[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 135) for the relief of Hannah Ella Tompkins.-Mr. J. D. Reid.
Bill . (No. 145) for the relief of Isaac Moore.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill (No. 143) for the relief of Mildred Gwendolyn Patterson-Mr. Harris.
Bill (No. 140) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Miller.
Bill (No. 141) respecting the Manitoba Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Molloy.
Bill (No. 144) for the relief of Charles Bowerbank Lowndes.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill (No. 142) to incorporate the Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada.-Hon. Mr. Sutherland.
Mr. FIELDING.: 



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-AGRICULTURE ESTIMATES.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire of the Minister of Agriculture when he purposes bringing down his estimates. I may say that there is a general complaint on this side of the House among those representing agricultural constituencies, that for the last two or three sessions these estimates have been left over until a very late period in the session, and last year they were brought in on Friday night when most of the members were out of the House. This is one of the most important departments in the interest of agriculture, and I think it very unfair that these estimates should be left over to be rushed through at the latter end of the session, without giving an opportunity to discuss them pronerly.


Mr. FISHER.: I shall be most happy to give my hon. friend and his friends every opportunity they desire to discuss these estimates. I have not brought them down earlier, because the Experimental Farm report was only laid on the table a wreek ago, and I wished to give hon. gentlemen opposite time to consider it before taking up the estimates.


George Taylor: If we expect to get through in a few weeks, they should be proceeded with at once.


William Stevens Fielding: You might have had them yesterday.



THE DUMPING CLAUSE.

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I would ask the Finance Minister if he would be kind enough to lay on the table of the House copies and a statement of the orders of the Treasury Board in reference to the computations of prices on imports. The government sometimes allows imports under the dumping clause of the Customs Act to be admitted at 7i or 5 per cent below the fair market price, and it requires a treasury order to do that.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand the hon. gentleman refers to the operation of the anti-dumping clause. I will endeavour to get the information for him.



PAYMENT OF SECRET COMMISSIONS.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved that an amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 31), to prevent the payment or acceptance of illicit or secret commissions and other like practices, be now read the second time and concurred in. He said:	The amendment which has
been made by the Senate will be found printed in the Votes and Proceedings for the 1st of April, at page 518. It consists simply in adding to the Bill a sub-paragraph. The

Bill as it passed this House consisted of a provision that every one was guilty of an offence and liable, upon conviction, to certain penalties who being an agent, did certain things, to which the Senate has added this paragraph:
Every person who is a party, or knowingly privy, to any offence under this Act shall he guilty of such offence, and shall be liable, upon conviction, to the punishment hereinbefore provided for by this section.
The general law, under a provision of the Criminal Code, is that every accessorv before the fact is guilty as a principal. This amendment irossibly goes a little further; that is a matter upon which I would hesitate to express any definite opinion. But if it does go any further than the general law, it is in a direction which I think will meet the approval of the House. It is simply nroviding that any person who is party or knowingly privy to the offence or offences which this Bill prohibits, shall be deemed to be equally guilty with the principal offender. I thought that there could be no objection to that clause being added to the Bill, and therefore I move the second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill (No. 17) respecting Immigration.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I wish to say that we have been proceeding before the Immigration Committee with the examination of Mr. Scott, and his examination was postponed a few days ago until a later meeting of the committee. When the committee met, the day before yesterday, it was agreed by the committee that the chairman would see the Minister of the Interior and ask him to suspend the consideration of this Bill until we had concluded the examination of Mr. Scott, because much of that examination turned upon questions which are raised by the new legislation in this Bill. I do not know if the chairman of the committee has had occasion to communicate with my hon. friend the minister; but it seemed to be agreed by the committee that it would be proper to finish the examination of the Superintendent of Immigration before going on with this Bill.


Mr. OLIVER.: I have no desire to force the Bill forward, but I have not heard from the chairman of the committee, as my hon. friend has mentioned. I do not know the conclusion reached by the committee. The Bill has been before the House for a long time, and I was naturally anxious to take the first opnortunitv of carrying; it forward from the stage in which it now stands. _ If there is a reasonable objection to it being
proceeded with at the present time, I will postpone its consideration. But as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has remarked, the session is getting well advanced, the Bill is long, and I am anxious to get it forward.


Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to endorse what my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has said. The hon. member for Oxford, who is chairman of the Agricultural Committee, promised to consult with the minister and to get his approval to allowing this Bill to stand until after the further examination of Mr. Scott. That was agreed. and generally understood by the committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We were proceeding in the committee to examine the Superintendent of Immigration with regard to the expediency of examining immigrants on the other side before they embark for America. I have no desire to delay the Bill, but I think it would be well to know what Mr. Scott has to say upon that point.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Let the Bill stand.



GOVERNMENT HARBOURS AND PIERS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) to amend the Government Harbour and Piers Act-Mr. Brodeur- read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
["Before this resolution passes, I think this would be an opportune time to bring to the notice of the hon. minister and the government the great necessity which exists for a port of call in Nova Scotia for those lines in the summer time. Take this proposed line of steamers which ply between Montreal and Quebec and some port in France, we are told by the hon. minister that fish, particularly lobsters, is one of our largest exports to France. It would therefore be a great boon to Cape Breton and the coast of Nova Scotia if we had a port somewhere in the Province to which these steamers would call and on which we could ship our fish and other exports to France, where there' is an excellent market for them. These steamers will pass by our doors practically within a few miles, and it will be too bad if provision be not made for them to call at North Sydney. At that port there is considerable French trade. It is the headquarters of the French trawlers, a trade which has only been developed the last few years. These steamers also take a large quantity of coal, and it would be much cheaper for them to purchase it at North Sydney rather than at Montreal or Quebec. If they were to call at North Sydney, they would there get their bunker much more expeditiously and cheaply, which would be an inducement to them to call there. What I have said regarding this new line between Canada and France also applies to the steamers plying between Canada and Mexico. In the maritime provinces, we have no chance of communicating with those lines unless they call somewhere on the coast of Nova Scotia, and North Sydney is 'the nearest point and not at all out of their way. The English mail has been landed there, and if that does not put the mail steamers much out of their course, the delay would be still less of a disadvantage in the case of freight boats. Besides North Sydney being the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway, it u'ould become the point of shipping for the whole province of Nova Scotia and the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island during the summer thus giving to those provinces the advantage of the French market. In winter of course the steamers will go to St. John, but in the summer we have no better means of accommodating them than by their calling at North Sydney, which would give us the advantage of shipping to the French and the Mexican markets, and give them the advantage of cheaper coal. I do not\n\nthink I would be justified in allowing this opportunity to pass without bringing this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.\nResoution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.\nMr. BRODEUR moved for leave to 'introduce Bill (No. 146) to amend the Act relating to Ocean Steamship Subsidies.\nMotion agreed to and Bill read the first time.\nAt six oclock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. BRODEUR.: The existing law provides that municipal councils may lease certain wharfs. It is proposed to give to the Governor in Council the right to lease wharfs to shipping and railway companies also. This Bill is framed on the same lines as the legislation now existing with regard to piers and breakwaters under the control of the Department of Public Works.


Mr. SPROULE.: What control does the government keep over the rates to be charged on wharfs so leased?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The rates will be the same as they are to-day in the case of wharfs leased to municipal councils. The main object of the Bill is to enable the department to commute the tolls in order to avoid the great difficulty of collection. We have a number of wharfs leased in this way to the Richelieu and Ontario Company, although I do not know that the leases are strictly legal; the arrangement is giving great satisfaction and I think we receive more revenue than from similar wharfs that are not leased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister not think that this might lead to great injustice to some shipping companies which would be placed at the mercy of their competitors? Charges of that kind were made with reference to the Standard Oil Com-

pany in its dealings with other companies upon railroads owned by it. Is there any tribunal to which these rates may be submitted from time to time?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We intend to take that power by the leases which will be granted under this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not put it in the Act? If by accident, for instance, it should be omitted from the lease it would be most unfair.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Care will of course be taken that that provision is put in the lease.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: What increased powers are given in this Act over the powers given in the Act of 1906?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no change in the first section from the Act of 1906, except that power is given to lease not only to municipal councils and provincial governments but also to shipping and railway companies.


John Allister Currie: I would make the following suggestions to the minister: That the wharfs or piers should be leased after public tender; that the leases should be given for a limited number of years and that the government should fix the tolls to be charged before calling for tenders. If the leases fell in after a number of years it might be possible to obtain a much higher rental for the second term owing to the development of business. I am not making these suggestions in any spirit of hostile criticism, as I think it is perhaps better to have the government lease a wharf than to maintain a staff and receive little or no revenue.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Our object is to secure a larger revenue. My hon. friend is probably aware that we have many wharfs from which we derive practically no revenue. It is a matter of great difficulty to get any revenue at all from these wharfs under the present system by which the consignees of the goods are charged five cents, or ten cents, or fifteen cents, a package, and it often costs more to collect it, if you can collect it at all, than the debt is worth. The idea is to average the business done at each whaTf during the past few years, and after having ascertained the amount of business done by each steamboat company using the wharf, to fix a Tental for its use on that basis. I believe in this way we will get a revenue from these wharfs which it is impossible for us to get under the present arrangement. In the case of several wharfs in the lower St. Lawrence the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company has been authorized by order in council to commute the Tates and the object of this Bill is to legalize that system and to ex-Mr. SPROULE.
tend it. Under the Bill we take the power to lease the wharfs as is done in the Public Works Department, and we also take power to commute the rates. Possibly the steamship companies may add the wharfage dues to the freight rates but whether or not the system will be more convenient to the public and to the department. My hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) has suggested that we should lease these wharfs by tender and that might be a satisfactory system if there were several persons or companies who were competing for the same wharf, but in the great majority of cases I think only one company uses the wharf.


John Allister Currie: The charges on these wharfs are paid by the shippers and not by the carrying company, and there is nothing in the Bill which says that the tolls shall be fixed by the government. Neither is there anything in the Bill to prevent the lessee of the wharf excluding the general public or other steamship companies from the use of that wharf.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not the intention to create a monoply.


John Allister Currie: It is well known that in many cases the steamship companies have wharfs of their own which they will not allow the public to use except on the payment of fees, so that the only relief outside steamers have is to tie up at the government wharf and discharge their cargo. Before this Bill is passed there should be provision made to take care that the public shall have the free use of government wharfs. It is quite true that a number of government wharfs do not pay any revenue, but it is also true that the only place certain steamers have to land their cargo is at the government wharfs as distinguished from privately owned wharfs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In any case, where more than one company would wish to use a government wharf, it would of course be stipulated as a condition of the lease that others should have the right to its use. It is not the intention to create a monopoly at all. As to the leasing of the wharfs I do not know whether we will take a great deal of advantage of this legislation or not, because, so far, I do not think there are four wharfs leased to municipal councils. I do not know whether there aTe two even. I know of one only. Perhaps there has been another one leased during the past year. But, so far, the provision has not been taken advantage of. So, it was thought that if we had the same legislation as they have in the Public Works Department, under the Public Works Act, we might induce some railway and shipping companies to take advantage of it. The part of the Bill to which we attach the greatest importance

is that which makes provision for a commutation of rates for a certain sum of money so as to avoid the necessity of undertaking do collect small sums of money from different individuals, an undertaking which is not always successful. I am under the impression that the Act will be taken advantage of by companies which may use those wharfs. We will make arrangements with three or four companies for the use of a wharf according to the volume of business they are doing at that wharf. There will be no monopoly. It will be an advantage to us not to have to collect these wharfage rates but to charge these companies a lump sum for the use of the wharfs.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I would like to draw the minister's attention to (the fact that in the building of some of these wharfs the government have monopolized the only approaches to them so that the general public have no method of getting into the towns and villages in which these wharfs are situated except over the property that the government have taken advantage of in the building of the wharfs. Consequently, any man coming to town to buy a few groceries or a bag of flour can only get his goods into his boat or conveyance over the property that the government have taken possession of. If this property is handed over to some steamboat company which would naturally like to cut out that means of transportation they could very easily prevent people from getting in or out of town by charging a toll which would be exorbitant. I think that in handling this matter the government ought to protect the people who would be affected in this way. There is only wharf accommodation to a limited extent and they should not be subjected to a toll in getting in or out of town with a small boat such as I have referred to. In many of these places there are little boats and tugs that are perhaps not controlled by any one particular company, and I do not think the full control of these wharfs should be handed over to any steamboat company. It would be in the interest of the government and of the public if these small wharfs-I am referring now more particularly to the small wharfs-were handed over to the municipal councils. You are taking the power to do that but at the same time you are taking the power to hand them over to steamboat companies.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This provision has been in the law for many years but unfortunately it has not been taken advantage of by the municipal councils. I am informed there are two municipal councils which have taken advantage of it. This law has been in existence since 1886.


