially so provided.']
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: If the minister will permit me to ask a question with regard to section 1, may I inquire if he is aware that the banks will shift the tax placed upon them to the shoulders of their customers?


William Thomas White: I am not aware that that will occur. On the contrary, I have received letters from banks stating that they will be glad to pay the tax, and to pay it themselves. I do not believe the payment of the tax will be shifted.


James Joseph Hughes: I have received a letter from a wholesale house in Montreal stating that the rate of discount on commercial papers has been raised by a certain bank. In this way they will take the amount of the tax from their customers.


William Thomas White: I should think that that
is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.


Wilfrid Laurier: Everybody who can shift this tax to somebody else will surely do so; that is human nature. I protested some days ago against this method of levying a tax on railway tickets; I shall not now repeat my objection. I should like to have an explanation as to why this tax is limited to certain classes of travel. This provision includes the following paragraph:
A ticket or right entitling the purchaser to transportation by vessel between ports or places in Canada or from a port or place in Canada to a port or place in Newfoundland, the West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras or the United States.
Nothing is collected from passengers on steamers which are leaving every week for Great Britain and for European ports.


William Thomas White: That is covered in the next section.


Mr. VERVILLE:: Would it not be much better to impose a tax of one per cent on the value of every ticket purchased? A person who buys a first-class ticket at $2 pays the same tax as a person who buys a first-class ticket at $4.99. Those who buy first-class tickets are probably better able to pay the tax; they consist of agents of wholesale houses, etc. The tax wb;"b the

' minister proposes is virtually a one per cent tax upon tickets costing from $1 to $5. If one per cent were the basis, a person buying a ticket costing $1 would pay one cent, and a person buying a ticket costing $4 would pay four cents; there would be a uniform basis of some kind. I direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the poorer people do not often travel far, and do not pay high prices for tickets. ~


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will
recognize that we must fix a point in respect of which a certain rate shall apply. We have fixed upon one dollar, we have said that with regard to tickets that cost less than one dollar there shall be no taxation, but upon tickets costing from one dollar to five dollars, five cents must be paid. That means that there is a maximum taxation of 5 per cent and a minimum taxation of one per cent. As between the poor man who travels but little and the ordinary citizen or the wealthy man who travels much, my hon. friend will bear in mind the fact that every time a person travels he must pay a tax. The representatives of wholesale houses, therefore, to whom my hon. friend has referred, and persons who travel considerably and can afford to do so, will have to pay the tax very many more times than those who travel but little. Again, wealthy members of the community, generally speaking, travel longer distances, therefore will have to pay more, because the tax increases as the price of the ticket increases. It was suggested to me-I do not propose to argue the matter at length-that a much larger tax should be imposed for the greater distances. We gave that matter -which affects also the tax upon parlour car seats and sleeping berths-very careful consideration. It must be remembered that our Canadian railways are in competition with the American roads and that, owing to the geographical position of Canada, it is quite possible to go from one part of Canada to another, especially to a remote part, by going through the United States. If, therefore, I imposed an unduly heavy tax upon tickets for the longer distances, people living say in Toronto, Montreal, Chatham, Windsor-especially in cities near the border-would buy their tickets in the United States and go via the United States for the greater part of their journey. Having regard to all these considerations, we reached the conclusion that the tax should be comparatively small and uniform, so the burden should fall upon that part of the community most capable of bearing it. As

a rule, the persons who travel the greater distances and the more frequently are better able to pay than those who travel but little.


Edmond Proulx: If a person buys a book ef commutation tickets, will he pay the tax when he buys the book or when the coupons are collected on the train?


William Thomas White: He will have to pay when he buys but my hon. friend will remember that there is a dollar of exemption.*


Alphonse Verville: Has the minister
thought about the great number of people who travel through the country on passes and who could well afford to pay a tax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Only members of Parliament.


Alphonse Verville: I know there are more than members of Parliament. I was in a car recently and there were at least twenty-five of us and only two had tickets. It seems to me that those who were in the car could well afford to pay the tax.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend, I am
afraid, is really trespassing on dangerous ground in reference to one of the most sacred privileges of the members of this House.


Alphonse Verville: That makes no difference, they can afford to pay better than the poor man.


William Thomas White: If every hon. gentleman
starts to his feet at once and says he would be very glad if the Government would take into consideration a comprehensive plan of taxation whereby every time he uses his pass, which is his by virtue of statutory law, he would pay a substantial tax I would not say that we would at once move that the idea be translated into legislation but I can promise that I would take it into my most serious consideration.


William Pugsley: And private passes and private cars also?


Alphonse Verville: I mean all passes, the members of this House can as well afford to pay a tax as any one else. I am willing to do it and I do not see why it is not done.


Mr. LAW:: Do I understand the minister to say that there will be no special taxes on railway passes?


William Thomas White: The passenger must be the purchaser of a ticket before the tax applies, otherwise I do not think it could be enforced.


William Pugsley: This provision exempts not only passes but private cars as well?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend has referred much more frequently to private cars since he has occupied a seat on that side of the House than he is reported in Hansard as having referred to them during the entire period of his occupation of a seat on this side of the House.


William Pugsley: When I was a minister under the last Government the number of private cars available for the ministers was very much fewer than it is under this Government


Mr. HAZEN:: My hon. friend used to
charter a private car in the United States when he wanted one.


William Pugsley: Only on two occasions when I went to the West in my capacity as Minister of Public Works. I notice now that if a minister wants to go to St. John or to Montreal or to Toronto he has a private car. Nothing of the kind existed in the days of the Liberal Government.


William Thomas White: In the days of old.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6:
That every purchaser of a berth in a sleeping car or seat in a parlour car shall, in addition to the regular charge for the berth or seat, pay to the person selling the berth or seat for the Consolidated Revenue Fund-
(a)	ten cents in respect of each berth bought:
(b)	five cents in respect of each seat bought;
['In the days of old.']
Wilfrid Laurier: What will be the tax in the case of long distance travelling, say if a man buys a pullman ticket from Ottawa to Winnipeg?


William Thomas White: Just the same.


Wilfrid Laurier: What would be the tax paid by the traveller who leaves Ottawa for Winnipeg and who has a pullman ticket that entitles him to a seat in the day time and a berth at night? How 1 much would he pay?


William Thomas White: He would pay 10 cents in respect of each berth and 5 cents in respect of each seat. If the berth gave the right to a seat in the day time the whole tax would be 10 cents. We must have regard, in considering this legislation, to the condition of travel that actually exists. I pointed out that this tax, instead of being a light tax, was really a very heavy tax.
A passenger, a citizen of Toronto, is proceeding to Hamilton. He takes a seat in

the parlour ear. The charge for that to-day is 25 cents. He will now pay 30 cents. That is to say, we have taxed him 20 per cent, or one-fifth of the amount. It is true that for long distances, say from Montreal to Winnipeg or Vancouver, the same rate applies; but as I pointed out, the travelling public are those who travel frequently and the tax will average up well and be a very substantial tax upon that part of the community, the travelling men, who are usually quite able to pay the tax. There is further consideration that I mentioned when discussing the former section that if we increased this rate beyond a certain point the passenger at Windsor or other border points would simply purchase a ticket to Detroit and there buy his sleeping car accommodation and parlour car accommodation through the United States to the boundary of Canada on his way to Winnipeg or Vancouver. That would result in a discrimination against Canadian railways. We have given full consideration to the matter and I believe the conclusion we have reached is wise.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: That would only apply to the border towns like Detroit where they could cross over.


William Thomas White: There are many border towns.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does a traveller pay only 10 cents for his pullman going to Vancouver?


William Thomas White: Yes, that is all.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me that the whole system is really a discrimination against the poorer travellers. Here are two men going from Ottawa to Montreal. One man takes a first-class ticket and pays $3.35. The other man takes a second-class ticket and pays $2.75. They both pay 5 cents tax, the poor man pays just as much as the wealthy man. It seems to me that there should be a graduation. My hon. friend has considered only the distance, but the very essence of our travelling system is that there is a difference in the prices to be paid. There is a price for the poor man and a price for the wealthy man. That is why there are two classes of railway carriages, simply because the poor man cannot afford to pay as much as the wealthy man; but yet you make him pay the same amount of taxation upon his ticket. Take a man who goes to Toronto. He pays from Ottawa to Toronto, firstrclass, $7.70, and second-class $6.40. On both 
classes of ticket the tax will be 10 cents. The poor man will pay as much as the wealthy man. There is no justice in that, and the graduation should be as I suggested.
A man goes from Ottawa to Winnipeg. He pays for his first-class fare $34.70. Another man, travelling second-class, pays $26.50. One will pay 30 cents and the other 25 cents, a difference of only 5 cents in taxation for that immense distance. Moreover, the man who travels first-class will probably take a pullman car, for which he pays $7.75 from Ottawa to Winnipeg, and he will pay on that pullman ticket only 10 cents of taxation. It seems to me that the whole thing is inconsistent.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend has chosen just those instances that fit his argument. Take the case of a first-class ticket that costs $1 or $1.10; a second-class ticket for the same distance would cost under a dollar; what happens there? Just let me turn the argument on my right hon. friend. The poor man pays nothing.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is fair.


William Thomas White: I have no fault to find with it; we intended that that should be so; but the man who buys a first-class ticket costing over a dollar pays 5 cents. Take another case. How much would the man have to pay who buys a second class ticket costing under $5, say $4.75, $4.80 or $4.90? He pays 5 cents. Suppose the first class ticket is $5.50; how much does that man pay? He pays 10 cents, just double. Of course if my right hon. friend takes only those cases that happen to be inside the five dollar unit, he will appear to prove his case. But he has entirely failed to take into consideration the equally large number of cases in which the first-class traveller will, as compared with the second-class traveller, pay double when the second-class ticket is just under five dollars. My right hon. friend made another point, and he made it the other day too. He took the case of a poor man buying a second-class ticket from Ottawa to Montreal. It was quite a picture that he painted of the youthful 5 p.m. scion of wealthy parents lolling in luxury and paying only 5 cents for his seat; but my right hon. friend failed to point out that the man in the parlour car pays a tax upon his ordinary railway ticket, which would be first class, and, as I have shown, the tax might be considerably in excess of what the man with the second-class ticket would have to pay. The man with the first-class ticket pays not only

the extra 25 or 50 cents, which is the normal charge for a seat in the parlour car, but five cents as well; and it is proper that he should.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


William Thomas White: I have done even-handed
justice between the man who buys a first-class ticket and a seat in the parlour car, and those less fortunate members of the community who cannot afford that. My right hon. friend always travels in the parlour car and I should not like to see him travel in anything but a parlour car. But there is this further consideration, and I submit that this whole question cannot be discussed unless we have regard to it all the time. Nothing would please me better than to impose a larger tax according to distance; that occurred to me at the outset, just as it did to my right hon. friend. It is revenue that I want, and if I could get a larger revenue by imposing a higher tax between Toronto and Vancouver, I should be delighted to do it. But we must bear in mind two things: first, if you increase the tax unduly you will discourage travelling; and secondly, if you impose a substantial tax according to distance, you will divert to the United States the travel which should go over Canadian lines; and I have not in mind advantage to Canadian railway lines only, but to the Canadian public as well. Having regard to all these considerations, and to the conditions that exist in Canada, which has a boundary line of practically four thousand miles separating us from the United States, which has a network of railway lines leading up to our border, I think this taxation is fair and just and necessary.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not object to the tax; I think it is fair enough if we have to have a war tax. But what I do object to is the basis upon which it is founded. My hon. friend has completely ignored the basis upon which we travel; that is, that there are two classes of travel, and therefore two different prices. My hon. friend has put them exactly on the same footing, and that is the fault I have tried to find. My hon. friend says that I travel in the pullman car.


William Thomas White: I hope you do.


Wilfrid Laurier: My poor
means permit me to pay for that, hut it seems to me that if I want to enjoy the luxury of travelling in a pullman car and 76
can afford to do so, I should be called upon to pay more than the poor man who cannot travel in the pullman. The man who goes in a pullman car from here to Montreal is charged only 5 cents, when that very man would give more as a tip to the nigger who attends on him.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend says that his poor means enable him to travel in the pullman car Now, if I imposed an undue tax I should perhaps be depriving him of that privilege, for he might not be able to afford it. There is another point. If I increase this tax beyond 5 cents, the porter may be deprived of that tip which is his by immemorial right, and the Government of Canada would be enriching itself at the expense of one of the most deserving classes in the community. I must bear all these things in mind.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edmond Proulx: The companies could pay their porters.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7:
That every purchaser of a ticket or right entitling the purchaser, either with or without intervening transportation, to transportation by vessel from a port or place either in or outside of Canada to a port or place outside of Canada other than in Newfoundland, the West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras or the United States shall, in addition to the regular ohargi for the ticket or right, pay in respect of the transportation by vessel to the person selling the ticket or right for the Consolidated Revenue Fund
[Stage Direction]
(a)	the sum of one dollar if the amount chargeable for such transportation by vessel exceeds ten dollars;
(b)	the sum of three dollars if the amount chargeable for such transportation by vessel exceeds forty dollars;
(c)	the sum of five dollars if the amount chargeable for such transportation by vessel exceeds sixty-five dollars;
['The companies could pay their porters.']
Edmond Proulx: This will be a very heavy tax on those going home third-class to visit their parents in the old country.


William Thomas White: Oh, I think not. As the
resolutions were brought down originally the rates were fixed on the same basis as the rates out of American ports. Of course, if the tax upon these tickets brought the Canadian rate higher than the American rate, we should divert to American ports the travel which now goes from our own ports. The tax is fairly heavy, but the total amount we expect to get is comparatively small, probably $15,000 or $20,000. That is not a very large amount. As my



hon. friend will see we have made a differentiation : the sum of one dollar is charged -if the transportation exceeds $10, and $3 if it exceeds $40. We understand that the second-class passages are below $40, so in section (b) we made it $40 instead of $30, so as to make the tax less in proportion for those buying tickets under $40. The railway tax is a very small one, a five cent tax so to speak; but this tax is larger. The total amount that will be collected, however, will not be very much, and on the whole I think this proposal may be regarded as very fair.


Alphonse Verville: Take those who travel steerage. The price of a ticket to the old country is $33.50, I understand.


William Thomas White: One dollar.


Alphonse Verville: The first and second class will pay more?


William Thomas White: It depends upon the cost.


Alphonse Verville: The second-class fare is $52.50.


William Thomas White: Then the tax will be $3.


Alphonse Verville: The steerage will not be any more?


William Thomas White: One dollar.


Wilfrid Laurier: How much do you expect from this?


William Thomas White: The estimate is low, $15,000, but I think it may be more. It is a small tax and the question might almost arise whether it is worth while.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think that estimate is too low.


William Thomas White: I think it is too low; I think it will be more.


James Joseph Hughes: Will it be collected from those who travel on Government steamers?


William Thomas White: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
8. That no person shall issue a cheque payable at or by a bank unless there is affixed thereto an adhesive stamp, or unless there is impressed thereon by mean of a die, a stamp of the value of two cents ;
['Yes.']
Wilfrid Laurier: How much is expected from that?


William Thomas White: From cheques, bills of exchange and promissory notes I expect to receive $600,000. I do not believe it is possible to make an accurate estimate


Wilfrid Laurier: This is one of the things in regard to which I would have supposed that the calculation would be very accurate because every bank knows how many cheques pass through its hands every year.


William Thomas White: The difficulty is that so
many cheques and drafts pass between the branches of the banks themselves. I do not believe they are kept separate as to number. At all events, the estimate I have is about $600,000.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: In estimating the amount the minister expects to derive from this tax, has he taken into consideration the amount that has been passing through the banks during the past year?


William Thomas White: I have no accurate information and this is only an estimate. My officers made certain inquiries but we have not before us the facts upon which an accurate computation can be made. I understand it is not possible to obtain it from any of the returns.


James McCrie Douglas: I would think that probably large firms who have hitherto been paying by cheque might draw one large cheque and pay out currency. In that event the revenue would be very much less than the minister thinks.


William Thomas White: That is quite possible. I should think that, in regard to the very small cheques issued by business houses, they might not issue so many as they have in the past. They might draw a cheque and disburse the currency. On the other hand, the tax is comparatively small, and the inconvenience, not to say the danger of keeping on hand large sums of money, would, I think, be such that the tax would not be likely to restrain companies or firms from carrying on business in the same way as they have in the past, or practically so.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: May I call the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) to the experience of Germany with regard to a tax on cheques? In 1913, when Germany had to revise and modify her whole system of taxation as the result of her enormous increase in her naval and military expenditure, they enacted four laws. One was to modify the financial system of the Empire and to provide for an increase in the war fund; the second was to provide for the levying of what was called a special and extraordinary military contribution; the third was to impose a tax on

the increase of private fortunes having reference to both income and capital, and the fourth, which is the one that I want especially to draw the attention of the minister to, was a modification of the stamp tax. They repealed altogether the stamp tax on cheques which had been imposed in 1909. They did it because experience had shown that they derived from it the very insignificant revenue of 3,000,000 marks, equal to about $750,000. It was found to be an impediment to business and a great restriction on the normal development of circulation. They repealed it altogether while increasing all other forms of taxation. I think the Minister of Finance ought to be guided by the experience of Germany in that regard because there is no country that has had to levy taxes on account of military expenditure as Germany has had to do during the last few years, and especially after the speech of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) who, I am sure, would second my view in the matter.


William Thomas White: I think that a tax of this kind is not likely to be an impediment to trade because a stamp tax has been in vogue in Great Britain, which is the greatest commercial country in the world, and it has probably very many more transactions in cheques than Germany has. As far as I can ascertain there is no likelihood of their changing that system. There is also a system of stamp taxes upon cheques in the United States. Whether it is in existence to-day or not I do not know, but it was during the Spanish-American war. In connection with the consideration of this Bill, I took the trouble to communicate with an American banker in New York and with several others witlh reference to their experience in respect to this tax. This gentleman in New York said that it had given very little trouble, that it had been accepted by the community and he was entirely favourable to a tax of this kind in connection with the raising of revenue for the purposes of war.


Mr. CASH:: I think that in the United States if you draw a cheque on your own bank it is not taxed, but where your cheque passes over to some other bank the stamp tax is enforced.


