Mr.  C. B.@: HEYD (South Brant) moved that that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for receiving petitions for private Bills be suspended with reference to the petition of the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters of the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the tenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Explain.


Mr. HEYD.: A Bill recently went through the House relating to the Independent Order of Foresters. That order had discovered a defect in tlieir legislation whereby the rights

of those who belonged to the order in days gone by were jeopardized, and a Bill was introduced in the House within the last few weeks to remedy that defect. The attention of the Ancient Order of Foresters was directed to their Act of incorporation, and they found that it contained the same defect. In order that those who belonged to the provincial order should have the rights intended under the Bill that passed in 1898, this petition is presented for an amending Bill. It is exactly the same Bill as is contained in the first four clauses of the Independent Order of Foresters' Bill, which has passed the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPElt (Pictou). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I understand that an order in council-and in the right direction, I think, If I nay say so-has been passed, constituting the court of the Yukon district an appellate tribunal from the decisions of the Gold Commissioner there. But, in this direction I wish to draw the attention of the government to a point that has been raised, in case there may be something in it. I confess that 1 have not had an opportunity of examining the order in council in question. The point is this : At present the cases before the court of the Yukon district are subject to an appeal at the option of the appellant, either to the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the Supreme Court of Canada, and from the Supreme Court of British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada. As a matter of fact, the litigants bring a great many of their cases before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and. there they have been, in large part, finally disposed of. Now, the question has been raised by members of the bar, that there seems to be a difference in connection witli these cases. That is to say, the decision of the Supreme Court in the district-I have forgotten whether it is called by that name or not-is declared to be final ; that would leave the appeal from that court only to the Supreme Court of Canada. It may be the intention of the government that that should be the case, and there may be reason for making this change. I must say that it seems to me that it would be much better to have the cases in these decisions just as the others, giving the parties the option of going to the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the Supreme Court of Canada, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada in any event. At any rate, that point was mentioned to me, and, if there is anything in it, I hope the government will look into it, and will have it made clear. Or, if the amendment is required, it should not be left to the parties interested to raise technical questions of that kind as to the
Charles Bernhard Heyd: real significance or effect of this new order in council.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The order in council to which the hon. gentleman refers to, or rather the ordinance-


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: -constitutes the two judges of the territorial court, together with the gold commissioner, an appellate court. Heretofore, under the mining regulations, the appeal from the decision of the gold commissioner has been to the Minister of the Interior. The change is, that instead of the decision being appealed from the gold commissioner to the Minister of the Interior, the decision is appealed from the gold commissioner to the appellate court as it is constituted. The ordinance clearly declares that the decision of the appellate court is final; so, I do not think there will be any question as to what the meaning and intention of the ordinance is. If the hon. gentleman (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) desires I will bring down a copy of the ordinance, so that he may have an opportunity of perusing it. The question whether, from the appellate court thus constituted, there should be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, is a question of policy which is a fair question for discussion.



CANADA NATIONAL RAILWAY AND TRANSPORT COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN moved third reading of Bill (No. 13) to incorporate the Canada National Railway and Transport Company.
Mr. CLARKE.: I understood that an arrangement was reached by the Whips the other day that this Bill was not to be read the third time until Wednesday.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: I may say that when the matter was under discussion I intimated that probably an understanding might be reached between the promoters of this Bill and those who opposed it. I have communicated with them and have received a very strong protest against any change. I thought it was only fair to take this the first opportunity of mentioning that my efforts in that direction had not been successful, for fear any member might be misled by the statement I made the other evening.
Mr. DAVIS moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 2T) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company.-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure).

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 23) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
On section 2,
Section 7 of the Act to incorporate the Guelph Junction Railway Company is repealed, and the following section is submitted therefor :
7. No person shall be a director of the company unless he be the holder of at least one share in the stock of the company, and has paid up all calls thereon ; but so long as the city of Guelph shall hold $20,000 of the capital stock of the said company, and shall be the holder of the bonds of said company, any bona fide ratepayer of the city of Guelph who is assessed for $1,000 or upwards on the assessment roll of the city of Guelph shall be eligible to be elected a director of the company.
(a.) The council of the corporation of the city of Guelph may, by by-law empower the mayor or any member of the council or other person to represent the corporation and vote at any meeting of the shareholders of the company, and to vote for such corporation in respect of its shares in the company, and in default of any such by-law the mayor of the city for the time being shall be entitled and authorized to represent the city at any such meeting of shareholders, and vote thereat, in respect of the shares of the company held by the said city.
(b.) The directors of the said company may and shall, upon the request of any of the present shareholders of the company upon whose shares 10 per cent only has been paid, issue a fully paid-up share or shares to such person or persons in exchange for and to the extent of the aggregate amount paid by him or them upon his or their present shares.
(c.) It shall be lawful for the corporation of the city of Guelph, subject to the laws of the province of Ontario, to acquire any fully paid-up share or shares in the said company, and to hold the same as well as those now held by the said city.
Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I do not feel that I would he justified in allowing this clause to go through the committee at the present time without entering my protest. So far as I am aware, the city of Guelph, as a municipal corporation, has never pronounced upon this, amendment. An amendment was introduced by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to the Bill entitled An Act respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company. That hon. gentleman supported that amendment by a petition from the city council of Guelph purporting to be passed by the city council and attested by their seal. That amendment the hon. gentleman withdrew, and, so far as I am aware, without the consent of the corporation of the city of Guelph, and without the consent of the directors of this railway company, he has submitted another amendment which I contend ought not to receive the sanction of this House until all the parties interested have been heard from. Certainly, we have not heard from the municipal corporation of the city of Guelph. Now, I want to say a
few words in respect to this matter further, and I shall endeavour to give the committee something of the history of this legislation. A short time ago a resolution was brought down to the council by the railway committee of the city council of Guelph, in which the matter of a change in regard to the directorate of the Guelph Junction Railway was referred to. I desire to say that that report, when presented to the committee, was vouched for by the chairman of the committee, who informed his colleagues on the committee as to the nature of its contents, but carefully kept back all the salient points contained in the report, leaving them to understand that it was a matter of very minor importance. The members of this railway committee of the city council, having confidence iu the chairman of the committee, signed the report of the committee, and allowed it to pass without investigating for themselves. Just to show the truthfulness of this, I desire to refer the committee to a letter which I think fully bears out all I have said upon the matter. The letter is signed by Mr. James Anderson, alderman of the South Ward of the city of Guelph, and it is addressed to the editor of the Guelph Mercury, a paper which supports the hon. gentleman who has introduced this resolution. It says :
Dear Sir,-As I signed the report of the Railway Committee and also voted in the Council authorizing His Worship the mayor and Alderman Dunbar to proceed to Ottawa to look after our interests in the Guelph Junction Railway question, and as I subsequently signed a petition with, I understand, nine other aldermen, requesting the Committee on Railways, etc., to ignore the request of the Council, I think some explanation is necessary to the ratepayers of the Sounth Ward whose interests I represent at the Council board. When Mcl.-rmin Dunbar called the committee together to consider the question, I, as well as two others of the committee, understood, as he certainly represented to us, that it was to appoint an auditor and other matters regarding the city's interests in the Guelph Junction Railway, but not until I read Col. McCrae's letter and the Guelph Junction Railway directors' statement in the Mercury did I comprehend that the scheme was to oust the old directors of the road and appoint fresh ones in their place. Now, if Alderman Dunbar had the interests of the city and the Guelph Junction Railway at heart, as he says he has, he would have explained things a little better to the committee. I am confident there were not more than two or three in the Council understood the question they were voting on, as subsequent revelations have proved, when ten of the aldermen have since signed a petition to let things remain as they are. Now, Sir, as the poet Burns says, ' The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft aglee,' I think Aider-man Dunbar's little schemes will meet the same fate, which it richly deserves. I spoke to Aider-men Taylor and Hamilton and they said they never understood, when signing the report, the object was to elect directors from the ratepayers of the city and throw the old ones overboard, I, for the future, will sign no report until I

am perfectly satisfied that I understand what I am doing, and will not take Alderman Dunbar's or any man's word for it.
Thanking you for inserting this explanation, I am,
Yours, etc.,



JAS. ANDERSON,

[Stage Direction]
Alderman, S. Ward. Homewood Cottage, Guelph, Mar. 29.
We endorse the above statement of the facts.
John H.: Hamilton,
W. M. Taylor.
Who I understand are also members of the committee. Now, hon. gentlemen can see the value that can be placed upon the report which was presented by the Railway Committee to the city council of Guelph to induce them to pass the resolution that came on here to the Railway Committee of the House of Commons. It was alleged at the meeting of the Railway Committee on Friday last, in support of the contention of the hon. member for South Wellington, that the present shareholders of the Guelph Junction Railway had made an offer, some twelve years ago, to assign their stock to the city of Guelph, or to hold it in trust for the city of Guelph if the city of Guelph would pass a by-law to raise $18,000 to meet the outstanding liabilities of the railway company. I desire to say, first, that a by-law was submitted before this offer was made, and that by-law was rejected, only 511 electors of the city of Guelph voting for it. In order to secure the passage of a by-law and make provision for the outstanding indebtedness of the line, or to pay off the outstanding indebtedness of this railway, a second by-law was submitted. It was on this occasion that the directors, or the shareholders, published the letter that was read in the Railway Committee on Friday last, offering to assign their stock to the city of Guelph or to hold it in trust for the city of Guelph if this by-law was passed. What was the result ? Did the electors accept this proposition ? Were they satisfied that the directors should step down and out, should assign their stock and relieve themselves of the control of the road? The question went to the people, and the letter having been published, and being in the minds of the electors of the city when the voting occurred, the electors refused to accept the proposition. They refused to accept the offer made by the shareholders of the Guelph Junction Railway Company, they refused to place that road under municipal control, and they rejected the by-law by a large majority, only 484 voting for it. Here we have the direct vote of the people of the city against the municipal control of the road, and if that was the opinion of the people of the city of Guelph at that time, it may be the opinion of the people of Guelph now. We have no evidence whatever tfiat the people of Guelph have changed their minds since Mr. HENDERSON.
1889. It is true that subsequently, that at the beginning of the following year, at the time when the municipal elections were on, at a time when it was more easy to secure votes for a scheme of this kind, when other issues were pending, that a bylaw to raise $18,000 was carried for the purpose of paying off the liabilities of the company, but we have no assurance that the letter signed by the shareholders of this company, in which they offered to assign their stock, or to hold it in trust, formed any factor in the arguments in favour of the third by-law which was passed in the beginning of January. We are rather to suppose that the case was the contrary as the electors in July had pronounced against municipal control by refusing to ratify the by-law to raise $18,000, and hand over the control to the city of Guelph. In the January following, w'hen the by-law was ratified, we have every reason to believe that the letter from the shareholders formed no factor in the arguments placed before the people.
Another evidence that the people of Guelph did not expect, or did not intend that that offer should be considered, after it had been rejected by the people ; is the fact that for twelve long years no action has been taken by the city of Guelph. The matter has just been allowed to lie where it was then, showing that without any doubt whatever, the city of Guelph did not intend to accept the offer made by the shareholders, and which the ratepayers of the city had by a large majority at the polls declared emphatically against by rejecting the bylaw in the month of July, 18S9, previous to the time that they had actually passed the by-law to raise the money. Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of all the facts, I think it is only fair that the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Guthrie) should not press the matter further. As I have said, the corporation of the city of Guelph did send a petition, and as to the value of that petition I have a word to say. They sent a petition here signed by the mayor and attested by the seal of the corporation, asking that certain things be done, but in opposition to that, after members of the city council had fully understood what had been done, ten of the members of the council, which is a majority of the aldermen, also sent a counter petition, and I will place this counter petition on ' Hansard,' in order that hon. gentlemen can study the matter for themselves. It is as follows :
To the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines ot the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada.
The petition of the undersigned aldermen and members of the council of the city of Guelph, humbly showeth :-
1.	That your petitioners have seen a report of the amendments to the Bill No. 23, intituled * An Act respecting the Guelph Junction Rail-

way Company,' proposed to your honourable committee on the 20th instant, and are informed that the said Bill has been referred back to have such amendments reconsidered.
2.	That such amendments we.re never presented to or considered by the council of the city of Guelph, and that the undersigned do not approve of such amendments.
Tour petitioners, therefore, pray that such amendments be not approved, but that you will be pleased to strike the same out. [DOT]
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.



H. H. STULL, JAMBS RYAN, J. A. SCOTT, W. W. WHITE, JAMES ANDERSON, JOHN H. HAMILTON, W. E. TAYLOR, A. B. PETRIE, WM. SLATER, SAMUEL CARTER.

[Stage Direction]
Dated March 23, A.D. 1901.
Here we have ten aldermen of the city of Guelph stating emphatically that the petition which was sent on by the mayor did not voice the sentiments of the city council of Guelph, and that these ten aldermen- who are a majority of the city council- did not approve of it. The number of aider-men in the city of Guelph is eighteen, I understand, and possibly the mayor may make nineteen, but these ten aldermen are certainly a majority of the whole city council. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is about all that I have to say in connection with this matter. I have entered my strong protest. I have done my duty, I think, towards the city of Guelph, and my own constituents, who are interested in this mater, inasmuch as the road passes through a portion of the county of Halton. I desire to say here that all the money put into this railway was not contributed by the city of Guelph. The government gave a bonus, of $48,000, and surely, people outside the city of Guelph might have something to say in the matter. Apart from this question, there is another principle involved ; a principle which has been discussed in this House ; namely, the government ownership of railways. At the present time there is a large deputation down here from the province of Manitoba strongly protesting against government ownership of railways in that province ; and why ? Because they consider it would be financial ruin to the province of Manitoba.
Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to say that the deputation is not here to protest against government ownership. They are here to protest against government ownership of railway debts ; not of railways.


