Mr. McCRANEY:: Mr.* Speaker, on Thursday last I gave notice that when motions were called I would move that Bill 118, letter E of the Senate, for the relief of Charles Isaac Alexander, he referred back to the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee. My reason for asking that the Bill be referred back to the committee is this: The Bill went through the Senate Committee unanimously and came down to this House, and went before the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills of this House. That committee required a quorum of ten members. There were 13 who took part in the vote, 7 against the preamble and 6 in favour of it. In view of the small number present, and in view of the history of the Bill up to the present time, I would ask that it he referred back to the committee for further consideration.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Surely it would be
most objectionable to adopt this proceeding. I was a member of that committee. That Bill was considered and considered carefully; there was a great deal of discussion. There is absolutely no use of putting members on committees if their findings are not going to be adopted, and it Bills are going to be thrown back on them. I protest against this procedure.


Mr. OLIVER:: On the other hand, I have not yet heard that this House exists for the purpose of handing over its authority to any of the committees. The committee is a convenient means of 'bringing out evidence, but it is the House that renders its decision. As a member of the House, not a member of the committee, I do not wish to be held responsible for the decision of the committee.


Mr. W. A. CLARKE:: As a member of that committee and one who listened carefully to the discussion by counsel representing the parties, and who voted against the Bill, I feel that this proposition is a reflection upon the members of the committee. Some hon. members who have voted against the Bill have gone home and intend to remain. Consequently, if the Bill is referred back, we have no chance to get another expression of opinion by the committee. I think the motion should stand over.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: My attention was directed to this case by Mr. Lougheed, the Chairman of the Divorce Committee in the Senate, and by my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. MeCraney). 1 read over the evidence, and, if it is to be believed, there is absolutely no question that a divorce'ought to toe granted. The question of [DOT] the credibility of witnesses is usually left to those who have had the opportunity of observing their demeanour and judging by that as to whether or not they are telling the truth. The Senate committee which heard the witnesses in this case seem to have 'believed those who were called on behalf of the petitioner. The circumstances put forth by respondent, who was the only witness called in her own behalf, are corroborative to some extent of what was alleged by witnesses for the petitioner. I think the result of this case indicates the absolute necessity of some reform in the methods by which Bills for divorce are considered, because it is manifestly incongruous that a case which depends upon the credibility of witnesses should be decided in favour of the credibility of those witnesses by a committee which heard them and should be decided against the credibility of those witnesses by a committee which did not hear them. There is much in the result to indicate the necessity of some effective reform in the methods by which these Bills are heard. When the case was brought to my attention I took the opportunity of reading the evidence very carefully. It is no reflection whatever upon the members of the Private Bills Committee that any one in this House might entertain an opinion of the result of that evidence different from that which they entertained. The evidence seemed to me to indicate circumstances as strong as any I have ever seen brought forward in this Parliament in favour of a divorce, unless we are absolutely to disbelieve the two witnesses who were called for the petitioner. The evidence was most direot and circumstantial. In so far as I am personally concerned, and with every possible respect for and deference to the opinions of those who entertain a 'different view,
1 would be disposed to think ithat the case might very well be referred again to the Committee on Private Bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: I beg to lay on the table of the House a communication 
under date of the 25th March, 1915, from the Consul-General for Belgium, setting forth the protest of the Government of Belgium against the contention on the part of the German Chancellary that as far back as 1906 Belgium had broken her neutrality by the conclusion of an agreement with Great Britain.



SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 121, to amend the Supreme Court Act. He said: The purpose of this Bill is to give jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to hear and determine appeals from judgments in connection with the contestation of provincial elections in cases where the provincial authorities have provided for such an appeal. One or more of the provinces has provided that there shall be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, the provincial legislation cannot give - jurisdiction to the Supreme Court but inasmuch as some of the provinces have by their legislation provided for such an appeal, thereby expressing their desire that there should be such an appeal, the purpose of the present Bill is to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear such appeals.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Which of the provinces is concerned?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Manitoba is one, and it is possible that one or two of the other two western provinces has similar legislation.
Motion-agreed to and Bill read- the first time.



RECRUITS' ATTESTATION PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Sir JAMES AIKINS (Brandon):: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to an anachronism or perhaps a blunder that has occurred in the attestation papers required to be signed by recruits previous to enlistment in the overseas expeditionary force, and also in the permanent force of Canada. This error has caused some discussion and perhaps a little irritation on the part of a large body of our citizens. In the particulars which are required to he given in these papers, the recruit has to state the religious denomination to which he belongs, and the religious denominations set out are: Church of England, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Baptist, Congregationalist, other Protestants, Roman Catholic, Jewish. There is no mention in this list of the Methodists.

That may be accounted for, perhaps, by the fact that the theological section of the Department of Militia has been, like Rip Van Winkle, asleep for about forty years. There was in Canada, over forty years ago, a religious denomination called Wesleyans, but it has ceased to be, and I am quite sure that the Methodists, who are as large a body in Canada as those of the other Protestant denominations specified, are quite as loyal and quite as deserving of being mentioned. I call the attention of the Minister of Militia to this in order that [DOT] the error and its consequences may hereafter be obviated.


Major General HUGHES:: It is quite evident that my good friend (Sir James Aikins) has been asleep himself. It is true that the attestation paper does not contain the word " Methodists," but every one knows that the Methodists are always to the front in every loyal and patriotic cause. No one would suspect that either my good friend or myself, both of whom occupy front seats among the orthodox Methodists at least once a year, would-intentionally cast any reflection on the Methodist body. The mistake has been made through our following the English attestation sheet. When I asked for an explanation of it some weeks ago, I was told that our men here simply copied the English sheet, and I, being the head [DOT] of the theological branch of the Militia Department, was not consulted, or I would have noticed it. The other officers in the department, being only military men, did not observe the effect of the mistake. I may, however, inform my Hon. friend that the Wesleyans are not dead, because there are in England hundreds of thousands of the very best citizens who still hear the name of Wesleyans. As I say, we followed the English form, but I can promise my hon. friend that the word " Methodist " will be found in the papers in future. 1 may say also that there is nothing in the world to prevent a man writing in the word " Methodist," as many of them do, if he wishes to.



CANADIAN AVIATION SCHOOL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: 1 'draw the attention of the Minister of Militia to the following despatch, which appears in the newspapers of this morning-:
Toronto, April 4.-The first aviation school in Canada will be opened at Lawrence Park
on Tuesday. It will be under the direction of Captain E. L. Janney, squadron commander of the Royal Flying Corps. Lieutenant Harley Smith, of Toronto, will look after the military end of the training and some other instructors will soon arrive from England and the United States. Lieutenant Bernard F. Hale, of the Royal Flying Corps, who accompanied Captain Janney to the front, is now on his way to Canada, and will act as adjutant of the school. When completed, the staff of instructors will number six.
The school will open with twelve' or fifteen picked pupils, and more will be added as facilities improve. Two hangars are to be started at once, and will be completed in ten days .
The course will extend over four months, and in order to familiarize the pupils with the parts of the machine a complete new machine will be built on the premises. It will embody the latest improvements, and will be a very-powerful machine.
In addition to Lawrence Park, the Edgecombe estate of over 200 acres has been placed at the disposal of the school.
I wish to ask if this school is or will be under the direction of the Minister of Militia.


Robert Laird Borden: The Canadian
Government has not instituted or organized any aviation schools up to the present time. If the Admiralty or the War Office should desire us to co-operate in work of that kind, our assistance will be cheerfully afforded by every means in our power. I believe that some representations have been made from certain quarters to the Minister of Militia and Defence, who, being more familiar with the facts, will be better able to speak of them than I.


Major General HUGHES:: In regard to
the particular instance referred to by the hon. member for the Yukon, I may say that this aviation school has no connection whatever with the Militia Department. Thus far the Militia Department has not had anything to do with aviation corps, either directly or indirectly, and the officers who are advertising themselves in this connection are doing so on their own responsibility. It is purely a private organization and not under the auspices, direction or pay of the Militia Department.



PRIVATE BILL.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 107, respecting the patent of John Millen and Son, Limited-Mr. Webster; Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: As this Bill necessarily
affects private rights, an explanation should be given as to its nature and pur-

pose, and as to how far private rights may be affected by it.


Mr. CARROLL:: The affidavits in connection with this Bill were placed in my hands, in the absence of the hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Webster). I will read a copy of the affidavit on which the Bill went through the Senate.
I,	Frank Dean Lyman, of the city and district of Montreal, being duly sworn do solemnly depose and say, that
1.	I am a director of John Millen and Son, Limited.
2.	On or about September 15, 1914, and for some time previously, I alone had full charge of the negotiations, the purchase, and all matters appertaining to the purchase of letters patent No. 114,110, for an improvement in trolley wheels, issued under the seal of the Patent Office of Canada and dated the 15th day of September, 1908, the full right, title and interest in and to which was vested in the Lumen Bearing Company, of the city of Buffalo, in the state of New York, U.S.A., and transferred by the said purchase to the said John Millen and Son, Limited.
3.	During the said negotiations no mention whatsoever was made to me of any payments due or to he due of Government fees to maintain the said letters patent of Canada in full force and effect.
4.	During the negotiations and for some time previously it was believed by me that the said letters patent of Canada were fully paid up and that no payment of Government fees was required to maintain the patent in full force and effect.
5.	During the time from September 1, 1914, to September 14, 1914, I was absent from Montreal on a vacation and could not be reached for instructions before my return to Montreal.
6.	During my absence from Montreal there was a large accumulation of matters requiring or believed to require my personal attention, all of which matters were allowed to remain in abeyance until my return on September 14, 1914.
7.	On my return on September 14, 1914, I immediately gave the accumulated matters attention and proceeded to dispose of the same with diligence, and on September 15, 1914, I found amongst the said accumulated matters a notice from the said Lumen Bearing Company that a Government fee had to be paid to the Commissioner of Patents for the extension of the term of duration of the said letters patent of Canada, on or before September 15, 1914.
8.	On the same day (September 15, 1914,) I mailed a cheque for twenty dollars ($20) to the Commissionr of Patents, Ottawa, to cover an extension of the term of duration of the said letters patent of Canada, believing the said payment would be accepted.
9.	The said payment arriving in Ottawa on the night of September 15, 1914, reached the Commissioner of Patents on September 16, 1914.
10.	The Patent Office in due time notified the said John Millen and Son, Limited, that the

payment was made too late and that the patent had lapsed.
Frank Dean Lyman.
Sworn before me at the city of Montreal, this third day of Febraury, 1915.
Joseph E. Lemire,
Notary Public.
This Bill is very similar to Bills that have passed during the present session, for example, the Bill respecting the patent of the National Wood Distilling Company. It is simply a case where the payment of the fee was overlooked by the gentleman in charge of the company controlling this patent. Such renewals have been granted before by this House, and I understand that two similar Bills have been passed by this House during the present session. I know that many similar Bills have been passed by this House while I have been a member.
With reference to the-question raised by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), section 2 of the Bill will safeguard any rights that have accrued from the time that this patent lapsed until the present time, as there is the usual saving clause in the Bill.
On section 2-certain rights saved:


Hon. J. D. REID:: How long a time had expired between the date on which the fee should have been paid and the date on which it was paid?	.


William F. Carroll: I think about thirteen days.


John Dowsley Reid: So far no patents have been renewed this session, although there is one before the committee now, unless the fees were remitted on the day of the expiry of the patent; that is, unless they were mailed at the post office to the department and arrived on the evening of the day that they should have been paid to the department.


William F. Carroll: That is the case here.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case, the hon. member states that the payment was thirteen days overdue.


William F. Carroll: I made a mistake.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know exactly when the fee was paid. If .it were paid after it should have been paid, I certainly must object to this Bill. There is no case this session where a patent has been renewed unless the money was actually in the possession of the Government on the day it should have been paid; that is, although it was not in the possession of the Department of Agriculture, it was in the post office or in a department of the Government on the day the patent would expire.


William F. Carroll: That is the case here. When I had reference to the thirteen days, I had reference to the time the gentleman was absent from his business. The fee was payable on the loth of September, 1914, and it was mailed that day; but it did not reach the Patent Office until the 16th of September, the following day. That is what the affidavit sets forth.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the evidence of the
Deputy Minister of Agriculture show that to be a fact?,,


William F. Carroll: I do not know, as I am not on the Private Bills Committee. This affidavit was simply placed in my hands.


John Dowsley Reid: I have been attending the Private Bills Committee during the whole session, and I have not seen this Bill before. If any members here who are on that committee will say that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture stated that the money had been remitted on the day that the fee was due, then this would be a case similar to the one I referred to a few minutes ago.


William F. Carroll: Has this Bill been before the Private Bills Committee?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so. If it has not been before that committee, it should go there, and the evidence of the deputy minister should !be taken to show that the facts as stated in the affidavit are correct.


The CHAIRMAN:: The Bill is reported by the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills without any amendment. That statement on the face of the Bill is signed by-Walter Todd, Clerk of the Private Bills Committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: There must be some misunderstanding as to the matter. I would suggest that the committee report progress.


Robert Laird Borden: I was going to suggest that.
Progress reported.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:: Is there an employee named Nice in the Interior Department at Edmonton?
2.	If so, what are his duties?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	When was he appointed?


Mr. CROTIIERS (for Mr. Roche):: No.


RECRUITING AT NORTH BAY.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What is the name of the recruiting officer at North Bay, Ontario, and what rate is he being paid?
2.	What premises have been leased for his convenience in North Bay, what rental is being paid therefor, to whom is it being paid, and from what date?
3.	Was an effort made to secure any other premises? If so, what were the rentals. asked, and by whom?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	No recruiting officer has been appointed at North Bay.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


FRENCH RIVER IMPROVEMENTS.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How much work has been done on the French River improvements since January 1, 1913?
2.	Who are the contractors for the work, and how much has been paid them?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. Construction of the
Little Chaudiere dam; rock excavation, camp equipment and surveys haYe cost $101,067.34.
2.	Contractor Jennings & Ross have been paid $3,460 for work on the substructure of the Big Chaudiere dam. The contract for superstructure has not yet been awarded.


COOKSHIRE POST OFFICE REPAIRS.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Have any repairs been done to the post office at Cookshire since 1911?
2.	If so, by whom, at what price, and were tenders called for same?


Robert Rogers: Yes, in September, 1912, the tender of Ayton Cromwell was accepted to dig drain, lay pipe, build parapet wall above roof, lay cement walk and platform, lay concrete floo, in basement, paint wood work, etc., for $1,300 which was considteicd fair and reasonable by the Chief Architect. In October, 1912, repairs were made to the furnaces by George Bushey at a cost of $22. In September, 1913, additional radiators werfe installed and repairs made to the heating apparatus by Gauthier & Co., at a cost of $108.33. Quotations were received from other contractors, for the larger repairs, but were not so satisfactory.


VEZINA'S CORNERS POSTMASTERSHIP.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has Mr. Alfred Coulumbe, postmaster at Vezina's Corners, been dismissed from the office?

2.	If so, what reasons have been given for his dismissal?
3.	Who was the complainant, and who recommended his dismissal??
4.	Who has he been replaced by, and by whom recommended ?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes, on the 13th January, 1914.
2.	He was dismissed for political partisanship.
3.	The matter was brought to the attention of th|e department by Dr. John Hayes, and an investigation having been held, the evidence showed that the postmaster had taken an active part in politics.
4.	Mr. Joseph Groleau, on Recommendation.


DREDGE PONTOONS IN NEW GLASGOW.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What was the cost of hauling the dredge pontoons in New Glasgow in the Department of Public Works in the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?
2.	To whom was the money paid for this work in each of these years?


Mr. HAZEN:: 
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	A right of way was expropriated.
2.	Compensation has not been paid to the company.
3.	The company has not made any offer to sell.


WAR SUPPLIES-OLIVER EQUIPMENT.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	How many Oliver equipments were sent with the first contingent to England?
2.	From whom were they bought, and what was paid for them?
3.	Were they discarded in England as unnecessary or useless ?
Major General HUGHES.
1.	13,920 sets Oliver pattern valise equipment.
2.	The greater part of this equipment was taken from stock in ordnance stores, and prices and names of contractors for this portion are not now available. The balance of the equipment sent was bought from Messrs. H. Carson, Ltd., of Ottawa, and Adams Bros. Manufacturing Co., of Toronto, at $6.75 per set.
3.	It is reported that the Oliver equipment was withdrawn, and the division completed with Web equipment from the British ordnance.


PORT DANIEL WEST MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 


MR. P. A. MOUSSEAU.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: L Since Mr. P. A. Mousseau ceased to be superintendent of construction for the Louisville post office, has he been in the employ of the Government?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	What are' his duties?
4.	What salary is he paid?


Robert Rogers: 1,	2, 3. Yes, he has been temporarily employed, supervising construct-'-n 0f fire escapes and hand rails, and in purchasing and installing furniture, safe, etc.
4.	$4 per day.
HAWKESBURY-GRENVILLE BRIDGE. Mr. PROULX:
1.	Has the Department of Public Works acquired from the Hawkesbury Lumber Company a right of way over their mill property in the

1.	Who is the contractor, for the mail service between Port Daniel West post office and the railway station?
2.	(a) When was the contract awarded, and (b) at what price?
3.	Were any tenders called for? If not, why not?
4.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of their respective tenders?
5.	Who was the previous contractor, and did he offer to renew his contract, and what price was paid him?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	E. Bisson.
2.	(a) 15th March, 1911, the contract
dated from 1st July, 1911.	(b) 21 cents per
trip, am-ounting to $131.46 per annum.
3.	Yes.-
4.	Edmund Bisson, $131.46; William Bisson, $156.50; E. Saint Meux, $174.
5.	W. Bisson. He was paid 16 cents per trip and did not offer to renew his contract.


MR. D. CARDIN.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1.	Is Mr. D. Cardin, of St. Anselme, county of Dorchester, in the employ of the Government as customs officer, or otherwise?
2.	If so, what is his salary, and when was he appointed?
3.	Where does he have his office, and what rent is paid by the Customs Department for that office?
4.	What have been the revenues of that office for the past twelve months?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$700 per year. First employed Nov. 14, 1913; permanently appointed Aug. 15, 1914.
3.	In building owned by J. E. Audet; $12.50 per month.
4.	$2,554.91.


EUGENE FUROIS.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is Eugene Furois an employee of the
Quebec post office?
2.	If so, what is his employment, what salary does he receive, and by whom was he recommended?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	No; he is in the Inspector's office at Quebec.
2.	First-class clerk, Grade B, at $1,500 a year. He was appointed on the recommendation of the late Postmaster General, on the 29th March, 1912.


MR. ANSELME JALBERT.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1. Is Mr. Anselme Jalbert, labourer, of St. Anselme, in the employ of the Post Office Department at Montreal?
2,. If so, what is his position, what salary has he, and what examination did he pass before appointment?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Temporary helper; salary, $2 a day. He has not passed the Civil Service examination, as temporary employees are not required to do so.


MR. JOSEPH EDMOND AUDETTE.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1.	Is Mr. Joseph Edmond Audette, carter, of St. Anselme, county of Dorchester, employed by the Government as inspector of food-stuffs?
2.	If so, what Is his salary, and when was he appointed?
3.	Did he pass any examination prior to appointment?
4.	(a) How many reports has he made of the work done by himself, and (b) what are the dates of such reports?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$200 per annum; April 1, 1914.
3.	None required.
4.	(a) Six, on 173 samples collected; (b) June, September, October, November and December, 1914, January, 1915.


MODEL FARM, TOWNSHIP OF STANFOLD.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Does the Government intend to establish a model farm in the township of Stanfold?
2.	If so, does the Government intend to purchase the farm belonging to Arthur Gilbert?
3.	What is the price asked by Arthur Gilbert?
4.	What is the size of that farm, and what is the quality of the soil?
5.	Are there rocks and boulders on the land, and is it all under cultivation?


Mr. BURRELL:: So far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned:
1 and 2. No.
3,	4 and 5. The department has no information.


WAR SUPPLIES.
Frank Oliver: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports or proceedings, and of all other documents relating to the purchase in Canada of horses for army service, by the British and French Governments respectively.


Robert Laird Borden: The documents relating to such matters, so far as we have knowledge of them, are of a confidential character. If the hon. gentleman will speak to me privately and will let me know just what information he requires, perhaps I shall be able to give it to him.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ernest Lapointe:	For a copy of all
documents, papers, correspondence, reports, r pay-lists, accounts, etc., relating to the work on the dam at the place known as Grande J )fcharge in lake St. John.
Mr. Ernest Lapointe:	For a copy of all
documents, letters, correspondence, messages, reports, etc., relating to the calls for tenders for the carrying of the mails between the post office at St. Francois de Montmagny and the Intercolonial station during the years 1914 and 1915, as well as a copy of the tenders that have been sent in relating to the said mail service.
Mr. Turriff: For a return showing the names of all the individuals, firms, companies and corporations to whom contracts have been given for supplies, by the Department of Militia and Defence, or by any other department of the Government, or by any parties acting on behalf of the Government since 1st August last.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 114, .to amend the Adulteration Act.-Mr. Blondin.
[Stage Direction]


Bill No. 116, to amend the Inland Revenue Act.-Mr. Blondin.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called:
Third reading of Bill 106, to amend the Representation Act, 1914.-Sir Robert Borden.
Robert Laird Borden: I am informed by the Minister of Justice, who has had charge of this Bill, that some very slight corrections are necessary, and as they can only be made in Committee of the Whole, I beg to move:
That the order for the third reading of Bill No. 106, to amend the Representation Act, 1914, be discharged, and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-Nipissing:
Wilfrid Laurier: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a suggestion, which I received this morning from British Columbia, that the name of the electoral district of Yale ba changed to Okanagan. Section 12 of the Representation Act, 1914, is as follows:
The electoral district of Cariboo, comprising the provincial electoral districts of Cariboo, Lillooet, Kamloops and Yale excepting that portion of Yale contained in the electoral district of Westminster district, as the same is above described, and including the whole city, and district municipality of Salmon Arm.
The electoral division of Cariboo includes the provincial electoral district of Yale. Section 13 of the Act is as follows:
The electoral district of Yale, comprising the provincial electoral district of Okanagan, excepting any portion of the city or district municipality of Salmon Arm which may be contained therein, and the provincial electoral districts of Similkameen, Greenwood and Grand Forks.
The district of Okanagan is included in what is called Yale by our Act, and it is suggested that instead of being called Yale the district should be called Okanagan, to avoid confusion.


Martin Burrell: It is true that there is a provincial electoral district called Yale in what is now known as the northern riding of Cariboo, the constituency being formerly named Yale-Cariboo. It was thought by some of the people there to be undesirable to designate the new riding in the south by
fMr. Blondin.]
the name of any provincial constituency. The four provincial constituencies in the southern riding of the district of Yale are Okanagan, Similkameen, Greenwood and Grand Forks. The district of Yale still covers for judicial purposes the whole of that southern country, while Cariboo is associated more directly with the northern country, including the provincial riding of Yale. I have heard no complaints from the people there in this matter. Yale, which is an old historic name, embraces the whole southern judicial district, and I am inclined to think that the Minister of Public Works had these things in view when the matter was under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Quebec East:
Charles Joseph Doherty: That section 4 be amended by inserting after the words " the village of Stadacona " in the last line thereof, the words " the territory which formerly constituted."
There is now no longer any village of Stadacona. What was formerly the village of Stadcona is included in Limoilou ward of the city of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 5-Quebec West:
Charles Joseph Doherty: That section 5 be amended by inserting the words " the territory which formerly included " before the words "the village of Stadacona," in lines 6 and 7.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair, on Bill No. 109, to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.-Mr. Doherty.
On section 2-proof of right to be a petitioner:
Robert Laird Borden: What change does this make?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The change made is the provision that the production of a copy of the voters' list used in the election containing the name of the petitioner shall be

conclusive evidence that the petitioner could lawfully present the petition.


Robert Laird Borden: It is designed to prevent controversy as to the status of the petitioner, which sometimes causes delay. I should think it is a very proper amendment.


Charles Marcil: Do you require from the petitioner an affidavit that he is the person whose name appears on the voters' list?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The production of a voters' list certified by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to be a true copy, containing the name of the person presenting the petition, is conclusive evidence as to his status. There is no requirement of an affidavit by him if his name is on the voters' list. It may be that under that provision the court would consider it necessary for the petitioner to prove that he was the same man whose name appeared on the list.


Charles Marcil: The point is important because, for instance, in my constituency there are many men of exactly the same name who would have to go back to the third or fourth generation to be identified. There might be a dozen Jean Antoines in my constituency.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My impression is that the court would require proof to be made before it that the petitioner was the man ,whose name appeared on the voters' list. That would be a better protection than merely making an affidavit.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend know if the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is bound to give a
12 noon, certified copy of the voters' list to anybody who asks for it, say
by letter?


Mr. BENNETT:: It might be well to put in a line, "who, upon request, shall supply the same."


Robert Laird Borden: Where a public official is authorized to do a particular act, the court considers him as being under the duty to perform that particular act. Therefore, if he has power to certify a list, it would be his duty to certify a list when called upon to do so.


Wilfrid Laurier: Under this Bill any party may ask the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for a copy of the list. I should imagine that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery would be bound to give a copy to anybody asking for it the moment the request was made.
126J


Robert Laird Borden: I was endeavouring to meet the point the hon. gentleman has made. If the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is authorized to deliver a certified copy of a document, of which he is the legal custodian, it seems to me to follow as a matter of course that it is his duty to furnish this certified list when so required. While I have no objection to inserting any words to make that plain, I do not think they are really necessary.


Wilfrid Laurier: Neither do I; I assume that is understood.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I would suggest that after the word "petitioner" in the second line of subsection 2 words should be inserted in order to make it read:
The production of the voters' list containing the name of the petitioner, as set forth in the petition or of a copy thereof certified-


Mr. PARDEE:: Should it not be absolutely mandatory on the part of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to deliver this certified copy of the voters' list fortwith? If a petition should be filed, and if the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery should refuse to deliver the certified copy of the list, the object of the petitioner might be defeated because the time for taking proceedings might expire.


Robert Laird Borden: The only objection is that, if you make a special provision in this case that he has to deliver a certified copy, it might alter the law in other cases. If there is to be any provision, it should be a general provision that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is bound to furnish copies of all documents of which he is the lawful custodian. I do not think it is necessary, because, without any special provision, I understand that is his duty.


Wilfrid Laurier: I assume that it is the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. If I am a petitioner in a case and I want a copy of that list he is bound to deliver it?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, that is my understanding of it.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would it not be well to provide that a copy of the voters' list " shall forthwith be delivered by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?" Although the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is bound to deliver the list on demand, yet should

>
he not do so, does it not strike the right lion, the leader of the Government that there should be something farther in the Act to compel him forthwith, upon application for a certified copy, to deliver the same to whomever might apply for it? It would appear to me that that ought to be done.


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not
think there is any 'danger, but might I suggest a change that would place the matter beyond question? Suppose the section should read in this way:
The production of the voters'list containing the name of the petitioner, as set forth in the petition, or of a copy thereof, certified by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to be a true copy of the voters' list used at the election in the electoral district to which the petitioner relates shall be conclusive evidence that the petitioner could lawfully present the petition.
Then you have the opportunity of bringing the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery there with the voters' list, or on the other hand you have the opportunity to get a certified copy, and if you run any danger in one way certainly any court upon his default in furnishing a copy would order him to produce the voters' list. I therefore beg to move that:
Section 2 be amended by adding in the second line, between the words "petition and " certified," the following words:	" or of a
copy thereof " and striking out the words, " or of a copy thereof " where they were inserted before.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The fact that you call for a copy of the voters' list would not exclude the production of the original. There is no harm in making it perfectly clear that you permit the production of the voters' list.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does the amendment make it clear as to who is to produce the voters' list? What is the alternative?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would certainly be for the petitioner to produce proof of his qualification, and if he wanted to produce the original it would be open to him to ask the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to appear and produce it.