James Joseph Hughes: I would like to
draw the minister's attention to a condition of affairs in Prince Edward Island with which he is perhaps not familiar. The 76i
Department of Agriculture has, in the last few years, organized egg collecting districts and they have taken a good deal of pains to extend the system. The collectors who were appointed issued cheques in their own names. The amounts were sometimes very small. I have seen a large number of cheques given for sums below one dollar, because as the collectors went around they would collect and pay for just what eggs the farmers had. There would not be many cheques over $2. In that case what would happen?


William Thomas White: Are they agents of the
Government?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know. They are working under the Government system.


William Thomas White: I should imagine, because the tax is so small, that they would pay it, continuing to issue cheques for small amounts, or that they might draw cheques for large amounts and pay for the eggs in currency. If they are agents of the Government, the Government will pay the tax. I do not think it will be a very considerable charge.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
That no person shall transfer a hill of exchange or promissory note to a bank in such manner as to constitute the bank the holder thereof or deliver a bill of exchange or promissory note to a bank for collection unless there is affixed thereto an adhesive stamp or unless there is impressed thereon by means of a die, a stamp of the value of two cents.
['I should imagine, because the tax is so small, that they would pay it, continuing to issue cheques for small amounts, or that they might draw cheques for large amounts and pay for the eggs in currency. If they are agents of the Government, the Government will pay the tax. I do not think it will be a very considerable charge.']
Mr. ROSS:: Does that extend to every
cheque on every bank, or only to cheques on chartered banks? Is the word " bank " defined?


William Thomas White: The word " bank " will
be defined in the Bill which I shall present after these resolutions have been adopted, so as to cover all institutions or individuals carrying on the business of banking or accepting deposits. For instance, loan companies, trust companies and other institutions and firms and individuals holding deposits subject to cheques. Otherwise, of course, the tax would be most unfair to the banks. In the Bill, we are giving the word " bank " a very wide interpretation.


Mr. MARCIL:: Does the minister intend to include the agricultural banks of Quebec organized under provincial charters ?


William Thomas White: They cannot carry on a banking business if they are organized under provincial charters.


Charles Marcil: They receive deposits from their own members. I suppose they issue cheques of some kind.


William Thomas White: If they take money on deposits and give receipts, they will have to pay.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has my hon. friend consulted the Department of Justice with regard to this section ? It says:
That no person shall transfer a hill of exchange or promissory note to a bank-
I think it would be more accurate to say:
That no bank shall receive a bill of exchange or promissory note.
I suppose if a note is brought to a bank, the bank will not receive it unless it is properly stamped ?


William Thomas White: In the Bill there will be a prohibition against a bank paying a bill of exchange or promissory note unless it is properly stamped.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is all right.


William Thomas White: The wording in section 9, to which my hon. friend has drawn attention, has precedents in the Bills of Exchange Act.


Charles Marcil: Can the minister explain the difference between the use of the adhesive stamp and of the die stamp ?


William Thomas White: Either can be used. The adhesive stamp will be an Inland Revenue stamp which may be bought and placed upon the cheque, bill of exchange or note by the individual issuing it. In England, embossed cheques are issued under regulations of the Inland Revenue Department, so that the individual has not to impress the stamp. As to whether the banks here will use embossed cheques or not, I am not prepared to say at the moment. Railway companies and other large institutions *may adopt that method so as to save the trouble of putting on the stamps.


Bowman Brown Law: If a man issues a cheque and does not put a two cent stamp on it, what is the penalty?


William Thomas White: A penalty of $50 on an individual and $100 on a bank. It is only a penalty. We have been careful so that the legality of a transaction shall not be impeached by our legislation.


Mr. MICHAUD:: In case a man issues a cheque and forgets to put a two cent stamp on it, can a bank put on a stamp and charge it to the depositor?
IMr. W. T. White.]


William Thomas White: The issuer of the cheque would be liable; but if he forgot to put on the stamp, the bank would call his attention to it, and either supply him with a stamp or charge it to him.


Michael Clark: Presumably the mechanism of English banks would be followed. There is nothing that strikes one coming from Great Britain to Canada more than the careless and slovenly way in which cheques lie all over bank counters. In England a cheque is a very sacred document. Direct taxation always tends to carefulness and accuracy, and to an improvement in the character of the people. In England a man gets about thirty cheques at a time in a book, and the cost is put on the debit side of his account in the book. The cheque book of a private citizen in Great Britain is a very sacred book, as sacred as Scripture.


Pius Michaud: Will the stamps be sold by the postmasters?


William Thomas White: Provision is being made for their being sold by postmasters and inland revenue officers and other persons, by regulations to be established by the Inland Revenue Department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
That no person shall sign a receipt for money paid to him by a bank chargeable against a deposit of money in the bank to his credit until he has affixed to the receipt an adhesive stamp, or unless there is impressed thereon by means of a die, a stamp of the value of two cents.
['Provision is being made for their being sold by postmasters and inland revenue officers and other persons, by regulations to be established by the Inland Revenue Department.']
Edmond Proulx: Will that apply to the post office savings bank?


William Thomas White: That is money paid by a bank, not by a post office.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
William Thomas White: The reason that provision was inserted will be obvious to my right hon. friend. If there were a stamp upon a cheque and no stamp upon a receipt, the money would be withdrawn by the latter system.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is all right, I am not objecting.


James McCrie Douglas: Would that embrace the signing by a bank teller of a duplicate deposit receipt?


William Thomas White: It would not cover that case. That is only a matter connected with the book-keeping of a bank.


Edmond Proulx: The minister has in view that money deposited in the savings de-

partment of a bank is taken out more bireceipts than by cheques.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
12. That every bank having in possesssion in Canada, any promissory note, cheque or other bill of exchange made or drawn out of Canada on which a stamp has not been affixed or impressed shall, before payment or presentment for payment, if the same is payable in Canada, affix thereto an adhesive stamp of the value of two cents and the value of the stamp so affixed shall be payable to the bank by the person entitled to the proceeds of the note, cheque or bill.
['The minister has in view that money deposited in the savings de-\n\npartment of a bank is taken out more bireceipts than by cheques.']
Bowman Brown Law: Many American firms deposit in Canadian banks, and in paying on this side send cheques on those banks. Will this tax of two cents have to be paid on cheques drawn in the United States upon Canadian banks?


William Thomas White: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
14. That no money order or postal note shall be issued under the provisions of the Post Office Act until there Is affixed thereto a postage stamp of the value of two cents and one cent respectively to be paid for by the purchaser of the order or postal note, and upon such stamp there may be. printed or impressed the words "war tax".
['Yes.']
Wilfrid Laurier: Has my hon. friend no pangs of conscience here?


William Thomas White: If I had no more trouble
with my conscience than is given me by hon. gentlemen opposite I should be a happy man. Surely the right hon. gentleman does not think I am troubled in conscience over bringing down so commendable a measure as this.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the
reason I asked the question. It seems I paid the hon. gentleman an undeserved compliment in supposing that his conscience would trouble him. He is going to increase the postage by one cent. Why not have one stamp only instead of two?


William Thomas White: This section applies to
postal notes and money orders and not to letters and post-cards-these come under the next section.


Wilfrid Laurier: The general
principle applies here also that I was pointing out that this will be a great annoyance to business. Taking this in connection with the next section, why have two stamps instead of one? One will accomplish the object as well as two, one of them stamped "war tax".


William Thomas White: The mill will provide that an ordinary postage-stamp may be used. That will have to be covered by regulations
of the post office. We will make a minimum of inconvenience for business in the collection of this tax, just as in the case of the collection of the tax on letters. If the party sending the letter or post-card will put on the ordinary postage-stamp, it would be accepted even though it is not designated " war tax."


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad of that. I thought it was obligatory to put on a special war tax stamp.


Charles Marcil: Does the hon. minister
intend to recognize the fact that there are two official languages in this country in the making of these war tax stamps? Especially seeing that the war is being carried on by the Allies, it would be well-


Wilfrid Laurier: Do not have it in French; it is bad enough in English.


Ernest Lapointe: I second the suggestion of my hon. friend from Bonaven-turo (Mr. Marcil).


Charles Marcil: I have not yet had an
answer from the minister.


William Thomas White: I would point out to my
hon. friend that these stamps will be issued by the Department of Inland Revenue. To tell the truth, I have not turned my mind upon the question of their form or character, but have simply brought down the measure in which the stamp tax is provided for. But instead of the " war tax " stamp to be devised and issued by the Inland Revenue Department, an ordinary one cent postage-stamp may be used. I suppose my hon. friend knows-I do not know because I have not inquired into it-what the regulations of the department are with respect to the one cent postage-stamp.


Charles Marcil: There are people in Quebec who are not familiar with the English language. No member of this House knows that better than does the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue who was very sympathetic at one time to the use of the French language. The former Postmaster General, Mr. Pelletier, put three French words on our post-cards, and at once we had protests from certain quarters and one would have thought that that gentleman had committed a great crime. The Minister of Finance knows that the official language of the International Postal Union is French. Therefore, the former Postmaster General was only trying to follow up what is done among the nations of the earth generally. If there is to be an inscription on these new stamps



[Stage Direction]
it should be in a language the people will understand.
Ernest Lapointe: I strongly support
the idea that this inscription should be in French as well as in English. I think your electors, Mr. Chairman, (Mr. Sevigny) and those of the Minister of Inland Revenue <Mr. Blondin) like others, are entitled to know that they will pay that tax on account of the participation of Canada in the war of the Empire.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: In order to do away with any trouble which might arise with the use of English or French, I would make the suggestion that we should come back to the original language, that spoken in the Garden of Eden-Gaelic, and that these Stamps should be inscribed in that language.


Edmond Proulx: Postal notes are used for amounts as low as 20 cents. Does the minister not think there should be no taxation upon postal notes for less than 25 cents ? Upon a 20-cent or 25-cent postal note the taxation proposed would be very heavy.


William Thomas White: It will average up.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
15. That on every letter and post-card for transmission by post a tax of one cent shall he levied and collected, such tax to be payable by affixing to the letter or card a postage-stamp of that denomination, upon which there may be printed or impressed the words " war tax " ;
Wilfrid Laurier: Why not have only one stamp instead of two stamps, and so provide P


William Thomas White: I think that it is not advisable to appear to be amending the Post Office Act. One might as well say: Why not raise your postage to 2 cents and 3 cents ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hearr hear.


William Thomas White: Although my Tight hon. friend says " hear, hear," I am sure he would not consider that to be advisable. This tax is, wo hope, a temporary tax, and I do not like to appear to be amending the Post Office Act and raising the rates of postage. The fax we are proposing is a war tax; it is not additional postage, although 3 cents will be charged upon the transmission of a letter whereas 2 cents only was charged before. There should not be much inconvenience in the affixing of an additional stamp. It is possible, although I have not consulted the Post Office Department as yet, that post-cards may be

issued bearing the 2-cent instead of the 1-cent stamp..


Wilfrid Laurier: We know that this is for war; we all hope that it is only temporary, as I believe it will be. At all events, for the time that it is in existence, why submit the public to the necessity of licking two stamps instead of one ? It is quite sufficient to say that it is an unpleasant operation, especially to those who send letters by the hundreds every day. Why not have a 3-cent stamp r Everybody will understand that it is for war purposes.


William Thomas White: I do not believe there will be much inconvenience. My hon. friend speaks of licking the stamps, but if hundreds of letters a day are sent by a firm, the stamps are not licked; they have other means of meeting the situation. However, I shall be glad to take my hon. friend's suggestion into consideration.


Bowman Brown Law: If a letter is posted having an ordinary 2-cent stamp and an ordinary 1

cent stamp upon it, will it go just the same?


William Thomas White: It goes whether or not the 1-cent stamp is marked " war tax." My hon. friend will observe that the provision is permissive; it says that the words "war tax" may be impressed upon the stamp.


Bowman Brown Law: Can the Minister of Finance assure the committee that all the revenue arising from this extra taxation will be applied to war purposes, and will not go into the ordinary revenue of the country?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows that all the moneys of the Dominion go into one fund; they are mingled. The reason why we are calling this a war tax is this: the country is at war; revenues are diminished, and we are required to find money to meet, in addition to the ordinary expenditure required to carry on the affairs of the country, the interest upon the debt which we shall incur in borrowing for the purposes of our participation in the war. In addition to that there will be pension charges upon the Government. But, putting this all aside,
I desire to say now, without the slightest intention of stirring up any discussion in the matter, that even if not a dollar of the money would go for the specific purposes of the war-that is to say, be ear-marked and specifically applied to some purpose immediately connected with the war-the tax would still be purely a war tax, because the only reason for its imposition is

that the country is at war and that the normal revenues are not sufficient to meet the abnormal strain which is upon us. Many of the arguments put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite are weighty, but I must say that I have not been in the least impressed with the force of the argument that these taxes are not war taxes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Neither have
we upon this side of the House been impressed with the argument that these taxes are war taxes.


William Thomas White: Let it go at that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well.
Whether this is a war tax or whether it is not a war tax, it will all- go into one fund; there is no necessity of ear-marking it as a war tax. This method of imposing the additional stamp tax is simply causing new inconvenience to the community, and I think my hon. friend, upon reflection, will agree that he had better drop the idea.


Bowman Brown Law: It is going to be a great inconvenience to the people of this country to have to affix two stamps to their letters and post-cards. I cannot for the life of me see why a 3-cent stamp cannot be issued, particularly in view of the fact, as the minister says, that the war tax is not separate from the ordinary revenue of the country. I think that if a 3-cent stamp were issued the business and mercantile community would be saved a great deal of inconvenience.


Charles Marcil: I understand the minister to say that the use of the war stamp is not compulsory; that an ordinary stamp will answer the purpose.


William Thomas White: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
16. That every person by whom goods are received-
(a)	to be exported or carried coastwise, or
(b)	to be transported by railway,
shall in every case in which a charge for freight or expressage exceeding five cents is made attach to the bill of lading or other evidence of receipt a stamp to be furnished by the shipper or consignor of the value of two cents.
William Thomas White: The Government has decided to drop this section; I will explain very briefly the reason why. The committee will observe that a charge of 2 cents is made upon every shipment or consignment of goods to be exported or carried coastwise or to be transported by railway. After looking into this matter very carefully,
I find that an enormous number of small packages of various kinds are sent by freight or express; not only agricultural produce, fruits, milk, and articles of that nature-


Charles Marcil: And by departmental
stores.


William Thomas White: Yes, I had not that in mind. There would be a great deal of general public inconvenience in meeting the requirements of this tax. The amount that would be raised has been estimated to be only $120,000. On account of there being at least one and possibly more provincially-owned Government railways, we could not impose upon the Provincial Government the duty of collecting this tax. The matter was discussed with the Department of Justice, and it seemed that the only way the tax could have been collected would have been to impose on an officer of the provincial railway the duty of seeing that the stamp - had been affixed; but it was necessary to provide that the stamp should be furnished by the shipper or consignor and, having regard to the multitude of transactions, although in the outcome it would probably have resulted in the railway company supplying the stamps to the shipper or consignor, we reached the conclusion that it would be better to drop the item altogether.


Bowman Brown Law: There is no tax then on bills of lading of any kind?
Section dropped.
On section 17-
17. That every person selling to a consumer a bottle or package containing
(a)	a proprietary or patent medicine,
(b)	perfumery,
(c)	wine, non-sparkling,
(d)	champagne or sparkling wine,
shall affix to every such bottle or package a stamp of the value hereinafter set out:
Stamp of
Article.	the
value of
(a)	A proprietary or patent medicine,
(b)	Perfumery,
The retail price for each bottle or package thereof being- twenty-five cents or less....	1 cent.
More than twenty-five cents-
For each twenty-five cents and in addition for any fractional
part of twenty-five cents. ..	1 cent,
(c) Wine of the grape, non-sparkling, each bottle or package containing-
One pint or less	 3 cents.
One quart or less, but more than
one pint	 5 cents.

Stamp of
Article.	the
value of
A quantity greater than one quart_
For each quart and in addition for any fractional part of a
quart	 5	cents.
(d) Champagne or sparkling wine, each bottle or package containing-
One-half pint or	less	13	cents'.
One pint or less but more than
one-half pint	25	cents.
A quantity greater than one pint-
For each pint and in addition for
any fractional part of a pint. 25 cents.


Wilfrid Laurier: Taking all these items one by one, how much revenue does the minister expect to obtain from the article perfumery?


William Thomas White: 
Charles Marcil: Does the minister think there is as much perfumery used as patent medicines?


William Thomas White: The word perfumery is given a wide definition in the Act so as to cover cosmetics and a considerable range of articles.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is it possible to define what is meant by proprietary medicines?


William Thomas White: I think so. The definition is as follows:
" Proprietary or patent medicine " includes pills, powders, tinctures, troches, or lozenges, syrups, cordials, bitters, anodynes, tonics, plasters, liniments, salves, ointments, pastes, drops, waters (except mineral waters in their natural state or carbonized), essences, oils, and all other medicinal preparations or compositions bottled or packed ready for sale in respect of which the person making or preparing the same has or claims to have any formula or secret oi occult art for the making or preparing thereof, or has or claims to have any exclusive right or title to such making or preparing, or which are prepared or made under any letters patent or which are designated by a trade mark or which if prepared in accordance with any formula published or unpublished are recommended to the public by the makers, vendors, or proprietors thereof as remedies or specifics for any disease or affection whatsoever affecting the human or animal body, but does not include any medicinal preparation or composition recognized by the British or the United States pharmacopoeia or the French codex as officinal.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the meaning of that word "officinal"?


William Thomas White: I asked that question to-day, but I have forgotten the definition. My deputy, however, assures me it is a good word.


William Pugsley: Might I ask where that definition comes from?


William Thomas White: It comes partly from our own tariff, partly from the United States, and part of it has been adapted to meet the situation. But the essential feature of the proprietary medicine is that it does not include any medicine, preparation or composition recognized by the British or the United States pharmacopoeia or the French Codex as officinal.


William Pugsley: Why not?


William Thomas White: With respect to the pharmacopoeia preparations, there is no exclusive right, there is no privilege, and there are no letters patent. The pharmacopoeia preparations are made up from the formulae of the pharmocopoeia, and the tax would not apply to them.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I am not very clear on the point, and I think it is important to have it clear. We talk about proprietary medicines. I understood the minister to say it is only when such a medicine is sold in packages by the druggist, in six or eight ounce bottles for instance, that the tax is imposed.