David Henderson: I will accept the hon. gentleman's correction, but it makes very little difference which way it is, because these gentlemen are here from Manitoba to oppose the scheme of government ownership of railways proposed by the province of
Manitoba, because they consider it would be financial ruin to that province. Are we, in the face of all these facts, and with such an example as this before us, are we going to place in the hands of the corporation of the city of Guelph a large railway corporation, because although only sixteen miles have been constructed, it is proposed to extend this road seventy miles further. Have we reached that period when we are prepared to endorse municipal ownership of railways. Are we prepared to endorse the principle of allowing municipal corporations throughout this country to engage in extensive railway construction. Are we prepared,
1 say, to permit the council of any city or county in this country, to invest its funds in the construction of railways, or the extension of railways. II think this is a very important step, and before we adopt it-because we will practically adopt it if we pass this amendment-we ought to pause. Just one other point and it is this : I appeal to the promoter of this Bill not to press this resolution further just now and for this reason ; It has been stated, and I see it referred to in the public press, that the municipal council of the city of Guelph is likely to deal with this very matter tonight. Heretofore they have not pronounced upon this amendment. They pronounced in a peculiar way on the former amendment, which has been withdrawn, but they have never been heard on the amendment which is before the House at the present time. The city council of Guelph meets to-night, and in all probability will declare either in favour of this amendment or against it. I say it would be unfair to the ratepayers of the city of Guelph to pass legislation of this kind and force municipal ownership upon them, involving them in liabilities, without their consent. Nothing will be lost by delaying the Bill for the present. There will be abundant time to pass the Bill through both Houses, if it should go that far. The Senate is now taking a recess, so that if the Bill is postponed for a few days, no delay in its final passage will result. I would prefer that the city of Guelph should be heard from, and I have no doubt we will hear from them in the form of a petition either in favour of or against the amendment. If they petition in favour of it, of course the promoter of the Bill will have strong ground upon which to appeal to the House to pass the legislation, and if they are against it, I believe he will take a wise course in asking that the amendment be withdrawn. There was a statement in the Guelph Mercury to the effect that I had stated to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) a few days ago, after leaving the Railway Committee room, that the city council would pass a resolution on Monday night. I desire to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) is mistaken in reporting that to the Guelph

Mercury- It was not I who made the statement ; the statement was made by a ratepayer of the city of Guelph in his presence. I do not wish to be made so prominent in this matter as to have it said that I was going to anticipate what action the city of Guelph would take. When the representatives of the city do take action, and I think their action is in the right direction, I will endeavour to carry out their vews, but I shall not anticipate what they may do. In view of the fact that the city corporation of Guelph is more than likely to deal with the matter to-night, I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) would do well to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question. Vote.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: In view of the circumstances that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has stated to the House, I do think that the hon. member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Guthrie) should let it stand. While I am desirous of facilitating any reasonable legislation, yet, to my mind, it seems fair that there should be delay for consideration in this matter. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has shown us this is a question between a municipality and certain individuals jointly interested in an arrangement that did not give the city of Guelph the control of the project, and they are proposing to take charge of it by Act of parliament. That being so, surely we do not wish a city or a town or any municipality to take charge until we are satisfied that the council, by a majority, has declared itself in favour of the legislation. I agree with the hon. gentleman that it is a new proposition. At all events, I am within the mark when I say that I know of no case in the province of Ontario in which a city or a town' has the exclusive control or ownership of a railway. This legislation will give control to the city of Guelph, and I can well understand that at the time the arrangement was made other gentlemen were associated with it. Even supposing we were willing to go that far in a special case, we have not yet had the approval of the city ; because, while it is true that at the beginning a petition was presented to us from the city vouched for by the signature of the mayor and the corporate seal, that petition has been superseded by another one in its place. The Bill that was introduced into this House and was referred to the Railway Committee in the first instance had no legislation of this sort in it, and there was no notice given of it. When the Bill went before the Railway Committee, there was no idea or notice that it was anything more than a single proposition to extend the time for the construction of the road, on which all parties would have agreed without discussion. The Bill passed the Railway Commit-M. HENDERSON.
tee on the. petition of the city. Now, two things have happened since-two things without which, for my part, I would not be willing, without a protest, to vote for it. First of all, the new amendments have not been confirmed by the city council. More than that, we have from a majority of that council since a petition asking this House to interfere and prevent being passed what the petition of the city council as presented to us asks. That is a very serious state of affairs. Two very serious propositions are involved in this legislation. First, if anybody is entitled to the legislation, it is the city ; because, mind you, we are changing an Act of Parliament. We are changing the arrangement under which the road was controlled and managed before. Secondly, there may be a question, and a serious one, whether we have power to pass this Bill, or some clauses of it, authorizing what may be only within the legislative authority of the province of Ontario. But, lastly, on the merits, we have a distinct petition by a majority of the city council. Then, here is the further responsibility : Who is it that ought to speak to us in matters of this kind ? Not the city council, but the ratepayers of Guelph. These people could not incur the ownership of this road without the approval of the ratepayers, because, under the law of the province of Ontario, as is well known, the city council cannot incur such liabilities without first submitting the question to the vote of the ratepayers, and we have not heard at all from the ratepayers, the actual owners. There will not be an hour's delay to the legislation by putting the matter off, because the Senate happens to be adjourned, and I think the action of the House and the feeling of all of us would be better for a short stay of proceedings. The hon. gentleman, I think, would do well to satisfy everybody that there was nothing in the suggestion made in the Railway Committee that this legislation was being, to a certain extent, railroaded through in the interest of certain parties. Whatever we may think of the legislation, we shall have a chance of getting a further expression of opinion, and ascertaining whether the city by a majority of the council are in favour of it.
Section agreed to : yeas, 61 ; nays, 38.
Bill reported.
On the question, that the Bill be now read the third time,


David Henderson: I think, Sir, that those who are opposed to this amendment have a very strong case on which to appeal to you to protect the minority in this House. The city council of Guelph, whose interests are very much at stake in this whole matter, meets to-niglit, and will in all probability pass a resolution either approving or condemning this amendment, and we ask

that the third reading be deferred until we have an opportunity of hearing from the city council.


David Tisdale: In all my recollection of private legislation, unless it could be shown that the session was so near its end that the passage of any measure would be endangered by delay, a request for the third reading to stand over has never been refused. We do not object to the passing of this Bill, but wish to hear first whether the majority of the city council of Guelph are in its favour or not. The bon. gentleman who is promoting this measure was no doubt within his rights in pressing it through its various stages, but I am surprised that he should wish to railroad the third reading through in this manner.


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: I hardly think my hon. friends are fair in charging any want of courtesy to the hon. niember for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). This Bill has been dealt with in a very unusual way. It was before the committee twice, and each time had a full and long discussion, and I appeal to my hon. friend from Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) whether in his recollection any Bill of so little importance has taken up so much of the time of parliament. On both occasions when this Bill was before the committee the ablest advocates and counsel on both sides were present and laid their views before the committee.


David Tisdale: I do not think I made any charge of discourtesy against the hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill. I said that he was quite within his rights in pressing the measure through this far, but in view of the fact that came out at the last hearing before the committee, namely, that ten aldermen were against the measure, I think we ought to let the third reading stand until we hear from the council.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This Bill was passed by the committee, but when it came before the House, the Minister of Railways suggested that, as the statement was made that there were some matters in connection with the measure perhaps not fully known, the Bill should be referred back to the committee. It went before the committee again and both sides were heard, and by an overwhelming majority the Bill was adopted in its present shape. I do not think therefore it is fair to suggest that it has not had the fullest consideration. We are simply putting the city of Guelph in the position in which it wishes to be placed. There is a little local squabble, but having heard both sides I do not think any hon. member can say this is legislation we ought not to pass in the general public interest.


Mr. HENRY CARGILL (East Bruce).: The bon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) who has just taken his seat said that if one
single good reason were given why this Bill should be postponed, he would willingly consent to the postponement. I rise for the purpose of giving him that reason-and I think it is a very good one. In the first place, this Bill was passed through the committee becatfce of a petition presented signed by a minority of the city council of Guelph, but purporting to be signed by a majority. At the next meeting of the committee a petition was presented, signed by a majority of the city council, protesting against the passing of the Bill. Now, it has been, alleged here, and by good authority, that the city council of the city of Guelph meets to-night, and it is proposed to discuss this matter on its merits. If the city council of Guelph declare themselves in favour of the passing of this Bill, I would be quite willing to vote for it; if they decide against it, I should feel it my duty to oppose it. I may say that I do not believe that the city of Guelph would have had the Guelph unction Railway, had not these ten men who are protesting against the passing of this Bill, come to the front at the time the rail-oad was proposed to be built. They were prominent business men in the city of Guelph, all of whom were anxious for a connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purpose of getting competing rates. The city of Guelph alone could not have undertaken the construction of that railroad without the assistance of these men, who voluntarily came forward and subscribed stock, and enabled the city to secure the construction of the line. Now, I do think-and I believe the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) thinks with me-that it is an injustice to the city of Guelph, to take away from these ten men who assisted in the construction of that road the rights which they have in it. I do think that, in justice to these men, the city of Guelph should have their consent to the passage of this Bill-they should not be ignored. In consequence of the adjournment of the Senate for ten or twelve days and the pending meeting of the Guelph city council tonight at which they will, no doubt, reach a decision on this subject, we should not press forward the third reading of this Bill, but should leave the matter over until tomorrow. To do so will not retard the passage of the measure, as it must go through the Senate, and it will be two weeks before that can be effected. I hope that not only in the interest of the city of Guelph, but in the interest of these directors who are protesting against the passage of the Bill, the hon. member for South Wellington will not press the third reading until to-morrow. It is not an enviable position for the hon. member to put himself in-that of hostility toward these ten prominent men in his own city. I cannot believe that he desires to take that position. I think that in the interest of all concerned the hon. member should not press the third reading now.


Mr. ROBERT HOLMES (West Huron).: All tliese points have been threshed out very fully before the Railway Committee. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is himself a resident of Guelph, and ought to know whether the people are hostile to this Bill or not as well as anybody else. I fail to see where there is any object to be gained by allowing this Bill to stand over. This House has no evidence that the city of Guelph is hostile to the measure. We have the statement of members of the council, but nothing- has been offered, although there has been plenty of time, to show that the city council is hostile to the Bill. It seems to me to be plainly in the interests of the people of Guelph that the Bill should pass.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The contention has bee made that it should remain, to a certain extent in my hands to decide whether this Bill should receive its third reading today or be left over for some future day. On reading the rules, I cannot easily reach that conclusion. Rule 47 says :
All amendments made in committee shall be reported by the chairman to the House, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report, the Bill shall be open to debate and amendment, before it is ordered for a third reading. But when a Bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the House.
As lion, gentlemen will see, when the Bill is reported without amendment, the question as to the third reading is left entirely to the discretion of the House and not to the decision of the Speaker.


David Henderson: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, what has been the practice ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The practice has been in accordance with the rule that I have laid down just now. You will find that In 1898, I think, Sir James Edgar decided a case similar to this one. Objection was raised to the third reading of a Bill, and he decided that the matter was to be left in the hands of the House. The motion that was then moved was as follows : ' Whether the Bill should be ordered for a third reading forthwith.' The motion in that instance, perhaps, is not in form similar to this, but it is the same idea. It is for the House to decide whether the Bill shall receive its third reading forthwith or whether it shall be deferred to a future day.


David Henderson: Is it not a fact that the precedent you have read is the only one on record ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have looked over the decisions in England, and find that they are similar to those rendered by Sir James Edgar in 1898. Therefore, the House will be called upon to vote on the motion in my hands.	.
House divided on motion of Mr. Guthrie : Mr. CARGILL.
YEAS :
Messieurs
Angers,	Logan,
Archambault,	Lovell,
Bazinet,	Loy,
Bernier,	Macdonald,
Blair,	Ivlackie,
Bureau,	Maclaren (Huntingdon),
Calvert,	McCarthy,
Champagne,	McCool,
Charlton,	McCreary,
Christie,	McEwen,
Copp,	McGugan,
Costigan,	Mclsaac,
Cowan,	McLennan,
Davies (Sir Louis).	Martineau,
Davis,	Matheson,
Delisle,	Maxwell,
Emmerson,	Mignault,
Ethier,	Oliver.
Fielding,	Parmelee,
Fisher,	Paterson,
Fitzpatrick,	Proulx,
Flint,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fortier,	Roche (Halifax),
Fraser,	Ross (Ontario),
Gibson,	Ross (Victoria),
Girard,	Scott,
Guthrie,	Sifton,
Heyd,	Smith (Vancouver),
Holmes,	Stephens,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Sutherland (Oxford),	
Hyman,	Talbot,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Tarte,	
Johnston (Lambton)	, Thompson,
Kendall,	Tolmie,
Lang,	Tucker,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid)	Turgeon, ,
Laurier (L'Assomption), Wade, and	
Lewis,	Wright.-76.
	NAYS :
Messieurs	
Alcorn,	Kidd,
Barker,	Lancaster,
Bell (Addington),	LaRi viore,
Bennett,	Lavell,
Birkett,	Lennox,
Blain,	Maclean,
Borden (Halifax),	McGowan,
Broder,	Morin,
Cargill,	Prior, .
Clancy,	Puttee,
Clarke,	Richardson (Grey),
Cochrane,	Richardson (Lisgar),
Earle,	Robinson (Elgin),
Fowler,	Sherritt,
Gilmour,	Simmons,
Gourley,	Tisdale,
Hackett,	Tolton,
Henderson,	Vrooman,
Hughes (Victoria),	Wallace, and
Johnston (Cardwell)	Wilmot.-41.
Kaulbach,


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I understand the	
hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall)	
entered the House after the motion was	
put, and therefore cannot vote.


Mr. KENDALL.: That is a mistake. I
had entered, and	was speaking to an hon.
member.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Did the hon. gentleman
bear the question	put ?
*2.397


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I did.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 71) an Act respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company. -Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) respecting the Grand Falls Water Power and Boom Company-Mr. Costigan.
Bill (No. 95) respecting the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railways Company. -Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 97) to incorporate the Manufacturers and Temperance and General Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 98) incorporating the Kettle River Yalley Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL (Pictou)-by Mr. Clarke-asked:
1.	What number of tons of grain was transported from Depot Harbour to each of the ports of St. John and Halifax in each of the months of November and December, 1900, and January and February, 1901?
2.	What was the number of miles hauled on each of the several roads over which freight was carried?
3.	What was the total amount accruing to each road as its share of the freight?
4.	What was the rate per ton mile accruing to each road?
5.	What was the amount accruing to the Intercolonial Railway for elevator charges at St. John and Halifax in addition to the freight rate for transportation?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I suggest that the hon. member might move for a return. I am getting the information he desires, it is very voluminous, and I will hand in the return at once.


ROUND BAY, N.S., PUBLIC WORK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL (Pictou)-by Mr. Kaulbaeh- asked :
1.	Was a canal excavated at Round Bay, Shelburne county, N.S., during the year 1900?
2.	Were tenders asked for the work or for materials or for transport of materials?
3.	From whom was material purchased?
4.	What price was paid for timber?
5.	What freight was paid on timber?
6.	Is the canal now completed?
7.	For what purpose was it intended?
8.	Has it been found suited to that purpose?
9.	Did any government engineer recommend the construction of the work?
10.	If so, what was the name of such engineer?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	No canal was excavated ; but certain obstructions to the ascent of fish at Round Bay Brook were removed by blasting a rock.
2.	No.
3.	The whole amount expended was $85, which included labour and materials.
6.	The passage has been cleared.
7.	To enable fish to ascend.
8.	Yes.
9.	No.


BROCKVILLE DRILL HALL.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	Who was appointed clerk of works to superintend the construction of the drill hall at Brockville?
2.	Has he been dismissed, and if so, when?
3.	Were any complaints made against him?
4.	Who has since been appointed in his place, and when?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1 and 2. Mr. Dillon was appointed clerk of works on 2nd of July, 1900, and employed until date of suspension of work on 10th November. When work was resumed later he was not re-employed.
3.	No.	,
4.	J. S. Mix.


MAIL CARRIAGE FROM ASHCROFT.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	What amounts were paid by the Post Office Department to the contractors for carrying the mails from Ashcroft, B.C., to the Cariboo district, in the years 1895-6-7-8-9, giving each year separately?
2.	To whom were these sums paid?
3.	Was the contract satisfactorily carried out by the company who had the contract previous to the contractors of '1897?
4.	Did the present contractors ever put in a bid for the contract they now hold? If so, when, and for what amount?
5.	Were the contractors of 1895 ever asked to put in a bid for the present contract? If not, why not?
6.	Did not the contractors of 1895 offer in 1896 to take the contract for $22,600 per annum?


James Sutherland: 1 and 2.
2399 COMMONS 2400		
Name of Service.	To whom payments were made.	Amounts paid.Ashcroft Station, BarkerviUe, &c. ...	1895. British Columbia Express Co	
T. McAllister	8 cts. 24.000	00 1.100 00 1,000 00 890 00 24.000	00 1,100 00 750 00 250 00 445 00 400 00 334 70 24.000	00 1,100 00 1,000 00 800 00 545 00Alexis Creek and Soda Creek	
Alkali Lake and Clinton	
Keithley Creek and 150 IN Cile House....		
Ashcroft Station, Barkerville, &c		1890. British Columbia Express Co		
Alexis Creek and Soda Creek			
Alkali Lake and Clinton	 .		
M ,|		
Keithley Creek and 150 Mile House ....		
	British Columbia Express Co.. .(6 i. j	
Horsefly and 150 Mile House			
Ashcroft Station, Barkerville, &c		1897. British Columbia Express Co. .(10 mos.)	
Alexis Creek and Soda Creek			
Alkali Lake and Clinton			
Keithley Creek and 150 Mile House	 Horsefly and 108 Mile House	 	 Ashcroft Station, Barkerville, &c	 .	British Columbia Express Co .. S. H. Tingley	 1898.	
Alkali Lake and Clinton . 			
Alexis Creek and Soda Creek			23,187 46
Keithley Creek and 150 Mile House . ..		
Horsefly and 108 Mile House			
Ashcroft Station, Barkerville, &c ... 				1899.	
Alkali Lake and Clinton 			
Alexis Creek and Soda Creek			23,249 99
Keithley Creek and 150 Mile House			
Horsefly and 150 Mile House			
		
3.	Yes. 4.	Yes, in 1897, $23,000. 5.	The present contract is a renewal of the contract entered into in 1897, for which the contractors of 1895 contracted for with others. 6.	No. TICKET AGENTS FOR INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY. Mr. DECHENE asked : What are the names of the agents who sell passenger tickets for the Intercolonial Railway in the several cities of Montreal, Quebec, L6vis, Moncton, St. John, N.B., Halifax, &c., and their respective salaries? The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) : Names of agents who sell passenger tickets for the Intercolonial Railway in the following cities, and their respective salaries: Per month. J. W. Bryson, Montreal	$ 75 00 D. R. McDonald, Quebec .... 85 00 Y. Pelletier, Quebec 	 45 00 Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).	D. McDonald, Levis	 $70 00 J. E. Henderson, Moncton ... 100 00 (For assistance), Moncton	 30 00 Geo. Carvlll, St. John City . . 80 00 T. E. Hannington, St. John Station 	 85 00 R. F. Armstrong, Halifax City	 85 00 C. Rennels, Halifax Station.. 70 83 PAN-AMERICAN EXHIBITION-CANADIAN SECTION. Mr. BRODER asked : Is It the intention of the government to close the Canadian exhibit at the Pan-American Exposition on the Sabbath during the continuance of such exposition? The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher). The Canadian section of the Pan-American exhibition will be closed during the Sabbath. POSTMASTER AT WINONA, ONT. Mr. SMITH (Wentworth)-by Mr. Lavell- asked : Has a postmaster been appointed at Winona In place of Mr. Secord? If so, whom?