William Wright: I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that the Department of Public Works has only handed over a few of the wharfs to his deoartment. Consequently there has been no opportunity for the municipal councils to assume control of these wharfs. In the riding which I represent three wharfs have been built, two in rather an important place and in the important places the Department of Public Works has kept control of them. Nobody is in charge of them, and everybody is using them as he likes. One of the unimportant wharfs has been handed over to the minister's department, a wharfinger has been appointed and he is exercising his sweet will and charging the general public whatever he likes to go over this wharf. There should be some control in a matter of this kind.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Unfortunately, that legislation by which municipal councils can get possession of wharfs has been in existence for many years and no advantage has been taken of it except in two cases. It is probably because municipal councils are afraid of some burden being put upon them for keeping up these wharfs. If they took over these wharfs they would have to make some ordinary repairs to them. We propose to extend the provision to shipping and railway companies which would take advantage of it because they are more interested than the municipal councils. I do not know what effect it may have but it is in order to obtain a better administration of the wharfs than we have to-day that we are taking this step. As I said a few moments ago the main object is to get a commutation of rates so that we may charge the shipping companies who are using these wharfs a certain fixed sum of money instead of being obliged to collect the small wharf rates that are very difficult to collect. There are several wharfs which have been transferred to this department. It is proposed, after this legislation is passed, that all these wharfs shall be transferred and that active steps shall be taken to secure the good and proper administration of them.


Mr. HUGHES.: I would like to ask the minister how it happens that the policy of the department is to get rid of these wharfs by leasing them to private individuals, corporations and councils on the one hand while on the other he is buying up wharfs, as for instance, at Oshawa, Bowmanville, Whitby and other places After buying these wharfs with the object of getting friends of the government out of a hole they are going to turn around and lease them to somebody else. Another point is that in many places, especially along the rivers and inland lakes, the wharf occupies the only available site in the town. It is the intention of the gov' eminent to lease a wharf that costs a few

hundred or a few thousand dollars, to some individual and allow him to charge rates for traffic with the creation of which he had absolutely nothing to do? My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright) has referred to the wharf at Bracebridge which occupies the only available point along the shore of the river. .


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a private wharf.


Samuel Hughes: The government assisted in building it. It was promised by the former Postmaster General as an election bribe some years ago.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Samuel Hughes: Not at all; I want no order about it. He told the electors that if they returned a certain man they would assist them in the building of that wharf.


Wilfrid Laurier: He is a judge wf the land now and that makes it all the worse.


Samuel Hughes: I hope this will bring him to his senses. He is a little off colour on the Dreadnought business and this may remind him,' of his duty.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order, order.


Samuel Hughes: I want the minister to look into this matter and, where wharfs are being let, to take particular pains to see that no monopoly shall be given to the man who occupies the wharf which is in the only possible place where a wharf can be located in the town.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there is the possibility of grave abuses growing up under this system. I can understand why there are not very many of these wharfs rented by municipalities as the governmnt could desire. One reason is because they do not want to assume the responsibility for the damages in the event of injury. A portion may be swept away or other damages may be done for which they may be liable, and that is one reason they do not want it. Another reason is that it must be kept safe for use. That implies responsibility, the extent of which may be unknown, and therefore they are reluctant to assume it. But what seems to me of more interest is this. The minister speaks always of these corporations and wants to commute the rates and receive so much iin a lump sum in return for the use of the wharf, and the lessees will have the right to fix the rates on every ton of freight that passes over the whaFf- The individual gets a lease of that wharf at a given lump sum per year and then will charge as much as he can to the public for the use of it. If the government do not keep control over the rates and have the power to reduce them from time to time injustice will be done the public.


Samuel Hughes: Another objection is the length of time for which a wharf may be rented. In the ease oif some towns, a wharf is of very little importance in early history, and might be leased for a very small figure, just as the water-power of the Cornwall canal was leased for 84 years; but as the town developed, the amount of freight passing over that wharf may increase very considerably and the lease be a very profitable speculation. Again, where one line sends large quantities over the wharf, it may be allowed a lower rate than the ordinary public who ship small quantities. Unless there be some safeguard in the Act itself to prevent the possibility of such abuses, the public may seriously suffer. Take for instance the case of the town of Thornbury, in connection with which I had something to do with getting the Act passed. They had to submit their schedule of rates to the inspection of the department. If it was reasonable, the department ratified it, but the municipality which had control could not make a charge until the rate was consented to by the government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It will be provided that the rates must be approved by order in council. You must not mix up the two things, the leasing of wharfs and the commutation of rates. In the first instance, if there be several companies,the wharf will not be leased, as that will not be necessary, but it would be in the interest of the revenue that we should say to the companies : ' You will pay us each a certain amount for the use of the wharf.' We will then not be obliged, as we are to-day, to collect those small amounts which it is almost impossible to collect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a lumber company owns the wharf and the government commutes the rates, and the lumber company bring in their own lumber free over that wharf, the public may be obliged to pay 50 cents a 1,000 feet for any lumber they bring over it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They will not be in that position because we will know exactly the business they are doing before we lease the wharf, and under the law we can only lease it for a term of three years.


Samuel Hughes: Who will keep the docks in repair, and what control will the government retain?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The company which leases the wharf will make the ordinary repairs.


Samuel Hughes: Will the government have an inspector to see that the docks are kept in proper repair.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My idea is to have a
wharfinger who will look after the docks

and will report on the way the business is carried on.


Samuel Hughes: Why not have a provision in the lease requiring the lessee to keep the dock in repair subject to the inspection of the government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a good suggestion.


Richard Blain: This is rather dangerous legislation. Looking over the total revenue from the wharfs of this country and comparing them with the enormous amount expended on these wharfs since this government has been in power, it seems to me that a considerable amount of carelessness is chargeable to some department. The minister has stated, this afternoon, as he has frequently done on the estimates, that there is no revenue from certain wharfs because they have not been handed over by the Public Works Department to his department. There are cases where the Public Works Department has expended large amounts on wharfs which have not been handed over to the Marine and Fisheries Department, and from which there is no revenue to the country, although completed years ago. My hon. friend does not deny that. Well, if it is the nolicy of the government to spend large amounts on wharfs in the public interest, I am not going to complain, provided the money is well expended and the expenditure required in the public interest. No legislation should be passed that would allow the minister to lease these wharfs to any private individual or corporation. I believe the proper policy is for the government to own the wharf, to fix rates of toll and to appoint their own official to look after the business, thus placing everybody who wishes to use the wharf on the same looting. This Bill will allow the minister to select a friend-I am not speaking from a political standpoint-and give him the absolute power over any given wharf. It is true, the minister says the government will fix the rates. But if they fix the rates, why should not they appoint a wharfinger to collect those rates and let the money come into the public treasury? If this is not done, some one company will get control and will squeeze out other people who wish to do business at the wharf. This is already being done at some wharfs in eastern Canada that I could name. It is the public money that has been spent in these works, and the department go so far as to say that they will not expend a dollar of money upon a wharf that is not owned by the government. I would not complain of that if the government would only carry it out in every case-and I am free to say that they do not carry it out in every case. If it is the policy of the government to own these wharfs, to spend every dollar that is spent upon them in construction and repairs, why
not appoint a public official to take charge and give everybody equal opportunities ?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: What case has the minister in mind in which he will be justified in leasing?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The wharfs on the St. Lawrence and great lakes especially. We have been trying to lease these wharfs to municipalities, but so far we have not found the municipalities ready to take charge of them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And never will.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But, though the municipalities are not ready to lease these wharfs, perhaps we can find steamship companies or railway companies that will do so. And the object of this legislation is to extend the existing power to lease to municipalities so as to authorize the lease to shipping or railway companies. Since 1886, we have had legislation authorizing the lease to munici palities or provincial governments, and, except in two cases, this legislation has not been availed of. If we lease to a private company, the department will be relieved of the necessity of looking after these wharfs as closely as it does to-day. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) has drawn attention to the fact that we could continue the existing system


Richard Blain: I did not ask the government to continue the existing system, because it is a very bad one; it allows the Public Works Department to keep control of wharfs for many years instead of handing them over to the Marine and Fisheries Department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Even if handed over to the Marine and Fisheries Department, we might still be in the same position as we are in many cases to-day. In some cases we cannot get anybody to take charge of the wharfs, cannot get wharfingers, because we pay them only a percentage of the receipts.


Mr. LENNOX.: Pay them what is right.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have no money provided in the estimates for that purpose, and so these wharfingers are paid by fees. But the amount collected is so small in many cases and the collection involves so much difficulty that we cannot find people to take these positions. The man who occupies the position of wharfinger is obliged practically to quarrel with all the persons in the locality. He has to ask them for small sums of money, it may be ten cents or it may be as much as a dollar, and it is always a great source of trouble for him. That is why we suggest the commutation of rates with shipping and railway companies, they to pay a certain amount and to receive the right to charge the rates which are charged to-day.


Richard Blain: Does not the statement the hon. minister has just made suggest to him that his government have been expending large amounts of money in small places where the expenditure is absolutely unnecessary?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not so much a question of expense, but because this is a very arduous job and it is very unpleasant for a man living in the locality to be obliged to collect these small sums from his neighbours. Many who have accepted the position of wharfinger have resigned.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think there can be no possible objection to clause 2 of this Bill, and I think it is absolutely necessary to have such a provision. As the minister tells us, it is much easier to collect an annual rental from a steamship company or an individual desiring to use the wharf than to collect tolls on an amount of freight landed on the wharf.


Richard Blain: Does not the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) see that some person will have to deal with the public? And is he prepared to state that it would be better to have a steamship company deal with the public in an arbitrary way-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under clause 2, the company will simply have the use of the wharf; it is not leased to them. But instead of paying a toll for each use made of the wharf they pay a fixed sum. They have no control over the wharf, and the arrangement with them does not affect the user of the wharf by other people. So I do not think there can be any possible objection to the second clause of the Bill.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) is astray. The minister proposes to give the steamship company the exclusive right to collect tolls.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This second clause simply provides that any company or person may pay a fixed annual sum for the use of the wharf.


George Taylor: And he collects the toll.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It does not exclude other people from the use of the wharf.


George Taylor: The company collects in place of the officer who is there-now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


George Taylor: That is the way the minister explained it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, they pay a fixed sum for the use of the wharf. I do not' see why there should be any opposition to this clause. There may be some Mr. BRODEUR.
cases in which it would be well for the department to have the power to lease the wharf, but still I would submit to the minister that such instances would be very few indeed, and that very great care should be exercised by the department in leasing a wharf. A word with regard to the remarks of the hon. member from Peel (Mr. Blain) as to the collection of tolls. There are many cases in which it is very difficult and a hardship to exact toll. The wharf may be erected at a place where there are but a few people, and yet the wharf may be a great necessity and may mean a great deal to the people of that place. It may be a great hardship even to exact tolls from them, and the public as a whole would be pleased to make the expenditure even though they have no hope of receiving revenue by way of tolls.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend suggest how this change will improve that condition of affairs.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not saying that it will improve it, it would operate in the direction which my hon. friend desires. I merely wish to say that the Department of Marine and Fisheries will find many cases where it will be difficult to exact tolls, and where the public will justify the department in giving free use of the wharf to the public.


Mr. BOYCE.: The minister says there is no change in the principle with regard to leasing wharfs; but at the same time he says there is a change with regard to the classes of persons who may use these wharfs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The existing law is found in section 20, chapter 39 of the Revised Statutes, applied to the Department of Public Works, and which Teads as follows:
The minister may enter into arrangements with any provincial government, municipal council, or other local corporation or authority, or with any company in the provinces of Ontario or Quebec, incorporated for the purpose of constructing or holding the works mentioned in this section, or works of like nature in the same province, for the transfer to them of any of the public roads, harbours, rivers or river improvements, bridges or public buildings, whether within or without the limits of the local jurisdiction of such municipal council or other authorities, which it is found convenient to place under their management.
2. On the completion of such arrangements, the Governor in Council may grant and, by so granting, transfer and convey forever or for any term of years, all or any of such roads, harbours, rivers and river improvements, bridges or public buildings, to such provincial government, municipal council or other local authority or company, upon such terms and conditions as are agreed upon; and