Charles Murphy: I gathered from the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister that it was in his mind that the effect of the amendment was that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery was to perform one of two duties-either to appear in person and produce the voters' list or to furnish a certified copy of it.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the amendment proposed by my hon. friend

the Minister of Justice was amply sufficient. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side had some doubt about it. Therefore, I proposed my amendment with a view of giving the petitioner the right to have the Clerk of the. Crown in Chancery either to go through with the original list or produce a copy certified by him to be a true copy. My hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) had some doubt as to the absolute duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to furnish such certified copy. I have no doubt, but in order to put the matter beyond question, it seems to me that the amendment that I proposed will meet every possible contingency that could be suggested.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-sections 6 and 7 repealed:


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the object of the repeal of these sections?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 6 required the production of an affidavit by the petitioner that he has good reason to believe, and verily believes, that certain allegations contained in the petition are true and it also required that if any other person was substituted for the petitioner the person so substituted should make an affidavit to the same effect. Section 7 provided for preliminary objection by the sitting member. The purpose of this amendment is to do away with what appear to be unnecessary formalities that only encumber the proceedings and which have been a prolific source of delay in the past.
On section 4-form of petition:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The object of this section is to give the respondent the protection of requiring that the party complaining should set forth the grounds of his complaint with sufficient particularity. The law, as it now stands, permits the petitioners to set forth in the most absolute general terms charges of violation of every section of the statute, and the practice, as I understand it, has been to recite the statute and make the preliminary allegation that the respondent has violated all of its provisions. That was considered 'by the committee to be absolutely unfair towards the respondent. On the other hand, it seems perfectly proper that where a man takes the responsibility of making charges of grave violation of a law so important as this, he should not be allowed to rush into court unless he knows substantially what it is which he vrants to charge the respondent with. It

was considered only a matter of fairness that the respondent should have before him sufficient particulars to enable him to substantially know and answer the charges that are brought against him. Furthermore, it is considered that this amendment would contribute materially to making it possible to expedite the trial.


Mr. GERMAN:: Under the law as it is at present, the petitioner is obliged to give particulars after he has filed his petition, and he has to prove the petition or to pay costs. What more can you do by this change?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This says to the petitioner at the outset that he shall tell the respondent what he complains of, so that the respondent can properly meet the charges, and so that there can be a prompt trial.


William Manley German: It will be a change theoretically but not practically.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will make a very material and practical change. It may be open to discussion whether it is a desirable change. I myself think it is highly desirable, but there is no question about it being a material change. The court, with the issue before it from the outset, can fix the trial within a limited period, whereas, as it is now, months "and even years elapse, and the petitioner then comes in with particulars that he has dug up in these years to try to support his petition. The considerations which moved the committee to suggest this amendment were, that in the first place it was a matter of ordinary fairness to the respondent, and that in the second place it afforded a means of expediting the trial, which is the great object of this legislation. It seemed to the committee that there is ample law now, Ibut that the principal difficulty was the proper method of promptly enforcing the law. It seemed to us that this amendment is absolutely essential, if we -are going to attain the object of a speedy trial, which we have in view.


Mr. PROULX:: Would the petitioner be barred from going loutside the specified charges made in the petition?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose is that a man should get as fair an opportunity to make a defence as he gets in an ordinary action before the courts. It will be for the court to determine whether the particular petition is sufficiently particularized to meet the purpose. The intention of the amendment is to prevent surprise and unnecessary expense to the respondents, and to assure a fair and speedy trial. I should think it would be within the power of the court to make rules, under which further particulars may be ordered, if asked for. I would take it that the court would not allow a petitioner to proceed to prove allegations which are not particularized, to the extent required by the present law.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I am very much afraid that instead of leading to a speedy trial and having the member who is elected by corrupt practices unseated, the section is going to give him a splendid opportunity to avail himself of technicalities and to delay the trial for a long time, or probably to have the petition thrown out. It says:
The petition presented under this Act may be in form " A " in the schedule of this Act. It must complain of the undue election or return of a member, or that no return has been made, or that a double return has been made or of a matter contained in any special return made, or of some unlawful or corrupt act or acts, and shall contain such particulars of the complaint set out in the petition as may be necessary to prevent surprise or unnecessary expense to the respondent and to insure a fair and effectual trial; and it must be signed by the petitioner, or all the petitioners if there are more than one.
Who is to determine as to whether there are sufficient particulars to prevent surprise, and what should happen if the judge should think there are not sufficient particulars? In an election petition you cannot set out the offence with particularity. The offence is usually committed in secret, and while the petitioner and his friends may see corrupt practices all around them, they could not within the time fixed set them out with particularity. But it is difficult to give particulars with exactness, and one cannot do it in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. It is only by making general allegations and relying upon the evidence that one can contest an election. If you require particulars given in such a manner as will appeal to the judgment of the judge and allow him very great discretion, my impression is that in a great many cases petitions which may be founded upon justice will be defeated entirely by reason of the requirements of this section.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I understand clearly what the committee had in mind in framing this section. It would be

quite possible that it would work out in the way in which they expected. As my hon. friend knows, the difficulty with petitions in the past has been that, notwithstanding the provision as to the necessity of an affidavit, the practice has always been that the solicitor framing the petition takes practically every section of the Dominion Elections Act and alleges in the terms of those sections that its provisions have been violated by the respondent. In fact, the petition ordinarily has given no more information to the respondent than if the petitioner had said in a few words that the respondent had violated every section of the Dominion Elections Act, and had let it go at that. I remember many years ago arguing before the Supreme Court that a petition in that form was not in compliance with the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. The court reserved judgment upon the appeal; but as it appeared that the petition was in the form that had been ordinarily adopted in the province of Nova Scotia, the court held that it was in compliance with the Act. That judgment was delivered by the late Mr. Justice King. I suppose it was the intention of the committee to make it necessary that there should be some more definite statement than that which is embodied in the mere assertion that every section of the Dominion Elections Act has been controverted. I do not know the precise idea of the committee, but I suppose that in view of the abolition of the affidavit which hitherto has been required they have thought it desirable that some more definite statement of the grounds upon which the petition is presented should be set forth therein. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) has raised a difficulty which of course strikes one immediately, that is to say, the extent of the particulars made necessary by this amendment, and he desires to know how that will be determined. I suppose that would be a question for the court or for the judge trying the petition to determine. For that purpose it would be necessary for him to construe the Act and the amendment and to come to a conclusion in regard to the matter.


William Pugsley: This is what I had in mind-that the man, say John Jones, must be named, and that the particulars must be given of the corrupt act which was committed; that is, that so-and-so was driven to the poll, the name being given. If on the trial the petitioner should fail to prove

that particular act, the petition would be thrown out.


Robert Laird Borden: Although I may be in error, I do not quite understand that the committee intend by this amendment to necessitate the giving of particulars of the character which are required before the trial begins. The practice, as we all know, is that when a case is to be set down for trial, the respondent comes with a motion asking that particulars shall be given before a certain day in order that he may prepare his defence. I would not suppose it was the intention of the committee that particulars of that character should be set out in the petition.


William Pugsley: That is what section
5 says.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You are to give such particulars as are required by section 11. The court will have to determine in each case the extent of the particulars required to prevent surprise and to ensure a fair and effectual trial. The section does not say that the petitioner shall give the name in every instance. There are circumstances where, perhaps, the name may be necessary to prevent surprise and ensure a fair and effectual trial; there are circumstances where it will not be necessary. The court will appreciate that.


William Pugsley: In regard to the form, section 3 of schedule A says:
Here state the grounds on which the petitioner relies, and, in case illegal or corrupt acts are alleged, the particulars of each of such acts as prescribed by section 11.
Surely that must mean the particular person who has been bribed, or the particular person who has been brought to the poll.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It says the particulars as prescribed by section 11.


William Pugsley: Of each of such acts.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. What particulars are prescribed by section 11? That the petitioner shall give sufficient particulars to prevent surprise and ensure a fair and effectual trial. The judge will determine that point. He may determine it upon a motion for further particulars, if the respondent chooses to take that course. If the respondent chooses to meet the petition and go to trial, then it will be for the judge, when evidence of a particular thing is offered, to determine whether proof of that particular action would under the petition as drafted be a surprise to the respondent-

something which he would not be called upon to expect-and would prevent there being a fair trial. I do not dispute that the enactment of this provision may prevent the making of a certain number of petitions. The situation to-day, as I think the hon. member for St. John correctly describes it, is that, because people think there is corruption in the air, because they think there was a great deal of corruption, although they do not -actually know that there was any, and because the law requires the petition to be filed within forty days, they put in their petition with nothing that one can call knowledge of corrupt acts. Let the law be honest with itself and the people to whom it applies. If the law means as it says, that you must file your petition within forty days, surely it does not mean to say: On condition that on a petition when you know nothing, we shall give you a year or two years to hunt up and find whether you can discover anything. If that is the state of the law, then we ought to repeal that law and say that a man may, whenever he finds out any corruption at any time within the Parliament for which a member is elected, bring in a petition.
I believe that the law as it stands to-day is, on the face of it, an invitation-I do not want to say to perjury-but to the very loosest kind of swearing. Requiring an affidavit has proven absolutely nugatory as a protection for the innocent respondent- and there are some innocent respondents. The other evening we were seriously attacked because it was said we were throwing every member of Parliament to the wolves and facilitating his being unseated.


William Pugsley: You are certainly taking him from the wolves by this section.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are trying to create a situation different from that which exists under the law to-day. To-day a man is an object of suspicion -and prima facie guilty of every sort of corruption. And why? Because he has allowed himself to be nominated for Parliament and a majority of the voters, apparently at all events, have voted for him. And yet this law, apparently so severe against candidates, affords such opportunities for delay that the one thing manifest under our system is that you can sit through a whole Parliament in the face of a protestation, whether you are innocent or whether you are guilty. If under the provisions proposed a few guilty men escape being petitioned against, and yet, on the other hand those petitioned against are
brought to a speedy trial, and the result is actually attained of convicting those who deserve to be convicted, the amendment will be a good thing. Looking at it from the point of view of enforcement of the law, I think it is worth while to create conditions which shall assure the respondent that his case will be tried out promptly, and to actually secure prompt trial in a certain number of cases even though the law should operate to prevent the institution of a certain number of petitions upon which the petitioner gets a year or two to prove that the respondent, or somebody on his behalf, had hired a couple of cabs. As I say, the conception of the committee was that the great thing to be desired was that where there was actual guilt there should be prompt trial and also that measures should be enacted to prevent people, by collusion or combination, spinning out the contestation for a long period of time. It will be seen by the sections that follow that within fifteen days after service of that petition the respondent may file his answer, a copy of which is to be served upon the petitioner. Then, after a ishort delay, the parties ask for fixing the trial, and the court shall fix the time. If the parties do not so ask, then the court itself on the clerk's application shall fix the time. If the parties do not go on at that time, that will end the trial. Sb, every man will have to understand that in making a contestation, he has entered upon something which he must see through promptly if he is to secure his rights. To achieve that end, the respondent must be given notice promptly of what he is to meet, and it must be given in such form as will avoid surprise and ensure a fair trial. This is a point which the courts have to decide in a large number of cases. Under the election law as it stands the bill of particulars must be put in, and if the party objects that the allegations are not sufficiently particular or definite, the court must decide the point.


Mr. MACDONALD:: If the court decides that the statement in the information is too vague, can the court void the proceedings upon that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision here for a preliminary objection. As I understand it, this is the way the law would work out now-


William John Macdonald: But could the
respondent move to set aside the petition on account of the delay involved5


Charles Joseph Doherty: To my mind he would not need to do that. The respondent asks for particulars. The court, let us say, decides that he is entitled to them. The petitioner does not give them. Then the court would naturally dismiss the petition. But suppose that the respondent says the charges are not particularized sufficiently to prevent surprise and secure a fair trial, and the court decides that the particulars in the petition are sufficient, then the case will go on. If the court is of opinion that the particulars are not sufficient, it may well refuse the evidence.


William Manley German: Does the minister intend that the matters included in the petition shall be the only matters intended for trial?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William Manley German: Then, he must put a clause in this Bill forbidding the court to allow it to go further. Because these gentlemen who are put upon the Bench become exceedingly virtuous-though they may have been politicians before-and they will go far beyond what the minister ex

pect.s and will allow the amendment of the petition until the trial comes on. That is the experience of every one of us. The petitioner comes forward and says: We have found new cases of corruption; broad, wide, strong cases; and we want to have an opportunity to prove them and to that end we wish to amend our petition. The court will allow that unless you put it into this Bill that they shall not allow it. And if you put that in the Bill you practically prevent petitions, for you cannot get the particulars of corruption in forty days as a rule, particularly against the shrewd politicians of the West.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There might still be a fairly wide field of operation. There is no doubt that it is intended that the action shall set forth the causes upon which it rests.
Mr. GERMAN': And the court is supposed to stop at that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think it is the habit of courts to allow amendments for the purpose of setting forth distinct new causes of action. In order that there shall be an "amendment" there must be something '"amended." It does not "amend" a cause of action, to bring in a new cause of action. And you have to remember that we have here a law-and personally I do not think it is an objectionable law- which provides that these proceedings
	*
must be instituted within forty days. I hardly think that any court would conceive it to be within its rights or within its power of amendment to allow a party to come in and allege some absolutely new cause of action, any right of action based upon which is actually extinguished by prescription. I cannot conceive that a court would say to a petitioner:	I am
going to allow you to come in a year after the election and make your petition all over again, basing it on a new cause of action, though the law says that your petition should have been brought within forty days. I quite conceive that the courts may exercise much latitude with regard to amending things that are alleged, but I do not apprehend that they would allow the petition to be entirely remade or an entirely new cause to be alleged. I think that, at the very least, we can wait until the apprehensions of the hon. member in that regard have been justified by the results of the operation of this Act.


William Manley German: There would not be many petitions filed under the Controverted Elections Act if this were decided by the law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it would be better to have fewer petitions and more judgments. I think one may fairly say-let the blame be generally shared-that the large number of petitions, when we have contrasted with the number of judgments, when we do have any judgments at all, is in the nature of a public scandal, and is the best justification for trying to bring the law into a condition where a man will only be enabled to make a petition when he has distinct and concrete grounds for doing so.


Mr. FOWLER:: Why should the hon.
minister assume that the * large number of persons charged with these election offences are guilty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not say the number of convictions; I said the number of judgments or decisions, favourable or unfavourable. What I point out as being the scandal is not that the persons against whom petitions are made are necessarily guilty, hut that when we do have a large number of petitions we do have almost no decisions, in one sense or the other. When a petition is made it should imply that the man who makes it has some grounds for doing so. When the petition and the grounds upon which it is made are put forth, we should provide, as we endeavour to provide by the following sections, that

a trial shall be brought on, and that if the parties will not bring on a trial, that shall be the end of the petition.


Edmond Proulx: Suppose that at the trial the respondent objects that the particulars given by the petitioner are insufficient, will the court have power to adjourn the hearing of the petition in order to enable the petitioner to give fuller particulars?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That brings up a very
large and very wide question. We are proposing now to make a law, and that law will, of course, have to be applied by the courts in accordance with the general rule that governs the power of the courts to allow an amendment of the petition or to allow an adjournment. The only answer that I can give is that the court would determine, according to the circumstances put before it, whether the justice of the case required that that should be done. The hon. gentleman has really asked me to place myself in the position of the court and to give one judgment to be applied to all possible cases; that I would not venture to do. It seems to me that the court would, in each particular case, have to determine whether the justice of the case required that the court should permit the adjournment, or permit, possibly, an amendment within the limits which I have just endeavoured to indicate to the hon. member for Welland. There would be cases, I presume, in which the court would think that while it would be a fair thing to give the defendant a more clear definition of what was to he anticipated, at the same time it could not pro-erly be said the defendant was absolutely taken by surprise and that a fair trial was prevented by reason of the vagueness of the allegations of the petition. The necessity for determination of the result of this provision would arise accordingly as a petitioner offered evidence of particular acts on which he based his petition. The respondent would naturally, I suppose, if he saw any ground for it, urge that what was sought to be proved was not sufficiently particularized to lead him to expect evidence of facts of that kind.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Let us suppose that in the petition, bribery, impersonation, treating, and so on, are alleged. Was it the opinion of the committee that it would be sufficient for the petition to state that one or more of these things had been illegally committed by the candidate or his agent, or would it be necessary to say that the candidate or his agent treated John Brown or
bribed William Smith, and so on? Would it be sufficient to make the general charge, as was formerly done in election petitions?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In my judgment, the
general charge of bribery would certainly not be sufficient. How far you would have to go in the matter of giving particulars would depend largely on the circumstances of each case. I do not think that you could lay it down as a general rule that because I am required by law sufficiently to particularize in order to prevent surprise, that necessarily means that I must name each particular voter to whom I allege that bribes were offered.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why this change?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This change is to pro-[DOT] vide that when I allege bribery, I shall give such circumstances surrounding it as in the judgment of the judge will prepare the respondent fairly to meet evidence of the facts as that evidence is offered to the court.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Only of specific facts under the petition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No others could go in.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No others could go in, certainly. It is the ordinary rule; as I understand it, of every legal proceeding, that you are entitled to prove what you have alleged, and what you have alleged with sufficient particularity to enable your defendant, the man against whom you make your allegations, to go to the court called upon to expect proof of matters of that kind. But it certainly does not imply that in every case you must give the name of the man bribed.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Or the man who gave the bribe.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Or the man who gave the bribe. To ask any man to stand up here and lay down a general rule saying what are sufficient particulars to enable a man not to be taken by surprise and to have a fair trial, is asking the impossible. But I may say that foT a great number of years, day after day, I have heard men determining that question in particular cases and determining it, as it seemed to me, *reasortably and fairly to both parties. I have heard instances where it was considered that names of people were necessary and others where it was not. In my own province we have worked out a perfectly rational method of dealing with these questions, still comply-

ing -with the elementary rule that a man must state the grounds of hi-s complaint with sufficient particularity to enable another man to have a fair trial upon it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It might be wise, however, to go back to the old section, inasmuch as we have provided for facilitating the trial, that is in connection with the present provisions of the Act. Perhaps there would not be any great objection to restoring the old clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot do that if you stick to the first clause, that there is conclusive evidence.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On section 4-form of petition:


Charles Joseph Doherty: It occurred to me that after the discussion on section 4, and having regard to the somewhat sharp division of opinion in regard to it, possibly it would not be an unwise course that we should let this section stand in the meantime and go on with the other sections of the Bill. I think that further examination may throw some light on this section. The same thing will really apply to section 5, as section 5 merely makes for a cross petition the same provision that section 4 makes for the petition itself. The questions involved would be substantially the same.
Sections 4 and 5 stand.
On section 6-how security deposit shall be made:


Edmond Proulx: Why would not an accepted cheque on a chartered bank be accepted as it would be accepted for the deposit in an election?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The difference that is made by this amendment is to substitute the permissive for the imperative form that was contained in that section as it stood, and then, that being done and 'Combining the effect of that with the effect of the next following clause, which I would ask my hon. friend to read, it produces the result that the receipt of the clerk of the court is made conclusive. He is permitted to accept the deposit in the different methods specified but his receipt is conclusive in any event as to the making of the deposit and as to its sufficiency. The hon. gentleman suggests the acceptance of an accepted cheque and there might be something to be said pro

and con in that regard but at all events if the officer gave the receipt that the deposit had been made when ha was merely taking an accepted cheque, although he would not be taking what is permitted to be taken, it would be conclusive, he having taken the responsibility. Whether the Act should expressly include an accepted cheque is perhaps open to some question because you may reduce it down then to the mere matter of a man being able to arrange with a bank to get a cheque accepted where he does not actually have the money. It might be that the party against whom the proceedings are undertaken would have the responsibility of the bank but there are some advantages in not expressly permitting a method that involves anything except the actual money.


Edmond Proulx: I thought it would be more convenient to submit an accepted cheque than the money. In Ontario we have to enter the protest with the registrar of the Court of Appeal in Toronto and we have to send the money there.
On section 9-sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 repealed; service and preliminary ob-objections:


William John Macdonald: With reference to section 19 providing that within fifteen days after service of a petition, the respondent may file with the clerk of the court a written answer to the petition, I would say that this clause is very general in regard to the nature of the answer to be filed. Is there any special provision giving to the judges power to make regulations as to the nature of the answer or as to what shall be deemed a sufficient answer? Suppose an answer was not sufficiently definite, or suppose counsel for petitioners said: This is no answer at all, it is not a denial with sufficient particularity of the acts which are alleged. They might say that the denial is too indefinite just as the answers in civil cases are frequently ruled out where counsel on the other side attack the pleadings on account of their not complying with some precedent which it is necessary they should comply with. What is the standard as to what a sufficient answer would be?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision here is permissive to the party attacked to file a written answer if deemed proper. Assuming the clauses which stand to have been adopted, it would be open, as I understand it, to the respondent in a written answer to raise any question that he thought it was desirable to raise whether as to the suffi-

ciency of the proceedings or the actual truth of the statements of fact. He is by this section permitted to file an answer and no restriction is placed upon the ground which he may invoke as against the petition, the idea of the Act being to reduce the whole thing to one trial. My hon. friend will observe that in the following section. 19a, the provision is that:
After the expiration of fifteen days after the service of the petition, whether an answer is filed or served or not, the petition shall be held at issue and the court may at any time thereafter, upon the application of either party, fix some convenient time and place for the trial of the petition.
Taking the two sections together, the purpose and effect is that within fifteen days it shall be optional with the party attacked to file such written answers as he may desire to the petition thus filed. Failing his doing that, it shall be assumed that issue is joined generally upon the petition. Assuming that the respondent wants to rest upon the ground of the insufficiency of the petition itself, either as not setting up something that amounts to an offence or as not sufficiently particularizing, he would be, as I understand it, at liberty to raise these grounds in that answer without prejudice to his making an answer also upon the statement of alleged facts as made in the petition. The idea is to reduce it down so that upon all the matters that may be raised there shall be just one trial, and that that trial shall be as expeditious as possible.


William John Macdonald: Then there is no
advantage in the respondent filing an answer for any purpose whatever, because he would have available to him at the trial all matters of defence which he might assert whether he files an answer or not. His objections as to the insufficiency of the petition or any irregularities can be raised at the trial to the same effect, whether he has filed an answer or whether he has not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that would be
the practical result, but we give him the option if he sees any advantage in it.
Mr. PROTJLX; I suppose in his answer he could admit some of the allegations of the petition, and if he did the petitioner need not bring his witnesses to court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He could make admissions if he chose. We have a provision of the law later dealing with the effect of admissions when thev are made.


Mr. MORPHY:: Do I understand the
effect of the answer of the minister to bo that, where a man did not answer, he could at the trial set out anything he might set out upon the preliminary objections?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, because under this Act there is no provision made for the preliminary objections.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It seems to me that this legislation will have the effect of bringing into play a series of objections at the trial, when the judges on the rota are there to hear the action, when probably one hundred witnesses are gathered, and when possibly counsel may be brought from a distance, so that we are out of the frying-pan into the fire. The air will not be cleared by preliminary objections, and the expense will be enormous of having to fight out at the trial what otherwise would have been settled on a chamber application. This would possibly cause witnesses and counsel and judges to be detained from day to day. The value of this change looks to me to be very doubtful.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt there might be a situation, under certain circumstances, in which the inconveniences which the hon. gentleman suggests might arise. But what we are to ask ourselves is, whether the danger of that and the inconveniences which might result in some cases from that, are greater or less than the undesirable consequences which experience has demonstrated to result from the present provisions of the law, which expressly provide for the making of preliminary exceptions. I might point out that where the party would feel that he had statutory grounds to meet the petition, grounds of insufficiency in one respect or another, he might, in the exercise of his own judgment, make up his mind to rely upon that and avoid the necessity of bringing witnesses, or, the court might order an adjournment. I fancy that is a power which the court would probably feel justified in exercising, in the event of objections in the nature of preliminary objections being taken, which have upon their face the appearance of substantiality sufficient to justify the party who raised them seriously relying upon them. The court might, under these circumstances, if it considered that justice required it, order adjournment to more sufficiently deal with the matter on its merits. We have to rely upon the court for that. As to the expense which the petitioner might go to in bringing witnesses who might prove useless because the peti-

tion failed upon some ground of objection as to its sufficiency, it is true that would be an unfortunate thing for him, but it was for him to see to it that he made a sufficient petition. If the court determines it is not entitled to go into the merits of the case because of insufficiency, then what the petitioner suffers is the result of his own fault. No doubt, if we could obviate the substantial failures of justice which have resulted from the system of providing specially for preliminary objections, and also avoid the possibility of the suggested inconveniences that would be the better system. The members of the committee were not blind to the inconveniences which have been suggested, but they considered that the number of eases in which these inconveniences would arise, and the gravity of these inconveniences even assuming that they did arise, did not compensate for the very serious obstacles towards doing substantial justice which practice has proved to result from the system under which provision is specially made for the making of preliminary objections and of special trials on these objections.
On new section 20-notice of admission:


William Pugsley: Does that give the court power to say it will not hear witne ses? I would be somewhat reluctant to give the court that power, because with the highest respect for the judiciary, I think there are some judges w.ho would be very glad to exercise it, and who would refuse to hear witnesses.


Robert Laird Borden: They have that power now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there have been occasions when the courts have decided that once thejr have before them, by admission or otherwise, sufficient evidence to justify a judgment maintaining the petition, they have even questioned whether they have any right to go on and make further inquiries. The purpose of this section is not to extend any power on the part of the court to curtail evidence, but, t" make it quite clear that, notwithstanding the making of admissions, the court may decline to adjudicate simply upon the record constituted by the allegations and the admissions, and may require further inquiry. The purpose is to make it perfectly clear that the court shall have jurisdiction to go on to further inquiries, although the matter before it would justify a judgment.


William John Macdonald: There is another phase of the situation to be considered.

Suppose a party comes in and admits bribery by agents or some other contravention of the law which would make the election void, and the petitioner says, " I am perfectly satisfied;" all that is wanted is the determination of the court upon the matter, so that the costs may be apportioned. Suppose the court decides to go on, can it impose costs upon the unfortunate petitioner, if the result of the further inquiry should be valueless?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of costs is dealt with.


William John Macdonald: I know that the respondent is not liable for costs if he files the admissions. What I am pointing out is this: supposing the judges should take it into their heads to go on and say: " We -are going to have a roving commission," such as my hon. friend from St. John suggests, and supposing the petitioner says: " I am satisfied with the acknowledgement of the respondent," it is questionable whether under this Bill it should be left in the hands of judges further to impose costs upon a petitioner if no particular advantage is to be gained by that inquiry.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as the respondent is concerned, if he has madfe admissions under the first paragraph of section 20, and if any evidence is taken in regard to the matters admitted he shall not be held liable for any costs [DOT] incurred on account of that evidence, unless the result is to produce a conviction against himself of some corrupt act, in which case the court has power to order him to pay costs. ' As regards the petitioner who says that he is satisfied and will not proceed, we have no special provision in this Bill with regard to the costs; but I might point out, as I said a moment ago in answer to the hon. member for St. John, that the purpose of this enactment is to make it perfectly clear that the court has jurisdiction to go on, notwithstanding admissions sufficient to justify the maintenance of the petition. As regards the case where both the petitioner and the respondent decline to provide any further material upon which the court can go on, we gave a good deal of consideration to the question whether w/e should provide machinery by which the court could further go on, and, after a great deal of consideration and of different suggestions, we did not find-that we could work out any practical method of doing that. So that I think the effect of this s'ection in practice, as in

its intention, goes really no further than to make it quite clear that, notwithstanding there being sufficient upon the record, the courts ought to have jurisdiction to go on with a further inquiry. In ord|er that that should be effectually carried out in practice, it would be necessary that one of the parties should concern himself with haying it carried out.


William John Macdonald: This question of
amending the Controverted Dominion Elections Act along the line of preparing for an independent investigation into all the circumstances surrounding a particular election has been under consideration on previous occasions. I recall some years ago, when I was a young member of this House, that a special committee considered the question of providing for the appointment of an independent tribunal to hold an investigation in any event at th|e request of a certain number of people in the constituency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A public prosecutor.