James Sutherland: No appointment has been made.


PAN-AMERICAN EXHIBITION. CANADIAN SECTION.
Mr. CHARLTON asked :: Does the government intend to close the Canadian section of the Pan-American exhibition on Sunday, in case the American portion of the exhibition is opened upon that day?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: That is a question which was practically answered by the answer to question No. 10. The government do intend to close the Canadian section of the Pan-American exhibition on [DOT] Sundays.
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE <OF PRIVY COUNCIL.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Has the government been invited by the Imperial authorities to send a representative to England to consult with them in reference to a change in the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
2.	If so, who has been appointed as the Canadian delegate?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Yes, the government has been invited to send a representative, but no representative has yet been appointed.


PUBLIC BUILDING AT TORONTO JUNCTION.
Mr. WALLACE asked :: 1.	Whether the government have yet selected a site for public building in Toronto Junction?
2.	If so, at what cost, where located, and what are the dimensions of the lot?
3.	How much money was voted by parliament for said building or site?
4.	When was it voted?
5.	If no site has yet been selected, what steps have been taken to do so?
6.	If nothing has been done, why not?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to place a sum in the estimates for 1901-2 for the construction of said building?
S.	Has the government abandoned its intention, declared last year, of proceeding with its construction?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1 and 2. No site has yet been obtained.
3.	$5,000.
4.	Last session.
5.	6, 7 and 8. I am glad to say that the matter is now engaging the earnest attention of the government.


EXPORTATION OF SPECKLED TROUT.
Mr. PREFONTAINE asked :: Whether the government, or any members thereof, have been in communication with the provincial- authorities of Quebec, in relation to the adoption of legislative measures to prevent the exportation of speckled trout?
If so, what was the conclusion arrived at?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	No conclusion will be arrived at until the views of the other provinces are obtained. They have been asked their views in order that a uniform regulation can be framed if it is decided to do so.


PUBLIC BUILDING AT TORONTO JUNCTION.
Mr. N. CLARKE WALLACE (West York).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that the statement made by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is not an answer to question No. 8, asked by me.
Mr. SPEAKER, Order ; there can be no discussion on the answer that has been given.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I shall move the adjournment of the House to put myself in order.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: It has been answered ; it is engaging the attention of the government.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The question is :
Has the government abandoned its intention, declared last year, of proceeding with its construction?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the answer.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, it is not the answer. It is not a satisfactory answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am quite in order. I move the adjournment of the House. The government have not dealt fairly with me. In the English parliament and in this parliament, up to a recent period, the government have recognized the right of private members to ask proper and pertinent questions and to receive answers for the information of the House and the public. This way of disposing of a question, is not, I am sure, satisfactory to the House, or to the country. It is not an answer at all. The government, last year, in their estimates, proposed a vote of $5,000 for the purpose of procuring land and proceeding with the erection of a public building in Toronto Junction. I asked a question in the early part of the session, and was informed by the hon. Minister of Public "Works just what I am informed to-day, that the matter was engaging the attention of the government. Nearly a year has elapsed, and nothing has been done according to the answer given to the first question on the Order paper. Nothing whatever has been done. Now. I want to know, whether anything is going to be done,



Whether the money that was voted is going to be used, or whether a single thing has been done towards supplementing their proposal last year, or whether there simply was a vote of money made in order to Influence the electors of the town of Toronto Junction, immediately before an election, or whether, because the town of Toronto Junction did not choose to vote confidence in the government, they are going to be punished now, and that the government after pledging themselves in that way, are not going to erect that public building. The hon. Minister of Public Works, when he is asked, the question :
Has the government abandoned its intention, declared last year, of proceeding with its construction ?
Says the question is engaging the attention of the government. It cannot engage the attention of the government unless the government say : We made a pledge last year to the citizens of Toronto Junction, and we are considering to-day whether we will violate that solemn pledge that we made. That is the position, and that is the statement made by the hon. Minister of Public Works. I do not believe in that kind of way of doing business. I believe in a straightforward way.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If the government have made up their minds that they are going to abandon the project of putting up a public building in Toronto Junction let them get up and say so like men in answer to this question of mine. Instead of saying, when asked a question, it is still receiving the attention of the government. That is not the way to do business, and it is not the way that parliament should be treated in these matters.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair to the House that when an hon. member asks a question he should not be treated in the cavalier manner in which the Minister of Public Works takes it upon himself to treat the House. It was, in the last parliament, a matter of comment and complaint that that parliament, as compared with former parliaments. was a very cheap one, but, if the last parliament was a cheap one compared with former parliaments, I would like to ask what the present parliament is compared with the last one. It is going lower and lower .every day, and this is because of such action as the action of the hon. Minister of Public Works. When questions are asked in the House, and when they are allowed to stand over day after day owing to the fact that ministers are not in their places, when the House is almost deserted, when out of 130 government representatives there are rarely ever more than twenty-five or thirty in their Mr. WALLACE.
places, public business is being treated in a most flippant manner, and so long as ministers will treat it as flippantly as the hon. Minister of Public Works treats it, by refusing point blank to answer questions, so long must this cheapening of the House go on. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) is surprised. I am not at all surprised at the way In which the government treated him. Prior to the last general election in East Simcoe, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) was asked to do what ? In a part of the country where there was no necessity whatever of granting a daily mail, and where there had never been a daily mail before, a daily mail, on the eve of the election, was granted.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Order, order.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) says order. No doubt the hon. gentleman does not like me to speak of such things. It was a most shamefaced thing, and when the election was over the daily mail service was withdrawn.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) has only a right to refer to the point raised by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), who moved the adjournment.


William Humphrey Bennett: I was just referring to this incident, Mr. Speaker, by way of illustration. All I can say is that if hon. gentlemen wish to expedite the business of the House it would be much better that ministers should answer questions when they are placed upon the Order paper, and if they are not answered, the only course left open will be to move the adjournment, and in that way to provoke discussion.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, it is undesirable that we should have any difficulty over this question. When we come to look at the questions which the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) answered in a general way, we shall see that they were capable of a distinct answer. They do not seem to be questions which were improper or offensive in any respect whatever.
If no site has yet been selected, what steps have been taken to do so.
That is a definite question, a perfectly proper question and an answer to it, it seems to me, would furnish information which the House is entitled to receive.
If nothing has been done, why not?
Is it the intention of the government to place a sum in the estimates for 1901-2 for the construction of said building ?
Unless there is some technical objection to that. I do not see any reason why it should not be answered.

Has the government abandoned its intention, declared last year, of proceeding with its construction?
Surely the House is entitled to know what the intention of the government is with regard to that. Their intention was announced last year, and when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) inquires whether or not the government has abandoned that intention, the only answer received to that and to all these questions, is, that these matters are engaging the attention of the government. That is an extremely vague answer ; it is, in fact, no answer at all. I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman who leads the House that it is desirable in the interest of expediting public business, that answers of a somewhat more definite nature, in cases of this kind, might very well be given by ministers having charge of the departments.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) knows that very great latitude is given ministers in answering questions, and when a minister states his judgment it is not open to any hon. gentleman to criticise it. If the answer is deemed insufficient the question might be repeated at another date.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the good of asking the question again, if the answer is not given ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Sometimes there is a disagreement between the hon. gentleman who asks the question and the minister, and an understanding may perhaps be come to and the answer given.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I might mention, to the right hon. gentleman that this is virtually the second time that I have put this question on the Order paper ; at the beginning of the session, and now.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very good ; and the answer given is that the matter is under consideration. We are asked if it is the intention of the government to place a sum in the estimates for 1901, and the hon. leader of the opposition knows that the answer to such a question always is : You will have to wait until the estimates are brought down. The question again is put : If the government has abandoned its intention, and the minister very frankly says that the matter is under consideration. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) does not see an (item in the estimates for this, it will be open for him to take any recourse he thinks proper.


Robert Laird Borden: Surely there should be some definite answer given to question No. 5.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The answer to questions 5, 6, 7 and 8 is, that the whole matter is under consideration. The minister is considering as to the site and as to
the policy and everything else, and the question is as fully answered as it should be.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The policy was declared last year.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The policy to have a site was declared last year. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) knows that when he was a member of the government the same item was put in the estimates year after year, and yet nothing was done. Does the hon. gentleman remember the case of Peterborough, where the item was in the estimates for five consecutive years and no action was taken.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The action taken was that the member resigned his seat in parliament on the head of it, because there was a difference about the selection of a site.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If this case has the same ending and if it should drive my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) from parlia-(ment, I would be very sorry indeed, but I would try to console myself.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It was the other chap who ran. against me who got out of parliament.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I submit that it is abusing the privilege to move the adjournment of the House on a matter like this.


Robert Laird Borden: Question No. 5 relates to something that is supposed to have taken place in the past, and with all due deference to the right hon. gentleman, the answer, that the matter is under the consideration of the government, does not seem to me to be a sufficient answer.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It seems to me that the minister is considering about the site.
Motion to adjourn the House (Mr. Wallace) negatived.


A MINISTER OF MINES.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	Did the government receive a copy of a resolution passed at a numerously attended meeting of the British Columbia Mining Association, held at Nelson, B.C., praying for the creation and establishment by the government of a portfolio or bureau of mines with a responsible minister of the Crown in charge of such department ?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to make such an appointment forthwith?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government has received the resolution, I think, from the association mentioned in the question, and several representations on the same subject. The government has come to no conclusion yet upon this matter.


LIGHTHOUSE ON GREEN ISLET, B.C.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to erect a lighthouse this season on Green Islet, Chatham Sound, B.C.?
2.	Is it not a fact that this island is considered one of the mo.st dangerous points in the navigation of northern waters on the Pacific coast ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to place a fog signal on Brotchie's Ledge; also distinguishing lights on Sehl Point and Hospital Point, Victoria Harbour?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	A petition asking for such a lighthouse was received in my department on the 22nd of March, 1901. This is the first request made for a lighthouse at that point, and is now receiving consideration.
2.	No.
3.	A fog signal was put in operation on Brotchie's Ledge on the 19th of March, 1901.
The question of placing lights on Sehl Point and Hospital Point will be considered, there are harbour lights already maintained near both points.


STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA-SAILING DIRECTIONS.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	Has the government received a letter from the British Columbia Board of Trade inclosing copy of a letter from Capt. Chas. E. Clarke, harbour master of the port of Victoria, B.C., to Capt. J. G. Cox, chairman of the committee on harbours and navigation of that board of trade, setting forth sundry alterations necessary to be made in the sailing directions, &c., for ships entering the Straits of Juan de Fuca, as contained in the * British Columbia Pilot ' ?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to have Capt. Clarke's suggestions carried out at once?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	The letter referred to was received in this department on the 22nd of March, 1901.
2.	The sailing directions referred to are a publication of the Imperial Admiralty. Captain Clarke's letter has, consequently, been forwarded to the Hydrographers of the Admiralty.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That from this date to the end of the session, Government Orders have precedence immediately after questions put by members on Wednesdays.


Robert Laird Borden: This will leave no opportunity for making any motions, and that might result very awkwardly. For example, the Minister of Railways did not answer the first question on the Order paper to-day, but suggested that the hon. member should give notice of mo-


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: tion. If this motion is passed there will be no opportunity to get the information. There are some notices on the Order paper which have not been moved, owing to the necessary absence of members. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has a motion to which he would have spoken were it not for his absence on account of domestic affliction. I would suggest to my right hon. friend that perhaps it might be as well not to include the first Wednesday in this motion, but to make it apply after that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



ADJOURNMENT FOR EASTER HOLIDAYS.

The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That when the House adjourns on Thursday next, it stands adjourned until Tuesday, the 9th of April.
He said : Several members on both sides of the House have conveyed to me their view that it would be more convenient if the House were to adjourn from Wednesday.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then, if that be the wish of the House, the government has no objection to meet it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would enter a protest on behalf of the members from the west, who never get home. I protest against lengthening the session by even a day.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sorry I cannot accommodate my hon. friend-
Mr. LaRIVIERE. To make up for it, I will protest against the protest.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That settles it.


Mr. HACKETT.: Will the adjournment be at six o'clock ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it may be considered at six o'clock, for the last two Wednesdays we did nothing after six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 32) to provide for the marking and inspection of packages containing fruit for sale.- The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Sydney Fisher).
On section 4,
Edward Frederick Clarke: I may say, for the information of the minister, that I took the liberty of sending several copies of this Bill to gentlemen engaged in the fruit export business ; and, as I have received no ac-

knowledgment even of the receipt of those copies of the Bill, I take it that it must be reasonably satisfactory to them. 1 think it due to the minister to say that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say, for the hon. gentleman's information, that after having introduced a somewhat similar Bill last session, I was in constant communication, not only with fruitgrowers, but with fruit shippers and packers, and last winter I had a meeting with a large number of them in the city of Toronto, and went over the Bill with them, and there was a pretty general concurrence in its details, although there was a slight difference of opinion among themselves. The Bill, as it stands to-day, is a pretty close adherence to the consensus of opinion at that meeting. I may tell the hon. gentleman, however, that in consequence of the discussion here on Friday afternoon, I propose to submit one or two slight amendments, which we will discuss when we come to the different clauses.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has considered the advisability of adopting some uniform standard ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have an amendment which I think will cover that, and which I think will satisfy the hon. gentleman.
On section 6,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would like to insert in this clause certain words, in deference to the objections which were raised by certain members of the House from the province of Nova Scotia. It was pointed out that in the English market today ' Canadian apples ' is a well-known phrase or brand, and means apples which come from the central part of this Dominion. and not from the maritime provinces, while Nova Scotia apples are known there, and are branded as such. I appreciate that to oblige Nova Scotia apples to be market with a designation in that market which would be not a national designation, but a designation of apples from a certain part of Canada, might be a hardship to the Nova Scotia shipper. I, therefore, suggest inserting after the words 'A No. i Canadian,' the following : ' (or A No. 1, followed by the name of the province in which the fruit was grown)'. That is, instead of using ' A No. 1 Canadian,' packers can use ' A No. 1 Ontario.' ' A No. 1, Nova Scotia,' ' A No. 1 Quebec.' or ' A No. 1 British Columbia.'


James Clancy: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman proposes to retain ' A No. 1 Canadian ' as well ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Shippers can use either 'A No. 1 Canadian.' or ' A No. 1 Nova Scotia,' or ' A No. 1 Ontario.'