the said governments, municipal councils or other local authorities may enter into such arrangements and may take and hold any works so transferred.
So here is a principle which has been embodied in our legislation for 25 or 30 years, but so far it has not been taken advantage of by the Public Works Department. As my hon. friend is aware, after a wharf is constructed it may be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries to be administered. Then we have a law in our department which is to be found in the Revised Statutes, chap. 12, sec. 16, providing that we may lease these wharfs to municipal councils. In this case provincial governments are not mentioned. This legislation has never been taken advantage of except m two cases; no municipal council has been willing to lease and take charge of these wharfs. When the legislation was introduced in 1886 it was thought that municipal councils would be willing to take advantage of this legislation, but they have not done so. We are considering the policy of extending this privilege to some other persons who probably would take more interest in the administration of these wharfs, and we thought that shipping companies and railway companies might do so if we introduced into the Act the same provision that exists with regard to the Public Works Department. That is the reason why we are extending this legislation, that is why we are asking power to lease, not only to municipal councils, but also to shipping and railway companies. Perhaps they will not take advantage of it : but it may be that some public body will take advantage of this legislation if they are allowed to do so.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Now the minister has made it clear. This is not an extension of the same principle, but it is an entire alteration of the principle with Tegard to dealing with such piers and wharfs as are handed over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The minister will see there is a vast difference between leasing a wharf to a provincial government, thereby putting that wharf within the control of a government for the benefit of all the people, and giving the minister power to put that wharf under the jurisdiction of a steamboat. or a railway company, or a private individual. It is rather a dangerous invasion of a public right which is given under the old section, and one which I think, as the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) says, should be exercised with extreme caution. My hon. friend says he proposes to apply this to wharfs on the great lakes. I am particularly interested there. My hon. friend will see that if he applies that principle to wharfs on the great lakes 140	1 1
as he does to any other part of Canada, it would be liable to grave abuses, particularly where there are few transportation companies, and these are operating where traffic is small and where distances are great. Where possibly a transportation company may be the only Targe corporation using a wharf, the power may be open to serious abuses. Once give a steamboat or a railway corporation, or a person, any vested rights, any exclusive rights, subject to whatever conditions or restrictions the minister may see fit to impose, and he thereby excludes to some extent the rights that the general public enjoyed. For instance, let the minister give to a local steamboat company along the shores of Lake Superior, or along the rivers, the exclusive privilege by lease of a pier, and that .steamboat company will at once begin to dictate terms to the public, will begin to act in a drastic and sometimes tyrannical manner towards the public, and subject the public to serious inconveniences which may not come to the notice of the minister for a considerable time. I do not see any necessity for departing from the principle which was laid down in 1886, and which is referred to by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). Let these wharfs be public utilities, let the public have equal rights with respect to them; let John Jones have the same rights to a wharf as a steamboat company or a railway company, and do not let it be possible, if John Jones wishes to use that wharf for his little traffic, for him to run foul of a steamboat company, or a transportation company, or some person, whose business is served by that wharf, and be told forsooth that they have a lease in that wharf from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It would involve a great deal of correspondence with Ottawa, from a long distance, before the matter could be set right by the minister. There is a danger in the extent of power which is granted to the minister.
Another thing occurs to me. There are appropriations for new wharfs on Lake Superior, and is it not competent, under the first part of section 16, for the Department of Public Works to make appropriations for the building of government wharfs and piers in places where they would substantially serve the interest of only one individual, or one corporation trading in the vicinity, such as a lumber firm, or a merchant carrying on extensive business in the vicinity. When a wharf is erected and paid for by the government it may then be leased to a lumber or transportation company or a private merchant, say for 20 years, at such rental and under such terms and conditions as the minister sees fit to impose so that no monopoly of that wharf may be given to the detriment of the people of the district.



I simply wish to point out the dangers of abuse under the proposed legislation.


Haughton Lennox: Do we collect tolls from all government wharfs or are there some from which we collect no tolls?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There have been transferred from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Marine and Fisheries 416 wharfs and we have been collecting revenue from 224 of these. In some cases we cannot get a man to act as wharfinger as his duties may involve him in difficulties with his neighbours. That of course is generally in small places where there is little business.


John Allister Currie: How about the wharfs on the Great Lakes?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are the best we have, we have the least trouble with them.


Haughton Lennox: Where the revenue is so small that you cannot get a wharfinger, I would suggest that it would be better to make the wharf entirely free for the benefit of the people in the district. Do not let us go into this partnership business with companies and individuals in regard to the building of wharfs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We will draw the line.


Haughton Lennox: I would draw the line more strictly than the government has been drawing it in reference to the build ing of wharfs. Wharfs have been built at many places where they are not needed and I would suggest that in these places too where the revenue is only $25 or $50 a year, the wharfs should be made free. There are many of these unnecessary wharfs and whatever benefit there is to be obtained from them should go to the public and not to the middleman, the intermediary, the friend of the government. The minister speaks as if this Bill were simply enlarging the scope of section 16 of chapter 112 of the Harbours and Piers Act, extending a system that has been in vogue for many years. As a matter of fact we are adopting an entirely new principle. The original Act provides that where the annual receipts from any wharf for the three years previous have not exceeded $100 the minister may lease the wharf to the municipality within which it is situated, for a term not exceeding three years. The proposed amendment permits the Governor in Council to lease any wharf, whether the lease be $100 or $10,000 for any length of time to any company or person under any conditions they see fit to impose and they need not make any provision as to whether the public shall or shall not be accommodated or whether the tolls shall be reasonable. The government is not bound to do that, because under section 2, before the matter goes to council, Mr. BOYCH.
the minister has the alternative of entering into an agreement, in eases where there is not sufficient revenue to support a wharfinger, to divide the revenue with the company or person to whom the wharf is leased. The minister may divide that little pittance and he may say to the company: I will commute the rates with you and there shall be an amount payable yearly by you and we shall have to engage a wharfinger annually as to the balance. I am entirely opposed to anything of this kind. I am speaking of it more because there is a principle involved. If we build railways and pay for them let us control them; if we build canals and the people pay for them let the people have them; if we build a transcontinental railway and the people dip down into their pockets and provide all the funds it is unfair that the company should reap the reward. This is just a means of having a certain amount of truckery that we don't want. If the people supply the money to build these wharfs let the people have the accommodation they afford. If a wharf is not necessary do not build it, but if you do build it let it be used in the public interest and not in the interest of middlemen and hangers on, which would be the result of this legislation. This will result in a large army of people coming and pestering the ministers and members to build more wharfs. Lumber companies that have timber away back in the interior which they cannot get out will want the government to build wharfs for them.


Mr. PORTER.: As in the Grande Vallee case.


Haughton Lennox: Grande Vallee is one of them and there are others. They will get the government to build a wharf on the understanding that as soon as it is built it shall be controlled by them for a nominal rental, and the public shall have the pleasure of paying, and the private company shall have the pleasure of getting all the benefit.


Mr. SMYTH.: I wish to point out another danger that must occur if the government wharfs are handed over to private individuals. My riding borders on one of the great lakes and even at present while the wharfs are under the control of the government we have this difficulty:	That a
vessel is lying at a particular point in the wharf and occupying a particular space, and for reasons of their own they do not want to move her far enough in or far enough out to allow another vessel to lie at that side of the wharf where it would have protection from storms. I have seen the government wharfingers having to throw the lines off a boat and let her go adrift if they refuse to move her up or

down. If that wharf were controlled by the owners of the vessel that was lying there you could see what difficulty the owner of another vessel would have in getting his vessel to the wharf. That is a danger you have to take into account in leasing these wharfs to private individuals. Then again, a lumber company could so pile up that wharf with lumber and keep it there for storage all summer that the public would be greatly hampered in the general use of that wharf. I know something about these difficulties because I have been up against them myself, and I hope the minister will not hand the wharfs over to private individuals.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: After hearing what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite I think we should not go the length of giving private individuals the right to lease these wharfs. It would probably bring more trouble on the department than it has now, and I would be willing to strike out the provision about leasing to private individuals.


William Ross Smyth: And to companies as well.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The transportation companies are in a different position because they are serving the public. On Lake Erie, the Canadian Pacific Railway has the exclusive use of a wharf and I think it should be leased to them for the special purpose they use it for. In the same way the Grand Trunk has a wharf at Parry Sound which is used by them exclusively.


John Allister Currie: You would not have to pay a wharfinger in that case at all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, yes, we will require wharfingers.


Mr. PERLEY.: There is no provision in the Bill giving the Railway Commission or any other body supervision of the tolls which may be charged by railway companies on these wharfs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: One of the conditions of the lease would be that they should charge the rates provided by the order in council.


George Halsey Perley: But under this section, as I read it, the department would have the right to build a new wharf and lease it to a steamship company or a railway company without any provision for maintaining the rights of the general public.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the intention. In cases in which we have leased wharfs to the municipal councils they have been required to charge the same rates as were charged by the public wharfs under the control of the department. It is intended to continue that system.
140i	. ! i | i !


George Taylor: The Department of Public Works controls a certain number of wharfs and the Department of Marine and Fisheries controls others, and let me suggest that all the wharfs should be transferred to the Marine Department. Then, the Minister of Marine should make out a statement by next session of parliament of the total number of wharfs owned by the government, and if there are special ones which he wants to lease to certain companies let him bring down a Bill empowering him to do so. I fancy he has not studied those as thoroughly as he ought to have done because he now offers to withdraw a portion of it. Let him come down and place a statement of all the wharfs the government owns before the House. Then let him propose legislation dealing with a certain number that the government ought to lease to steamship and railway companies and make regulations governing the whole pf the balance as to what the rates shall be, defining those that will be under wharfingers and those that the government will allow to be used free of rates by the public. It would be better to come to a business arrangement with regard to the whole system of wharfs and introduce new legislation with regard to all the wharfs owned by the country. I think that would be a better plan than perhaps getting us into trouble by passing this legislation now when neither side of the House thoroughly understands it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think there would be any trouble, because, as far as the wharfs which are to-day under the control of the Department of Public Works are ccncerned, legislation similar to this has been in existence and has not been taken advantage of. However, in view of the suggestion which has been made by th^ hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), and the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce), I think we might make a modification in this Bill. Perhaps some abuses would be created if we were given power to lease to private persons. Lumber companies have been referred to, and perhaps these companies would like to have the power to lease these wharfs. Possibly that should not be done. I am willing that they should not have the power to lease these wharfs notwithstanding the fact that this power has been in existence under the Public Works Act and that no abuses seem to have resulted from it. But in view of the discussion which has taken place, I realize that some abuses might occur. This is an experiment in order to meet the situation which exists to-day. To-day the situation with regard to these wharfs is far from being satisfactory. We have legislation in the Department of Marino and Fisheries providing that these wharfs should be leased to municipal councils, but it has not resulted as we had ex-

peeted it would. This clause has been on the statute-book for twenty-three years and it has not been taken advantage of except in two cases. Now, we are proposing to extend this power to shipping and railway companies and also to private individuals. But, in view of the discussion which has taken place we might drop out the portion which concerns private persons and confine it to municipal councils, harbour commissioners, shipping and railway companies. I am sure that with the conditions that are put into this law there will be no abuses in so far as the public are concerned, and it will give the department a better means of administering these wharfs.


George Taylor: Let me tell the minister what happened in our town. We had two or three private wharfs. A railway company acquired control of them and nobody could land at the town without going over the railway property. They, of course, charged for every trunk and everything else that passed over these wharfs, and the result was that in order to satisfy the requirements of the people the town itself had to spend $2,000 or $3,000 to build a public wharf. They have that wharf now free to the citizens of the town. That might happen in a number of towns where my hon. friend would rent wharfs to shipping or railway companies. They might collect wharf rates where people have been in the habit of using the government property at lower rates or practically free. The railway and shipping companies will not allow this. 1 think it would be better for the minister to look into the whole question of the wharfs controlled by the Public Works Department and his own department, ascertain which of these wharfs can be properly leased to railway and shipping companies and then let the government lay down a tariff that they cannot exceed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is what is to be done.


George Taylor: No, this does not make provision for that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In case of a wharf being leased it will be provided that they will not be able to charge more than the order in council allows. The company leasing the wharf will have the administration of it and they will probably relieve the department of the repairs which appertain to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why would not the second clause meet the case of railway and steamship companies?


William Wright: I think the clause giving power to the minister to lease to railway and shipping companies is a most dangerous clause. The public might be affected very injuriously by the power which would be conferred upon a steamboat company to charge exorbitant rates as against any other Mr. BRODEUR.
steamboat company using that wharf. I think that provision ought to be made, if you are going to lease a wharf to a steamboat company, that other companies shall have equal powers to utilize that wharf. I think there should be no charge for all small shipping as against farmers and others who may have occasion to go over a leased wharf. If there is no limitation of this kind it will shut them out from using a leased wharf when they desire to go to the town to do their shopping or attend to their business. These people have to get over the wharf some way, and the steamboat company which has a lease from the government will be able to charge them a toll which may be prohibitive. I would like to ask the minister a question with regard to the present condition of affairs. Do the wharfingers have to submit the toll charged to the minister for his approval?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Orders in council have been passed at different times giving the rates which are to be charged on these wharfs. My hon. friend speaks of the danger of a company charging exorbitant rates for the use of a wharf by other persons. There is no danger because it has always been provided in the law and it is the intention to nrovide in this law that they shall not have the right to charge anything more than the rates provided for in the order in council. Everybody will always be on the same footing.


William Wright: I see very great danger in handing over the exclusive control of a wharf to any individual or steamship company. They can go up to a whaTf, transfer their goods over it and shut out every other man. Even if another company had a right to the wharf under a lease it would be almost impossible to enforce that right. I have seen these wharfs built by the government and supposed to be under the control of the Public Works Department, utilized by aisingle steamboat company to the detriment of all others. I have even seen them used for the piling of a hundred cords of wood which may be allowed to remain there for weeks and months and the people have to go around and land as best they can on the river frontage. I do not think a steamboat company should have any lease that would give them greater power than any other company or individual.	i


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In a case where there is only one shipping company that goes to a wharf it would be advantageous to have it leased to that company in order that the company might look after the wharf.


William Wright: In all the northern waters there are gasoline launches, canoes, row-boats, and lumbermen's boats, and craft of all kinds, which might not be described as steamboats, and which might be put in the unenviable position of being

refused landing facilities by the steamboat company in charge of the wharf.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It could not do that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I agree to some extent with hon. gentlemen in their opinion against the policy of leasing wharfs, and I do not see why the second clause does not give the department ample power to deal with any case such as that described by the minister in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway. If the Governor in Council is to be given power under clause 16, there should be some amendment to that Bill in order that the public rights be more amply protected. There should be some terms and conditions defined. I suggest that the hon. minister, after the discussion we have had this afternoon, should let the Bill stand over in order that some amendment may be devised to clause 16. It is rather difficult to draft one off-hand.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no objection to having the Bill stand in order to see whether an amendment might not be drafted to protect the public against any possible danger. Our intention is not to give any undue privilege to anybody, but simply to obtain the power to better administer the wharfs under our control.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I would call attention to the fact that the proposition may be very serious to Manitoba. We have in Selkirk a wharf with about 2,000 feet frontage, and if it be possible to lease that to one shipping company, a dangerous monopoly might be created. Under the present arrangement, there is one company, which has a large business in lumber and fish, which practically monopolizes the wharf to-day. There is so much lumber piled on it at times, that it is almost impossible to walk down the docks. I do not know whether it has been passed over to the Marine Department or not.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not see it in my list.