William John Macdonald: [DOT] Yes, something of that kind. We must not forget the power of dealing with controverted elections by the judiciary of this country is a power delegated by this House. Not a great number of years ago both in England and Canada the task of determining the validity of an election of a member to the House was a matter to be determined by a committee of the House. We determined to commit that task to the judiciary, and we have followed that course so far. The task which the judge assumed was the task of reporting to the Speaker of the House whether or not the validity of the election of a certain hon. member which had been called in question had been determined in one way or the other. The giving of this extra jurisdiction to the judge, over and above the determination of the simple issue whether or not a member has been validly returned, opens the door to pretty wide responsibility, as suggested by my hon. friend. It seems to me that the Bill should go further and provide for some person assuming the responsibility, because the man who may be a petitioner against any hon, member may have only one object in view, that is, the unseating of the hon. member. Once his task is fulfilled, that is all he is interested in, and we can well conceive of cases in which a petitioner through his counsel will intimate to the judge that he is perfectly satisfied. We all know the developments
of human nature in regard to these matters, and we cannot eliminate the human element in considering the way in which these things work out. If the judges are to have power over and above the attitude of either of the contesting parties to hold an independent investigation, there ought to be some rule 'to limit that power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is limited to the allegations to the judge.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As my hon. friend says, it is limited to the allegations before the judge, and moreover it is well to bear in mind that the petitioner, when he institutes the proceeding, although he may set it" in motion for reasons of his own, for example, perhaps, to bring it to a particular end, sets in motion a proceeding in which at .least the people of the constituency concerned have a direct and material interest. He is so little the master of the proceeding that under conditions already existing, if he drops it, some one else may come in and take it up. He has set on foot a proceeding in which the general public are interested, and he has done so because he has taken the responsibility of alleging certain things to be facts. I do not think he has any very serious ground of complaint if at the time he says, I do not want to go on any more, the court says to him: But you have undertaken to make these very serious statements which the public is interested in having cleared up. You have got the court here, you have got the respondent here, you have the proceedings in motion; and I, the court, am not going to shut my eyes to these things; if these things are true-and you have taken the responsibility of saying that they are true-then it is important that their truth should be established. I do not see what ground of complaint a petitioner could have that he is not allowed to take into his own hands absolutely the extent to which this inquiry, in which the whole public is interested, shall be carried. He might complain if it were suggested that the judge should go outside the things he, the petitioner, has alleged; but so long as the judge keeps himself, as he is bound to do within the things alleged, I cannot see that the petitioner has any serious ground of complaint,
I think I ought to add to the observation I made a few moments ago. I did not quite accurately describe the effect of the section. It is not so absolutely restricted as my expression would- convey. As will be noticed power is given to require the summoning of such witnesses, the taking

of such evidence and the production of such papers as to the court may seem requisite or desirable. If the petitioner has taken the responsibility of making the most grave accusations, I think there should 'be power such as is given under this section to go into the matter even to the extent provided for. I do not think it unfair or unjust to the petitioner that if the court deems the matters as brought before it sufficiently serious for earefuly inquiry, those matters should he gone into.


William John Macdonald: Then the minister ought to add some supplementary words empowering the court to make direction as to the distribution of the costs of the proceedings' otherwise how is the matter to be determined? Suppose the additional inquiry be futile, ought the costs of it to fall upon the petitioner?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There would be power to deal with that as with the question of costs generally. If the result shows that the respondent is guilty of other corrupt acts than those admitted, that fact would naturally be a determining factor in the question of costs. But if the result is that the petitioner fails to make good his statements-which I assume to be serious, because the court would not investigate other than serious statements-I think there would be no injustice if the court laid the costs upon him. That is a power, which, I have no doubt, judges will exercise with great discretion. The real purpose, as I have said, is to put it within the power of the court, where facts are alleged and are apparently (being suppressed, to inquire into those matters.
On section 10:
Saction 22 is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
" 2. If at any time, upon an ex parte application of either the petitioner or the respondent, it appears to the court that, in the interests of justice, it is desirable that the examination of any witness should be proceeded with forthwith, the court may grant an order for the examination of such witness, and the provisions of sections twenty-three, to thirty, both inclusive, shall, so far as applicable, apply to such witness, his examination and evidence."


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a very wide expression. Does this provide for cases of absence?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, possibly cases of absence. There are special considerations, it seemed to the committee, which justified giving the court a wide' power for the examination of witnesses. What we have 
in mind is to make a provision under which it would be possible for the court to order the immediate examination of any person believed to be able to give testimony bearing upon the petition. We have perhaps, specially in mind the case that might occur because of the fact that we require particulars to be given in the petition. It was suggested as an objec- * tion to our requiring particulars to be given that the respondent, being made aware of the particular things that were in view, might cause to be spirited away witnesses in a position to establish the facts. This clause was intended in a special way to protect the petitioner against that condition of affairs. Since the petitioner has the obligation imposed upon him by section 4, if that be adopted, to set forth in an intelligible manner the ground on which he relies, if he can satisfy the judge that there is danger that immediately upon that knowledge becoming available, efforts will be made to get witnesses out of the way, he should be enabled to have the witnesses summoned and examined. And it seemed to us that not only in that instance, but speaking generally, wherever circumstances satisfy the judge that the interests of justice require an immediate examination of witnesses, he should have authority to make that examination. There are sections in the present law which deal in a specific way with cases of absent witnesses. There are section 21 which deals with the parties to the petition; section 22 which deals with the person who was the candidate; and sections 23 and 24 which deal with the form of examining the classes'of persons referred to. These sections are made applicable to the class of cases we are now dealing with. There is also another provision, section 45, with regard to special examination during the trial. What we are trying to do is to generalize these provisions with regard to particular persons and particular cases and to create a power in the judge under which, if either party can satisfy him that the interests of justice require it, immediate examination may be ordered of any person able to give testimony bearing upon the petition. And, as I have stated, we had especially in mind the consequence that might result from our provision requiring particulars in the petition. We thought that this would be an effective method of obviating one very serious objection that might be made to the requirements proposed to be made by section 4.


William Pugsley: The right hon. leader
of the Opposition has stated that " in the interests of justice " is a very broad term, in regard to which judges may differ. Why not provide that where it is made to appear to the court by affidavit that the evidence of a witness materially affecting the trial may be obtained, an examination may be ordered, so that where a party takes the responsibility of swearing that, according to his belief, a witness may be able to discover material evidence, an examination of that witness may take place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestion made
tends to restrict, not to enlarge the conditions respecting such examinations. We did consider trying to specify the particular reasons, but the conclusion reached was that while by doing that we might make it perfectly clear that under certain conditions this might be done, if we failed to foresee all the conditions in which the interests of justice might require it, we would leave an uncovered case. I cannot quite grasp the idea that any judge would suppose that the interests of justice should require the examination of a witness unless it were shown to him that there was ground to believe that that witness could give testimony material to the matter alleged, or unless it were shown to him that there was reason to apprehend that that witness might not be available at the trial or that there was danger of the witness being tampered with. It seemed to us that the wisest course was to give to the judge power to provide for the examination of a witness wherever the interests of justice require it, and we felt confident that the court would- take that to mean the interests of justice in connection with the particular case under consideration. I do not know whether the hon. member apprehends that under this provision any judge may take unto himself power to have a witness examined with regard to some matter outside of the case. If he thinks there is any danger of that, it may be well to put in appropriate words to make the provision clear, but I think that it is wiser for us not to try to put down in black and white all the possible combinations of circumstances under which the interests of justice may require that examination.


Robert Laird Borden: What relation
has this proposed provision to section 45, subsection 1, of the Act, which provides that a witness intending to leave Canada may be examined by order of the court,
made on notice of the parties? This proposed section provides that any witness may be examined at any time under order of the court, made upon ex parte application. What I desire to suggest is, that if a witness desires to leave Canada, under this section an ex parte application may be made to the court for his examination, if it is thought to be in the interests of justice that he should be examined in order that his testimony may be available at the trial.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It seemed to the committee that the provisions of section 45 are applicable only to examination during the trial.


Robert Laird Borden: I would hardly have supposed that, because it would hardly be presumed that a witness who had been duly subpoenaed would leave Canada during the course of a trial. I would be inclined, subject to the view of the committee, to interpret section 45 as having general application. Of course, if the view which the committee takes is correct, there is no inconsistency or over-lapping, but if the view should prevail that section 45 is of general effect, there would be an inconsistency between it and the proposed provision of this section.


Wilfrid Laurier: I called the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the fact that the words " in the interests of justice '* are very wide, not only in respect of election trials, but of other trials as well. If there is reason to believe that a material witness will not be present at the trial, application can be made to have that witness examined; that is a matter of common law. But, in inserting the words " in the interests of common justice," what case did the committee have in contemplation? If a witness is to be present at the trial, I cannot conceive how justice can be served by his being examined before the trial takes place.


Robert Laird Borden: I was considering the same question myself, and I assumed that the committee must have had in mind the idea of discovery.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was represented that our requirement of giving particulars was putting the party making the allegation in the unfair position that his opponent would know from the outset just what he was relying upon and would have full opportunity, between the filing of the petition and the coming on of the trial, of resorting to whatever means his conscience might permit to influence or to

get at the people who could give the testimony. That seemed to us to be an objection certainly deserving of consideration. We thought that this provision would enable the judge, wherever either of the parties could satisfy him that there was danger of anything of that kind, that the interest of justice required an immediate examination to prevent it, to order that examination. There are other methods by which a man may be deprived of his testimony than the absence of the witnesses upon whom he relies. I may say in that connection that as a result of the observations that have been made I think it probably would be a wise provision to require that where any witness had been so examined under an order of this kind, if procurable, he should again be brought forward at the trial and offered for further examination if that was desired. But the real purpose of this provision was to create a situation where at any stage, even a day after the lodging of the petition, if the petitioner can make it clear to the court that there is great danger that once his petition becomes known to the adversary means may be found to deprive him of his evidence by any method, that he may be authorized at once to examine such people as he can show, prima facie, can give material evidence upon the petition. That is what we had in view in using these general expressions, going beyond the provision which had regard to people who may be absent from Canada. As regards the time within which this may be done, I do not think we want to be too absolute in saying that the provision in section 45 applies only to the time of the trial. But there seemed to us, at all events as regards time, that there might be a possible argument made in support of that proposition. In the first place, we find in sections 21 and 22, the sections that deal with the examination of parties to the petition or of the person who may be a candidate, that that examination can only be made after issue is joined. Then we have section 45, which is placed in the subdivision of the statute which is headed " Trial of Petition;" and I think I would be correct in saying that all of the other provisions deal with proceedings at the trial. The section provides :
If it is made to appear to the court or trial judges that any witness intends to leave Canada and will not attend the trial-
Then, on application to the court, the court may grant an order for the examina-

tion of such witness. I am not prepared to say nor do I think the committee meant to commit itself to the proposition that this section only applies during the
4 p.m. trial; but at all events it seems susceptible to argument that this section applies only to the trial and that it further limits the rights to examination after issue joined. It seemed to us that there was no provision in the statute which could clearly be interpreted as entitling one to have an examination at any time after the filing of the petition; and, with regard to the time, we thought, if we were to make this an effective method of meeting the circumstances that might arise, that it should be made clear that the examination could be at any time and further that it might be an examination of persons other than the parties to the petition and other than a person who was about to leave Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I correctly apprehend my hon. friend, the reason for the amendment of the existing rule is that at present there is the ordinary provision for the examination of a witness who may possibly not be present at the trial. I understand the new provision amounts to this, that either party to the suit may go to the judge and represent to him that there is, for instance, a charge of bribery and that unless the party who ought to have the benefit of this witness, either for or against the petition, has the privilege of at once examining him, he has reason to fear that the witness may be tampered with or that for some other reason his evidence at the trial would not be as unbiased and as genuine as it would be if it were at once taken. I do not undertake to say that the provision should not be adopted, but it is certainly a novel proposition and requires reflection. If we want to have fair and speedy trials, I am not prepared to say that the provision should not be found in the Bill, but my hon. friend will agree that it will be absolutely novel, contrary to anything that we know of, and I think it requires more consideration than we have been able to give it up to the present time.


William Pugsley: Why not make the section broad enough to allow either party to bring up a witness for examination before the trial, either before or after issue is joined? We profess-and I trust we are all sincere-that we want to. bring out-the truth in these election petitions, to secure speedy judgment and to unseat or disqualify

any candidate who has been guilty, by himself or his agents, of corrupt practices. Why not give the fullest opportunity to get at all the facts, and why not provide that at any time after the petition is served, upon ex parte application, the petitioner or respondent, upon affidavit stating that in the belief of the deponent material facts may be disclosed by an examination of such and such a party, the deponent shall be entitled to have the party brought up and examined?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is what we meant to do.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend does not do it. He throws the burden upon the petitioner or respondent of satisfying the judge that it is in the interest of justice that he should do that. In 99 cases out of 100 the judges would fail to apprehend how it would be in the interest of justice to examine a witness before the trial; they would fail to apprehend that the mere fact that there is danger of a witness being tampered with is a reason for examining him and disclosing what he knows. The judge might think he would be more apt to be tampered with after he had disclosed under oath what he had to say than before. He would be more apt to be removed out of the country. Why not make it broad enough so that upon affidavit any man can be examined?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Ordinary discovery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an obvious and very fair answer to the hon. member for St. John. He knows better than I that the first consideration which affects the mind of a judge is the conduct of a witness in the witness box. In drawing this section in the committee W3 did not desire to deprive the court of the benefit of seeing the witnesses except in extreme cases, and these extreme cases I think are met by the further amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice, namely, that if and when the trial comes on the witness that has been examined is still in the country and can be examined, he should, notwithstanding the fact that he has given his testimony, be brought before the court and give his testimony in the presence of the judges, who are thus able to see his demeanour and derive the advantage that one always gets from observing the actual manner in which the witness has given his testimony.


William Pugsley: My suggestion would not alter that principle at all; it would be rather an examination for discovery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend knows better than I do that it is at variance with well recognized principles of procedure that all witnesses should be examined for discovery. All witnesses should be examined in court except in the case of the plaintiff and defendant, or as in this case, the petitioner and respondent who may be examined for discovery, or except in the case of a witness who may want to leave the country and who may be examined de bene esse. My hon. friend is aware of the fact that many 'difficulties have been experienced in cases of this kind. Men get out of the country as soon as they find their names in an election petition. They take enforced vacations at the expense of their friends. Sometimes they go to Europe and sometimes they have been known to go to the neighbouring republic and stay away for six months. We have no election petitions in our country, and therefore I can speak on this subject with all the more freedom.


William Pugsley: Nor in the county from which the hon. gentleman comes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They always had a protest, but no trial.


William Pugsley: They never have any protest in Northumberland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I fancy that is because of the extreme purity with which elections are conducted there, oi; it may be the facility with which men change sides, having regard to the history of that county. There is something called the Northumberland deal that my hon. friend remembers and that possibly illustrates the point. What influenced the committee was solely this, that in order if possible to perpetuate the testimony of a necessary witness up to the time of the trial when he himself could not be there to give his evidence, an opportunity should be afforded of taking his testimony, and I agree with the Minister of Justice that this should be done. We should at once permit an ex parte application to be made to the judge, have a subpoena issued and have the witness' testimony taken down, due notice being given to the respondent, or the petitioner, as the case may be, and thus have the evidence perpetuated.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is the application to the judge to be made as a matter of course or for cause? [DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: That brings up a question that engaged the attention of the committee : what are the reasons for providing aa extraordinary procedure of this kind? About that we had many a discussion. One hon. gentleman urged this and another urged that, but the final conclusion we came to was that the words that now appear in the section, "in the interests of justice," should be inserted. Instead of adopting the old language of the Judicature Act, namely, "for the proper conduct of the trial," we have said, "in the interests of justice ". That means that the party making the application to the judge or court will do so believing that it is in the interests of justice, using that word in its broad sense, that the testimony of a particular witness should be taken at once. You cannot define all the cases and, since you cannot define them, what words are you going to use which will cover all of the cases better than the words " in the interest of justice"? The expression, "the proper conduct of the trial," does not comprehend all the cases which would come within the term, "in the interest of justice". The determination of the question as to which particular case comes within the definition is left to judicial discretion. I think we can fairly trust the exercise of so extraordinary a power to the 'discretion of the court as is done under the English Judicature Act which has almost a similar provision. You can take immediate proceedings for the purpose of obtaining the testimony of a witness but the testimony cannot be used at the trial unless it appears that the witness is dead or is out of the country. This whole code approximates closely to the civil code. Examination for discovery, examination de bene esse, examination of witnesses about to leave the country and all that sort of thing are provided for. The committee were not particularly wedded to the words " in the interest of justice " but no other words were suggested which were sufiicientlv comprehensive to meet every condition that might arise.


William Manley German: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice can see-and I apprehend that is the principle or rule of this subsection-that this examination can take place even before the petition is served or filed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not before it is filed,
for then there is no proceeding.


William Manley German: Well, then, before it is
served. There is no solicitor on the record to appear on behalf of the respondent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The application may be made at once. There is a provision that this examination must be had after notice to the party or his counsel. The application would be made at once so that the order could issue for the examination of . the witness.


William Manley German: The order is issued for
the examination, but who is to take the responsibility of appearing on the examination? There is no respondent to serve, and there is no solicitor on the record to appear for the respondent. The petitioner can file his petition, he makes an ex parte application, and gets an order for one witness- not one, but fifty, perhaps. It may be a personal charge of corruption, it may be a charge of tampering with an election, of exercising undue influence upon an elector; and suppose you have fifty charges of that kind the petitioner could make application for the subpoenaing of fifty men, get an order, examine the whole fifty, and you have the whole case ready for trial before the respondent has been served or has had an opportunity of taking any action in the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The applicant might
make his application, but he could not get this order without giving notice to the party, and he and his counsel would be entitled to be present at the examination. All he can do is to get his order, but he cannot proceed with it without notifying the other party-either himself or his solicitor.


William Manley German: Would it not be easy to spirit away a witness just as soon as the respondent knows which witnesses are to be examined? The witnesses are not notified. Application is made for the examination of ten or twenty witnesses, and the applicant gets his order. Is jt a very difficult matter for these witnesses to be spirited away before they can be served? How are you going to advance the interests of justice there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The order may be made and at once served on the witness.


William Manley German: It cannot be served the
same day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will admit that we do not pretend that we have been able to devise a cast iron arrangement which will *absolutely prevent the possibility of it

being evaded, but we think we have provided a method which, while it may not reach some cases, will reach a great many. What the hon. gentleman has said is precisely what demonstrates the wisdom of our making a provision that this order should be made only when the judge thinks it is desirable. I understand the objection from the hon. gentleman to be that this is not restricted enough, whereas, the objection of the right hon. leader of the Opposition is that it is too wide. I am quite ready to admit that it is an innovation in the wide scope it gives for this sort of exceptional examination, out just because it is that I fail to see the force of the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, which is in reality that wie ought to throw it wide open without any reference as to whether anybody can satisfy any judge that there is occasion for it, and that we should allow them to subpoena everybody of their own motion and examine them for discovery. I cannot quite grasp the necessity of doing that. I share the apprehension of the right hon. gentleman that this would be extending the thing too far, and from that point of view I believe we should retain the check of requiring the juage to oe satisfied that there is occasion for resorting to this exceptional procedure. If we could find words which would more closely define occasions when this powier should be exercised, and not unduly restrict the power of the judge, I should be very happy to incorporate them in the section. The committee did not put this forward as being an infallible conclusion or one that is not open to consideration, but after having threshed out a great many of the objections which have been raised here, we thought that the words in the Bill expressed the idea as well as we wene capable of expressing it. It certainly did not occur to us that it would be desirable to provide for a general examination on discovery of everybody, at the instance of either party.


William Manley German: This examination cannot certainly take place before a judge, because the witnesses could not be taken to Osgoode Hall to be examined. They would be examined in the county in which they rteside, before the local registrar of the court. The first thing that would have to be done after the order was issued, would bh to file the order with the local registrar where the trial would take place, and tb!en there would have to be an appointment to examine one witness, or as many witnesses as the petitioner or respondent saw fit to 127*
examine. That would take some days, and then there would have to be a number of days before the witnesses could he subpoenaed. How are you therefore to prevent the spiriting away of witnesses and the instruction of witnesses? I hava no serious objection to the section, because what will be sauce for the goose will be sauce for the gander, but I submit that the minister is placing on th1e statute book a law which eventually will be found to be unworkable. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said it corresponds with the English procedure but it does not correspond with the English procedure any more closely than it corresponds with the Canadian procedure, in the lexamination of witnesses de bene esse. I believe that under the present Controverted Elections Act you can do all that is sought to bb done here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Manley German: I think that under section 45, if you can convince a judge that it is necessary to perpetuate the evidence of a witness for use >at the trial, you can got an order for the examination of that witness, but you axe going beyond that in this ease. I am strongly of the opinion that you are doing something which will be regretted even by the members of the committee who reported this Bill to the House. I do not care particularly one way or the other; if the minister is prepared to take the responsibility, he can do so.


John Hampden Burnham: Has the minister in any way taken into consideration what I ventured to urge before the members of the committee when they required me to appear before them? The misconduct of people during an election is like any other misconduct, and public opinion is the eventual arbiter in all these things. If a man gets drunk, you arrest him, and you give the evidence and the case is disposed of; and people come to the conclusion either that the man is a disorderly character or that an injustice has been done him, because, being more or less familiar with the evidence, they are capable of forming an opinion. If misconduct in the conduct of an election takes place, the culprit should be brought- up in court for conspiring with others against the public weal, by giving or accepting a bribe, and on evidence being given, the magistrate should dispose of the case. That would not of itself void any election, but it would have a tremendous effect upon the election; and if, in the course

of time, some of these people were brought into the police court, and it were found that this sort of thing was going on, by the finding of the magistrate, the effect on thg public would be so tremendous- assuming that the public care about it at all-that the candidate whose agents were acting in that way would stop it all, or else the candidate would certainly be defeated at the polls. I am thoroughly convinced, from hitter experience, that the colossal undertaking of an election petition is so serious and expensive a business, and so likely to go off, that it is almost impossible to proceed with a protest. At the trial of the election petition your expenses are about $300 or possibly $500 a day, putting it mildly. You say bo-and-so is to be called as a witness at two o'clock, and two o'clock comes and he is not there. It is said, "Oh, he is ill,'' and a doctor gives a certificate to the effect that he cannot appear. What are you going to do? You stop the trial. The next day the same thing occurs-he cannot appear. There is an important witness gone, perhaps important witnesses gone. The bottom is knocked out of the whole case; whereas if you could arrest the culprits 'during the course of an election, if you could watch them and take them by the scruff of the neck to the police court and say: "Here is a man corrupting the people," and you prove it, you can have him fined a dollar or sent down for ten days, if you like. As long as the people know that corrupt practices are going on, they will hold that candidate more or less responsible. It is quite possible that the candidate is not the man really liable for the conduct of his agent; but the general tenor of the whole election contest is made quite plain. The people know the history of these men quite well, because men are not picked up at a moment's notice for the purpose of carrying out all sorts of wrong-doing at an election. They are well known; they are usually experienced ; and if they are properly watched and the opportunity is given, you can break up any system of corruption in a very few days; but if such men can sail around and have their headquarters at hotels and live like prize-fighters, and enjoy themselves thoroughly and be absolutely free while they are perpetrating all sorts of wrongs of this description, all they need to do is to clear out immediately after the election is over; and where they are no one knows: the deed is done, the public is defied. In the other case, that is not so. If they had the opportunity, policemen would simply say to these men: "You [Mr. Burnham. 1
are wanted in here; give an account of yourself; what are you doing?" You do that with *afll sorts of fakirs; you do it with people who cannot give an account of themselves; you do it with drunkards and people who commit misdemeanours of various sorts; but in the conduct of an election, which concerns the public weal more than anything else, you omit it; you do not allow it. Surely some simple device of this description might be added to the other machinery which would enable people desirous of breaking corrupt practices to do it in time, and not have to spend thousands and tens of thousands of dollars on a trial which consists partly of a contest between lawyers to defeat the ends of justice and of witnesses who desire to escape giving testimony.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are no
doubt many crudities, apparent or real, in the Bill now before the committee. The truth is that no committee can within a limited period of time draft amendments to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act which will not be found imperfect. It should be the work of capable men for many months, perhaps a year or more, to revise this Act successfully. As a matter of fact, the committee engaged in revising the Dominion Controverted Elections Act practically gets no assistance whatever from the officers of the Crown or the Department of Justice. We have the assistance of parliamentary counsel, but their time is divided up on account of their being engaged in other duties, and the result is that any drafting is very liable to be imperfect. I am very much impressed with the objection made to this section by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). I do not think that any member of the committee ever expected that this section would not meet with some very substantial opposition from members of the House when placed before it for consideration and review.
Section 45 of the Bill was intended to enable the examination of a witness upon notice, where it was abundantly clear that he intended to leave Canada, and that either the respondent or the petitioner were desirous of having his evidence taken. It may be remembered that in section 3 of the Bill, which defines the form of the petition, it is provided that the complaint shall be set out with some particularity. Just how far that should go, we are not at all clear, and we are agreed

that that section of the Bill should remain over for the present.
Section 10, which we are now considering, was inserted just because there was an amendment provided by section 4 in respect to the form of the petition. Some of the members of the committee thought that, inasmuch as the petitioner was compelled to set forth in his petition with some particularity the details of his complaint, he ought to have some opportunity in some way or other of examining the witnesses before the trial so as to circumvent the very usual practice of having witnesses leave the jurisdiction of the court. Inasmuch as we have passed over section 4 for consideration, I would suggest that we let this section stand, because if section 4 is changed we may find it quite easy to remove the objections which have been urged against this section. I must admit the objections are fairly substantial, and I am not sure that they have been well answered so far.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: The great difficulty in proceeding with an election trial is to get the material witnesses. They are spirited away by some means or other, and the ends of justice are thwarted. How to prevent that is a matter for the lawyers to decide, but tnere is worse than that. At election times there are brought in from other countries, for example from the United States, men who have been Canadian citizens or who are perhaps still Canadian citizens, but who are employed in the United States and who' can leave conveniently a day or two after the election is over. They come to Canada for the purpose of doing an illegal or highly improper act. How can such men be detained in the country and brought to trial? I cannot suggest any method; that will be for judicial minds to decide. If an application could be made under oath to a judge by some responsible, reputable citizen or by one of the candidates who is aware of conduct of that kind being done, whereby those men could be detained in the country or their evidence got in some way much good would result. That in my judgment would add very materially to having justice done.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards what the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., says, this section possibly does not goi very far to detain such a witness; but it would give some assistance in so far as it would at least make it possible for any person to make a petition at as early a date as he pleased, and thereupon to obtain an order to make such witness appear on some day, so that if the witness did not do so, he could be punished for contempt of court. But unless the proposition itself will meet with the approval of the House, there would be no useful purpose in our pressing for more effective means to enforce it.
With regard to the observation of my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), I would point out that he is under a false impression if he supposes that there is at present no method of punishing unlawful practices at elections other than by election petition. If he refers to the Dominion Elections Act, he will find quite a number of. provisions providing penalties either by actions instituted to recover them, by indictment before the criminal court or by summary prosecution. I have not all these before me, but I might refer to some of them. For instance, power is conferred upon the deputy returning officer to constitute constables with authority to arrest people who are guilty of unlawful practices. I admit that in these matters our law is susceptible of improvement, but it is not correct to say that there is no provision for prosecution before the criminal courts for unlawful practices at elections. The committee dealing with these two items were strongly impressed with the view that what was a lacking in the Dominion Elections Act was not so much the creation of offences and the imposing of penalties, but rather an effective instrument of enforcement. What we are trying now to deal with is a measure providing a method by which you can rectify the wrong done in the return of the wrong man. But in the Dominion Elections Act there are provisions for the punishment in the manner I have indicated of those guilty of unlawful acts at elections.