James Clancy: It seems to me that will lead to extreme confusion. I have no disposition, nor do I think the committee has any, to deprive Nova Scotia of the enjoyment
of any advantages which it may have earned in the past ; but, I think it would be quite confusing if we adopted the plan proposed without doing away with the brand 'A No. 1 Canadian.' We are practically adopting two standards. Suppose the other provinces adopted ' A No. 1 Canadian,' while Nova Scotia refused to adopt that and used 'A No. 1 Nova Scotia'? I think the simplest way would be to abandon ' A No. 1 Canadian,' and brand with the names of the different provinces. I think that would meet the views of the gentlemen from Nova Scotia.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I agree with my hon. friend, who suggests that we should drop 'A No. 1 Canadian'; but, I would suggest that we say ' A No. 1 Nova Scotia, Canada,'
' A No. 1 Ontario, Canada.' ' A No. 1 Quebec, Canada,' &c. With the word ' Canada ' added. everybody would know that those are Canadian apples, and would also know from what particular province of Canada each package came. But, if simply the name of the province is marked on the package, for instance Nova Scotia, people might not know that Nova Scotia was a part of Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I quite sympathize with hon. gentlemen in their desire to have the word ' Canadian ' added, but we cannot ignore certain facts. There are to-day two known brands of apples from this Dominion on the English market-one is Canadian and the other is Nova Scotian. If we were to insist that all apples from the Dominion, should be branded ' Canadian,' we would destroy the Nova Scotian brand, which is as well known on the market as the Tasmanian or any other. If we were to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), we would destroy the distinctive character of the Canadian brand-which today is understood to mean the apples from Ontario and Quebec. The English people well understand that the different provinces are Canadian. So much is this the case 1 that the English law, which provides that all articles of food coming from a foreign I country must be marked with the name of [DOT] that country, is so administered that the English officials , accept the names ' Nova Scotia,' ' British Columbia,' ' Quebec ' and so on as sufficient compliance with the law and sufficiently indicating that the apples are from Canada.


James Clancy: I protest against any province setting up a standard at the expense of all Canada. While not at all disposed to deprive Nova Scotia or any other province of any particular reputation it may have earned for the quality of its fruit, I think

there ought to be no objection to our adding the word ' Canada ' to the provincial brand. Surely no one would propose to exclude the word ' Canada ' for fear of injuring the reputation of any fruit. Nova Scotia sometimes sends bad apples.


Mr. WADE.: No.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows well that the Commissioner of Agriculture stated a few days ago in the committee that the worst apples sent from Canada to the English market came from Nova Scotia.


Mr. KAULBACH.: That is a mistake.


James Clancy: Well, the statement was made, whether well-founded or not. While we are all agreed that Nova Scotia should not lose any advantage which she may have gained by sending a superior class of fruit, it would not be advisable, when making a standard brand, not to make one which would apply to all the provinces.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I would suggest that if Nova Scotia wishes to add its name below the brand, that could very easily be done. For instance, ' Brand No. 1 Canadian ' might be shown to indicate Nova Scotia by adding ' Nova Scotia ' to the brand. Let it be ' No. 1 Canadian,' and, if a Nova Scotia dealer likes to put the name of his province below that, he is free to do so. In that way he retains his brand. That will meet the view of the hon. member for Bothwell, it should satisfy the Nova Scotia dealer, and it will retain the word ' Canadian.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman does not understand the present market brands.


William Findlay Maclean: The object is to protect the Nova Scotia apples.


Fletcher Bath Wade: But 'No. 1 Canadian' is a special brand.


William Findlay Maclean: But, if the Nova Scotians wish to keep the name ' Nova Scotia ' before the public they can put it below the other.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It is not a matter of keeping Nova Scotia before the public. The brand * No. 1 Nova Scotia ' or ' A No. 1 Nova Scotia has a special significance. There are two brands of apples, as I understand it, going to the English market. One is known as ' Nova Scotia,' and the other as ' Canadian.' And what we in Nova Scotia wish is the right to retain our distinctive brand. We are not taking anything from Ontario or any other province by doing that.


James Clancy: Xes, you are.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I would like the hon. gentleman to explain in what way we are taking anything from any other province. This clause provides that no person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for Mr. CLANCY.
sale, any apples or pears packed in a closed package and intended for export upon which is marked the grade ' A No. 1 Canadian,' unless such fruit consists of well-grown specimens of one variety-and so on. That would cover the case of the Ontario or Quebec apples as they are shipped to-day, and the minister proposes to add in parenthesis the words ' A No. 1 Nova Scotia.' or the name of any other province in which the fruit is produced. In other words, it will enable us to put upon our barrels 'A No. 1 Nova Scotia,' the same as we are doing to-day. Ontario shippers can brand their barrels 1 A No. 1 Canadian,' or ' A No. 1 Ontario.' We do Ontario no injury, we are only seeking to retain our distinctive brand. If you put upon one barrel both ' Canadian,' and ' Nova Scotia,' it would signify nothing to the purchaser upon the London market except that the barrel contained a mixture of two kinds. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for East Xork (Mr. Maclean) raise a question as to the superiority of Nova Scotia fruit, for that has been admitted long ago.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) was present and heard the statement made


Fletcher Bath Wade: I heard the statement made, which was in accordance with the fact, that the fruit from Nova Scotia last season was inferior.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Then what are you grumbling about ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Xour fruit is always inferior to ours, and, though we suffered once, we do not want to lower our reputation for all time. Why, here is the proof of our superiority-if our fruit is not superior, why is it that these gentlemen are so anxious not to allow us to use our own brand ? All we want is to get credit for our honest packing and superior quality of fruit. We do not want to disturb their brand but to retain our own. I think that the fruit-growers and shippers of Nova Scotia will be most grateful to the minister for being willing to insert in this measure provision that will prevent their trade mark being taken away, thus securing them the just reward of their carefulness in producing and honesty in packing.


Mr. STEPHENS.: I think that if the packers have the privilege of using 'Nova Scotia' or 'Canadian,' they might use it to the disadvantage of other provinces than Nova Scotia-that is, they would ship their best fruit as ' Nova Scotia,' and the poorer quality as ' Canadian.'


Fletcher Bath Wade: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stephens) allow me a word ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I will await another opportunity, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stephens) objects to my speaking now. This Bill pro-

vides that the fruit must he branded, if with the name of a province, with the name of a province in which it is produced-we cannot ship apples in the name of another province.


William Findlay Maclean: Where does that appear ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is to be put in.


George Stephens: If, as I understand, they can use the brand ' Nova Scotia ' or ' Canadian ' they certainly could use it to the disadvantage of other provinces. It would be much better if they were compelled to use the word 1 Nova Scotia ' only. If they are restricted to the use of the name of the province, Ontario has nothing to fear, for she can hold her own with any province in the Dominion. The Bill should provide either that the brand ' Canadian ' is to be used or else the name of the province, no choice being allowed.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I am opposed to taking the word ' Canadian' out of that Bill. The people of Europe, those of Great Britain particularly, know us as Canadians. I do not think they know as much about Nova Scotia. But, if the people of Nova Scotia are allowed to put the name of then-province upon their package of fruit, the people of England will soon find out which is the best fruit and, if Nova Scotia should have an inferior crop as she had last year the people there might be glad to ship their fruit under the name 'Canadian.' But I for one, would object to the word ' Canadian' being taken out of the Bill in favour of the name of any province. If I am allowed to discuss other clauses of the Bill-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would like the hon. gentleman to stick to this clause until we get it through.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I have no province to defend in this matter, because my province does not produce apples to such an extent that we can export them. On the other hand, we are the victims of those provinces that do export them. We have to buy their apples and pay pretty high prices for them too. The other day, I drew the attention of the hon. minister to the frauds that had been practised in packing apples. If I understand the clause as proposed to be amended, it will be optional with the packers to use 'Canadian' or 'Nova Scotia.' In that case, the frauds suggested by my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Stephens) will be practised.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it will not be possible. The clause provides that:
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, any apples or pears packed in a closed package and intended for export upon which is marked the grade * A No. 1 Canadian," unless, such fruit consists of well-grown specimens of one variety, sound, of nearly uniform size, of good colour for the variety.
of normal shape and not less than 90 per cent free from scab, worm holes, bruises and other defects, properly packed.
They cannot put this brand upon inferior fruit.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. But, if it is optional you will find that when Nova Scotia has a bad year they will be careful not to brand their fruit as Nova Scotian, but as Canadian.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But they cannot put the brand on at all unless the fruit comes up to the standard provided.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Where is the inspector to prevent them from doing so ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The clause here provides penalties for doing so. This whole Act is for the purpose of preventing people putting this brand upon the barrel unless the fruit comes up to a certain standard of quality. They can put Nova Scotia upon it as easy as they can Canadian, but they canuot put Canadian upon anything they would not desire to put Nova Scotia upon. The danger the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Stephens) fears is impossible under the provisions of the Act.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am particularly anxious that the well-earned reputation of * the fruit of Nova Scotia should be retained, and I cannot see any better way of retaining it than the proposal that has been made by the Minister of Agriculture. We then have the option if we wish to compete with them, and the Ontario people have the same option to compete with Nova Scotia. We claim that we rival any other province in the Dominion in fruit-growing.


James Clancy: And other things too.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I concede that readily.
This spirit of rivalry as to who is growing the best fruit is to be encouraged. Let them try and compete with us if they can.
If they can do so we will be well satisfied.
If we grow a better description of fruit than they do, then we are entitled to have the brand Nova Scotia put on the barrel in the way suggested by the Minister of Agriculture, that is, A No. 1 Nova Scotia.
And if it is thought proper to put the word Canadian after that, I do not see any objection.


James Clancy: I cannot learn that there is any distinctive brand that leads all others in Canada as Canadian No. 1. I understand there are individual shippers whose apples bear a better reputation than Canadian No. 1.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It happens that in the province of Ontario there are a large number of individual [DOT] shippers who have individual brands which have a fixed value for those people. Nova

Scotia shippers have another brand called Nova Scotia which has a fixed value to them. It sometimes happens, as in Nova Scotia, that a whole locality use the same brand and that brand has a fixed value to them. The Bill as it stands to-day cuts Nova Scotia people out of that brand. It asks them to put on their apples a brand which is known in another sense, and in a limited sense, in the English market. But under the proposal that I have made in the amendment I would allow these people to put Nova Scotia on and also to put Canadian on if they choose. But in any case, no matter what the brand, whether Canadian, Nova Scotia, Ontario or any other province, the apples branded in that way must come up to a certain character or standard. It is idle to pretend that the Nova Scotia people can put the brand of Nova Scotia on some of their apples and put the brand Canadian on other and inferior apples. It is only the very highest quality which can have this brand put upon them.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: My hon. friend's point was that ' No. 1 Nova Scotia ' may be up to the mark, and they might pack the balance of the apples that was not up to the mark and mark them Canadian.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They cannot mark them ' No. 1 Canadian,' but they are welcome to mark them ' No. 2.'


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If they put Nova Scotia on any of their apples they should put it on all their apples, and not be allowed to mark ' No. 2 Nova Scotia,' because that would be just bearing out the point my hon. friend raised.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The word Canadian can only be used in this Bill in conjunction with A. No. 1.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I do not see that there is any objection to be raised to people placing Nova Scotia, or Ontario, or any other province on their own brand of apples. We in the trade know full well that when we get prunes coming from California they are stamped California, and when they come from Oregon they are stamped Oregon, and every dealer knows that the Oregon prunes have an entirely different flavour from prunes coming from California. It is a desirable thing to know where they come from. Customers get acquainted with a certain brand of tea and they want that brand continually. When they get acquainted with a certain brand of prunes they want that continually. 'When they get Valencia raisins from Spain, the district from which they come is marked on the box. Every dealer knows that a certain brand coming from one section of Spain is better than the same brand coming from another section of Spain. Dealers get to know this very readily. I cannot see where there is any objection at all; if any section of the coun-Mr. FISHER.
try, or any province, wishes to stamp the name of that section or province on that particular brand, it should be stamped there.


Mr. BRODER.: It seems to me that the difficulty being brought into this proposition is, that you are having two standards instead of one. You are having a standard of No. 1 apples, in Nova Scotia, separate from No. 1 from anywhere else,. Why do you want to put a Nova Scotian brand oil V If the standard is exactly the same, why designate it differently ? Are you taking as the standard of the Nova Scotia No. 1 your present standard ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The standard is defined in the section.


Andrew Broder: I know that. Why do you accept No. 1 Nova Scotia as a certain brand of apple, and provide for a different brand for every other part of the country ? The difficulty of this is, that you are having two brands for a No. 1 apple, one of which is called ' Nova Scotia No. 1.' Are you pretending to say that an apple branded ' Nova Scotia No. 1 ' would be exactly the same in standard as an apple branded ' Canadian No. 1 ' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


Andrew Broder: Then, why do you not use the word ' Canadian ' and stop there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because Nova Scotia happens to be known in the market of Great Britain.


Andrew Broder: That is no reason at all. If the standard is exactly the same, hovv can they suffer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because the markets know what the standard is.


Andrew Broder: If you put that on for one province, every other province has the right to its own standard.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


Andrew Broder: Then, you are dealing with a federal question in a provincial way.


George Stephens: If these gentlemen want to have their apples branded ' Nova Scotia,' why not brand them in this way :
' A No. 1, Nova Scotia, Canadian ' ; ' A No. 1, Ontario, Canadian ' ; or 'A No. 1, Quebec, Canadian ' ? If they want to keep their apples separate, let them put their own names on them, while having one standard instead of putting on one barrel of apples ' A No. 1 Canadian,' and on another barrel of apples of a better quality * A No. 1, Nova Scotia ' ? I am sure that the Ontario people are perfectly satisfied to have their Ontario brands. I know that we can compete with every other part of the Dominion in raising apples, but we do not want to be

placed at a disadvantage in the old country market. It the people of Nova Scotia think so much of their apples, let them be branded ' A No. 1, Nova Scotia, Canadian.' Let us brand ours ' A No. 1, Ontario, Canadian,' and then, I am sure, no one can be hurt. This would be fair to all the provinces.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Nova Scotia does not wish to use the mark that is provided for here. We have been asking not to be compelled to use that mark, but, on the contrary, to be allowed to use the mark that is used today. We are not asking to use that mark, but we are being forced to use it. Our apples have a reputation on the other side, and there are certain people who prefer to buy Nova Scotian fruit rather than to buy Canadian fruit. There are some people on the other side who are not aware of the fact that Nova Scotia is within Canada. When they see the word ' Canadian ' on a barrel of apples, they will naturally conclude that this is Canadian fruit as distinguished from Nova Scotia fruit. The hon. gentleman at my left (Mr. Stephens! proposes that apples shall be branded ' A No. 1, Nova Scotia, Canadian.' or ' .-i x\o. 3, Ontario. Canadian,' or ' A No. 1. Quebec. Canadian,' but if we do not wish to adopt the word ' Canadian,' why should we be forced to use it any more than Ontario should be forced to use it ? It does not seem to me to be a very strong argument, to say that if a shipper had good fruit he would brand it ' Nova Scotian,' while if he had bad fruit he would call it ' Canadian.' I do not think we should be required to use the word 4 Canadian,' because it would be dangerous to our trade.


David Henderson: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if there is anything in this Bill to prevent a man in New Brunswick branding his apples ' A No. 1. Nova Scotia,' or is it to be left exclusively to people living in the province of Nova Scotia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The amendment is. that instead of ' A No. 1. Canadian' following 'A No. 1,' the name of the province in which the fruit is produced may be put in. That would prevent such a circumstance as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) alludes to. I would like to say that we have found that the markets are very jealous, and that they are slow to take up new brands. It is one of the greatest difficulties that merchants or shippers have to contend with. In the English fruit market, the brands which are weil known are ' Canadian,' Nova Scotian,' ' American ' and ' Tasmanian ' in apples. Now. the word ' Canadian ' put upon any fruit going into that market will be taken to mean the present Canadian brand, which is applied only to fruit coming from the St. Lawrence ports, and from Ontario and Quebec.