George Henry Bradbury: There is the trouble. I presume it is under the control of the Public Works Department, and the public have no recourse against the inconvenience from which they are suffering.


John Allister Currie: There is no mention of it at all in the public accounts.
Mr PLAIN I presume we get no revenue from it at all. If this Bill becomes law, there are two or three companies doing a large business at this wharf arid the minister will be compelled to make a selection among them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, my intention is simply to provide for places where there is no competition, and where consequently no one company can be given preference to the detriment of another. In cases where there is only one company, it would be an improvement to give that company a lease under the control of the department and on the condition specified in the lease.


Richard Blain: Would not that be creating a monopoly?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, because there would be only one company. Where there are two or three companies, there would be no necessity to exercise the power given by that Bill.


George Henry Bradbury: Who controls the wharf at Selkirk? There is a wharfinger there who is paid some $300 a year. Is he paid by the government or the steamboat men?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know about that. That wharf is not on my list.


George Henry Bradbury: There is nothing in the blue-book to indicate who pays this man.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know about this wharf. I will make inquiries.


John Allister Currie: So far as the records show, there is no wharf there at all-no account of it in either the Public Works or the Marine Department. Money was voted to build a wharf there, but there i3 no revenue, no wharfinger appointed, no further record of it. It may be like the armouries in Toronto-nobody seems to know who owns them or what department holds them. The Public Works Department seems to get a certain distance with these works, and even to finish them, but without turning them over to any department to take charge of them. There is no account of any revenue from the wharf at Selkirk. I approve of the proposal of the minister to have these wharfs taken over and administered by his department. It should have been done long ago. As to the matter of tolls, in case of a lease, to prevent exorbitant rates, could not the matter be left to the Railway Commission to deal with on complaint of parties who feel aggrieved? Other things of this kind are left to the Railway Board, and perhaps this suggestion may meet with the approval of the minister.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the case of a railway it might be done, but not in the others. These rates are fixed by the Governor in Council.


John Allister Currie: I was suggesting to the minister that if a man leased a wharf he might be permitted to make his own

schedule, subject t-o the control of the Railway Commission.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The rates would be fixed by the order in council.


Haughton Lennox: We have lost two hours over a Bill which might have been put through in half an hour if proper preparation had been made. The minister tells us that this is an experiment. We do not want experiments. This matter had not come under public attention, but now that it has come before the House a certain amount of attention has been drawn to it. Bills have often been introduced in this House and allowed to stand over for a year. If that were done in the present case, no harm would result and good would be done. I can well understand that the minister wants to get the power he is asking for. But first let him get control of all the wharfs. Between now and next session let him take an inventory and let his officers report as to every wharf. Then next session let him bring down to parliament the information that parliament has a right to have, that members may know what they are doing. Then let the minister bring down, not a statute such as this, which is virtually a direction to the government to do whatever they like in the matter, but a statute which embodies the main conditions under which these wharfs should be dealt with. As to the lease, let us have not a mere promise, vague and unwritten, but the necessary conditions of the lease, so tliat in this statute, as in other statutes, the terms upon which this public property is to be handed over should be known and understood. Among other things, that the rights of the public may be safeguarded let it be provided that after the wharf is under the control of any lessee all persons should have the right to use it upon reasonable specified terms. With this before us we can put through a statute in half an hour, and do it intelligently, and do it in a way to respond to the duties we owe to our people. As it is now, we cannot do that. I ask the minister to let this stand over until next session. None of these wharfs will run away-of course, some of them may be swept away-in the meantime-


John Allister Currie: Business will not stand still. If the minister is seized of the situation, he can bring down amendments to the Bill this session.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: After the discussion I can realize what my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) is asking.


Haughton Lennox: I do not agree with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie). I think that hasty legislation is worse than no legislation. The law now on the statute-book has been there un-


John Allister Currie: changed for twenty-five years, as I understand it. No great harm will be done by waiting another year. The minister, if necessary, can make temporary arrangements with parties in the meantime.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no power.


Haughton Lennox: Ministers often do things they have no power to do. It can be done all right. I appeal to the minister, in the interests of the public to let the matter stand. It will go to the public, and their attention will be attracted to it. Next session we can have before us a great deal of information which we have not now. I venture the opinion that very few members have any instructions from their constituents in regard to the matter. The public generally do not know there is such a Bill before the House. But, with the information that we ought to have, next session we can put through a good Bill and do it quickly.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 90) to create a Department of External Affairs.-Mr. Murphy-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
John Allister Currie: I understand that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) wished to speak on this Bill when it came before the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was not
aware of that, but if it is desired, we can postpone the consideration of it.


John Allister Currie: I understood the leader of the opposition to say that he would have something to say about it when it came up.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) will be here after dinner, and the Bill might stand over until then.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to enter into a contract or cc ntracts for a term not exceeding ten years with any individual or company, for the performance of a steamship service between a port or ports in Canada and a French port ci ports, on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council deems expedient, and to grant therefor a subsidy not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars a year, based upon a minimum service of fifteen round voyages a year, and a subsidy therefor not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, and so in﻿4437

proportion for a more frequent service.-Mr. Erodeur.
Haughton Lennox: Would the minister explain how these two sums work out ? There is first a subsidy of $200,000 a year, based, as I understand it upon fifteen round voyages.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If my hon friend (Mr. Lennox) will permit me, I will explain it. Last year we passed legislation of the same character as this; but this year, instead of taking power to make only one contract, we take power to make one or several contracts. Last year legislation was passed for the purpose of enabling the Governor in Council to pay a subsidy to the Allen Line, which is doing the service between France and Canada, and it was contended that the fact that we had made a contract for only one year precluded the government from making another contract. We did not intend to make a contract for a long period, in view of the fact that we did not know whether the French parliament would ratify the treaty. But now that the treaty has been passed by the Senate, who were formerly objecting to it, we expect it will come into force very soon. We therefore take power this year, not only to make a contract for the present year, but to make a contract for a period not exceeding ten years. Then, whereas we provided by statute last year a sum of $5,555 for each trip, this year we propose to improve the service, and for that purpose to give a mimimum sum of $6,666.66 per trip. Those are the two changes made; first, we take power to renew the contract at discretion, instead of being obliged to come to parliament next year for new; authority; and in the second place, instead of giving $5,500 a year, we propose to give $6,600.


Haughton Lennox: On that basis, for 15 trips, it will be in all $200,000?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not notice anything about the size of the boats, or their capacity, or the tonnage. Should there not be provision that the boats shall be of a certain tonnage, and some guarantee of the quality of the service?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The conditions my hon. friend mentions have never been heretofore put in the Bill. It is provided however, that instead of having a 10 knot service as at present, we will have a 12 knot service.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You think it is unnecessary to specify any minimum of tonnage for the boats?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is provided for in (the contract. The hon. gentleman will
find the conditions of the contract in the report of the Trade and Commerce Department.


William Wright: I presume the purpose is to promote trade between France and Canada as a consequence of the present French treaty. Could the minister tell us if France is giving a like amount, or what amount is she giving on her part to promote commerce between the two countries.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The French government proceeds in a different manner from ours, it encourages shipping from its ports by the payment of a certain sum of money to vessels plying to other ports. In Canada we subsidize a mail service between different countries and our own, but in France they subsidize the boats themselves. I am told, however, but not officially, that perhaps the French government will put on a line of their own between Canada and France.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I assume the object of this subsidy is to promote trade between France and Canada. We wish to find better markets in other countries for the products of the Canadian farms and industries. I notice that the difference between our exports to France and our imports from France last year is very great. If we are going to derive no greater trade advantage than we have done in the past, it seems to me that we are paying a very large sum of money for something that is not of great value. I notice, in the answer made by the Minister of Customs to a question of the hon. member for North Toronto, that for the year ending 31st March, 1908, our imports from France totalled $10,251,717, while our exports amounted to only $1,806,732. Now, it doesjseem to me that we are simply providing a means of furnishing a market in Canada for the people of France, instead of doing what I think we ought to do, trying to find a market in France for the products of Canada. If there is to be no great advantage by reason of the French treaty-and I must confess that I have very little faith that we aTe going to derive any material advantage, even if we get the minimum tariff of France-if we are not going to change the relative difference between imports and exports very much, Canada is certainly paying a very high price for the privilege of trading with France. We are practically paying $200,000 a year to enable France to come into our markets to the extent of $10,251,717, while all the advantage we get in return is that we are able to send to France $1,806,732. I think the aim of the government should be to find new markets for Canada, instead of continuing the policy of finding new markets in Canada for every other country in the world. I think thi

government has absolutely failed in carrying out the promises that were made to us many years ago, that they were going to find new markets for Canada. We have heard a great deal about the sixty million market in the United States, but practically the promise made in that respect has never materialized. We heard a good deal about the Japanese treaty; I am not aware that we have secured, for the products of the soil at any rate, any advantage from that treaty, although we have given to Japan very material advantages in our markets. The same in regard to the French treaty. Whilst we permit the people of France to trade with us on certain terms under this French treaty, we extend the same terms to some twelve or thirteen other countries from which we receive no concessions. We should think seriously before we throw away $200,000 a year for such a very small advantage to Canada. I think we are paying very dear for the privilege of trading with the French republic. Surely the government must have some assurance that our market in France is going to be very materially increased before they would feel warranted in asking parliament to pay out $200,000 a year for such a trifling advantage. I have not looked at the schedules of the French treaty during the past year, but my recollection is that there is very little in those schedules that will inure to the benefit of Canada or enable us to get into their markets on favourable terms. Their tariff is so high that I do not think we would be able to get over it, and I certainly hesitate to support a resolution to give away $200,000 a year largely for the purpose of finding a market for French products in Canada. It is easy to throw open our doors and ask people to come and trade with us, but surely the policy of the government should be rather to find markets for Canadian products than to open the Canadian market to the goods of every other country. We have a British preference now which provides a market in Canada for the products of Great Britain and nothing was ever done by the government to assist us in getting a better entry into the British market. The Minister of Agriculture even failed to secure the removal of the embargo on cattle, which would have been a tremendous boon to the people of Canada. I doubt if the minister will be able to do anything along that line owing to the stand he and other members of the government, especially the Prime Minister, have taken, in educating the people of Great Britain to believe that we do not want anything in return for the preference.
It looks to me almost as if we were making a free gift to France. Are we to pay $200,000 a year to enable us to give them that gift absolutely free? Not only are we going to open our doors to them and furnish a market for their products, but we are Mr. HENDERSON.
practically going to pay the transportation charges on their products into our country. What material advantage is that to the people of Canada? Even suppose we do get wine a few cents a gallon cheaper, we have the grapes in this country and we could manufacture the light wines in sufficient quantities for our own use. There may be a few items like silk which are put down at a low rate of duty, so that we could get them more cheaply. But silks are not very expensive in Canada and the people of Canada could afford to buy them on the ordinary terms. I do not think it would pay us to give a bounty of $200,000 a year in order to get silk and wines and a few other articles cheaper from France than we have been getting them. I cannot see. my way to support this resolution. I think we are paying too much for the whistle, and I hope the minister will have some explanation to give to us which will show that there will be an advantage to Canada commensurate with the large amount of money we are paying. In ten years this subsidy would amount to $2,000,000, a very considerable sum. We talk about millions now as though they did not amount to anything, but we have to provide a great many millions in order to carry on our government and we must be careful of our millions because when they are multiplied by tens they become a serious charge. I hope the minister, before pressing this resolution, will be able to show us that we are going to get something in return for the large amount we are called upon to pay out.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the government did not think that this resolution would improve the commercial relations between Canada and France, we would certainly not have introduced it. This is not a new policy, it has been in existence for many years. The first legislation subsidizing a line of steamships between Canada and France was passed in 1884. The Act of that year provided for a weekly service between Canada and Great Britain, calling at a French port, and offered a subsidy of $500,-
000.	In 1894 another statute was passed increasing that subsidy to $750,000. In 1896 provision was made for a weekly service with a subsidy of $750,000 and a section was added providing for a five-years' contract, and a fortnightlv service between Canada, France and Belgium at a yearly subsidy of $50,000. This was increased to $100,000 in 1901. Nothing was done even under this offer of $100,000 until a few years after this subsidy had been on the statute book. At last the Allan line agreed to undertake that service and for some years past they have been performing it.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: They were doing it previously for $100,000 a year.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, but they were giving only a tri-weekly service with slow

boats, and the proposal now is, to increase the payment for each trip from $5,500 to $6,600.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: Is the French government aiding in this subsidy ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The policy of the French government is to subsidize the construction of the steamers, but they have no subsidy similar to that which we pay in Canada. Some years ago there was informal negotiation with a view of the French government contributing to this subsidy but the question came up as to under what lias the ships should sail and it was found impossible to reach an agreement. My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) has spoken of the trade between Canada and France, and I might point out that the treaty of 1893 included but a very few articles which were subject to the French minimum tariff.


