SIGNAL DUES AT HALIFAX.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries') moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 152) respecting signal dues at Halifax.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Explain.


Mr. BRODEUR.: The object of the Bill is to permit vessels having a tonnage of less than 150 tons to come into the harbour at Halifax without being obliged to pay what we call signal dues. There is a signal station at Halifax for the purpose of signalling vessels, but only those having a larger tonnage than 150 tons are signalled. We think that under these circumstances all vessels which are not signalled when they come into the harbour should not be obliged to pay the dues. The object of the Bill is for the purpose of abolishing dues in so far as these vessels are concerned.


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


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What contracts and for what mileage, and the price at which each have been let, upon the eastern and western sections of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?
2.	What is the date of each contract, and the period set for completion?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the unlet portions ?


Hon.   G P. GRAHAM@Minister of Railways and Canals: It will take some weeks to give a reply to that.


Mr. FOSTER.: Do you not get it from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Commission ?


Mr. GRAHAM.: We are getting it as rapidly as possible, but it is not available here, and we have to try to get the information from different sources.


George Eulas Foster: I thought the. tenders at least were all submitted to the Transcontinental Railway Commission.


George Perry Graham: Those having reference to the Transcontinental Railway part of it are.


George Eulas Foster: I would like you to bring everything down.


George Perry Graham: Yes, I can get it. But the question seems to cover contracts belonging to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and we may have some difficulty in getting that information.


George Eulas Foster: That is right.
Question allowed to stand.


ASSESSMENTS ON POSTMASTERS.
Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM asked :: 1.	What amount of money has been collected by the government from assessments made on the postmasters of Canada?

2- Wh.t have been tbe losses, and in which oi the provinces have these occurred?
3.	What is the amount of money on hand collected from such assessments?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to reduce the,assessment?


Hon. RODOLPIIE LEAIIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.
Assessments on postmasters to
31st March, 1909	$ 94,529 21
Interest	 7,941 00

2. Losses through postmasters :
Ontario	$ 517 49
Quebec	
844	72Nova Scotia	
192	25


New Brunswick.   ..@: 201	37
Prince Edward Is.. 538 12
Manitoba	
16	00Alberta	
259	00


British Columbia ..: 2,714 70 Yukon	 50	67

Premiums to guarantee companies.19,256 00

 24,590 32
3.	On hand 31st March, 1908. . $77,879 89
4.	The department has not yet considered this question.



QU'APPELLE, LONG LAKE AND SASKATCHEWAN RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAKE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What was the last annual deficiency, if any, due by the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway and Steamship Company to the government, under their agreement, dated 5th August, 1889?
2.	What was the total sum due on account of deficits according to the last annual adjustment of accounts?
3.	What is the extent of any further obligations, either in cash payments or of any other nature, due by the government to the company during the continuance of the agreement ?
4.	What is the total number of acres of land retained by the government from the land S1'®11*- at the present time as security against indebtedness by the company to the government ?

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHRISTIE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What number of cattle were exported from Canada to Great Britain during the years 1904, 1905. 1906. 1907. respectively?
2.	What number of cattle were imported from Great Britain to Canada during the years 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, respectively?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Alinister of Customs).: The imports into Canada from Great Britain and the exports to Great Britain from Canada of cattle during the twelve months ended June 30, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907 respectively, have been as follows :-
Y ears.	Imports.		Exports.
	Homed cattle, dutiable.	Cattle for improvement of stock.	
1904		 1905		 1906			Number. 94 72	Number 161 60 119 231	Number. 148,345 159,078 163,994 170,164
1907		12		
THE ALL-RED LINE.			
Air. AlONK asked :
1.	What tenders or proposals have been received to date by the government in connection with the All-Red Line, or a faster steamship service across the Atlantic, between Canada and Great Britain ?
2.	Has any correspondence or have any despatches been exchanged between the Canadian and the imperial government since the 1st of September, 1907, upon the proposed AllRed Line?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to table the documents, if any exist, referred to in preceding paragraphs, before the House is asked to vote further subsidies to steamship lines?


Rt.   H@: There is no correspondence of any kind upon the subject.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Alinister of Finance) :: 1.	Excess paid by the government over amount earned by the company for year ending April 30, 1907, under the agreement referred to, $67,315.35.
2.	The amount due by the company April 30, 1907, was $1,630,408.09.
3.	Cash payments required under agreement after April 30, 1907, seven payments of $40,000 each or $280,000. Two of these payments of $40 090 e-ch have been made since April 30, 1907.
4.	493,209.34 acres.


Mr. CHISHOLM.: 



POSTAL ARRANGEA1ENTS REGARDING NEWSPAPERS.

Air. ARAISTRONG asked :: Has the government received a resolution passed at a meeting of the Canadian Press Association asking that weekly papers be placed on the same basis in regard to carriage in the United States as the dailies? If so, what is the wording of said resolution?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: Yes. That the weekly section of the Canadian Press Association believes their pub^

locations are being discriminated against by the postal arrangements with the United States and that our executive in conjunction with the general executive be asked to urge such modifications as would place them on the same basis with the daily papers in regard to United States publications. I may add, with the leave of the House, that I received this morning a communication from the Weekly Section of the Canadian Press Association, and they are perfectly satisfied with the answer given.



PAYMENTS TO ECLIPSE COMPANY OF OTTAWA.

Mr. BENNETT asked :: What amount has been paid since 1896 to the Eclipse Company, of Ottawa, for supplies to every department of the'government, by departments and years?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: A return containing this information was presented to the House on the 27th of February last.



WINFIELD BASIN DREDGING.

Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Was any dredging done at Winfield basin in the season of 1907? If so, who were the contractors, and what amount was paid therefor?
2.	What was the nature of the material, and the quantities and price paid therefor per yard?
3.	How many tenders were received for work, if tenders were asked?
4.	Who was the inspector on behalf of the government, and upon whose recommendation was he appointed ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) C. S. Boone, (c) No payment has been made on account of this work.
2.	(a) Rock, hardpan, clay, gravel and boulders, (b) Returns not completed, (c) Contract prices : $4 for rock, 65 cents for all other materials.
3.	Tenders were called for by public advertisement ; one tender received.
4.	W. Matheson. The appointment was made on the responsibility of the minister.



ILLEGITIMATE POSTERS.

Mr. BARR asked :: 1.	What officer of customs in the several ports of the Dominion is charged with the duty of carrying out item 1210 of the tariff, which prohibits the importation of posters and handbills depicting scenes of crime or violence?
2.	Is the government aware that during the past few weeks posters of this character are said to have appeared upon many of the billboards of Ottawa?
3.	Does the government know that posters of this description are at the present time said to be posted on boards on some of the leading streets of the capital?
4.	What steps does the government propose to take to see that this provision in the tariff is strictly enforced?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1. It is the duty of the appraisers at the several ports of the Dominion, when examining importations, to aid in carrying out item 1210 of the Customs Tariff, 1907, which prohibits the importation of posters and handbills depicting scenes of crime or violence. The duties of appraisers devolve on collectors at ports where there are no appraisers.
2 and 3. The local authorities are considered to have supervision over the character of posters appearing on bill boards at Ottawa, so that customs officers do not look after posters when exhibited on bill boards, unless their assistance is requested by the local authorities.
4.	Customs officers are authorized and instructed to enforce the provisions of the customs laws concerning these posters, as far as practicable, and to co-operate with the local authorities in suppressing exhibits of posters which are prohibited from importation under the law.
The attention of customs officers at the port of Ottawa has been directed to this inquiry and the reply thereto.



RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF

Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	What is the total amount expended to date by the government in connection with the wharf at Riviere du Loup, province of Quebec ?
2.	What is the total amount expended to date on dredging and harbour improvements at Fraserville and Riviere du Loup, province of Quebec, since the 1st of May, 1898?
3.	How many steamers have stopped and tied up to the wharf at said Riviere du Loup each year, during the last four years?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	The total amount expended prior to confederation was $170,129,35 ; the total amount expended since confederation to 1st April, 1908, construction and repairs was, $112,996.08 ; grand total, $283,125.43.
2.	No dredging has been done since 1st May, 1S98.
3.	The wharf was transferred in 1891 to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I have no information as to this question.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Better let the question stand until the Department of Marine and Fisheries completes the answer.


William Pugsley: I was informed that there was no information in the Marine Department as to the number of steamers. However, that part of the question may stand if the hoii. gentleman desires.
Part 3 of question allowed to stand.



WHITE HEAD WHARF.

Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	Has the government engineer made any report of the estimated cost of building a suitable wharf at White Head, Grand Manan, New Brunswick? If so, what was the estimated cost?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to include an amount in the supplementary estimates to build this wharf?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes ; estimated cost, $6,680.
2.	The matter is under consideration.



SEAL COVE DREDGING.

Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	Has the government engineer made a report of the estimated cost of dredging necessary to give access to the cove or harbour at Seal Cove, Grand Manan, New Brunswick? If so, what is the estimated cost of this work?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to include an amount in the supplementary estimates to do this work?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	The government engineer has made a report on the improvement of Seal Cove harbour. He suggests that the requirements would be best met by the construction of a breakwater rather than by dredging.
2.	The matter is under consideration.



LEONARDVILLE WHARF.

Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	Has the government engineer made a report of the estimated cost of building a public wharf at Leonardville, Deer island, New Brunswick? If so, what is the estimated cost of this wharf?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to include an amount in the supplementary estimates to build this wharf?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes ; to rebuild and extend the existing wharf. The estimated cost is $8,800, including dredging.
2.	The matter is under consideration.



GRAND MANAN TELEGRAPH.

Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	Has an application been made to the government by any person, persons or company to take over the telegraph, cable or cabies giving telegraphic connection between the Island of Grand Manan, New Brunswick, and the mainland? If so, who were the parties making the application?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to consider any such proposition?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Yes ; (b) The Grand Manan Telephone Company.
2.	The matter is under consideration.


William Pugsley: 



EASTER ADJOURNMENT.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved :: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the 15th instant, it stand adjourned to Tuesday, the 21st instant.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I would ask the First Minister if it would not be possible to make that Wednesday, the 22nd instead of Tuesday, the 21st ?


George Eulas Foster: Why ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A great many of those living in remote sections in the east will find it impossible to be here in time for Tuesday unless they leave their homes on Saturday.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend that I have followed the practice which has been invariable in such cases.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: I beg to lay on the table of the House further correspondence with Mr. Justice Cassels.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

George Taylor: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if he has yet completed the return in reference to Petit Rocher ?


William Pugsley: On making an inquiry of my deputy, I find that the answer given contained exactly the information which was asked for, that is, matters detailed on a certain page of the Auditor General's Report. If my hon. friend desires further information, and will be good enough to put another question, I shall be glad to give him the further information.


George Taylor: It was not a question at all, but a motion for a return.


William Pugsley: It was for a return as to matters detailed on a certain page of the Auditor General's Report, and that return has been made and is complete.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior when the return I asked for, in reference to Kananaski Falls on the Bow River west of Calgary will be brought down ?


Mr. OLIVER.: I fancy it would be ready in a very short time.


George Eulas Foster: That return with reference to the Yukon finances made by Mr. Beddoe has not yet been brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend I will admit that I have been diligent. As
[DOT]6465

far as I am concerned, I have brought down everything he wanted.


George Eulas Foster: As far as the hon. gentleman's own department is concerned, I believe he has a clear slate.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I see on the paper an order for a return showing the amount of blankets purchased since 1895. I understood that the Minister of Agriculture asked for a change of the wording and that the order was passed with that change. I should like to have the return.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: The hon. gentleman must have misunderstood. When the motion was made, the Minister of Militia was not present, but he had said on a former occasion that he wanted some change made and therefore the order did not pass. The hon. gentleman is mistaken in thinking that it passed as a notice of motion.



ALLEGED IMMIGRATION IRREGULARITIES AT HALIFAX.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I wish to ask the Minister of Interior whether any investigation is going on in reference to alleged irregularities in connection with immigration at Halifax, and if so, what information he has to give to the House on the subject?


Frank Oliver: There is an investigation going on at the present time. Mr. Blake Robertson, assistant supperiutendent of immigration has been in Halifax. I am not sure that he has returned yet. We intend to follow the matter up, but I think it would "be as well not to press for details until we have reached some conclusion.


Robert Laird Borden: The information will be brought down when the investigation has been concluded?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any further information with regard to the frauds which were mentioned in the House some time ago? The hon. minister will remember that one of the officers in Halifax, I think, was dismissed.


Frank Oliver: That is what I am alluding to. We have been investigating that matter. The assistant superintendent of immigration went to Halifax last week, and we hope to follow the matter to a conclusion. I think it would be well not to press for details until we can lay a conclusion before the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not pressing for information before the time the minister thinks it advisable to bring it down. What I was alluding to was a press report respecting an interpreter by the name of Bernstein.


Frank Oliver: With regard to that, Mr. Blake Robertson went to Halifax. He is dealing with both matters while there.



THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

George Eulas Foster: Might I ask when Judge Cassells will commence his investigation, find if he is to be appointed commissioner to investigate those cases in which intimations of wrong-doing were given by the commission, but no names mentioned? I would ask whether previous to that there is to be a departmental investigation into that same matter?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that the commission of Judge Cassells lias been issued ; I cannot say when he will commence his investigation. I would suppose immediately.


George Eulas Foster: And as to the second question I put ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say.



INLAND REVENUE ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 143) to amend the Inland Revenue Act

Mr. Templeman-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 4,
4.	Section HI of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
141. The department may, under regulations made for that purpose, allow on the exportation of goods manufactured from, or a product or result of the process of manufacture of, articles subject to a duty of excise, and on which such duty of excise has been paid, a drawback equal to the duty so paid, with such deduction therefrom as is provided in such regulations and subject to the direction of the Governor in Council.
2. The said section 141 shall be construed as if it had been originally enacted as herein amended.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: This has reference to the rebate given on cuttings. We began giving that rebate in 1901 under clause 141 of the Act. The Auditor General called attention to the fact that clause 141 as it now stands does not authorize the department to give this rebate. We submitted the question to the Minister of Justice and he confirmed the view of the Auditor General. This section 4 of this Bill is to provide for this case. Subsection 2 of this section is new, and, as my hon. friend will see, it is put in to legalize the repayments that have been made on cuttings. The necessity for section 141 will remain only so long as the present law is in force, as, after that, there will be no rebate on cuttings. But we have to legalize what has been done as well as what is to be done.
On section 5,-annual gauging of vessels in distillery.


William Templeman: The only change in this is the first line, where ' April ' is substituted for 'July.' This is in consequence of the change in the fiscal year.
On section 6,-quarterly account of stock in bonded manufactories.


William Templeman: This also is necessitated by change in the fiscal year.
On section 7,
7.	Section 266 of the said Act is amended by adding the following subsection thereto:
2. Every person who uses methyl alcohol, or spirits containing methyl alcohol in any form, in any pharmaceutical, medicinal or other preparation intended for external use shall affix to the vessel containing the said preparation a label stating, in black letters not less than one-fourth of an inch in height, the presence of methyl alcohol therein: and every person violating the provisions of this subsection shall incur a penalty not less than fiftv dollars and not exceeding two hundred dollars.