James Clancy: How many prominent shippers are using the brand ' Canadian No.
1.' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think they use it at all, but the Canadian brand is known there, and if that brand is put on an apple barrel, it will be supposed to be that kind of fruit and no other. You cannot have a change accepted by the market there until after a long time, and without going through a period of difficulty. If the hon. gentleman will allow me to explain, there is a certain class of fruit on the English market know as Canadian. A great deal of it is not branded as Canadian, but it is known and sold as Canadian, while it may be branded by the packer's name, or by a fancy name.
Mi\ CLANCY. Will the hon. gentleman say that the fruit known on the British market to-day as ' Canadian No. 1,' stands highest of all fruit coming from Canada, excluding Nova Scotia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say that. It varies in its reputation. There are some special brands of fruit put upon the market. The fruit that is sold there to-day is Canadian, but a great deal of it is not branded ' Canadian.' I do not know that any of it is branded ' Canadian.' The name of a packer is put on, fancy names are put on, and fancy brands are used, and in some instances it comes from certain sections of Ontario or Quebec, but it all goes to market under the name of Canadian apples, and if it were to go there with the name ' Canadian ' branded upon it, it would be taken to mean that kind of fruit, and it would sell as that kind of fruit.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Well, why use the word ' Canadian ' at all. then ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because I wish to have all our fruit go into the English market under our name.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Then, stick to it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understand that perfectly well, but, all changes of this kind must necessarily be of the nature of a compromise. I find that you cannot take a market by the throat and force it into new lines which it has not been accustomed to. You may be able to coax it into new lines, especially if those lines are advantageous to it, but, if you undertake to force the market, you will hurt the people in whose behalf you are trying to work. I do not wish to do that. I have just got a note from Professor Robertson, saying that practically all the Ontario and Quebec fruit is advertised at public sales as Canadian, although the brand ' Canadian ' is not necessarily on it. The individual shippers have their individual brands, what-

ever that might he. There is no objection under this Bill to individual shippers putting their brand on if they chose. Sections t>
and 7 are permissive. No shipper need use the brands if he does not choose, but if he does choose his fruits must be up to the standard defined by these sections, and that is a safeguard which will enable our Canadian fruit in the future to get a reputation. At present fruit advertised as Canadian fruit in England may be anything and everything, but if we pass this Bill we will be able to prevent any fruit going forward and marked Canadian, except it comes up to the standard.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Is it permissive whether Nova Scotia may use this brand or not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. If they do not choose to avail themselves of it, they need not use it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Nova Scotia people want to have an established definition of their grade, as well as our grades, and still they do not want to put their fruit under a name which is a different designation from that which they now use. I venture to think that when our brands are used it will enhance the reputation of our fruit in the English market. Commerce is shy, and if we force people to change the brands they are at present using, it will surely be an injury to them.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. We are introducing new brands by this Bill.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But not compulsory.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. It is acknowledged by law that if apples are of a certain size and quality they will be branded ' No. 1 Canadian.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That may be.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. That Is introducing a new brand in the market.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To that extent.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. If you do that, why not accept my suggestion that the name of the province and the word ' Canada ' should be added. For instance, ' No. 1 Nova Scotia, Canada,' ' No. 1 Ontario, Canada,'
' No. 1 Quebec, Canada,' and then every one would be satisfied and every province would be represented, Under this Bill you simply have the option of branding ' No. 1 Nova Scotia,' or ' No. 1, Canadian,' and that option should not be allowed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. FISHER.: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the gentlemen who represent the fruit interests of Nova Scotia accept the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. LaRiviere) I would be only too glad. What might be done would be to use the words 'No. 1 ' with the name of the province, and then underneath, In letters of equal size, the word ' Canada.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. That is right.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not want to introduce anything into the Bill which would hurt the Nova Scotia trade, but if they accept that suggestion I would be glad.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. If there is any objection to using the word ' Canadian ' in Nova Scotia they can use the word ' Canada.'


George Stephens: If they are fair and do not want to get any advantage over any of the other provinces, they should be satisfied with the brand 1 Nova Scotia, Canada,' and let the other provinces put on ' Quebec, Canada,' or * Ontario, Canada.' If the Nova Scotia people do not want to do that, it seems to me that they want an unfair advantage. I do not think that all the rest of Canada should have to submit to Nova Scotia, and give them whatever they ask whether it is in the interests of the other provinces or not.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot acknowledge it is any discrimination against any of the other provinces, because Nova Scotia would be the only province that would be hurt if they were forced to put the word ' Canadian ' on, because they happen to be the only province that now have a special designation in the English market.


George Stephens: If each province is allowed to put its name on with the word ' Canada ' beneath, I do not see how Nova Scotia can be hurt. They will have ' Nova Scotia ' on all their fruit, and we will have ' Ontario ' on all ours, and the people of Ontario will be perfectly satisfied.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: How can you detect fraudulent packing if the name of the packer is not put on the package ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The 4th section of the Act provides for that.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock we were discussing the desirability of placing the word * Canada ' after the name of the province in the proposed mark. I

wish to make myself clearly understood in my advocacy of the rights and interests of the people of Nova Scotia. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in the first instance, when this discussion arose, I asked to have the word ' Canadian ' struck out, so that the mark would read ' A No. 1 ' or ' No. 1.' That was objected to. I next asked, in ease that should not be agreed to, that the name of the province be put after ' No. 1 ' or 'A No. 1.' That is the question now under discussion. I believe the shippers of apples in Nova Scotia are so sensitive about the word ' Canada ' that if they were not free to use the name of the province, they would not avail themselves of section 6. But I do not wish to prolong the discussion, and I will not say a word more if a grade can be fixed, so that we can enforce a penalty under this Act, by providing something like this-I am not wedded to the particular words ; add the following to section 4 or insert it as a new section :
No person shall sell or offer, expose or have in his possession (or sale, any fruit packed in a closed package, on which package is marked anything which indicates that the (ruit contained in such package is of first or best or extra good quality, unless such fruit consists of well-grown specimens of one variety.
And so forth, the same as we have it now in sections 6 and 7. I am satisfied that if section 6 is left as it is desired to leave it by gentlemen from Ontario, our people in Nova Scotia will not avail themselves of it; but they are anxious to have a clause in the Act which will establish a grade. With this clause, they can call their fruit 1 A No. 1 ' or ' No. 1,' or ' A No. 1, Nova Scotia,' it they like. It is something which will allow them to have a distinctive grade for their fruit, and will not offend their sensitiveness with regard to the use of the word ' Canada.' I suppose we should feel flattered because gentlemen coming from the west are anxious to have that word tacked on to Nova Scotia, so that they can have the advantage of her fair reputation. The fruit-growers of Nova Scotia, while they feel flattered, are more concerned about their own interests.


James Clancy: I fancy that the hon. gentleman has flattered himself much more than Canada in the expressions to which he has given utterance. We in Ontario are fair enough to recognize what is good in Nova Scotia ; but I am sorry I cannot pay that compliment to the hon. gentleman for what he has just said. He took occasion this afternoon to speak of the honesty of the people of Nova Scotia. I have not a doubt that they are honest, but I have less doubt that they are any more honest than other people. I think they would be no less liable than other people to send bad fruit to market. I wish to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that it is important that
we should maintain as our first object in the English market the interests of Canada. Any departure from that would be a false step. Any apples packed for the British market should be known as coming from Canada, no matter whether they come from Nova Scotia, from Ontario, or from elsewhere. We in Ontario desire to be perfectly fair to the other provinces. If Nova Scotia is able to send a superior class of fruit to market, let it do so by all means; but let it be understood that the fruit comes from Canada. If the shippers of Nova Scotia have been able to earn a reputation there for their apples, surely they will be able to retain it. The suggestion of the hon. gentleman means a repetition in a sense of sections 6 and 7. If you fix a standard such as the hon. gentleman suggests, let that be a governing one for the whole Dominion. The question comes back to making it permissive for one province to step out and omit the word ' Canada.' If we are going to build up Canada, we must always understand that our fruit must be known as Canadian fruit. If each province desires to designate the fruit from that province, that is a proper thing to do. But anything short of that will not, I think, meet the views of this House.


Mr. ERASER.: No person feels aggrieved because in Manitoba they speak of No. 1 Manitoba hard wheat.


James Clancy: That is not a parallel case.


Mr. FRASER.: That is to say, a cereal is not a parallel case with fruit.


James Clancy: Because we do not grow such wheat anywhere else in Canada.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Therefore, I could understand that the people of Manitoba would feel very much aggrieved if their wheat were marked No. 1 Canadian, because then inferior wheat from Ontario, and still more inferior wheat from Nova Scotia, would be alowed to rank with it. If a particular province excels in a certain product, why should the fact not be indicated by the name of the province from which the product comes ? We cannot compete with Ontario in beef, and if all beef were marked as Canadian beef, it would be a great injustice to Ontario. So in a hundred other cases. Nova Scotia apples have made for themselves a reputation in Great Britain before Ontario or Quebec apples had any reputation there, and that reputation will continue ; and I think it would be a great injustice to Nova Scotia to enable the apples of the other provinces to rank with its apples. Take another case. In Prince Edward Island they produce the best potatoes grown in this Dominion. Owing to differences of soil and climate, certain articles grow better in one part of the country than they do in another, and it

would be very unfair to grade them all alike. As I understand, all that the hon. member for Annapolis is claiming is that as a reputation has been made for Nova Scotia apples, shippers should have the liberty of taking advantage of that fact.


James Clancy: Is Nova Scotia Canada ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: No.
Mr. FRASER, Nova Scotia was known before Canada was.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman say that the word * Nova Scotia ' was known before the word 'Canada'?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that long before the word ' Ontario ' was known, the word ' Nova Scotia ' was known.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will not go into the history either of names or provinces, but I think my hon. friend from Annapolis has perhaps given a solution of this difficulty which will he satisfactory to him and still leave the Bill very much as it was originally. On Friday last, the hon. member for Bothwell pointed out that section No. 8 was vague, because there was no standard described as in sections 6 and 7. I see the force of his objection, and have drawn up an amendment to cover that point. I would suggest that the following be substituted for section 8 :
No person shall sell or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale any fruit packed in a closed package, upon which package is marked any designation which represents such fruit as of first, best or extra good quality, unless such fruit consists of well-grown specimens of one variety, sound, of nearly uniform size, of good colour for the variety, of normal shape, and not less than 90 per cent free from scab, worm holes, bruises and other defects, and properly packed. This is practically the same as clause No. <i, the only change being this description in place of the brand there indicated : 'Any designation which represents such fruit as of first, best or extra good quality.'
If any one should brand his fruit 1 Nova Scotia No. 1 ' or ' A No. 1,' that fruit would still come under the definition I have just given. If the insertion of such a clause will prevent any desire to amend clause No. (5, we can leave that clause as it is, in the hojfe that the people at large will gradually adopt the national brand described in clause 6, with its standard definition or description.


Robert Laird Borden: That is carrying out the suggestion 1 made on Friday. 1 suggested that it would be desirable to have a general definition of No. 1 apple, such as is given to No. 1 Canadian in clause 6. The difficulty I saw in the Bill as originally drafted was that a Nova Scotian need not use the brand ' No. 1 Canadian,' but none the less the apple-growers of that province desire that there should be some standard.


Fletcher Bath Wade: If this amendment be adopted, I shall withdraw the objection to clauses 6 and 7.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman willing that there should be one standard for all Canada ? According to the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) the description of a standard as ' Canadian ' would discredit Canadian apples.
-Mr. WADE. No.


James Clancy: Then why does the hon. gentleman say that if the Nova Scotians were to adopt a Canadian standard, that would throw discredit on their apples ? Nova Scotia would, in no sense be lost in the word ' Canada.' As Canadians, and legislating for the whole country, it is our duty to do all we can to place the name of Canada in the best light before the purchasers of our goods in England. If there are portions of Canada that are able to stand out and maintain a reputation of their own, I have no objection; but I do object to having an inferior standard for Canada and giving a special standard to Nova Scotia.


Mr. REID.: Is there anything in the Bill that would prevent growers in other provinces marking their apples ' N. S.' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I do not think it is necessary to discuss the merits of the apjjles in the several provinces. Owing to climatic reasons, the crop may be better in Nova Scotia than in Ontario, but last year it was better in Ontario than in Nova Scotia. But what has been more particularly considered in Nova Scotia than in Ontario is honesty in packing. The Nova Scotia shippers have realized that to obtain a good market there must be honest packing ; and that is the secret of our apple trade. Let'the inferior qualities be disposed of for what they will bring, but let the best qualities only be shipped. The packers in Nova Scotia are very anxious to retain the advantage of the good name they have won on the London market, and I think they will not be satisfied unless there is a distinguishing mark by which their apples shall be known in that market.


John Dowsley Reid: I object, equally with the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) to this Bill passing without the provision that the word ' Canada' shall be on each barrel.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I have withdrawn my objection to the word ' Canadian' staying on.


Robert Laird Borden: As this Bill is not intended to provide compulsory branding for the barrels, it seems to me we are spending more time on it than it is worth.



M. FRASER.

[Stage Direction]
We have spent two whole afternoons on it, and when it is passed it may not amount to a wave of your hand with respect to the branding of the barrels. The gist of the Bill is to provide that when the barrel is branded ' A No. T Canadian,' the apples in the barrel shall conform to a certain standard. So long as the Bill is not compulsory, it seems to me that the use of names such as 'Canadian,' ' Nova Scotia,' ' Ontario,' and others indicating locality will have to be left with the growers and1 exporters themselves. You do not compel them to put on any one of these words, but the intention is to compel them, if they put the words 'A No. 1 ' on the barrel, to put a certain class of apples in the barrel. If you leave out these words indicating locality, you will accomplish the result, for when the words ' A No. 1' appear on the barrel, we shall know that the contents of the barrel are up to a certain standard. That being the case, why not confine it to that, and deal with it in that sense in which the hon. gentleman (Hon,, Mr. Fisher) proposed to deal with it in his amendment ? All you need to do is to provide that the words 'A No. 1' or 1 extra quality ' or certain other words shall indicate a certain standard. If this is provided, you have the gist of the Bill, and you can leave out the consideration of such words as ' Canadian' and ' Nova Scotia.' I make this suggestion to hon. gentlemen who have been discussing the merits of the fruits of the different provinces. There is no objection to Nova Scotians putting the words ' Nova Scotia ' on their barrels if they see fit, and the same liberty will be allowed to other provinces. All we need to provide is that a certain mark on the barrel shall mean a certain quality of contents.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has spoken far too strongly in saying that that is the gist of the whole Bill. There are several parts of the Bill to which he lias not alluded.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I was referring to this feature of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As to this feature, I stated frankly that sections 6 and 7 were a suggestion of what I hoped would be a national brand of Canadian fruit, which, I trusted, in. the course of time would become a well known brand with a reputation which would be a matter of pride for all Canadians. These clauses are not compulsory, for the reasons which I have already given, I shall be sorry, however, to eliminate these two clauses from the Bill, because I think in so doing we should throw away the opportunity we have of establishing that important feature of a national brand. A clause which has been suggested will cover the cases where these words are not used, and, that being the
case, I think the whole field is covered. And, if the committee will accept Nos. 6 and 7 I would like to move the insertion of No. 8 which I have proposed.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Before accepting section 6, I would suggest the addition of the words ' for home market and export.' I do not see why we should exclude the home market and provide these amendments for the export trade alone. The home market needs protection as much as does the export market.


Robert Holmes: It seems to me there is a good deal of hair-splitting in connection with this Bill in order to adapt it to the peculiar conditions of Nova Scotia. The people of Ontario are as jealous of the reputation of their fruit as are the people of Nova Scotia of theirs. It seems to me that sections 6 and 7, as originally drafted, provide for the export business of the whole Dominion, and that there is no more reason for putting in a special clause to adapt the measure to the peculiar circumstances of Nova Scotia than there is for us to adapt it to the circumstances of Ontario or Quebec.


Mr. GILMOUR.: Before sections 6 and 7 and the proposed new clause are carried, I wish to call attention to one feature of the matter. The packer may sell his apples to a second person, and that second person to a third person, who may never have seen them. This occurs often in the trade. Yet the purchaser is held responsible for the packing, though it is the packer who has done wrotg in the first place. I think that is severe. I would not like to buy apples in that way. I have bought apples myself, and I have never seen the barrels, and would not like to be called upon and be fined for something that I did not know anything about, to be fined, in fact, for having been duped, as it were. I suggest that these words be added in clause 6 : ' No person shall with his knowledge sell or offer.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I hardly think it possible to accept that amendment. These clauses were thoroughly discussed by the shippers, packers and fruit-growers, and they asked especially that they should appear in this form in the Bill. No such difficulties were felt to be likely by them. The innocent party would have recourse against the person who had deceived him. It is the packer who is liable, and the packer can be prosecuted by anybody who is aggrieved.