Mr. DANIEL.: What ports will be served by this line ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Quebec and Montreal in summer, and St. John in winter.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What ports on the other side ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Havre. UndeT the treaty of 1897 with France, a very long list of Canadian goods will be allowed into France under the minimum tariff, and in return we have given to some 80 articles of French production the benefit of the intermediate tariff. My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) is not sure that we will derive any benefit from the French treaty but I hold a contrary opinion. In view of the fact that before the treaty of 1907 Canadian goods generally had to pay the very high maximum tariff and came into competition with goods from countries contiguous to France which paid only the minimum tariff, it was impossible for us to do any extensive trade with France. It is natural to expect, now that Canadian goods have the benefit of the minimum tariff, that there will be a laTge development of Canadian trade with France. Indeed, since the establishment of this steamship line, and notwithstanding all the difficulties that had to be encountered in the past, we have increased our trade to some extent. There are many commodities which we might export to France with profit. There are some other articles of fish that we could export to France. Now we are having the benefit of the minimum tariff on our fish we may also expect to sell more of that product in France.


David Henderson: How much lower is the rate on lobsters than was the rate under the tariff of 1893?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is the same.


David Henderson: Well then we do not expect to get any advantage.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, but I was telling my hon. friend that under the treaty of 1893 we have been exporting lobsters there and we may expect, when we are enjoying the minimum tariff, not only on that article but also on 150 other articles, that the development of trade which has taken place in regard to that specific article will also occur with respect to the other articles which are mentioned in the treaty.


Samuel Hughes: Could the minister tell us the value of the lobsters shipped to France ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: $500,000 or $600,000 worth, if not more.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Over $600,000 worth.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think perhaps it is over $600,000 worth.


David Henderson: Then that would be about one-third of the whole shipment to France.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Precisely, but my hon. friend has not caught the argument that I am trying to make. I say that we have been able, due to the fact that we have a minimum tariff on this article, to develop a large trade with France. Now, _we have the minimum tariff not only on this article but on 150 other articles which we are producing in this country. Take, for instance, cheese, butter and other products of the farm.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: What is the tariff on cheese and butter ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On cheese, 25 francs maximum and 12 and 15 francs minimum. The tariff on butter is 20 francs minimum and 30 francs maximum. It was absolutely impossible for us to compete with regard to butter or cheese with Denmark which is enjoying the benefit of the minimum tariff.


Richard Blain: I would like the minister to state whether the government have made any calculation as to the quantity of farm products that we may expect in the coming years to export from Canada to France under the new treaty?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether any calculations have been made by the Department of Finance or not. I have not got them under my hand, but I may mention a case which was brought to my notice when I was in France two years ago in connection with this treaty showing the great advantage it would be to us to enjoy the benefit of the minimum tariff. It has reference to the export of hams. I got this information from a gentleman _ who had been importing from Canada to France. He told me that at one time he was doing a very fine business with France because there was only one duty. Ham was not enjoying any minimum tariff so that

we were in the same position as competing European countries which are neighbours of France. He told me that in 1903, I think, they changed their tariff in France and put on hams a maximum and minimum tariff. The result was that the countries which had treaties with France, like Austria, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Italy, could export their ham at the minimum rate while we had to pay the maximum rate. This business was lost to the Canadians and this firm which had established a very fine business between France and Canada was obliged to cease business in that line. What is the situation under the new treaty? Under the new treaty we enjoy the benefit of the minimum tariff so that we will be in the same position in France as that occupied by our European competitors. We expect to develop a business which has been absolutely killed by the absence of a treaty.


George Taylor: Perhaps my hon. friend could get these statistics, if they are made up in the Finance Department or in the Trade and Commerce Department, end give them when the Bill is under discussion and let us pass the resolution and have the Bill introduced before six o'clock.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will inquire in the Department of Trade and Commerce whether they have these figures.


Mr. BARR.: When the treaty was passed the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) (promised to make an effort to prevent the importation of absinthe. I would like to know if any progress has been made along that line or if there is any hope of that change being made. I noticed a short time ago that Germany had taken steps to prohibit the importation of absinthe into their country. Also with regard to the importation of wines, there is great danger that we may ruin our own wine business because we can raise all the grapes we require. It would be important to know whether steps have been taken in these directions.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We probably will have to introduce this session some legislation with regard to the approval of the change which has been made in the treaty and I will draw the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to the question which has been put by my hon. friend from Dufferin.


John Barr: I hope the minister will do so in very strong terms for I do think the danger from the introduction of absinthe is greater than any advantage which we receive from this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it contemplated to have any control over the freight rates in connection with these boats?
Mr. BROrEUR.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There has been an undertaking by the company and it was stipulated in the contract which was passed last year that the rates between Havre and Canada shall be the same as those between Havre and New York.


Mr. McKENZIE.: Before this resolution passes, I think this would be an opportune time to bring to the notice of the hon. minister and the government the great necessity which exists for a port of call in Nova Scotia for those lines in the summer time. Take this proposed line of steamers which ply between Montreal and Quebec and some port in France, we are told by the hon. minister that fish, particularly lobsters, is one of our largest exports to France. It would therefore be a great boon to Cape Breton and the coast of Nova Scotia if we had a port somewhere in the Province to which these steamers would call and on which we could ship our fish and other exports to France, where there' is an excellent market for them. These steamers will pass by our doors practically within a few miles, and it will be too bad if provision be not made for them to call at North Sydney. At that port there is considerable French trade. It is the headquarters of the French trawlers, a trade which has only been developed the last few years. These steamers also take a large quantity of coal, and it would be much cheaper for them to purchase it at North Sydney rather than at Montreal or Quebec. If they were to call at North Sydney, they would there get their bunker much more expeditiously and cheaply, which would be an inducement to them to call there. What I have said regarding this new line between Canada and France also applies to the steamers plying between Canada and Mexico. In the maritime provinces, we have no chance of communicating with those lines unless they call somewhere on the coast of Nova Scotia, and North Sydney is 'the nearest point and not at all out of their way. The English mail has been landed there, and if that does not put the mail steamers much out of their course, the delay would be still less of a disadvantage in the case of freight boats. Besides North Sydney being the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway, it u'ould become the point of shipping for the whole province of Nova Scotia and the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island during the summer thus giving to those provinces the advantage of the French market. In winter of course the steamers will go to St. John, but in the summer we have no better means of accommodating them than by their calling at North Sydney, which would give us the advantage of shipping to the French and the Mexican markets, and give them the advantage of cheaper coal. I do not

think I would be justified in allowing this opportunity to pass without bringing this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Resoution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Mr. BRODEUR moved for leave to 'introduce Bill (No. 146) to amend the Act relating to Ocean Steamship Subsidies.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
At six oclock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 59) to incorporate the Victoria and Barkley Sound Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).
Mr. SPEAKER.: Is it the intention of the House that these Bills be not proceeded with in the absence of the promoters?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


David Henderson: In the case of the Bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Claude Macdonell) my hon. friend requested that it should be proceeded with.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
(Bill No. 129) for the relief of Evelyn Martha Keller.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 132) respecting certain letters patent of Franklin Montgomery Gray.- Mr. Rankin.
Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Canadian Medical Association.-Mr. Roche.
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of Frank Parsons.

Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 133) to incorporate the Kootenay and Alberta Railway Company. - Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 138) respecting the Quebec Oriental Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 139) respecting the Ottawa Fire Insurance Company, and to change its name to Ottawa Assurance Company.-Mr. Perley.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 110) respecting agricultural fertilizers.-Mr. Templeman. Read the second time and House went into committee there-cn.
On section 1,
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: The present law respecting agricultural fertilizers, which has been on the statute-book, I believe, for twenty years, has been found inoperative and ineffective to secure the object for which it was passed, that is, to^protect the purchasers of agricultural fertilizers. It is proposed to repeal the existing Act absolutely, replacing it by the Bill now before the House. The present law requires the manufacturers to submit their fertilizers to the Department of Inland Revenue for analysis. The Department of Inland Revenue publishes in bulletins the results of these analyses. These bulletins are supposed to inform the farmers or purchasers of the quality of the fertilizers. The manufacturers are required by the law to send in their samples for analysis in the month of January. As a matter of fact the samples this year did not arrive in the department very'much before February or March and before the issue of the bulletin in April this year the farmers had already purchased all they required for the year and the work ot the department was useless.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why?


William Templeman: Because the analysis was made too late.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Act provides that they shall.


William Templeman: But they don't do it; and even if it comes in in the month of January, the bulletin could not be got out in time to place the evidence before the purchasers and enable them to judge from the analyses the value of the fertilizers they are purchasing. At all events, it has been found after years of experience that the issuance of these bulletins, with the analyses of the department, has not accomplished the object for which they were issued, that is, to inform the farmers of the character of the fertilizers placed on the market. The new Act is a radical change. We do not propose to analyse for the manufacturers. The law as it exists has been altogether in the interest of the manufacturer rather than of the purchaser. The department has been analysing these samples all these years for $3, whereas it costs the department $7 to make an analysis of a fertilizer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was this chapter of the old Act?


William Templeman: I think it is 132. We propose under the Act now before the House to require the manufacturers to register their brand with the department, they will receive a number, and they will sell their brand of fertilizer under a distinctive number. That is necessary

from the fact that many of the fertilizers now on the market have names very similar, so that in the event of prosecutions for failing to live up to the guarantee they are supposed to give of the merit of their fertilizers, it is hard to distinguish what particular fertilizer was bought, because there are so many of practically the same name. It is proposed that every manufacturer should receive a registered number under which he will sell his fertilizer, the trade mark and the name of the brand. We propose that he shall himself place on the label or tag of the fertilizer a guaranteed analysis of the component parts of the article; that is, the manufacturer shall put on the parcel, bag or box, as it may be, a guaranteed analysis of the fertilizer. That is the main principle of the Bill. Then when it is on the market we can collect samples, and by analysis ascertain whether the manufacturer is living up to his guaranteed analysis as published by himself.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Did the minister say that the manufacturers' goods were only analysed once a year?


William Templeman: No, I did not say that. Under the proposed Bill the manufacturer will place upon the bag, or box, or tin can of the fertilizer he is selling, a label with the name of the brand, the registration number, the name and address of the manufacturer, and an analysis as guaranteed by him, which analysis will show the percentages. A guaranteed analysis means the valuation of a fertilizer in terms of its contents of phosphoric acid, nitrogen and potash. They would place that on the label, and they must live up to that guaranteed analysis. All the fertilizers they place on the market must be of the value which they guarantee. Samples will be collected from the dealers from time to time, and will be analysed, and we will thereby ascertain whether the manufacturer is living up to his guaranteed analysis as published.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understood the minister to say that under the old Act the manufacturers have their goods analysed only once a year; will the minister tell us how often their goods are likely to be examined under the new Act?


William Templeman: In the first place, the manufacturer must publish with his goods the analysis thereof, so that every purchaser can read it. The department will then from time to time procure samples of the fertilizers on the market and analyse them, and ascertain if the manufacturer is living up to his guaranteed analysis. A farmer purchasing any particular fertilizer may, under the Act, procure an analysis of a sample of the fertilizer; therefore any Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
particular brand of fertilizer may be analysed as often as samples are sent in to the department.


George Taylor: Then you will publish in a bulletin the results of analyses of the different samples you have gathered?


William Templeman: Yes.


John Barr: Will any farmer have a right to send down samples to be examined without charge?


William Templeman: Not without charge. The charge in the Bill is $5.


John Barr: Couldn't that charge be much cut down?


William Templeman: The actual cost to the department of analysing a sample of fertilizer is $7. It is a difficult analysis to make. Section 10, providing for the fee, reads thus:
Any purchaser of a registered fertilizer may obtain from the minister an analysis of the fertilizer as delivered to him, by making application for such analysis accompanied by a sample of the fertilizer of at least one pound weight and taken in accordance with the directions given in schedule B to this Act, and on payment of a fee of $5.
The House will readily understand that if there was no fee or only a very small fee imposed, the department would- be flooded with requests for analyses. The inspectors will send in the samples and the results of the analysis will be published in a bulletin. It will then be known whether the manufacturer is living up to his guarantee, and if he is not there is a penalty provided.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: If a farmer sends in a sample and the analysis does not agree with the statement published by the manufacturer, who will prosecute?


William Templeman: Under section 12 it it is the duty of our own officers to collect samples and if the analysis proves that the fertilizer is not up to standard we prosecute. Although this Act does not provide for prosecutions when a sample is sent in by a farmer or any person other than an officer of the department, I would be of opinion myself that in the event of a sample being found deficient it would be the duty of the department to prosecute.


John Albert Sexsmith: Would it not be well to have that provision included in the Bill?


John Barr: What officers will be appointed under this Act?


William Templeman: The inspectors under this Act will be the same as the inspectors under the Adulteration of Food Act. It is not the intention of this Act to appoint any new or special officers.


George Taylor: If a farmer wanted to send in a sample, his most convenient way would be to hand the five dollar fee and his sample to an inspector.


William Templeman: The most convenient way would be to get the inspector of food to take the sample.