William Templeman: The present prohibition of methyl alcohol is confined to articles intended for internal use. We add subsection 2 to section 206, and we do this in consequence of the large number of fatalities that have occurred throughout the country by the use, ignorantly no doubt, of methyl alcohol. We have taken the opportunity of this amendment of the Inland Revenue Act to make this change. We purpose-and I think there is a clause later on -to provide that the manufacturers of wood alcohol shall be licensed. This is done for the purpose of bringing them under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Inland Revenue. We will charge the mere nominal fee of $1 for a license and will require them to label the barrels and receptacles in which wood alcohol is placed with the word ' Poison.' We think this is in the interest of the public and that it will safeguard the people from the use, ignorantly or otherwise, of wood alcohol.


George Eulas Foster: What steps, if any, has the minister taken looking to remedy the complaint that has been made concerning the excessive cost of this alcohol which is the basis of so many preparations ? I think we had a discussion in the House a year or two ago with reference to it, and the general idea was that the price of this material was very high compared with the price in the United States, where they have, by improved processes and by changes in the law, greatly reduced the cost of alcohol. I think the minister stated that he was making experiments in the same direction. I have letters in my hand setting forth the disability under which the druggists labour on this account. I would like the minister, if he can, to give a brief statement of what he is doing in that respect Mr. TEMPLEMAN.


William Templeman: The question of providing denatured alcohol, as it is sometimes called, or methylated spirits, at cheap rates has been engaging the attention of the Department of Inland Revenue for a year or two. The department makes methylated spirits. It has kept this manufacture in its control for years for the purpose of safeguarding the revenue. The methylated spirits placed upon the market of Canada for many years, has been mostly of two grades, one being 50 per cent wood alcohol and 50 per cent grain alcohol, and the other being 25 per cent wood alcohol and 75 per cent grain alcohol. The cost of the grain alcohol as purchased by the department from distillers has been about 41 or 42 cents per gallon, at the strength used for methylated spirits. Up to the present time the cost of wood alcohol to the department has been $1.29 per gallon. We have put these two-grades of methylated spirits on the market for a number of years at $1.10 per gallon and $1.25, the latter being the price of alcohol containing 50 per cent wood alcohol. During the past year we have reduced these prices until at the present time we sell No. 1 grade at 70 cents and No. 2 grade at 80 cents. We have been experimenting in the laboratory with spirits to see if we could not properly safeguard the revenue by using a smaller percentage of wood alcohol, and the consequence is that we have put on the market an alcohol at 65 cents per gallon. Now I have said that the price of wood alcohol up to the period of the termination of the last contract was $1.29 per bulk gallon. During the last year the price of wood alcohol, particularly in the United States, has decreased very materially. In the United States, my hon. friend must remember, until one year ago, the manufacturers had to use wood alcohol pure and simple, or if they used ethyl alcohol they had to pay the duty. Canada has been far in advance of the United States for many years in this respect; but two-years ago the United States Congress passed a law authorizing licenses to distillers and others to take alcohol out of bond and denature it. They have done so, and they are placing on the market to-day a denatured alcohol of which about 90 per cent is grain alcohol and 10 per cent wood alcohol, and they are selling it at 40 eents a wine gallon, which, being one-fifth or one-sixth less in bulk than the imperial gallon, is after all not as cheap as one would imagine. At the price at which the department will be able henceforth to purchase wood alcohol, the market price in Canada to-day being, I think, something like 50 cents and upward, acording to grade, the reduction the department will make in the present price wilt be very material; and I think that, even with the disadvantages under which we labour in Canada of making cheap grain alcohol as compared with the distillers of the United States, we will be able to put on the

market before long a denatured alcohol at prices very little above those In the United States. Of the two grades of methylated spirits placed upon the market by the department for a long time, No. 1, with 75 per cent of grain alcohol, has been sold to manufacturers and others who enter into a bond that it shall be used only in their business and not be sold or transferred to others The other grade, No. 2, was sold to the public at large without any restriction whatever, the department feeling confident that an alcohol containing 50 per cent of wood alcohol was a perfectly safe article to place on the market so far as the revenue was concerned. This, Mr. Chairman, is the situation at the present time. We hope in the future to make considerable progress in reducing the price of methylated spirits. Up to the time that we could procure a cheap wood alcohol, after the termination of our contract, no effort has been made to remove the cost of denaturing, which I think is quite feasible. The wood alcohol now mixed by the department is all brought to Ottawa, upon which freight has to be paid, and I think it will be possible considerably to, reduce the cost of denaturing before long.


Mr.   POSTER@: Where does the minister get his wood alcohol? Is any of it made in Canada?	.


William Templeman: It is all made in Canada. .


George Eulas Foster: I mean is any of it made in Canada that is not made under the supervision of the department?


William Templeman: There is no supervision, we are taking that power now. Wood alcohol, as a substance by itself, is made by the manufacturers of charcoal and others ; it is free to any person to make it and place it on the market. We have no restriction over its manufacture. We now propose to take control over the manufacture of alcohol simply for the purpose of safeguarding the lives of people by compelling the manufacturers to put labels on every vessel to show that the contents are wood alcohol, because it is very often taken for something else.


George Eulas Foster: Is the disability under which Canada rests as regards the superfluity of grain, the only disability that makes the comparison so much against us as regards the United States ?


William Templeman: I think the disability as compared with the alcohol produced in certain districts of the United States is considerable. In the first place, I think the corn imported into Canada comes directly from the corn producing belt and has to pay freight. There is, I think, a small tax, something like seven and a half cents per bushel, on corn used in the production of alcohol. The distillers in the United States are located in districts where corn is grown
in large quantities, and where coal for fuel is practically at their very door. It is a question whether, if we attempted to produce a cheap denatured alcohol, we would be able to remove that disability, so far as concerns alcohol used for denaturing purposes. That might be practicable without at all affecting the revenue or changing the taxes. There are many disabilities but these are probably the principal ones. The price of coal is another. When I asked distillers why they could not sell alcohol as cheaply as it is sold in the United States, they said that in southern Illinois, I think Peoria is the centre, they are near the corn fields and the coal fields and have facilities for producing alcohol at a very low' price.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the difference in the cost at the present time ?


William Templeman: I cannot give that information exactly. We are at present very much handicapped by reason of the excessive price of wood alcohol. I look forward hopefully to the possibility of placing denatured alcohol on the market in Canada at a considerably reduced price. At the same time the great object the people have in mind is a denatured alcohol that may be used for fuel, light or motive purposes. I give no opinion as to the possibility of that. The use of alcohol in competing with gasoline or petroleum is not likely to become general in Canada for some time to come. While it may be possible to produce alcohol in Canada much more cheaply than at present, it would have to be produced at one-half the price of to-day before it could be sold in competition with gasoline and petroleum.


George Eulas Foster: What struck me was the possibility of people generally manufacturing their own alcohol and thus getting an extremely cheap motive power. I read some articles with reference to this in the United States and they seemed to have overcome the difficulty in regard to revenue and were able to produce a wonderfully cheap article for motive power and other industrial uses. I would like the minister to state whether this has been successfully carried out in the United States, and if so, why Canada could not do the same thing. My recollection is that they proposed to make the alcohol out of farm refuse of. different kinds w'hich is now practically wasted, but which is claimed under proper education could be converted into alcohol by farmers themselves.


William Templeman: The officials of the department have been in communication with the officials of the department in Washington with respect to the operation of their law, and their information is that it has not been successful in regard to the distillation of alcohol by farmers. All the denatured alcohol put on the market in the United States in the last twelve months

'has been from the grain distillers. It was expected that there would be such a thing as agricultural distilleries, that any farmer might have a license, might have a small still, and under the supervision of excise officers distil his own alcohol from corn stalks or other similar waste products of the farm. However, this has not been accomplished in the United States. Our department have watched it with interest; we would very much like to have them work out this problem successfully before venturing along a line in which there is serious danger to the revenue unless the work is carried out under the closest supervision.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I recollect a speech by the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon) on this subject some two or three years ago, and I was rather impressed with what he said with respect to the progress which Germany has made in the production of this article for purposes such as the hon. member has alluded to.


William Templeman: Germany is always pointed to as the country that has succeeded in producing denatured alcohol for fuel purposes, for driving motors, &c. A year ago, when the question was before the House, I read some of the reports in regard to the success of this alcohol in Germany, including the report prepared by a commission of the imperial parliament to investigate this question in regard to the effect of tax-paying alcohol on the industries of Great Britain as compared with the freer alcohol of Germany. I learned then, and I believe It is the fact, that Germany encourages by a subsidy the production of alcohol on the farm. Germany also imposes a tax upon petroleum. It encourages the production of alcohol by farmers to the extent of 6 cents or 7 cents a gallon. I do not think that policy would be acceptable in Canada. Then Germany has very cheap labour. The inauguration of the alcohol industry in Germany was due to agrarian politics. There were very large areas of poor land and many poor people, and they were encouraged to go on these lands to grow potatoes and manufacture alcohol. It was not altogether a question of producing cheap fuel, it had something to do with the settlement of poor lands in Saxony and other provinces of Germany. A large quantity of alcohol is used in Germany for fuel and light purposes, which is made from potatoes. I do not think we desire conditions in this country which would enable us to obtain the same measure of cheap alcohol ; I understand that unless our farmers are prepared to grow potatoes at a price of about 10 cents or 12 cents a bushel they will not be able to produce alcohol to compete with the present price of petroleum and gasoline in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to call attention to the situation that is created in that way. Perhaps I might bring that out by reading Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
an extract from a letter received by myself. It is as follows :
There is a matter of very considerable interest to ourselves

These people are chemists and druggists.
-well as to the drug trade generally that has already or will in the very near future be brought to the attention of the House . . . . and that is the question of the exorbitant prices we are obliged to pay for alcohol for use in the arts. The manufacturers are obliged to keep this article in stock for three years in order to comply with the regulations.. We consider this absolutely unnecessary when the alcohol is used for manufacturing purposes, and this fact adds practically 50 per cent to the actual cost of the spirit, without, of course, considering the question of government duty.
That is an assertion which is worthy of some consideration. They make the flat statement that it is not necessary to keep this alcohol for three years maturing in order to prepare it for use in the manufactures. If it is a fact that it need not be kept so long there should be a great reduction in price. Whether that is practicable or not is a question which remains for the minister to consider.
A denatured alcohol is manufactured and sold in the United States at 39 cents per gallon which illustrates the fact that a spirit can be manufactured and sold, if there were no duty to pay and it had not to be kept for three years, at from 40 to 50 cents per gallon, imperial measure, with a very good profit. Of course, the government duty is placed high enough so as to prevent any spirit being imported.
In the general policy of the country, which is to aid and enlarge manufacturing interests as greatly as possible, here is one manufacturing interest which, upon such a statement of the case, seems to be placed at a disadvantage in its competition with respect to articles coming from other countries and the manufacturers of which have a cheaper basic article to commence with. Has the minister looked into the point as to whether it is necessary to keep alcohol maturing so long for this purpose ? If it is not, of course, there may be some cheapening in that respect. It does seem as though they state, prirna facie, a case which is worthy of consideration. The department gets out a great many bulletins, some of which are not very interesting. It would really be interesting if the officers of the department would look into the processes which have been started in other countries and for which great claims have been made, and once in a while summarizing the results of these experiments in other countries. For instance, it would be very interesting if they would summarize In a short bulletin the results of the experiments which have been made in this line and show the

relative progress as between ourselves and other countries which may set the people thinking, and which may be a spur to inventive genius outside of the Department of Inland Revenue as to the ways and means by which some similar effects may be produced in this country. But, I would ask the minister in reference to these two points that are referred to here, first, as to the cost of alcohol for manufacturing purposes.
'Mr. TEMPLEMAN. I think my hon. friend is probably mixing up two things. Denatured alcohol or methylated spirits is used for manufacturing purposes. It may be used if we can get it cheaply enough, for fuel and light, for driving motors and things of that kind. But what my hon. friend refers to is pure grain alcohol-


George Eulas Foster: Yes, that is right.
Mr. TEMPLUMAN -for chemical purposes. An order in council was passed years ago permitting the use of grain alcohol by paying fifteen cents a gallon for the manufacture of anything in the process of manufacture of which the alcohol was destroyed or was so changed that it could not be recovered. That is the law to-day. When the motion of my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) was up for discussion the other day, the question arose as to whether we could not permit the manufacture of several other articles, chloroform being one, and I submitted the proposition to the chemist of the department. I am advised that he has made a report in which he says that some of the articles that it is proposed to manufacture in Canada might be permitted to be manufactured with perfect safety to the revenue, but that there are several others that my hon. friend from Winnipeg thought that we might manufacture with perfect safety to the revenue that I am advised could not be so manufactured. We cannot permit grain alcohol to go into the possession of the manufacturing druggists of the country to be manufactured, unless in the process of manufacture the alcohol is either destroyed or so changed that it is worthless and cannot be recovered. To that extent only can we encourage manufactures that require alcohol. So long as they change the alcohol and so long as it cannot be restored to its original character as being a potable article, the department will permit the use of alcohol for paying fifteen cents a gallon.


George Eulas Foster: That might be extended beyond what it has been.


William Templeman: Yes, I am advised that it might be extended to several important articles. But, the complaint made by the writer of the letter to my hon. friend that grain alcohol has to be kept for three years in the warehouse without being sold under this clause is entirely wrong.


George Eulas Foster: Under that clause probably it is.


William Templeman: It is quite possible under this clause for any manufacturer to get alcohol out of the warehouse the day after it is manufactured. There is no need of maturing it for three years. Possibly the writer of the letter only takes alcohol that has been three years maturing and for which he pays $1.90 a gallon as many of the druggists throughout the country do.
On section 8,-application for license to manufacture tobacco.


William Templeman: There is no change in this clause, except that the three last lines of the present Act are dropped.
On section 9

New section 275-fee for license


William Templeman: Under the law as It is now there are three different licenses, with fees of $50, $65 and $75 respectively. It is proposed that in future there shall be but one license, with a fee of $50.
On section 10-New section 278-notices; to be posted up in tobacco manufactories-


William Templeman: The change in the notice is due to the fact that there will be but one license, as there will be no question whether the tobacco is imported or Canadian.
On section 11-New section 279-duties of excise on tobacco.


William Templeman: This clause provides for the changes made in the duties. On manufactured tobaccos and snuffs, the duty is to be 5 cents a pound. At present the duty on snuff is 25 cents a pound.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Does the duty of 5 cents a pound apply to the ordinary twist which the tobacco grower sells to the manufacturer ?


William Templeman: Yes.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: In the province of
Quebec, there has been no tax on twist.


William Templeman: There has always been a tax. There is no change in that respect.


Mr. CLARKE.: There is no duty on the tobacco that a man grows for his own use.


George Eulas Foster: [DOT] Do I understand that a man is not liable for duty on what he manufactures for his own use ?


William Templeman: The law for years has provided in section 325 that a man may manufacture for the use of himself and his family to the extent of thirty pounds in a year, without paying duty.


George Eulas Foster: Is the department able-to keep track of that fairly well ?


William Templeman: I think so. As far as my knowledge goes there has been no abuse of that provision.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister ever find some abnormally large families ?