William Thomas White: To the consumer.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: To-day what are called proprietary medicines are used very extensively in doctors' prescriptions. The Parke Davis firm sell to the druggist a Winchester bottle which would contain as much as a great many six ounce or eight ounce bottles. As I understand, the tax does not apply to doctors' prescriptions. It must be in packages, such as four, six or twelve ounces, as sold by the druggist?


William Thomas White: Yes, sold to the consumer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If it is sold by a druggist to a company doctor, for instance?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) is addressing himself to the question of proprietary medicines only. Consumer is defined as follows:
Consumer means a person who uses up a proprietary or patent medicine. . . . either in serving his own wants or in producing therefrom any article of value, and " selling to a consumer," includes selling by retail.
So that if the article were purchased and used in the making of a compound and then

sold, the party so using it would be a consumer.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I am not quite clear on that point yet. Wampole's cod liver oil, which is probably known to every member in the House, goes to the druggist in a large bottle called a " Winchester ". Now suppose a doctor prescribes ten ounces of Wampole's cod liver oil, does the consumer pay the tax on that?


Wilfrid Laurier: The tax is paid
on the bottle:


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If the druggist divided the winchester of cod liver oil into two six-ounce bottles, I could understand that the consumer would pay the two or five cents, whatever it may be; but when a man takes a doctor's prescription for ten ounces of cod liver oil to the druggist, has he to pay the stamp tax when the druggist hands him the cod liver oil?


William Thomas White: 
Mr. WEBSTER:: No.


William Thomas White: It may or may not be; you cannot pronounce on that until you know the facts. But if it were a proprietary medicine, then, under this definition, the doctor or druggist would be a consumer, for he would be using the cod liver oil to produce therefrom another article of value; that is, he would use it in making up a prescription.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend from Souris does not mean it as a mixture. Suppose it was not compounded with anything else?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I say that on the
ordinary druggist's shelf to-day there are twenty-five or more different winchesters, one containing Wampole's cod liver oil, another Wyeth's Mixture, another Lyman and Jones' Mixture, and so on. I should say that fifty to seventy-five per cent of the business done by druggists to-day is done in that way. When I prescribe a six-ounce bottle of Wampole's Cod Liver Oil or any other preparation-


William Thomas White: My hon. friend uses the
word " or " ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: -or any other preparation that goes to the druggist in a winchester, would that come under the stamp tax? In my opinion it would not.


William Thomas White: If it is a proprietary medicine I should say that it would, for the reason that the definition says:
Every person selling to a consumer any bottle or package containing a proprietary or patent medicine
and so on. The size of the bottle is not defined, and even if the proprietary medicine was broken up from larger bulk, I should say that the tax would apply.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then it would apply to 75 per cent of all that is sold by the ordinary druggist.


William Thomas White: Yes, if it is a proprietary medicine.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 17-proprietary or patent
medicines, etc.:


William Thomas White: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing the question of proprietary medicines, and with the view of giving the committee an explanation of what will come within the definition, I desire to make the following statement: Proprietary medicines are only such medicines as are recommended to the public by the makers, vendors, or proprietors thereof as remedies or specifics for any disease or affection whatsoever affecting the human or animal body.
Medicines prepared by druggists from several drugs or ingredients in accordance with physicians' prescriptions are not proprietary medicines.
Proprietary medicines purchased by drug-prietary medicine have already paid the purpose of being re-packed in smaller packages, without the addition of any drug or ingredient, for sale to individuals, become liable to stamp tax at the time of sale by the druggists.


William Pugsley: Would not the proprietary medicine have already paid the tax ? Is it to be paid a second time when the druggist divides it up and sells it ? It would pay the tax twice.


William Thomas White: Proprietary medicines purchased by druggists in bulk and large

packages, for the purpose of being repacked in smaller packages, without the addition of any drug or ingredient, for sale to individuals, become liable to stamp tax at the time of sale by the druggists.


William Pugsley: They would have to pay the tax twice.


William Thomas White: No.


William Pugsley: Would the tax not be paid on this medicine when it was bought ?


William Thomas White: No, not until they break up the package and sell it. The stamp will bo placed on the article at the time of sale for reasons that I shall explain a little later. Proprietary medicines purchased by druggists and used by them for compounding with other drugs or ingredients in accordance with physicians' prescriptions, must have the stamp affixed to the bottle or container before being opened by the druggist, as he is* the consumer, the compounded article not being a proprietary medicine. In answer to my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), if what is-clearly a patent medicine is used in the compounding of a mixture, which is sold to the public, it is perfectly clear that the mixture or compound is not a patent medicine. If, in connection with a prescription which is filled, taking a six-ounce bottle, two ounces of compound, or proprietary, medicine is used with other drugs and ingredients to the extent of four ounces, making a bottle of six ounces, it is obvious that the resultant mixture is not a patent or proprietary medicine, but a medicine compounded from a prescription and consequently differing from any one of the ingredients, including the patent or proprietary medicine used in connection with it. To give an illustration: Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; that is what is covered by the formula H2O. You have water which is different from either oxygen or hydrogen, or different from either of its constituents.	>


William Pugsley: What is that word you were going'to give us?


William Thomas White: I knew that my hon. friend would be interested in that word. I know how interested my hon. friend is in the precise meaning of terms. I have gone to the trouble-no, I have given myself the pleasure-of having this looked up for my hon. friend's benefit. I know that he is a purist in the use of English, and is interested in all definitions. " Officinal "- facio, I think, would be the Latin root 
word-opus and facio-doing work, performing, accomplishing things, just as this Government has been doing; you might almost describe it as an officinal Government.


Mr. GRAHAM:: That is the wrong word.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) would say so, but we will not go into that now.
Officinal : 1. Applied in pharmacy to preparations made according to recognized prescriptions ; specifically, prescribed in the pharmacopoeia.
2. Specifically, a drug prepared according to
the pharmacopoeia.
Derivation:	Latin, officina - a workshop,
laboratory-probably a combination of opus and facio. Officina is a contraction for opiflcina.
I think this is an illuminating definition for my hon. friend. This definition has been considered very carefully by representatives of the wholesale, manufacturing and retail druggists, and I think it can be depended upon as meeting the situation.


Edmond Proulx: What is the definition of " perfumery?"


William Thomas White: Perfumery includes alcoholic and non-alcoholic perfumes, and perfumed spirits, bay rum, cologne, lavender waters, hair-oil, tooth and other powders, and washes, pomatums, pastes, and all other preparations used for hair, mouth and skin.


Edmond Proulx: Does that include talcum powder?


William Thomas White: Tooth and other powders. Yes.


Pius Michaud: I notice that the minister has made the stamp tax one cent for any bottle or package of the value of 25 cents or less, and
More than twenty-five cents-
For each twenty-five cents and in addition for any fractional part of twenty-five cents	One cent.
That means an increase of 4 per cent. I do not know what it should be. Before recess, the minister said that his conscience was quite clear on some items. A man travelling on a train has to pay 5 per cent on his railway fare, and a man who can afford to buy perfume ought to pay more than 4 per cent. This luxury should be taxed a little higher. My sympathy is with the ladies of this country, but we are here to do business in a proper manner. I hope the minister will see his way clear to let

go this 5 per cent on railway fares for amounts around one dollar, and increase the duty on perfume.


William Thomas White: The tax is a pretty heavy one. My hon. friend will observe that the tax is upon 25 cents or less. One cent upon 5 cents would be 20 per cent; one cent upon 10 cents would be 10 per cent; one cent upon 20 cents would be 5 per cent; one cent upon 25 cents, it is true, would be 4 per cent. Another consideration should be borne in mind, namely, that this is, so to speak, a domestic tax. There is a duty upon these articles coming in as well. Therefore the tax that we are imposing will be sufficiently heavy, especially as it is in addition to the taxation resulting from the import duty upon those articles. The tax of 10 per cent, which we had originally, was really too high, especially when added to the import duty. After giving the matter exceedingly careful consideration and after consulting with all the interests concerned, we came to the conclusion that the tax might be modified and that the resolution should be changed to its present form.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The druggists handling these articles were hard hit in August when the tax was made pretty high on alcohol, which a great many of those articles contain. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance has considered that matter, and that he has relieved the druggists, because as this resolution was worded originally as regards perfumery, the druggists were harder hit than were any other class for whom we are legislating.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the definition of perfumerv which the minister gave us to be the statutory definition5


William Thomas White: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: What about
the tax on champagne? I ask this question having regard to the French treaty. Can we impose the duty on account of the French treaty?


William Thomas White: If there were any doubt
on the subject, I should not have brought down the proposal. In the opinion of the Department of Justice it is perfectly clear that we have the power to levy this, which is an excise tax, not a customs tax. I draw the attention of my right hon. friend to article 12 of the French treaty which my right hon. friend has before h:m. The convention is of 1907, although the treaty did not
come into operation until a couple of years later. Article 12 reads:
Products of Canadian origin of any kind imported into France, Algeria, the French colonies and possessions and the territories of the protectorate of Indo-China, shall not be subject to any higher or other duties of excise, internal consumption or octroi-
Which is a city tax, I believe.
-than those which are or may be charged upon products of French origin.
In like manner, products of any kind originating in France, Algeria, the French colonies and possessions and the territories of the protectorate of Indo-China, shall not be subject to any higher or other duties of excise, internal consumption, or octroi than those which are or may be charged on like products of Canadian origin.
This tax that we are imposing is a general tax not only upon goods imported from France, but upon goods produced in Canada and in other countries. Therefore so far as the imposition of this excise duty is concerned there is no discrimination as regards importations from France. The French treaty provides for the admission into Canada under schedule B of a large number of items, including spirits, alcoholic perfumes, medicinal or medicated wines, photographs, medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, and a number of other articles at the intermediate rate, whatever that may be.
Under schedule C there is a long list of articles including vegetables, wines, champagnes, certain books and certain medicinal, chemical and pharmaceutical preparations, olive oil, embroideries, velvets, ribbons and manufacture of silk, which are to be admitted at a fixed and specific rate of duty which it is not open to this Government, without violation of the treaty, to increase. Those are duties of customs, as is so expressed in the convention. I had regard for that in the proposal brought down. I was unable to raise the duty, as I think I otherwise would have been disposed to do, upon a number of articles of luxury embraced in this schedule C of the French treaty, because of the fact that those articles are entitled to the benefits of that schedule 0 when imported from France. Therefore we did not increase the duty. With regard to wines, which I think every one will admit are a proper subject for taxation at a time like this, we have been advised by the Department of Justice-and I think it is perfectly obvious on a reading of the treaty-that it is open to the Government to impose a stamp tax, which is in the nature of an excise duty, upon wines,

non-sparkling and upon sparkling wines and champagne. I think there is nothing we have done in any way inconsistent with the express terms of the French treaty, nor anything in which it is not open to the French Governmeent, should it so desire, to take similar action.


Mr. GERMAN:: Why does the minister discriminate so heavily between sparkling and non-sparkling wines? There are nonsparkling wines that are quite as expensive as the sparkling wines. The difference in the tax is so great that I should like to understand the reason.


William Thomas White: If I were to answer with levity, I suppose I should say that it is because we want the people to pay something for the sparkle. But, speaking seriously, the non-sparkling wine is generally cheaper than the sparkling wine or champagne. That classification is made, I think, in the French treaty; at all events it is made in the tariff, and we are following precedent in making that classification here. Champagne, of course, is an exceedingly expensive wine, much too expensive, I suppose, for my hon. friend, as it is for me.


William Manley German: Non-sparkling wine is sometimes more expensive than sparkling.


William Thomas White: I defer to my hon. friend's opinion, if he is more an expert than I, though he may not be.


William Pugsley: The minister has not explained why, on articles included in the French Convention, he imposes no additional tax, even when they come from another country-I refer to luxuries such as silks and velvets. My hon. friend knows that a great many of these articles that are included in the French Convention are brought also from the United States. Why should they not be taxed when coming from countries other than France? That is one question I should like to ask the minister. The other is this: I would like him to take us into his confidence and tell us the reasons which influenced him in the amendments which he has made in this resolution in order to make it legal and not in contravention of the French treaty.


William Thomas White: I do not understand.


William Pugsley: I say the minister should take us into his confidence and let us know why the changes were made in order to make it not contrary to the French Convention.


William Thomas White: Does the hon, gentleman mean, since I brought it dowrU


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Thomas White: No changes were made to my knowledge for that purpose. I can assure my hon. friend that my assistant deputy has had the drafting of this Bill, and I think he has done it very competently. To my knowledge no changes were made for the purpose of bringing these proposals into conformity with the French treaty. It was quite unnecessary, in my view, to consider such a question. I looked carefully into the matter, and we were specifically advised in connection with the proposals which we laid before the House, that this tax being an excise tax, our action was not in the least in violation of the express provision of the French Convention.


William Pugsley: The assistant deputy
minister deserves the greatest possible credit. He has shown great ability, and when he gives attention to changes of this kind he would certainly make all necessary provision. But if he has not given thought to the subject his instinct is remarkable-


William Thomas White: Unerring.


William Pugsley: -for he has taken out of the resolution the very words to which I objected when I addressed the House and the removal of which bring the resolution into conformity with the French Convention. Let me read what was in the resolution and what has been left out of the amended resolution which is now before the committee. At page 99 of unrevised Hansard* the hon. gentleman will find section 15 of the resolution as it was read to the House by the Minister of Finance, as follows:
15. That the provisions of any Act founded or. these resolutions, in so far as such provisions relate to wine, non-sparkling, champagne and sparkling wine, shall he deemed to have come into force on the twelfth day of February, 1915, and to have applied to all such articles

(a) imported or taken out of customs warehouse for consumption on and after that day and to have also applied to such articles previously imported for which no customs entry was made before that day.
The words " imported or taken out of customs warehouse for consumption on or after that day, etc.," have been entirely omitted from the present amended resolution, and it is made simply a stamp tax to be paid by a stamp placed upon the article by the person selling to the consumer the bottle or package of wine. That puts the case in a different position entirely. What I challenged when addressing the House was this provision that before imported goods could be taken out of the customs

warehouse an additional tax should be paid whether by way of stamp or any other way. Now, somebody, with wisdom and, as I say with most remarkable instinct, has left out all these words and made this simply an internal stamp tax to be affixed to the bottle when the vendor sells it, and not when it is taken out of customs. Does not the hon. gentleman see the difference? And is not he proud of the instinct which enabled such a change to be made in a resolution as to get'rid of the difficulty which I pointed out, the words being in contravention of the provisions of the French treaty?


William Thomas White: The taking out of the clause to which my hon. friend has referred, had no connection whatever with his argument or with the idea which was at the foundation of that argument. The reason why it was taken out-


William Pugsley: I thought the minister
said there were no changes.


William Thomas White: No changes having any
bearing upon the question whether or not this was in contravention of the French treaty. There is a very simple explanation. It was pointed out both by the Customs Department and by the importers of these wines that to open up all the boxes and packages and put a stamp upon each bottle while in the custody of the Customs Department would give an enormous amount of trouble and inconvenience. The result is that the stamps are now to be affixed at the time of sale to the consumer. The object Tyas not to meet any difficulties in connection with the French treaty, but to meet a practical objection on the part of the Customs Department and of those engaged in the importation of wines. My hon. friend will see that this is a pure, synchronism. My hon. friend is a good lawyer when he is impartially advising a client, but not when he is addressing the House of Commons; consequently he will forgive me if I do not attach the weight to Shis opinion that I would if it were given in a case in which he had no object in exercising any political bias. I need not insult the intelligence of the House by saying that there is a clear distinction between duties of customs and duties of excise. The French treaty is a document to be interpreted according to the well-known rules of legal construction, and personally I should be against a strained construction. There is no room for doubt that if the duties are not increased it is open to this Government to enact that excise duties
by way of stamp taxation may be imposed upon those goods once they arrive in Canada, whether they are in the custody of the Customs Department-which is only an incident-or not, provided that Canadian goods of a similar character are treated in identically the same manner. Therefore my hon. friend's legal opinion was unsound. The change was made for the purpose that I have indicated, and for no other. However, as the result makes my hon. friend the member for St. John happy, of course we are all happy, for I need not say that it is our object so to conduct thebusiness of the country as to meet the approval not only of the public, but of gentlemen on both sides of this House. I understand, then, that any objection my hon. friend had to the imposition of these stamp duties in the case of wines, non-sparkling and sparkling, and champagne, is withdrawn, because a legal difficulty which he thought he saw is now non-existent.


William Pugsley: The sad part of it is that when the hon. gentleman gropes his way blindly he seems to go more unerringly than when he proceeds with his eyes open.


William Thomas White: I always had a good opinion of the Civil Service, and I always tell the officers of my department to keep a pretty good check on me and to criticise me severely. My hon. friend has paid a tribute to my assistant deputy. Allow me to say that I join very gladly in that tribute, because he has done his work in a manner that will commend itself, I think, to the members of the House.
My hon. friend has referred to another matter. He says: Why did you not raise the duties upon these articles coming in from other countries? We had a tariff in which, under the French convention, the goods in question were subject to a specific duty which could not be increased. The tariff upon goods coming in from other countries had been fixed. I know that the Government is not obligated to do it, but in considering tariff matters, regard must be had, in a sense, to the family of nations, and if you take an action which seems invidious or unjust or unduly discriminatory against other nations, you are apt to raise questions which may lead to retaliation. I understand that some years ago- I speak from recollection, I believe it was in connection with this very treaty-some question was raised as between the United States and Canada with regard to what was alleged to be discriminatory treatment. That matter was adjusted by some con-
12n

cessions. Having regard to the whole situation, it occurred to us that it would be inexpedient and inadvisable that we should deliberately raise the duties upon this class of articles in respect of which the duties under the French convention were fixed and specific, unless some consideration of paramount importance inclined us to do so. The fact of the matter is that our minds were not turned particularly upon the subject at all. It seems to me to be rather invidious ana aiscriminatory treatment to raise the tariff on goods coming from all other countries.
Mr. MARCH.:	Are French wines given
any preference over German wines, or are they on the same footing?