John Albert Sexsmith: I would assume from the statement of the minister that if a farmer were suspicious that a manufacturer was selling a fertilizer which was not up to the government standard, all he need do is to write to the inspector and the inspector would take samples.


William Templeman: There is no standard fixed by the government. The standard is fixed by the manufacturer, who places that standard on a printed label on the package guaranteeing his own product as being equal to that standard. He must live up to that, so that the purchaser knows what he is buying.


Mr. BURRELL.: What was the original charge for analysis?


William Templeman: Three dollars.


Martin Burrell: It seems to me that the manufacturer who is putting immense quantities of fertilizers on the market, should at least be compelled to pay the full fee when samples are analysed in the public interest. The weak spot in the Inspection of Food Act is that the fines imposed are not heavy enough, and I believe that will be found to be the weak spot in this Act. Fraudulent manufacturers should be fined sufficient to pay for the operation of all the machinery for carrying out the law.


William Templeman: The Bill proposes to protect farmers without any cost to them whatever. The manufacturer pays $2 for registration and an annual license fee of $5 for selling, and as we do not analyse for the manufacturer under this Bill we do not charge; he has got to do the analysing himself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose he puts a sample on the market that is not up to the standard, what protection is there for the farmer? The farmer who buys a small quantity is not going to pay $5 and send the sample down to Ottawa to be analysed.


William Templeman: It is the duty of the department to collect samples of every fertilizer on the market and to analyse the same to know whether the manufacturer is living up to his own guaranteed analysis. We do not debar persons from collecting samples.and sending them in, but in that case we propose a fee of $5.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would shut them off.


William Templeman: It would deter many, but if a farmer or other person buys a large quantity of fertilizer and has reason to
think that it' is not up to the standard, a fee of $5 is not prohibitive.


John Barr: Would it not be fairer if, in case a farmer sends in a sample and it it is proven that it is not up to the guarantee, the manufacturer and not the farmer should pay the fee?


William Templeman: In the case of a prosecution of a manufacturer by an officer of the department, or by a private individual, as the result of an analysis made by the department, there is a penalty of $50 provided under clause 15.


John Barr: But it would be fairer that the farmer should not be called upon to pay the fee if the article is not up to the standard.


Mr TEMPLEMAN.: It might be. I da not think that, under this Bill, there will be many prosecutions by private individu als. Nor do I think there will be many analyses made at the request of individuals. There are only two or three hundred fertilizers all told on the market. It would not be difficult for the department to analyse one or two samples of each kind every year and publish the result.


John Barr: How will the work of the inspection be carried on?


William Templeman: Under the Adulteration of Food Act there are fifteen or sixteen inspectors. As I said a moment ago, that word ' inspector ' is a misnomer. These men are officers of the department with other duties to perform. When instructed they purchase samples of food and divide each sample into two, sending one part to Ottawa and leaving the other with the vendor. The vendor knows that the sample is to be analysed, and if it is not up to the requirements he is liable to be prosecuted. One inspector or purchaser of samples of fertilizers could in one week collect samples of all the fertilizers sold in Ontario.


John Barr: The danger is that manufacturers may be sending out to retail dealers all over the province stuff that is not up to the standard, but the inspector inspects that which he finds in the factory


William Templeman: If the manufacturer sends out fertilizer not up to the standard, he is liable to punishment.


John Allister Currie: The minister will see that there is a clause applying to fertilizers made to order and not intended for sale.


William Templeman: Of course.


John Allister Currie: The only person this law can get after is the manufacturer. And it is provided that the sample must be taken 'in the presence of the manufacturer

or his agent.' Why not make the vendor responsible, as well as the manufacturer ? If you do that, the vendor will see to it that he is getting the right article in the first place. As the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Barr) suggests, suppose there is dishonesty or collusion between the manufacturer and the retailer there is nothing to prevent the manufacturer making an arrangement under which he could give out a fraudulent fertilizer. After the fertilizer has left the manufacturer's hands and gone into that of the dealer, there is no machinery in the Act to provide for the prosecution of either the manufacturer or the dealer.


William Templeman: Every fertilizer is sold under a registered number, and that carries back to the manufacturer, who is the party who ought to be prosecuted. My hon. friend spoke of making the vendor liable. Under the Adulteration of Foods Act, one of the difficulties is that the innocent dealer is held liable for the adulteration of the manufacturer in many cases. I appeal to the House that the guilty party is the manufacturer rather than the innocent seller ?


John Allister Currie: But how do you catch him? Suppose he is an American manufacturer ?


William Templeman: Under section 4, every foreign manufacturer has to appoint a resident agent in Canada who, for all the purposes of this law, is regarded as a manufacturer.


John Allister Currie: But the minister will notice that the sample must be taken 'in the presence of the manufacturer or his agent.' How can a farmer go into the factory and take a sample of the fertilizer in the presence of the manufacturer or his agent? If you were to say that the registration number is prima facie evidence that the article was made by me manufacturer represented by that number, and if the vendor proved that he purchased it from the manufacturer, he should be free, you could follow it up on that line. But you bar out everything of this kind by providing that the samples must be taken in the presence of the manufacturer or his agent.


William Templeman: I have here an amendment which I shall propose that samples must be taken ' in the presence of the vendor or his agent.1


William Wright: Suppose the manufacturer in Toronto turns out these goods, sells them to a wholesale dealer in Winnipeg, who sells them to a retailer in Calgary, through whom they finally find their way into the hands of a farmer in that section of the country- In case of a violation of this law in the case of those goods, where would the trial take place? If the manufacturer is to be prosecuted, do you propose to go Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
out to the place where the purchaser lives to collect your evidence? I am afraid there will be a great deal of difficulty in enforcing this law.


William Templeman: Because the prosecution in that case should be of the manufacturer.


William Wright: At Toronto?


William Templeman: At Toronto, and the material evidence is found in the city of Ottawa by the analyst who makes the analysis and proves that it is not up to the standard. The inspector who makes the purchase would be a material witness in a case of that kind. This Bill throws the onus on the manufacturer to live up to his guaranteed analysis.


William Wright: How would you get your evidence to substantiate the fact that the farmer purchased the identical goods and that he sent the identical goods down to your department for analysis? You would have to bring the retailer, the wholesaler and the farmer down to enable you to produce your evidence.


William Templeman: Not at all.
Mr, LENNOX. What section is it that throws the liability on the manufacturer?


Mr TEMPLEMAN.: Section 15.


Haughton Lennox: I do not read it in that way.


William Templeman: Every person who sells or offers or exposes for sale-
That certainly includes the manufacturer.


Haughton Lennox: That is not what the minister said I understood him correctly. I would not take that to mean what the minister said a moment ago. I do not know what the minister's aim is. I understood the minister to say that the object of this Bill was to throw the liability upon the manufacturer. Section 15 provides that:
Every person who sells or offers or exposes fcr sale-
That is not limited to the manufacturer, or the first purchaser or the second purchaser or any intermediate purchaser. It applies to every purchaser who happens to sell this article, from the manufacturer down to the last retail dealer. Would not that be the case? Is that what the minister intends?


William Templeman: Yes, the intention is to make the manufacturer liable if his guaranteed analysis as printed on the label is not lived up to.


Haughton Lennox: That is quite true. I understand that part of it.


William Templeman: Every sample of fertilizer as sold under a number, it is regis-

tered, the manufacturer's name is on it, his guaranteed analysis is on the label and if it does not comply with the guaranteed analysis he may be prosecuted under section 15. If it is not clear that section 15 refers to the manufacturer, then we will make it so because that is the intention.


Haughton Lennox: While I think it is quite clear that it does include the manufacturer, I think it is also quite clear that it includes everybody else who sells the fertilizer. If the minister does not intend to include any one but the manufacturer I think an amendment would be necessary. It certainly does include the manufacturer but it includes a great many others as well.


William Templeman: I do not know that we should confine it absolutely to the manufacturer. It may be that after it leaves the manufacturer and passes through two or three hands some person may manipulate the goods.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you not think that a heavier penalty should be inflicted upon the manufacturer for selling, because he knows what he puts into it, than upon some innocent purchaser who bought it on the strength of the tag attached to it and who believed it to contain the full percentage.
Mr, TEMPLEMAN. I want to move an amendment to paragraph (d) of section 2, being the definition of the word ' agent.' 1 am afraid that the definition as printed is too general. I propose to substitute the following.
Agent means any person whose name has teen filed with the department as provided by section 4 of this Act.
An agent under this Act means the representative of a foreign manufacturer and not a retail merchant who may be selling fertilizers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you say ' foreign ' manufacturer?


William Templeman: He must have an agent in Canada to represent him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but there are a lot of fertilizers being manufactured in Canada. For instance, there is the production of phosphate and almost every slaughter house is manufacturing fertilizers.


John Albert Sexsmith: In case a farmer, or any one purchasing a fertilizer, has good reason to believe that the article he has purchased from the manufacturer is not up to the standard as designated by the tag, if he notifies the inspector, giving his reasons, would it not be the duty of the inspector to come and take samples?


William Templeman: Unquestionably, and if any farmer has reason to think that any fertilizer is not up to the analysis he can notify the inspector or, better still, notify
the department in Ottawa which would instruct the inspector to secure samples of that particular fertilizer. It is important that the inspector, or whoever purchases, must do it in such a way that he can give evidence in court that the specimen he bought was a specimen of the particular fertilizer and the specimen that he sent to Ottawa to be analysed and then our analyst proves in court that it is not up to the standard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the sample were taken under such circumstances by the inspector would you still charge the farmer $5 for analysis?


William Templeman: No. The $5 fee imposed by this Act is more to guard against the department being flooded with requests for analyses that are really unnecessary than anything else. We will analyse all the samples that are necessary if no person sends them in, but still we want to leave it open to any person to send in a sample if he wishes. The department has been flooded with requests for work of this kind. We do a great deal of analytical work in the laboratory and it is necessary to put a check upon it in some way. It is not necessary in this Act that we should make a free analysis of all the fertilizers.


David Henderson: A farmer has to pay $5 for an analysis, but what is going to arouse his attention to the fact that a certain fertilizer is not up to standard? How is he to determine whether there is anything wrong with it or not?


William Templeman: He ought to have some reason for sending in a sample to be analysed. What is going to arouse his attention, I do not know, unless he has used it for several years with poor results.


David Henderson: There will be no use then in throwing away $5 to have it analysed. He would simply not buy any more of it.


William Templeman: The Act supposes that every fertilizer put on the market must be analysed by the department and the result printed in a bulletin, and the farmer will know from this analysis, whether the particular fertilizer he has bought is up to the standard or not.


David Henderson: When a man buys a box or sack of a certain fertilizer, it is impossible for him to tell whether it is up to the standard or not, and I fail to see how he is to get the information which will enable him to do so.


Mr. GEO.: TAYLOR I think the present Bill better than the old one, because the manufacturer under the old one, could send a sample to the department and have it analysed and a bulletin issued showing that it was manufactured up to such a brand.

Then he might manufacture an adulterated article and put it on the market. Of course, he can do that now but is liable to be caught, because the department will be likely to analyse it.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Would not the sample to be analysed be similar to the samples of the jellies and jams?


William Templeman: It will be sampled the same way.


David Marshall: The department is collecting these every day, and I do not think there will be any difficulty in that respect. Would it be possible to raise the standard of fertilizers that are manufactured and make them come up to a standard fixed by the department?


William Templeman: We do not attempt to fix any standard. The manufacturer himself fixes the standard by printed analysis. I am also advised it would be very difficult to fix a standard for any particular fertilizer. There would have to be scores of standards according to the different characters of the different soils. A certain soil might require a fertilizer containing more nitrogen or more phosphoric acid and so on. We require that the manufacturer shall state distinctly what constituents are in his fertilizer and he must live up to that standard, and the purchaser judges whether the paiticular number is the quality he wants. The standard is created by the manufacturer and all we do is to compel him to live up to his own standard.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The discussion is too general. The Bill should be taken clause by clause. Section 2 is now under consideration, and there is an amendment moved to subsection (d) providing that the words ' not a manufacturer who sells or offers for sale any fertilizer ' be struck out, and in its stead the following inserted:
Agent means any person whose name has been filed with the minister as provided by section 4 of the Act.


John Allister Currie: Should we not define the word ' vendor '?


William Templeman: I do not think the word ' vendor ' need be defined at all. The word ' agent ' refers solely to a person appointed by a foreign manufacturer to represent him in Canada.


John Allister Currie: In the Bill as printed the word ' agentJ meant vendor. Is that intended?


William Templeman: No.


John Allister Currie: Then, under schedule B, there will be no method by which we can attack the seller.


William Templeman: We are going to change schedule B.
Section 2 as amended, agreed to.


George Taylor: On section 3,
Fertilizers shall be considered as distinct brands, when differing either in guaranteed compositions, trade mark, name or in any other characteristic method of marking.


John Albert Sexsmith: We have been discussing whether a certain standard could not be devised. I think it would not be wise to have a standard set because any manufacturer can describe the standard on the back of the package, and according to the quality the price will be fixed. I would be perfectly satisfied with that.
On section 4,-Name of Foreign Manufacturer's Agent or Representative in Canada to be filed with the minister.


John Allister Currie: What is to prevent the manufacturer from putting up a man of straw as his agent?


William Templeman: It is hardly probable that a large manufacturer would put up a man of straw as his agent, considering that he has to register every year and get his license to sell. He might do it once, but he could not do it a second time, because he could not get his license to sell in Canada again.