William Templeman: Occasionally, especially in the province of Quebec.
On subsection (g)-duty on cigarettes-


Mr. BLAIN.: Is there any change in this?


William Templeman: The duty is changed from $3 to $2.40 per thousand.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the minister, now that he is changing the regulations regarding the manufacture of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes, what the policy of the government is in respect to the cigarette question. I think this would be a favourable opportunity for the government to state their position, in view of the fact that the House some time ago adopted a resolution in favour of prohibiting the manufacture, importation and sale of cigarettes in any part of Canada. I have been waiting for the government to make some pronouncement, and I expected, when this Bill was introduced the government would be -prepared to announce their policy. I am quite anxious to know how far the government will disregard the votes of the people's representatives on this question, more especially in view of the fact that some members of the cabinet expressed themselves in the House in favour of it. I am quite sure that the hon. minister, in the preparation of this Bill, gave some consideration to this question and has not disregarded entirely the wishes of the people as expressed in this House.


William Templeman: This Bill is simply for the purpose of changing slightly the method of collecting duties on tobacco and cigars, and therefore is not one on which we can properly discuss the policy of prohibiting the use of cigarettes.


Mr. SPROULE.: You could introduce a clause in this Bill providing that in future no cigarettes may be manufactured or sold.


William Templeman: I am rather sympathetic with regard t!o the discouragement of the use of cigarettes by our youth, and I believe that something ought to be done on that line by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code. I am not quite prepared to admit that the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of cigarettes would be the proper course. At any rate this is not a Bill on which we can discuss that question.


Richard Blain: That is a very nice statement from my hon. friend the minister, but the people would rather have the minister do something practical to carry out their wishes than merely express sympathy. I Mr. FOSTER.
would draw his attention to a letter complimenting the government for granting rather special favours to the cigarette manufacturers in Canada rather than carry out the wishes of the people's representatives. As a result of the discussion in the House a short time ago, a cigarette manufacturer in Montreal sent his compliments to each member of the House with a box of cigarettes and a letter.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I did not get any.


George Eulas Foster: That is another grievance for you.


Richard Blain: The letter is as follows : Montreal, Canada, March 17, 1908.
J. W. Daniel. Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-We take the liberty of transmitting to you to-day a sample of our cigarettes. We have factories established at London, England; Cairo, Egypt, and New York. This sample is from our new Canadian factory in this city and which we are enabled to operate satisfactorily, due alone to this legislation of your honourable House which abolished the sale contract system of the Tobacco Trust. While the tobacco trade do not as yet altogether realize the freedom of trading you have extended by your Act, and while a certain detrimental fear still exists, due to the past and present conduct of the monopoly, a better state of trading prevails and an independent house can operate in this market.
We wish to acknowledge the fact to-day, with thanks.
Respectfully yours,
PHILIP MORRIS & COMPANY, Limited,
Henry Miles, President.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is not the result of this legislation.


Richard Blain: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think that on this question of cigarette smoking, we all sympathize with the idea expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) so far as the youth of our land are concerned. It is very unfortunate that young people are induced to smoke cigarettes. I think some legislation should be passed for the purpose of doing away with this evil as far as possible, and I would agree with my hon. friend in supporting any legislation wisely designed to that end. The Bill now before us is not for the purpose of legislating in that way, but has to do with the raising of the public revenue. In some respects, the duty on cigarettes has been increased, which, I take it, is a step in the direction that my hon. friend wishes. I sympathize strongly with the idea that we should have legislation to prohibit young people from smoking cigarettes, and merchants and dealers from selling cigarettes to such people.


George Eulas Foster: Was this increase in the duty made with the idea of mitigating the [DOT]evil ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I say the duty was increased, and this would tend to decrease the consumption.


George Eulas Foster: Was that the purpose in *the mind of the government when the duty was decreased?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The main purpose was to equalize the revenue.


George Eulas Foster: I thought that from what the minister said-and I do not see why he should say it unless it had that bearing- that the government had the idea of mitigating to some extent this bad practice of using cigarettes when it increased the duty. It appears, however, that this was merely a 200
word that escaped the minister's lips, and that it did not express an idea which was in the mind of the government or of the Minister of Inland Revenue when the duties were increased. It might be better if we did not make these assertions unless we meant them, as they might be interpreted by those outside in a wrong way. I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) would be the last man in this House to put it in that way to get the benefit of a wrong interpretation of the object in view in fixing this duty. I think we ought to have more from the government on this subject than we have had. It seems that we have no other opportunity. I was not present when the resolution of my hon. friend from Feel (Mr. Blain) was moved and debated. Had I been here I would have supported him as I did on a former occasion. While there was a sympathetic reception of that resolution on both sides of the House, the resolution seems to have been side-tracked by one of the devices well known to parliamentary practice and now stands where it is impossible, as I understand it, to recover it during the present session. I think my hon. friend from Peel is quite within his rights, when a chance opportunity comes in the form of legislation on this very subject, to ask the government to say what they would have said if this discussion had been allowed its course and had come to a conclusion either by a vote or by a statement made by the government and withdrawal of the motion if the statement were satisfactory. Really, this matter does merit consideration on our part. I do not suppose that you could find a single educationalist in the country who would not tell you that there is scarcely any more deleterious agent at work in depreciating and weakening the intellect of the youth of our country than this insidious habit of cigarette smoking. I think that educationalists will agree with that and that they are more and more pressing forward this idea. I do not suppose you will find a reputable physician who will stake his reputation on the statement that cigarette smoking is beneficial to the health of the young-or of anybody, though the grown person, with fibres set and full growth attained, might smoke cigarettes without receiving any very great injury. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) will know that the highest military authorities in Germany and Great Britain have sounded a note of warning concerning the effect of cigarette smoking upon the morale and upon the physicial fibre of the militia and soldiery of their respective countries. In fact, cigarette smoking cannot be proven to be beneficial in any way, and, from all these sources of which I have spoken, we have warnings as to its deleterious effects. Now we spend a lot of money to bring desirable immigrants to this country in order that we may increase the population of Canada. It seems to me we ought to very seriously consider whether we can keep



those that are born in our country and grow them up to the best stature of manhood and womanhood by removing deleterious agencies such as the cigarette is acknowledged to be. Why should we, on the one hand, spend money to bring in foreign adults to add to our population, and, on the other hand, allow an influence of this kind to neutralize our efforts by injuring those born in our midst? The matter of revenue is something, but revenue cannot be compared in importance for a moment with the health and wellbeing of the people. The Prime Minister {Sir Wilfrid Laurier) knows, from the deputations that have waited upon him-and also, no doubt, a great deal of correspondence has reached him-that there is a very widespread interest in this matter throughout the country. I think it may be stated that the best people of Canada are in favour of mitigating as far as possible, and, if possible, prohibiting, this practice in our country. It would be a great help if the Prime Minister could translate his sympathies and that of his friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) into words that would be hopeful and helpful to the important section of the population which is trying to minimize these evils. I think this is a golden opportunity for a word of sympathy if nothing further can be had.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will approach this 'question upon the very lines stated by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) himself. But, I may preface what I have to say on this occasion by stating that in this matter I am absolutely disinterested. I do not use tobacco in any form. If I were to follow my own inclination, I would have no hesitation in prohibiting cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco as well. But that would be going further perhaps, than would be acceptable to the great majority of this people. Coming to the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) he has stated that this is a golden opportunity for the government to state their policy on the question brought before the House by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) in his resolution to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes throughout the length and breadth of the land. This is no opportunity at all, I may say, by the way. This Bill is for the purpose of readjusting the excise duties upon tobacco, and has absolutely no connection with the question that has now been brought before the House, the question that was discussed a few days ago on the motion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain).
The hon. gentleman asked what opinion I entertained on the subject. When the debate took place some time ago I stated my own view, and I have stated it before. I agree with the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) that the use of cigarettes by boys is injurious, that is admitted, and seems to be beyond doubt. He has stated Mr. FOSTER.
also that the use of tobacco or cigarettes by mature men is innoxious. Now if this form of tobacco is injurious to the mature youth but is not noxious to the mature man, would my hon. friend conclude that we should prohibit the use of tobacco to the mature man as well as to the youth? I do not think that would be logical. If the use of cigarettes or tobacco in any form is innoxious to the mature man what reason can there be for depriving him of that comfort? Tobacco as has been very often said, is the luxury of the poor man. Does the hon. gentleman contend that under such circumstances we should deprive him from the use of tobacco, that we should stop its use not only to the person whom it injures but also the person whom it does not injure? I think the remedy suggested by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) is too radical, it goes too far, because he wants to prohibit the use of tobacco to a class of people whom it does not injure.


Richard Blain: Keep in view the fact that it is only cigarettes, not tobacco or cigars, that I propose to prohibit.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly, and I take the view of the hon. member for Toronto, that cigarettes, while they are injurious to the mature youth, are absolutely innoxious to the mature man.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend has misunderstood me. I did not say, at least I did not mean to say that the smoking of cigarettes was innoxious to the mature man; my own opinion is that it is noxious instead of being innoxious. What I said was that it had less effect upon the mature man than upon a younger person. But I do not subscribe to the idea that the smoking of cigarettes is altogether innoxious to the mature man ; in fact my citing the opinions of military men as to the harmful effects of cigarettes upon soldiers, was proof that I took the ground that they were noxious and harmful to men.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend, but I gathered that much from the way he emphasized the fact that the use of the cigarette was not so harmful to a man whose muscles were knit and set as it was to a mature youth, and I thought he had come to the conclusion that it was innoxious to the mature man. At all events, so far as I am concerned, I cannot see how tobacco in one form can be more injurious than in another form. I have never heard any reasoning that convinced me that tobacco used in a paper envelope is more noxious than tobacco used without any wrapper at all, for instance, when used in a pipe. The great mischief which I see in the cigarette is its cheapness. When I was a youngster, if a boy had five cents he invested it in candy ; but in these days when a boy has five cents

he goes and buys a package of cigarettes. This is the great mischief in the use of tobacco. Does the hon. gentleman think that tobacco itself, which is certainly injurious to the mature youth, whether in the form of cigarettes, cigars or pipe tobacco, should not be allowed to the mature man ? For my part I believe that tobacco 4n any form is dangerous to the mature boy and should not be allowed. But does my hon. friend believe that there is more danger in the use of tobacco in the shape of a cigarette than in any other form ?


George Eulas Foster: To the boy, yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why to the boy than to the man? Does the hon. gentleman believe that if a boy smokes a cigar the effect will not be the same as when he smokes a cigarette?


George Eulas Foster: He will not be so prone to smoke a pipe.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly. As I said the peculiar danger of the cigarette was its cheapness. I must say-I have said it elsewhere to a deputation of ladies who came to interview me upon the subject- that it grates upon my feelings when walking the streets of a city to see a boy with a cigarette in his mouth, and I am tempted, like my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson),- to take the cigarette away and to say : My boy, you should not do that. In fact a few months ago, in the city of Quebec, I met a little lad with a cigarette in his mouth, and I took it away from him and said : My little fellow, you should not do that.


Mr. BERGERON.: What did the boy say?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that the boy was rebellious to my good advice. But I repeat the cigarette is a form of tobacco which is undoubtedly injurious to the boy, but which is perfectly innoxious to the man. My hon. friend from Toronto will not say that a cigarette is any more injurious to a man than a pipe, and he wants to take away from the man the privilege of smoking cigarettes in order that he may preserve the boy from smoking them. That seems to be going too far. I believe there is legislation in every province forbidding or prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to boys; there is legislation in every province preventing boys from indulging in that most mischievous pastime or recreation of smoking cigarettes. It seems to me therefore that we already have sufficient legislation in that regard without asking this parliament to interfere. The proposition seems to me absolutely illogical, I say this with all due deference to my hon. friend, because it seems to me we are going further even than the premises of my hon. friend would logically carry him. I believe moreover that in this matter more can be done by domestic education than by legislation and that the way to treat a boy who 206J
has a cigarette in his mouth is to give him a good spanking.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the right hon. gentleman has overlooked one important factor in connection with the danger of cigarettes and tobacco. If I understand him correctly, he holds the opinion that the boy who smokes cigarettes is not more injuriously affected than if he smoked a cigar.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is my view.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the tobacco were treated in both cases absolutely the same, I would say that that view might perhaps be correct. But the faet is that tobacco which is manufactured into cigarettes is treated with other narcotic poisons as well as nicotine, while tobacco made into a cigar is not so treated. For instance the tobacco used for the cigarette is often steeped in a solution of opium so that it has the same effect on the boy as the smoking of opium has on the Chinaman, or a solution of bel-ladona, which is an injurious narcotic poison. That is why, I believe, cigarettes are generally regarded as more injurious than tobacco or cigars. Whether the attention of the Prime Minister has been called to it or not that fact should not be left out of consideration. The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Bro-deur) express strong sympathy for the people who desire to prevent the manufacture of cigarettes. Their position reminds me of the story of the man who had no milk or food for his cat and felt so sorry for it that he petted it and sympathized with it and stroked it a great deal. The result was that the cat died, it needed milk, not sympathy. In the same way I feel it will be a long time before these reformers derive any benefit from the sympathy of these two ministers.
I have always understood that a unanimous expression of opinion by this House was practically a command to the government to enact legislation. A similar motion to that of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) was adopted two years ago and I believed that the government are in duty bound to take note of it. What are the government going to do ? As to whether or not this is an opportune time for the enactment of this legislation, the Minister of Inland Revenue says that this is only a Bill to change the Inland Revenue duty and it is not an opportune time to prohibit the manufacture of cigarettes. Could we not just as easily say by a clause of this Bill that cigarettes shall not be manufactured or sold as that the rate of duty on certain articles shall be charged. Did we not say that certain articles such as oleomargarine should not be manufactured in the country? By the same parity of reasoning this would be an opportune time to absolutely prohibit the sale of cigarettes as well as to

change the rate of taxation on them. If the government do not desire to go that far surely it is not too much to ask them to state to the House what their policy is.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has advanced a reason in support of this proposal which, if it is true, throws a flood of light upon this question. He has explained why the use of cigarettes is so deleterious, not only to boys but necessarily to mature men also. The reason is that it has been found in the army in Germany and in England that the use of cigarettes was deleterious. This is easily understood if it be true that in the preparation of cigarettes there is introduced not only tobacco but also such deleterious poisons as opium and belladonna. If it be true that there is placed upon the market and offered to the public for consumption a preparation containing opium and belladonna, then we know the cause of the evil and it is not difficult to apply the remedy, and the remedy should be to make a criminal offence to introduce certain deleterious substances into cigarettes or any form of tobacco. If it is true it is certainly a consideration which we should not overlook, this practice should be made an offence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have only to say that in the country of the right hon. minister's origin, it is stated in the medical works that it is an absolute fact and has been the custom for a long time.


William Templeman: In respect to the statement that cigarettes are adulterated by the introduction of poisons to strengthen the tobacco, within recent months complaints were made to the Inland Revenue Department to the effect that certain cigarettes were doctored up by the use of narcotics of some kind. A collection of -cigarettes was made, they were thoroughly analysed by Mr. McGill the chief analyst, and his report was made that there was nothing in the cigarettes save tobacco, he could find no other deleterious substance whatever.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That may be true with regard to the Canadian manufactured article, but of course I am not speaking as to that, I am speaking of the imported article.