William Thomas White: The French treaty is the basis of all most favoured nation treatment in the way of fiscal legislation so far as this country is concerned. The French treaty goes farthest. Under it certain articles are entitled to the benefits of the intermediate tariff. Then there is schedule C, a most important schedule, in which the rates of duties upon a number of commodities which I have mentioned, such as velvet and silks, alcoholic perfumes, wines-non-sparkling- champagne and a number of other commodities, are specific. Only those nations which are entitled to the most favoured nation treatment are entitled also to the benefits of the provisions of the French treaty, which, as I say, is the most favourable treaty that any foreign nation has with us. Germany has not been entitled to most favoured nation treatment from Canada. The matter had on many occasions been submitted to the Government, but we had not been able to see our way to accord to Germany a most favoured nation treatment which would put her on a par with other nations in respect of the provisions of the French Convention of 1907, which, as I say, came into effect in 1909. Germany, therefore, was not, previous to the outbreak of the war-and, of course, is not to-day- entitled to the benefits of the French treaty.


Charles Marcil: What I want to know is whether wines which are in the country and which have come from France are subject to the same treatment as those which have come from Germany.


William Thomas White: With regard to wines which are in the country at the present time, whether Canadian, French or German, upon sale the taxation would apply, because our object is to raise money for the object of fighting Germany


Charles Marcil: So far as these new excise duties are concerned, are French and German wines on the same footing?


William Thomas White: I think French and German wines are not on the same basis, for this reason: French wines that are in the country now have already derived the benefit of the French treaty; German wines now in this country did not derive the benefit of that treaty, because Germany did not have that advantage. These wines, being in the country are owned by Canadians. This measure is an excise measure, as I have stated, for the purpose of raising a revenue upon the sales of wines to consumers, whether those wines be Canadian, British, French, German or otherwise.


William Manley German: If the minister insists
that the stamp tax shall be imposed only when the wine is sold by the importer to a customer, he is opening very wide the door for men who use wine in considerable quantities to do their own importing, thus avoiding the payment of the stamp tax.


William Thomas White: Why?


William Manley German: Because if they import the wines themselves, they can take them out of bond and if they use the wine themselves and do not sell it they do not have to put on any stamps.


William Thomas White: That is covered by the Bill -in such a case the importer is a consumer: In the case of an importer bringing in wine for his own use the stamp would have to be paid.


William Manley German: But suppose he does not choose to put the stamp on?


William Thomas White: He cannot get it through the customs until the stamp is on.


William Manley German: But the minister says the stamp does not go on until after the wine has passed the customs.


William Thomas White: That will be covered by the Bill. It will be dealt with in this way. The Customs Department will determine whether the man who imports is a wholesaler or a consumer. They have an efficient organization and they can do that. A wholesaler bringing in goods may be permitted, without breaking bulk and having the stamp tax imposed while the goods are in bond, to take them out under regulations of the Customs Department, under which the tax will be paid before the wine is sold to consumers. My hon. friend has pointed out a possible loop-hole, but the Customs will see

that the loop-hole is closed under regulations that will be established.


William Manley German: I presumed the Bill would be founded on the resolutions and there is no such provision in them.


William Thomas White: There are many matters of detail that are set out in the Bill that are not included in the resolutions, which are necessarily general in character.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say that my hon. friend has satisfied me that he has power under the French Treaty to put this tax upon all wines except champagne. Upon every other wine, for instance those mentioned in the first article of section 0, wine of the grape, non-sparkling, under the French Treaty he can impose a tax; but with regard to champagne or sparkling wine, the provision of the French Treaty, the general governing clause, is in these words:
There shall be levied, collected and paid for the said convention if brought into force, and so long as it remains in force, upon all natural and manufactured products enumerated in schedule B to the said convention, originating in France, Algeria, the French colonies and possessions, and the territories of the protectorate of Indo-China, imported into Canada in the manner provided in the said convention, the several rates of duties of customs set forth in column 2, " intermediate tariff," of the customs tariff, 1907, and in any amendment thereof; and there shall be levied, collected and paid, during the time aforesaid, upon all natural and manufactured products enumerated in schedule C to the said convention, originating and imported as aforesaid, the several rates of duties of customs set opposite to each item respectively in the said schedule C.
My hon. friend says, however, that this is a special tax and we have the power to . impose a special tax under article 12. Article 12 of the French Convention is:
In like manner, products of any kind originating in France, Algeria, the French colonies and possessions, and the territories of the protectorate of Indo-China, when imported into Canada shall not be subject to any other or higher duties of excise, internal consumption or octroi than those which are or may be charged upon like products of Canadian origin.
Under these resolutions a special tax is levied and, as has been stated by the minister to the hon. member for Bon-aventure (Mr. Marcil) the tax applies to wines whether from France, Germany, the United States or any other country in the world. The moment they come into consumption they are subject to the tax, and it is obvious that the French, who were looking after their own interests, provided in this way: While the customs tax shall
not be more than it is at present. $3.30 a gallon, if you impose a tax upon other wines which come in competition with your own you shall have the same privilege of putting the duty on our wines as you put upon your own. That, I understand, is the principle. The point which I make is that champagne is a French wine the like of which is not produced in any other country. There are sparkling wines manufactured in other countries, in Germany for instance, but the special wine which is called champagne is produced in France and in France alone. Therefore, this article 12 cannot apply to champagne although it may be applied to other wines. The Treaty could not foresee that there would be imposed any excise duty on any other similar wine, because there is no similar wine produced anywhere else. It therefore seems to me that under the Treaty you cannot apply section 12 to champagne. The French Commissioners, when negotiating with our Commissioners, must have foreseen that their still wines would come in competition with other wines and that upon those wines there would be excise duty. When we passed the Treaty in 1907 we had wine produced in Canada with which the French wine would come in competition. The French Commissioners foresaw that there would be an excise duty put upon our own wines, and that the French wines would be subject to the same excise duty. But they could not foresee that their champagne would come in competition with any other wine because there are no similar wines produced in the world. This is a Treaty which ought to be construed liberally. The great wealth of France-and France is a very rich country-comes from her vintages. The wine crop of France is her greatest asset, and the French are naturally desirous of extending their trade all over the world, and they have done so. They have a right to a liberal construction of their Treaty, and when they provided that their champagne should be exempted from any special tax they had the right to expect that the Treaty would ' be generously applied, especially under such circumstances as exist to-day. v
As I have said, champagne is produced in no country except France. At first I should have been disposed to believe that-this tax would not apply to all French wines, but it seems that it does; I wish my hon. friend would take this view into-his consideration.


William Thomas White: I might point out that
under article 12 it is provided that:

Products of any kind originating in France, Algeria, the French colonies and possessions, and the territories of the protectorate of IndoChina, when imported into Canada shall not be subject to any other or higher duties of excise, internal consumption or octroi than those which are or may be charged upon like products of Canadian origin.
Upon a purely legal construction of Article 12, there is no doubt in my mind that, if the Canadian Government does not impose upon Canadian products a lower duty than is imposed upon French products coming into Canada, we shall be strictly observing the requirements of this French Convention. My right hon. friend makes this point. He says that as a matter of fact champagne is not produced in Canada and therefore it is not possible for us, even if we desire to do so, to impose upon a like product of Canadian origin the duty that we now propose to put upon champagne. Now the word " like " is a word that is not on all fours with the word " identical," and it appears clear to me that, even if by chance a like product should be produced in Canada at any time or is being produced even now, it is open to the Government to impose this tax; and I think that upon a strictly legal interpretation of Article 12 it would be so held by any court. That is my own opinion. My right hon. friend holds a different opinion, and undoubtedly his opinion is entitled to great weight. I had said before my hon. friend mentioned it that my disposition would be to interpret this treaty not in any strained fashion; I think those are the words I used. Everybody in this House will admit that if any tax for war purposes is justified at the present time, it is this tax upon wines, and especially upon champagne, because those who can afford to purchase champagne can probably afford better than any other class in the community to contribute to the expenses of this war.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Therefore in principle our legislation is absolutely sound, and the only question that remains is:
9	p.m. Does our proposed action in any way conflict with or violate the express and literal terms of the French Convention, or is it in substantial violation of that convention, giving it a liberal instead of a strained and unduly narrow legal interpretation?' So far as the suggestion of my right hon. friend is concerned, I shall go this far. The Bills founded upon these resolutions will be introduced to-night. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of

the Department of Justice, and if it is found that there is room for doubt whether we are violating the provisions of the French Convention of 1907, I shall be very glad to bring the matter before the Government with the view of seeing whether our proposals should be in any degree modified.


Wilfrid Laurier: The statement of my hon. friend is quite satisfactory. I
could not ask for more. I agree altogether with him that if there is any class of articles which ought to be taxed it is articles of luxury, and there is no greater luxury than champagne. As far as that goes I am absolutely at one with my hon. friend. The only thing I wish to draw his attention to is this. It is essential that we should keep good faith in our treaties. We are at war to-day because a treaty has not been observed. We should observe this treaty, not only in the letter, but in the spirit also; and if there is anything in my contention, and I believe there is, this treaty ought to be generously interpreted. Let me remind my hon. friend of what took place after the adoption of the Washington treaty which made fish free in the United States. There was what we thought to be a violation of the treaty, and we made representations to Washington, but our representations were of no avail, and from that day to this we have always been under the impression that the United States had in fact violated the spirit if not the letter of the treaty. I am quite agreeably impressed with the statement made by my hon. friend that he will refer the matter to the Department of Justice. The only thing I would add is that if there is any doubt at all it should be given in favour of the treaty.


William Pugsley: I wish to say a word with regard to the articles of luxury contained in Schedule C of the French treaty. I cannot agree with the reasons given by my hon. friend for exempting some of these articles when coming from countries which are not entitled to the benefits given by the French Convention.


William Thomas White: Italy is one.


William Pugsley: In times like these, when these extra taxes, claimed by the Government to be war taxes, are being imposed on all the people of the country, I do not think Italy would find very much fault if an extra tax were to be put on luxuries coming from that country; nor do I think the United States would find very much fault if an extra tax were placed upon silks, velvets, and embroideries coming from the United States into Canada. I

am not at all able to agree with my hon. friend. What are the articles exempted so far as countries other than France are concerned, and which the minister was not bound to exempt ? Take anchovies, for instance. Anchovies come in larger quantities from Norway than they do from France, notwithstanding that France has the benefit of the French Convention. Archovies are a luxury of the rich, an appetizer which the wealthy take before dinner.


William Thomas White: How much does my hon. friend think we should get by a tax upon anchovies ?
Mr. PUG8LEY: How much does my hon. friend expect from the one-cent stamp tax on lettere ?


William Thomas White: A great deal.


William Pugsley: It is the aggregate that counts. We manufacture sardines in this country. Why are the sardines which come from Norway exempted from the operation of this extra tax ? Why do you exempt all fish packed in oil, whether from Norway, the United States, or any other maritime country? Do you exempt them simply because Canada has agreed to give a certain .special tariff so far as France is concerned? Take other articles.
Embroideries, n.o.p.; laces n.o.p. ; collars or collarettes in lace and all manufactures of lace; nettings of cotton; linen, silk, or other material n.o.p.	'
Velvets of pure silk and silk fabrics; ribbons of all kinds and materials ; manufactures of silk or of which silk is the component part of chief value, n.o.p.
Why are these articles exempted when they come in from other countries which are not enjoying the benefits of the French convention? If you will take the customs returns for the past year you will find that very large quantities of these articles of luxury came in from [DOT] the United States. My hon. friend recognizes that these are articles of luxury that ought not to be exempted from a general system of taxation such as is now proposed, and which is intended to be of a temporary character. But my hon. friend, knowing, as he could not help knowing, from an examination of the customs returns, that large quantities of these articles of luxury come in from the United States, knowing that these are articles used by the rich and knowing that he is taxing all articles which are worn by the masses of the people, deliberately exempts these articles coming in from other countries, and that simply because it might 77
be regarded as somewhat invidious if they were not exempted, the same as they are when coming from France. I cannot see any reason in the position taken by the Minister of Finance. A special convention was made with France. If there was any objection made by the people or Government of the United States-I dare say there would not be-Canada might very well say that under the convention with France we were not able to increase the tariff on goods coming from that country, but owing to the necessity of imposing taxes on all the people of Canada, we did not feel that we could properly exempt these articles of luxury, which are used by the rich, and therefore we imposed the same tax upon these goods that we imposed on other articles which are not articles of luxury to the same extent as these are. I cannot see any reason whatever for the action of the Government in making a total exemption in favour of the import from all countries of the world of these articles of luxury.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Chairman,
before the committee rises, I want to put myself on record as being opposed to the imposition of this taxation, which I consider unnecessary as well as vexatious, at a time when the practice of economy is so necessary by our people. I say that during the hard times which at present prevail, and with the high cost of living, it is inopportune to increase the burdens of the people. I desire, as the representative of my own division of Montreal, to place on record my opposition to a measure of this kind.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.


CUSTOMS TARIFF WAR REVENUE BILL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 75, to amend the C/us-torns Tariff, 1907, the Act to be cited as "The Customs Tariff War Revenue Act, 1915."	,
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 76, to supplement the revenue required to meet war expenditures, to be cited as " The Special War Revenue Act, 1915."
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 67, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act-Mr. Roche-read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) the House went into Committee on Bill No. 74, to amend the Criminal Code, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 2-assisting alien enemies to leave Canada:
Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill was reported by a special committee appointed to consider some suggestions looking to the amendment of the Criminal Code. To it were referred a Bill introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney), and a Bill introduced by the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair.) Apart from that there was a suggestion made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who moved a resolution upon the subject of improvement of our laws with regard to copy-wright, looking especially to giving an additional protection to the rights of dramatic authors. There is also embodied in the Bill a provision which is the result of a suggestion coming from one of the Chief Justices of one of the High Court Divisions of Ontario, and which he deemed it proper to make in view of the result of a prosecution instituted there against a person for aiding an individual of alien enemy nationality to leave the country. In that particular case, it not being made directly to appear that the purpose of the alien enemy in leaving the country was to aid and to assist the enemy, and furthermore the mere act of aiding such a person to leave the country under those circumstances not amounting to treason, it was found that, notwithstanding the prohibition enacted against such alien enemy leaving the coun-"try, the person aiding could not be found guilty of any violation of the Criminal Code. It seemed to the learned Chief Justice, and to me, and also to the committee, desirable that provision should be made to cover such a case.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was the charge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The charge was that
the parties accused had aided a person of alien enemy nationality during the present war to leave the country, although it had

been deemed desirable in the Old Country- and we followed their example-to prohibit such person of alien enemy nationality from leaving the country except when, after examination by a registrar, he was granted an exeat. Therefore the person leaving the country was acting in violation of that prohibition lawfully enacted; but it was found that there was no provision in the Criminal Code which would cover the case of a person aiding and abetting him to leave the country. The parties were tried, and it was contended that such an act on the part of the accused amounted to treason; but the courts held that upon the facts as proved, the action did not amount to treason, and that there was no provision in the criminal law which would reach such a person. By this Bill, the mere aiding and abetting of a person who is of alien enemy nationality to leave the country-and we are always supposing that the name "enemy" means that we are at war with the sovereign of the nation of which the person is a subject-will be an offence how without its being necessary to establish directly on the part of the prosecution any direct purpose to aid the enemy. There are the saving words in the section, which reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who incites or assists any subject of any foreign state or country at war with His Majesty to leave Canada, if the circumstances of the case do not exclude the possibility that assistance to the enemy is an intended object in his so leaving Canada, and if such inciting or assisting do not amount to treason.


Wilfrid Laurier: There does not seem to be very much involved. What were the particulars of that case? Were the parties charged as principals or as abettors?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not before me
the report of the case. If my memory is correct, they were charged with treason as being subjects of His Majesty taking part in an operation of a nature to be of aid or assistance to an alien enemy at war with His Majesty. While that was the idea that underlay the charge, as I understand it, the evidence did not justify the statement that the people were leaving the country with any intent to do anything in the-way of helping or assisting the enemy. So-far as the people who sought to go out were concerned, they were in the wrong in-so far as they were violating a prohibition of their going. No doubt that prohibition rested upon the assumption that in some-

way their going out might be to aid or to assist the enemy country.
They were under prohibition of going out of the country. The offence charged against the parties was that they aided or assisted them to go, and I believe the charge was made upon the assumption that such aiding or assisting would amount to treason. But the court held that it did not, and it further held that there was no provision in the criminal law making, aiding or assisting a person prohibited from going out, a criminal offence; and that the proclamation, being addressed to and applying to persons of alien enemy nationality, did not apply to the person who might assist another to disobey the prohibition of the proclamation.