John Hampden Burnham: Is there anything other than by indictment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is provision for
action for penalties and also for trial for summary conviction. It would take a long time to read all these provisions, but I might give my hon. friend some references. Under the heading " Corrupt practices and other illegal acts," sections 265 and following define the corrupt practices and prescribe penalties; and under 284 and following are provisions for the enforcement of these penalties. These are in addition to the provision respecting indictable offences and offences made punishable on summary conviction. The particular sections dealing with indictable offences, I have not under

my hand, but I know that there are such provisions. As to the suggestion of the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), there is no doubt that this section is affected very much by what is done with regard to sections 4 and 5. We of the committee regarded this Bill as one whose sections completed each other and provided a more effective method of trying election petitions. No doubt most of the sections are so interdependent that one can hardly be considered apart from the rest. Yet there is more immediate connection between this section and sections 4 and 5 than between the others. Therefore, I have no objection to adopt the hon. member's suggestion and allow this section to stand until we come to deal finally with sections 4 and 5.
On section XI-place of trial; trial to proceed until all evidence taken:


William Manley German: The suggestion was made before lunch: if the respondent admits liability and the petitioner is content with that, who will supply the witnesses to go on with other cases?	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section does not purport to provide a method by which they can supply them. But it does provide:
The trial judges shall proceed with the trial until all the evidence relevant to the particulars filed in the case has been heard, notwithstanding any admission on the part of the respondent of corrupt or illegal practices sufficient to void the election, and notwithstanding that in the opinion of the court enough evidence has been heard to void the election.
This is another provision inserted to meet the possible suggestion that the court is without power to go on after enough has been established by admission or evidence to void the election.


William Manley German: Why not say that the court "may" proceed, instead of "shall" proceed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We make it the court's duty. If, notwithstanding the admission of the respondent, notwithstanding there being enough proof to void the election, the petitioner wants to go on to ventilate other cases of bribery, we want it to be made the duty of the judge to go on and deal with these matters, if they are covered by the petition.


William Manley German: Suppose he does not want to go on?


Charles Joseph Doherty: All we have said is that the judge shall proceed with the trial until all the evidence relative to the particulars filed in the case has been heard. If everybody stopped bringing in evidence, the court
	,
would not be able to hear any more; we have said that they shall go on until all the evidence is heard.


Robert Laird Borden: I had a good deal of experience in the trial of election petitions many years ago, and the course usually adopted was this: after the petitioner had put in his evidence and the judges had come to the conclusion, upon that evidence and upon any that the respondent had adduced in regard to the several charges made, that enough evidence had been submitted to justify the voidance of the election, he usually asked the petitioner whether or not he desired to proceed with the personal charges. The petitioner had to answer yes or no, the judges usually intimating that if the petitioner proceeded with the personal charges against the respondent and did not succeed, he would be visited with the costs of his unsuccessful attempt.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In recent years the practice in Nova Scotia has been that even if the respondent admitted sufficient corrupt and illegal practices to void the election, the court nevertheless proceeded with the case. This proposed provision is putting into statutory form the effect of the practice of the courts in recent years.


William Manley German: The opinion expressed in the newspapers of Ontario is that the trial of a petition should not be dropped simply because the respondent admits his guilt. This section provides that the court shall go on with the case, but if the petitioner does not wish to go on, he cannot be compelled to bring witnesses to the court and to produce evidence. How, then, will the court proceed? There is no procedure under this Act, so far as I can see, which will secure the attendance of witnesses in such cases to establish personal charges against the respondent. The object of the trial of election petitions, aside from the proving of charges which would disqualify the person elected, is to ascertain whether or not corruption existed in the constituency during the election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In all our provinces, the consent of the court or judge must be obtained before an action can be discontinued.


William Manley German: In Ontario a party may
discontinue the suit by filing discontinuance papers and paying costs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The English precedent
is that you have to have the consent of the court or judge. But if judgment against the defendant is obtained by the plaintiff on consent, the judge may say:	I am not
satisfied that the matter shall be settled merely by consent; I am going to examine *witnesses.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think 1
understand the motive of this section. In the trial of an election petition, one hundred witnesses having been heard, or one witness having been heard whose evidence proves one charge sufficient to void the election, the respondent may say:	I confess judgment; I am willing that the seat shall be declared vacant. In this case, the objection is that the taking of further evidence might establish that a general system of bribery and corruption had been in operation throughout the district. I believe it is wise, therefore, that under such circumstances the court shall be directed to proceed with the case and to make a report to Parliament as to whether or not there was in the district concerned a general system of bribery and corruption. I think the section is a wise one.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My observation of election trials during the last ten years has been that the solicitor really makes little effort to secure the disqualification of the respondent. The purpose of an election trial to-day is to ascertain whether or not a general system of bribery has prevailed. No solicitor conducting an election case will accept an admission of corrupt and illegal practices on the part of the respondent and a final order unseating the candidate. What I mean is that if a trial is conducted on that basis, the Solicitor does not perform his whole duty, because the whole purpose of an election trial is, as I have said, to disclose any system of bribery and corruption which may have prevailed. It should be remembered also that the hearing of an election petition is really not a trial, in the ordinary sense of the word; it is an inquiry. Parliament, having delegated to the courts the duty of inquiring into alleged illegal practices in connection with elections, must give to the courts power to go beyond the desires and requests of counsel engaged in the case. 1 think the distinction must be held clearly in mind that the hearing of an election petition is not a trial, but an inquiry.


Robert Laird Borden: I entirely agree with the view that the court should have
power to proceed in such cases, if the circumstances of the case make it, in their judgment, desirable that they should do so. But if witnesses have not been subpoenaed, is the petitioner to be directed to subpoena them? What means will the judge have of proceeding with the trial if the petitioner does not desire to take the responsibility of doing so? I do not object to the purpose of the section at all; I think it is a very good one, and I think that the judge should have the power which is assigned to him under its provisions, but I am not desirous of putting something on the statute book which may appear to fulfil certain objects, and which will not, in the end, fulfil them at all.


Edmond Proulx: If counsel do not wish to put witnesses in the box, can the judge force them to do so, or hold them guilty of contempt of court if they do not do so?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Three conditions may arise. In the first place, in the case where the defendant has admitted enough to void the election or where there is proof enough to void the election, and the petitioner wants to proceed with the case, we say to the judge: You shall go on. We do not say: You may if you want to; we say: You shall, because we want to have brought out whatever can be brought out that is in the public interest.


William Manley German: The judge may say: Prove all these charges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may be quite mistaken, but if that is already the law perhaps the hon. gentleman would show me the text. If that is the law but if there is no express text, what harm can be done by saying perfectly clearly in this statute what the hon. gentleman believes to be the law now?
To me there are three combinations of circumstances that may arise. That is the first. Under these circumstances, in my judgment, the law ought to be imperative; it should not be in the power of the judge to say: no, I have enough evidence and I am going to render judgment. Then, there is, secondly, the case suggested by the right hon leader of the Opposition, where both parties say that they have enough evidence; perhaps the respondent has got in the box and has said: "I admit that by an agent or without my knowledge enough corruption was perpetrated to void this election," and there are sitting there a whole host of witnesses, and the petitioner says, "under these circumstances I am willing to accept that." Surely that

will be quite a clear case of duty to the judge to examine the people who are there. They have been brought there to prove allegations which we presume are specific and which upon their face are allegations of corruption and bribery that ought to be exposed. It seems to me in that case we should make iit imperative for the judge to continue ithe inquiry. That is the second case.
Then, there is the case where it may be impossible for the judges to go any further. I do not understand that our imperative section would alter the fact that if neither party would adduce evidence and there were no available witnesses there, then the court would be in the position of having heard all the evidence. We might use the word "available" in that case, because the court would not be able to go on, but would be in the position of having heard all the available evidence. What I think the committee had in mind was that he could go ahead as far as there was available evidence. If there is no evidence there to be heard, the judge cannot hear it, and he may take it that that is a condition where he has heard all the evidence. I do not think we would meet the purpose of the committee by saying that the judge may do that. We want to create a situation where, as far as possible, it would be the judge's duty, within the limit of the charges made, to hear all available evidence upon them, even although it might go beyond what was necessary to void the election. Wlnb was necessary to void the election may have been established by admissions.


Mr GERMAN:: My hon. friend perhaps misunderstood what I had in mind. I do not think the Controverted Elections Act in express terms says that a judge shall go on and hear all the evidence the petitioner chooses to present to the court. My belief is that the judge is morally bound, perhaps not by express terms, to hear all the evidence which the petitioner will adduce to establish the charges which were alleged in the petition; because it is not one issue of fact as to whether or not this man is entitled to the seat. A petition comprises several issues of fact; in fact, every section of the petition raises an issue of facts in itself. So that the one fact that the man is not entitled to hold the seat by reason of bribery and corruption proved voids the seat, but that does not dispose of all the issues raised by the
5 p.m. petition or pleadings. I understand that a court would simply

say: We are bound to hear all the evidence which the petitioner brings before us to establish the case as alleged in the pleadings which are before the court. To that extent I think the trial judges are bound to hear all the evidence the petitioner presents. When the petitioner is satisfied, saying, "I do not care to go any further," the seat is voided. Then you say by this section that the judge shall go on and further investigate. So far as my observations have shown, the practice is that the witnesses are not all subpoenaed for the first day; probably only one or two will be subpoenaed for the first day. Generally the strongest case the petitioner can make is taken up first. When you say here that the trial judge shall further investigate, you do not provide any means for having him do so unless you say that the witnesses shall be subpoenaed, and then you do not provide any means for furnishing them or say who is to pay the costs. If you say that he "may" go on, he may do so now. If you use the word "shall," it makes it compulsory on the trial judge to go on and subpoena witnesses of his own volition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The objection would be met if you put in the word "available" before the words "and relevant." Then we would not place any obligation on the judge to go out on the highways and byways and look for witnesses. We would simply say to him: It shall be your duty to go on with the available and relevant witnesses."


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Would it do to add the word "then" and make it then available as applicable to the witnesses then present at the trial?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That might be very well where neither party wants to go on; but if the petitioner wants to go on, we should make it the judges' duty to hear the evidence he will adduce, and he should be entitled to make evidence available by subpoenaing more people for the next day if they are not there that day.


William Pugsley: Would it not be better to use the word "may," because we know that in actual practice if the parties agree that there has been enough evidence, that the admission is sufficient, that the election is going to be voided, they will take care to have the witnesses beyond the control of the judges. What is the use of putting it in if it is to become a mere farce? If you gave permission to the judges to continue the hearing, it would be very much

better. In ordinary practice no judge would go on unless one or other of the parties wanted him to do so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention of this legislation is that the judge shall go on. I have heard it said repeatedly in civil courts by judges that they had heard all the evidence they required, that the case was proved, and they were prepared to give judgment and would not waste time hearing more evidence. It is by no means clear to me that a judge in an election case is not, under our statute as it now stands, free to say the same thing.
Most of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken seem to think that under the law at the present time the judge would be bound to go on.	I do not
think we would disagree as to the desirability of his being bound to go on if the petitioner desired it. I have not been able to find any provision in the statutes under which the judge Would not be at liberty if he thought proper, to say that for the purposes of the petition he did not propose to go on even if the petitioner wanted to go on. I think that we should have the word " shall " in the section. I do not see what harm would come from requiring the judge to go on with the case where there is available evidence to substantiate the charge. The public interest demands that where there is available evidence the matter should be gone into. Of course, as the hon. member for St. John says, the parties could put themselves in a position where there would not be available evidence. No great injury will come to anybody from requiring the judge to proceed with the available evidence.


Charles Marcil: The Minister of Justice is very familiar with everything that has taken place in the province of Quebec. Without referring to the legal side of this question, the minister knows that in the last thirty years in the province of Quebec the two parties have agreed as to whether or not the evidence is to be produced, the case allowed to go to court and an attempt made to have the election voided. There are not half a dozen cases in the last thirty years where the issue was pressed and disqualification asked for. The belief is present in the minds of those who have discussed the question that we will never be able to get at the bottom of these political cases unless they are taken out of the hands of the political parties and it is suggested that the only way to sift the matter to the bottom is to have a public prosecutor appointed for that purpose. Has the committee given this phase of the question any consideration at all?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We did consider the question, but we did not hope to be able to devise a plan for the appointment of such an official which would be satisfactory and which would pass this House. We are trying to do it in a more modest way than the procedure which the hon. gentleman suggests. I quite welcome the criticism we have had, but I think it shows that we cannot hope to do everything at once in the direction of improvement, and more particularly in the direction of securing an inquiry when the parties to the proceedings may not be over anxious to have the matter probed. I think, however, that what we did is a considerable step in advance if the House accepts it. Something in the direction of what the hon. gentleman suggests, if- it met with general acceptance, would also he desirable but the committee have no proposition of that kind to present on that subject.


Edmond Proulx: Has the minister added
the word " available"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that the section would be altered by putting in the word " available." Nobody, not even a judge, is bound by law to do the impossible. If he is told that he shall hear all the relevant evidence it must mean all the relevant evidence within his hearing.
On section 12-after thirty days clerk of court to apply, and court to fix day for trial:


William Pugsley: Section 12 having been
adopted, I wish to suggest for the consideration of the committee an amendment which would come in very properly at this point because it would be in addition to section 57 which is the last dealing with trials for corrupt practices. I think the committee will agree with me that the law relating to elections is to-day very strict indeed. As the Minister of Justice has remarked, we have plenty of law on the subject, ample, one would suppose, to secure purity of elections, but unfortunately it has not had that result. There is more corruption at elections to-day notwithstanding the stricter provisions of the law than there ever was in the history of our country. Everybody will admit that the corruption which takes place at elections is only limited by the means of the representatives of the parties, and their ability to spend it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, their ability to get it.


William Pugsley: Well, ability to get it. Unfortunately, that is the case. The agents of the two parties vie with each other in getting the greatest number of votes and they dd not seem to have any fear of the law or any fear of election petitions. They do not fear anything, either on earth below or in heaven above, and they all do their very best to win the election. Then they have in their minds that in the majority of cases there will be saw-offs in connection with these petitions, and they will get rid of any difficulty in that way. They have the expectation that no election will be voided for corrupt practices, perhaps by common consent, and therefore one side can rely upon the other to either abandon proceedings or not to take any proceedings.
Every person who has had to do with controverted election petitions will admit that the law has been an absolute failure. We have provisions now that any person taking a bribe Shall be subject to imprisonment and shall be disqualified for a term of years from voting, but that does not deter people from taking bribes. We have a provision in the law now that if a person bribes an elector he is liable to imprisonment for a term of years and is disqualified from voting at an election or sitting in Parliament, and that law has proved to be entirely ineffective. This Bill is a very good one because it facilitates the trial of election petitions, but in my opinion it will be just as ineffective as the present law for the prevention of electoral corruption.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose that cannot, by any possible chance, be called an expert opinion.


William Pugsley: My own view is that it is better to be frank about the matter than to pretend that a state of affairs exists which does not exist. Every one will admit that, either with or without the knowledge or approval of candidates, the agents, the workers, the party friends of the candidates do all they can to win. If a man is of a high moral tone he justifies his spending money with the statement that you must fight the devil with his own weapons. I have heard very excellent men say that, as an excuse for their going behind the barn arid paying something to an elector to vote for their candidate. My own judgment is that this Bill is not going to be any more effective than the present law, and the question is, what can be done? I have always had the idea that if you could hold out to a candidate the expecta-

tion that if he and his friends run an abso-. lutely pure election, so that they would be able to satisfy the judges that the election was pure, and that if a sitting member has by himself or his agent been guilty of corrupt acts so that his seat Shall become null and void, that the defeated candidate should get the seat. I believe in that way you will accomplish the object we all have in view. I would suggest for the consideration of the Minister of Justice and the committee a section like this:
57. On the trial of a petition under this Act complaining- of an undue return, and claiming the seat for any candidate, if the trial judges decide that the election of the sitting member is void, by reason of the commission of corrupt practices on the part of such sitting member or his agent or agents, and the judges are also satisfied that no offence was committed at such election by the candidate on whose behalf the seat is claimed, or by his agent or agents, which would have been sufficient to render his election void in case he had been declared elected, the trial judges shall declare the election of the sitting member null and void and shall declare such candidate, on behalf of whom the seat is claimed, to have been duly elected.
In case the seat is claimed for more than one candidate, two or more of whom the trial judges find have not, either by themlselves or their agents, committed an offence which would have been sufficient to render their election void in case they had been declared elected, the trial judges shall, in declaring the election of of the sitting member null and void, also declare such one of the candidates on behalf of whom the seat is claimed, having the majority of the votes cast for such two or more of the candidates on behalf of whom the seat is claimed to have been duly elected.
I would ask the Minister of Justice to look this over and to consider it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Do I understand that
the hon. gentleman puts this forward as supplying something which does not exist at all in the present Act?


William Pugsley: Yes, there is a provision in the present law that you may have certain ballots struck off from the successful candidate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a scrutiny of the votes?


William Pugsley: Yes, but that is not
like my amendment. This suggested amendment holds out to the man an opportunity of being given the seat by the judges, who says:	I am going to run an absolutely
pure election, there is no money to be spent, there is to be no violation of the law permitted which would unseat me if I had been returned, and who being able to prove the purity of his own election can prove

that the sitting member by himself or his agents; has violated the law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Regardless of what majority the elected candidate may have had?


William Pugsley: Regardless of the majority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be a reward for merit to the candidate and penalty on the constituency.


William Pugsley: Not necessarily. It may be said that this might be hard upon the constituency, and to a certain extent that is true, but it surely is better to secure purity of elections, even though the constituency might be deprived of the services of the man who violated the law, by himself or his agents.
' Mr. BOYCE:	Would that be regardless
of the finding on a cross-petition against the defeated candidate?


William Pugsley: Oh, no. On cross-petition, the defeated candidate's conduct may be inquired into, and the burden would be cast upon him of satisfying the judges that he had run an absolutely pure election, before he could obtain the seat. We have been trying for forty years in this country to secure purity of elections. We have passed most stringent laws providing for putting people in the penitentiary, and providing heavy penalties and disqualifications, but all these laws in the past have been wholly ineffective until to-day electoral corruption prevails to a greater extent than ever, and there is more money spent in elections than ever before in the history of Canada, which perhaps is owing to the country being wealthier than it was in former years. Unless there is some great injustice which would be done to a constituency, I believe that this plan which I venture to suggest would prove most effective in securing electoral purity. Whether it is worth while to subject constituencies to what might be some disadvantage or some injury by not getting the candidate they would prefer, is, of course, another question. But it does seem to me that it is worthy of consideration, because the object aimed at will commend itself to this House and to the people of this country. I believe there would be no more effective mode of securing purity of elections than a law like this, which would give to the man who runs an absolutely pure election an opportunity of getting the seat, and which would deprive the
man, who by himself and his agents violated the law, from sitting in Parliament.


Edmond Proulx: Would my hon. friend
from St. John make it apply to the candidate, when corruption had been committed without his knowledge?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: Would it not be a great hardship to make him die victim of acts committed by agents, when he had not countenanced such acts at all? I would favour the hon. member's amendment if it applied only to candidates who had been themselves guilty of corrupt acts, or who had knowledge of such acts being committed by their agents; but in cases where they were the victims of zealous friends, it would be a great hardship on such candidates to make the amendment apply.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knows
that the law now compels a member elect to lose his seat by reason of corrupt acts on the part of his agents. It may be a hardship, but the question is: Is the securing of purity of an election of so great importance that the advantage will overcome the disadvantage of a man being held responsible for the actions of his agents? In the running of elections, candidates do have their agents; that is, as a rule the candidates are put up by the parties, and the parties have their agents to manage the elections, and there is no great difficulty in a party securing an absolutely pure election if they make up their minds to do so. The difficulty is to get them to make up their minds to have a pure election. If there were a provision that, if there should be a violation of the law on the part of the candidate or his friends, his opponent might get the seat, it would be veTy effective in securing purity of elections.


Edmond Proulx: The candidate might be
the victim of conspiracy. A man might pose as an agent of the candidate and commit corrupt acts, and then go to court and admit that he had committed corrupt acts for that candidate. In that way he would secure the election for his friend, the other candidate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The law as it stands at present seems to contemplate upon the petition that the seat may be claimed for uie other candidate. "While I cannot find any special provision for that-


William Pugsley: That is provided for
in the present law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 22 provides for tile examination of a candidate, although he is not a party to the petition. It says:
Whenever a petition has been filed claiming the seat for a candidate, such candidate, although not a party to the petition, may be orally examined as if he was a petitioner.
Section 49 provides that:
On the trial of a petition under this Act complaining of an undue return and claiming the seat for any person, the respondent may give evidence to show that the election of such person was undue in the same manner as if he h>d presented a petition complaining of such election.


William Pugsley: Section 50 provides f r striking off names.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 50 says:
If, on the trial of an election petition, claiming the seat for any person, a candidate is proved to have been guilty, by himself or by any person on his behalf of bribery, treating, or undue influence with respect to any person who voted at such election, or if any person retained or employed for reward by or on behalf of such candidate, for all or any or the purposes of such election, as agent, clerk, or messenger, or in any other employment, is proved on such trial to have voted at such election, there shall, on the trial of such election petition, be struck off from the number of votes appearing to have been given to such candidate, one vote for every person who voted at such election, and who is proved to have been so bribed, treated or unduly influenced or so retained or employed for reward as aforesaid.
Then there is also the admission as to what may be done or proved in that particular case, and then tne judges are to report.
Section 58 provides that:
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judges shall determine whether the member whose election or return is complained of or any and what other person was duly returned or elected, or whether the election was void, and other matters arising out of the petition, and requiring their determination.
And so on. I was under the impression [DOT]-it may be quite a mistake-that there was some form of petition for the claiming of a seat for the respondent. There are certainly provisions under which the seat may be claimed for a candidate. I felt, however, it would be wise, before saying anything as to the desirability of this amendment, to consider the matter more fully.


Robert Laird Borden: It is perfectly true that the petition very often claims the seat for the respondent. The seat may be so claimed on various grounds:	for
example, the petition might set up the

contention that the person who is declared elected was not a person competent to be declared elected; that he did not fulfil the requisites of the statutes; that he was not a British subject, that he was not of the age of twenty-one years, or something of that kind.


Edmond Proulx: There is no requirement that he should be 21 years of age.


Robert Laird Borden: Then there is the result of the contest, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for St. John. For example, if the majority is not a very large one, it may be possible for the respondent to show that a certain number of persons have been bribed or unduly influenced-and for every person so shown to have been bribed or unduly influenced a vote is struck off from the votes of the successful candidate, and that may so reduce his vote that the respondent will have the majority. In that case he is, of course, entitled to claim the seat, and the provisions of the statute with regard to claiming the seat have in contemplation such a condition.
The first difficulty about the proposal of the hon. member for St. John strikes one is this, -that as pointed out by the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx), it might contain within it the inducement for a definite -and very insidious form of bribery, that is to say, the bribing of persons acting as agents for the successful candidate to commit some improper acts, which will void the seat and thus give it to the other candidate, who cannot be proved guilty of any such offence.
The suggestion put forward by the hon. member for -Calgary (Mr. Bennett)- is also a very important one. Suppose, for example, that a candidate has polled 4,000 votes, and that the candidate opposed to him has polled only 1,000 votes, and that upon a very careful and full inquiry it may be proved that half a dozen or eight men have been bribed or unduly influenced to vote for the candidate who has received the great majority of votes. The question under these circumstances is whether justice would be done to the constituency by pursuing the course which the hon. member for iSt. John suggests. According to the premise which he has laid down, the candidate who has been elected may have earnestly determined to conduct the election without offending in any way against the election law, yet through the misdeeds of his agents for which he is not morally

although legally responsible, the election is declared void.
The hon. gentleman proposes that for the action of some one person committed without the knowledge or consent of the candidate, and without any desire or intention on the part of the great majority of the electors thait those acts should have been committed, the choice of the constituency in the selection of the candidate is put to one side and the man who represents only one-fifth or one-sixth of the people of that constituency is declared elected.
That would seem to be a very anomalous and very incongruous result. While one is inclined to sympathize with every reasonable effort to bring about reformation in the conditions undeT which elections are held, I think it would require a great deal of consideration before any such proposal as that could be adopted.
So far as elections are concerned, it seems to me, a great deal depends, in every constituency, upon the condition of pubMc opinion. I have seen elections conducted, within very fecent years and in large constituencies in this country, where, I am absolutely sure, the provisions of the election law were well observed on both sides. I believe that was the case in the election held in Halifax in 1908. Public opinion had been aroused very much by some events to which I need not do more than allude, and I think that both sides were resolved that there should be- and at all events, public opinion compelled -a very strict observance of the election law. And there was a strict observance of the election law, I am very sure of that. Very strict measures were taken on one side, and I have no doubt on both sides, to see that the law should be observed.


William Pugsley: Did the same thing continue in 1911?


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I know. I have no doubt it did. I did not speak of 1911, because I was not in the constituency except for a very short time in that election. In reference to what my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) has said, the provisions to which attention is called by the Minister of Justice were in the minds of the people on that occasion as they should be on all occasions. Very great precautions were taken to put these provisions in effect in case any attempt should be made to violate any provision of the Election
Act, and with very good results. And I think where public opinion is aroused, as it ought to be aroused in regard to these matters, in any constituency, similar good results wili be obtained. The hon. member for St. John city has made a very true statement, that we have plenty of law in this country if it is only properly used. And it seems to me that, in the absence of some such provision as that suggested here to-day-which I myself have spoken of in the past and have advocated-the appointment of a public prosecutor to see that election petitions are prosecuted to the end, it depends largely upon the condition of public opinion in the constituency how strictly the election law is observed. I would have been very glad if the committee had brought forward some feasible measure to provide for the appointment of a public officer who would discharge in the matter of election petitions such duties as are discharged by the public prosecutor in Great Britain. But I have not been insensible to the fact that in a country like this, with our population spread over so enormous an area, it would be a much more difficult task to make provision of that kind than in the case of Great Britain. The committee has made an attempt, a very earnest and I think a somewhat successful attempt, to provide otherwise for the bringing about of such results as have been had, at least in Great Britain, by the functions discharged by the public prosecutor, and I am certainly disposed to support their efforts in that regard to the utmost possible extent.


Wilfrid Laurier: The amendment suggested by my hon. friend from St. John City (Mr. Pugsley) seems to be a drastic one, but it does not involve a new principle; it is simply carrying further the principle which is already in the law. Suppose the case of an election petition. The sitting member-taking the comparison just made by my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden)-has 4,000 votes and his opponent only 1,000 votes, showing that the overwhelming sentiment of the constituency is in favour of the successful candidate. If a single agent of that candidate has committed one single act of corruption, the election is voided and so the will of the people is set aside. This was enacted in order to promote purity of election. But is it straining the spirit of the Act, or proposing anything new, or extravagant, ot that will not be accepted, to provide that

i
the defeated candidate who has done his best to have a pure election should be given the seat? As the hon. member for St. John city has stated, very truly, we have been trying for more than forty years to promote purity of elections by laws such as this: If my memory serves me, our first Controverted Elections Act was passed in 1874. We have been trying ever since by these means to promote purity of elections. The present Bill! is -a testimonial of the fact that our efforts have not been successful. Is it not, then, right and proper that we should try a further remedy? The punishment we have inflicted against bribery in elections-not necessarily bribery committed by the member, but by any person on his behalf, is to have the election voided. That remedy has signally failed. My hon. friend suggests that in view of our experience we should give the seat to the man who has attempted to have a pure election.
Under the law as'it is at present, there are two parties to consider, the successful candidate and the constituency itself-the people. If a man is guilty of an act of corruption his seat is voided. He may have been the overwhelming choice of the people, yet because of one act of imprudence-we will call it merely an act of imprudence- the law steps in and says that his election shall be voided, and not only that but he may be debased from sitting and disqualified for years. So far as that is -concerned the will of the people is defeated, but defeated to a great extent by his own imprudence. But if the candidate is not guilty of personal corruption, but if the corruption has been committed by one of his friends, it seemis rather hard that he should have to suffer the penalty of having his elections voided and lose his seat for an act for which certainly, he could not be responsible. Still, the law has not hesitated, either here or in Great Britain, to inflict that injustice upon a candidate, with the single object that we may have, at any cost, purity of elections. We have tried this for forty years, with the very indifferent result we see at the present time. Therefore, I think the hon. gentleman is right in spirit when he goes so far as to say that when there is a contest between two men, if upon the side of the successful one there has been corruption either by the candidate or by his friends, and if on the other side there has been a pure election, then the seat ought to go by favour of the law to the other candidate. I would direct the attention of my hon. friend to the case of John Wilkes, whose

election as representative of the electoral district of Westminster was set aside three or four times by the British Parliament. At last, after Mr. Wilkes had been repeatedly elected and after his election had been repeatedly set aside, Parliament declared his opponent to be the representative for the constituency, although he was the minority candidate. It thus happened that the representative of the district was not the man who was the choice of the people, but the minority candidate. I give this instance to show to the committee that the suggestion of my hon. friend is not without precedent. As to the suggestion of the hon. member for Prescott that there may be conspiracy on the part of friends of one of the candidates to establish bribery in order that his adversary may loose his seat, this objection applies to the law as it exists to-day with just as much force as it may apply to the provisions suggested by my hon. friend. There is every reason why serious consideration should be given to the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to point out that the law as it stands at present is not precisely as my right hon. friend suggests. In 1882 the dleoticn law was amended by a provision which is now embodied in section 56 of the Act, and which provides that if no corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate personally; if the candidate took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practices; if the offences were of a trivial, unimportant and limited character, and if in other respects the election seemed to have been fairly conducted in accordance with the provisions of the law, then the seat shall not be vacated. I should like to point out also that it is in the interests of the purity of elections that an election may be declared void by reason of offences committed without the candidate's knowledge by agents of the candidate. But in all these cases the rights of the people are regarded, and it is permitted to them again to make a choice, by another election, of the man who shall represent them in Parliament. Probably at the time to which my hon. friend referred-the occasion on which the seat was given to the opponent of Mr. Wilkes- the rights of the people in that regard to their representation in Parliament were not. so strictly regarded as they are at the present time.