Mr. BARR.: Did he examine the paper ?


William Templeman: It must be remembered that there are ten times as many Canadian cigarettes as imported cigarettes on the Canadian market. However, I shall have a further collection of cigarettes made and a very close examination conducted. I have often heard that the paper is so prepared that it is obnoxious. Possibly that is so and it may be that some cigarettes do contain a narcotic ; I know myself that they certainly have a different flavour.


Richard Blain: The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has stated Mr. SPROULB
that my position on this question is rather illogical. He states that the resolution which I had the honour of proposing, if carried by the House and legislation enacted embodying its principles, would prohibit altogether the use of cigarettes by all people in Canada. The right hon. gentleman himself forgot the point that a large portion of the cigarettes, the portion which we complain about, is used by boys under sixteen years of age. I believe that the grown up people of Canada, who wish to smoke their pipe or cigar and possibly some of them their cigarette, would be quite willing to forego any desire to smoke cigarettes in order to abolish this evil from the land in the Interest of the rising generation. The government have been taking one position in the House and another position in the country. Those of us who are interested in this question are confronted, on the one hand with the statement of some minister, and on the other hand, with the statement of some other minister in the country when they are engaged in elections. Let me give a reference to what the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) stated when this question was up in the House last session. In the discussion page 4077 of ' Hansard ' that hon. gentleman said:
It may be that the reason that these provincial and local laws are ineffective is that the provinces have not sufficient power to control the evil and that it is necessary, in order to control the evil that the law should he passed hy the supreme authority of the land, and should he equally effective and equally enforced and equally drastic all over the country. For this reason I would he temoted to support a resolution and a law on the lines herein indicated. I feel, however, that perhaps there has not been that fair effort on the part of the inferior powers in this country to accomplish the end.
Further on, when the discussion was closing, the Minister of Agriculture stated (page 4079 of Hansard) :
If my hon. friend should propose this motion in the early days of next session, before Christmas. I should he glad to do all I could to put through a measure which would prevent the use of cigarettes by young people. Therefore, unless my hon. friend should amend this motion so as to make it read next session instead of this, I cannot support it. I hope a Bill of this kind will be brought in next session and passed unless we can find other means more effective than those now in force to lessen this evil.
The Minister of Agriculture was speaking for the government as I understood him. He said, in order to get rid of the resolution for the time being, that he would be very glad next session to support a resolution along the lines of the resolution that I had up for discussion at that time and which was again debated in this House a few weeks ago. I regard this as an

important question. It is all very well for ministers of the Crown to stand up and say that they sympathize with this movement but the people of the country expected the government to face this question and' to legislate upon it. It is either right or wrong that the young people of Canada should smoke cigarettes and if the right hon. gf-utleman had the power to take the cigarette from a boy and chastise him upon the street in the city of Quebec, he would not fail in the greater duty which confronts him and his government. The right hon. gentleman must remember some of his ministers have stated that they are in favour of legislation of this kind, they have the power to put upon the statute-book legislation that will drive out this evil* and protect the youth of Canada and I- think it is the duty of the government to do that this session. We have been waiting for it since 1903. Long prior to 1903, when the Liberal-Conservative party were in power, all through the province of Ontario, the Women's Christian Temperance Union held meetings, passed resolutions, requested some candidates for parliament to make a pronouncement upon this question and gave expression to their belief that when the Liberal party came into power they would drive out all these evils which were such a burden on the hearts of the members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union particularly in the province of Ontario. It was the same way with regard to the liquor question - another moral question. The right hon. gentleman when in the city of Winnipeg, promised the people prohibition if the people voted for it and every province except Quebec voted in favour of it. Yet, the right hon. gentleman pushed it aside. Nothing has been heard of it since. They were going to abolish the bar in the House of Commons, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture the other day, in one of the provinces, stated that he never knew a bar was open in the House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Richard Blain: It was the Bar of Justice, I suppose, that he was referring to. We had this government coming into power, trying to carry out the pledges that they gave to the people on moral questions, and they suggested moving the bar from the House of Commons over to the Senate. Everybody knows that there is a bar in the House of Commons where you can get liquor. I am told they put a door keeper on the bar the other day to keep messengers out and let members of parliament, have more room I suppose. As to whether that is right or wrong, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say, and I only touch upon this question as it affects the great moral questions upon which pledges were given by the Liberal party when they were out of office and seeking the votes of the people. Now, they have been in office since 1896. In 1903 a resolution was introduced by a supporter of their own calling for the abolition of the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. That resolution was carried by a handsome majority. The Women's Christian Temperance Union and the supporters if this great moral movement went away perfectly satisfied. They said : Of course, possibly* the government will not have an opportunity at this moment to carry the resolution into effect by legislation, but at the next session of parliament it will be done. From 1903 down to this moment we have had nothing except resolutions discussed and statements from one minister or another to the effect that at the next session of parliament they will be glad to assist in placing upon the statute-book legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
Now, when a minister of the Crown has a Bill touching this very question the government say : We are not ready to give any promise ; we have no policy, and they really have no policy except that stated by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Bro-deur) who informs us that they have decided to put up the duty a little higher. The hon. gentleman suggests that possibly that will satisfy those who are in favour of legislation upon this subject. We expected an announcement to-day, and I may say that the right hon. gentleman will not satisfy his own friends, hundreds and thousands in number in every province, who believe that this is a great evil and that the time of parliament could not be better taken up than in discussing and placing on the statute-book something to drive out the evil. I pointed out in this House a few weeks ago that during the nine months ended March 31, 1907, there were 275.000,000 cigarettes consumed by the people of Canada. In so far as those were consumed by grown up people I have not very much to say. All I can say is that I believe that grown up people some of whom smoke cigarettes, would be quite willing to join hands with the government and to say that in the interest of their boys and girls and in the interest of the future of Canada they would be prepared to set that aside and confine themselves to the smoking of pipes and cigars. This is a golden opportunity which I expect the government to take advantage of in order to make a statement as to their policy upon this question. I do not suggest that they should legislate on it in connection with the Bill before the House, but what I do say is that they should make a statement to the people of Canada and the members of the cabinet who pledged their support to this proposition should see that



'6487 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
the government do something on the question. The people of Canada will not be satisfied with promises made occasionally in the House or on the hustings when a byelection is going on. But in view of the fact that a majority of this House in the session of 1903 voted in favour of the proposition and that a majority of the people of Canada are in favour of legislation on the question, it is the duty of the government to make plain to the people of Canada at this session what their policy is

whether it is in favour of legislation or is opposed to legislation. Then the people of this country will know what the position of the government is.
George Eulas Foster: If I understand this legislation, its object is to do away with all distinctions, so that the purchaser will not know whether he is buying the product of the foreign leaf or the Canadian leaf.


William Templeman: The object of the legislation is to permit foreign tobacco and Canadian tobacco to be used together in the one factory and the one package, and there will be only one stamp which will indicate the tax paid.


George Eulas Foster: Your imported raw leaf and Canadian leaf go into the same package, and you cannot tell by the label whether -the package contains mixed tobacco or foreign tobacco only or Canadian leaf only.


William Templeman: That is the effect.


George Eulas Foster: What is the object?


William Templeman: Its object is to permit the use of Canadian tobacco in all packages. One of the handicaps of Canadian tobacco has been the rebate of the duty when cuttings of foreign tobacco were exported. The factories using foreign tobacco could not use Canadian tobacco because we could not allow a rebate on the cuttings of Canadian tobacco. That was a great handicap on the use of Canadian tobacco. Another handicap was the stigma attached to the reputation of Canadian tobacco, which formerly was not so good as the imported, and the use of a distinguishing label kept up that stigma. But Canadian tobacco is greatly improved to-day and is susceptible of greater improvement, so that I do not think this handicap should be continued as it would be by our continuing the use of a special label. The great object is to have Canadian tobacco used in common with the tobacco of any other country in the same factory.


George Eulas Foster: The minister says the object is to remove the handicap on Canadian tobacco. Would he have been equally as correct if he had said that the object is to remove the distinction between tobacco imported in the raw leaf and made in Canada and tobacco made from the Canadian ' Mr. BLAIN.
raw leaf? Would not that be equally specific and true? The minister admits that the opinion so far has been that the imported raw leaf is superior to the Canadian? By this legislation he is not only endeavouring to take away the handicap from the Canadian raw leaf but to give it the advantage in so far as that preference has to be considered?


William Templeman: I claim that Canadian tobacco has suffered serious disadvantage, and I want to remove that disadvantage.


George Eulas Foster: I am not an authority on tobacco; but if any one is, it ought to be the minister. Is it his opinion that the Canadian is equally as good as the imported tobacco?


William Templeman: I would not claim that speaking generally, but I do claim that there is grown in Canada a considerable quantity of tobacco as good as any imported into Canada except the finer grades of Cuban tobacco. We know that there are great possibilities in Canada for the growth of good tobacco. The great question in the production of first-class tobacco is the harvesting of the crop and the curing of the weed. These are things concerning which our farmers have much yet to learn, but all the tobacco imported into Canada, whether in the manufactured state or in the raw leaf, is not good tobadco. There are many inferior cigars imported, and many of the Canadian cigars are better than even some of the imported cigars from Cuba.
Mi-. FOSTER. Of course we must compare equal grades. What I gather from the hon. gentleman is that in his opinion Canadian tobacco is not better than the imported. I am not personally interested, biit I know it is an objection to this legislation that you are obliterating the difference which absolutely exists and are trying to give an advantage to the Canadian product which it does not intrinsically possess. I am willing to go a fair distance in giving the Canadian product an advantage, but that may be carried a little too far. Has my hon. friend squared himself with the cigar manufacturers on the question of this one label? Have they not protested? I have a protest under my hand.


William Templeman: This legislation has been talked about for some time, and at first there was considerable opposition from the cigar manufacturers. That was largely due to the fear that the change in the colour of the labels would, in some way or other, affect their particular trade. They considered the label as indicating a particular brand, whereas all it proved is that the duty has been paid. But they have recently realized that their fears in that respect were groundless. We had delegations here repre-

senting the Hamilton and London Cigar-makers. Representatives of these firms stated that, if we did not by this legislation increase the duties paid, they had no objection to the adoption of one label. The manufacturers, generally, I think, take that view. To some extent, the cigarmakers- the workmen-have objected.


George Eulas Foster: Have they withdrawn that objection ?


William Templeman: No, I cannot say so. That objection has come principally from the city of London. I have not heard much of it from Montreal or from cities west of London. These men say that by the use of Canadian tobacco, which, they say, is cheaper and inferior, a lower grade of cigars may be made that will be sold at prices less than the cigars they are making, and consequently the wages paid the cigarmaker will be smaller than those now paid. I must say I do not fear anything of that kind. Smokers choose cigars on their merits and not on the label.


George Eulas Foster: I received this from one union :
We, the cigarmakers of Union 27, Toronto, strongly, protest against the alteration of stamps on cigars as being inimical to our interests as cigarmakers.
That is a sample of many that I have received. My object was to find out whether the minister had talked this matter over, and whether the union makers of cigars were fairly well pleased and had accepted their programme.


William Templeman: I think that some of the union men in London and probably Toronto and other places have the view that the change to one label will affect the making of cigars. I think that many cigarmakers are quite satisfied, but the telegram read by die hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) shows that some are not.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The cigar that bears the black stamp may be made of Canadian tobacco provided they pay on the Canadian tobacco the same duty as would be paid on the foreign leaf. So the black stamp does not convey the assurance that it is a foreign leaf cigar.


Mr. BEATTIE.: I thought that the stamp showed which was the foreign leaf cigar.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Only the blue stamp.


Thomas Beattie: Very well. But that blue stamp is to be done away with. Consequently, if I go into a store to buy a cigar I have to depend altogether on the merchant -I have to take his word. I am not a heavy smoker of cigars, though I smoke a little, and do not pretend to judge by the appearance of a cigar, but depend upon the stamp. Why do we in sending our apples abroad stamp them according to the grade, No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3? Is it not to protect the consumer? Our apples are to go to a foreign market, but the cigars we consume ourselves. I think the change is simply made for the purpose of forcing the Canadian consumer to smoke Canadian tobacco without giving them the means of knowing what it is they are buying. I have sympathy with everything Canadian and would be glad to assist in putting the Canadian leaf on the market, but at the same time if a man wants a foreign cigar he has a right to get it and to know what he is buying. London Is a very important place for the production of cigars. I believe it is the second largest in Canada. The hon. minister knows that what I say is correct.


Mr. DUBEAU.: Referring to section 13 of the Bill. I would like to know if the manufacturer, upon the payment of the rates and duties mentioned in the section, shall have the option of placing on said tobacco and cigars when offered for sale the uniform stamp?


Thomas Beattie: I believe the change in the stamps is going to affect the cigar trade very much. The minister hardly puts it fairly. He knows that with the change to only one stamp any man who goes into a store who is not a good judge will have no idea of what he is buying. He cannot tell whether it is Canadian or partly or wholly foreign leaf.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is the same to-day. The buyer of a cigar with a black stamp which would be supposed to be manufactured with foreign leaf may contain Canadian leaf.


Thomas Beattie: There is a special stamp for the foreign.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


Thomas Beattie: That is my understanding. There is a black stamp for the foreign cigar.


William Templeman: I think not.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: I have sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie). It seems to me that the attempt in this Bill is to facilitate the sale of Canadian leaf as foreign leaf. If we are to encourage the use of Canadian leaf-and with that I am thoroughly in sympathy-I think it should be done openly and above board, and no advantage taken by a shuffling of the stamps which will confuse the consumer. I think the hon. member for London is right in saying that purchasers of cigars, as a rule, are guided by the stamp on the cigar, which stamps are supposed to indicate whether the cigars are of foreign or of domestic leaf. If the government wish-and I presume they do -to encourage the use of Canadian leaf, in my opinion the proper way is to do it openly by increasing the duty on imported

leaf, thus giving an advantage to the homegrown leaf in a proper and straightforward way. But that is not being done under this -Bill as I understand it.
The hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) has stated that many men cannot judge at sight whether cigars are of foreign leaf or home leaf. It is too late, after a man has smoked a cigar, for him to say: Well, that was Canadian leaf and I bought it believing it was foreign leaf. He has smoked the cigar and found it was not up to the quality he expected, and makes his complaint afterwards. There should have been a proposition made by .the government, in my opinion that would have covered the case a little better than that, a proposition that would have been at the same time open and aboveboard. My suggestion would be that instead of raising the excise it should be left at 25 cents, and that the duty on the foreign leaf should be increased to 10 cents. That would make in all 35 cents, and would have given the home product an advantage in the duty which would have brought about I think an increased consumption in Canada of the home grown leaf. I am convinced that would be a right policy to pursue, and the government should not have endeavoured to bring it about by a shuffling of stamps so as to deceive the purchasing public. The public should understand what they are getting, but they cannot understand unless there is something on the box to indicate whether it is home or foreign leaf, or partly home and partly foreign. No change that will deceive the consumer is justifiable by the department. The government should increase the duty on the imported foreign leaf. That might increase the revenue also, and would place the article on its own merits before the people, and It would be left for them to say whether they were prepared to pay the higher price for the foreign leaf or to take the home grown at a lesser price. I believe that the view expressed by the hon. member for London will be the view of the large majority of cigar manufacturers in Canada, and I trust that the government will reconsider their proposition.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: In my opinion the customs duty should have been raised and the excise should have been lowered. I never took the ground in the past, and never believed, that the use of one stamp only would benefit the grower to any extent; at the same time I cannot see where it is going to affect him in any way. So far as I am concerned I am prepared to buy cigars on their merits. So far as I know, I do not think any other country in the world brands their cigars as we have been doing.