William Manley German: It seems to me that this clause will make it a crime for a Canadian to lend money, for instance, to a man of foreign extraction to leave this country, even though he may be going to the United States. That is not a crime, and should not be made a crime by statute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
omits one very essential condition. The Bill does not purport to make it a crime to assist any person of foreign nationality to leave Canada. It does make it a crime for one to assist a person of alien enemy nationality whose country is at war with His Majesty to leave Canada, except where the circumstances do not exclude the possibility of assistance to the enemy being intended by the person so leaving Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to
me unnecessary to go into all this. It is now a criminal offence for a man who is under this prohibition to leave the country. As a general rule it is not an offence for a man to leave the country, but when we are at war an alien enemy commits an offence by leaving. If I assist him in committing an offence I become an accessory. What is the reason of all this enactment? I have sympathy with the object, but it seems to me that this is a useless piece of law-making.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think the
right hon. gentleman is quite correct in saying that if we say to an alien enemy: You are prohibited from going out of Canada, and if he goes out of Canada he commits an offence or crime. He does not commit an offence under the general criminal law. He is prohibited from leaving, and efforts are made to prevent him doing so and to retain him if he endeavours to leave. But I do not think it goes 771
so far as to make him a criminal. Those whom we have detained in this country under this prohibition are not detained as people who have committed a crime but as prisoners of war. There has been on their part no crime, and 'therefore those aiding or assisting them, cannot be accessories to the commission of a crime. We want to make it an offence under the criminal law to aid or assist any person such as mentioned to violate the prohibition imposed upon him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3:
3. The following section is inserted immediately after section 357 :
357a. Any person who sells or agrees to sell land or any interest in land to which he knows he has not a good title free from encumbrance, and receives the purchase money or any part thereof and without lawful excuse does not apply the money so received by him in procuring a good title or in reduction or discharge of encumbrances against the said land or interest in land, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years' imprisonment.
2. Where such sale or agreement for sale is made by a body corporate, every director, officer, agent and employee of the company who knowingly takes part in any offence within the provisions of this section shall be liable to the penalty hereinbefore prescribed.
William Pugsley: The Bill of the hon.
member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraneyj is very different from this provision. That Bill provided that the vendor receiving money for land should hold it in trust and apply it in obtaining a title, but I am afraid that this section goes to dangerous length. Let me read it:
Any person who sells or agrees to sell land or any interest in land to which he knows he has not a good title free from encumbrance, and receives the purchase money or any part thereof and without lawful excuse does not apply the money so received by him in procuring a good title or in reduction or discharge of encumbrances against the said land or interest in land, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years' imprisonment.
Perhaps I could illustrate my point by stating a case with which I am familiar. Take the case of a land company selling land against which there is an encumbrance. That company is very careful to keep enough money in reserve to make good the title when the vendor pays all that is due. But if anything should happen to the investment, no matter how careful the company might be, I am inclined to think that the directors would be liable to be sent to the penitentiary because they had not put all the money in the Government savings bank in order absolutely to do away witli

Uhe possibility of any loss. In the particular case of which I speak the purchasers of the land all know of the encumbrance. In this Bill no exception is made of a case in which the purchaser may know that there is an encumbrance upon the property. He might be paying by instalments, and might know that the title could not be obtained for a number of years; yet if anything should happen, the vendor would be criminally liable. I am afraid it goes too far. This section says:
If he receives the purchase money or any part thereof and without lawful excuse does not apply the money.
What would be a lawful excuse? Would it be that the original owner would not take the money-he is not obliged to take it within a certain term of years. Would that be a lawful excuse? I do not think it would be. I did not see the Bill until to-day, but I suggest to the Minister of Justice that it is worthy of very careful consideration before it is passed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite agree with the hon. member that the dispositions of .the proposed enactment certainly call for very careful consideration. I do not think that any of the members of the special committee that dealt with it were blind to the dangers that might be involved in passing this section. We endeavoured, however, to get at a formula which would reach those who are intended to be reached, and at all events to do as little injury as possible to anybody engaged in a legitimate business. In the case which the hon. member suggested, it would seem at first glance as though the [DOT] circumstances which he related would constitute a lawful excuse. But this is the evil that is sought to be got at-and perhaps that is the clearest way of explaining the purpose of this section. If its wording can be amended in order more absolutely to ensure the attainment of its purposes, and to make as remote as possible any injurious consequence to people doing a legitimate business, I certainly shall be glad to accept any suggestion in that direction. The class of people who are sought to he reached by this legislation are to be found in considerable numbers in the West-at all events their lands are there-and they are also to be found in eastern Canada. Most of the lands are in the more or less approximate neighbourhood of our great cities. What this class of man does is this: he goes out and gets a promise of sale, or, perhaps, a sale subject to a very large encumbrance, of a large tract of land, or he may get an

option upon it. He then subdivides that land into small lots, advertises them, takes people out to see them, gives the whole tract a beautiful name, submits a beautiful plan for its development, and proceeds to sell these small lots, taking a small payment down and the balance in instalments. In that way he disposes of a great number of lots, and when the monthly payments are all made the unfortunate purchaser asks for his title, only to find that the vendor himself can get no title, or, at all events, no clear title until he has made further large payments.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why do the purchasers not look after their business properly?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it is to be admitted that this proposed legislation is to protect people who do not look after their business. If everybody looked after his business, there would be no justification for this legislation. But the class of people who have been made to suffer in this way may not unfairly be described as unable to look after their business; they do not understand these things. It is represented to me on credible authority that a large number of the victims of this kind of business are domestic servant girls and young men and women employed as clerks.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will making the offence a crime minimize the possibility of its recurrence?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was hoped that the
people engaged in this kind of business, who managed to get the money out of these unfortunates and to keep themselves in a position of independence in respect of the execution of a judgment, might have some fear if they saw the penitentiary before them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would it not be a crime in any event for the vendor to dispose of the receipts for the money of the pur-cnasers and not apply that money to the liquidation of the securities against the land?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Morally, yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not mean morally.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that
there is any provision in the criminal law to cover that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should think that somewhere in the transaction there would be an element of fraud.


Charles Joseph Doherty: These gentlemen are very ingenious, and cover these things up. No doubt the transaction is utterly dishonest, but in the contract there is not any express stipulation that the one dollar or two dollars a week, or whatever it is, that is collected is to be immediately paid over; the business is not carried on in that way. I do not think that it can be suggested that you can find anything in the law to create a trust as regards.these moneys. There are provisions which make the diversion of trust funds a crime. As the Bill was originally introduced, it proceeded upon the line of declaring the existence of a trust when people received money in this particular way. In that form it seemed to be open to the objection that whether or not that constituted a trust was a matter of civil and not of criminal law. I dare say that this might have been adjusted by inserting a provision which would bring such an act under the section that makes a breach of trust a crime under certain circumstances, but it seemed more desirable to get at just the thing that was done, to say that it is an offence and to punish it. As I have said, this legislation is to take care of people who do not know how to take care of their own business. With regard to those who are able to take care of their own business they do not need protection, but I do not know that any evil can arise from our trying to protect the other by putting the terror of the penitentiary before persons who are engaged in operations of this kind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would it not be better to go to the provincial legislature and ask them to say that no such contract as the minister has described can legally take place without the intervention of a trustee, that is that the land should be conveyed to a trustee and all payments made to the trustee. You might prevent it in that way, but I do not think that this Bill will stop the offence.


William Pugsley: What would be the minister's interpretation of the Words " lawful excuse "?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the committee we
went over that at considerable length, but we concluded that we might safely leave it to the court. For instance, one thing that would be a lawful excuse would be where the vendor of these small lots explained fully all the circumstances to the purchaser and the documents showed that the purchaser knew all about it and therefore was absolutely trusting the vendor, and when it
was shown that in using the money, not immediately applying it to the clearing of the title but using it otherwise, the vendor was acting in accordance with what was clearly understood by all parties to the transaction, he would have a lawful excuse; but to undertake to define all the circumstances that might constitute a lawful excuse would be a good deal of an undertaking. I propose to suggest the addition of some lines to make it more clear that in some cases a man not only has a lawful excuse, but may be justified.


William Pugsley: Take a company which sets aside, bona fide, a reserve for the purpose of meeting the demands of the original owners, but through some misfortune, the failure of a bank or a trust company, the money is lost. By this you would have to send the directors to the penitentiary. Would that not be a lawful excuse?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would that not be a
case where they had not retained the actual money but had set aside a reserve of sufficient money to provide for the clearing of the title? I should think that would not be a question of lawful excuse, but a case where the parties did not do the thing contemplated by the statute. I hardly think that the court would give it such a Judaic interpretation as that.


William Pugsley: Supposing that a company invested the money but the investment became less valuable or the money was lost, would that be a lawful excuse?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think the
statute would cover the case of the loss of money unless, being under obligation to apply it at once they had diverted the money to other purpose.


William Pugsley: Would the minister
accept an amendment which would make the thing more clear?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would welcome it.


Mr. CARVELL:: In many cases lands of this kind are purchased by corporations and companies. They have to pay officers, agents and commission; and certain expenses connected with the business, and the company is perhaps doing a good business. The land is being sold fairly rapidly and they have reasonable grounds to believe that they will be able to set aside enough to pay these owners; they then declare a reasonable dividend upon the shares of the company, even before the property is entirely paid for-and then things would go

bad as they have done in the West and in many places in the East. Would that be a lawful excuse? You will notice that the wording of the section is very strong:
And if he receives the purchase money or any part thereof and, without lawful excuse, does not apply the money so received.
That means if they do not apply the last $5 of that money towards either paying for the title or providing for the encumbrances, they come within the purview of the statute. My hon. friend beside me says they might have to pay taxes. I think anybody will admit that as a lawful excuse. But if they paid commissions or dealt even generously with themselves in paying dividends, what would the minister think about that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It always comes back to this, whether they have retained sufficient money to meet these obligations. I do not take it to mean that we are going to follow the particular bills they get to see what they 'do with them, they might pay dividends if they had enough money at the time to meet their obligations. Then I think they would be perfectly justined in paying dividends and that would be a lawful excuse; that having made the profits they paid the dividends, always retaining enough to meet these obligations when they would be called upon to do so. But again I say I would welcome any suggestion that would enable us to make this law applicable to the dishonest handler of real estate and protect the honest one. While I have a sort of shared responsiblity, this particular clause is the child of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney), and he succeeded in impressing it upon the special committee. This Bill carries out the idea of the Bill he introduced.


Mr. GREEN:: Not being a lawyer, I am somewhat diffident about entering into this particular discussion. It seems to me that the object -sought to be attained is to protect, shall I say the fool or the man who does not apply ordinary business principles to his transactions? This amendment, it seems to me, would do away with dealings in agreements of sale. You take an agreement that has passed through one, two, three or four hands, must each individual see that the money has been applied to the purpose of paying off somebody ahead of him? If any man would apply ordinary business methods and ordinary business sense in a transaction of this kind he would not find himself in a position such as is

sought to be covered here, that he cannot get title after he has paid the money, i ou cannot protect people who will not pay the ordinary reasonable attention to the business they are attempting to transact. I think myself this particular clause should be withdrawn from the Bill.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: It seems to me one part of this Bill contradicts the other. Section 3 says:
Any person who sells or agrees to sell land or any Interest in land to which he knows he has not a good title free from encumbrance,-
That is perfectly clear. It must be a perfect title. A little further on it says:
-or in reduction or discharge of encumbrances against the said land.
I would like some explanation of the expression "good title." Can a title be good that is not free from encumbrances? I am inclined to think that we should not call that in French a bon titre.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What the section says is, not the man who has a good title free from encumbrance, but the man who has not a good title free from encumbrance. The Bill provides that when -a man has not a good title free from encumbrance the money must be applied to clearing off those encumbrances.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Supposing there was only a sale of equity in the property, and that it was never intended that the encumbrances should be discharged. Surely it would not be expected that -the vendor should apply all the money he receives towards reducing an encumbrance which he was never intended to release.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section provides for the case of a person who sells or agrees to sell land; that is one case; and secondly, it provides for the case of a person who sells or agrees to sell any interest in land. That would cover the case of a man who sold the equity in land to which he knew he had not a good title when something remains to be done to perfect the title, and of course the man has no title at all. Fraud may be committed by a man without any title at all.


Charles Avila Wilson: A man may sell his neighbour's property.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Such things have happened.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: I think the Bill
is intended to cover a number of cases that

developed in the recent land boom in the West. I submit that to put legislation of this character on the statute book at this time would result in the blackmailing of many an honest man in the eastern provinces who has sold property in good faith. Take the conditions that exist in my own province. Under the system of registration of titles that we have down there, property frequently passes from one man to another without any searching of title. When a farmer sells some property to another farmer he passes the property by
10	p.m. deed and gets a conveyancer, not a lawyer, to do the work. He does not bother to go to the registration office in a great many cases. Suppose that it developed afterwards that some old encumbrance had been against the property seventeen or eighteen years before, and that no claim had ever been put forward in respect to it. The man who originally held the encumbrance might have died suddenly and his heirs or executors turn up and assert these encumbrances. There are various questions of equity and rights that might arise between the parties, and irrespective altogether of whether you could show a crime within this Act, look at the possibility of so many honest men being liable to be pilloried and brought before a criminal court in order to show that they had transferred the property in good faith. In my province, where I am actually engaged in the practice of the law, I could cite numerous cases to the minister where hardship would be done if you made it possible to bring before a criminal court every one of our honest people down there who have transferred property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is only against the man who .sells it knowingly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is not the question. We know that an honest man can defend himself and get justice from the jury if he goes into court; but the question is, should he be made liable to the danger of prosecution ? As I said, nine-tenths of the property transfers in our part of the country are made without any search of title. Titles are searched only by close business men, companies, and people generally engaged in business; but in the ordinary conveyance from man to man the title is not searched. In answer to my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell), my objection is this: That you are putting it into, the hands of a purchaser to pillory a perfectly honest man and bring him before
a jury to prove that he did not know there was an encumbrance against the property he sold. Further, this legislation is simply locking the door after the steed is stolen, for the land boom in the West is over, and nowadays any man who buys property sees that he gets the goods before paying his money.


Mr. BARNARD:: I agree with my hon. friend from Kootenay that this clause should be struck out. I do not believe in legislation of this character. I think the law as it stands to-day in most of the provinces, sufficiently protects purchasers. There is no reason why a person who wishes to buy a piece of property cannot find out exactly what encumbrances are against it, and protect himself before making his payments. I do not think this amendment to the code has received the consideration it should have received. I think that the Bill might very well stand over until next session. I do not say that it is altogether desirable, but undoubtedly a practice does prevail in different provinces throughout the country of dealing in agreements for sale of land. I think if this amendment to the code were carried it would be going very much farther than anybody in this House has any conception of, and for these reasons I am opposed to it.


Mr. G. E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon):: I think if my hon. friend from Victoria looks into the matter, he will find that the law of the provinces does not provide an adequate remedy for purchasers. He will 9ee that there is absolutely no protection ait all against a vendor who has no financial responsibility. This Bill was introduced by me because of numerous cases which have come to my attention as a practising lawyer in my own province. My hon. friend, who is a lawyer, knows the remedies as well as I do. I will give a case that has come to my attention in which there is not element of fraud, and my hon. friend will see the necessity of making some provision in the law which will compel a vendor to apply the moneys that he has received the discharge of encumbrances.	.


Charles Marcil: Could you not do that by provincial legislation?


George Ewan McCraney: Under the law as it is at present, a man having paid for his land, or nearly paid for it, or who is ready to make his last payment, is entitled to sue for specific performance. In default of

specific performance he is entitled to a judgment for damages. He cannot get specific performance, and a judgment for damages is absolutely of no use to him. The provincial legislature cannot legislate any further than the voiding of the contract. It can impose no penalties which in future will be any terror to a man, or make him deal fairly, or prevent a repetition of what has already occurred. Here is a model case, and it is one of the best cases I have in mind: a party purchases 6,400 acres, or ten sections, of land. He sells a quarter-section at a considerable profit. He receives most of his money; the balance, I think in this particular case, was some $800. He came to me and said: I want you to see that I get title. When I came to go into the matter, I found that there were encumbrances to the extent of several thousand dol'ars against the 6,400 acres of which this 160 acres was only a small part, and that the money that had been paid in by my client had not been applied to the discharging of these encumbrances or to taking care of the title, hut had been used for other purposes altogether. I said there was no fraud as far as I knew.


George Henry Barnard: If it had come before
the court how would you have advised him?


George Ewan McCraney: I would have advised him to give up the purchase altogether. But he did not come to me, and it is a good deal, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) points out, in our province as in his; these transactions are not conducted through solicitors. They are conducted largely between the parties themselves. While the hon. member for Pictou wants the law left in its present unsatisfactory condition because that practice prevails in his province, it is because that very practice prevails in my province that I want the law amended to protect these people. The other case which I wish to mention is that in which a school-teacher invested $1,500, which it had taken her some years to earn. She came to me too late; she cannot get her $1,500 and has no remedy, because the man who received the money spent it very foolishly. Had the law been that he should turn all the money in to clear up the land which he purported to sell, I am satisfied that he would have done it. As to the particular language of the section,
I have no choice. I wanted to get at the evil, and I drafted certain language. Perhaps my draft, in the view of, the committee, and having reference to what the minister has said, is along lines that could 
have been dealt with by provincial legislation. It might be wel for the provincial legislature to declare that moneys paid by a purchaser under such circumstances should be trust moneys, but while they do that they can impose no penalties of a criminal character.


Edmond Proulx: I think the law should protect the confiding and unwary. I know of cases where money has been paid by purchasers to vendors, who, having promised to discharge certain encumbrances, have not done it. If we had a provision in the Criminal Code making them liable to imprisonment, we might have more honesty in the vendors of land.


Angus Alexander McLean: About a year or two ago a number of men came from the West to the East selling land, and collecting large sums of money. When the purchasers asked for their deeds, they found that the sellers did not own the land at all. The men who came were men who represented companies with high - sounding names, some from the city of Toronto. An investigation was made by a great number of these people, representing some $10,000 in money, and they found that the company which was selling this land through agents never had spent one cent for the land. When the purchasers attempted to collect the money they found that the company had gone into liquidation. This is a case which this Act will meet. I think that this is good legislation and that men who do acts of that kind, and have been doing them all through the maritime provinces, should be punished. Of course, the public were foolish in paying out their money to - men whom they did not know and without making an investigation as to title; but the unsuspecting public will always exist. 1 think this protection should be retroactive. It should have been on the statute book before. During the boom in the West hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid by people in the maritime provinces to irresponsible men and there have been no returns.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Justice whether this legislation is retroactive and would apply to any transaction that has been entered into up to the present time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is nothing in the Act which makes it apply to what a man did before the Act was passed.


William Melville Martin: If that is the case, it is scarcely worth while enacting this legisla-

tion now, because, as a number of hon. members have remarked, the so-called boom and speculation in real estate has pretty well passed, and the damage has already been done. I noticed that the Minister of Justice, also the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and now the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. A. A. McLean), have made statements indicating that all the ill-advised speculation which has taken place in Canada during the past two years had taken place in the West.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I thought I gave the
East its fair share.