Aaron Abel Wright: I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaHiviore) is a very good one, with reference to inserting the statement that they are for export and home consumption. When we buy apples from the west we have great difficulty in getting as good fruit as the fruit which is exported. The fruitgrowers wish to send their finest fruit to

the old country, and they think anything is good enough for the rest of us Canadians. Now, we think we are entitled to have just as good fruit as people in the old country.


Jabel Robinson: There is one point which I think has been overlooked by the Minister of Agriculture. Apples grown in Nova Scotia, or in Ontario, or in any other part of Canada, will have to find, the majority of them, a foreign market. We have been told that the North-west will become a great market for apples grown in Ontario. Now, the person who purchases the apples either in England or the Northwest will discover, in opening the barrels, that they are not up to the standard. The person discovering this will perhaps be a thousand miles distant from the packer, and in order to lodge an information and bring the packer to justice it seems to me he will be labouring under great difficulties. I think a clause should be added in the Bill something like this :
Whenever any barrel or package of apples shall be found to be in violation of this Act or any of its clauses, on information being laid before a justice of the peace or a judge in the district in which the apples are found to be bad in any country, an affidavit shall be made by not less than three persons of the fact, when such affidavit shall be forwarded under seal to the judge of the county or district in which the apple-packers reside; and said judge or magistrate shall have power to proceed under this Act, and a conviction may follow.
I think that clause should be introduced in this Bill, because I am satisfied that otherwise you will scarcely ever get a conviction. No man will come from Manitoba here to prosecute these gentlemen, it will cost him more than a cart-load of apples : and no one will come from England. So the law will be a dead letter unless you make some arrangement to prosecute these men.


James Clancy: I do not wish to take exception to clause 6 as standing by itself, but it needs to be considered along with other clauses. Now, there is nothing compulsory in the Bill, as I understand it, but the fourth clause. Clause 4 makes it imperative that the initials of the Christian name and surname and the address of the packer be put on the package, with the name and variety, and with the designation of the grade of fruit. That designation of the grade is also optional as I understand it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Section 4 is imperative.


James Clancy: I am now discussing that part of clause 4 which is entirely optional, namely, with regard to the grade. With regard to the grade, any person may fix his own grade, because there is no grade fixed in the Bill. It is therefore optional, and every person may fix just such grade


Aaron Abel Wright: by way of mark as be thinks proper. Then clause 6 and 7 are optional. Then we come to clause 8, which provides the penalties, It seems to me there is not much encouragement for a national standard, because a national standard is entirely optional. I think the Minister of Agriculture will concede that if we are to attempt a national standard we ought to adopt some moderate means of enforcing it. If we cannot hope to enforce a reasonable national standard, let us not deceive ourselves, and abandon the attempt. Otherwise I think it is mere child's play to put that in an Act of parliament when we know perfectly well that whenever It suits any person to abandon it they will do so. Now, we are putting a standard upon the statute-book with which nobody is compelled to comply. I still think that before we pass this clause 6 we should understand what the purpose of this Bill is. If the word ' Canadian ' is to he maintained at all, let it be maintained for all of the provinces, each being compelled to use that to designate the national standard. ' Nova Scotia No. 1, Canada,' would comply with the national standard, but it shows that the fruit came from a particular province. Fruit that is branded ' No. 1 Quebec, Canada,' is also of national standard. I mention this because it seems to be so necessary if we ever hope to maintain the Canadian position that we ought to take that course. It does seem to leave it optional and fix the standard as easily as one could well imagine. I hope the hon. Minister of Agriculture will insist on not multiplying clauses to overcome the difficulty, because, although I am not a lawyer, and therefore perhaps unable to clearly grasp the meaning of the section, it does seem to me that a multiplication of sections simply has a tendency to confuse matters. I would be willing to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. leader of the opposition, namely, that if it were necessary to mark apples ' No. 1,' let each province mark their own apples under the standard of No. 1, and make it compulsory to live up to that standard. I think that would meet the difficulty to a large extent.


Robert Laird Borden: If the lion. Minister of Agriculture does not make the use of the word ' Canadian ' compulsory, what office does section 6 fill, which is not filled by the section which he proposes to add ? It fills no office at all. If you add that section but do not make the use of the word ' Canadian ' compulsory, section 6 fills no office which would not he filled by the section which the hon. gentleman proposes to add. because, having regard to the section, if any person used the word ' Canadian,' which he might or might not, as lie saw fit, he would he liable to any penalty under the proposed section, which he would be liable to under section 6. It does not seem to be necessary to have the two sec-

tions in the Bill. You might as well eliminate section 6 and rely on the section which you propose to add.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Yes, I would suggest that the minister erase the words ' intended for export.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I simply propose this to encourage the establishment of the national brand. I may say that this section and the words in. it were proposed by the fruit-growers and shippers, and they have been asked for by every fruit-growers' association in this Dominion.


Robert Laird Borden: But it is rather a new idea to make suggestions by legislation. Legislation is supposed to mean something, and the hon, gentleman's legislation will mean something, namely, that the fruit inside a barrel must correspond with the brand on the outside of the barrel. Section 6 adds nothing at all to that beyond suggestion. I do not know whether I make myself clear to the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade).


Fletcher Bath Wade: I could not quite hear you.


Robert Laird Borden: I say that the hon. Minister of Agriculture proposes to add a section which says that fruit marked ' No. 1,' or designating other marks which he suggests, must be up to a certain standard, namely, the standard set forth in section 6. If you have that section, and do not make ,the use of the word ' Canadian ' compulsory, there is nothing in section 6 which is not carried out by the proposed section. Do I make myself clear to the hon. member for Annapolis ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I understand you.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, it seems to me that section (5 is absolutely useless except as the hon. Minister of Agriculture says, it may be a suggestion to the fruit-growers throughout the country that they had better proceed to use the word ' Canadian.' Whether it is worth while to insert a section simply to make a suggestion is another question.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say that I consider it educational in leading up to a point which we all acknowledge is desirable. If we made it compulsory it would seriously interfere with and hamper trade, and therefore, I do not wish to make it compulsory, although I think it desirable.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. Minister of Agriculture intend to appoint inspectors to inspect the apples ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Did you take out the words ' intended for export.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Would you propose that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, strike out the words ' intended for export.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 7,
Mr. BORDEN,(Halifax). In respect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour), I think there is a good deal in it, but its consideration will come up perhaps more properly under section 12. I think it will then require serious consideration.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I would propose that the words ' intended for export ' be struck out.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section S,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Section S is entirely different. I wish to substitute for this clause the following :
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale any fruit packed in a closed package, upon which package is marked any designation which represents such fruit as of first, best or extra good quality, unless such fruit consists of well-grown specimens of one variety, sound, of nearly uniform size, of good colour for the variety, of normal shape, and not less than 90 per cent free from scab, worm holes, bruises and other defects, properly packed.
This is the designation of clause No. 6, except iu the designation which represents the fruit as being of first, best, or extra good quality.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I wish to insert here another clause which will cover part of clause S. It is as follows :
No person shall sell, or offer, or expose, or have in his possession for sale any fruit packed in any package in which the face or shown surface gives a false representation of the conditions of such package, and it shall be considered false representation when more than 15 per cent of such fruit is substantially smaller in size than, or inferior in grade to, or different in variety from the face or shown surface of such package.
That is with reference to the portion of clause 8 which does not deal with the grade but applies to the requirements which forces the packer to put his good fruit in the middle of the package as he does at the ends.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. There is a fraud often committed by the middlemen by which barrels are sometimes opened and an inferior fruit is substituted. As it is now, the packer is responsible, but if the middleman interferes the packer should be protected against him and a heavy penalty should be inflicted.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The person who offers it for sale is equally liable with the packer.
Mi'. LaRIYIERE. That is if the article is inferior, but suppose he sells it just as he got it from the packer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He is still apparently liable.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. The packer ought to be protected against the iniddleman who would substitute inferior fruit.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: YYe can deal with that in another clause.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. That will be satisfactory.
On section 9,


Robert Laird Borden: What is the intention of the minister with respect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour), who referred to the supposed case of a barrel of apples packed in violation of this Act, they being properly No. 3, whereas they were packed and branded as No. 1, and that barrel passing into the hands of an innocent person who believes it is all right and sells it without any guilty intention. Do you propose by this Act to render him liable to a fine or imprisonment ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Fine.


Robert Laird Borden: He could be imprisoned if he did not pay the fine. There are many statutes which are applicable only to persons who wilfully and knowingly violate the law. What is the intention with regard to this Act 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) who is a lawyer and who would know more about it than I do, that the intention was to make the person who sold the package liable. Take the conditions in the province of Manitoba, which my hon. friend from Pro-vencher (Mr. LaRiviSre) has so ably represented here. The merchant in Winnipeg who buys fruit from Ontario would be held responsible by his customers, and he would have recourse against the person from whom he bought in Ontario. The ordinary purchaser would be powerless against the original packer, but the merchant engaged in the trade would be sufficiently interested to follow him up. If we were to make only the original packer responsible we would practically destroy the value of the Act for the protection of the ordinary purchaser.


James Gilmour: I see a very strong objection to punishing a person under the law for an act which he does not wilfully do, and for which he is not responsible.
Mr. LaRIYIERE.


Mr. McEWEN.: Grain is sold subject to inspection, and these apples should be inspected before you buy them from the first party. If you buy them subject to inspection you take no risk.


George Stephens: If this law makes the second handler of the apples responsible it will drive men out of the business. They cannot look into every barrel of apples they buy to see that it is all right. 1 do not think it is fair to punish men for what they may not be responsible for.


Robert Laird Borden: Some statutes impose a penalty upon persons who have no guilty intention, and some statutes require the guilty intention. You should have it made perfectly plain in this Act as to which is intended. My own view is that the person subject to the provisions of this statute should be a person who wilfully violates the provisions of the Act, and you should not make it applicable to the case suggested by my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour).


Fletcher Bath Wade: You might say negligently or wilfully.


Robert Laird Borden: If you like you may put the burden of proof on the person who sells the apples to show that he was not guilty of fraud. But to impose a penalty of this character upon a person who is guilty of no intention to violate the Act or of negligence which might amount to an intention, seems to me to be going beyond any necessity in the public interest, and might lead to very grave injustice ; and for my part I would oppose carrying this Act that far. I am prepared to support the framing of the Act so that a person selling such apples must prove that he did so innocently, and that he was not guilty of negligence or recklessness in doing so. Without that the Act might become inoperative ; but to say that a person who was absolutely innocent of any intention or negligence in such a matter, should be liable to this penalty, would be going beyond what is usual in statutes of this kind.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It seems to me that if a man undertakes to buy and sell again, it is his duty to see that the goods which he undertakes to sell are up to the standard of the marks upon them ; and if he sells the goods in ignorance of their quality, it is a dereliction of duty to his customer, for which he should be punished. If the word ' knowingly ' or ' intentionally ' were inserted in this section, it would nullify the whole Act, and the public whom we are trying to protect would be open to the same frauds as they have been in times past.


William Ross: Take the case of fish, which are branded No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. The inspector is held responsible

in every instance ; and if the fish turn out, even in the market of the United States, not to be as represented, he is subject to a penalty. If you are going to appoint an inspector, I think he is the man who should be held responsible for the quality of the apples, and no one else.


John Dowsley Reid: How can an inspector inspect a hundred barrels of apples ? He simply puts his mark on them, and he cannot tell whether they are up to the standard without examining each barrel.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not intended to attempt to have a universal inspection of fruit. Inspectors will be appointed who may possibly inspect ; and should they inspect any apples and find them wrongly marked, it will be their duty to prosecute the people so marking them. But there is going to be no attempt to make a universal inspection.


George Stephens: I cannot understand what good the inspector would be at all. In the county of Kent it would take twenty-five inspectors to inspect the fruit shipped out of one township. A thousand barrels are packed in a day.


William Findlay Maclean: In regard to the inspection of fruit, the system that prevails in California will have to be adopted in this country. You will have to have smaller packages and hand-pack your fruit; and it will have to be packed in boxes in such a way that every single piece of fruit can be seen. The apple barrel will have to go, and the sooner our Canadian fruit shippers understand that the better it will be for the fruit trade. The fruit-growers of California have a market all over the continent, which has been built up by giving the greatest attention to the packing of the fruit and the maintaining of its quality. We shall have to come to the same thing in Canada, whether by law or otherwise. I would like to know how that is secured in California-whether by the interference of the state law or by the people who are engaged in the trade coming to see that it is the only way to get and maintain a market.


John Dowsley Reid: When the apples cannot all be inspected, I cannot see of what use the inspection will be. An inspector will brand a lot of barrels without having inspected them at all. I would like to have it provided that every barrel shall be inspected by the inspector before he puts his name on it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no intention that the inspector shall put his name on any of them.


Aaron Abel Wright: With respect to the inspection of fruit in the United States, 77
prunes, for instance, are not inspected by a government inspector, but by the person who packs them. The prunes put up by Giffen & Skelly are put up in packages of uniform size, and marked from 60 to 70, from 70 to SO, from 80 to 90, and from 90 to 100. That means that there are that many prunes in a pound ; so that you know exactly what you are buying. In the same way oranges are put up in packages marked 400, 500 or 600, according to the number in each jiackage; and the name of the packer is put on the package, so that the purchaser knows against whom he has recourse.
On section 10,


James Clancy: I think the House should have some expression from the Minister of Agriculture as to how far he intends to saddle inspectors upon the public service. It seems to me that the inspection will be a farce unless we have some defined limits placed upon it; for it would be utterly impossible to warrant the expense of a complete inspection in a matter of this kind. I would like the minister to state how many inspectors he intends to appoint, where they will be stationed, and generally what will be expected of them. The hon. gentleman increased his difficulties when he assented to the proposition made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. La Riviere), namely, that all apples packed, whether for export or for domestic use, will come under the same rules and require the same inspection.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: While the Bill permits inspection, there is no expectation or intention that any attempt shall be made to inspect all the fruit packed for trade in Canada or for export. I have investigated that matter pretty fully, I have discussed it with exporters, shippers and fruit-growers in all parts of the country, and 1 believe it would be a physical impossibility for any number of inspectors who could be appointed by a government or called for by this House to accomplish that result. When a Bill of this kind becomes law, it will be necessary to appoint some inspector. Otherwise we would throw upon the purchaser the necessity for protecting himself. In the interior trade, he can do that very well. If a purchaser finds he is being defrauded, he can, under the provisions of this Act, attack the seller. But in the export trade the case is different, and in order to protect the good name of Canada and improve the reputation of our fruit abroad, I think we should have a few inspectors at the ports of export. This is purely a deterrent provision, and not one which we expect to be exercised in every instance or even in the majority of instances. But the shippers and packers will know that their goods are liable to be inspected at any time. It will be necessary to have



two or three men at Montreal, who will proceed against any shipper whom they may And violating this Act. In Nova Scotia it will also be necessary to have two or three inspectors. There is a large amount of fruit packed in the different parts of Ontario and Quebec which is shipped to Montreal. A good many packers would like to have their fruit inspected before shipping, so that it would not be opened at Montreal, and it may be necessary to have a certain number of men on call who could go to the warehouses of the packers and inspect the fruit and mark it before it leaves. I could not give the exact number of inspectors required, but I suppose there would be ten or a dozen appointed this coming fall, and If necessary to appoint more, they could be appointed later.