Mr. MONK.: We who represent counties where tobacco is grown do not look upon this measure as one intended to improve the growing of native tobacco, but as the removal of a grievance. I know of no other article which is stamped, as in this case,


William Foster Cockshutt: with stamps of different colours. Our view was that the government, by putting a different coloured stamp upon the Canadian tobacco, encouraged the prejudice which for-many years existed against that article. There is no doubt that for many years there was not much improvement in the cultivation, the curing and the preparation of Canadian tobacco, on account of the prejudice existing against it. It was then probably that the different coloured stamps were invented; and now that the cultivation of Canadian tobacco has so greatly improved, we consider that the use of these different' coloured stamps is a grievance. I do not think the government was wrong in removing that grievance. It seems to me that the government is not called upon to indicate to the purchaser the kind of tobacco that he is buying. The object is to collect revenue upon a specific article; it is not the duty of the government to-indicate to the purchaser that he is buying Canadian or foreign tobacco, it is for the purchaser to assure himself of the quality.
I think the customs duty on foreign tobacco at the present time is high enough. The manufacturers or cigar unions who have protested against this measure, when they come to realize the object of the demands that have been made for a uniformity of stamps, will either withdraw, or at any rate diminish the force of their protest. I think it proper to make this statement, because this is a grievance which we have sought to have removed for more than fifteen years. I do not see that any valid reason has been given why we should brand, so to speak, the Canadian product with a specially coloured stamp which, under the circumstances I have indicated, is harmful to the industry.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I am glad to see that the Minister of Inland Revenue has taken this course with regard to these stamps.
I brought that matter before the House in 1903. A portion of the district I then represented, namely, the neighbourhood of Kelowna in the Okanagan district, grew a very excellent quality of tobacco, I think if not the best, at all events one of the best-qualities of tobacco grown in Canada. The soil there is particularly well adapted to the growing of good tobacco, and after the removal of this discrimination against Canadian tobacco as proposed by this Bill, I - think that industry will flourish and become important. I agree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the branding of Canadian tobacco with a green stamp, with the prejudice that existed against it, was a discrimination and a notice to all the world that it was an inferior tobacco that was being manufactured into cigars. After all, a man will smoke the cigar that he likes, whatever be the colour of the stamp. I am a smoker myself, and I think a fairly good judge of cigars, and I have found many imported cigars that I considered of inferior quality, and they are


not improving in late years ; although there are some cigars that are keeping up to the standard of their brands pretty well. I am glad to see that the Minister of Inland Revenue is proposing to abolish the discriminating and distinguishing stamp which I complained of in 1903.


Mr. GANONG.: Is it not a fact that in the United States they have a distinguishing stamp for imported cigars?


William Templeman: So far as we know, they have but one stamp.


Mr. DUGAS.: As bearing upon this question, I would like to read an article which I find in the Canadian Cigar and Tobacco ' Journal ' :
The only other demand is that the present regulations requiring separate factories for the production of this class of goods and separate, distinctive stamps for Canadian, combination and foreign leaf products he abolished, and the regulations so simplified with a single stamp and single license, as to permit the manufacturer to use Canadian tobacco in any desired manner.
It has been contended in the past that these regulations were necessary to prevent the public from being deceived as to what leaf was contained in the particular brand they purchased, and it is contended by the farmer that the practical result is to close the doors of nearly every factory in Canada to his leaf, and by the green and pink stamp to also put a badge of inferiority on his tobacco when it is offered to the prejudiced public.
Looking into the subject one is first confronted by the 'fact that no country in the world so stamps its own produce, and in the United States, to which we are always prone to turn for illustration, all tobacco products, whether made from American leaf, solely from foreign leaf, or from both in combination, one factory only is necessary, and only one revenue stamp is issued. Why, as a matter of plain common sense, should a manufacturer have to go to the enormous expense of equipping a separate factory and organization before he will be permitted to manufacture the product of his own country? To an impartial observer having no personal interest involved, the proposition seems as absurd as it is unjust. Every one in the trade knows only too well that this law has prevented the experimental use of Canadian tobacco in cigar factories and has effectively closed the doors of 235 cigar factories to the farmer who searches for a market for his crop. Little wonder then that no cigar leaf is grown in Canada to-day, when the factory door is closed to its use. There must necessarily be demand before there can be supply, and the market must be opened before iin-type of leaf will ever be grown in commercial quantity.
The other contention as to the necessity of green, pink and black stamps for the protection of the public seems equally hypocritical and absurd. Is Canadian tobacco more injurious to health that the public must be protected? One would almost think it was a poisonous article that must be labelled so that the public could discriminate and purchase
a non-poisonous article. Do we protect the public by a yellow stamp against the cigar made in a mold, and sold, by inference at Iqast, as hand-made goods? Do we, or should we, place a purple stamp on the clear Havana cigar to show its superiority over the seed and Havana product? Do we place a white stamp on the cigar made from American leaf, and which also reaches the public as a presumably Havana filled cigar? This solicitous interest in protecting the public cannot but bring a cynical smile to all familiar with the trade, and the time is ripe for us to discard such a hypocritical cloak. The consumer has an absolute protection in every cigar and every piece of tobacco he purchases, and that protection lies in the trade mark or brand under which it is sold. If the quality suits his palate, he purchases again, and factory regulations and separate stamps are quite unnecessary for his protection. Canadian tobacco will die out just as soon as it does not satisfy the public taste and it will increase in consumption just so far as it pleases the consumer. It is but fair that all handicaps should be removed from it, and it be given a clear field, free from triple factory obstruction and with reasonable protection to prove its worth. This freedom and this protection must necessarily precede and not succeed the demonstration of its worth. The law of supply and demand is arbitrary. The demand must precede the supply, and the conditions must be made favourable before the demand can be created.


Thomas Beattie: You stated in that article that in the United States they do not designate the cigars made in that country by different stamps. As a matter of fact the stamps are entirely different both in colour and in shape ou an imported cigar and a domestic cigar.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is not a different stamp on tobacco manufactured there.


Thomas Beattie: Entirely different in colour and shape on a domestic and a foreign cigar.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are referring to stamps on cigars manufactured in the United States and cigars imported.


Thomas Beattie: The stamp on cigars manufactured in the United States is entirely different from that on imported cigars.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is entirely different from this.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


François Octave Dugas: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, just before recess at six o'clock, I was quoting the opinion of a paper which is considered as an authority on the subject, and the protests of the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) seem to me to have been unwarranted. That paper is known to voice the interests of all to-

bacco manufacturers in Canada, not only of those being the Canadian leaves, but also of those working foreign tobaccos. The hon. gentleman will admit that his friends, whose opinions he claims to expound here, have on other occasions, shown greater faith in that paper than he, for one, exhibits to-day. Thus, I find that the friends of the member for London, are only too glad to advertise their goods through the medium of that publication. Messrs. Line, McDonald & Co., of London. Ont., consider that there is no better means to insure the sale of their products. They are large cigar manufacturers. In the number for September, 1905, the firm of Line, McDonald & Co., have the following advertisement:
This label is no new one to you, Mr. Re-fcailer. It distinguishes that box in your show case from which you sell more cigars in a day than from any other box in your store. That is, if you are one of those dealers who handle the El Cielo. If you are not one of them, you are one of a very small minority. It will pay you to join the majority of Canadian tobacconists and get your share of the trade in those exceptionally fine 10 cent cigars.
In the same issue, I find some correspondence from London wherein the quality of the tobacco manufactured by Line, McDonald & Co. is extolled :


Mr.  R. D.@: Another Belgium expert thus expressed himself :
Case No. 2, lot 1. Canadian tobaccos are of good quality. It burns well, the ashes are white and this is a good point in its favour.
Mr. Henry Pauwels, of Antwerp, expresident of the Board of Trade, stated, after examining these same samples :
Case No. 2, lot 1. If well attend-ed to Canadian growers should mate more money in seed leaf. The competition is much greater in cutting types as there is a much larger quantity of it produced. We buy cutters from the United States of America for four and five cents per pound, and can get all we want of it at this price. In the lot you are showing there is more seed leaf than cutters and it could be wonderfully improved by sorting. Sixty pounds of good sound tobacco is worth more money than seventy-five or eighty pounds of mixed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Will thehon. member allow me to put him a question? Are those extracts from the report of Mr. Mireau ?


François Octave Dugas: (Translation.) No, from that of Mr. Blaise Dugas.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) What is the date ?


François Octave Dugas: (Translation.) 1903.
Case No. i, lot 1. Fair colour and very suitable for cigars. The leaves shrink in fermenting and become darker, but care should be taken not to ferment tobacco too much as it is likely to injure it.	.
Case No. 5, lot 1. Good for fillers only. Contains some good leaves. Havana and Connecticut are seed leaves. This lot smells well and would make good cutter. It is much easier to find ' cutters ' than cigar tobacco and consequently the former is much cheaper. Once again I tell your growers can do well in tobacco if they only have the desire to do it.
Case No. G, lot 1. This tobacco is considered too good for chewing here. Chewing tobacco must be cheap. It is a good ' cutter ' and contains some good cigar leaves bnt nobody will sort it for you. It all sells as ' cutters ' when not sorted.
Case No. 6, lot 2. Good brown colour, burns well and is similar to lot one. A brown, glossy, thin leaf that has body which does not tear in handling is the best. The size of the hands makes little dffererej.
Case No. 8, lot 1. Fair average quality, has good large leaves and burns well. I honestly believe Canadians can produce an ar-icle which would be very suitable for the Belgian market.
Case No. 8, lot 2. Good seed leaf. Had this lot been fermented it would have been a shade darker and would have been better liked. It is one of the best lots.
After obtaining the statements of opinion which I have just mentioned, Mr. Blaise Dugas proceeded to London, and Liverpool, England. There also he submitted to the inspection of experts the samples' of tobacco Mr. DUGAS.
which he had taken along with him. I shall quote herewith some of the evidence-thus obtained. The statement of Mr. Muller, of Messrs. W. O. Muller & Co., of London, is as follows :
The samples you are showing here are much better and would sell now if it was stripped, for London market, all tobacco must be sorted and stem taken out, sorted as to colour and size of leaves, 20 or 22 inches is considered good. No objections to larger leaves, colour brown, texture fine and strong appearance glossy and silky, packed when fermented and dry. In cases of 250 or 300.
In order to give your tobacco industry a. footing, it needs some organization controlled by planters or others. I heard that in New South Wales and other States of Australia, the governor has interested himself. Can not say exactly in what way. Once a start made, it would be easier matter. Do careful preparation both in sorting and fermenting and ere long buyers and exporters will come to you.
As your tobacco is now, it is not ready for London market. Might be on the continent, Liverpool or Bristol markets. Have no doubts that with more attention to the sorting and fermenting you may do good on English markets. In all cases, manufacturers will not handle unstemmed or unfermented tobacco.
It was several years before Wisconsin tobacco was as good as now. We pay it 25 cents per pound binder.
I am of opinion that with proper knowledge, Canadians can produce a tobacco very acceptable for this market as I remark in your samples some very good leaves.
Should your government desire more information regarding the exportation of tobacco to London we would be pleased to correspond with them. Our references are The Chartered British North Borneo Company and our bankers are Cline, Mills, Currie & Co., bankers.
It may have been noticed that exporters are instructed to take the stem of the tobacco leaf. The reason is that there Is a duty of three shillings per pound levied on tobacco. The steins being of no use, it is clearly advisable to do away with them and thus avoid paying duty uselessly. Hence the request.
The opinion of Mr. John K. Gilliat, of the firm of J. K. Gilliat & Co., of Liverpool, is as follows :
We have never seen Canadian tobacco before.
And further on :
We should be pleased to receive a sample case of your tobaccos, 100 pounds, in hands assorted and tied as suggested above.
Your tobaccos would undoubtedly look better if they were put up properly for export. We prefer large heavy leaves in cutters and a few holes in the leaves does not impair the value very much.
I quote herewith the opinion of Mr. C. S. Clark, of the firm of William Clark A Sons, of Liverpool:
<5501

We buy most of our stock from Henderson *Company, Kentucky. Most of the tobacco used by us has the peculiar wood smoke smell remarked in Bulgium. Yellow briar is mostly used by us, we prefer good sound heavy tobacco which goes into cutting and cigarette mixture. We do not want heavy types fermented, but seed leaf should be. Selected as to colour and size of leaf.
Canadian growers should send for experienced hands, from there or send some one to learn their methods of drying and curing.
Tobacco is put on market after being inspected in co-operative warehouses and sold on guarantee samples from inspectors.
As to seed leaf, we favour Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, it pays better and is of easier sale than heavv cutting types. You may learn from them something to your advantage. We buy in Janesville. Wisconsin. We would like to hear from Canadian growers again. There is an increasing demand for cheap brands of tobacco all over England, and should they be disposed to sell at prices others do, they can certainly have their share of the exportation business. They should make-the [DOT]coarse types as heavy as they can and assort and form the seed leaf.
The statement of Mr. Frank Goodwin, of the firm of Edwards & Goodwin, of Liverpool, is as follows :	.
Heavy tobaccos need not be fermented, but should be stemmed for our market.
The samples we see are quite acceptable, but they should be made heavier, it would pay the growers better; they cannot be too coarse as long as they burn well. We deal in Kentucky. Tennessee and Ohio cutting types, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio cutting types, unstripped and stripped. Your tobaccos should be sorted into cutting and cigar leaf, as they are we cannot quote it at over G in Some of your samples we recognize as seed leaf and almost too good for cutting purposes, but we have no demand for cigar tobaccos. To make cutters, let it be as heavy as possible.
Another British expert, Mr. Bransome, of Liverpool, says :
The smell of hickory wood is much liked in tobacco for cutters. This smell is obtained by burning the wood in slow fire whilst drying the tobacco, but cannot give full information as to how it is done. You must not expect to jump to the first rank as exporters because there are a good many things to be learned from experience by you. You should adopt the American methods of curing and sorting. The hands should comprise from 10 to 15 leaves tied close to end of stem, and for sample put up in a package of about four pounds tied with good twine at five or six inches in the butt end, attach a tag to each sample of four pounds describing the type as the case may be. Seed leaf make good cutters, but are not heavy and cannot pay growers as well as when fermented and prepared for cigars.
From the above I draw the conclusion that there is no reason to maintain the distinction made heretofore between Canadian tobaccos and foreign tobaccos in the matter of brands.
The paper from which I have quoted before recess makes the following further remarks, in an editorial dated October, 1905 :
Taking the primary query as to whether Canadian tpbacco has proven its claim as a marketable commodity, we can turn to no more conclusive evidence than statistics. In 1896, the fiscal year prior to the 10 cent tax on foreign leaf, we find that the manufacture of Canadian leaf amounted to only 590,283 pounds, and on referring to the returns for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, we see that 1,986,505 pounds of Canadian and combination tobacco have been made and sold. Comment is unnecessary, the figures completely answering the questions.
Admitting then that the slight protection granted in 1897 has resulted in this wonderful development and expansion of the Canadian tobacco consumption, the wisdom of the government's policy in imposing that tax in the interest of agriculture must be frankly admitted, despite the views held by practically all the trade at the time the tax was imposed. This trade opinion is now undergoing a complete change, in the face of the evidence steadily forcing itself upon all.
The question as to whether Canadian tobacco is improving in quality, and can undergo sufficient further improvement as to warrant prospects of still further increase in consumption in future and its ultimate use for cigar purposes, is a matter having important bearing on the issue, and is a speculative subject that can be reasoned only. by deduction. It is evident to all who have had an opportunity of inspecting and following the successive crops of tobaccos in western Ontario and Quebec, that they have improved materially in quality. This is due solely to the better knowledge gained by the farmer through practical experience in planting, cultivating, curing and handling his crop, and in view of the tobacco history of the world, it seems only fair to assume that this progress will continue and texture and quality of leaf be ultimately grown that will compare favour-ablv with such types of foreign leaf as those with which they are intended to compete.
The history of almost every type of leaf now popular in cigar and tobacco manufacture is practically the history that Canadian tobacco is now making. Sumatra was once a coarse, heavy, rank tobacco. Wisconsin was once inferior to the present Canadian cigar leaf. Connecticut is a story of complete evolution to its present fine texture and quality. Shade-grown Florida Sumatra has within the past three years passed from rank failure to marketable perfection. In the face of these facts, combined with proofs staring us in the face of what Canadian tobacco has already accomplished under the encouragement of a very meagre protection, can we any longer, as fair minded business men and loyal Canadians, decry the product of our own soil?
Is further protection now desirable and opportune? The farmer echoes an emphatic yes. It is for the trade to say whether the interests of our own business will be damaged by giving our agriculture the free hand and open door it desires to go on with the work, of gathering from our own soil, some of the leaf for which we now send abroad, and keep within our own country, for the benefit of