Haughton Lennox: In some subsequent part of the Bill is there provision for prosecuting the agent instead of the foreign manufacturer?


William Templeman: The object of section 4 is to require the foreign manufacturer to name an agent in Canada who registers and who can be proceeded against, I assume, as the representative of the foreign manufacturers.


Haughton Lennox: I would not like to 'assume ' about it, but I would like to know from the minister if there is provision ia the law for reaching the agent. I have not paid very close attention to the measure, but I have not seen any provision under which we can reach the agent in that way.


William Templeman: I inferred that the agent of the foreign manufacturer could be proceeded against. If it should appear, when we have gone through the Bill that that is not the case, we can make an amendment. The object of having an agent appointed is to have the representative of the manufacturer where he can be reached.


Haughton Lennox: I do not wish to embarrass the minister, but he will understand that we cannot leave a matter of this kind to mere probability. I do not know of anything in'the Bill to enable us to deal with the agent. Section 15 provides that the person who offers or exposes for sale may be prosecuted. Unless under that clause, I do not see any way in which we

can deal with the agent. Will that cover it?


William Templeman: I think so. Under section 2, ' guaranteed analysis ' means the valuation of a fertilizer by a manufacturer or agent in terms of its content of phosphoric acid, nitrogen and potash. It seems to me that the agent would be liable to prosecution as the representative of the foreign manufacturer who gave this 'guaranteed analysis/ However, that is a legal point on which I would not care to be too positive. We can make the point clearer if necessary.


John Allister Currie: We all know that frauds are being perpetrated on the farmers right along in these fertilizers, and that is the reason why this Bill is before us. Suppose that a bunch of these fraudulent dealers in fertilizers in the United States get together and call themselves the Diamond Fertilizing Company. They send a sample of their brand to Canada, and it is analysed by the department and proved of high value. A man from Buffalo or from Chicago, perhaps unknown to fame, is appointed to act as agent, and establishes himself in an office that is not too conspicuous. With the certificate of analysis given by the department, the representatives of this brand go all over the country and sell large quantities, because they have a certificate, and because they are underselling the dealers here. All the material sold comes into Canada within a week. After ten days or two weeks an analysis is incidentally made with a sample taken by the inspector. But by this time the machinery of the department is put in motion, the * agent ' is out of the country and all the small storekeepers and dealers are left loaded up with worthless fertilizers. Then, the same gang get together again to put out, let us say the ' lightning ' brand, and puts it through the same process. These methods have been carried on in other lines of business, and even manufacturers have been swindled in this way. This is done, for instance, with a brand of steel. This material is sold all over the country, perhaps at fifty cents a pound, and when the man gets his five or ten or twenty pounds, he finds that it is not better than wrought iron. But what I would suggest is that any foreign company appointing an agent in this country should be called upon to deposit with the Inland Revenue Department at least $500 as a guarantee of good faith, so that if they turn out to be a fraud you will have something.


Mr. BEATTIE.: I should think the common law would cover that. In any case, a manufacturer would hardly appoint an agent for the purpose of defrauding decent people. Certainly such a thing is unknown in my experience in business.



REVISED

John Allister Currie: The hon. member (Mr. Beattie) knows very well that fully 50 per cent of the goods sold in the United States by manufacturers, so-called, are not manufactured by these people. The goods of Smith, Jones & Robinson, ' manufacturers,' may be all made in the same place.


Thomas Beattie: That is a different thing. But the manufacturer who sends out a brand of goods expects to continue in the business and he would not spoil his reputation for the sake of selling a few hundred dozen.


John Allister Currie: This Bill is designed to prevent a specific kind of fraud, fraud that has been committed on the farmers so often and so widely that the government deems it necessary to pass special legislation on the subject. As to nine-tenths of these brands of fertilizers, there is not even an office at the headquarters of the so-called factory.


Thomas Beattie: But it would ruin the manufacturer's business to send out an inferior article. If I were a manufacturer I certainly would not send out a spurious article if I intended to remain in business.
Mr, SAMUEL SHARPE. I think the difficulty could be met if the minister would adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend from North Simcoe, and make the agent subject to all the pains and penalties of a defaulting foreign manufacturer. If the agent is subject to these liabilities, he will stand between the manufacturer and the public, he is a guarantee and protection to the public.


George Taylor: Another thing the minister might do is not to license or appoint an agent unless he is a responsible man.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Here is where I see a difficulty. An agent sells goods in wholesale lots to a druggist, the druggist sells to a farmer, and the farmer finds that he has a lot on hand that is not up to the standard. Now how is he going to get redress? According to Schedule B, samples for analysis must be taken in the presence of the manufacturer or his agent; but the seller is not the manufacturer's agent.


William Templeman: We are going to change that to vendor.
On section 6-Application for registration number.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you mean by 'guaranteed- analysis'?


William Templeman: Guaranteed analysis means the valuation of a fertilizer by the manufacturer or agent in terms of its content of phosphoric acid, nitrogen, and potash. These are the three ingredients



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
which I understand, compose the fertilizer. I understand these include ah the essential chemical combinations.
['As I have mentioned to the Prime Minister privately, the hour may be so far advanced that the hon. member for North Toronto would not think it desirable to bring on his motion that day. That will depend on circumstances. He is absent at present but as soon as he returns from Toronto I will ascertain from him his views and communicate with the Prime Minister.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Your old Act provides that the samples shall contain so much ammonia, and so much phosphoric acid, and some have a combination of the two. Which one are you going to take as the standard? Because many of these fertilizers contain two ingredients in the same sample.


William Templeman: The manufacturer will state that on his label.
On section 7-Registration number, how affixed. Statement required.


William Templeman: I propose to strike out the word 'importer' so that we will deal only with the manufacturer or agent.


John Allister Currie: Again I wish to call the attention of the minister to this matter of agency. Does the minister presume to think that nobody will import a fertilizer into this country except through an agent? There is nothing to prevent me importing a fertilizer from the United States or Europe for any purpose, and selling it here, and no law will compel me to have a registered agent.


William Templeman: We are passing tha* very law now.


John Allister Currie: I wish to impress upon the minister the importance of this agency. There is no use in having anybody appointed agent unless you have somebody responsible. I would suggest that when a foreign manufactured article of this description is brought into the country to be sold under guarantee, there should be a deposit made of a sum of money with the government, so that in case of default there would be something that you could lay your hand upon.


William Templeman: I would not care to impose conditions that would be too onerous. I think my hon. friend is too much afraid that a man of straw may be appointed an agent. I am disposed to think that any reputable manufacturer would appoint an agent of some repute, and there is little fear that the department will have to deal with that agent. We might not Tecognize him if we thought he was a man of straw. I agree that if you were to require a deposit of $500 or $100 from a manufacturer, his hona tides would be better established. But it might be that in imposing restrictions we would hamper trade when it was not necessary to do so.


John Allister Currie: I am not desirous of imposing onerous conditions. This Bill is intended to deal with reputable manufacturers, it is intended to meet a condition Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
which has existed in this country to a large extent, not only in relation to fertilizers, but to nursery stock and other matters of that kind. For instance lawn shrubs are sold all over this country as nursery stock from the Aurora Borea'is Nursery of Syracuse, or some other high sounding names. It has turned out that people nave found themselves with this stock on hand and could not get satisfaction. The minister will recognize that at there was a bona fide guarantee required the company desirous of obtaining a market here for its brand of fertilizer would willingly pay a deposit as I have suggested, whilst if it was a fraudulent concern that desired to do business, they would hesitate. When you ask a company, before they do business in this country, to appoint an agent, then you must specify that that agent must be an attorney, acting in a position of trust.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the agent was required to be resident in Canada and acceptable to the government it -would meet the objection of my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie).


William Templeman: I am willing to amend it in that way.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
On section 4,


William Templeman: I would move to add after the word ' agents ' ' acceptable to the minister and resident in Canada.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Supposing the agent is a travelling saleman, perhaps selling drugs, who carries this as a side line, a perfectly respectable man, but not a man of financial standing, would he be considered acceptable?


William Templeman: If he was a respectable man, well known in the community and vouched for, I think he would be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But such a man might have sold $200,000 worth of fertilizer and might then leave the country. You only impose a fine and what could be done if you could not collect the fine?


William Templeman: Then we would lose. It is of course impossible to so regulate the sale of fertilizers or anything else that some man cannot circumvent the law.


Thomas Beattie: I think the discussion has taken a very wide scope. I do not think that any responsibility rests on the agent; the whole responsibility in practice falls on the merchant. As a merchant I go to the United States or to England and buy what I consider a good fertilizer. When I bring that to Canada and sell it to my patrons I am responsible for that brand. It is very unlikely that a manufacturer will

send an agent here to sell his product; the man who imports direct is more likely to buy direct from the manufacturer so as to get the article at a lower price. I think the man importing is more reliable than the agent. If he sells a fraudulent fertilizer this year, where will he be next year? I am rather astonished that hon. gentlemen think manufacturers will commit frauds. That has not been my experience;
I have very seldom been caught by an agent. I have generally dealt with houses that when a complaint was made to them would rectify it.


John Barr: Evidently the hon. gentleman is not a farmer or he would know that very large quantities of useless fertilizers are brought from the United States and sold to the farmers. There is great danger that an agent may be a man of straw. I am inclined to think the amendment will be an improvement, and will be some protection to the farmers against fraud of this kind. It is necessary to watch carefully the fertilizers which come from the United States.


Thomas Beattie: If the hon. gentleman thinks a manufacturer is going to make an article that will only last one season, his argument is good. But if the manufacturer expects to remain in business for years to come he will not put a fraudulent article on the market. That is my experience, and I do not think the manufacturers as a rule go into business to sell an article which is a fraud on the public. I am sorry to think that we have a class of people in this country or the United States who will sell articles not up to the standard represented.


Martin Burrell: I would suggest that some such method be adopted as we adopt in British Columbia in reference to the agents of United States nursery men. In order to protect the purchaser who may not be able to get a remedy against the producer in the United States the agent has to put up a $2,000 bond, and if anything goes wrong there is a direct recourse against the agent.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In default of paying the money penalty I suppose there will be a term of imprisonment provided ? In that case the agent will see that the fine is paid and the brands kept up to grade.


John Allister Currie: If we insert the words that the agent must be acceptable to the minister it means that the minister will be responsible for the action of the agent, and if the agent is guilty of fraud the minister would have to take the responsibility.


William Templeman: I will take it.


Thomas Beattie: Suppose I should go to the United States or to England and buy a
141j	I ; | u
brand of fertilizer from a manufacturer who has no agent in Canada, who would be responsible then? If I should prefer a certain brand of fertilizer the manufacturer of which was not represented by an agent here, I do not see why I should be prevented from buying it. Dealers do not always want to buy the same brand that everybody on the street keeps; they want if possible to sell an article that their competitors have not got.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman from London (Mr. Beattie) has suggested a difficulty. Suppose a resident dealer goes to the United States and purchases goods and imports them himself, who is to be responsible?


William Templeman: He cannot purchase them for sale unless there is a resident agent in Canada.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: But he may become the agent as well as the importer.


William Templeman: If the importer brings it into Canada he is the agent.
On section 10,


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Do I understand the minister to say that the actual cost of the analysis will be $7?


William Templeman: During past years it has cost $7 for each analysis of fertilizer.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I suppose you have an official in the department to do that work?


William Templeman: Yes, quite a number.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It seems a large fee.


William Templeman: It is, but I am advised by the chief analyst that it costs the department more to make an analysis of fertilizers than of ordinary food stuffs.
On section 12,


John Allister Currie: I do not see that it is anybody's business to prosecute under this Act, and there does not seem to be any machinery provided for a prosecution. The report of the department, issued a couple of days ago, contains a list of a large number of samples of coffee and other articles that were found to be adulterated, but there is no machinery under the Act for punishing the people guilty of manufacturing and selling these adulterated articles. I think there should be a clause added that the inspector, if he finds the article adulterated, shall proceed against the party who is responsible under the Act. This would throw the onus on the inspector. At all events, it will then be somebody's duty to institute a prosecution.


William Templeman: I do not think that would be feasible. It would be the duty of the minister to prosecute, just as it is the duty of the minister now, under the

Adulteration of Foods Act, to prosecute. The knowledge of the fact that the guaranteed analysis has been violated by the manufacturer is not possessed by the inspector. The chief witness will be the chief analyst in Ottawa, who makes the analysis.


John Allister Currie: You provide that his certificate shall be taken as evidence, do you not?


William Templeman: Yes. Prosecutions, under the Adulteration of Foods Act, are by the Justice Department under instructions of the Inland Revenue Department. As a matter of fact, the number of prosecutions under that Act has not been as numerous probably as it ought to have been, for a good reason indeed. We have no food standard as yet. We have failed in some prosecutions because we had no standard. The question of fixing the standard for all food products in Canada has been engaging the attention of the department for the last year or two. It is a work of considerable magnitude to formulate a standard for all food products. At the present time the officers have the standard pretty well prepared, and we hope to put it in force by order in council under the Adulteration of Foods Act before long.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you got another difficulty under the Act? Formerly it was provided that you had to comply with certain provisions of the law, but as the result of an amendment made to the Inland Revenue Act some years ago I understand you could not prove your case. Therefore, prosecutions were practically dropped. This matter was brought to my attention by a prominent lawyer, and I remember discussing it in this House at some length while it was under consideration. The contention of the department was that there was nothing in it whatever, but afterwards it was franklv admitted, I think, by the minister at the head of the department, that prosecutions could not succeed because of this difficulty.	,


William Templeman: It is true that prosecutions have failed because of the fact that we have no standard. One case in particular was with respect to maple sugar or maple syrup.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there were more than that.