William Melville Martin: The minister may have
corrected himself later, but I think he referred to the western land boom. Then we have the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I., saying that his friends down there were-I do not know whether he said robbed- *by people coming from western Canada. So far as speculation in western Canada is concerned, there has been a good deal of it bad, but a good deal of it good. I do not think there has been more speculation of a bad character in western Canada than there has been in eastern Canada. All the cities of Canada during the last few years have been engaged in wild speculation. The fever seems to be abroad, no matter whether you are in the East' or in the West. I would far sooner invest my money in land in the West than in the mines of Cobalt or in the foxfarming industry of Prince Edward Island, where I believe the companies even go so far as to sell the young foxes before they are born.
I was favourably impressed with this legislation when it was introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney). I saw the Bill, and I have kept conversant with its progress through the committee, although I was not a member of that committee. No one can deny that some necessity exists of protecting the people who have been or who may be wronged by real estate agents; but if you introduce legislation to protect people against real estate agents, you will have to introduce legislation to protect people against the fraudulent sale of other commodities than real estate. It is perhaps too much to ask an ordinary individual to consult a lawyer every time he buys a piece of property. That is all right from the lawyer's standpoint; but from the standpoint of the ordinary individual, it is too much trouble and expense. Some amendment might be put into the Bill which
would meet the case. For instance, if it could be shown that knowledge of the circumstances of the title had been given to any purchaser, there could be no complaint. This Bill will strike with some force, and perhaps do some injury to companies like colonization companies which have been doing good work in the colonization of western Canada within the past number of years, and which perhaps, when immigration begins again, will do some more good work.
As regards speculation in the East and in the West, the worst subdivisions that have been put on the market in western Canada-have been put on by men coming from eastern Canada and from the United States, but mostly by men from Ontario. The case at present going on in the Toronto police court, where five men were charged very recently, bears out my statement. If the assets or the resources of western Canada have been exploited to the injury of the people in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, that exploitation has been done very largely by people of eastern Canada and not by bona fide residents of western Canada,


Charles Marcil: They employ agents.


William Melville Martin: I do not know anything
about that. The worst subdivisions put on the market in Regina, Edmonton, Calgary or Saskatoon have been floated in England by men who have been dealt with in the columns of Toronto Saturday Night. With regard to this legislation, I cannot see any force in the words " without lawful excuse." What can a man give in court as a lawful excuse? The Minister of Justice says: we shall leave it to tne discretion of the judge in any particular case. What is the judge going to say? If I get money from a man to whom I have sold property and I put it into a bank in order to give it to the man from whom I have bought the property, and the bank fails, will that be a lawful excuse? If I put my money into a mortgage which was secure at the time, and which to-day has decreased in value and is not secure, will that be a lawful excuse? In view of the criticism that has been made of this measure to-night, it may be a very wise course to pursue to have the matter delayed for a short time until some amendment to the Bill can be considered.


Mr. MORPHY:: Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the Special Committee to which this Bill was referred. Not having heard the discussion of a few moments ago in this Hduse I hope I shall not repeat something that has already been said. We experienced

a great deal of difficulty in regard to the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney); but as there was a general opinion that something should be done, the Bill was sent forward in this form. After a little further consideration of the Bill, I came to the conclusion that one weakness was just what the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) pointed out, namely, the indefinite meaning of the words " without lawful excuse." The next objection that I see to it is that it hits the honest man as well as the fakir-I say it without any disrespect-who is a real estate agent only in times of boom when he goes into the business because he sees other people making money. We have in Canada a number of reputable, established firms who have been engaged in the real estate business to the satisfaction of their clients and who have been honest in their dealings. It seems to me that the language of this section would hit them and prevent honest, fair dealing with the people, and in fact prevent proper expansion and development in time of need. Therefore, I would rather fall in with the suggestion of the hon. member for Regina and say that this House should take more time for consideration before putting upon the statute book a measure which may lead to consequences that are not immediately apparent. As it is rather a radical section, it should be worded so as to reach the man of criminal intent only.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In view of the new
proposal brought forward, I think this clause might with the consent of the committee be allowed to stand for further consideration.
On section 4-fraud, etc., in connection with sale, etc., of military stores:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why are the provisions of this section made to apply merely to military, militia and naval stores? Why should they not apply to stores bought for any department of Government at any time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is another section introduced originally by a member of the House, one who, no doubt, was impressed with the necessity of giving at this time special protection in the case of purchases made for military and naval purposes. Whether it is desirable to extend this very special protection to cover all transactions with the' Government is a matter perhaps for some consideration. It is pointed out that we are giving very special protection here in making it a crime

to supply defective stores. I have no hesitation in saying that present conditions make it fairly clear that it would be wise to make this provision with regard to this particular kind of stores. These stores are bought in large quantities and in a great hurry and under circumstances.where it is not possible to proceed with all the care that might be taken in the case of other stores required in the normal condition of affairs. I am not saying that it is not desirable to extend this protection to all transactions with Government, but the proposal as it came to the committee dealt with naval and army stores, and it might as well be frankly admitted that the other subject did not occur to the committee. It is in any case not as pressing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-performing dramatic, etc., copyright works without consent of author:
Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Supposing that an amateur with some ability, in preparing for a church cohcert or something of that kind, strings together a number of popular airs from copyrighted operas and gives them in public, what would be the lesult?
Air. DOHERTY- The section coniines it to such performance? as are made f <r private profit.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have a case in mind A person having more than usual ability as an amateur actress made a play of airs from c-i.rio. operas. If tile entertainment proved a success and it were taken to a neighbouring town, the party might be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months. Would that be the effect?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If a person takes copyrighted property and uses it for private purposes, the mere fact that some charity gets a share of the profit would not relieve the party. This section reproduces the provisions of the English law on the subject and these provisions were in substance adopted in this House of Commons in 1909, at the instance of the Hon. Mr. Aylesworth, then Minister of Justice. I am not quite clear that there would be very great hardship in the case suggested by the hon. member. But it has been brought to our attention that there is really very great injustice caused and going unpunished under the law as it stands. We have had not a few instances of reproduction, purely for private profit, of dramatic masterpieces, the production of distinguished foreign authors, by utterly irresponsible people who have

managed to run them for a few weeks and make money out of them, and who, when a remedy was sought by recourse to the civil court, were found to be perfectly independent of any means at the disposal of those courts to compel them to indemnify the parties suffering. They were without assets get-atable and were irresponsible in every way, and the complainants found themselves in a position where they had no remedy. The matter was very forcibly brought before this House by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who moved a resolution which still stands on the Order Paper, and which was debated, but the debate adjourned. It commended itself to the members of the committee. There certainly is a wrong here without any adequate remedy. I have had communications that have made it clear to me that the continued existence of that wrong created an opinion among people in other countries whose opinion is worth something not over-favourable to our consideration in Canada for that sort of property which consists of the products of man's intellect.
Even if it should happen to operate in some way to embarrass people who want to use copyrighted productions for charitable purposes, I think that the evil to be remedied is greater than any evil which could arise under those circumstances.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would call the minister's attention to the words " in whole or in part." The song introduced might be a single selection from a comic opera.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there is a copyright on a single song it may or may not be worth anybody's while to protect it, but under our copyright law we have given to the author the right that no one shall reproduce it. It is true you may get it down to such a small point that it will not be worth complaining of, but we have recognized by law, under our own statutes, the right of a man to say that no one shall reproduce his copyrighted work. It seems to me that we ought to follow that up by giving adequate sanction to our own law: to make our own law respected.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6 -penalty for being inmate of bawdy house:
William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon.
gentleman explain this amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose is to
make possible the imposition of a longer
term of imprisonment upon persons who are found guilty of the offences here described. With regard to young girls who unfortunately find themselves inmates of institutions of this kind, under the law as it stands at present there is no means by which they can be placed under control and guidance and direction for a sufficiently long period of time to bring about a reformation.


Charles Avila Wilson: What about the
Bon Pasteur institution?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bon Pasteur institution is a most excellent place, but under the law as it now stands a girl could not be committed there for more than three or four months-I have forgotten the exact period. It is sought to make it possible to send girls there for a year, so that if in the judgment of the magistrate the case is one in respect of which that period of time should be fixed, a long enough time may be provided to enable the reformative influences to produce an effective result. It has been pressed upon me strongly, not only by persons connected with tbo women s jail in Montreal and the institution referred to by the hon. member for Laval, but also by other people of, I might say, almost all the religious denominations who take an active interest in the, reformation of these unfortunate girls, that this proposed amendment would be a great improvement upon the law. This opinion is expressed not because there is a desire to see these children-because in many cases they are mere children-more severely punished, but because they see that what happens is this: these young girls who are sent in for a month or two months may develop good dispositions while they are there, but there is not time to bring them to that frame of mind where you can look for perseverance I have been told by perfectly credible people that in many cases the unfortunate experience of the matrons and those who are in charge of these jails is that they stand at the door as the young woman goes out after a couple of months and see her whisked off in the automobile of the proprietor of the house for being an inmate of which she was convicted. While this amendment, on its face, looks like the exercising of greater severity towards these unfortunate children, it can be made to operate as a very great assistance in bringing about the reform of young women of this class. It is made applicable even on first offence. That is done because it is pointed out by those who speak

from experience that if you reserve the application of such a provision for the second, third or fourth offence, you practically do away with the possibility of carrying out an effective reform.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-penalty for third, etc., convictions :
Edmond Proulx: Section 228, referred to in this section, deals with the keeper, does it not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes; it makes a long term of imprisonment possible upon conviction for third or fourth offence.


Charles Marcil: Do you deal with the proprietors of houses in which such places are kept? They are the great source of complaint in Montreal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provisions which I laid before the House two sessions ago cover fairly well, I think, the matter of dealing with the proprietors of these houses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: Although I feel that
there is room for improvement in the law so far as it reaches or fails to reach the class of people sought to be reached by section 357 A which it was proposed to enact under section 3 of this Bill, I intend to move that section 3 be struck out. That does not mean that I would not give further consideration to the matter; I think that it certainly will require serious consideration, and if it be found desirable to proceed with it, it might be dealt with by another Bill. In any case, it is not desirable to retard the passing of these other amendments, which, I think, are all important. I beg to move, therefore, that the Bill be amended by striking out section 3 thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avila Wilson: Mr. Speaker, during the last session and also since the beginning of the present ses fon-I moved for a full return of criminals found guilty and sentenced to capital punishment. That return I have now received. May I ask the Minister of Justice if he intends to have that return printed? It is most interesting and has required for its preparation a good deal of work on the part of the officers of the department. Besides, it proceeds on the same lines as a similar report published in England. I would not have a large number of copies printed, but [Mr. Doherty.j
I submit that it would be advisable to obtain a certain number of copies, to be distributed to the members of this House, the senators, the justices of various courts and to lawyers who would apply for it, in order that these various persons could be informed as to the development of crime in this country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think, it would certainly not be desirable to have such a return printed and distributed broadcast. It contains the names of persons who are still living but who have served their sentence and paid their debt to society. Such a report would be most injurious to them. I think it would not be well to make public a report that would draw public attention to the guilt of persons who are now leading an honest life.
It seems however that no objection could be taken to having a certain number of copies printed so long as we could control the distribution and limit it to the members of this House, the members of the Senate and the justices of the different courts.


Charles Avila Wilson: As in the case of divorce proceedings, for instance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When I have more time at my disposal, I shall gladly try to hand a copy of this report to all those who take an interest in the question. But I am anxious to prevent the circulation of such facts among people animated by mere curiosity, who might spread among the public data of a damaging and depressing (character.
Bill reported.
SUPPLY.	.
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Department of Agriculture-Civil Government, salaries, $439,637.50.


James Joseph Hughes: I desire to secure some information about the regulations governing the shipping of potatoes. I presume that the-acting Minister of Agriculture (Hon. J. D. Reid) is not familiar with this matter and I would therefore ask that when his Estimates are next before the House he should have with him the official in charge of this matter. The regulations were passed on the 4th of November last and published In the Canada Gazette. They are simply impossible so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned; you might just as well pass a law that no potatoes should be shipped from the island.
MARCH 18, 191o


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad the hon. member has	called	my	attention to	this matter.The	regulations	were drawn	by the headof the botanist's department. Previous to that	there	was	an embargo	on potatoesgoing to the United States. In order to secure the admission of Canadian potatoes to the United States, the regulations of which the	hon.	member complains, were
drawn up by arrangement between the United States and Canada. Similar regulations are in force in the United States with respect to the shipment of potatoes.


James Joseph Hughes: These regulations apply
to any other province in Canada, not to the United States at all.


John Dowsley Reid: If you had not the same inspection for potatoes going to the other provinces we could not have secured the admission of any Canadian potatoes to the United States. The hon. member can see the necessity of having the regulations apply to shipments between provinces. Otherwise, potatoes might be shipped from New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island to Ontario, and from Ontario across the line.


James Joseph Hughes: But this prevents us from shipping potatoes to Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.


John Dowsley Reid: There are no regulations to
prevent shipment between Prince Edward Island and 'Nova Scotia.


James Joseph Hughes: The regulations provide :
(b)	No infected potatoes shall be moved from the infected area within the Dominion of Canada to or through any other province outside this area, nor to any British or foreign country, territory or district thereof.
(c)	It shall be illegal to sell, offer for sale, dispose of in any way, receive or use, for seed, any potatoes affected with powdery scab.
3. Concerning movement of disease-free potatoes from the infected area.
(a)	No potatoes may be offered for shipment to or through the disease-free area unless the invoice is accompanied by an original certificate, and unless each container is plainly labelled as provided hereafter, and bears a copy certificate stating that the potatoes:
(b)	labeled " first grade potatoes " are of clean stock, were grown from clean seed and in soil not infected with powdery scab or any disease similar to powdery scab, and have not been in contact with any material, container or implement, through which they might have become infected with powdery scab and that have been inspected by an officer of this department before being offered for shipment and have been found free from powdery scab.
And then it goes on:
(c)	Persons intending to ship potatoes should apply for inspection thereof at least five days
in advance of the date of shipment, provided that persons using warehouses from which shipments are being made every third day or oftener, may request continuous inspection service, subject to special arrangements as to days when inspection shall be made. Each application shall state where the potatoes are located, their aproximate quantity and the expected date of loading. Forms of application for inspection will be furnished by the Dominion Botanist.
The bulk of the potatoes from Prince Edward Island are shipped in sailing vessels, which are engaged by wire, either telephone or telegraph. The season for shipping is very short and loading has to begin the day the vessel is chartered, because only a few days are allowed for loading and discharging. It would be almost impossible to give five days' notice to an inspector, because generally you would not know when you were going to get a vessel; you have to take your chance.


John Dowsley Reid: Let me give my hon.
friend my understanding of these regulations. The provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are not within the infected area of powdery scab, but everything west of the province of Quebec comes within the regulations that my hon. friend has just read. It was impossible for the Department of Agriculture to get the United States to raise their embargo on the shipment of Canadian potatoes unless we agreed to joint regulations, and their head botanist and the botanist for the Department of Agriculture got together and made joint regulations.


James Joseph Hughes: I can understand that.


John Dowsley Reid: That is where the line was drawn. Our representative was anxious to include the whole of Canada, but they drew .the line at the province of Quebec, and we had to agree to that. The hon. member will see therefore that there is no embargo at all n, so far as. shipments from Prince Edward Island and the provinces east of the Quebec boundary are concerned, but so far as west of that line is concerned, the regulations apply.


James Joseph Hughes: One of the officers who was inspecting on the island last fall held a different view. He may have been wrong, but he told me, when we were shipping potatoes to Nova Scotia, tuat we were liable to a fine unless we had tnem inspected. To inspect all the potatoes shipped would require at least one hundred inspectors in

that province. If the facts are as the minister has stated, that removes most of the c.ifficulty.


John Dowsley Reid: This matter came up only
a few days ago in connection with the trouble we had over a shipment to Boston. The position was explained to me then, and the deputy minister tells me now, that the explanation I have just given is perfectly correct. The regulations speak for themselves he says, and if the official in Prince Edward Island interpreted the regulations differently he was in the wrong.


Bowman Brown Law: Is the embargo still on shipments of potatoes from Canada to the United States? Is there anything new?


John Dowsley Reid: It is still on; there is
nothing new.


Mr. ROBB:: Is there an embargo on the shipment of live stock, more
11	p.m. particularly horses, from Canada to the United States?'


John Dowsley Reid: As L understand it, an embargo has been placed on horses suitable for war purposes. If I recollect aright, horses between the ages of four and nine, or perhaps eleven, are not allowed to be exported if suitable for army purposes, but any horses between those ages that are unsuitable can be exported. I think the buyers do not take gray horses, horses with blemishes, or very valuable horses. Horses under or above the ages I have mentioned are allowed to be exported.


William Pugsley: Does the Government
undertake to purchase from the farmers all the horses which are not allowed to be exported?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not answer that.
That would be a question for the Minister of Militia.


William Pugsley: The reason I ask is
that in my opinion the reason we have ministers in different departments is that the minister representing a particular class in the Dominion can look after the interest of that class when questions affecting them come up. This is a very serious matter to the farmers of this country, they are placed at a very serious disadvantage if they are not allowed to export their horses to the United States. Hay is at a very high price, and the scarcity of feed in the West makes it almost an impossibility to feed tiie stock.
I heard the other day of a number of farmers in the Eastern Townships who

had actually sold their horses, or were desirous of selling them, because they could not very well keep them during the winter, and they were told that they would not be allowed to send them out of the country, and that if they attempted to do so the customs officials at the border would send them back. That is a very great hardship. It seems to me that it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to look after the interests of the farmers, and to know whether a market is being provided by the Government for these horses which the farmers are prevented from sending out of the country. The Minister of Agriculture should inform himself upon that point, and should let it be known, so that the farmers will understand the position in which they are in regard to horses, which are suitable for military purposes. I am told-I do not know how true it is-the acting Minister of Agriculture probably has informed himself or will inform himself upon the matter-that a very considerable degree of discrimination has been made between farmers, as to which side of politics they are on. I am told that - buyers of horses do not treat with equal favour Liberals and Conservatives. I have been told that in one locality, at all events, owners of horses had been given cards, which they could present to the purchasing agents, to indicate that they were of the right political stripe, and that it would be proper to buy their horses. That is not right. There should be no discrimination, and if the Government forbids farmers finding a market for their horses, the Government ought to be prepared to take these horses at a fair and reasonable price.


John Dowsley Reid: This embargo was placed on horses by the Government for the reason that the British Government asked us to do so. Embargo was placed on many things, and amongst others on horses, in order that they might have a sufficient number for the war.


William Pugsley: Was or was not that before the British Government began buying in the United States, and is it not a fact that the agents of the Government are making purchases of horses in the United States in very large numbers and that these horses are being shipped through United States ports?


John Dowsley Reid: Let me first answer the remarks of my hon. friend in reference to Canadian horses. This Government is purchasing in the several provinces a large

number of horses for use at the front. When a person wishes to export horses to the United States, and he brings it to the attention of the Government, the horses are allowed to go if they are outside of the embargo. If any person wishes to sell horses in this country, there is no trouble selling them either to this Government or to the British Government. The British Government have bought a great many horses in Canada and are continuing buying at the present time. I can hardly credit the statement of the hon. member, that a practice such as he suggests is carried on, although he states that he has heard of it. I do not know whether he knows it to be the fact.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You have not been in
Nova Scotia, especially in Kings county.