James Clancy: I do not see any objection to having inspectors at the points of shipment because we must protect the good name of Canada as far as i>ossible, but I do see serious objection to appointing emergency inspectors-men who may be called on at any moment to inspect at the warehouses. To give any government the power of appointing as many inspectors as it chooses would be very dangerous and open to abuse. The hon. gentleman knows the pressure that will always be used by skippers and others, who will not want their fruit disturbed at Montreal, to have it inspected before shipment, and this will give ample opportunity for the exercise of favouritism.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). I do not see why inspectors should be appointed all over the Dominion. I would move that clause 10 be amended by adding thereto :
Inspectors may be appointed at the ports of export.
These words will begin the clause and the rest of the clause will be the same as in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think that would work. The fruit-growers themselves are very earnestly requesting that all the inspection should not Tie done at the port of export. There is no danger that the large number of inspectors will be appointed which the hon. member for Bothwell seems to anticipate. It will be physically impossible to meet the view of all shippers, and therefore it is not at all likely that certain favoured ones will be picked out and be given the privilege of having their fruit inspected before shipment to the ports of export. At the same time, there is an internal trade to be more or less watched and guarded, though not to the same extent as the export trade. Further, if the inspectors are to do their work at the port of Montreal only, they cannot do it as effectively as they should. The hon. gen-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: tleman may not have been at the port of Montreal during the apple shipping season, but there are sometimes a hundred thousand barrels in the port being shipped and awaiting shipment. It would be quite impossible, under that condition of affairs for even three or four inspectors in the port to do their work in such a way as to be really deterrent to the packer. I think we must count upon occasionally dropping on a shipment of fruit elsewhere than in the port of shipment. And, if we have not inspectors available for that purpose, we would, to a certain extent, not fulfil the expectations of the shippers, the growers or the public.


William Findlay Maclean: These inspectors are only to be temporarily employed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: During the fruit season, yes.


John Dowsley Reid: There are other ports besides Montreal, such as Halifax, St. John, Toronto and Niagara-for fruit goes by way of New York as well as by Montreal. Even though there were a hundred thousand barrels, additional inspectors could be appointed to meet the case. As to the terminal trade, if the barrels are marked falsely, the person who has them for sale is liable to a fine. Therefore, I cannot see the object of having inspectors in any other place than the points where the apples leave this country. If a Canadian has his barrels marked wrongly, he deserves to suffer the loss of freight or even to have the fruit confiscated at Montreal. The port of export, where the barrels are all collected, is the proper place for inspection, and I cannot see the object of having inspection elsewhere.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot accept the amendment, because I think it can only hamper the working of the Act. I think it is desirable and necessary to have inspectors available to do work at such points as may be desired.


Robert Laird Borden: How do you propose to pay the inspectors ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By salary-monthly payments. As the inspection is permissive, I do not think it would be wise to have a fee, in fact, I think it would be impossible.
Amendment negatived.
On section 15,


James Gilmour: This section refers to an appeal from conviction under this Act. If, upon appeal, the apples were held during the consideration of the case, damage would naturally result. If the appeal should be sustained is there any provision for indemnifying the man who has thus suffered from damage ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not say whether it is usual for per-

ishable goods to be held during such a trial or not.


James Gilmour: But I would ask the min-istef to consider that point.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I should suppose that evidence would be taken as to the condition of the fruit and that evidence would have to be submitted on appeal. But, not being a lawyer I cannot give an opinion on such a matter.
On section 16,


James Clancy: I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not insist on this clause as it stands. If there is anything more dangerous than another, it is to encourage the class of men who live on blood-money. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will see how a crop of abuses would arise if you offer inducement to men who inform for the money alone. In order to close the discussion, I move that all the words after the words ' be payable to His Majesty ' be struck out, and that the clause should read this way : ' Any fine or penalty imposed under this Act shall, when recovered, be payable to His Majesty.' I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will concur in the statement tha.t to encourage, in matters of that kind, persons to become informers by giving them one-half the fine, is a mistaken policy. The hon. gentleman -frill find that the Act will be better observed by making it a common interest, than to hold out inducements to a class of persons by offering them a share' of the fine. Paying fines to any persons as informers is to my mind an unsound principle.


James Gilmour: I am in entire accord with the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). It is the most objectionable clause in the whole Bill, and I hope the minister will see his way to amend it. I can imagine that much wrong will be done under this clause.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This clause is simply following the principle adopted in many other Acts. For instance, in the license law there is a clause of this kind, in the Scott Act there is a clause of this kind, in the law regarding the seizure of tobacco there is a clause of this kind, as well as in many other laws. I do not think' it would be worth while now to change this principle, because it is an admitted principle in our legislation. It may have objectionable features, and in certain instances may be abused ; still on the whole it has worked fairly well during a long term of jurisprudence.


James Clancy: The cases the hon. gentleman has cited are not parallel. The case regarding infractions of the revenue is entirely different. I could picture a man going about the country making case after case. The hon. gentleman knows that under the Scott Act and under our license system 77i
we have found the greatest evils arising from men endeavouring to make a living from fines. A class of professional informers has arisen that go about the country. If a man informs for the purpose of getting a fine he is not informing in the public interest, he is bound to hunt up and to trump up some charge for the purpose of making money out of it. I hope the hon. gentleman will not import that objectionable feature into his Bill. If he makes that law, he will find it one of the most objectionable laws that has ever been passed by this House. The Bill has been made wider by adopting the proposal of the hon. member for Proveneher, and will expose the whole farming community of Canada to these penalties and to these penalty hunters.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has pointed out section 25 of the General Inspection Act, which has been in existence for a great many years, over a hundred I think. It is an admitted principle of our jurisprudence.


James Clancy: I tell the hon. gentleman that when the proper stage arrives I shall divide the House on this feature of the Bill.
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We will have to go back to section 3, which I was asked to allow to stand on Friday. My hon. friend from South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) requested me to make some modification in the definition of a closed package. After carefully considering the matter and discussing it with my officers, I have decided to propose this change in the lines of the hon. gentleman's request:
Closed package means a box or barrel, of which the contents cannot be seen or inspected when such package is closed.
It was not intended that this word ' closed package ' should apply to small baskets used for selling small fruit, because they are really open packages in the sense that the cover is so easily removed.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What about a crate ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A crate, I think, would not be a closed package under the definition I have suggested. The hon. member for South Wentworth did not wish a crate to be included.
Section as amended, agreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister, perhaps, has forgotten that section. 2 has not been passed yet.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think there is no question about the date. I think it would be a great misfortune if we did not put the law into operation for the fruit season of the present year. I must ask that the clause be adopted.
Bill reported.



INLAND WATERS SEAMEN'S ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved second reading of Bill (No. 91) to amend the Inland Waters Seamen's Act.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time; and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This Bill is one simply to define more accurately the expression ' Inland waters of Canada ' which, as the statute now stands, are defined to be the inland waters above the harbour of Quebec. That has been found to be too vague. The intention is to make the definition embrace what are really the inland waters of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not seem that it is quite definite enough in regard to the sea coast. For example, what would the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) think about the Bras d'Or lakes which are arms of the sea really ?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They are defined clearly in the main Act. There is no doubt about those.


Robert Laird Borden: What about the arms of the sea V
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. They are ail defined to be the sea coast.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman the statute there which defines that ? I would like to see it.
The	MINISTER	OP	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.


Mr. BRITTON.: While the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is looking that up, I would like to ask him what his views are on this point :
The expression ' inland waters of Canada ' includes all the river3, lakes and other navigable waters within Canada.
Of course that implies that this section only includes the navigable	rivers and	lakes.
Is that the meaning that the hon. minister puts upon it ? It would hardly be intended to apply to those inland waters and lakes that are now navigable.
The	'MINISTER	OP	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The Revised Statutes, chap. 75, which relates to the shipping of seamen on inland waters, defines inland waters in subsection f of section 2 as follows :
The expression ' ship subject to the provisions of this Act' includes every ship registered in Canada propelled by steam and of more than twenty tons registered tonnage, or propelled otherwise


Sydney Arthur Fisher: than by steam and of more than fifty tons registered tonnage, and employed in navigating the inland waters of Canada above the harbour of Quebec.
Now, the question was, what were the inland waters above the harbour of Quebec 7 Did they extend to the great * lakes and rivers ? In order to relieve the ambiguity we define the words ' inland waters ' to include all the

Rivers, lakes and other navigable waters within Canada, except salt water bays and gulfs on the sea coast, and includes the River St. Lawrence so far seaward as a line drawn from Cape Chatte on the south shore to Point des Monze on the north shore.
The reason that point was selected was, that in the reciprocity treaty between Great Britain and the United States, that was the point selected internationally as the mouth of the River St. Lawrence, and so we took that international definition as a reasonable one to import into this Bill, defining all within that point to be inland waters.


Mr. CALVIN.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Lillis Davies) if this makes any difference in the provisions or working of the Act relating to shipping through the St. Lawrence and on the great lakes ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It only makes clear that the upper waters of the great lakes are the inland waters of Canada, which was in doubt before.


Robert Laird Borden: There would be a question about the so-called lakes, Bras d'Or lakes, for Instance, which are really arms of the sea. There might also be a question about arms of the sea on the coast of Nova Scotia. They might not technically be called bays or gulfs. Would it not be better to insert ' Salt water arms of the sea.'


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I shall be glad to insert ' arms of the sea ' If necessary.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE SAFETY OF SHIPS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES moved second reading of Bill (No. 92) further to amend the Act respecting the safety of ships.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time ; and House resolved itself Into committee thereon.
(In the Committee.)
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This Bill simply makes an

alteration in the present law to bring it into conformity with the British statute. I propose to re-enact the whole section, putting in the alteration which is confined to subsection d. Since the original Act was passed large steel steamships having much permanently covered in space have been introduced, and by our statute you are only allowed to place deals in this covered in space to a height of three feet from the deck, the rest of the space remaining vacant. By the Imperial law they are allowed to place a light class of goods in this space which is now left vacant according to our law. The shipping interests are under a disadvantage in this. They consider it is a serious grievance, and it is proposed to amend the Act by permitting the carriage in covered in spaces of :	.
Any deals, battens or other lightwood goods, of any description to a height not exceeding three feet above the deck in any space where the deck of such ship is closed in.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: This restricts them from filling in the remaining part of the space with deals.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 
Charles Edwin Kaulbach: This does not interfere with the shipping of deals to South America or coast wise.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I do not alter the law in that respect at all. This refers simply to deals going to Great Britain.


Hiram Augustus Calvin: Does it change the law as regards the tliree-feet limit on the open deck ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Not in any respect.


Hiram Augustus Calvin: Has the hon. minister any opinion on that point ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I have a very strong opinion. After consulting with the trade and getting the opinion of the best expert officers, I came to the conclusion that it was safer in every respect to allow vessels to fill with deal flush to the bulwark. I urged that very strongly upon the board of trade in England, and the Hon. Mr. Dobell personally urged them to agree to that, but they
did not see their way clear to do it, and therefore there is no use in our doing it.
I pointed out to the board of trade the reasons why our shippers thought it would be better not to limit it to three feet from the deck, because a kind of well was formed in which the water moved backward and forward, whereas if the cargo was flush with the deck it would wash off. The English Board of Trade is very slow and conservative, and they did not see their way to adopt the suggestion. My hon. friend (Mr. Calvin) will see that it is absolutely essential we should bring our law into exact conformity with the English law.


Hiram Augustus Calvin: I quite see that. I would like to read a statement I received from a firm of very long standing with regard to this matter. The letter is of considerable length, but I shall only read a short extract from it which is in line with what the hon. minister has said. It is from Messrs. Henry Fry & Co. of Quebec. They say :
Having been connected with the management of ships for over forty years, we are aware that when the deck-load law was inaugurated it principally applied to sailing vessels carrying such cargo on open decks; but we were always of opinion that limiting the deck-load to a height of three feet was a mistake,, when connected with sailing vessels or steamers having bulwarks. These should be allowed to carry deckload level with their rail, as this would constitute equal to a flush deck, over which the sea would readily pass, whereas with only three feet deck cargo, it is frequently below the level of rail and forms a well for the reception of seas, which float and dislodge the cargo at great risk of life and property.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I thoroughly agree with that, and in point of fact I drafted a Bill in that sense, and intimated to the Board of Trade of England that I wished to bring in, a Bill in that sense; but they did not see their way to agree to it, and there is no use of our doing it until they do agree.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the word ' enacted ' in the third line of section 1 must he meant for the word ' amended.' Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell me what his idea is of the office of these words in the section as it originally appears in the revised statutes : ' and during the voyage while within Canadian jurisdiction.'' Taking these words in connection with the context, either I do not understand them, or else there should be a change.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Of course. I am not responsible for the phraseology; and, as the Act has been a long time on the statute-book, I did not care to amend it. The object is this. A vessel sailing from a port in Canada might have the cargo all right when she started; but before she left the jurisdiction of Canada, she might alter it.


Robert Laird Borden: That was my own idea of the meaning, and it seemed to me that the word ' or ' should be used instead of the word ' and.'


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will be glad to accept those suggestions of the hon. gentleman.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think the word ' and ' is correct.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Suppose a vessel started from Montreal all right, and put on some more cargo at Quebec. If the word ' and ' was there, she would not necessarily break the law, because she did not do it from the port of starting. It seems to me that the word ' or ' carries out the intention of the Act-that a vessel shall not do it either at the port from which she starts, or at any time after she starts and while she is in Canadian jurisdiction.


Mr. BARKER.: I think the language is quite correct as it is. The intention of the section is, while a ship sailing from one place to another and while within Canadian jurisdiction. Therefore the word 'and' is the only proper word.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As there is a difference among lawyers, we will stand by the old law.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



INVESTIGATIONS INTO SHIPPING CASUALTIES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies) moved second reading of Bill (No. 93) respecting inquiries and investigations into shipping casualties.
He said: The'object of this Bill is to meet a number of objections to the present system raised by the British government. At present the inquiries are undertaken at the request of merchants, shippers or others, and there are two kinds of inquiry. One is a preliminary inquiry to find out the cause of the disaster, and I do not propose to alter the character of that inquiry at all. Then a formal inquiry may be made, either after a preliminary inquiry or without one. In the old statute, the formal investigation is made at the instance of the Minister of Marine, who appoints a commissioner to investigate. The commissioner need not be a judicial officer, and generally is a sea captain supposed to bq an expert on nautical matters. But it by no means follows that such an expert is a good judicial officer capable of holding legal investigation. Our law enables us to hold investigations into casualties and punish officers holding certificates who are found guilty of laches or neglect, whether they hold British or Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
Canadian certificates. Such certificates may be taken from the officers convicted, either for a term or entirely*cancelled. The construction placed on the old statute by the Department of Justice was that the reports of these investigations could be revised on appeal by the Minister of Marine himself, who might lengthen the term of suspension of the certificate or entirely cancel the certificate. The British government, however, held that the Minister of Marine here had no power to cancel any certificate granted to a British officer. My predecessor and myself have always exercised that power and consequently there was a clash of jurisdiction. After a good deal of correspondence, I advised my colleagues that I thought it better to yield to the representations of the British government and not attempt to cancel the certificate of a British officer, even though the casualty happened to the ship in Canadian waters. An investigation is held by an officer appointed by us, and the evidence and the report of that officer are forwarded to the British Board of Trade.
William Findlay Maclean: Would the British authorities try and punish a Canadian captain for a casualty that happened in British waters ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They claim jurisdiction in that regard over all officers.


William Findlay Maclean: There ought to be reciprocity.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are some things you cannot help. For instance, in the case of a ship lost in the Bay of Fundy, I cancelled, sitting as a court of appeal, the certificate of the captain, in conformity with the opinion of the Minister of Justice that I had the power to do so. But the British Crown officers held I had not.


William Findlay Maclean: Could you not argue that before the Privy Council ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not see how I could. They contended strongly that our investigations should be made to partake of a judicial character the same as the British investigation, and where a man's position was at stake, they should be held as far as possible by a judicial officer. I propose to make a change in the selection of persons to hold such investigation by declaring that ' The minister may appoint any officer of the government of Canada, or any judge of the county court, or any judge of the superior court of the province of Quebec, or any stipendiary magistrate, to be a commissioner for the purpose of such investigation, and such commissioner shall be deemed a court for such purpose.' Along with the commissioner two nautical experts will be appointed to advise him. I will

point out in each section where the amendments are made. This Bill is the outcome of consultation with the British Board of Trade and the Department of Justice. It is satisfactory to the British Board of Trade and approved by the Department of Justice ; and sections are inserted to provide for the recovery of penalties under the code. With this general information I would suggest that we go through the sections in committee, and as we come to each one, I will explain what the proposed changes are.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Should not the cancellation of a master's certificate here be under the jurisdiction or judgment of a nautical expert instead of the department itself ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would suggest that we should deal with that point in committee. I can explain more fully when we come to the section covering that point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. GOURLEY.: Just one question, and if that is all right, I have no objection to the Bill. Supposing that we conform to the English practice and procedure, and appoint a judicial officer, will they acknowledge our right to cancel their certificates or not ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not like the indication from what the minister has said that he has surrendered a Canadian right without making a fight for it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, I did not.