Canadians, the immense capital now paid to the farmers of the United States. Does it really matter to us whether the duty on cigars and tobacco be levied on the raw leaf or on the finished product in bond, so long as the total taxation is not increased ? If it will benefit the farmer and keep a dollar in our own country where it remains in constant circulation, is not the policy sound and wise ? Wherein does it make the slightest practical difference to the manufacturer or dealer in cigars and tobaccos ?
I have, I think, amply proved that Canadian tobacco can replace most foreign tobacco in our factories. From positive information in my possession, I do not hesitate to say that the Canadian products in their present condition, will compare favourably with the average foreign article on our markets. I do not contend that our tobacco is better than any tobacco produced in the United States. Tobacco requires special soil and climate. Bach state of the American Union has its specialty. It is the same in Canada. In the province of Ontario the climate is better adapted to specialty of tobacco that is not grown in the province of Quebec. I allude to the ' Burley ' tobacco which is very long and of heavy texture, suitable to the manufacture of chewing tobacco. So far, our chief tobacco industry has been the manufacture of chewing tobacco, and the Ontario planters have, in consequence, been more favoured than those of Quebec. Manufacturers buy all they need in Ontario, and when they can find no more in that province they go to Quebec. In the province of Quebec the tobacco grown is a light tobacco, suitable to the manufacture of cigars, and according to the opinion of Belgian and London and Liverpool experts, Quebec tobacco, properly cured, would produce excellent cigars.
Not long ago, planters from Ontario and Quebec gave valuable information before the Agriculture Committee of this House. They proved beyond cavil that we produce tobacco quite suitable to our own market and also to foreign markets, if the curing is properly done.
The marvellous results I have just pointed out are altogether due to the customs duty of 10 cents a pound put, in 1897, on the manufacture of foreign tobacco.
I have no doubt that the changes now made will have a still more favourable effect upon this industry. According to the proposed legislation, American tobacco, before being delivered to the manufacturer, will pay a duty of 25 cents instead of 10 cents per pound, being a total duty of 27 cents on the American article, before it is manufactured, whereas Canadian tobacco will enter the factory free and pay a duty of 5 cents only after it has been manufactured. The result will be the establishment of an intermediate industry such as exists in the United States. In that country, between the planter and the manufacturer, is found the packer Mr. DUGAS.
or rehandler. The latter buys the tobacco from the planter when it is ready to be cut from the stem and, in his own warehouse, classifies and sorts it. When tobacco is suited to the manufacture of cigars, it is subjected to the test of fermentation. If the leaf is suitable for pipe use or for chewing purposes it is treated in a different manner. The need of such intermediate industry is now being felt in this .country.
The hon. the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) replying to an objection raised by a member of the opposition, remarked that to-day any one smoking a cigar apparently manufactured from foreign leaf, could not be sure that no domestic leaf entered into its composition. My information on this point enables me to state positively that not 90 per cent of the manufacturers now professing to make cigars from foreign leaf use Canadian tobacco in the manufacture of their product, but without saying so.
I remember having met a considerable number of cigar manufacturers, when the Tariff Commission was sitting in Montreal;
I was in attendance with a delegation of Canadian tobacco planters from the county of Montcalm. The views of my friends did not agree with those of the manufacturers, and in the course of a rather lively debate, several manufacturers of foreign leaf cigars admitted that they put into their goods a considerable proportion of Canadian tobacco.
I may state that Mr. Cusson, of Montreal, a manufacturer of imported leaf cigars, is ready to undertake the intermediate industry of which I have spoken, and to establish a packing warehouse in the county of Montcalm for the selection and preparation of tobacco. I am also aware that Mr. Payne, of Granby, who accompanied a deputation here last winter, is likewise anxious to enter into the same business.
Last year Mr. Cusson, expecting that the present Bill would come before parliament last session, purchased in the county of Montcalm over half a million pounds of tobacco suitable for cigar making, and he engaged an expert from Connecticut who submitted it to the proper curing process for that purpose. A couple of weeks ago Mr. Cliarland, an expert brought over from1 France by the government to disseminata information in the growing and treatment of our tobacco, laid before the Agriculture Committee cigars made by Mr. Cusson exclusively from Canadian leaf; the members of the committee smoked and enjoyed them. These cigars were unanimously declared to be of excellent quality and to compare favourably with the so-called foreign leaf cigars.
I remember that a manufacturer of American leaf cigars, who attended the sitting of the committee, smoked some of these cigars and found them so good that he was ready to wager that they were not made from Canadian leaf. This is the best proof

that can be given in favour of our national product.
When Mr. Bas Dugas returned from his trip to Belgium and England, bringing with him the expert reports of which I have spoken, he was sent to Wisconsin, with Mr. Denis, of Rouville, to study in the field, the cultivation and curing of tobacco. He brought with him samples of tobacco grown In the county of Montcalm ; these he exhibited to experts in different establishments asking for an opinion. From what Mr. Dugas says, these experts would not believe that this was a Canadian product, but supposed it had been procured from one of the local drying sheds.
I will now quote an article printed in the ' Journal of Agriculture ' of the province of Quebec. It must be remembered, as Mr. La-belle stated before the Committee of Agriculture two weeks ago, that tobacco is an artificial rather than a natural product. It must go from the planter to the packer and sorter who alone is able to prepare it for the market. This intermediary sorts and selects the natural product and prepares it for consumption. This is what we find in the * Journal of Agriculture ' of August last:
Dried and fermented tobaccos. ' Dried tobacco which has not yet been subjected to fermentation no more deserves the name of smoking tobacco than unfermented grape juice deserves the name of wine.
In dried tobacco, the nicotine forms part of the organic composition of the plant, it becomes disengaged during combustion and emits strong and acrid fumes often of a disagreeable and repulsive odour.
On being subjected to fermentation, the dried tobacco undergoes important and radical changes which give it its full value.
Fermentation improves its tecture, colour, and flavour, makes it easier of combustion, and rids it of its acrid and biting flavour, its aroma becomes more marked but softer and finer. At the same time, the nicotine is partially eliminated and what remains is disengaged from the organic matter, so that fermented tobacco while more fragrant and perfumed, is really not so strong, and is pleasanter and healthier than dried tobacco.
Most agricultural products have to undergo fermentation before being fit for consumption : wheat flour, for instance, must be fermented with yeast before yielding good bread ; cheese is the product of fermented curds ; flax yarn is the product of flax fiber rotted that is to say fermented, &c., &c. Smoking tobacco worthy of that name, forms no exception to the rule, and we propose, in this study, to describe a rational method of fermentation employed in the United States and which deserves the best attention of our northern tobacco growers.
Our tobacco must therefore be put to the test of the curing, as the paper I have quoted explains. As may be seen, the intrinsic value of the product does not depend so much upon the cultivation of the plant ns upon the subsequent preparation it must undergo.
I am pleased to be able to state that thanks to the measure now before the House, this industry will be considerably improved. It well deserves the attention of the government, for the tobacco growing industry is one of our important industries.
Before the Agriculture Committee, inquiry was made ns to the total production of tobacco in Canada. Certain witnesses have stated that in their opinion it reached ten. million pounds per annum. I have reason to suppose that their estimate is below the mark. In support of this view I will take up the census returns of 1901. We find there that in four of the counties of the judicial district of Joliette, the figures go beyond five million pounds, divided as follows :
Pounds.
Montcalm	 2,589,446
Berthier	 246,016
Joliette	 1,098,158
L'Assomption	 1,615,075
5,548,695
I should add that part of the crop was already sold.
As everybody admits, tobacco culture is one of the most lucrative in agriculture. No crop in this country gives so good a return. Consequently the government is right in heping those who are engaged in it.
Before closing, I would like to reply to a remark made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). When the resolutions upon which this Bill is based were introduced, the hon. gentleman gives his full approval to the government measure, I am pleased to say. But he goes further and expresses some regret that the Bill was not introduced sooner. I agree with him in that, and indeed the counties of Montcalm and Joliette have long been asking for this legislation. I am inclined to believe that if the government did not act sooner, the cause may be found to a certain extent, if put in the attitude of the member for Jacques Cartier, at least in that of the Conservative party to which he belongs. If we examine the policy of the Conservative party before 1897, and later on, on that question, we find that a great change for the better has taken place in their attitude. Let us hasten to the remarks made by Sir Charles Tupper, then the leader of the opposition, with respect to an item of $2,000 asked for by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) for the purpose of experimenting in the cultivation and the curing of tobacco. The amount asked for was quite small.
This is what he said :
I do not myself know much of the subject, but I am convinced that the Hon. Minister, after the debate which has taken place, must have come to the conclusion that it would not be very wise to press for the adoption of this item. After such varied expressions of opinion, I do not think it is necessary to know much about tobacco culture to come to that
[DOT]6507

conclusion. I would respectfully suggest the withdrawal of the item.
The present hon. leader of the opposition also has shown himself hostile to the commendable dispositions of the government with respect to the improvement of tobacco culture. I will quote part of his speech from the ' Hansard ' of 1901, page 1469 :
Well, I will give the hon. gentleman a suggestion with respect to the taxes. Let us look at what the taxes on the people are. In the first place, there is a tax on tobacco, which is very large, and which has been increased by hon. gentlemen opposite. I find that we take out of the people, in taxes on tobacco, in customs, $486,000, and in excise $3,281,000. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that possibly the duty of tobacco, which was increased by them might be reduced to the former amount.
In 1903, the 17th of April, the leader of the Opposition again referred to the subject :
There is another consideration which I would like to present to the House. If, as members of the government claim, the present tariff is a revenue tariff, why is the taxation continued at so abnormal a figure? Why does the government take from the people, for example, $1,000,000 more in excise duties on tobacco and $500,000 more in customs duties on sugar than would have been taken under the tariff before 1896 ? And why does the Minister of Finance retain the duty on breadstuffs which he regarded as so unjust and oppressive that while premier of Nova Scotia he moved the following resolution with regard to it.
Why is it necessary that they should have surpluses to boast of-surpluses of from $14,000,000 to $16,000,000 ? They could get clear of a large portion by extending the reduction of duties from molasses to sugar. They could also make a reduction in the duty on tobacco, which would prove an immense boon to almost every man who contributes to taxation.
Such has been the stand taken by the Conservative party every time the government has wished to do anything in the interest of the tobacco growers. I have no reason to doubt the government's firmness nor to question their good intentions with respect to this important industry, but it is fair to suppose that the government might have acted more prominently, had the hon. gentlemen sitting on your left, shown themselves as well disposed as they are to-day.
I might refer to another fact in this connection; at the time of the general elections of 1904, as is the custom, both contending parties sought to influence public opinion by means of campaign literature. One Conservative campaign pamphlet contained the following :
Put this in your pipe and smoke it.
Under Liberal rule and as a consequence of that rule, every consumer of tobacco in Canada pay $4.75 more in the shape of taxes.
How is the consumer of tobacco, under Liberal rule, affected by the taxing of this article ?