William Pugsley: It is true that section 56 provides that the elected candidate shall

not he unseated for the commission of trivial or slight offences for which he was not personally responsible, or if he took all reasonable means to prevent the commission of corrupt practices. But it is also true, as my right hon. friend haq said, that while the sitting member may have a majority of votes which cannot be challenged, yet, by reason of the commission of corrupt acts by agents, he may be unseated, and in that respect an injustice may be done. That result, however, has been brought about by the operation of the law in the interests of the purity of elections.


Robert Laird Borden: As I said, however, the people in that case are given the right to choose another representative.


Charles Marcil: If a provision such as this is to be put into the law, I think that the candidate for election should toe responsible only for the actions of the men whom he himself appoints as his agents. If in a constituency of 30,000 or 40,000 people, who perhaps become highly excited around election time, the candidate is to be responsible for everything that is done on his behalf, he will toe hellpless. Does the minister, in this proposed legislation, describe what constitutes an agent, or is everybody who supports the candidate an agent?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The courts have devoted a good deal of time and attention to the question of what constitutes agency under the Election Act, and I think that they have arrived at a fairly settled jurisprudence. I must say that I would not venture myself to give an adequate definition, which could be so compressed as to be inserted in the statute, to cover all the conditions under which a man may be held to toe the agent of another. It has been pointed out that there is this very substantial objection to the amendment suggested:	It
is true that we have gone very far, in the interests of the purity of elections, in depriving the candidate elected of the honour and the right of retaining the seat in the operation of electing him to which there has been any material degree of corruption. So far, we deprive him of the seat and set aside the choice of the people to that extent. What the hon. member for St. John suggests is that we should now go a step further and foist upon the people for the future, as their representative, a man whom, as by their votes they have made perfectly clear, they do not want. The effect of the amendment
would be to penalize the people of the constituency because by some accident the election of the man for whom they voted in preponderating majority is declared void. The people, as a whole, are not responsible for that. As I understand it, in the cases where a man is entitled to claim the seat because his adversary was not qualified to be a candidate, so careful are the courts of the right of the people not to have somebody put upon them whom they have declared that they do not want, that they require that it shall be shown that the voters, when they went to vote for the unqualified man, knew that they were voting for an unqualified man, and were intentionally and deliberately throwing their votes away. If I am not mistaken, where you claim a seat because your adversary was not qualified to be nominated, you are not entitled to get more than an annulment of election, unless in addition to showing that he was not qualified to be a candidate, you establish that the people generally knew, or ought to have known, that you had called it to their attention so that it may be said that they ought to have known and must have known that they were voting for an unqualified person, and then you get the seat because the court says the people of the constituency, with their [DOT]eyes open, chose to throw away their votes. But I am not aware of a case under our Dominion Elections Act of this kind. I do know a case, not by virtue of specific statutes but in the contestation of a municipal election, of something of this kind. I had occasion to deal with one myself in the course of my judicial experience, and there I decided, and the judgment was confirmed, that though it was perfectly apparent that the candidate for whom the majority voted was not qualified to be a candidate for the office at all, and though the seat was claimed by his adversary, the minority candidate, who was perfectly qualified, the court, before it would be entitled to adjudge the seat to the minority candidate, should be able to say something more than that the elected man was not qualified-should be able to say that the electors, with their eyes open, threw their votes away when they voted for him.


William Pugsley: I would call the minister's attention to the case of Baird and King in Queens county, in which the returning officer declared that the receipt for the $200 deposit required from the candidate was not in proper form. The election was

run, the people were perfectly innocent of any irregularity; there was a majority for Mr. King; yet the returning officer declared Mr. Baird elected and this House sustained the election of Mr. Baird, because, rightly or wrongly, they decided that there never was any other candidate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was not a question of whether the candidate was qualified or wheather two men had or had not been nominated. I am not called upon to discuss that, as I understand the decision of the House went on the ground that only one man was legally nominated, who could be voted for. The case I was dealing with was the case of an unqualified person, and I only refer to it as showing the care with which the law proceeds before undertaking to say not only that the people shall not have a man for whom a majority voted, unless they choose him again, but also that they shall have a man with regard to whom it is absolutely manifest that they did not want him, that they had voted by an overwhelming majority that they did not want him. Are we going to impose such a man on the people because it happens that the other candidate or some agent or some other person who by a forced construction may be held to be the agent of the other candidate, was guilty of corrupt practice? While there is much to be said in favour of the view that an election is a fight between two candidates, we must bear in mind always the paramount right of the people to have in the first place the man they choose, and above all not to have forced on them a man whom they have repudiated. For these reasons it would be impossible to accept the amendment.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


William Pugsley: I was going to say one or two words in reply to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and also in reply to the remarks made by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and in doing so I want to admit fully that I realize the force of the objection that is made from the standpoint of the constituency. But the question is whether the evil that is sought to be remedied is such as to warrant Parliament in making the provision I propose. As I said before, we must all admit that no remedy has been found so far for electoral corruption. Notwithstanding all the severe measures which have been passed during the

last forty years there has been no change in that practice. Corruption in elections prevails to an extent as great as, if not greater, than ever before. If we think that this amendment would have the effect of inducing purity of elections, then the question fairly arises as to whether or not the benefits that would result would more than counteract.any evil which might ensue with regard to the representation of the constituency in Parliament. The objection is made, with a great deal of force in it, that there may not be very extensive corruption by the friends and supporters of the elected candidate. If that is a real, substantial objection it might be got over by providing that the result which my amendment aims to accomplish would only be achieved in case of the judges finding that there had been a pretty general system of corruption, using the language contained in another part of the statute, in the interest of the elected candidate. I think everybody would admit that if the finding was to that extent it would not be a very great evil to return a man who had run a pure election free from all corrupt practices whatever.


Mr. TURGEON:: I wish to say a word
in approval of the amendment brought in by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). It is not quite as drastic a measure as I would like to see adopted by this Parliament. I would rather accept the suggestion of the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that the agent of corruption should be brought into court immediately and punished, if found guilty on the evidence of a few honest witnesses. Meanwhile the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John will certainly have a tendency to raise the political morals of our people and to create a certain terror in the minds of those men who so flagrantly violate the law at election times. It is not only on election day or at the polls that unlawful acts are committed, but they are committed, particularly in the rural districts, as everybody knows, the night and day before election. These men will ride in automobiles during the night in the back settlements, and strangers will go in to interview the voter while the local man who has taken them remains in the automobile. He is not a witness of what takes place between the strangers and the voters. When the voters who have been subjected to _this influence come down to the polls next morning it is found that they have

changed their political views. I think that this amendment will have a great effect upon the morals of our people, and that these political agents will not he as presumptious as they have been in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I listened with a great deal of interest to the observations of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) this afternoon. Assuming, as we will, that we are all desirous of doing something to counteract the evils that are so prevalent, it does not appear to me that the amendment proposed will accomplish that object. We in Western Canada are situated in a very peculiar way. We have no lists in Alberta and in addition to that we propose to swear votes in on election day. That has been done for the last fifteen years. If we are going to lessen corruption we must start at the beginning and ask first: What is the object of an election? The whole idea of an election is to ascertain the will of democracy. To ascertain the will of the democracy the electors must not be fettered, corrupted or restrained. There must be a free expression of the opinion of the electors. How can that be accomplished? We know there is corruption, we know that the electors are corrupted, we know it, we believe it. Two plans were proposed in days gone by; one was compulsory voting and the other was the disfranchisement of the constituency. In addition to that wa have had punishment of the individual by the unseating of the successful candidate if the election has been won by fraudulent means. My old preceptor, than whom no abler man ever sat in this Parliament, I venture to say, Dean Weldon, of Dalhousie University, introduced legislation looking to a solution of the same problems as those which have been referred to by the hon. member for St. John. His Bill was finally passed and incorporated into the statutes. We have made certain provisions for disfranchising individuals who have been guilty of corrupt acts. I do not think that at the present time we are prepared for the . disfranchisement of constituencies. Compulsory voting has not been adopted in this country and we have never been sue- / cessful in enforcing the statute as it is.
I think we might do something in the way of disfranchising constituencies. If the judges were to report to Parliament tha,t a general system of corruption pervaded an election and prevailed through a constituency I do believe that the best way IK
for you to deal with it would be by disfranchising that constituency for the rest of th'e term of Parliament and holding it up to the people of Canada as an example of what corruption might accomplish. That would do something. Many years ago I entertained the idea, and I think I entertain it now more strongly than ever, that we must have a public prosecutor if we are going to accomplish any great amount of good under the present election law. In the 'different provinces there must be some such officers as a supervisor of elections and a public prosecutor. Electoral corruption is practised on such a scale that an individual cannot accomplish any good. I remember a general election in the West in which they were paying half-breed scrip. There was only one candidate for the whole province of Alberta, and the entire machinery of the Federal Government was at work paying scrip to thousands of individuals on election day. I remember that a telegraphic message was sent out something like this: "Majority large enough; stop the voting." That sort of thing cannot be overcome by single individuals. You require to have something more. You must have a public prosecutor who will make it his business, untrammelled by any consideration other than the public weal and the public good, to see that the laws are enforced. We do not need any new laws. The laws now in some respects are too drastic. Take the horse-hiring provision. That feature of the election law has become ridiculous because every one knows that horses are hired in every constituency from one end of Canada to the other. These trivial things are magnified into important things that have the effect of minimizing the advantages of the law as a whole. The amendment proposes what? Take the constituency of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), which that hon. gentleman represents here by a majority of something like 2,500 votes. Let us assume that the election was not run as an absolutely clean election and that three or four, half a 'dozen or a dozen of his agents, had been guilty of wrong doing and had violated the provisions of the election law; do you mean to say that it would be an advantage to this democracy to have that seat given to Col. Griesbach rather than a fresh appeal to the electors?
Will that make for any improvement? Is it not a very thwarting of the will of the people? One-half the electors and twenty-five hundred more decided that they desired to support the principles of the



Liberal party, and that one-half the electors and twenty-five hundred more are to be represented in Parliament by an opponent of the Liberal party and their principles because twenty-five men were guilty of corruption. Would that be right, or just, or fair? Is it not doing the very thing you should not do, namely, thwarting the very will of democracy? Is it not interposing against the will of democracy the corrupt views of twenty-five men? That is what it gets down to in the ultimate analysis. Why should twenty-five or one hundred corrupt men send to this Parliament a representative opposed to the wishes of the majority of the democracy in that constituency? I am certain that the proposal of the hon. member (Mr. Pug^ley) is not going to accomplish any good, and I think my hon. friend, with his large experience, will admit that. It is, as a [DOT] gentleman in the Press Gallery said to me this evening, an endeavour to utilize the political machinery rather than the legal machinery to accomplish good, and there is a good deal to be said for that. What you cannot accomplish by the enforcement of law, sometimes you can accomplish by political considerations, and that is what this amendment would mean. In other words, as I apprehend the amendment, you would say to the people of the constituency of St. John, for example: If you are corrupt and take bribes for the purpose of electing the hon. gentleman who now represents that constituency, you will find yourselves represented in the next Parliament by an opponent of the Liberal Government-the constituency will be represented by an opponent of the Liberal Government in any event-and that is what it would mean. That cannot be a sound principle.
The endeavour of the committee was not to make new larv, but to make effective the provisions of the law as they stand. The subject was too large to be dealt with in a week, or a month, or in several months. It would involve going over the old well-marked path, dealing with the question of compulsory voting, supervision of elections, public prosecutors, proper franchise, and matters of that kind. We simply had to deal with the situation as best we could, and the chairman of the committee outlined what the committee should undertake, and the committee has undertaken to suggest legislation that will make the existing laws more effective. Every hon. gentleman who has spoken on the other side of the House has admitted

that probably to some extent the committee has succeeded in that. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) were strongly in favour of certain changes which they conceived would bring about certain well-desired results, and these are incorporated in the Bill. The committee has decided that if you will remove preliminary objections, and if you will make it impossible to tie up proceedings for a length of time by technical objections and delays in the courts, you will have accomplished much good. That, this legislation will do.
I very much fear that the hon. gentleman from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) is desiring to make light of this whole endeavour of the committee to improve conditions, and that he really does not seriously believe in his amendment, because he must sea that its effect would be to nullify and destroy such good as we are endeavouring to accomplish by the Bill submitted. I think it will be found that simplicity, effectiveness, and efficiency, will be secured by the proposal now submitted to the House, and which has met with very general approval. It will, we believe, be a distinct improvement on existing conditions, and in addition, it will be found that instead of endeavouring to make new laws and create new offences we have simply taken advantage of existing conditions in the law as it now stands, to introduce simpler machinery into the statute-book for the purpose of making it more effective. I think we have succeeded in doing that.
If one were to generalize and philosophize on the question of corruption in the broader sense, how corruption is brought about and why, and whether the publication of contributions to election funds might not accomplish much good, one could do so, but these questions have engaged the attention of the House on former occasions, and we could not accomplish much good by discussing them now. We in the province of Alberta must first of all have a Franchise Act, and we must have some finality to our lists. We must endeavour in that new country to pass laws which will charge some one individual with responsibility for the enforcement of the law regardless of cost and regardless of consequences. I would point out that in my province, forty men who cannot speak the English or the French languages, who are foreign in every sense to our traditions and who know nothing of our history and nothing of the subjects under consideration,.

absolutely controlled the representation of at least one constituency, and that a similar number of such men controlled the representation of two or three other constituencies in the local legislature in the two new provinces. I think that our new Naturalization Act will do something to prevent that evil, but corruption can only be killed by making those who practise it pay the penalty of it. I do think that the legislation which is submitted in this Bill will do a little towards that end.
We all know that some corruption is practised in the election of the very best of men. As my hon. friend was speaking this afternoon, I was thinking of what John Morley tells of Gladstone's first election in Newark, that when he found the enormous expense of that election he was so disconcerted about it that he, for a time, contemplated the possibility of giving up his seat. Times have changed in England, and I doubt not that the right hon. gentleman opposite, who has seen so many parliaments come and go, and who spoke this afternoon about the changes wrought in the law about the time he came into this House would be able to tell us, were he in a philosophic frame of mind, that theTe has been at least an improvement in public opinion, as reflected in this House in its attitude towards corruption. The body politic may not have made as much improvement, for the simple reason that on account of large operations being carried , on in this new country there is a tendency on the part, not of the people themselves, but on the part of those who have benefits to derive from governments-to bring about corruption. Were this the proper time I might a tale unfold, by discussing that. I do not think that the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman, anxious though he may be to see some improvement, will bring about good;
I do not think that any such measure as will thwart the will of the majority, and place the well-being of the people as a whole in the several constituencies in the hands of twenty-five or thirty corrupt electors, by sending to Parliament a man who is not the choice of the electors, can, in any^sense, be said to be a remedy for something for Which we must find a remedy, and which can only be found in clean, decent franchise, well-settled lists, a public prosecutor, and supervision of elections by some responsible authority, so that no financial considerations will prevent the law, as it now stands, from being rigorously and vigorously enforced. Beyond 128*
that I think we must look to the future and go slowly, being willing to make a little progress from day to day, realizing that such improvements as they have made in England, and in the republic to the south of us, have come slowly but have come surely gnd inevitably.


George Ewan McCraney: I would like to believe that the proposed amendments or any otheT amendments to the election law would result in iany very great change in the conduct of elections and in the purifying of the public life of this country. Twenty-five or thirty years ago election petitions used to be fought out. They are not fought out to-day; they are traded away, the reason for that being that there has come a feeling of complacency over the public. The public feel that it is an even fight; that the chances of election are as good on the one side as on the other; that when an election is over at five o'clock on election night, they had better get the result and go home, and that it is unsportsmanlike to challenge the other fellow's seat and try to get one's own candidate in. I think I am expressing a view that is very generally held.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Especially in the West.


William Pugsley: The West is not an exception to the rule.


George Ewan McCraney: I have lived in the East and I have noticed that view quite as much in the East as in the West; in fact, I have seen more evidences of. tampering with the voter in the East than I have in the West. My experience of elections in the West is that the voter, as a rule, is not corrupt, although immense sums of money are expended. We have a provision that a candidate for Parliament shall publish an account of his election expenses within a certain time after the diate of the poll, and we all publish those statements. Those statements are asked for with a view of obtaining the amount expended by each candidate and of curtailing the amount, it being felt that by ttm public knowledge which is gained there may be less corruption* carried on. I am quite safe, however, in saying that the statement published by a candidate, either successful or unsuccessful, contains no information of the character which is intended; that it gives a person who reads the statement no idea whatsoever of the moneys used in the conduct of the election, and that for any purposes

of that kind we might abolish the statement altogether and realize at once that by that means at any rate no .information can be arrived at.
My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) spoke of the desirability of having a public prosecutor, and he has gone along the right line. The law as it stands is good enough if it is enforced. I am not objecting to having amendments; I am only saying that the same practice will continue whether you amend the law or not. When I was living in eastern Canada, I resided in the comity of my hon. friend the member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). In the provincial election of 1898, Mr. John R. Barber was the .successful candidate against Mr. William Kerns. An election petition was filed and the protest came for trial. Before the trial it was decided by Mr. Barber's friends that he should give up the seat, and that sufficient admissions should be made to void his election. There were two judges as the election trial judges; and when the attempt was mad'e to throw the seat open in that way by admissions, the judges said: " No, we will not let you do it in that way; you are bound to prove that there was general corruption throughout the constituency; we are not going to throw open the constituency by consent; you must bring your evidence." Therefore evidence was put in on behalf of the petitioners showing that in many polling divisions corruption had been carried on; in fact I recall that the information in some cases was supplied by the respondent, because it was a consent arrangement, but it had to be gone through with and the election was voided. On the report of the judges, the late Mr. William Lount, who was afterwards one of the High Court judges of Ontario, was appointed public prosecutor. The fact that Mr. Lount's political sympathies were those of the respondent made no difference whatever. He came to the county of Halton; he made his investigations; he made his prosecutions, and quite a number of those who were reported by the election trial judges were subsequently prosecuted by Mr. Lount and fined. Whoever paid the fines I do not know; but the prosecutions carried on at that time by Mr. Lount as public prosecutor under the direction of the Attorney General had a very salutary effect	in the	county
of Halton, and I	think if such
a suggestion as that made by my hon. friend from Calgary were carried out and in each province some counsel were

appointed-he would have to have very high standing so as to command public confidence-there would be such a shaking-up that perhaps corruption might be limited in some degree. I am not disposed to think that all the corruption is amongst the foreign element or the poorer classes of the people; very often it is high up. One of the reasons that we have corruption in our public life is the penalty which we put upon the man who is a candidate for Parliament or who is a member of Parliament or a member of the Cabinet, if he loses his seat. In the Old Country if a man loses his seat, he can get another seat; but he cannot do that here; if he loses his seat, he is down and out. There are very strong temptations in this country for a man who *wishes to remain in public life to let those things be done which will ensure his success.
Amendment (Mr. Pugsley) negatived
On .section 13-right to appeal on preliminary objections, etc., omitted:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only change effected by this amendment is eliminating from the provisions of the law as they now stand references to appeal on preliminary objections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-substitution of new peti-titioner:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The change under this section is that instead of its being necessary for the applicant for substitution as petitioner to make his application to the court for leave to be substituted in the case of the withdrawal of the petitioner, provision is now made simply for the publication of an advertisement, and that a new petitioner may be substituted by filing in the court within one month from the last publication of the advertisement, or within such longer period as the court may prescribe, a notice of substitution in the form C in the schedule of this Act. Whereas under the old law it was provided that such party coming in to be substituted should give security as the original one did, and that in cases where there was reason to suspect any fraudulent connivance in connection with the withdrawal, the original deposit should remain as security, the provision here is that in all cases the original deposit shall remain as security.


Wilfrid Laurier: In cases where an elected member had reason to believe

that his election would be protested, it has been known to happen that the elected member got a friend to issue the petition, and, the matter then being practically in the hands of the elected member, the petition was not proceeded with and the matter became a dead letteT at once. I do not-1 know whether there is in the law as it is to-day a provision under which any elector may interfere in such cases by asking to be made a party to the Suit in order that the petition may be brought to trial.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 37 of the Act is as follows:
When, under this Act, more petitions than one are presented relating to the same election or return, all such petitions shall, in the election list, be bracketed together, and shall be dealt with, as far as may be, as one petition; but such petitions shall stand in the election list in the place where the last presented of them would have stood if it had been the only one presented, as to such election or return, unless the court otherwise orders.
So that all petitions filed are combined and tried together as though they were one, coming in the order of the last one on the list.


Edmond Proulx: Is it not possible, because of the fact that no time is fixed within which the clerk shall advertise, that there may be some delay in the proceedings?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision is that
upon any petitioner dying, becoming incompetent or being authorized to withdraw, notice shall be given by the clerk of the court. Immediately upon any of these things taking place, notice shall be given.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister made
any estimate of how long it will take under this procedure to bring an election petition to trial?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The respondent has 15
days within v'hich to file his answer to the petition, and, if he does not file that answer, he is taken to have denied- everything. Then, within 15 days after that, either party may apply to the court to fix a date for the trial. If at the expiry of the thirty days neither party has done so, it will be the duty of the clerk to call the attention of the court to that fact, and it will be the duty of the-court, after giving notice to the parties, to fix a proper time and place for the trial. I should say, therefore, that within six weeks after the forty days-two months, at all events-the petition ought to be brought to trial.


Charles Marcil: Is there an appeal on the merits of the case from the decision of the judges?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, there is provision for an appeal from the final judgment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-witnesses to be summoned, and by whom:
Charles Joseph Doherty: This provision has relation to the summary trial of corrupt practices at elections. The officer charged with the prosecution is, under the present law, bound to summon such witnesses as gave material evidence at the trial, and, in addition such witnesses as he' deems requisite. Under this present provision there is imposed upon the prosecuting officer the obligation to summon such witnesses who deposed to any fact material to the charge as the trial judges may deem necessary or desirable to have -subpoenaed, and -such other witnesses as he thinks requisite to prove the charges. The only change, therefore, is that the prosecuting officer, in addition to his obligation to subpoena such witnesses as he may deem necessary, is bound to subpoena any witnesses that the judge at the trial may indicate as being desirable witnesses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-punishment of convicted offenders:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The only change is a
provision making it clear that the penalty provided in this section is in addition to the disqualification provided for by section 282 of the Dominion Elections Act.


Charles Marcil: Is there anything in this law or in the proposed amendment to prevent a railway company from carrying liquor at election time into a county where its sale is entirely prohibited?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is not in this Bill any special provision with regard to their carrying liquor at election time.


Charles Marcil: For a distance of 500
miles along the shore of the St. Lawrence, from Levis to Gaspe basin, there are no licensed saloons. What I want to know is whether the Government railway or any other railway may carry any quantity of liquor into these districts, to be distributed and used for election purposes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It seems to me that a
railway company distributing liquor in a.

prohibition county would be violating the law just as anybody else would. Of course, the Government railway would not do this; in any case, I do not see that there is any difference between the man travelling on the railway and distributing liquor in a prohibition town, and any other man doing the same thing.
Mr. MARCH,:	In ten or twelve counties in the district which I have mentioned there_ are no licensed saloons, and if there is no provision to prevent a railway company from carrying liquor into these districts as ordinary freight at election times, and distributing it to be used by either political party for election purposes, I suggest that the minister give the matter consideration. There is a law now to prohibit the carrying of liquor in Scott Act counties, and I know that prosecutions under that law have taken place in the province of New' Brunswick.


An hon. MEMBER:: But the law is not enforced.


John Douglas Hazen: Any law may be evaded, but the penalty is there.


Charles Marcil: These are not Scott Act counties'. The people simply refuse to have licenses.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are counties
where an individual would be free to give away liquor. The question is whether a railway company should be subject to some special prohibition that would not apply to an individual.


Charles Marcil: But do you not think it *would be wise to prohibit the carrying of liquor to these constituencies for a month before and a fortnight after the election?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That would be a subject for amendment of the Dominion Elections Act rather than the Controverted Elections Act.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why should we rise and report progress without some statement of when we are to meet again?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I thought it was desired that further consideration should be given to sections 4, 5 and 10.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wanted that explanation.
Progress reported,


CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 112, to amend the Canada Grain Act-Sir George Foster-was Tead the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1:
Section 27 of the Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statute of 1912, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"2. Such certicate shall be in all cases prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained."
Frank Oliver: I understood from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George' Foster) that the Bill coming from the Senate was not to be proceeded with.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The minister intends to proceed with the Bill; I am aware of that. He waited all afternoon with the hope of being able to proceed. It is his desire that it should go through to-night. The section read so far is in the form in which the minister wishes it to pass.


Frank Oliver: There is a misunderstanding somewhere. I understood from the minister that he was not going to proceed with this Bill, and to-day he handed me a typewritten copy which I understood him to say was to be substituted fo-r the Bill coming from the Senate.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
misunderstood. The Bill coming from the Senate is to be proceeded with. What he has is a typewritten copy of two clauses which are to be added by way of amendment to the Bill as it comes from the Senate.


Wilfrid Laurier: Would the
Solicitor General say what is the effect of this clause?


Arthur Meighen: The certificate referred to in this clause is the inspecting officer's certificate as, to grade. Hitherto, the Act has stood in this form, that the way- >
master's certificate as to weight is prima facie evidence, but there has been no clause giving evidential value to the certificate of the grade. This gives it evidential value-makes it prima facie evidence as to grade.
On section 2-official	certificate of
weight:


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has a typewritten copy of the proposed amendment. I move that section 2 be amended so as to read:
No grain shall leave a terminal elevator without being officialy weighed, and the official

certificate of weight shall be final, subject to the provisions of section 120 of this Act.
The effect will be to make the official weight certificate-not the certificate as to grade, but that as to weight-final, subject to re-investigation, which re-investigation is provided for by section 120 of the Grain Act. This will make the weigh-9 p.m. master's certificate conclusive evidence of the weight of the grain, but it may be reviewed by the Grain Commissioner, hut not by any other tribunal.


Mr. ROBB:: Does this apply to harbour elevators in Montreal?


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member will look at section 118-1 speak from memory- he will see that it provides that Part II of the Act shall apply only to elevators in the western division and to public elevators in the eastern division in so- far as they carry western grain. By a subsequent clause public elevators include terminal elevators. Consequently, strictly speak;ng, this would apply to eastern elevators in so far as they carry western grain. But as a matter of practice it has never been made so to apply, because it has not been the practice to have weighmasters under the Grain Commission in these eastern elevators as in the others. Consequently it cannot take effect unless weighmasters are appointed.


James Alexander Robb: The point I want to make is that the weighmaster appointed by the Harbour Commission of Montreal would, under the section proposed, naturally come under the supervision- of the Grain Commission, who have nothing to do with engaging him.


Arthur Meighen: But the weighmaster appointed by the Harbour Commission of Montreal would not be such a " weighmaster " as is contemplated in the section. The " weighmasters " herein referred to are appointed by the Grain Commission; and until the Grain Commission appoints " weighmasters " for the eastern elevators, which I understand is not intended, this section can have no application.
Section as amended agreed to.