William Findlay Maclean: Fracticaly, that is what the hon. gentleman said.


Mr. COWAN.: Wrong again.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I am not wrong. The hon. minister has surrendered a Canadian right without any proper effort to maintain it. This government has claimed that on several occasions they have vindicated Canadian rights, and they have claimed credit for it. Here is a very important matter affecting our shipping. I have known, in an off-hand kind of way, that the British authorities claimed jurisdiction over our shipping, and that we had not full control of it. I should be sorry if that is the case. But I would not be a party to surrendering any right possessed by Canada without fighting to the last ditch to retain it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: The Solicitor General evidently approves what I say. I have been trying to find out in what respect we come under their jurisdiction and law and are not in supreme control of our own affairs. If this is one of those cases, I, as a Canadian, object to a surrender being made until after every means has been exhausted to vindicate our rights in this matter.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is merely a construction of the old statute. We held that that statute gave the minister power to deal with matter coming on appeal to him and relating to the certificates of the officers of vessels on which a casuality has occurred, and to deal with the officer holding a British certificate as well as with the officer holding a Canadian certificate. The Department of Justice held the view held by myself and my predecessor. But the Board of Trade of Great Britain decided that they would not hold our Act valid, and the British Crown law officers supported them in that. So, what could I do ?


William Findlay Maclean: Has Canada no head of appeal from an arbitrary action of the British Board of Trade ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I did not suppose that we were desirous of doing it.


William Findlay Maclean: We do not want to surrender anything.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: But here is the position-we grant certificates to officers on ships, as captains, ns first officers, second officers and engineers. Nobody questions our right to cancel the certificate of any officer holding our certificate who commits an offence or is guilty of negligence. But if a British officer comes here and a casualty occurs to his ship, our statutes allows us to hold an investigation. We hold it, the court recommend that the captain's certificate be cancelled. Then you must send the evidence home, with a report of the court, and they say : If we concur in it, we will cancel the certificate.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Is not that reasonable ?


William Findlay Maclean: But take the converse of that. Suppose a Canadian officer is sailing in British waters and an accident happened, and the matter is tried by the officers of the British Admiralty-do they take away his certificate ? Or do they send back their finding for the confirmation or revision of the minister-have they admitted that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Then, they have put Canada in an inferior position.


Mahlon K. Cowan: What clause is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) discussing ?


William Findlay Maclean: I am discussing the principle of the Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: X rise to a point of order-no clause of the Bill has been read.


William Findlay Maclean: I am perfectly in order, Mr. Chairman.	t


Mahlon K. Cowan: I want a ruling on that point.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flint).: I think that on the first clause the hon. gentleman can discuss that.


William Findlay Maclean: From what I gathered from the hon. minister's statement a Canadian officer can be disciplined in British waters, but a British officer cannot be disciplined in Canadian waters. Is that a fact or not ?


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to point out to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that it would be well to make subsection e conform to the definition of ' inland waters ' in the Bill already passed, would it not ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the word ' coast ' should be defined in a manner to conform to the Act.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The phraseology is not the same, and if the hon. gentleman thinks we have expressions that are not equivalent we may change it. But I think the expression will be found all right.


Robert Laird Borden: I was going to suggest that the word should be added ' as defined by


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would rather make it complete in that Act. The question is : Have we embraced in the two expressions ' inland waters ' and ' coast ' all the waters in which a casualty might take place.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it is important only except for conformity.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am willing to consider any suggestion, but it struck me that the two definitions in the Bill covered all that was necessary :
(e)	The expression ' inland waters ' includes all the rivers, lakes and other navigable waters within Canada ;
(f)	The expression 1 coasts ' includes the sea coast and the salt water bays, gulfs and harbours on the sea coast.
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In this section the new part is in subsections e and f.


William Findlay Maclean: (e)	When any loss of life occurs by reason of any casualty happening to or on board any boat belonging to a fishing or other vessel registered in Canada;
(f)	When any British ship is lost or supposed to have been lost and any evidence is obtainable in Canada as to the circumstances under which she proceeded to sea or was last heard of.
It does not matter where the casualty has occurred, if the evidence is obtainable in Canada by the Merchant's Shipping Act of 1894, they have power to investigate. But they suggest that we should take it up here, the evidence being obtainable here.


Hiram Augustus Calvin: I would like to know whether, in this list of casualties is included damage to the canals of the Dominion. 1 think that the method employed at present of dealing with that sort of damage is most unfair to those using the canals. Now, the canals are built by the government. They may be good canals like the Soulanges canal, which was built by our friend Mr. Munro, or it tnay be a work with glaring defects, such as the Welland canal. I need not go into particulars, they may be shown by competent men who are using the canals. That is the condition as regards the construction of the works. Now as to the craft that use them. A steamer that goes through that canal, before she is allowed to turn a wheel, must have her hull inspected and her machinery inspected, and the same government that builds those canals makes her owners pay for the inspection. Then before she is allowed to proceed on her voyage she must be manned by a captain who has to receive and pay for a certificate of competency from this government, by a mate, who likewise has to obtain a certificate from the government and to pay for it, by an engineer and an assistant engineer who likewise have to receive certificates from the government and to pay for them; though indirectly it is, the owner of the vessel that has to pay for all that expense. The employees of the canal are the servants of the government. I do not know that they have to pass any examination or to pay any fee before they are appointed, I do not think they do. Those are the circumstances. Now a vessel damages a lock, or bridge, or some other portion of the government's property in the canal, the owner of that vessel is obliged to pay every dollar of expense at such prices as the government may name. He has nothing to do with the naming of the prices, he cannot go on and repair the work himself. He has to pay the government for every dollar of that work at their own prices, and without having an investigation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I dare say the hon. gentleman may have some [DOT] ground of complaint as to the stringency of the law in that respect; but the present Act does not touch those cases at all.
-Mr. CALVIN. It ought to.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That may be, but it does not come within the scope of the Marine Inquiries Act at all. The hon. gentleman speaks of a case where a ship going through the canal does some damage. 1 do not know what takes place there. An investigation is held in a court of law, I suppose. That does not come up here.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose if a vessel happened to be damaged in passing through the canal, that would be another thing.
On section S,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Under the old law you could appoint any commissioner or body corporate to hold an investigation. Now the minister may appoint any officer of the government of Canada, or any judge of the county court, or any judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, or any stipendiary magistrate, to be commissioner. The object is to make the commissioner a judicial officer instead of a merely nautical expert. Subsection 2 of this section is new. It has been suggested by the Board of Trade so as to be in accord with the Merchant's Shipping Act. These are the exact words of the Merchant's Shipping Act which they advise us to incorporate in our own.


Samuel Barker: The minister has omitted the new offence that he has put in section 8, that is, ' or has failed to render assistance and to give information.' That is not carried into subsection 2.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Subsection 1 gives authority to the minister to authorize this investigation to be held where he believes that any master, mate or engineer is from incompetency or misconduct unlit to discharge his duties, or has failed to render assistance, and to give any information in case of collision. Then the court so appointed is authorized to hold a formal investigation.


Samuel Barker: In section 2 is there any power to inquire into a failure to render assistance and to give information ?


Robert Laird Borden: In order to make it conform with section 1, it would be better to add the words 1 where the minister has reason to believe.'


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Subsection (e) meets the first suggestion my hon. friend made as to failing to render assistance or to give information. The first part of the section states the conditions under which you are authorized to initiate the inquiry, where you have reason to believe so and so. The other part follow's the Merchant's Shipping Act, I would not like to alter that.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see why the hon. minister uses the same expression
in one case and an entirely different expression in another case. In subsection 2 you say :
A court so appointed as aforesaid is authorized to hold a formal investigation.
Where a master has been charged with incompetency or misconduct. When you come down to subsections d and e you do not say where he is charged, but you say where he ' fails.' You do not say where he is charged with failing, but where he does fail.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would suggest that I do not think this is so important as to desire a change, inasmuch as it follows the exact phraseology of the British Act.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to understand from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, what would be the meaning of the word ' incompetency.' For instance, if an engineer were to make a mistake in the bell and if the vessel ran ashore that would be incompetency and his certificate would be taken away. Am I right in that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would not like to enter upon a judicial interpretation of these words. The object of the Bill is to appoint a judicial officer to listen to the evidence and to decide such points after being advised by two experts.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the provisions of the Bill not apply to an accident in a canal as well as to one elsewhere ? If the engineer takes the wrong bell and an accident happens in a canal, or, if the captain is not doing his duty, or is under the influence of liquor, and an accident happens in the Welland, or in some other canal, would there be an investigation held and the certificate of the engineer or captain be taken away ? Why should the Bill not apply to this case ? You have never had any investigation yet into any accident that has happened on the Welland canal, and there are more accidents happening in the Welland canal than on any of the inland waters.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It may be a subject-matter deserving of consideration whether these merchant shipping inquiries should not apply to the navigation of the canals as well as to the navigable waters of Canada. So far it has not been deemed advisable to apply the provisions of the law to the canals. However, I shall take note of what the hon. gentleman suggests and talk it over with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair).


John Dowsley Reid: If these accidents were included it would perhaps make


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Perhaps it might get ns into more difficulties ?


John Dowsley Reid: No, no-it might make captains more careful, and in addition it would result in putting the blame where it really belongs.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will consider that point.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The owners of ships are placed in a peculiar position. When an investigation takes place there should be a marine expert appointed who is thoroughly versed in marine matters, and in that way the owner of the ship would have justice which he would not have otherwise.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Knul-baeh) will wait until the next section is read he will see that the point which he mentions is covered.
On section 9,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. This is a new section taken from the Imperial Act, and it meets the views of my hon. friend, that there should be skilled assessors to advise the court.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these sections from the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894 ?	*
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.
On section 10,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The first part of section 10, down to line 21, ending with the word ' publicity,' is old, and the words added are new :
And such court shall have all the powers conferred by section 478 of the (Imperial) Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894, on any court authorized by the legislature of any British possession to make inquiries as to shipwrecks or other casualties affecting ships or as to charges of incompetency or misconduct on the part of masters, mates or engineers of ships.
Subsection 4, relating to penalties is new. The others are old.
On section 12,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. That is new and in conformity with the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894.
On section 13,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. That is based on the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894, and is at the suggestion of the Imperial Board of Trade.
On section 14,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. That is suggested by the Mr. REID (South Grenville).
board of trade and is in conformity with the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1894.
On section 15,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. That is the same.
On section 16,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. That is from the Merchant's Shipping Act, 1S94.
On section 17,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Section 17 is old, excepting the three lines relating to the penalties which are new.
On section 18,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	fCND
FISHERIES. This is substantially the old law, but more concisely stated. There is really no change. That has reference to cancelling or suspending the certificate. Complaints were made by the captains, mates and others implicated that when the court held an investigation it did not render its decision in open court but perhaps delivered it in Halifax or some other place a fortnight afterwards. The captain or mate was not present and had no means of knowing what the decision was. It is claimed that the decision should be rendered in open court so that they may know what the decision is.


Robert Laird Borden: Where a certificate has been issued by the Dominion of Canada it may be dealt with by the minister, where it has been issued by the board of trade, it has to be forwarded with a report of the evidence to the board of trade, and where it has been issued by any British possession other than Canada it shall be sent to the Governor of such British possession. I suppose that other British possessions have similar enactments. What is the practice between ourselves and other British possessions in respect to the cancellation of such certificates ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Other British possesions are governed by the provisions of the Imperial Act. That is most of them are-the Crown colonies. I do not remember that we have ever had any cases from Australia or the Cape. The British government will not accept our Canadian certificates unless we give them control over them, and as it is of greater importance that our certificates should be accepted than that we should retain exclusive control, we give them control.


Robert Laird Borden: The information I desire to obtain is :	When an inquiry of
this kind takes place in Australia for instance, does Australia send the evidence to the Governor General of Canada to be dealt

with by this government, or does Australia send it to the Imperial government to be dealt with by them ?	1 am speaking of
course of a certificate granted by this government.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Magee tells me that he is not able to state positively what the practice is in Australia, but he believes from the correspondence that he has had with the Imperial Board of Trade that that is the form of practice laid down here. They would send it to us. As stated in the correspondence that is the practice.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree entirely with the hon. gentleman that it is most desirable for us to have our certificates recognized by the board of trade, but I would like to know, if, in such a case, the evidence would be sent here to be dealt with by us instead of to the Imperial government.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is believed by my officers to be the practice and it is so stated in the correspondence with the Imperial government.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give us that information at a later stage.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I shall look into it.
Mr.	MACLEAN.	And insist on	our
rights.
On section 24,
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. This	section was suggested
by the board of trade. It is copied from the Imperial statute.


Robert Laird Borden: Is not the section rather too comprehensive in its terms. An investigation may be commenced in the United Kingdom and may prove to be absolutely inoperative, because the witnesses may have come to Canada. Under this section you could not proceed with the inquiry in Canada.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I did not like to interfere with the phraseology of the Merchant's Shipping Act of which this is an exact copy.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me to be very loosely drawn.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Do you mean the language of the Imperial Act ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. I do, because it seems to preclude an inquiry in Canada in the case I suggested, and where it may be proper to hold an inquiry. Take the case of a steamer which sinks another steamer and afterwards arrives in Great
Britain, She then leaves the United Kingdom and she comes to Canada. It might be possible to hold this inquiry in Canada as the witnesses are here, but this section would preclude that. The hon. gentleman will remember the case of the steamer La Bourgogne. She was sunk by another steamer, which came to Halifax. An inquiry was directed by the hon. gentleman. If we had to depend, as we might have had to depend upon the evidence of the sailors who were s.-tved from that ship, no inquiry could have been held in Canada, but as it turned out there were persons within Canada who belonged to the other colliding ship, which had not been sunk. That might happen in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that we should have an opportunity to hold the inquiry here.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I should like to agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), but I think he misconceives the force of the word ' seized.' It means that if the courts in England becomes possessed of the case they hold it. If they abandon it, any other jurisdiction can assume it. The first magistrate who is seized with the jurisdiction in a criminal case excludes all others, but in case he abandons it all other jurisdictions are open to deal with. It is the same in this ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) is right. The idea is to prevent two conflicting inquiries going on at the same time. What my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) would suggest is: to add the words ' unless and until such investigation or inquiry in the United Kingdom has been abandoned or proved inoperative.'


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is the common law.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the section means that without some such words as the minister suggests.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The section might be allowed to pass as it is now and before the third reading we will consider it.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Is it conceded that in the case of a vessel damaged in a canal it may properly be a case of inquiry ? That is rather important. In many cases, while the lock or the wall of the canal has been damaged the vessel herself has been very seriously damaged, and in one case that I know of, there was loss of life. These two points make it a casualty within the meaning of the Act: and in that case an inquiry should be made.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the question-whether a canal is a navigable water within the meaning of the Act ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I understand that a canal is a navigable water. A vessel may be damaged in a canal, and in one case there was loss of life resulting from a collision.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I see no reason why the Act should not apply in such a case.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to think that if a vessel took ground in a canal, this Act would apply. I think it would also apply if she struck the side of a canal, and were damaged in that way.
Bill reported.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 66) further to amend the Canada Evidence Act, 1803 (the Solicitor General), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: Is the proviso in this section that the answer of a witness may not be used against him ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The statute now makes provision that the answer of a witness shall not be available against him in inquiries over which this parliament has jurisdiction. The intention is to extend this proviso to inquiries under a statute of a province.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think it a very proper amendment.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business may we expect to-morrow ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. There may be a few of the Bills on the Order paper taken first, after which we will go into supply.


Robert Laird Borden: What supply ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Public Works, if my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is well enough, as he is to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: And if not. what ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. If he is not well, we will go on with justice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Robert Laird Borden: Tuesday, April 2, 1901.