John Dowsley Reid: It may possibly be. There
may be some person doing a thing of that kind, but I would hardly think that in the time of war any man would be guilty of such a thing.


William Pugsley: That is what astonishes the people, because they say that when their boys go to the front they are not asked whether they are Liberals or Conservatives.


John Dowsley Reid: Horses are being purchased
in Canada by the Canadian Government, the British Government, and I think by the French Government. It is true they did buy a lot of horses, and perhaps are buying them now, in the United States, but I think the British Government, for a time after the outbreak of war, were anxious to get as many horses as they could from the United States, fearing that the United States Government might place an embargo on horses.
They have been buying here, and, from information I have, I believe they will take all the horses we have in Canada that are suitable for war purposes. The information I have received within the last few days, is, that all horses suitable for war purposes will be taken either by the Canadian Government, the British Government, or the French Government. The hon. gentleman referred to shipping the horses from United States ports. I should say that probably 80,000 or 100,000 horses have been shipped by Canadian ports. It is true they did ship a good many during the winter months by the United States. It was just before the foot and mouth disease broke out on the other side of the line, and it was considered very serious to allow the horses to come
through the states in which an embargo had been placed on cattle. There was a time when horses were diverted to the United States, but we did our best to get over that and, we succeeded in making an arrangement with the railway companies to have the cars disinfected at the border and brought in through Canada, so that the horses might be shipped through Canadian ports.


William Pugsley: How is it that the shipment of Canadian horses through the port of St. John was suddenly discontinued two or three months ago? The question of the foot and mouth disease would not aSect that. I was in Boston not long ago, and I read in the newspapers that in one week four steamers left the port of Boston largely filled with Canadian horses. When the shipment of horses was started at St. John, a great deal of credit was given by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) in the Conservative papers for the favour that he was bestowing upon the port of St. John, for having the shipments of horses go through that port. Suddenly the shipments stopped through the port of St. John. Why have the shipments of Canadian horses through the port of St. John been stopped, and why have Canadian horses been shipped through United States ports?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not heard of any Canadian horses being shipped through American ports, although my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major General Hughes) and General Benson would know more about that.


William Pugsley: The Boston papers announced it.


John Dowsley Reid: They may have.


William Pugsley: Does the minister know that Canadian horses have been shipped through Canadian ports to England during the past two or three months?


John Dowsley Reid: For the British Government?


William Pugsley: For the British Government?


John Dowsley Reid: There were two difficulties in connection with the shipment of horses through St. John and Halifax. During the last two or three months there has been great difficulty in getting tonnage from either St. John or Halifax. We could not ship oats, hay, or other products from Canada for that reason, and we sent a special representative over to the old country to try to arrange for tonnage. I think the Prime Minister stated in the

House a few days ago that that representative had arranged for two or three vessels a week, or otherwise we could not get anything away from our ports. The hon. member knows that all winter we have beSn shipping all the oats and hay we could via St. John. General Benson had difficulty in shipping horses from St. John, but he could get tonnage via the United States, and that is the reason why he shipped them that way. There was also some question about the difference in time between shipping from Montreal and shipping from New York or Boston.


William Pugsley: What about St. John?


John Dowsley Reid: The tonnage could not be got, and it takes eight or ten hours longer to ship that way. In the cold winter months that length of time would affect the horses on the cars.


William Pugsley: General Benson ought to be reprimanded by this Government. I understood that he, or some one acting under him, stated on the train that St. John or Halifax, particularly St. John, was not a suitable port from Which to ship horses and live stock, and that therefore it was better to go to Boston. That is the rumour. I am afraid the hon. minister has not been quite frank with us to-night. First he told us that he did not know of Canadian horses having been shipped through American ports. Now he proceeds to tell us the reason why horses could not be shipped through Canadian ports, namely, the difficulty of getting tonnage. That is not the explanation given by that official. As regards St. John particularly, it was explained that, by reason of the rise and fall of the tide, it was not a suitable place from which to ship horses, and we were informed a few weeks before the shipments stopped that they were going to stop. A little bit of reasoning with the British officer would have informed him and clearly convinced him that there was no better port in America from which to ship horses or cattle than the port of St. John. The rise and fall of the tide adds to the convenience of shipping live stock, because they can be walked aboard the steamer without having to be lowered in slings into the holds of the "vessels, as is the case in ports where there is no such rise and fall of the tide. This officer did not seem to be aware of that fact, and I think it is due to the people of this country that some explanation should be given by the minister of the reason why Canadian horses during the greater part of this winter have

been shipped through American instead of Canadian ports. The country is going very properly to a large expense in equipping Canadian ports so that we may have traffic through them to as large an extent as possible both in summer and in winter. To me, as representing the city of St. John, it was a matter of great disappointment when I learned that a reflection had been cast upon our port, and that thereafter horses for Great Britain were to be shipped through American ports. Some explanation should be given to the committee and to the country as to why that has happened.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman states that he saw that statement in some newspaper. I can hardly credit the accuracy of the report. General Benson was born in Canada and has lived here most of his life. He is interested in Canada and is anxious to do everything he can in the interests of Canada. I know General Benson's views, and I am satisfied that he wants to ship everything from St. John or Halifax.


William Pugsley: Could the minister tell us what number of Canadian horses have been purchased in Canada for the British Government, and how many have been shipped frotn Canada during the last five or six months, and through What ports they have been shipped? I may be mistaken, but I was informed by a gentleman in whose word I have confidence that what I have stated was the case.


John Dowsley Reid: If we are on the Estimates of Agriculture to-morrow, I will have that information. I had some information from General Benson; but I would not like to give the figures to-night, because I might be mistaken. I think the hon, member will be greatly surprised at the large number of horses that have been shipped through Canadian ports. If he will let the matter stand, I will promise to have the information, if possible to-morrow, and if not to-morrow, on Tuesday, by which time I can communicate with General Benson.


James Alexander Robb: In connection with the number of horses purchased in Canada, a question of importance to Canadian horse buyers and breeders arises. In Montreal, all last fall an extensive buyer was importing wild, range horses from the southwestern States, and perhaps the same thing went on in St. John. He would bring in 500 horses, fifty of which might die in Montreal and fifty of which would not

pass inspection. The people are curious to know how the Customs Department handled those 100 horses that were missing; and how they cleared the bonds on 500 horses going out. In all parts of the country, people will point to a horse that has been bought very cheaply, and they will say. This is the Yankee horse that was refused in Montreal. I am sure the minister will be just as much interested as any one in getting at the bottom of that business. The Government was suspicious of this method of doing business, and at one time it stopped the importation and sale of those horses altogether. Maybe, that prohibition is still on. At the very time those horses were being imported, we were told that they were dying of pinkeye an Montreal. At the time that they were coming through in bond and being inspected in Montreal, there was an embargo on horse trading between Canada and the United States. This worked so harshly against Canadian farmers that the farmers along the boundary who sold cream across the line were compelled to hitch up a team of their own horses, haul the cream to the line, get it across the line the best way they could, and there hitch on another team of horses and go to the creamery, and then bring back the wagon and the empty cans to the boundary line and hitch on their own team again. The minister will have something to explain to the Canadian farmers as to that method of doing business, because there was not a little dissatisfaction as to those horses coming in. Yesterday I met a horse buyer, a good Conservative and a good horse dealer, who sold quite a number of horses last fall to those who were buying remounts, and he said to me very frankly:	The only place I can sell
horses now is in the United States; They are going into Massachusetts and Maine. I was not curious enough to ask why they were going into Maine, but the statement of the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Pugsley) explains: they were going to Boston and Portland to be shipped.


William Cameron Edwards: From what part of the United States did those horses come, that were brought into Montreal?


James Alexander Robb: They were range horses coming from points like St. Louis, Mo. They were altogether unsuitable for farm horses, and I understood that in Montreal they had a man who halter-broke and saddle-broke them.


William Cameron Edwards: Were they suitable for remounts?


James Alexander Robb: They were purchased for remounts.


William Cameron Edwards: It is strange that horses of that kind should be brought in here for sale at the same time that horses were going from here to the United States to be sold for remounts.


James Alexander Robb: Yet it is absolutely correct. The statement was made by a supporter of the hon. gentleman.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member (Mr. Robb) is referring to horses purchased by General Benson or members of his staff for the British Government. No horses were purchased by any one in the United States for the Canadian Government. Some horses purchased by General Benson and his staff were brought to Toronto and Montreal for shipment through Canada to Great Britain.


James Alexander Robb: This was at a time when the farmers were prohibited from crossing the line with their horses.


John Dowsley Reid: The horses bought by General Benson and his sta(| were brought to Toronto and Montreal and taken to the stockyards, and probably broken as the hon. member stated. It would be a very serious matter for our railroads and for the ports of Halifax and St. John if we had prohibited these horses from passing through Canada. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that the Government were acting rightly in allowing these horses to go through Canada.


James Alexander Robb: How about the farmers crossing with their horses?


John Dowsley Reid: I was coming to that point. I remember a case and probably this will answer the hon. member. A shipment of horses, about five or six hundred, came into Toronto. They were from Kentucky, Illinois or some neighbouring state. They were brought there to be sold and shipped through in bond. When the inspectors in Toronto inspected them they rejected about sixty or a hundred horses. The question came up before me at the time. The parties who had the horses wanted to know if they would have to pay -duty oil them or whether they would be allowed to re-export them. Some of these horses were kept here and on these they paid duty. On any that were sent back to the United States no duty was collected. What was done in Toronto, I suppose would apply to Montreal.



The hon. member mentioned about farmers having to drive to the line and there change horses. Then that embargo was placed on horses on account of the foot and mouth disease, the orders of the Customs Department were issued accordingly to prevent it as the hon. gentleman has stated. That came up before me at the instance of those who lived near the boundary lines, and so far as the Customs and also the Department of Agriculture were concerned, as soon as it was called to attention provision was made for driving backwards and forwards without difficulty. I do not know whether people in the hon. gentleman's locality brought it to attention or not, but where the matter was called to attention the necessary provision was made.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My county is on the
boundary, and when the effect of this embargo was brought before the minister the matter was regulated without delay. The present Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) was also acting Minister of Agriculture at the time. An arrangement was made by which a person in New Brunswick who wished to drive into the state of Maine was allowed to do so, but was not allowed to put his horse into a stable-I think that was the provision; however, the difficulty was overcome. I never could understand why it was necessary to prevent the exportation of our horses to the United States. I know that it is because the war is on and the British Empire may possibly require these horses. But, from the very beginning the British Government were buying horses in the United States for the very same purpose for which we were holding them in Canada. It certainly works injustice in some places. Take my own county, for instance. I received a letter from a person representing General Benson, I suppose, asking if there were horses for sale in my part of the country. I replied, giving the names of many people who had horses for sale, including one firm of railway contractors that had thirty or forty horses stored in my town. They were perhaps heavy for remounts, but they would be splendid horses for artillery purposes. But nobody came to look at them, and I believe that not more than three or four horses were sold for these purposes from the whole St. John valley, which is the greatest horse-producing portion of the maritime provinces. The hon. member for Kings, N.S. (Mr. A. De Witt Foster), was not there; his activities were confined to Nova Scotia. I quite realize the ground on
fllr. J. D. Reid. 4
which the Order in Council was based, but I never could understand its desirability. Has not the minister made up his mind that it was not well advised, and might it not be rescinded?


John Dowsley Reid: The Order in Council was
passed at the request of the British Government. I do not think it was ill-advised. I feel that we shall require all the horses that are in Canada. While the Order in Council may be a hardship to some who have horses to sell, in the end, I am confident, they will suffer no loss, because there is going to be a demand that will take every horse in Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I could mention politicians, supporters of the Government, in Carleton county, supporters of the Government who will buy horses quite as well as the hon. member for Kings, N.S., but I would not give them carte blanche, as the hon. member was given.


James McCrie Douglas: I should like to get also the number of Canadian remounts bought by General Benson and his staff in the province of Alberta. Thousands of horses can be bought in the province of Alberta to-day for military purposes at prices around $100 each. The Canadian Remount Commission are advertising in certain places for the purchase of horses, but the experience is that they pick up ten or fifteen horses at some important centre, Edmonton, for instance, where thousands of horses could be obtained. In the northern section of the province of Alberta large numbers of horses could be supplied for military purposes, and there is no possibility of selling them.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: I have a very
.serious complaint to make about this horse-buying business; I was rather under the impression that we should bring this matter up when the Minister of Militia is present.


John Dowsley Reid: That is just what I was going to say. The purchase of horses really comes under the Militia Department.


William Henry Sharpe: The Minister of Militia
is the man I was waiting for.


William Pugsley: What is the use of
having a Minister of Agriculture in the Government if he does not look after the interests of the farmers? That is what he is in the Government for.


John Dowsley Reid: I really think the Minister
of Militia is the man who should answer

these questions. I may say to the hon. member for Mrathcona that I do not see how I can get the information from General Benson, but I shall be glad to get it if I can. So far as the purchase of horses is concerned, although I feel that that is a matter which comes under the Militia Department, I will try to give that information when the Agriculture Estimates come up again.
Mr. TuiilN: So far as my county is concerned, I have a complaint to make to the Department of Agriculture, in respect to horses. There is a gentleman in my county, a horse-buyer who ships quite a number of horses to the United States, and he asked me if there was such an Order in Council passed as that to which reference has been made. He wanted to ship some horses to the United States, and he pointed out that this Order in Council would be a hardship on the farmers. He said that the Militia Department had advertised to buy horses in the county on a certain date and that upon that date the farmers brought their horses in for sale, but nobody showed up to purchase. Subsequently the representatives of the department came to buy horses, when nobody knew they were coming. After receiving this information I put the following question on the Order Paper:
Has an Order in Council been passed prohibiting the sale and export to the United States
of Canadian-bred horses from four to eleven years old? It so, when was such Order in Council passed?
The answer given by the Acting Minister of Agriculture was as follows:
An Order in Council was passed on August 7, 1914, which prohibits exports to any place other than the United Kingdom or any British
possession of " saddle, draught and pack animals, suitable for use in war."
I should like to ask the minister whether this Order in Council compels people trading in horses to sell them to the Militia Department? Many horses which are bred in the Eastern Townships would bring from $300 to $500 if sent to the United States. A farmer who has a fine driver does not wish to sell it for $175 or $180 to the War Department. Would the hon. minister give me some information concerning this regulation?


John Dowsley Reid: I have explained that this
embargo was requested by the British Government. Horses may be sold in Canada to other persons than agents of the Militia Department as a matter of course. If any person in the country represented by the hon. gentleman has a valuable horse that 78*
he wishes to sell or to export to the United States, all he has to do is to advise the Customs Department that he has for sale a horse that is not suitable for military. purposes, being, perhaps, too valuable; and the Department of Agriculture will have one of its officers examine the animal to ascertain whether or not it is suitable for military purposes. The British Government are only too .anxious to get all the horses they possibly can. If upon examination it is found that it is too valuable to be purchased for use by the Militia Department, the Customs Department will not prevent the exportation of the horse to the United States. When it was arranged that we should take up the Estimates to-night, 1 thought that we would go into Committee at about half-past nine. I did not intend to ask the Committee to sit later than eleven or eleven-thirty. If there is no objection, I suggest that we take up the vote for patent records. It is the same vote as last year; I suggest that we pass this item to-night; any discussion which may be desired upon this or any other item may be taken up when the Estimates come up again.
Patent records, $30,000.


Mr. BCIVIN:: Can the hon. minister
who is representing the Minister of Agriculture give us any information in connection with the patent for slyeld and shovel which was obtained from the Department of Agriculture by a young lady, Miss MacAdam, I think,? The hon. minister has already given me an answer to this question, but it is incomplete. That patent was obtained on August 17, 1914. I understand that a rush order was put through for that patent, over the heads of a great many other patents which were pending. Can the acting minister tell us, first, who was the inventor of the shovel? Was it the young lady herself, or did she obtain the patent for some other person? Second, who was it that asked that this rush order be put through? The answer given me on February 25 states that one of the reasons for the rush order was that the invention was required for use in connection with the war.
I cannot understand why it was absolutely necessary for this particular patented article to be used for military purposes. I should think that the Government would have a right to use it for military purposes even if it was not patented.


John Dowsley Reid: Then you would have to pay a royalty.


William Pugsley: Not for military purposes, the Act is express in that.


Georges Henri Boivin: I. understand that there is a clause in the Patent Act which says that no royalty need be paid and whether a royalty was paid is a question that could be better answered by the Minister of Militia. I would be anxious to find out exactly why a rush order was put through, at whose request and who is the inventor [DOT]of the shovel and shield in question.


John Dowsley Reid: Was not that information
given in the answer?


Georges Henri Boivin: The patentee was given
but not the inventor.


John Dowsley Reid: I could not give the hon.
gentleman any further information than has been brought down. The application was made by the party named on the form necessary to obtain a patent. Whatever that form required was filled in by the party applying for the patent.


Georges Henri Boivin: That form must be in the department.


John Dowsley Reid: Unless I was given notice
I would not have the information before me.


William Pugsley: The deputy minister
would have it.


John Dowsley Reid: He could not remember.


William Pugsley: He would remember
this, it was a special matter, patenting a hole in a shovel. It is a pretty special sort of patent.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has asked me for considerable information with reference to that patent. As I have stated, if he will let the rest of the discussion stand until our Estimates come up again I shall be in a better position to give information.


William Pugsley: I have no doubt the
deputy minister could give the information.


Georges Henri Boivin: In the answer given on the 25th of February it is said that the request for the rush order was given by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture to the examiner of patents. The deputy minister must certainly remember something.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member will understand that if any patent was applied for that would help the Militia Department in connection with the war it would hardly be necessary to ask the deputy minister to rush it through because he would do so in the public interest.
fMr. J. D. Reid.l


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Government wanted to use this article for purposes of war it would not matter whether it was patented or not, and if the party afterwards got a patent it would be only a question of fixing the royalty and paying it. The question of whether the Militia Department wished to use the article or not plays no part in the matter. There must be some other reason.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. member could argue in the opposite way if necessary. Supposing a person had an article that the Militia Department wished to use, i-t would not be only fair that the Department should help to get the article patented so long as it would not cost the Militia Department any royalty, for the reason that some one else might obtain a patent on the article.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It does not make any difference, because the Militia Department have the right to use the article, patent or no patent.