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move the following amendment on section 3:
Section 118 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following words: " and to all water-carriers other than ocean carriers."
Section 118 is the section which I quoted to the -hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb); it is the definition section. The effect of adding those words to it is to make clear that part 2 is applicable to carriers between the western elevators and the eastern elevators, in so far as they carry western grain only.


William Manley German: That would cover United States ships going from Port Arthur to Buffalo?


Arthur Meighen: No; the vessels to which the hon. gentleman refers do not carry grain from the western division to the eastern elevators.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: I beg to move that the following he added as section 4:
The said Act is further amended by adding-after section 120, the following sections:
120a. The board shall also receive and investigate all complaints in writing under oath, of any shortage in grain upon the delivery of same from an elevator to a vessel or from a vessel'to an elevator, and shall have power to assess or apportion the loss arising from such shortage, amongst the elevator operators, water-carriers, and shippers, having to do with the said grain, and the finding of the board and such assessment or apportionment certified over the hand of a majority of the board, shall be delivered or sent to all persons concerned in such finding, assessment or apportionment, and shall be.final and shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction.
120b. The board may make regulations governing the responsibility for and the disposition of shortages and overages of grain upon delivery of same from an elevator to a vessel or from a vessel to an elevator, and may assess in .such manner and in such amount as it may deem just and proper, contributions from elevator operators, water-carriers and shippers, or from any of them, in favour of the board or otherwise, for the purpose of providing against such responsibility.
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall limit the powers of the board under the preceding section.
This is undoubtedly important legislation.
I believe the minister has already reviewed in the House the circumstances that have' given rise to it. A conflict has arisen between the lake carriers and the western shippers the lake carriers endeavouring to put into effect a form of bill of lading which would have turned back upon the shippers the entire responsibility for any shortages that might occur during transit from the western elevators to the eastern elevators. Heretofore there has been no special regulation governing it. Some of the companies have found themselves at the end of the year loaded with considerable loss by reason of shortages, the shortage arising by virtue of lesser weight being
20S-2

given to the carrier when he went to deliver this grain to the eastern elevator for transhipment to ocean steamers or to elevators at Kingston for transference to barges and thence to ocean steamers, than the weight given him by the Government certificate out of the western elevator. Similarly other carriers had what are called overages by the reverse process, that is the eastern weight was greater than the western weight. The result has been that a very determined effort has been made to get from under this responsibility and a conflict of interests has arisen. An effort has been made to bring the parties together, but I understand without final success. The intention of this legislation is to enable the board to provide against two classes of cases, the only cases that can arise. The first one is the class of cases where it is possible for the board, by investigation of the facts, to fix the responsibility for the shortage, to say to the western elevator operator: You have made an error, we have power under section 120a to investigate particularly questions of shortages and overages and we find that the error is on your part and therefore we say to you you must be responsible for the error, you must pay. Similarly they would have power to fix the responsibiliy on the lake carrier wherever the evidence was on hand which convinced them that the lake carrier was at fault; and likewise they would have power to fix the responsibility on the eastern, elevator. Another class of cases also arises, that is where there is no evidence available to enable the tribunal, which will' be the Grain Commission, to fix responsibility anywhere. That, I understand, is a very frequent occurrence. Cases arise very often where it is a matter of utter impossibility to bring home responsibility to the western weighmaster or to the eastern weighmaster or to the lake carrier. What is to be done with such cases as that? Obviously a solution can be found only along the line of a permanent regulation which may fix the responsibility always upon one party and fix a scale of contributions by which the other two parties also interested in the same grain, and who perhaps may be responsible, shall in every case contribute to a fund that shall be used by way of assurance against the loss which the class who are fixed w'th permanent responsibility in such, cases will have to bear. It will be observed that 120a provides that they may and must investigate the facts upon any complaint of shortage or overage. They have the power, if the facts 
brought before the commission are sufficient to justify its exercise, to determine who shall stand the loss of the shortage and who shall get the benefit of the overage. But they have also power under 120b to make .such regulations as may be required for governing the disposition of these shortages and overages. They may make regulations assessing against any one of the three, or indeed the four parties, for the shippers are the fourth parties, any scale of contribution, that scale of contribution being made to the board or to any one of the parties. The words used are: " Being, made to the board or otherwise," and that scale is fixed as against the party by whom the contribution is to be made and against the party who is to be held to consistent responsibility for the loss.


James Alexander Robb: While the Solicitor General says that the board will have' power to investigate under oath all complaints in writing of shortages in grain, will he t<dl us what is to be done about overages? I will give him a case. Early in October last there was a vessel loaded at three different elevators at Fort William. When the ship reached port at the Georgian Bay end of the route there was an overage of 10,000 bushels reported. Word was sent back to Fort William, and immediately one of the men said':	That is my
grain; 1 made the mistake. But as they traced it along a little farther it was found that the overage was not in the hold loaded at that particular elevator, but in another hold. How will they trace that?


Arthur Meighen: I do not see how an
overage could occur at one point unless there was a shortage at another. It seems that it will be necessary to complain as to a shortage.


James Alexander Robb: The shortage would perhaps only be discovered in the elevator at the end of the season.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but before it is
discovered there has to be a complaint as to the shortage. No man is going to complain of an overage. The man to whom the overage accrues is the man who benefits. Unless somebody complains of a shortage there could scarcely ~be any call upon the board to interfere. The case that my hon. friend referred to would arise and come before the board only if a shortage had existed causing the ultimate overage and was complained of. If the word "overage" were to be inserted, it would mean the recasting

of the whole clause, and I do not see that the clause would be improved thereby, or that it would cover any real case that is not covered by the clause as it is.


James Alexander Robb: I am not a lawyer, and 1
do not know anything about that. What I want to find out is how they are going to take evidence under oath. That case actually happened last fall, and there were three different elevators interested.


Arthur Meighen: They might take evidence under oath on any complaint, but they cannot assess as for overage because there is no loss. Somebody will have to lose before there will be a complaint. This empowers them to assess against loss. They cannot do that unless there is a loss.
I think if my hon. friend would agree to leave the clause as it is, he will find that there is no case that can arise that will not be covered by it.


Frank Oliver: Would section 120b make provision for the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb)? It says that:
The board may make regulations governing the responsibility for and the disposition of shortage and overages of grain upon the delivery of grain from an elevator to a vessel or from a vessel to an elevator.


James Alexander Robb: Could they take evidence under oath?


Frank Oliver: The hon. member asks could the evidence under section 120b be taken under oath.


Arthur Meighen: Section 120 provides,
subclause 2, that "for the purpose of such investigation the board shall have power to summon witnesses." It strikes me that to make certain they can summon witnesses and investigate under oath for the purposes of these two clauses, which certainly they must have power to do, it might be well to add after the words "such investigation" in subclause 2 of section 120, the words, "or any investigation authorized under this Act." It may be that they have a general power, but if they had there would be no reason for putting in subclause 2 of section 120. Subclause 2 has stood in that way since the Act was passed.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand the
Solicitor General to make the suggestion that there should be such a provision added?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I think it should be added to subsection 2 of section 120.


Frank Oliver: That would cover the point raised by my hon. friend from Huntingdon?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I think the point is covered by section 120b. In an investigation under both clauses they could take the evidence under oath. They have power to investigate overages under section 120b. They cannot investigate complaints of overages, because there could be no complaints; consequently it would not do to include overages in 120a.
New sections 120a and 120b agreed to.


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move that a clause be added reading as follows:
Subsection 2 of section 120 of the said Act is amended by adding, after the word " investigation," in the first line thereof, the words,
" or of any investigation authorized under this Act."


Frank Oliver: While I do not offer objection to these amendments, because I have no doubt they are the best that can be put forward at the present time, I would like to point out that in their nature they are very indefinite as to where the responsibility is to rest amongst the different parties who handle the grain. The authority and the responsibility is placed upon the Board of Grain Commissioners to find out the particulars if a certain occurrence takes place, and probably that is the best that can be done at the moment, but my opinion is that there should have been a more thorough examination into the conditions surrounding the shipment of grain, and that the amendment to the Act should be so framed as to, so far as possible, place the responsibility directly upon the parties to the transaction. It seems to me that the tendency of his declaration is to say to the shipper, the carrier, the receiver, and the dealer: if you can get by with a shortage you are welcome to do so, it is up to the Board to adjust the matter amongst all the parties concerned. That seems to me to be hardly a satisfactory principle, but I understand the difficulties of the situation and I do not find fault with the proposal now made to remedy these difficulties. The principle is hardly the best principle, according to my judgment, and probably with the experience that may come through the exercise of the authority now vested in the Board of Grain Commissioners, at a later date it may be possible to embody the other principle which I think is very much to be preferred.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Wilfrid Laurier: This is a very technical Bill and before it is submitted for a third reading I think it should be reprinted. -


Arthur Meighen: Very well.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Public Works-Brantford new public building-, $25,000.
["I think I can give my hon. friend that information.\nAt six o'clock, the House resumed and then took recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS."]
Charles Marcil: What will be the cost of this new building?


Robert Rogers: 


Charles Marcil: What is the population of Brantford?


Robert Rogers: 30,000.


Charles Marcil: For what purpose is the building to be used?


Robert Rogers: Post office, customs, inland revenue.


Charles Marcil: Does the $225,000 include the site?


Robert Rogers: No, this is for the building alone.
Brussels public building, $22,500.


William Pugsley: What is the population of Brussels?


Robert Rogers: 1,100.


William Pugsley: What is the cost of the building?


Robert Rogers: The contract is not let yet. We will keep the cost within the Estimate.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: What is the estimated cost?


Robert Rogers: About $20,000, outside of the site.
Burford public building, $25,000.


William Pugsley: Where is Burford situated, and what is the population?


Robert Rogers: In Brant. -The population of the district to be served by this public building is 4,000.
Cannington public building, $S,000.


William Pugsley: What is the population?
I thought I had put public buildings in all the important towns in Ontario.


Robert Rogers: You evidently overlooked Cannington. It is a place of over 1,000 population. It is an important town. rMr. Oliver.]
Eganville public building, $10,000.


Edmond Proulx: Is it the intention of the minister to go on with this work this year?


Robert Rogers: This appropriation finished the building.


Edmond Proulx: On which side of the river is this building?


Robert Rogers: On the south side.


Edmond Proulx: Then it is in North Renfrew?


Robert Rogers: I do not know.


Edmond Proulx: The main portion of the village is in South Renfrew.


Mr. G. V. WHITE:: My hon. friend should look at the last census.


William Pugsley: The fact about this building is that the appropriation was put in by me for a building in the constituency of South Renfrew, and the building was switched off to the other side of the river and put into the other constituency after this Government came into power.


Gerald Verner White: I am afraid my hon. friend did not even purchase the site.


William Pugsley: He provided the money.


Gerald Verner White: He simply said that the
building was for Eganville; he did not state on which side of the river it was to be situated.
Exeter public building, $15,000.


Charles Marcil: Where is Exeter situated?


Robert Rogers: In South Huron.
Mr. A1ARCIL : What is the population?


Robert Rogers: 1,792.


Charles Marcil: What is the cost of this
public building?


Robert Rogers: We have not started it
yet; the plans have not been made. We will endeavour to keep it within the estimate. ,


William Pugsley: Many of these items
are re-votes.


Robert Rogers: All re-votes.
Galt drill hall, $30,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the cost of
that?	.	-


Robert Rogers: Fifty-odd thousand
dollars.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Are they at work on it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
APRIL 5, 1915 [DOT]


Charles Marcil: Has the minister a statement of the number of drill halls being erected in Ontario?


Robert Rogers: I have not.


George Ewan McCraney: On Saturday evening
I asked if the minister had an estimate of the votes included here which he intended to go on with this year. He had not such a statement then; has he got it now?


Robert Rogers: That would be very difficult to arrive at, for I am not in a position to know what votes will be expanded during the present year. I cannot give such a statement off-hand, and I doubt if I could give it even if I had time to consider the matter.


Charles Marcil: What is the minister
waiting for in order to arrive at a decision?


Robert Rogers: Partly for the termination of the war.


Charles Marcil: There are certain places
where the work is commenced. Is the minister waiting for more revenue, or what?


Robert Rogers: That is one thing; we are waiting for more revenue.


James Alexander Robb: The question was asked by
the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) about drill halls in Ontario.	I
may, p!erhaps, enlighten him a little.	I
cfhecked over the list, and I find that this year the' minister is providing for 183 public buildings and 41 new drill halls throughout Canada. Of that number 63 public buildings and 15 drill halls are in Ontario.


Robert Rogers: Thank you.


Charles Marcil: Are these drill halls built at the request of th;e Militia Department?


Robert Rogers: Entirely.


Charles Marcil: The Department of Public Works exercises no control-simply complies with the request of the Militia Department?


Robert Rogers: Yes. We have our architects make the plans, and we give some supervision to the cost and size.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does the Militia Department decide on the cost of the drill halls?


Robert Rogers: Largely they do.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then, it would be a good plan, while Estimates such as these are going through, that the Minister of Militia should be here to tell us why so many drill
halls are necessary. I have taken a strong stand on this drill hall question, and I take it yet. In many cases this is a sheer waste of money. I believe we might save 90 per cent of what is spent on drill halls. That has been up in the House before, but, judging by the evidence now before us, the drill hall industry is still a flourishing one in Ontario. So far as I am concerned, I object to it most strenuously. These drill halls are put in places where the soldiers they are intended to accommodate are very few, not at all commensurate with the expense the country is put to in maintaining the drill hall.


Robert Rogers: I am sorry the Minister of Militia is not here at the moment. But my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) will remember that he raised this same point last year and the Estimates were delayed until the arrival of the Minister of Militia, who then gave a statement with respect to the various drill halls. There is no new item for a drill hall in the Estimates this year.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Well, the cure would
likeily be worse than the disease. Better let it go through as it is.


William Pugsley: It is to be borne in
mind by the committee that the item for drill halls in the Estimates of the Minister of Public Works do not include all the drill halls, because in the Militia Department there were a number to be constructed at less than $50,000, if I remember the figures.


Robert Rogers: There is no such item, as I understand it, in the Militia Estimates this year.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: Will the minister please inform us what he intends to do about the vote of $100,000 for new barracks in Montreal ? I have seen that $100,000 voted many, many times, but I have not seen the commencement of the work, nor have I seen any indication of an intention to build a new barracks. What is the use of voting money every year only to keep it locked up in the treasury?
Mr.'ROGERS: We have got the site; we have made that much progress with respect to the barracks at Montreal.


Charles Marcil: I would remind the committee of what happened last Saturday night. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) said that he had appealed strongly for the organization of a militia battalion for the town of Amherst. There is already a county battalion in existence.

But $108,000 is to be spent on >a drill shed in Amherst. I can understand that in a town or city where there are to two or three regiments there must be a drill shed; but in a case like that of Amherst, where the application is merely pending, to spend $108,000 before the regiment is brought into existence is ia rather reckless waste of public money.
Huntsville public building, $20,000.


William Pugsley: That is quite an
amount for Huntsville, is it not? What is its population? It is only a summer resort, as I understand.


Robert Rogers: No; the population according to the last census was 2,358. It is a thriving town. We pass through it on our way to Winnipeg going from Toronto, and judging by its looks it is quite an important town.
Ingersoll drill hall, $25,000.
Mr. ,T. J. HUGHES: When the Estimates of the Department of Militia were under consideration last year, the Minister of Militia said that several of these drill halls were not used for military purposes. I think he made the statement that some of them were not intended to be used for military purposes, but that, in his estimation, they served a very useful purpose in enabling the young people-"youth and beauty" were his words, I think-of the country to gather together there in the evenings and have a social time. The minister seemed to think that these purposes were quite sufficient to justify the construction of buildings of this kind, and that, even if not used for military purposes, they were quite useful along these other lines. It is a question which the. committee might consider at this time, whether under present circumstances money should be voted for these purposes, and whether it is intended to carry out this proposed expenditure. In fact, it was suggested at that time that kissing bees were held in these places.


Robert Rogers: Was that suggested in the committee?


James Joseph Hughes: Somebody in the committee used that expression, and it was not objected to. The Minister of Militia and Defence really gave that impression.


Robert Rogers: I wish my hon. friend would let us know where to find that in Hansard.


James Joseph Hughes: Many things are stated in committee that do not subsequently appear

in Hansard. I remember the occasion quite distinctly, and I will look it up for my hon. friend. It was not put just in that way, but I remember the Minister of Militia making a statement and giving an explanation in regard to the matter, and expressing the opinion that it was quite right.


Edmond Proulx: I remember well that the minister said that these buildings were good places for the young boys and girls to meet, under proper control.
Public Works-London armoury, to enlarge site, $50,000.


William Pugsley: That is a good deal of money for the enlargement of a site.


Robert Rogers: A very comprehensive-plan is being arranged jointly with the city of London, which is a very important centre. This amount is in connection with the share of the Government towards the purchase of an additional site.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Will it be alongside the old site?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Millbrook public building, $10,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the population of Millbrook, and what is the total amount to be expended?	'


Robert Rogers: The population is about 1,000, and the cost of the building will be within the estimate of $20,000.
Milton public building, $20,000.


Mr. HENDERSON:: Milton is the shire town of Halton, and a very important place of 2,000 odd population. The building is almost completed.
Napanee drill hall, $36,000.


Charles Marcil: What will this drill hall
cost?


Robert Rogers: The contract was for $42,500, I believe. We have not spent all of the money.


William Pugsley: What is the population of Napanee?


Robert Rogers: 2,807.


William Pugsley: Does not the Minister think that $61,000 is a good deal for a drill hall for a town of 2,800 people? However, the building is under construction and we cannot do much now to stop it.


Charles Marcil: I presume the minister knows that there is no regiment there, only-one or two companies of a county battalion.


Robert Rogers: This is the headquarters of the 47th Regiment.


Charles Marcil: The minister cannot say how many of them belong to Napanee?


Robert Rogers: It is the headquarters for the regiment, and they take advantage of the drill hall.


Charles Marcil: They meet there once a year, yes. I would have no objection if the regiment used it; but if there are only one or two companies who use a drill hail which costs 161,000, in hard times like this it seems extravagant.
Ottawa-Customs buildings, $600,000.


Charles Marcil: Has the same contractor the contract for the building proper as for the foundation?


Robert Rogers: No, the foundations were built by the Foundation Company of Montreal. The ironwork is being done by the Toronto Structural Steel Company.


Charles Marcil: Who has the contract for the building?


Robert Rogers: Lyall and Company.


Charles Marcil: Will the $600,000 be the total cost?


Robert Rogers: No, we will probably require something next year.


Edmond Proulx: Will that be used only for the Customs Examining Warehouse.


William Pugsley: For Customs Examining Warehouse and for the offices of the whole Department of Customs.


Edmond Proulx: There will be no other department there.


Robert Rogers: That will depend on the amount of room available.
Ottawa-new drill hall, $50,000.


William Pugsley: Has a site been acquired yet?


Robert Rogers: No.
Mr.1 SINCLAIR:	Is that a second drill
hall for Ottawa?


Robert Rogers: They have a very old one here on Cartier square that is about played out.
Ottawa

Parliament	and departmental
buildings-re-wiring, etc., $70,000.


Charles Marcil: Is anything to be done for the library this year?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid not. If we
are delaying -any particular work, I think that will have to stand for the present year.
Own Sound

drill hall, $25,000.


Charles Marcil: How much will this cost?


Robert Rogers: About $50,000.
Palmerston public building, $38,000.


William Pugsley: What is the population of Palmerston?


Robert Rogers: 1,850.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What is this public building to be used for?


Robert Rogers: Post office, customs and inland revenue.


William Pugsley: What will be the total
cost?


Robert Rogers: The contract is for $30,-
770.


William Pugsley: You have gone over that, with last year's expenditure it is $43,000.


Robert Rogers: That includes the fittings and sidewalks, etc.


William Pugsley: That is a pretty expensive building for a place of 1,800 people. I think myself, as the minister said last year, in case of small towns we ought to get public buildings for a great deal
10 p.m. less than is being paid. I have in mind a sm-all village where the minister was induced to put up a public building costing well on to $40,000. What I had in view when I obtained an appropriation for it was a building of one story, built in the colonial style, which would be quite attractive and which probably would have cost $5,000 or $6,000 where the -post office could be kept; but instead of that a large three-story building has been put up with a residence for the caretaker, involving all the expense of heating the entire building and adding very greatly to the cost. Here we have an instance of a village or town Of 1,800 population with a public building costing over $40,000. I think the minister will agree with me that it is desirable to modify the plans and specifications and try and get these buildings at a lower cost.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will no
doubt recollect that when we were on these Estimates a year ago I made the statement th.at we were getting out, standard plans pioviding a building at very moderate cost for a town of 1,500 people, a little better

one for a town of 2,000 or 2,500 people making the cost much less than appears in the Estimates to-day. These plans have now been completed.


Charles Marcil: What is the estimated
cost for the town of the size mentioned by the hon. gentleman?


Robert Rogers: $12,000 to $14,000.


Charles Marcil: In my own constituency
in 1910 $5,000 was voted for a public building in the shire town that was to cost $15,000 and we were very well satisfied. Unfortunately the item was struck out and we are without our public building. If the ' people in my constituency knew that buildings were being erected in towns in Ontario at a cost of $$40,000 or $50,000 they would open their eyes.
Pembrooke-drill hall, $26,000.


Charles Marcil: What will this cost?


Robert Rogers: About $$60,000.


Charles Marcil: Is there a regiment in
Pembroke?


Robert Rogers: I could not say.


Gerald Verner White: There is no regiment in Pembroke at the present time but from Pembroke and the surrounding country we have sent from 125 to 150 men to the front.


Charles Marcil: They will not be using
the drill hall?


Gerald Verner White: When they come back
probably they will, 'the idea is to establish a half company battalion in Pembroke. I have taken the matter up with the minister on several occasions. Pembroke is within 12 miles of Petewawa military camp and it is the most important town in the Ottawa valley. It has a population of 8,000.
Peterborough-new public building, $47,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the cost of this
building?


Robert Rogers: The contract has not yet been let.
Port Arthur-drill hall, $20,000.


Charles Marcil: Has any amount been
fixed for this drill hall?


Robert Rogers: This finishes it.


Charles Marcil: What will the total cost
be there?


Robert Rogers: About $215,000.


Charles Marcil: That is a pretty good
price. How many regiments are stationed at Port Arthur?


Robert Rogers: I do not know. It is a
great military centre.


Charles Marcil: I thought it was a grain
centre.


Robert Rogers: A military centre too.


Charles Marcil: The Government have
spent many millions of dollars at Port Arthur on useful purposes. I hope the money spent in this case is as useful to the people.
Port Arthur-custom house and examining warehouse, $175,000.


William Pugsley: Will this finish?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Preston-public building, $25,000.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Why does that item
appear in the Estimates so often? We voted it in 1913-14 and 1914-15 and now we are voting it again in 1915-16. Why is the building not proceeded with?


Robert Rogers: It is under contract
now.	-


John Howard Sinclair: Will this finish it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: What is the total cost?


Robert Rogers: $44,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY':	How large a place is
Preston?


Robert Rogers: 3,383.


William Pugsley: It is a pretty good town.


Robert Rogers: Yes,


Charles Marcil: What amount is it expected to spend? [DOT]


Robert Rogers: Nothing definite is settled.


William Pugsley: I suppose the site has
been bought?


Robert Rogers: Yes.

Sault Ste. Marie-drill hall, $25,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the cost of this?


Robert Rogers: Nothing has -been done there yet.


Charles Marcil: Is there any estimate of the cost of this drill hall ?


Robert Rogers: No estimate.

(Shelburne-public building, $5,000.


William Pugsley: Will this finish the building?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Smith's Falls public building-enlargement and improvements, $12,000.


William Pugsley: Will that complete it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Steelton-public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: Will that complete?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Stratford - public building - addition to,


Charles Marcil: Has that been commenced yet?


Robert Rogers: Not started yet.
Sudbury-public building, $35,000.


Charles Marcil: What is to be the cost of this building?


Robert Rogers: This finishes it.


Charles Marcil: What is the cost of the building?


Robert Rogers: 


Charles Marcil: What is it to be used for?


Robert Rogers: The usual public building-post office, customs and inland revenue.


Charles Marcil: Inland revenue purposes in a place like Sudbury would not require more than two or three rooms, as there would only be one or two officers there.


Robert Rogers: The customs takes a lot of room.


Charles Marcil: And the rest is given up to the post office?


Robert Rogers: Sudbury is a very important centre.


Charles Marcil: Well, this is a large sum of money.


Robert Rogers: It is an important place.


Charles Marcil: In one of the most populous districts of Westmount the Dominion Government carries on its business in a ramshackle old building not worth more than $300. This is a good Tory stronghold and yet there is no $100,000 building there.


Robert Rogers: The fact of its being a good Tory stronghold would not apply at all.
Toronto-customs examining warehouse, and postal station " A," $500,000.


John Howard Sinclair: What is this going to cost?


Robert Rogers: It is not started yet.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister no idea what they (are going to spend on that building?


Robert Rogers: We have nothing very definite on the subject. It is a very large work and the plans are not prepared as yet. They are under consideration, but nothing has been decided in so far as the total cost is concerned.


John Howard Sinclair: That is very unusual.
I have been in this House for a good many years and it is only recently that we have heard a minister make statements like that. Does he want us to embark upon the erection of a building when he has no plans 'and when he does not know what the ultimate cost is going to be? We are asked to vote $500,000 without knowing what we are going to embark on. Such a proposition cannot be intelligently placed before the committee, and it is something new in imy experience in this House. It is only this year that wo have been ask-ed to pass vote after vote without the minister being able to tell us what the plans are.


John Dowsley Reid: The revenue from the Toronto customs office last, year was $20,000,000 and from the Montreal office, $25,000,000, so that Toronto is the second largest revenue office in the Dominion. It is absolutely necessary to have a fireproof examining warehouse, and one sufficiently large to accommodate the great business done there, so that the buildipg will be an expensive one.


William Pugsley: What will the ultimate cost be? .


John Dowsley Reid: I should think it would cost half a million dollars anyway.


William Pugsley: Has the site been
bought?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, we purchased part of the property from the city of Toronto. The work has not been proceeded with for the reason that the railway companies intend erecting a new station, and as they need to take a piece of the property purchased from the city, we could not get plans prepared until it was decided how much of the property would be taken by the railway companies. That question was settled a short time ago, and the department will be in a position to have the plans prepared immediately.


William Pugsley: There were $170,000
spent last year.


John Dowsley Reid: That was for the site. The
property was purchased from the city at a very reasonble price; a price lower than it would have been sold to an outsider.


Mr. VERVILLE:: I would like it to be
well understood that the working people throughout this country will derive no benefit from the moneys we are now voting because the minister tells us that in respect to the great majority of these buildings the plans have not yet been prepared, and that in some cases the sites have not been purchased. Therefore, the money we are now voting cannot be expended during the present fiscal year to relieve the distress which exists in the country. I do not want the Minister of Public Works and his friends to try to make the working people believe that they are going to derive benefit from any of these works, to provide the money for which we are being taxed so heavily.
Walkervile public building-, $70,000.


William Pugsley: How much will this
building cost?


Robert Rogers: The contract price is $78,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the population of Walkerville?


Robert Rogers: 3,302.
Public buildings, Manitoba-Altamount drill hall, $10,000.


William Pugsley: What is the site of this place?


Robert Rogers: It is not a large place,
but it is the centre for several places im-piediately surrounding, and $10,000 is to be the total cost of the building.
Carberry public building, $27,000.


William Pugsley: I suppose the site has been purchased?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: What is the estimated cost?


Robert Rogers: $21,000.


William Pugsley: Why is the minister
asking for $27,000?


Robert Rogers: The $6,000 is for fittings and improvements. The contract for the building is $21,000.

Carman public building, $10,000.


Frank Oliver: Carman seems to be
getting on a good deal faster than some of the other towns.


Charles Marcil: In what constituency is
it?


Robert Rogers: In Macdonald. It is a large town of 3,000 people.
Elkhorn public building, $19,000.


William Pugsley: Is this building under
way yet?