François Octave Dugas: Let us compare the taxes on tobacco collected under the present government and those collected under Conservative rule.
Liberal rule. Taxes on tobacco 1897-1902.
Excise	 $23,485,642
Customs	 2,661,875
'	$26,147,517
Conservative rule. Taxes on tobacco 1891-18S6.
Excise	 $17,875,401
Customs	 1,709,958

Increased taxation on tobacco under Liberal rule, during a period of six years, $6,562,158.
The male population of Canada is 2,571,708.
If fifty per cent of the male population of Canada makes use of tobacco, how does the increased duty on tobacco affect each consumer?
Under Liberal rule, each consumer of tobacco has to pay in taxes on tobacco $19.
Under Conservative rule, he had to pay only $14.25.
Under Liberal rule each smoker paid in taxes on tobacco $4.75 more than he did under Conservative rule.
This increased taxation of tobacco does not in any way diminish the consumption, it is quite useless in this respect, as government statistics themselves prove.
Last year the government boasted of a surplus of $14,000,000. That is to say, they took from the ratepayers and from the pockets of the people $14,000,000 more than tne public service required.
The budget receipts showing a surplus over the senseless expenditure of the Liberal government, why should they, over and above that, tax tobacco consumers to the extent of $0,582,158 since their accession to power ?
Think over this as you quietly smoke your pipe by the fireside.
The Conservatives paid for their faults in 1896.
The Liberals cannot escape from the punishment of crimes far more serious than those of their predecessors, and as for the government that succeeds them, it must be judged by its works. In short, let the people condemn any government until it is proclaimed to the world that public conscience in Canada is awakened.
I have given these quotations simply to explain the stand taken by the opposition and to Show to what extent they have carried their hostility towards tobacco planters and the tobacco industry.
In spite of the contention of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that the government should have introduced this measure sooner, I may say, speaking here as tiie representative of the county of Montcalm. which takes credit for being the cradle of the tobacco growing industry in Canada, and whose population is directly interested in the industry, that the government have done about all that could be expected of them in this matter and that the county of Montcalm owe them a debt of gratitude in that respect.
Before submitting such a measure as is now placed before us, the government required information on the present conditions of the cultivation of tobacco and the tobacco

industry, as well as on the best methods to be adopted, with a view to securing the full development of that industry.
Those who have studied this matter know that when the government framed the tariff of 3897, imposing a customs duty of 10 cents a pound on foreign tobacco, the foreign tobacco manufacturers protested against that duty, and said to the government: You must pay no attention to Canadian tobacco ; it is a product unfit for consumption and which cannot be improved. In support of this statement I need refer to no other authority than that of the ' Canadian Cigar and Tobacco Journal.' Referring to the increase of 10 cents in the duty on American tobacco, that journal declared that the government had committed itself to an absurdity. This meant that the paper representing the interests of the tobacco manufacturers had no confidence in the quality of our Canadian product. The government was therefore bound to seek information before making a move in that direction.
Let us recapitulate: In 1898, the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture, in spite of Sir Charles Tupper's opposition, obtained $2,000 for experimental purposes. In 1901, samples of tobacco were sent to Belgium. In 1903, other samples were submitted to Belgian and English experts. In 1901, the government appointed a commission, presided over by hon. Justice McTavish, to inquire into certain difficulties in connection with the tobacco industry. At that time, a powerful company, the American Tobacco Company, threatened to control the whole Canadian trade. Judge McTavish's report established that the methods of that company were detrimental to the Canadian tobacco trade. He states, however, that the conduct of the company was not illegal, and that there was nothing in our statutes to restrain it. It will be remembered that this company entered into contracts with merchants, the latter undertaking to sell no other articles but those supplied by the company, failing which, the company would refuse to sell them its products.
The following are the conclusions of Judge McTavish's report :
Hour commissioner finds, as the result of the inquiry :
1.	That the contract system complained of by the petitioners does in fact exist and is in general use in the cigarette and tobacco trade in Canada.
2.	That the provisions of the contracts in question are not illegal, either under the common law or under any statutory law heretofore enacted by the parliament of Canada.
3.	That the manufacturers of cigarettes and of Canadian tobacco other than the American and Empire Tobacco Companies are at a dis-_ advantage in the distribution of their goods,' and in the prosecution of their business generally, by reason of such contract system.
The extent to which legislative control over the freedom of contract should be exercised, and how far the rules of the trade can be interfered with by statutory enactments, with-207
out injury to the public interest, are, in the opinion of your commissioner, questions of policy for the consideration of parliament.
A11 of which is respectfully submitted.
In 1904, the Hon. the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur), who was at that time Minister of Inland Revenue, carried through a measure which put an end to these contracts.
In 1904, the government sent a commission composed of planters to Wisconsin to study the tobacco industry in that state.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Did that commission ever make a written report, and was such report ever placed before the House ?


François Octave Dugas: (Translation.) I do not know.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Was that re-port ever brought down and printed ?


François Octave Dugas: (Translation.) All I know is that I have a copy of it. At all events, the delegates came back with this information, that our tobacco was as good as that of Wisconsin, and the only thing missing to it was the proper curing to make it suitable for the manufacture of cigars.
Later on, in 1905, being encouraged by his reports on the superior quality of our product, this government caused Mr. Char-lan to come from France, where he had been an officer of the French government in an establishment affected, preparation of tobacco. Mr. Charlan has approved himself a man of absolutely practical knowledge. Since his arrival in this country he has been through the different planting districts. He has given very practical instructions on the way of producing and curing Canadian tobacco, and more particularly on the selection of varieties suitable to our soil.
In 1906, Mr. Charlan having reported that tobacco grown in the province of Quebec was of good enough quality to make cigars with, this government empowered him to purchase twenty thousand pounds of tobacco in the counties of Montcalm, L'Assomption, Joliette, Berthier and Rou-ville in order to make it undergo the necessary fermentation.
An arrangement was made between Mr. Charlan and a Montreal firm, the Dominion Tobacco Company, the principal shareholders of which are Messrs. Goldstein, who undertook to have that tobacco submitted to the fermentation test. These gentlemen being confident in the result of the experiment Mr. Charlan wanted to make. It was understood that after the fermentation experiment that the tobacco would be bought by Messrs. Goldstein who took upon themselves to supply all necessary hand labour. The agreement was that if the tobacco was depreciated as a result of fermentation, then the government would cover the difference in the cost of that tobacco. Far from being depreciated, the tobacco was



better, and the Goldsteins have been fully satisfied with the result and have kept the tobacco.
From the consumer's point of view, the government policy has been altogether favourable. Before 1897, there were consumed in Canada 18,000 pounds of tobacco, half a million pounds only being produced in this country, whereas to-day 6,000 pounds of Canadian leaf are used in manufacture.
What has been the effect of that evolution in the industry? The most important result is this:	in 1897, when American
tobacco was the only one on the market, the average price the consumer was obliged to pay for tobacco was a dollar a pound; but, since the Canadian leaf has been introduced in the manufacture, the Canadian leaf has taken the place of that much of the foreign product and the price of tobacco has gone down to an average of fifty cents per pound. So it is that where the consumer formerly used to get one pound of tobacco for a dollar, he now gets two pounds. He therefore pays fifty per cent cheaper than before.
Under these circumstances I am glad to see this House is almost unanimous in approving this measure of the government. I am quite sure the country will be highly satisfied with the policy of the government in this matter. I am also of opinion that this measure will be ranked amongst the best-and they are many-this government has adopted in the interest of the citizens of Canada.


Mr. M. MARTIN (Montreal, St. Mary's).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on the Bill now before the House, but my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Dugas) has made the statement a while ago that the Montreal cigar manufacturers, most of them at least, were using Canadian tobacco in their factories. I may say that the hon. member is misinformed. I do not believe there are more than one or two cigar manufacturers licensed for the manufacture of imported tobacco who make any use of Canadian leaf. A moment ago Mr. Cus-son's name was mentioned. At all events, if two or three manufacturers are using Canadian grown tobacco for making cigars, it is without the knowledge of the cigar-makers' union which would surely not allow them to use its label. The deputy minister being present, I would ask him to let me know how many licensed imported tobacco manufacturers do substitute Canadian tobacco to the imported leaf. The deputy minister beckons he does not know if there is any. For the information of this House, I may say there are not more than one or two of them.
My opinion has always been that Canadian tobacco is the best in the world for smoking and chewing, but without having any intention of basing my judgment on my twenty-three years' experience, I may ven-Mr. DUGAS.
ture the statement with the two hundred other cigar manufacturers in Canada that Canadian tobacco is unfit for the manufacture of cigars. In 1897, when the government placed a ten cents duty upon foreign tobacco, the effect of that measure was to cause the establishment of new factories such as the American Tobacco Company and the Dominion Tobacco Company, but not of cigar factories.
From our own experience of it, we know that we. have never been and will never be able to produce anything like Havaua, Sumatra, Brazilian and Hyara tobaccos for cigar making, and these are the leaves that are mostly used in that branch of manufacture. Let us see what happened in the United States. In spite of the McKinley Bill raising to $1.85 per pound the duty on the Sumatra leaf, there were imported into that country last year 40,000 bales of Sumatra tobacco representing 7,000,000 pounds, although the price of tobacco had been raised to about $5 a pound. All-this was intended to encourage the production and consumption of American tobacco ; however, Wisconsin and Connecticut leaves are still sold a great deal cheaper than before the adoption of that $1.85 duty, which goes to prove that in the United States they cannot do so without certain varieties of foreign tobacco in the manufacture of cigars. And what happened there will happen just the same in this country.
True that in the United States large quantities of cigars are made with domestic tobaccos, but it is equally true that those cigars have no value whatever and are sold at between eight and twelve dollars a thousand.
I do not see why I should be against this measure if I thought it was a good one. If Canadian grown tobacco was suitable to cigar making, as a manufacturer I would save twenty-three cents on every pound manufactured. This goes to show that like all the other cigar manufacturers in Canada I am satisfied that we will never be able to substitute Canadian tobacco to the Havana or other imported leaves used in the manufacture of high priced cigars.
All this agitation is due to two or three Montreal manufacturers having in stock between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 pounds of tobacco, and who are already boasting that, thanks to this very change, they will realize enormous profits as soon as the new law is adopted. By the imposition of this 28 cents duty, a good many manufacturers having in stock one or two millions of cigars will see themselves obliged to suspend their operations because they will have to pay a double rate of duty on account of their being 'obliged to pay 28 cents before the manufacturing process and $6 per thousand on their stock in excise bond, according to the old law. Therefore, I say the manufacturers will be compelled to suspend their operations while they get rid of the stock they

usually keep on hand. That is what I shall have to do myself.
Canadian tobacco is good for pipe smoking and chewing, but as regards the manufacture, it will never be able, as I said before, to replace the Havana and Sumatra leaves. The appearance of a cigar is not the only thing to be cared for; there are also the taste and the flavour of it. One day, as I was passing in Montreal, I met an hon. member who offered me a cigar. I told him that was one of our good ten cent cigars. He then replied to me that X was smoking a cigar exclusively made with Canadian leaf. Being unable to ascertain myself what kind of tobacco that cigar was made of, whereas I had smoked about the whole of it, I decided to come back to Ottawa the following day in order to appear before the Committee on Agriculture. There and then I asked Mr. Charlan, the government expert in this matter, if he would kindly give me four or live cigars like the ones that had been distributed to the members of the House the previous day. That gentleman answered me that he had none in the committee room, but that if I was willing to go to his room he would let me have four or five; and this he did effectively when he handed me a box of ' Capitol ' cigars. Moreover, I asked him to give me one half of the same tobacco contained in the cigar tendered to me; this he did also. Then I said to him: [DOT] You are sure the tobacco you are giving to me is the same as the one contained in these cigars.' He immediately answered no, because the leaf in the cigar was not as long. I should say so, for the leaf in the cigar in those cigars was not more than five or six inches long, it was the ' Havana ' leaf, while the tobacco he was handing to me was the ' Columbia ' leaf, the length of which is usually between twelve and fifteen inches.
I have unpacked those cigars in the smoking room in the presence of five or six hon. members, and I then stated before them that I was prepared to give my affidavit that those cigars were made with ' Havana ' leaf. I am still ready to swear the same thing. True there was before the Committee of Agriculture a box of cigars exclusively made with Canadian tobacco, with the exception of the coating that was made with Sumatra leaf, but it was not at all the same cigars as had been distributed to hon. members of the House the day before. I have myself manufactured some thirty cigars with the tobacco Mr. Charlan had handed to me, but the cigars so manufactured are far from having the taste, flavour and strength of those made with imported leaf like the ones he had given to hon. members the day before.
As a conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me venture the hope that I am mistaken in the few remarks I have just offered, but time will tell.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say. The hon. member for St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) has just been, as it were, the instrument of Providence, and this goes to prove the existence of an immanent justice that cannot be escaped.
The hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Dugas), who represents a population deeply interested in the growing of tobacco, was not content with giving us very valuable information which, for my part, I have listened to with the most unremitting attention; he has thought fit to go further and , spoil his speech in making an attack against the Conservative party which, I think, since 1896, has always given its effective support to every measure proposed by this government for the improvement of this industry. And at the very moment the hon. member for Montcalm has just been so upbraiding the opposition, the hon. gentleman who sits beside him and belongs to the same poii-tical faith declares himself against the measure, while all the hon. members on this side of the House, who represent counties interested in the culture, have given their support to the government.
I may be allowed to point out some of the remarks offered by my hon. friend from Montcalm. He has told us that Mr. Blaise Dugas had been sent to Europe in 1903. This gentleman has made a report, some extracts of which my hon. friend has given us. That report shows that we have in England, in Belgium, Holland and other European countries an unlimited market for our tobacco provided it is properly jjrepared and packed up as it should be. What has become of that report made five years ago? Mr. Blaise Dugas, I think, has found it very difficult indeed to get the reimbursement of his travelling expenses. Even after five years, the government has taken no action whatever on that report.
All those who have some knowledge of the question know that what we.need first of all is a market for that product. We are in a position to produce every year a great deal more than the five or six million pounds of tobacco now sufficient for home consumption. If we have no foreign market, the price goes down and the growers as well as all those interested in that industry are affected and discouraged.
Mr. Blaise Dugas' suggestions should have been put into practice without delay, that is shipments of tobacco should have been made to Europe in such conditions as pointed out by people he has conferred with. Yet nothing has been done since 1903. The report has remained buried in the records where it had been thrown aside, and none of the suggestions therein contained has ever been put into practice.
Does my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Dugas) consider that any useful steps have



B515 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
been taken for tbe improvement of that industry? He has told us of the shipment made to Wisconsin the year after. We have no report, no printed report of that shipment. These gentlemen, we are told, have reported that our tobacco is worth that of Wisconsin, which finds in Europe an easy and profitable market, and, according to my hon. friend, is an excellent tobacco. Ours was wanting fermentation. What has been done since in order to give our tobacco the required curing, so that it might compete with the Wisconsin leaf on the European markets? Nothing that I know of.
Unfortunately, my hon. friend (Mr. Dugas) has deemed it expedient to introduce politics in what was a most interesting lecture on this question. Ever since I occupied a seat in this House-even before the hon. member came here-we have year after year asked for the abolition of the distinction between stamps. We asked that from the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) when he had charge of the Department of Inland Revenue. Twelve years have passed without anything being done. The hon, member for Montcalm thinks the measure now under consideration, putting an end to such distinction, is a just and fair measure. Why then have they waited twelve years to introduce it? Was it delayed by the opposition? No, it is these gentlemen who, like the hon. member for St. Mary's, were opposing that measure and have prevented the accomplishment of an act of justice. It is due to their influence if, during all that time, justice has been delayed in its course, and to-day, when elections are near at hand, it is at last felt necessary to do justice to those who have been asking for it in vain for twelve years.
The hon. member for Montcalm then indulged in reflections upon Sir Charles Tupper, who thought the amount of $2,000 asked for by the government was going to be frittered away in making experiments. For my part, I have no doubt that those $2,000 have been of great use. When Mr. Blaise Dugas and the delegates to Wisconsin came back that amount should have been spent in putting their suggestions into practice.
This government, it must be admitted, oftentimes appoints commissioners. When they report favourably, they are lauded to the skies, when they denounce wrongdoing, tile report is pigeonholed in the department. As an illustration, I can mention the report of the Transportation Commission, which is completely left in oblivion. What will happen with that of the Civil Service Commission?
Does the hon. gentleman from Montcalm know what was said by Hon. Rodolphe Laflamme, then Minister of Justice in the Mackenzie administration, and at the same time member for Jacques Cartier, where tobacco is grown. He said, to use his own words, that there was nothing in that in-Mr. MONK.
dustry, that Canadian tobacco was a stinky stuff and that the industry could never succeed in this country.
Such was the opinion expressed by one of the leaders of the hon. member for Montcalm. And this afternoon, was the hon. gentleman in this House when the right lion, leader of the government, answering the remarks of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) relating to the prohibition of cigarettes, stated that he was not a smoker, and, speaking for himself, he would feel disposed to prohibit absolutely the use of tobacco in this country? Canada is perhaps afflicted with a prime minister too near to perfection. If he even did so much as to indulge in a smoke with a pipe or a cigar, we might have had that remedy sooner.
The hon. member for Montcalm this afternoon has found fault with the hon. leader of the opposition, because in 1901 and 1903 he protested against the heavy increase in the burden of taxation, giving as an illustration the duty on tobacco. Where does my lion, friend find in those .statements of the hon. leader of the opposition that he was opposed to a measure protecting the production of Canadian tobacco. If in 1901 and 1903, the hon. leader of the opposition complained of the increased taxation generally and of the duties on tobacco in particular, the only conclusion to be drawn from those statements is that a reduction of those duties would have fostered the industry which, according to the hon. member for Montcalm, is of such an import for this country.
My hon. friend (Mr. Dugas) has alluded to the experiment conducted by Mr. Goldstein, of Montreal. What has been the result? We do not know. The only thing wo know is that Mr. Goldstein is a staunch Liberal and from what was said by my hon. friend, I suppose that he has been given charge of 20,000 pounds of tobacco, and said that he was quite satisfied.
What has been said by the hon. gentleman about Mr. Blaise Dugas' trip in Europe establishes the merit of the suggestions made in this House since 1896, asking for the employment of experts from Connecticut to teach our farmers how to cure our tobacco for the European markets.
The verbal report-it has never been printed-of the agents sent in Wisconsin by the government was never followed with any practical result, and has been totally ignored.
I have congratulated the hon. Minister of Agriculture for having secured the services of Mr. Charlan, who has furnished valuable information on that industry. But, as I have said the other day, until we become experts in the way of packing, curing and shipping tobacco, we cannot expect to have a profitable market for this product.
If five or six million pounds of tobacco will answer the demand for home consumption, it is quite obvious that if our produc-

tiou reaches fifty million pounds we must find an outlet for the surplus, and up to this date the government has done nothing in that direction.
Therefore, it ill becomes the hon. member for Montcalm when hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are opposing this measure to find fault with those who for many years before him had been advocating the interests of this industry.
On the question : Shall the preamble be adopted ?
Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) what he would think of a proposal to prohibit the importation of cigarettes into Canada ? If the government are not prepared to make a statement on the main question as to the total abolition of the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, what would my hon. friend think of a proposition to prohibit the importation into Canada of cigarettes ?