William Cameron Edwards: I cannot see the line of argument of hon. gentlemen opposite. A certain article is invented by some person to be used for war purposes, and some one else desires to get a patent on the article. What is the objection to his getting a patent?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: None whatever.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman seems to argue that there is something wrong in getting the patent, so far as the Militia Department is concerned. That does not cut any figure because they can use it anyway; but other countries could not use it and any one interested in the article, for that person's own protection, might desire to get a patent in order to dispose of it to some other country. If it was to be used for war purposes, what was wrong about having the patent take precedence of others?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member for Frontenac is a good lawyer for a layman. Probably he does not remember that the mere fact that the Militia Department used this or any other article would not affect the right of the party to obtain a patent so long as it had not been on sale for more than a year in Canada or any other country prior to making the application. So that argument falls to the ground.


Edmond Proulx: Is the minister sure there will not be any claim made by Miss MacAdam for the royalty?


John Dowsley Reid: That has been stated by the Minister of Militia.


William Pugsley: One thing might be cleared up in regard to the matter; there is a great deal of doubt as to whether Miss MacAdam was the inventor of the patented article in question. She could not have got the patent unless she either swore she was the inventor or produced an assignment from the inventor.


John Dowsley Reid: She swore she was the -[DOT]
inventor, and that is all the department could ask.


William Pugsley: Could the minister, as a member of the Government dealing with this patent, tell me whether or not officials of the department thought that that particular invention was patentable? Was there a special order of the minister that the patent should issue?


John Dowsley Reid: There was no special order of the minister, it was all done by the deputy minister. The minister knew nothing about the patent; it never came before him at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What was the reason that the deputy minister made the order?


John Dowsley Reid: I have stated that these orders are given from time to time. This is not a special case. It is a practice of the department to give special orders.


William Pugsley: Was there anything
about the patented article which required that it should be manufactured in the United States which necessitated the giving of an order immediately for 25,000 of these shovels with the hole in them, the patented shovel, to the Midvale Company in the United States, or could they have been manufactured in Canada?


John Dowsley Reid: I think it is hardly fair for trie hon. member to press that question against me. All the Department of Agriculture has to do is to see that the departmental regulations regarding patents are observed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps I can come to the rescue of the minister. A clause of our Patent Act, I think section 44, provides that the applicant upon application may be granted the privilege, under certain conditions, of not manufacturing in Canada. That is what is called the license clause. It was very important that this article should be manufactured at that particular moment.
Mr. ,T. J. HUGHES: What object had Miss MacAdam in rushing the application for the patent, if she was not going to get a royalty on the article?


John Dowsley Reid: If my hon. friend asks Miss MacAdam, he may get that, information.


Georges Henri Boivin: Can the minister tell us whether this shovel had been patented in the United States prior to the patent being granted here, or whether it has ever been patented in the United States?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not answer that question. I am informed by the deputy minister that, so far as the examiner could find, the article had not been patented in any country except Canada. I cannot give positive information on that point.


Georges Henri Boivin: Just a moment ago I understood the minister to advise the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., to go to the Militia Department ~and inquire for Miss MacAdam.


John Dowsley Reid: I said Miss MacAdam was an employee of the Militia Department, and the only one who could give the information he asked for. I stated where she could be found.


Georges Henri Boivin: What position does she occupy in the department?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say. She is a permanent employee, and the Civil Service list gives her position.


Mr. E. W. TOBIN (Richmond & Wolfe):: Some time ago I forwarded to the Department of Agriculture a petition signed by a number of the farmers of the township of Cleveland, in my county, which reads as follows:
The petition of the undersigned rate-payers and voters of the county of Richmond humbly
i-epresents:	. .	,	_
That, on the second day of August, 1914, a most severe and disastrous hail-storm passed over our farms and ruined our grain crop;
That it is important that next year the farmers of this country should raise much more grain than ever before, on account of the war reducing the production and increasing the consumption of grains.
That your petitioners, in many cases, will be unable to do this on account of the high prices of seed grain.
That assistance by way of grants of seed grain in being tendered to the farmers of the province of Saskatchewan;
Now, therefore, we your petitioners, humbly request you to use your best efforts with our Governments, Federal and Provincial, to obtain for us a grant of seed grain to replace what we lost in said hail storm.
And you will do justice.

Signed at the said county of Richmond, this month of January, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen.
Adrien Thibeault.
This is signed by 75 or 80 farmers living in the township. The petition was forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture, who sent me the following letter, dated February 9 :
Dear sir,-I have your letter of the 2nd inst., enclosing a petition signed by Mr. Adrien Thibeault and others in the township of Cleveland, in the county of Richmond, praying that the Government supply them with seed grain for the loss they sustained in a storm which passed over that township last summer, and I note that you strongly endorse the same.
In reply I may say that the Honourable the Minister of the Interior is attending to the question of supplying seed grain in the West and I do not know that anything outside of the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan is contemplated. However, I am sending your letter on to the Honourable Dr. Roche for consideration.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) M. Burrell.
It was very little satisfaction for the farmers of the county of Richmond to be told that the petition would be referred to the Department of the Interior. Some of those farmers are in very poor 12 midnight, circumstances, and as the Department of Agriculture is at the present time sending gentlemen all through the country urging the farmers to greater production, it was not much comfort for those farmers who suffered great loss by the hailstorm, to be told that the petition was 'being forwarded to the Department of the Interior. I had this very nice letter from Hon. Mr. Roche, dated February 15:
My dear sir,-Your communication under date Of the 2nd addressed to the Hon. Martin Burrell with petition signed by a number of persons in the township of Cleveland, county of Richmond, province of Quebec, praying to be supplied with seed, grain, has been forwarded here.
In reply I beg to say that we are not having any distribution of seed grain in the provinces that own their natural resources. This is a provincial matter and although we have had applications from British Columbia, Ontario, and this one from Quebec we have referred them to their respective provincial Governments for assistance. We are only granting aid in the drouth stricken areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta to farmers who were deprived of their entire crops last year, and other such adjacent districts that have suffered from drouth and the farmers of which are in a similar position, the provincial governments promising to pass legislation to give our liens a priority over existing mortgages.
Yours faithfully,
W. J. Roche.
E. W. Tobin, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.


William Cameron Edwards: What has that to do with patents ?


Edmund William Tobin: Have you been sleeping " I will send for the Minister of Justice to take care of you.


William Cameron Edwards: I think the hon. member is talking in his sleep. He is talking about something quite irrelevent to the item under discussion.


Edmund William Tobin: I think the hon. member-


William Cameron Edwards: I rise to a point ol order. I say the hon. member is not discussing the item before the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: As I understood it, a general discussion was to be allowed on the item.


William Cameron Edwards: Oh, that must have been previous to my coming in. It is all right then.


Edmund William Tobin: The Minister of the Interim said in that letter that grain is not being distributed in those provinces which own their natural resources. I do not see why it should make any difference where the farmers. live, whether in the province of Quebec or in the West, so long as damage has been done to their crops, whether by drouth or by hail. I might read part of a letter that I received from a gentleman who forwarded me this petition:
He also feels positive that it is very important that these genuine sufferers should be aided this year, especially when there Is such great need for over-production by the farmers. The Agricultural Bureau, which you assisted to establish here, is conducting a campaign of " patriotism and bigger production " and something in the line of aid with seed grain will show by practical demonstration that the Government wants the farmers to do something to aid the Empire, while aiding themselves. The best assets our country can have is prosperous farmers and they cannot he prosperous the year after they have lost their crop of grain, unless they can get assistance with seed grain. You may safely tell the Minister of Agriculture that a short visit to the scene of this storm would have convinced him that there was need of aid to the sufferers. The West should not get all the favours.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who signed that letter?


Edmund William Tobin: Mr. F. 0. Duboyce, notary public, Richmond, Quebec. Would the acting Minister of Agriculture grant the request" of these petitioners and send one of his men down to investigate, and if he finds that the case is a deserving one, will he give them some help?


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I observe that the petitioners request the hon. gentleman not only

to approach this Government, but also to approach the Government of Quebec. Would he tell the committee the result of his application to the Government at Quebec in this connection?


Edmund William Tobin: This petition was sent to
me at Ottawa, and my first duty as representing the county of Richmond is to approach the Government here. I am a member of the House of Commons, and as such I am bringing this matter to the attention of this Government. The case of the farmers of Cleveland township is a just one. The Government are holding meetings throughout the country and urging farmers to produce more in order to help the Empire in this hour of trial. In helping these farmers they will not only be rendering a great service to the farmers themselves, but to the Empire as well. If the minister will send an agent from his department to Richmond, Mr. Duboyce, the notary public there, will arrange to have him taken out to the township of Cleveland.


Avard Longley Davidson: Would my hon. friend inform me as to the date of the petition?


Edmund William Tobin: The second of February. It was addressed to the House of Commons, at Ottawa.


Avard Longley Davidson: I understand the hon. gentleman has not approached the Quebec Government in reference to the matter.


Edmund William Tobin: In bringing this matter to
the attention of the minister I am simply doing my duty to my electors.


Avard Longley Davidson: I understand that the
petitioners asked the hon. gentleman to approach both Governments.


Edmund William Tobin: I am not a member of the provincial house. I represent Richmond and Wolfe in the Dominion House. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would be good enough to send a man from his department to investigate this claim which I have put forward on behalf of the farmers in the township of Cleveland. If he finds that the case as put forward is borne out by facts, will his department give help to these farmers and advance them seed grain in order to assist them in putting in their crops this spring?


John Dowsley Reid: This is a matter that is being handled by the Department of the Interior, the reason being that the policy of assisting farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan by the distribution of seed grain was started
in years gone by and is simply being continued. We are furnishing seed grain to farmers who are on land which is still the property of the Dominion Government. It is true, as the Minister of the Interior stated the other day, that the department has gone a little farther in these western provinces, by granting aid to persons occupying patented lands. I am not as familiar with the facts as my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior is; he will be on with his estimates to-morrow and will probably be able to answer the hon. gentleman's question more fully. With reference to the request of the hon. member that I send a man down to investigate this condition in his constituency, let me say that the petition that has been addressed to him, asks him, as the representative of those who have signed it, as their public servant, to come to this Government and see whether he could get them to take up the question of giving them aid. But dit goes farther; it asks him, as their representative, to go to the Quebec Government, if he does not succeed here, and request them to take cognizance of the difficulty they are in and to assist them in that locality. Having got a letter from my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) stating what the policy of this Government is, I think my hon. friend for Richmond and Wolfe was a little lax in his duty, if he had not time to go to Quebec, in not writing to Quebec and urging the Government there to take the matter up, he having failed in his effort at Ottawa. Perhaps that might have resulted in securing the aid required. At all events, he would have been carrying out the request of the petitioners. It is not too late yet; if he writes now, to-night, or to-morrow, to the Government at Quebec, and if they will take it up and deal with it, as I believe they should, the difficulty may be overcome. If the farmers in Cleveland township are in the difficulties stated by him, it is the duty of the provincial government to send a representative a. once and see that they are looked after and properly protected. Other provinces are in exactly the same position. We have had the same difficulty in Ontario. Hardly a year passes but a hail-storm or something else arises in certain parts of the province of Ontario, and people meet with disaster similar to that which has visited this part of the province of Quebec, and the representatives of the province of Ontario are told exactly the same thing, no matter what side of politics they are on. The same [DOT] answer is given to them as that

which was given to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. The Ontario Government cheerfully and willingly helps those who have been affected in this way in the province of Ontario.


William Henry Sharpe: So they do in
Manitoba.


John Dowsley Reid: So they do in Manitoba and in the other provinces. This opens up a very large question. We are carrying out the policy adopted by previous governments of assisting homesteaders on land owned by the Government, and we are at the same time protecting ourselves, in so far as the expenditure is concerned. It has been the opinion of all governments that the older provinces are able to look after their people who are in difficulty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister states that this policy was inaugurated some years ago by a former Government to assist those people in western Canada who were homesteaders and who did not own their farms. He is following that up by assisting, not only homesteaders, but people in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan who own their land. On what principle does the minister assist a person in the province of Saskatchewan who owns his land, and whose crop has been hailed or who has lost his crop by drouth, and refuses to assist a person in the province of Quebec who owns his land and who has also been hailed out and has no seed grain?


John Dowsley Reid: That question was discussed a few days ago by hon. members from the West, when the hon. member was present, and the Minister of the Interior answered that question and gave the reason why. In the West the homesteaders are all newcomers; they have just received their patents, and the number is small.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A few thousand.


John Dowsley Reid: Not very many in that particular district. If the hon. member is here to-morrow, I would like him to ask the Minister of Interior for the reason. The matter comes under his department. I feel that I am not justified in speaking for the Minister of Agriculture on a matter of this kind, because I am only acting temporarily.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will not press the matter further.


William Henry Sharpe: The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta passed laws giving the Government the prior right on mortgages in cases where it supplied seed grain.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They were asked to pass those law's. I have not heard that they have passed them.


William Henry Sharpe: Yes, they have passed them.


Edmund William Tobin: My first duty to my electors was to approach this Government, and I did so.	,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And you have not sue-ceeded.


Edmund William Tobin: I do not know. The minister has not said " no " yet. I may say that I wrote to my colleague in the local House and he has a copy of the petition,.


John Dowsley Reid: How long ago is it since you wrote to him?


Edmund William Tobin: I did not mention any
(politics; I did not say that the people were Conservatives or Liberals. I am not speaking for the Liberals of the township of Cleveland alone, I am speaking for all the people who have lost their crops through the storms which passed-over that township in August last.


John Dowsley Reid: No one said that you mentioned any politics.


Edmund William Tobin: The hon. minister tried to make out a case against me.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Edmund William Tobin: The hon. minister said that in those provinces which he is helping, the land belongs to this Government. You must not compare the hardships of the earlier settlers in Ontario and Quebec who entered wooded land and had to clear it with the much happier position of the 'homesteaders on the western prairies, who simply had to plough the prairies and gather their crop. The pioneer settlers in the township of Cleveland had to go in there when there were no roads and no bridges, and they had to clear the land and spend $25 or $30 an acre in doing the work. They could not raise enough to keep them in those early days. They had to cut down the trees and burn and pull out the stumps. After doing all that work, they come to this Government for this assistance, and all the answer I get from the minister is that this Government does not ow'e anything to the people of Quebec. I am surprised that the hon. minister takes that stand. I hope the Hon. Walter Mitchell, who represents Richmond in the Provincial House, will have

more success with his Government than I have had with the Dominion Government.


William Cameron Edwards: I am sure the hon. .member has served the purpose for which he rose. He has represented his constituency and he has placed on Hansard his zeal in their behalf. If the principle he advocated were followed out by this Gov-eminent, every man from one end of Canada to the other who met with any loss, for instance, if his barns were burned down, would have a claim on this Government for assistance.
The case of Quebec or Ontario is different from that of the western provinces. In the West there was a general drouth affecting large sections of the country and people who had been in that country only a comparatively short time were absolutely dependent upon one thing, namely, upon the crop in the ground, which on account of the drouth realized absolutely nothing. That is not the case in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. In all those older provinces there is mixed farming and not simply the one crop of oats or' wheat on which the farmers are absolutely and wholly dependent. If the hon. member wants to be fair, he will admit that. Is he prepared to say from his place in the House now that he would uphold this or any other Government in acceding to the request of farmers in the older provinces for assistance every time they lost their crops through drouth or hail or some other cause? The hon. member was presented with a petition from his constituents as representing that county asking him to do two things, namely, to do a certain thing so far as this Government was concerned, and to do another thing so far as the Quebec Government was concerned. What did he do? He got the petition on the 2nd of February making the two requests. He comes here and finds fault with this' Government in very loud terms. He chastises this Government for lack of interest in the farmers of the province of Quebec. Every word he has said in censure of this Government can be applied to his own Government, in the province of Quebec. His words of censure also reflect back upon himself, because he has carried out only a part of the request made by the petitioners, that is, to apply to this Government. His first duty was to apply to the Provincial Government. He left that to a later date, because it would not serve his purpose, which was to make the application here. He is better pleased because it has been refused, because it places him in a position
of appearing before the people of the township as their champion and as a man ready to fight for their rights.


Edmund William Tobin: I do not think the hon. member is fair when he says my first duty was to write to the provincial government.
I got that petition. There was a copy sent to the member for the county of Richmond in the provincial government, and I also wrote to him. What was I to do? Was it not my duty, representing the county of Richmond and Wolfe in this House, to address myself to this Government?


William Henry Sharpe: Have the provincial government decided to do anything?


Edmund William Tobin: I could not say. But when the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) says that I should have risen in this House and- asked this Government, let me tell him that I have done so by letter to the Minister of Agriculture, and also by laying this matter before the House this evening. I did not mention any politics until the minister insinuated that this was a case of Liberals and Conservatives.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood me.


Edmund William Tobin: I did not mean to refer to the minister. I speak of the hon. member for Frontenac:	When he tells me that it
was my duty to write to the provincial government, I say to my hon. friend that he is mistaken.


William Cameron Edwards: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?


Edmund William Tobin: Certainly.


William Cameron Edwards: Is not the representative of his county of the provincial House Provincial Treasurer of Quebec?


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with it?


William Cameron Edwards: It has a great deal to
do with it. The hon. member's colleague in the local legislature is a number of the provincial government. Surely, if he has any influence, he ought to he able to use it in a case like that. Yet he has apparently done nothing so far as his own province is concerned.


Edmund William Tobin: Here is a petition signed
by seventy-five to eighty farmers from the township of Cleveland, the people who have sent me here, asking me to take this up with the minister and to help the farmers to get seed grain. Was I to answer these

petitioners that they had no business to write to me, but that they should write to the provincial member? I am not trying to make politics out of this. I do not know whether these petitioners are Liberals or Conservatives-I hope they are all Liberals. But I do not draw any distinction, because when I am elected it is my duty to represent all. It is on those grounds that I was elected, and on those grounds I hope to be elected again if I am a candidate.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Friday.
Friday, March 19, 1915.