Robert Rogers: 
Robert Rogers: About 700. It is a very
important town on the international boundary.


Charles Marcil: What amount is proposed to be spent at Gretna?


Robert Rogers: This will be the total
expenditure.


Charles Marcil: $25,000 for 700 people?


John Dowsley Reid: The population has
increased very much since the last census. It is a growing place.


Charles Marcil: What is the building to
be used for?


Robert Rogers: Gretna is a very important centre for customs. It is situated where the railway crosses the boundary, and all the baggage is examined there.


Charles Marcil: Is the minister satisfied
that this money is being properly expended?


Robert Rogers: In this case there is no doubt that it is being properly expended.
Minitonas public building, $10,000.


Frank Oliver: Is any progress being made on this building?


Robert Rogers: It has not been started yet.


Frank Oliver: Has a site been purchased?


Robert Rogers: No.
Morden public building, $3,000.


William Pugsley: There was a vote of
$20,000 last year, and the revote is only $3,000, so that $17,000 must have been spent *last year on this building. What is the total cost?-


Robert Rogers: This $3,000 will finish the building.
Portage la Prairie drill hall, $20,000.


Charles Marcil: How much will this building cost?


Robert Rogers: The plans have not been prepared yet.	'


Charles Marcil: The minister has no idea whether it will cost $50,000 or $75,000 or $100,000?


Robert Rogers: We will niake it as low as we possibly can.


Charles Marcil: Is there any regiment at Portage la Prairie?


Robert Rogers: It is quite a military
centre. I would like my hon. friend to go out West and see some of the towns there.


Charles Marcil: I have no objection to the proper use of money for public buildings, but to put up drill hails in towns where there are only two or three companies is a sheer waste of public money.


Robert Rogers: I can assure my hon.
friend that Portage la Prairie is a very important centre and very deserving from a military point of view.


Charles Marcil: The minister ought to
know whether there is a regiment there or not.


Robert Rogers: I do not know.
Pavers public building, $20,000.


William Pugsley: Where is Rivers situated, and what is its population?


Robert Rogers: It is the divisional point ori the Grand Trunk Pacific, immediately north of Brandon. It is a very important place.
St. James drill hall, $25,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the population?
Mr. ROGERS St. James is quite a large section of the western part of Winnipeg. The population is about 4,500.


Charles Marcil: It is a suburb of Winnipeg?
Mr. ROGERS.:	Yes.
Stonewall public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: What is this building
going to cost?


Robert Rogers: 

Yirden public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: Will this $10,000 complete this building?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Winnipeg barracks, $150,000.


Charles Marcil: Is this a new building?


Robert Rogers: The barracks have not
been started yet. We had a barracks at Winnipeg that this Government sold to the local Government. These barracks are to take the place of the old ones. -


Charles Marcil: What is the estimated
cost?


Robert Rogers: We have not made an
estimate yet.
Winnipeg new drill hall, $170,000.


Charles Marcil: Is this drill hall independent of the barracks?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: What is its total cost?


Robert Rogers: $540,000. This completes
it.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this a second drill
hall?	.


Robert Rogers: This is a large drill hall. There are two others.
Winnipeg new' immigration building, $40,000.


Frank Oliver: Where is this new immigration building situated?


Robert Rogers: We are buying a lot not very far from the present building which was unsuitable on account of its being too close to the tracks, and which is required for a postal station. It was recommended that the old building should be turned into a postal station as it is very convenient for the mails arriving at the station, and that a more desirable location could be had for an immigration building. The new building will be about one block from the old one. It will be at the corner of Maple and Macdonald streets.


Frank Oliver: North of the tracks?


Robert Rogers: South of the tracks.


Frank Oliver: But further east?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: What is the total estimated cost?


Robert Rogers: We have just bought the site; we have not the plans yet. We thought on account of immigration falling off we -would delay the construction of the building.



Winnipeg new drill hall, $170,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Three drill halls for Winnipeg?


Robert Rogers: We are building a
drill hall at St. James, at a suburb of Winnipeg, and we are putting up one in North Winnipeg, which has a very large population composed almost entirely o'f foreigners, a great number of whom have taken t-o military drill in a very creditable manner. We are encouraging them by building this drill hall. It is very desirable under the circumstances.
Air; MARCIL: What is the estimated cost:


Robert Rogers: The cost is $103,000. In North Winnipeg we have one squadron of the 34th Regiment, one battery O.F.A., one troop C.E., eight companies of the 78th Battalion, eight companies of the 90th Battalion, eight companies of the 100th Battalion, eight companies of the 106th Battalion, one section of the Signalling Corps, two sections of the A.S.C., one section of the C.A.V.C., and one corps of Guides.	[DOT]


John Howard Sinclair: Do these belong to the contingent now formed?


Robert Rogers: Some of them do.


George Ewan McCraney: In how many cities have we more than one drill hall?


Robert Rogers: Montreal and Halifax.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there a drill hall already in Winnipeg?


Robert Rogers: No, except the one just completed.


Charles Marcil: There is more in building and enlarging drill halls just now than in immigration buildings.


Robert Rogers: Drill halls are more occupied at the moment.


Charles Marcil: No great immigration is expected this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we are looking for very good immigration this year; the prospects are very good, I understand.
Battleford public building-improvements, $4,500.


George Ewan McCraney: What is this for?


Robert Rogers: This is for an additional 15i by 42 feet, for the purposes of a land office.


Frank Oliver: This is the old Battleford building?


Robert Rogers: Yes.

Canora public building, $10,000.


Frank Oliver: Has anything been done in Canora?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Frank Oliver: No land bought? No plans prepared?


Robert Rogers: No.
Kindersley public building, $20,000.


George Ewan McCraney: Have any plans been made for this building?


Robert Rogers: Not- yet.


George Ewan McCraney: Will the minister spend the money this year?


Robert Rogers: It is just like the others -I will spend it if I can get to it.
Moosejaw customs examining warehouse, $90,000.


Frank Oliver: Is that making progress?


Robert Rogers: We have bought the site.


Frank Oliver: Are you going on with the building? Will progress be made with the building this year?


Robert Rogers: We will have to try it; this building is being pressed very much.
Moosejaw immigration hall, $50,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the progress with that?


Robert Rogers: Not making any progress. I think that can afford to stand.
Moosejaw new public building, $15,000.


Frank Oliver: Is that the new post office?


Robert Rogers: We are putting an addition to the old building. It has been going on for a couple or three years. This finishes the work.
Regina customs examining warehouse, $75,000.


Frank Oliver: Is anything being done on that building?


Robert Rogers: Just the purchase of the site.


Frank Oliver: Will progress be made this year?


Robert Rogers: I think we will have to do it, because the department is pressing.


Frank Oliver: What will be the total cost of the building?


Robert Rogers: A year ago, when the estimate was made, it was about $200,000.

Regina-accommodation for Asst. Receiver General, $75,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the hon. minister
building a separate building for the Assistant Receiver General?	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: Every capital city in the Dominion has an Assistant Receiver General's building except Saskatchewan and Alberta, and they are being provided for.
Rosthern public building, $10,000.
Mr. Mc-CRANEY: Has the site been bought?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


George Ewan McCraney: What is the estimate for this building?


Robert Rogers: The population of the town is 1,172. The cost will come within the range of $15,000 or $20,000.
Saskatoon-customs examining warehouse, $50,000.


George Ewan McCraney: Has the site been bought ?


Robert Rogers: No.


George Ewan McCraney: What is the estimate for the building?


Robert Rogers: About $150,000.
Saskatoon drill hall, $30,000.


George Ewan McCraney: How about the property used for militia purposes and purchased in 1911? I think the Minister of Militia said it was too small and there were some negotiations in progress to exchange it. Can the Minister of Public Works inform us as to that?


Robert Rogers: The negotiations to which my hon. friend refers have taken place in the Militia Department.
Saskatoon new public buillding, $75,000.


George Ewan McCraney: I understand this new public building is to be erected some distance away from the business centre. It is in a part of the city that very few of us pass' as we are going to business. It is two blocks at least from the main street, and the department, I understand, have paid $1,000 a foot for the property. I want to tell the minister that of all the wildcat boom schemes, for some of which we blame the banks, the Government of this country is more blameable in this than in any other that I know of. I am not complaining merely that the minister paid too much; for that would mean that it would be all right if it had been got cheaper. But I think 1294
the property would be most unsuitable for a post office site if the minister got it for nothing. I hope that before he spends more money from this appropriation, he will ask his own friends in Saskatoon about this proposed post office. It is to be at a place that will be inconvenient for many years to come. It should never have been selected, and would never have been selected had not half a dozen of the leading members of the Conservative Association bought adjoining property, and they thought this would help them out. I understand that some money has been expended during this winter; dynamite was used and excavation was made in order to provide labour. I do not object to that, because the necessity is great to relieve some of the destitution. But every man who wanted work had to seek the recommendation of the Conservative candidate, and every man who got work had to undertake to become a member of the Conservative Association. I do not know whether that was under the minister's instruction or not. The earth taken out was put on the bank of the river in a dump. There is' only one further expenditure I would like to see with regard to that property, and that is to take the dump back from where it is and put it into the hole again, and then let the minister get rid of that property as fast as he can.


Robert Rogers: I am surprised at the
statement which my hon. friend makes, especially in view of the fact that-1 myself had the pleasure of visiting Saskatoon, of meeting a large number of people there, and of examining this site, together with others suggested at that time. In my humble judgment, the site selected is one of the very best in the city for the purposes of a post office, and, so far as I have ever heard, is satisfactory to practically the entire population of Saskatoon. In regard to the excavation, we were pressed this year to find employment for many unemployed persons, and we undertook to excavate for the foundation of the proposed building. I am sorry that my hon. friend is opposed to our putting up a public building of this magnitude in an important centre like Saskatoon, but we believe it to be in the public interest, and will, therefore, proceed with the work as rapidly as possible.


George Ewan McCraney: The hon. minister is
not justified in suggesting that I am opposed to the erection of a public building in Saskatoon. I want to see a public building in Saskatoon, but in the place where a building of the kind proposed ought to be.
.	2044

The site selected may be suitable for the construction of an armoury or something of that nature, but for a building which must be in a convenient position for the public, it is not at all suitable.
Athabaska Landing-new public building, $5,000.


Frank Oliver: I notice that the sum ot
$5,000 for this purpose appeared in the Estimates last year, and that it is being revoted this year. I discussed this Estimate with the minister on two previous occasions, and urged the erection of this building. It is a very modest amount, and I take this opportunity of repeating what I have said on former occasions: that there is very great need for accommodation at Athabaska Landing for the Government business there, postal, telegraphic, and land business. This business is very seriously handicapped by the lack of reasonable and suitable accommodation, and I urge upon the minister once more that this expenditure be made, not for the sake of spending the money at all, but to meet the absolute necessity for accommodation at that place.


Robert Rogers: I appreciate what my hon. friend has said, and realize that there is great necessity for & building of this kind at Athabaska Landing. We have just finished the immigration hall there, and, now that that is out of the way, we will endeavour to go on with the other public building.
Bassano public building, $15,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the situation with regard to this building?


Robert Rogers: This completes it.


Frank Oliver: What will be the total cost?


Robert Rogers: 

Calgary new post office site and building,


Charles Marcil: Has an estimate been made of the cost of this work?


Robert Rogers: The cost is estimated at $800,000.


Charles Marcil: What will the drill hall cost?


Robert Rogers: Probably $300,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the size of Calgary now?


Robert Rogers: About 100,000.


Frank Oliver: Where is the new post office site?


Robert Rogers: It is the same site, with an extension of 90 feet.
Castor public building, $16,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the situation with regard to this building?


Robert Rogers: We have the site.


Frank Oliver: Will any progress be made this year?


Robert Rogers: It is like all the rest; we will try.	.
Edmonton post office, addition, $100,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the intention with regard to this addition to the Edmonton post office? I imagine that it will involve the purchase of additional land; has that been taken into consideration?


Robert Rogers: We have had reports and valuations, one respecting an addition to the rear of the present building, and another respecting an addition to the side, but we. have not arrived at any conclusion as to which is the more desirable and the cheaper.


Frank Oliver: What frontage on the side was it the intention to add?


Robert Rogers: My deputy has not that information, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend. The present property has a frontage of 90 feet and a depth of 150 feet. That, of course, does not include the proposed addition.


Frank Oliver: What was the estimated total cost of that addition to the building, exclusive of the land?


Robert Rogers: We have not made that up because we are arranging to get the site and until that is secured an estimate cannot be made. We are proposing the addition simply because of the congested conditions in the Edmonton post office.


Frank Oliver: I suppose that the addition will conform in architectural design to the building already there.


Robert Rogers: Oh yes, that is a very neat building, that is there.
Edmonton customs examining warehouse, $75,000.


Frank Oliver: Is anything being done in regard to that?


Robert Rogers: We have bought the site, at the corner of Third and Pease avenue.


Frank Oliver: Is there any intention of going on this summer?	-


Robert Rogers: I do not know, it depends on how hard I am pressed by the Minister of Customs.


John Dowsley Reid: I will press hard, I promised the member for Edmonton.
Edmonton new drill hall, $200,000.


Frank Oliver: What is expected to be the total cost of this drill hall?


Robert Rogers: 


Frank Oliver: And when will it likely be completed?


Robert Rogers: This year, this amount completes it.
Grande Prairie immigration hall, $3,000.


Frank Oliver: I am requested to ask how it was that this vote was not expended. It will be observed that it was voted last year and no expenditure was made.


Robert Rogers: W7e have prepared plans under this item and have forwarded them to the Interior Department for approval, but they have not been returned yet. I understand there is some question about the location or something of that kind.


Frank Oliver: It is not a large amount, but there is a very large movement of people into that country. If it will ever be wanted it is wanted now.


Robert Rogers: It is undoubtedly a pressing necessity for the place.


Frank Oliver: Is it likely to go forward this summer?


Robert Rogers: Yes, I think it is almost sure to,


Frank Oliver: How many buildings are rented by the Government at Grande Prairie from A. Patterson and John Patterson and what amounts of rent are paid?


Robert Rogers: I am unable to give a very accurate answer. I' am told by the deputy that we rent the post office, but I do not know any more at the moment. I will be very glad to look up the information.
High River public building, $20,000.


Frank Oliver: Is that going forward?


Robert Rogers: The plans are prepared,
but we have not started the work yet.


Frank Oliver: Is the site purchased?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Macleod public building, $25,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the position there?


Robert Rogers: There is difficulty about the site; the site is not settled.
Vegreville public building, $25,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the position there?


Robert Rogers: We have the site.


Frank Oliver: Will anything be done this summer?	.


Robert Rogers: We will try. The plans are partly prepared.
Vermilion public building, $20,000,


Frank Oliver: I would ask the same questions.
Mr. ROGERS We have the site and the plans, but nothing further has been done. I would not to like to say whether it will go forward this summer.
Wainwright public building, $20,000.


Frank Oliver: I would make the same
inquiry.


Robert Rogers: We have the plans, we
have the site and are ready to call for tenders in that case. It will likely go forward this summer.
Kamloops drill hall, $29,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the situation there?


Robert Rogers: This is required for the
erection of a drill hall situated
11 p.m. at the corner of Columbia street and Sixth avenue, 100 feet by 250 feet.
Victoria new drill hall, $150,000.


Charles Marcil: * What will this cost?


Robert Rogers: About $300,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Is that a second drill
hall in Victoria?


Robert Rogers: No, this is the first one.
Victoria observatory, $75,000.


Frank Oliver: What will be the total cost of the observatory and the land?


Robert Rogers: The total cost will be $75,000.


Frank Oliver: There is a vote of $75,000 for the present year and there was a vote of $15,000 for the past year.


Robert Rogers: It was started with a vote of $15,000.


Frank Oliver: $75,000 and $15,000 make $90,000.


Robert Rogers: That must be an error. My deputy says that the $45,000 was for the meteorological part of it, another building altogether.


Frank Oliver: I have been trying to track down the cost- of this observatory and the telescope.


Robert Rogers: $55,000 will be spent on the dome and building.


Frank Oliver: I understood from the Minister of the Interior-of course I was mistaken-that the total cost would be $90,000 for the telescope and building. I find from the Minister of Public Works that the cost is somewhere between $75,000 and $90,000 which does not include any part of the instruments or the fittings, I suppose?


Robert Rogers: Just the dome. It includes $12,000 for the residence that we are not building this year.


Frank Oliver: So that we are investing $90,000 under the Public Works Estimates and whatever we invested under the Interior Department Estimates for the instrument is additional?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: Before passing from the British -Columbia items, would the minister state what is to be the cost of the detention building at Vancouver?


Robert Rogers: The total cost is $343,000.


William Pugsley: Why is a new building necessary? There was a detention building erected at Vancouver not very long ago and I remember a good deal of criticism from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House as to the needless expense of that building. Apparently that building is being abandoned and a new one is being erected at a cost three or four times as much as that one cost.


Robert Rogers: I confess that when I was there a year ago I was very much surprised at this old building, I regarded it as a very poor building and I thought it was not in keeping with the importance of a city such as Vancouver.


William Pugsley: There is not a large immigration at Vancouver from the sea. It was argued that no very great accommodation was required for the purpose of detaining immigrants at that city.


Robert Rogers: Things have changed very much in the last three or four years.


William Pugsley: What department has pressed for this new building? .


Robert Rogers: The immigration department.


William Pugsley: Has the minister any report?


Robert Rogers: I do not have it here.
Mr. PUGSiLEY: Perhaps the minister would kindly produce that because I remember distinctly that my department was quite severely criticised toy reason of the erection of what was alleged to toe too expensive a building although the minister says that it is a very cheap building compared with -the -magnificent building he is now erecting.


Mr. STEVENS:: I t.iink the hon. gentleman is mistaken, because the building now occupied as an immigration shed is a part of the Canadian Pacific freight shed, belongs to the Canadian Pacific Railway and is used by the Government under sufferance simply as a convenience. It is convenient to the landing place of the ships. The hon. gentleman apparently refers to the criticism of some other building.


William Pugsley: I might have had another building in mind,but I feel quite sure that it was the detention building. It was not a very expensive one.


Robert Rogers: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not be criticised for the building I saw there.


William Pugsley: Some of the members
from British Columbia on the other side of the House criticised the expenditure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly it was at Victoria, not at Vancouver. The Government never owned an immigration, building *n Vancouver.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) may be right; it may have been at Victoria.


Frank Oliver: While the figures for
public buildings of the four western provinces are quite imposing, when the re-votes are deducted they are not quite so imposing. I would call the attention of the minister to these figures:
Public buildings.	Vote. Revote.
Manitoba	$1,850,000	$752,500Saskatchewan ...	806,500	711,500Alberta	
921,000	638,000British Columbia. 1,546,500	995,500
While the figures are quite imposing, the actual fexpenditure is not nearly so im-

posing; in fact, it is only about 25 per cent of the total vote.


Robert Rogers: I would like to draw my hon. friend's attention, to the fact that the Estimates of which these are rhvotes were only passed by this House in June of last y'ear, and the Department of Public Works did not have a very great opportunity of carrying out these works before Lie first of August. From that time on, as my hon. friend is well aware, we have not been pressing, as we previously did, the construction of public buildings g'enerally. The same thing applies to all the other provinces.


William Pugsley: The minister might also call our attention to the fact that instead of bringing his Estimates on earlier so that they could be passed and, if it suited the convenience of, His Royal Highness assent-to, he could get on with the work, the minister,. with his usual adroitness, waits until we are wearied out at the last of the session-
Mr. ROGERS; I never credited my hon. friend with being wearied.
Mr. PUGSLElT:	-when we have not
the courage nor the energy to examine into these Estimates. There is a good deal o clevern'ess shown in that; but after all the minister should bring down his estimates early in the session and get to work expeditiously on them.


John Dowsley Reid: If I remember aright, when my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) was minister he always brought down his Estimates at the end of the session.


William Pugsley: No. Does not the Minister of Customs remember how he used to fight me from the beginning to end of the session, day after day, and night after night.


Robert Rogers: We will take advantage of an early session next year to bring down the Estimates.


John Howard Sinclair: The total amount asked for public works in 1912-13 was $7,601,800, and the total number asked for this year is $14,891,300, so that the increase in the past few years is alarming. The erection of public buildings is not a productive expenditure, and with a decreasing revenue it shows gross extravagance to ask close on fifteen million dollars, in a year like this when the Government finds it necessary to increase the postage, and to tax patent medicines, 'and to levy unusual taxes on
the people. I venture to say that the erection of buildings represented by three-fourths of this fifteen million dollars could be delayed, without any loss to the country. It is a nice thing to have public buildings when you can afford it, and the total amount asked for this year is to have them, but I do not think we can afford these public buildings just now. The minister will find it difficult to defend his policy.


Robert Rogers: The principal expenditure has been on the harbours and rivers.
Experimental Farms-new buildings and improvements; tobacco-curing station, renewals and repairs, etc., in connection with existing buildings, fences, etc., $150,000.


William Pugsley: How much of this is to be expended on the so-called experimental farm near Fredericton?
JJr. ROGERS: $5,858.


William Pugsley: I say "so-called" because I am told the farm is utterly unadapted for the purposes for which it was purchased.


Robert Rogers: You will have to take that up with the Minister of Agriculture.
Ottawa public buildings-repairs, including ventilation and lighting, furniture, etc., $415,000.


Edmond Proulx: I hope that no more furniture will be bought for the ministers' offices, because, judging by tbe Auditor General's Report, enough was bought last year. I referred to this question last Saturday night.


Robert Rogers: You only spoke of two last Saturday night.


Edmond Proulx: I referred particularly to two, but there was new furniture for all the ministers' offices, and I hope there will not he any more purchased.


John Dowsley Reid: There was none purchased for my office.


Edmond Proulx: You have very good furniture there already.
Dominion public buildings-rents, $675,000.


William Pugsley: How much is being paid by the Government for rental in the city of Ottawa?


Robert Rogers: I shall be glad to get that information for the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: It has been stated by the minister, in reply to a question, that $44,000 per annum is paid by the Govern-

ment for the rental of a portion of the Rea building. Is that entirely for the accommodation of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Naval Service?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: So that the very large sum of |44,000 per annum is paid as rental for the. accommodation simply of one department.


Robert Rogers: There are really two
departments.


William Pugsley: There are two departments, but under the one minister. That $44,000 per year amounts to 4-4 per cent on a capitalization of $1,000,000, and does not the minister think it is an enormous rental to pay?


Robert Rogers: The space rented in the Rea building for the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of Naval Service is rented at the lowest price we have paid in the city of Ottawa for years.


William Pugsley: In considering whether rent is low or not, one must have regard to the part of a building which is occupied. I understand these are three flats which are above the store of the A. E. Rea Company, Limited, so that whether the rent is cheaper than the rent paid in other places depends somewhat upon the relative value of the upper stories as compared with the low'er stories of the building.


Robert Rogers: My deputy minister informs me that all the space is used on the three flats.


William Pugsley: When I was minister, there seemed to be plenty of accommodation for the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of Naval Service in The western block. I realized, of course, that some additional accommodation may be needed in the near future; but we were all looking forward to the erection of new public buildings. I was astonished that it was found necessary to go outside and pay such large rents in order to give that accommodation which only three years ago was found in the western block for the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of the Naval Service. I do not understand why the demand should grow so suddenly that it is found necessary to go to this large additional expenditure.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend appears to have overlooked the fact that, while the Marine and Fisheries Department was in

the western block, it had four or five other offices, in other parts of the city of Ottawa, in the Corry building on Sussex street, the Birks building and the Canadian building, all of which have been vacated by that department.


William Pugsley: Has the Canadian building been vacated?


Robert Rogers: The tidal service is still there.


William Pugsley: The Canadian building is still being occupied by the Government and the rent is still being paid by the Government?


Robert Rogers: We assembled the whole department under the one roof.


William Pugsley: What department is
occupying the buildings vacated by the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


Robert Rogers: The Customs Department in the western block; the Printing Bureau took the Sussex street block, and the Department of the Interior took the Canadian building. The Corry building has been given up.


William Pugsley: Then, with the exception of the Corry building, all the other buildings rented three years ago are still occupied by departments of the Government?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: Take the Customs Department. There seemed to be plenty of room in the western block for that department. I never heard there was any overcrowding, and there has not been any large increase in the number of clerks to cause . them to want one more room. I really find it difficult to believe that it has become necessary to rent all these additional buildings during the last three years.


John Dowsley Reid: Some of the branches of the Customs Department were in outside buildings. I think the cheque branch and part of the statistics branch - were moved into the western block when the Department of Marine and Fisheries vacated it. It is more convenient to have the cheque branch and the statistics branch, in fact that Department of Customs generally altogether. The statistics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce also took part of the offices vacated by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the western block.


William Pugsley: I understand it is more convenient to have larger accommodation so

that the clerks can move around without being too near each other, but the expenditure to which the Public Works Department has gone during the last three years is simply appalling.


Robert Rogers: You mean with regard to rent; you do not mean our department.


William Pugsley: I mean the general expenditure. One expenditure is in harmony with another. It is a case of increasing expenditure all around. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has drawn attention to it. I would like the Minister of Customs to take for a moment the figures of the last three years. It was he who told the people of St. John that if they wanted larger accommodation the expenditure of more millions of dollars, all they had to do was to come to the Customs Department and get all the money they wanted. H is such .extravagance as that, which he has been holding out to -his colleague the Minister of Public Works, that has led him -astray and kept him from keeping a tight rein on expenditure. In the three years ended the 31st of March, 1912, the total expenditure -on account of -both capital and income, of the Department of Public Works, amounted to $36,000,000, whereas in the three years ended the 31-st of March, 1915, taking the Estimates of last year as the basis of expenditure, the total expenditure amounted to $86,000,000, a difference very close to $50,000,000.


John Hampden Burnham: How many millions
vould a fleet have cost?


William Pugsley: If we had had -a fleet to-day of light cruisers iand d-estroyers, no doubt they would have been able _ten times over to- have paid what they would have cost, in capturing ships of the enemy while this war was on, and those vessels sailing upon the Atlantic.


John Hampden Burnham: They would have been -a floating liability.


William Pugsley: Does not -the Minister of Customs think those figures -are calculated to startle the public of this country? Yet, with all this enormous expenditure the Minister of Customs rejoices that he h-as been able to get more accommodation. The Minister of Marine -and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) is not here to-night; but it , certainly 'seems astonishing that to give accommodation to one department alone the enormous -rent of $44,000 i-s being paid for three upper stories of a building, the lower stories of which are occupied as a
departmental stor-e. Those upper ^ stories, of course, would not be -necessary for the business of -a departmental store, and it must be very profitable to the owners of this building to have them rented. I should think $1,000,000 or $1,100,000 would be a very good price for the whole building. As a matter of fact, three or four years ago $900,000 was regarded as a good price for that building, and I believe -the owners of the building said that they would be willing to sell it to the Government at that price.


John Dowsley Reid: That was before they put the other three stories on top.


William Pugsley: There w-eTe not three new stories.


John Dowsley Reid: Two or three.


William Pugsley: I think only one.


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy minister informs me that two new stories were built.


William Pugsley: Two extra -stories on a building of that size would not -cost a very large amount of money. I venture to say th-a-t they would not cost over $50,000 or $100,000.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Did the A. E. Rea Company, Limited, no-t. build an -addition to the building as well as build the two new stories?


William Pugsley: If they did, that would be for the benefit of the business as well.


John Dowsley Reid: They have built the north end from the ground up.


William Cameron Edwards: That would materially affect your calculations.


William Pugsley: It would to that extent; but you can put up -a very good addition to a building -at from $50,000 to $100,000. It does strike me as a very large rental.


Charles Marcil: Do officials of the Canadian
Navy occupy this building?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Charles Marcil: How many officers employed in the Canadian Navy are in -this building?


Robert Rogers: The hon. member will have to get that information from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The Minister of Customs (Mt. J. D. Reid), I notice, is in his place. About three weeks ago he promised to bring down information about the rental of a building for his department in North Syd-

ney. I called attention to the factt that he had refused to do business directly with the owner of the building who would have rented it for $15 a month, and thought it necessary to bring in a middleman and give him twice the money. The minister said he could not believe that such a transaction had taken place. But I put a question on the Order Paper since, and the answer confirms what I said. The middleman's name is given and double the amount of the rent at which the owner would have rented the building. Perhaps the minister has looked into my statement and found it to be correct.
Mr. J.D.REID: The rental of the building in North Sydney was arranged by officials of the department. I inquired of thenr, and they tell me that the rental is fair. If I remember rightly, part of he building is occupied by the person from whom we have rented it, and we have only part of it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is what I said.