William Templeman: We have had a great many analyses. We have had prosecutions, some of which succeeded and some did not. But the penalty, under the Adulteration of Foods Act, to the party adulterating, has been almost wholly from the publicity which is given to the publications of the bulletins. We are going to try to establish a standard under the Adulteration of Foods Act. We are specifying the stand-Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
ard in this Act. The standard is what the manufacturer says the article is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You had a standard under the old Act for fertilizers. They shall not contain less than four per cent.


William Templeman: That was quite an impracticable standard, I am advised by my chief analyst.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was not the effect this, that the law provided that certain evidence shall be admissible? That was the evidence of a certain analyst, I do not know whether the chief analyst or not. That law was changed so as to enable the minister to select analysts all over, but when the certificate of any such inspector was taken into court it could not be accepted as evidence, because the Act provided that only the certificate of another analyst could be accepted, and that other analyst had never analysed the sample.


John Allister Currie: I would suggest that this amendment be added to clause 12:
All inspectors of fertilizers shall, whenever so instructed by the minister, obtain for analysis a sample of every fertilizer for sale in the district for which he is inspector, and shall forthwith lay the information and prosecute, in the event of the provisions of this Act not having been complied with.
The minister says that the chief analyst is the man who should prosecute. I wish to take issue with him. I know it is very difficult to get any authority away from the central department at Ottawa, but, as a matter of fact, the man who takes the sample from the parcel and sends it to the department in a registered letter, where it is analysed and a certificate given, is the man who should lay the information before a magistrate in his district. It is not the high court, I think, which deals with the matter. I make this suggestion because, under Acts of a similar character, for instance the Ontario License Act, the inspectors are the parties who prosecute and not the government. It is the duty of the officers, who are appointed to see that the law is carried out, to lay an information before a magistrate if they find that the law is broken.


William Templeman: I am afraid this would be delegating to officials of the government the authority to enteT prosecutions.	.


John Allister Currie: That is right.


William Templeman: But all prosecutions are entered by the Justice Department. Speaking for the Inland Revenue Department, I am certain of that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the Customs?


William Templeman: I am not sure.


John Allister Currie: Take the Marine Department; when there is a breach of the Marine Law, the inspector of hnlls may seize the vessel and prosecute the party.


Martin Burrell: Under the Fruit Marks Act, the local inspector has authority to lay the information.


Mr. CONMEE.: It is always objectionable to make an inspector a prosecuting officer as well. There is a great difference between the customs officials and those under this Act. And the customs officers do not in all cases prosecute. They report to the department and get instructions. They cannot put the law in motion of their own free will. The hon. gentleman is mistaken about the license inspectors under the provincial law. They are not prosecuting officers or detectives in the sense he assumes. If a complaint is put into their hands they can act on it; in ordinary cases they act when they get their instructions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose an inland revenue inspector finds an illicit still?


James Conmee: If he is instructed to take action he does so; but an inland revenue officer, under provisions which might justify action regarding an illicit sale or manufacture of liquors, would be in a very different position from an officer under this Act taking the law into his own hands of his own sweet will. The people do not want to be dragooned in that way. It is bad legislation, and I do not think any member should propose it.


William Templeman: No doubt the officers of the Inland Revenue Department make seizures in the case of illicit distillation or for any infringement of the excise law, but every prosecution is made through the Justice Department.


John Allister Currie: I quite agree with the hon. minister, but the point I wish to make is this: somebody must lay the information, and the party who lays it is invariably the inspector. As Tegards the customs officers, the Customs Department is supreme in itself. There has been a clause in the Customs Act from time immemorial under which the Customs Department can seize an article and confiscate it and fine the guilty party. That department is above the Justice Department in that respect. Various attempts have been made in England to change that clause, but parliament would never grant authority to narrow down the powers of the Customs Department m that respect. An officer of the Inland Revenue Department can seize an article, and the department can impose a fine, and does not even have to take him before a magistrate.


James Conmee: Where does the hon. gentleman get that information?


William Templeman: The Inland Revenue Department does impose certain conditions.
If the party who has tried to defraud the revenue is willing to pay into the treasury a certain sum, he has the power to do so, but if he thinks that the department is trying to impose too onerous conditions, he can allow the matter to go to court, and then he is prosecuted by the Justice Department. If the department imposes a certain fine, he has the right to refuse to pay and to have his case heard in court.


John Albert Sexsmith: One of the most satisfactory inspectorships we have in the province of Ontario is that of milk inspectors. They have power to inspect factories and to prosecute offenders. _ I do not think there has ever been an inspector in that province that has done so much good and has given the people so much satisfaction. But they are not responsible to the minister, nor to the government, nor to anybody, but their duties are defined by an Act of the legislature, and they are doing very effective work.


John Allister Currie: There must be somebody responsible to authorize the officer to
proceed.


William Templeman: That somebody more responsible than the inspector is the Minister of Inland Revenue. The enforcement of the law is in the hands of the Minister of Inland Revenue.


John Albert Sexsmith: I would like to see this Bill made workable. Let the minister suggest an amendment himself that would relieve him of responsibility. I think that if there were a great many requests coming in for prosecution, the minister would not feel so favourable to handing out his authorization. But if some inspector had the authority, it would relieve the minister, and the Act could be better enforced.


William Templeman: I have no objection to an amendment, say: ' And shall prosecute the offender whenever instructed by the minister to do so.'


James Conmee: I do not think that would make the law workable. What would be the result of that? The inspector knows that he has to make a report to the minister, that entails delay. Then he has to get instructions. Why, the whole position might be changed in the meantime, he might not be able to find the parties, and the whole conditions might be changed from what they weTe.


John Albert Sexsmith: Where is the objection to empowering the inspector to prosecute under certain restrictions? If we pass an Act without providing any machinery to carry it out, what good will it do? There will have to be so many preliminaries before prosecutions can be undertaken that

the manufacturers will not fear the Act much. But if there is an inspector appointed, like the milk inspector in the province of Ontario, with power to prosecute for violations, I think the law would be much more workable.


James Conmee: There is great objection to giving power to a single individual to become a prosecuting officer on his own discretion. Such laws as that are of pretty ancient date, they have gone out of existence.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The liquor license inspectors have such power.


James Conmee: He can only prosecute under certain conditions. In the great majority of cases he makes his report to the government, and he is instructed to act! He has no more authority than a policeman, and a policeman can act in certain minor cases if he see the law being broken, but otherwise he has to get authority from a, magistrate to act under certain conditions. So it is with the license inspectors.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong as regards the province of Ontario. I know a case in my own county where the inspector goes to the hotel, and finding liquor there contrary to law, he seeks a magistrate, lays information and then proceeds with the charge.


James Conmee: This motion is to compel an officer to be prosecuting official. He has no choice, he would have no discretion in the matter.


John Allister Currie: The word is 'may' not ' shall.' It is not obligatory upon him.


James Conmee: Where the word 'may' is used that means ' shall ' in the law.


John Albert Sexsmith: Under the Ontario Act no man other than the inspector has any thing to do with prosecutions. He lays the complaint and he prosecutes. I have been director of a cheese factory for many years, and I know how these cases are conducted. Under certain conditions the inspector is allowed to go on and prosecute, even without any preliminaries. In the present Act I would not put in a clause compelling him to go on, but I would provide that he shall have power to go on.


Thomas Beattie: The milk inspector is an officer of the public health, and these officers have very wide powers. But a license inspector would not prosecute without referring the matter to his license board.


John Albert Sexsmith: It is done every week m the year.


Thomas Beattie: No. I have had some experience in this matter, and no license inspector would take action without reference to his commissioners.


John Albert Sexsmith: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have seen it done more than once. The inspector goes into a place, finds a hotel violating the law, gives information, and lodges a complaint within two hours.


Thomas Beattie: That is not my experience.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The methods in the small places and in the cities are evidently different.


James Conmee: I understood the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) to say that there are certain officers in the province of Ontario empowered to impose a fine without going to a magistrate. Is that what the hon. gentleman said?


John Allister Currie: No. The idea is to have somebody charged with the duty of conducting these prosecutions. If a farmer feels that he has been defrauded in a purchase of fertilizers, and, when he asks that a sample be taken and analysed, it is found that the material is wrong, the farmer who was the means of making known the case should not be called upon to lay the information against the storekeeper; outside officers should do that. I think the amendment proposed by the minister is acceptable.


James Conmee: If I understood the amendment, I object to it also.


William Templeman: My hon. friend wants to give the inspectors power to prosecute, and I suggested that it should be under instructions by the minister. But, the amendment in that form would mean nothing, because in the case of a prosecution under this Act, the prosecutor is the minister, or the official of the department under the minister, which is the same thing. We may require our inspectors -under the Adulteration of Food Act or under this Act to prosecute offenders through the Justice Department,-all our legal business is done through the Justice Department.
On section 15-penalties-proviso as to evidence of fraudulent intent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister intend to leave this only a money penalty? Is there to be no penalty in case of failure to pay the fine?


William Templeman: I should think the money penalty would be sufficient. However, I am in the judgment of the House on that matter.


George Taylor: Make it read that in default of payment of the fine the party should be imprisoned.


William Templeman: I am not averse to that if hon. members think it necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The person prosecuted may be a man of straw, and it is better

that there should be something more than a money penalty.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I move that after the *words ' penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars ' the following words be added: ' and in default of payment of such fine to a term of imprisonment to one month in the common jail of the county or district where the prosection is laid.'


Mr. CONGDON.: It is unnecessary to specify the place of imprisonment; that is provided for in the General Act.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Very well, leave that out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It should be 'thirty days,' as ' one month ' is not a definite time.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: There should be a discretion in the magistrate. It should read * not exceeding 30 days.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On schedule (a). Provisions for taking samples, analysis, &c.
["There should be a discretion in the magistrate. It should read * not exceeding 30 days.'"]
John Allister Currie: I object to the very high price placed on that analysis, $5.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The resident agent is not made liable to the penalties under the Act. I would suggest a substantive clause making the resident agent of the foreign manufacturer liable for a breach of the Act.


James Conmee: Did the minister accept the suggestion of the reduction in the amount of the fee? I agree with the hon. member in that respect.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. S. Sharpe) that it would be better to make clause 4 at line 25 read: And such agent shall be subject to the same penalties and have the same responsibility as a manufacturer under the terms of this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister said that any one who offered the article for sale would by that act become an agent, the vendor would become an agent.


Mr TEMPLEMAN.: I would think that in clause 15 'every person' includes the manufacturer and agent.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Under that provision the corner grocery man is responsible.


Mr. TALBOT.: In the province of Quebec he would be responsible for the goods he sells.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then the grocer will have to have an analysis of every sample he sells?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to have a
lawyer's opinion as to whether the words in section 4 'for all purposes of this Act ' would include the responsibility upon the
agent.	.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not think you can makes a man responsible under the Code by inference.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the words mean he would really take the place in Canada of a manufacturer.


Haughton Lennox: It would be better to have it clear as it is a penalty clause.


William Templeman: We might pass the last schedule and leave the Bill in committee so that we can make that point clear.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 90) to create the Department of External Affairs. -Mr. Murphy.
1.	There shall be a department of the gov-ornment of Canada to be called the Department of External Affairs, over which the Secretary of State for the time being shall preside.
Frederick Tennyson Congdon: The words 'for the time being' might be omitted.


Mr. MURPHY.: That section is exactly the same as the similar sections in the other statutes creating departments.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: There seems to be a great diversity in the language of the sections creating the different departments, and one would think it desirable to have them as uniform as possible.


Charles Murphy: I do not see how we can have uniformity without recasting the other statutes.


Robert Laird Borden: The statute creating the department of Secretary of State uses these words:-'and the Secretary of State shall have the management and control of the department.' Was there any reason for omitting these words here.


Charles Murphy: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I wonder why the words were omitted, but it does not make much difference.
2.	The Governor in Council may appoint an officer who shall be called the Under 'Secretary of State for External Affairs, and who shall be the deputy head of the department, and may also appoint such other officers and c'erks as are requisite for the due administration of the business of the department, all of whom shall hold office during pleasure.


Haughton Lennox: The section says that there shall be an under Secretary of State for External Affairs but there does not seem to be any Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Murphy: The position would be analogous to the Interior Department and

the Department of Indian Affairs which are under one minister, and also the Labour Department and the Post Office Department which are in the same position.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken on Monday?


Wilfrid Laurier: After private Bills, and motions, and questions we shall go into Committee of Supply so as to give an opportunity to the member for .North Toronto to bring up a certain matter of which he has given notice.


Robert Laird Borden: As I have mentioned to the Prime Minister privately, the hour may be so far advanced that the hon. member for North Toronto would not think it desirable to bring on his motion that day. That will depend on circumstances. He is absent at present but as soon as he returns from Toronto I will ascertain from him his views and communicate with the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 19, 1909.