Mr. FIELDING.: I am afraid the proposition is hardly involved in the Bill before the committee and I would not care to offer an opinion on the subject in this manner.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 135) to amend the Immigration Act.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 113) to amend the Land Titles Act.
Mr. LENNOX.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would briefly explain the objects of the Bill.


Frank Oliver: The object of this Bill is to provide for the holding of land in the interest of church organizations in the Northwest, or in that part of the country where the administration of the rights in regard to land is in the hands of this parliament. At the present time there is no provision for the holding of church rights by any organized body in that territory ; so that, it is desirable that there should be legalized the holding of church rights which must be especially legalized by Act of parliament in all that part of the territory which is outside of the Yukon, and by special Act of the Yukon legislature within the Yukon Territory. The circumstances are such that it wopld be right and proper that a general provision should be made that would apply to all cases and
that would govern the holding of church property according to the terms of this Bill. It has no application except in what is called the Northwest Territory and the Yukon Territory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1-lands belonging to churches and congregations-
Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the case of a church that has a bishop, would this enable trustees or a congregation to hold lands, or would it be incumbent upon them to pass it over to the bishop?


Frank Oliver: According to the wording of this section there is an alternative right. The bishop may hold the church property, the congregation may appoint trustees to hold it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose that according to the rules of the church the bishop only can hold the property and the congregation desire it to be held by trustees, whose authority would then prevail?


Frank Oliver: If it is the rule of the church that the property should he held by the bishop and not by trustees, the Act would give the bishop the necessary legal authority to hold it. The Act also provides that in the case of those churches which have no bishop, the property may be held by the congregation or by the trustees of the congregation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the Land Titles Act apply to the different provinces of the Northwest or only to the Northwest Territories outside of the organized provinces?


Frank Oliver: To the territory which is called the Northwest Territory, which is outside of the organized provinces, but including the Territory of the Yukon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it does not apply to Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Frank Oliver: No. Those provinces pass their own laws with regard to land titles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you handle the land, and when you sell or homestead it don't you give a title to that land?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but as soon as the land passes into the hands of private owners all further transactions with regard to it are subject to legislation of the provinces under them jurisdiction over property and civil rights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When you sell or give [DOT]away the land, don't you give a title to it under the Land Titles Act ?


Frank Oliver: We give a title, but that title has to be registered under the Land Titles Act of the province for use in future transactions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you not give a deed of the land under the Land Titles Act which we are dealing with here? Is there one Land Titles Act for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and different ones for Saskatchewan and Alberta ?


Mr. BARKER.: If I understand this Bill, its purpose is to provide that in the territories outside of any province, where a bishop already holds land on behalf of his church, or where trustees of a congregation hold land on behalf of their church, upon their ceasing to hold office or dying, instead of the property going to their heirs or being in the clouds, it goes exofficio to the next bishop or to the trustees appointed in succession to the previous trustees without any conveyance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was asking if the same rule applied to the new provinces.


William Alfred Galliher: When the Crown gives & patent to a piece of land that patent is taken by the party to whom it is given to register it under the Land Titles Act of the province.


Haughton Lennox: The Land Titles Act, as it is in the revised statutes, is, I presume, intended to apply to all Dominion lands wherever they are.


Frank Oliver: It will apply to all Do-(min'ion lands until they pass from the Crown. There is no title to those lands until they have passed from the Crown. This Bill is to apply to lands which have passed from the Crown in the Territories which have no local government handling the Land Titles Act.


Haughton Lennox: This Act applied to Saskatchewan and Albert until they were set apart as provinces.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: The difficulty I find is that there is no application defined in the Act. It is simply called a Land Titles Act, and we must conclude that when it was passed it applied to all lands over which the government had control and could not apply to any lands belonging to any of the provinces. This is an amendment to the Land Titles Act, and I presume could not apply to any property which has been acquired from the Dominion government in any territory which has become organized by the establishment of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Any land already vested in any church in those provinces is not controlled by this amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is one point I would like explained. The amendment says :
123a. The bishop of any church, or any trustees for any church, or any congregation of any church, holding land for the purpose of such church or congregation shall respectively, with regard to such land and any dealings therewith, be deemed to be a body corporate and politic

That is the first statement. Then it goes on to say:
-and land so held shall devolve respectively upon the successors in office of such bishop or upon the successors in office of such trustees duly appointed in manner by law or by such church or congregation prescribed.
It repeats that the land shall be held by the successor in office of such bishop or by the successors in office of such trustees, but it does not refer in any way to any congregation or church.


Frank Oliver: I am advised that the congregation does not cease to exist as do trustees or as does a bishop. The congregation continues without intermission, and therefore there is no need to provide that there shall be successors to the congregation.


Haughton Lennox: The congregation being a continuous body is a reason why there is no provision as to their successors in office ; but there being no provision in this amendment for the devolution of property from a congregation, why mention the congregation at all ?


Samuel Barker: Whoever drew this Bill wanted to provide for the case where there were no trustees. If the property was vested in the members of a congregation as such, and some of them died, the estate might pass to the heirs at law. This Bill purports to make them a body corporate and politic, so that when a member of the congregation dies or retires, and his successor comes in, the title at once passes to his successor.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 142) to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.-Mr. Aylesworth-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: The object of this section is to correct what, I apprehend, has been simply a printer's error in the Bills of Exchange Act as it appears in the present revised

statutes. It lias been the law for many years, as this statute, when first passed declared, that any holder of a promissory note or bill of exchange who endorses it, by the act of endorsing it>
precludes himself from disputing certain things with regard to the bill or note-precludes himself, for instance, from denying the genuineness of the bill or the regularity of its drawing and the genuineness of the signatures that were upon it when he so endorsed it. But it was not as against the wide world that he, by endorsing, precluded himself from malting these denials ; it was only as against men to whom that negotiable i>aper might subsequently pass. That is to say a man who endorsed a bill of exchange or promissory note by his act of so endorsing it closed his own mouth against the possibility of ever afterward saying that that bill was not a genuine bill so far as the men who took it from him or relying upon his signature were concerned. Accordingly the provision of the Bills of Exchange Act previous to the revised statutes, was that the endorser of a bill by endorsing it is precluded from denying to his immediate or a subsequent endorsee that the bill was, at the time of his endorsement, a valid and subsisting bill and that he had a good title thereto. By some error the word ' endorsee ' is printed ' endorser '-the final ' e ' is made an ' r,' and, accordingly, the law for the last fourteen months has been that a man by endorsing a bill of exchange precluded himself from denying, not to those who came after him, but to his immediate or subsequent endorser-if one can understand what that phrase means-that the bill was genuine and that he had a good title to it. It is a pure misprint, so far as I can understand. No one had thought of changing the law that has been the established law for many years, and it is to restore it to what it was prior to this revision of the statutes that I am proposing to change the word from ' endorser ' to ' endorsee,' which it was as the Bill was passed fifteen years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there was anything irregular, the redress would be against the original maker, I suppose ?


Samuel Barker: I understand clearly that this Bill does not in the least change the law as to bills of exchange as the law has been held by the courts in the past. The object is merely to get rid of a printer's error. We all know that there have been most intricate questions about this doctrine as to how far a man adopts signatures on bills of exchange, and it would be very dangerous if any attempt were made in an Act of parliament, without very grave consideration, to alter the law as it has been interpreted by the courts in the past. I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) to say that there is no intention to alter what the courts have held in the past on this subject, but merely to make the statute conform to the former holdings of the courts.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) understands the situation exactly. This Bill is hot to change the law at all, but to restore what has been the law, always I may say, this amendment being necessary because the law was inadvertently changed in the revision of the statutes by a printer's error.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand the minister to say that he knows, as a matter of fact, that the statute from which this was revised was as it is now proposed to make the law read ? I recollect the law as being the same as the minister says it was, but I also assume that the minister has looked back to see that the statute from which the revision was taken was in the form which he suggests now-that the word was ' endorsee,' not ' endorser.'


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am restoring the condition that existed prior to the revision. When my attention was called to this error, I at once went back to the original Bills of Exchange Act and found that the word there was ' endorsee,' and had always remained ' endorsee ' until the new revised statutes were struck off, when it was printed ' endorser '-I imagine purely by a printer's error.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked the Minister of Justice a question. I do not know whether he thought it worth while to deign to reply to it or not, but I would like an answer before the Bill passes.


Mr. MACDONALD.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) would state the question again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question is this : Suppose that the original maker did not pay the bill and the endorser was obliged to pay it because of his endorsation, and suppose that the contention was set up that the bill was an illegal one, could the endorser, having paid it, have recourse against the original maker and the people who collected it ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This section does not touch that question at all. This merely relates to the effect of a man endorsing. The effect is to close that man's mouth against disputing the genuineness of the bill which he has endorsed-it closes that man's mouth so far as those who come after him, and whose title, therefore, depends upon his signature, are concerned, but not as to other people. It does not affect one way or the other the principle of law which has been referred to, that the endorser may fall back upon the maker, just as one en-

dorser may fall back on those who have gone before himself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked the other question because I presumed the Minister of Justice Would be a competent authority to give us the status of the endorser.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I understand my hon. friend's question is as to whether this amendment will affect the rights to which the endorser of the Bill would have to proceed against the original maker. I understand the Minister of Justice states that this Bill does not affect these rights in any way; it only deals with the status of the endorser and the subsequent party into whose hands the Bill may come.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked in addition the question what rights the endorser would have to collect from the original maker, I am asking what the law would be.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The Minister of Justice suggests to me that the law remains-as it always was in that respect, and that the man who puts his name on the back of a bill as an endorser or the party who eventually pays the bill to any person who may be the holder, always has recourse against the original maker, and that right is not affected.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



WINDING-UP ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 144) to amend the Winding-up Act-Mr. Aylesworth-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Haughton Lennox: I have been looking at the amendment and at the original Act, and I am not able to discover much difference. The word 'taking' is put for the word 'making,' otherwise they seem to be the same.	*


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The object of the Bill is to make clear beyond peradventure what the law is. This legislation is suggested by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, who, notwithstanding the interchange of one or two letters on the subject between himself and the Department of Justice, continues to feel, as he says, considerable doubt. This Bill is not intended to make the slightest change m the law, but to make, the law perfectly clear. It has been for many years the law under the Winding-up Act that the beginning of the winding-up of a company supersedes any execution which may be outstanding against the company, unless that execution has been completely carried out by the payment of the money over to the execution creditor. That being the law, when this section came to be re-enactetd in the re-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
vised statutes it was divided into two subsections, and provided, just as the Bill now under consideration provides, first, for the case of an execution placed In the hands of the sheriff against the real or personal property of the company, and next for the case where the property of the company is seized by way of an attachment, or by the registering of a memorial, or by making a garnishee order. The section as printed in the revised statutes is divided into two subsections, and making the first subsection as it were an independent provision by itself, possibly not depending as it was of course intended to depend, upon whether or not the execution has been completely carried out by payment of the money, but apparently an absolute declaration that no charge on the property should be created by delivery to the sheriff of any execution, or by seizure or levy by the sheriff upon the property of the company. So it makes, as it were, a distinct enactment that under the Winding-up Act you could not create a lien upon the property of a company by issuing an execution and the shevi ff seizing. The true interpretation of the section, as it stands in the revised statutes to-day, is, I think, that it is only where there Is a winding-up, and the winding-up actually begun before the levying under execution is completed, that tiie law declares the issuing of the writ should not create a lien or charge upon the property. But the possibility that doubt might arise as to the interpretation of the section is the reason for seeking to make the law abundantly clear. As I say, one learned judge at any rate tells me that he finds great difficulty about it, that it seems like an absolute declaration of the law, as it stands in the revised statutes, that the issuing of an execution against the property of the company does not create any lien or privilege upon that property in favour of the creditor. The section in the amended Bill now under consideration has simply been recast in such a manner as to make it abundantly plain that what the law is declaring is that no lien or privilege is created by putting an execution against a company into the sheriff's hands unless, before the winding-up begins, that execution is completely carried out and the money paid over.


Haughton Lennox: I think I understand the object now. But there is another point I call attention to. In the revised statutes we have the words ' or by the issue or making of any attachment or garnishee order or other process,' and in the new statute we have the word taking ' instead of the word ' making,' ' or by the issue or taking of any attachment.' Is the word 'taking' intended to be used or is it a mere accidental change?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think the word has been changed to * taking ' advisedly. In the revised statutes it was declared that no lien or privilege should be created upon

the property of the company by the issue or making of any atachment or garnishee order. The word ' making ' is now changed to ' taking,' I think advisedly, as I find the word ' taken ' at the end of the subsection. The phrase might be changed by putting in the word ' out ' after ' taking.'


Haughton Lennox: That would be an improvement.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have no objection.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?
. Mr. FIELDING. The motion will be made for Supply. I understand the Prime Minister arranged that this motion should be made to afford the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) an opportunity to discuss the immigration question.


Robert Laird Borden: That was for Tuesday.


William Stevens Fielding: The motion will be made for Supply in any event, and the estimates of the Minister of Public Works will be taken up.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The understanding I had with the Prime Minister is that the motion on immigration would be taken up on Monday.


William Stevens Fielding: The motion for Supply will be made anywray.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 10, 1908.