John Dowsley Reid: We could not deal with the owner if another person had the whole building under rental. I do not know about the matter, but I have confidence in the officials that they would secure, the place at a reasonable rental.. If there is any further information in the department I will bring it down.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a small matter but the minister is not going to slide out of it a second time. There is no question about the facts. The owner of the building told me personally that he would have been glad to rent the building to the Customs Department at $15 a month and tried to do so, but they would not do business with him-that is the straight talk. But a stranger who had nothing to do with the building came and said: I will rent the building from you for three years. The owner rented it to him at $15 a month, and he immediately turned it over to the department at $30 a month. Pure graft on a small scale.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a strange thing, if he wanted to rent the building to the Department of Customs, that he would not write to the department or to myself as minister. It is all very well for a man to make a statement after the building is rented; he can make any kind of a statement then, when it is too late. The Commissioner of Customs tells me that the building was rented at a fair and reasonable rate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The party who rented it from the owner had no use for the building except to rent it again, The owner tried

to do business with the department before the third man came in, but they would not do business with him, but did rent it from the other party at double the price.


John Dowsley Reid: To what officer did he want to rent it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand it was
Mr. Cameron, the appraiser, who wanted a room.


John Dowsley Reid: The appraiser would have nothing to do with renting a building. The collector is the one to be seen in such a matter. Why did not he go to the collector, who is an appointee of the hon. member himself.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It does not make any difference; there are the facts. There is no mistake about it.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman says he has the facts. Will he let us know who is the officer of the Government who could have rented this place at $15? If the hon. gentleman will let us know, we will make inquiries.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The building is owned by Mr. Charles Millar, who told me himself what I have stated. I did not solicit the information, and know nothing about it of my owrn knowledge. He told me that he wanted to rent the building to the Government, but they would not do business with him.


Robert Laird Borden: It is very important to know what officer of the Government undertook to do that; and now that my hon. friend has gone so far with it, I think it is his duty to let us know what officer of the Government declined to take this place at $15 a month, and afterwards rented it from another party at $30 a month.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: The same
thing happened in Montreal, in the case of a building in Maisonneuve occupied as a post office. It is No. 116 Letourneau street. The building is owned by a Madame De Beliefeuille,- who is a tenant of my own. The building was rented by a man at $15 a month, and he received from the Government $30 a month. She heard about it and put in a claim for the rental that the other party had been receiving . 1 have the name of the man in my office,, and I will give it to you.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is the
officer?


Médéric Martin: I have not the name of
the man here, but I have it at home.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman will give us the names of officers conducting business in that way, we will attend to it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks it my business to inquire for the department into the rental of buildings. But that is a matter entirely within the department itself. They can find out who made the bargain; and I have not the means of doing so.


Robert Laird Borden: The only reason I made the inquiry was that the hon. gentleman said that he was seized of the facts. He made the statement, as I understood him, that some officer of the Government had declined to do business in respect of this building at $15 a month and had afterwards done business at $30 a month under different conditions. If that is true, very strict inquiry should be made into it. I asked the name of the officer because I understood the hon. gentleman knew it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not. I am perfectly honest in the matter. I would give the name of the party who negotiated the business, but I do not know it. I am relying on the statement made to me by the owner of thp building; and I am supported by the statement which the minister himself brought down showing that the Government is paying $30 a month for the building, while the owner says he is receiving $15.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Advocate, widening and repairing wharf, $2,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Some hon. gentlemen who are not present this evening may wish to ask some questions with regard to these items.


Robert Rogers: Any hon. gentleman on the other side may ask any question he likes while these Estimates are under consideration.


William Pugsley: It may be well to have it understood that under items affecting New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, we may ask as to Nova Scotia, and vice versa.


Robert Rogers: Certainly.


William Pugsley: As to the dredging plant at Fort Lawrence in Nova Scotia; I should like the minister to let me know later, if he has not the information before him, what that plant is and what it cost the Government.
Cape Dauphin-boat harbour, $1,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a sort of breakwater, I understand, to afford shelter to boats. Has anything been done in connection with it, or is it the intention of the minister to go on with it during the coming summer?


Robert Rogers: Nothing has been done so far. The estimated cost of the whole work is about $8,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was rather surprised to find that such a small amount had been put in for this work.


Robert Rogers: It is a revote from last year.
Cole harbour-wharf, $8,300.


John Howard Sinclair: This work was first projected by the late Government in 1911, and it has appeared in the Estimates each year ever since. I should like to know what the minister intends to do with regard to it. Does he intend to go ahead with the work, or is it put in the Estimates to tantalize the people? This is the only item of expenditure in my constituency, which has a seacoast of 150 miles. A good jmany small improvements, along the coast, were asked for by the fishermen, and were all refused by the minister. Some of the most important items were struck out of the Estimates as provided in 1911, including an extension to the New Harbour breakwater, which was a very important local work. . New Harbour is an exposed harbour on the Atlantic coast. It was with great difficulty that the fishing population in that vicinity carried on their business at all, and when the breakwater was built about ten years ago it was so useful that a village grew up there and the place became a flourishing fishing station. The boats became so numerous that the shelter constructed at that time was not ' sufficient, and the late Government, acting upon the advice of the chief engineer, decided to extend the breakwater so as to give shelter to the increasing number of boats operating in that vicinity. The present minister, for some reason which I do not understand, took this $10,000 out of the Estimates, and it has not been put in since. This is an important matter to the people of that vicinity.


Robert Rogers: I am not acquainted with all the details of the matters to which my hon. friend has referred, but so far as this vote is concerned, it is the intention of the department to go on with the work as soon

as possible. There has been some difficulty in the way of securing a proper title, by reason of the fact that it has to be obtained from certain heirs of an estate. It is largely owing to this condition that the delay has occurred.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a small expenditure; what is that for?


Robert Rogers: Fur a survey.


John Howard Sinclair: Have any proceedings been taken to settle the title?


Robert Rogers: We have been hoping from time to time to succeed in getting it, and if we do not get it in the near future, we propose to expropriate.
Cribbin's point-new wharf and removal of old pier, 517,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister explain this item?


Robert Rogers: It is a revote of $17,000, required for the purpose of strengthening the wharf with native and creosote timber and brickwork, removing the old pier and building a new retaining wall. Estimated cost, $17,000.


John Howard Sinclair: How often has that been revoted?


Robert Rogers: I could not say; I have only the record here that it was revoted last year.


John Howard Sinclair: Will it be built this year?


Robert Rogers: I really would not like to assure my hon. friend that it will be. We will try if we possibly can get to it. It seems to be a pressing work.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no difficulty about the site there?


Robert Rogers: There is nothing in the memorandum about any difficulty.


John Howard Sinclair: Why is my hon. friend doubtful about getting to it?


Robert Rogers: It will depend on our being able to get to it. My hon. friend is anxious that we should cut down the expenditure and we are anxious to please him as far as we can.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not anxious to cut down this expenditure.
East River-improvements, $100,000.


John Howard Sinclair: That is in Pictou?


Robert Rogers: Yes, that is under contract and this is to complete it.


John Howard Sinclair: You hope to get it finished this year?


Robert Rogers: They are at work there now.
B'rench River-extension of breakwater pier,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Which French river is
that?


Robert Rogers: This is in Victoria county.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The wharf at French
river is new. Is it the intention of the minister to extend it and make it longer?


Robert Rogers: This is towards the construction of an extension of 100 feet, and the cost is placed at $4,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The first section of the breakwater or wharf is only a year or so old. Can the minister tell what depth of water they will have at the outer end of the extension?	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: This is to increase the depth from four to nine feet at low water.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sorry that it is not being extended a little farther. It will be of no service to increase it to that depth, except as a shelter. The only boat which can give a service there has a draft of 12 feet. If it could be extended out to a depth of 12 feet it would be very much more serviceable.


Robert Rogers: We will try to extend
that further another year.


John Howard Sinclair: It is not an isolated
case. The minister built a wharf in my constituency for a boat to call at, but the depth of water is not enough for the boat to call.


Robert Rogers: We will have to try and correct that.
Inverness-harbour improvements, $15,000.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: What was done here last year?


Robert Rogers: Nothing was done here
last year.


Alexander William Chisholm: There was some expenditure last year. It may have been taken out of the general vote.


Robert Rogers: That may be. This is
simply a revote of $15,000 voted last year.


Alexander William Chisholm: How much was lexpended there the year before last?


Robert Rogers: I have not that information here), but I can get it from the department.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister has no
knowledge of the work done there a few years ago and how it has stood the storms and whether itr is in a satisfactory condition now. I would suggest that he ascertain these facts and also how
12 m. the money has been expended.
Thehe was considerable money expended on the work, and very substantial work was done up to two years ago. Since then my information is that the work has been rather slipshod, and I would suggest that the minister look into it and see just what is being done. Is it the intention to spend this money this year?


Robert Rogers: We will have it looked
into and if it is very pressing we will be glad to give it as favourable consideration as possible, along with other public works.


Alexander William Chisholm: It is very pressing, I can assure the minister. This is a work which was commenced four or five years ago and which is very important.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, April 6, 1915.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. D. C. ROSS (West Middlesex):: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question in reference to the compensation to be paid in respect of animals, infected with foot and mouth disease which may be destroyed. As the Prime Minister has told us, the old Compensation Act was passed nine or ten years ago, and the rate of compensation stipulated for in that Act is not commensurate with the price of cattle at the present time. If this disease should spread in Ontario the graziers and farmers will consequently not receive proper compensation for slaughtered animals. In my opinion the Government should this session amend the Act, so that those whose cattle are destroyed in the public interest may be adequately recompensed.


Martin Burrell: I would prefer if my hon. friend would raise the question when my Estimates come up, but in the meantime I may say that there is no Act dealing with the foot and mouth disease.


Duncan Campbell Ross: I understand that.


Martin Burrell: If the disease should spread in this country, and I do not think it likely, speaking off-hand, I do not think the Act would govern; I think we should have to deal with it in a different manner. I will get the information later and let my hon. friend know.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 74, to amend the Criminal Code.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I hardly think that the Bill is improved by the amendments made by the Senate, but nevertheless I am prepared to accept them. Section 1 a's it left the House made it an indictable offence to incite or assist any subject of any foreign state or country at war with His Majesty fo leave Canada, and section 1 contained these words:
If the circumstances of the case do not exclude the possibility that assistance to the enemy is an intended object in his so leaving Canada, and-if such inciting or assisting do not amount to treason.	-
The Senate struck out these words and inserted in lieu thereof:
Without the consent of the Crown, unless the person accused shall prove that assistance to the enemy was not intended, and providing, that such inciting or assisting does not amount to treason.
The difference is not very material. Another amendment consists simply in modifying the provisions constituting infringement of copyright a criminal offence, by making it applicable only in express terms to copyrights which subsist in Canada. I think in any event without these words our law could only apply to Canada. I move that the amendments be concurred in.
Amendments concurred in.
-SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 121, to amend the Supreme Court Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-appeal in election cases, where appeal is given by local legislature:


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill is introduced in view of the fact that the province of Manitoba, by its Controverted Elections Act of 1913, has provided that there shall he an appeal in controverted election cases to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Provincial Legislature, of course, has no

power to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of Canada, which is a Dominion court; but, inasmuch as by its legislation the legislature of that province has in effect declared that it is desirable that there should be an appeal, and so far as is in its power has created that appeal, it would seem that this Parliament, which alone has power to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear and determine such an appeal, should give that jurisdiction. This legislation creates no appeal of itself; it merely confers upon the Supreme Court of Canada jurisdiction to hear and determine such appeals, wherever a Provincial Legislature determines that such an appeal is desirable and ought to be had.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no intention of opposing this legislation; but in my opinion it is rather dangerous. It was only yesterday that we had a long discussion upon the difficulty of getting a final decision in controverted election cases, and we are this session in this Parliament passing new legislation to expedite as much as possible the bearing and determining of such cases under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. If I have a fault to find with our judicial system, it is that in the province to which my hon. friend and I belong there is an appeal in such cases to the Supreme Court or Canada. In Manitoba there is an appeal from the trial judge to the Court of King's Bench sitting as a court of review, and another appeal from that court to the Court of Appeal. Under this legislation there would be still another appeal; so that I think we are not conferring a favour upon the province of Manitoba by passing this legislation. I understand that it is the wish of- the legislature of Manitoba; but, even so, I would not be disposed to mix up federal matters with provincial matters. If I had an amendment to move to this legislation, I would move that provincial laws should be administered by provincial courts, and federal laws by federal courts. My hon. friend has, however, thought differently, and I merely wish to call his attention to the point I have mentioned, which I believe he will find worthy of consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In so far as the desirability of creating such an .appeal is concerned, I share in very large measure, if not entirely, the views which the right hon. gentleman has just expressed. If it -were a matter of considering the legislation of the legislature of the province of Manitoba in this regard, I would probably concur in

the view that he has expressed, and I think there is also very much to be said for the view that we should have these matters speedily settled. The reason which leads me to propose this legislation is that it seems to me that questions concerning the composition of the legislature of a province are in a peculiar manner questions which that legislature itself should determine, and it is therefore a fair thing that, when the legislature of a province has itself determined that it is desirable that upon questions concerning controverted elections there should be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, we should make it possible for that to be carried out. In fact, the motive that leads me to move this legislation is the recognition which I think ought to be given to the absolute right of the legislature of a province itseslf to determine the, best process or means by which elections to that legislature should be determined.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Have any of the provinces asked for this legislation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The province of Manitoba has legislated providing for such an appeal, and has, following upon that, asked that we make it possible for such an appeal to be entertained. As I said at the outset, this legislation does not give an appeal; it merely provides that, where the legislature of a province sees proper to create such a right# of appeal, then the Supreme Court of Canada shall have jurisdiction to hear that appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I concur entirely in the observations of the right hon. gentleman opposite in regard to this matter. I do not believe in an appeal from the supreme court of a province to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding controverted elections in that province, and I never have done so. From a logical standpoint, such an * appeal should not be entertained, because the legislature itself should determine who should sit in the legislature. It has delegated that power to the supreme court of the province, and I believe no power beyond the territorial limits of that province should in reason have a right to determine or consider who shall sit in its legislature. In the province of Alberta, *where we have legislation by which an election petition is regarded as a suit in a court, an attempt was made two years ago to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; but that court rejected

it, saying it was outside of its jurisdiction. This will enable provincial appeals to be entertained, with the resultant delay in having an appeal heard so many miles away from the place where the case arose; but other provinces have this right and provide for it in their Controverted Election Acts, so that if we desire to have the law uniform I suppose we must pass this legislation, but I am very strongly opposed to the principle of it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member thinks that this legislation would give the right to appeal a case such as is referred to from the province of Alberta, I venture to think his idea is unfounded, because we have carefully provided that the jurisdiction to hlear and determine shall exist only where the legislature has given an appeal from the provincial courts in a proceeding under any provincial Controverted Elections Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Unless the Legislature of Alberta has expressly provided that there should be an appeal in election cases, this legislation will not give an appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But in the province they say an election case shall be treated as a case in the Supreme Court, and so, inferentially, this legislation may be construed to authorize an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: We are simply giving effect to the desire of the Legislature of Manitoba, which is a very respectable reason. I do not know the circumstances which have led the Legislature of Manitoba to enact this legislation, but I should be very much surprised if that reason were not that they were dissatisfied with some decision of the court. That is always the case; a certain law is passed to affect a certain case, and we violate the principle which should be inviolate-that provincial laws shall be interpreted by provincial courts and federal laws by federal courts. This section reads:
The Supreme Court of Canada shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal from the judgment of any provincial court in any proceeding under any provincial controverted election Act, whereby such an appeal is given.
Are these words sufficient to restrict the appeal to those cases in which appeal is allowed under provincial legislation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think so. That was the intention in adopting that wording. I may say that the wording of the original draft did not make reference to a Controverted Elections Act in express terms. For the purpose of making it quite clear that we were merely conferring power to hear and determine where thle Controverted Election Act of the province allows an appeal, I adopted this wording. If there is any wording that will make it clearer I shall be glad to adopt it.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
SUPPLY.	[DOT]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Civil Government-Department of Agriculture-salaries, $439,637.50.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: There is an increase here of $26,000; how does that arise?


Martin Burrell: There are no -special increases in our Civil Service vote-only the statutory increases and the few additions that naturally come with the increase of the work.


Wilfrid Laurier: Last year the hon. minister had 319 employees in his department, and this year he is making provision foT 335, an increase of 16.


Martin Burrell: A good many increases are necessitated by the fact that, whereas we have been in the habit of engaging a great many temporary employees, which is often very unsatisfactory, we are arranging to put on the permanent list those that we know we shall require permanently. Most of the classes are exactly the same as last year.


Wilfrid Laurier: There may be a good reason for the increase; but the hon. minister rather boasted that there were no increases in his department, and this -takes aw-ay from his claim. This vote for salftfies is increased from $413,637.50 last year to $439,637.50 this year, an increase of $26,000.


Martin Burrell: There are no increases, the right hon. gentleman will -see, down to the second division, subdivision B. In that subdivision we have an increase of 12. The first of these appointments is that of Mr. Fixter, who is connected with the Central Experimental Farm. He has been hitherto in the outside service. As nearly all the employees of the Central Experi-

mental Farm are in the permanent inside service, it was thought desirable that Mr.	Fixter also should be
transferred	to the inside service.
Provision has been made for a stenographer for the poultry branch, French and English stenographers for the translation office, another clerk for the meat and canned foods office, a clerk for the dairying branch, and another patent examiner. Provision is made also for five vacancies. As my right hon. friend knows, the work of the Agricultural Department cannot expand as it has been expanding without a natural increase in the clerical staff. We have kept it down as much as possible consistent with the expansion of the work of the department.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will vote the money without further discussion if you will promise to provide us with a better crop this year than we had last year.
Arts and Agriculture-Experimental farms- maintenance of central farm and establishing and maintaining of additional branch stations, $785,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has my hon. friend made provision for an experimental farm in the clay belt district of the Transcontinental railway?


Martin Burrell: 
Wilfrid Laurier: So far as it goes, the work may be useful, but I suggest to my hon. friend that it would be advisable to establish an experimental farm in this northern district as soon as possible.
[Mr. Burrell.)
Climate has a great deal to do with the nature of soil; I understand that the soil is extremely fertile in that district. I have seen vegetables which were grown in that country and which were not surpassed by anything I have seen anywhere. The crop last year was not favourable, for some reason. There is no question about the fact that it would be advisable to have an experimental farm there in order to demonstrate the best method of cultivating that particular soil.


Martin Burrell: I can assure my hon.
friend that that is my desire; our efforts along that line are in that direction.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many
prisoners are there in the detention camps there?


Martin Burrell: I cannot give my right hon. friend the exact number; I think there are some hundreds in each. That does not come under this department, except in so far as we are making suggestions as to the direction of the work in order to make it useful from the agricultural standpoint.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: 
Martin Burrell: I appreciate what my hon. friend said, and if there is anything in his criticism which is based on fact, I need hardly assure him that I shall have it looked into and remedied, I do not need to assure the committee or my hon. friend that the desire of myself and of the department is to put this work in such shape as to make it of most benefit, from a practical standpoint, to the farmers of the country. Our poultry work during the last two or three years has enormously expanded, to the general satisfaction, I think, of the practical poultrymen of the country. As to the officers.whom we have employed in connection with the Central Experimental Farm, I think I ought to reply to my hon. friend by pointing out that in Mr. Elford, the chief of the poultry division, the poultrymen of Canada have one of the best-posted men in the whole country. Mr. Fortier, who has been there a good many years, is a thoroughly practical man, as is Mr. Robertson, who is thoroughly well acquainted with all phases of poultry work in Canada. If there is anything that these officers are not doing that they should do to promote the special interest of the poultrymen, I can only assure my hon. friend that I shall be glad to take it up and see that the grievance is remedied.


Mr. KNOWLES:: There is one point in connection with experimental farms which I wish to impress upon the minister. The largest development of immigration that there has been in western Canada has been into southwestern Saskatchewan, I do not 'say that the immigration there has been larger than all the rest put together, but the greatest manifestation of immigration has been in the country south of Moosejaw, Gull Lake, Maple Creek, etc. The reason that that country has been the geographical scene of that activity is that for so many years it was considered to be a dry belt, and was for that reason disregarded and 130
rejected by the homesteaders. I think that a district that has been the centre of immigration activity should receive a great deal of the minister's attention at the same time. The very fact that the land in this so-called dry belt was left to the very last must be evidence that it is a [DOT]different kind of land from the larger part of Saskatchewan and, of course, those of us who know the West know that that is true. It requires a different kind of farming. If the experimental farms are for anything it is to teach the people a kind of farming that is not the ordinary farming in the province or in the whole country. In that whole district, into which have gone tens of thousands of people, there has not been the slightest attention paid by the present Government to the question of establishing an experimental farm. I cannot impress this on the minister too emphatically. The country is one that requires teaching. The same kind of farming will not do there as is employed around Regina or Calgary or Lethbridge or Edmonton, It is a country all by itself. In years when we have lots of rain and the crops turn out favourably the people are well off, but they need to be taught how to farm under other conditions. In southwest Saskatchewan, for twenty years, while the rest of Saskatchewan was being settled, that country was looked on as a purely ranching district. But now the railways have gone in there, towns have sprung up and it is becoming thickly settled. The minister may say that he has established a farm in Alberta. That does not fill the bill. In the first place I do not think the establishment of that farm is a serious attempt to solve the problem. The Lethbridge country, where that farm is situated, is largely an irrigation district, in fact the experimental farm there is partly an irrigation farm. True, at that farm there is some kind of lecturing on dry farming, but, in the first place, it is too far away from us; it is altogether out of our line of travel; our homesteaders have no chance or purpose to take them into south Alberta; and, apart from that, it is a different kind of farming from what is required in southern Saskatchewan.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: Is it not a demonstration farm that you want?


William Erskine Knowles: I am not familiar with the technical terms used in the department. What I want is a demonstration farm all



right. We want a farm that will demonstrate how to farm under the circumstances.


William Henry Sharpe: Like the one at Indian Head.


William Erskine Knowles: That would be splendid; even a smaller one would do. The late Government when it went out was on the point of purchasing a farm in the district I speak of. Perhaps the minister does not even know that the establishment of an experimental farm 75 miles southwest of Moosejaw was authorized by the late minister.


Martin Burrell: I am not aware of that.


William Erskine Knowles: The money was not voted and the arrangement did not go through. If the minister had taken enough interest to investigate he would have found out that the late Government had even arranged to secure a farm southwest of Moosejaw to demonstrate, as well as the Government could demonstrate, the method of farming which would be most profitable in that country. I feel that I need offer no apology for taking up time to discuss this subject, which is of tremendous importance not only to that province but to the whole of Canada. If the new homesteaders do not learn a successful method of farming they will be in a terrible state. With the markets closed against them and the taxes piled on them that this Government has put on, why I feel sorry for them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Erskine Knowles: It is all right to laugh. There was not a foot of that country surveyed when I became a member, and it was on my recommendation that it was surveyed. So I feel that I have a special interest in those settlers, every one of whom has gone in there while I was the representative of that district, and I would feel a small representative if I did nothing but sit here and laugh when their wants are mentioned in this House. With markets closed against them, with the taxes piled on them, with the banks and implement firms grinding them under their heels, it is a terrible condition and the least I can do is to ask that the minister should establish without any delay a good demonstration farm in that new country to the southwest of Moosejaw and, if possible, show the most profitable use to which that land can be put and the most favourable method of farming in that district. I make this suggestion in all friendliness to my hon. friend
[Mr. Knowles. 1
the minister and would be glad to have him to take it up.


Mr. SOHAFFNER:: I think the great difficulty was that the land should never have been opened for homesteading at all, , and that the fault lies entirely with the late Government. There is a section of country there that formerly was occupied by ranchers, 'and I think experience will prove that the land should not have been opened for homesteading.


William Erskine Knowles: You might say that all of Saskatchewan, Moosejaw and Souris, and all that country, was formerly occupied by Indians and should be kept by them.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understood the hon. member to say that there was a difference in the conditions in southwestern Saskatchewan and that that was why an experimental farm was needed to demonstrate how that section of country should be farmed. Everybody knows why settlers did not go into that country. Why was it necessary to give a purchased homestead or an extra pre-emption? Because it was clearly manifest that they considered the land was not like the other land in the three western provinces. There is no question, about that, and it is being proven to-day that that section of country should never have been opened for homesteaders.
SIt WILFRID LAURIER: I remember the diay when there were pamphlets circulated by high authority stating that wheat could not be grown in the valley of the Red river above Fort Garry. All these theories 'have been proved to be untrue. The same may be true also of the section of country referred to by my hon. friend.


Martin Burrell: I do not think the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) need apologize for bringing this matter to the attention.of the House or to my own notice.
I may say that all of these things are being attended to. Although I am not a representative of a constituency on the western prairie, I am fairly familiar with the conditions aJll thiough that district, *and I have as warm a sympathy as any man can have with the settlers there, as I have been closely identified with agriculture in a practical way for many years.
I am strongly desirous, as the Government is, of relieving the conditions as far as the Government can do so. There are now three experimental farms in Saskatchewan : one at Indian Head, which has rendered excellent service to the

country, under the direction of Mr. McKay, another at Scott, and a third at Rosthem. The last two have been extended in order to do more experimental work with'stock. I quite admit that they have not quite fulfilled the needs of the southern country to which my ihon. friend alludes. Every part of the country naturally would like to see a demonstration or experimental farm established in a particular county. We have hesitated for .some time because we have always had the feeling that with the Federal Government lies particularly the duty of carrying on experimental work for the whole country, whereas showing by object lesson, in a practical way, how to carry out the results of these experiments is more the part of the provinces. It is purely for that reason that we have hesitated from year to year about invading that field. Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario, and I think some of the other provinces have done a certain amount of work in that direction. Last year I was asked by the Prime Minister to interview both the Alberta and the Saskatchewan governments, and to investigate as far as I could the conditions in the drouth-stricken area. That investigation brought home to my mind the fact that conditions there were extraordinary, and that something would have to be done. I am not going into the question raised by my hon. friend whether it was wise or not to open up that large district. That is a debatable point. But it has been opened up, and is now largely settled. They have schools and all kinds of municipal activities, and I hardly see how any government could abandon the country. We have, therefore, to do the best we can to develop it, and I think we were thoroughly justified in taking up this demonstration work. My hon. friend suggests that I have not given any attention to that kind of work, but I want to assure him that we have given it our most sympathetic and earnest attention. I went into the question very fully during the five or six weeks prior to going to California, and made up my mind to establish twenty or thirty demonstration stations all through that dry belt in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. Our Director of Farms has been out there, together with two very capable young graduates of Manitoba College who are to assist him in the work. We expect these twenty or thirty stations to be thoroughly organized and in work this year, our object being simply to prove to the farmers of that coun-1301
try that if proper methods of rotation are followed they will, even in a dry season, be able to get at least some crop. In that connection, I may say that when I was looking over the drouth-stricken district, I saw right next to farms that had not a single spear of grain other farms, which having been properly summer-fallowed, had as much as fifteen or twenty bushels to the acre. I quite appreciate the fact that a great many of the farmers who have gone out there know little about the conditions of the country, and that it is up to us to do something; and I sincerely hope that the work which we have already started will be of some practical value to these people, and enable them to hold on to what they have got and make better use of it.


William Erskine Knowles: I thank the minister for what he has stated. I should like to ask if this vote will include the organizing of these farms?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: As this is certainly a new departure, I think the minister should have told us something about it on the introduction of his Estimates.


Martin Burrell: This is the introduction of my Estimates.


William Erskine Knowles: The introduction is
getting pretty near the end. Perhaps the minister would tell us where these farms will be, who is going to buy them, and whether they will be operated this year?


Martin Burrell: I have been away for the last six weeks, and so am not very familiar with the details. But before I went to California I had outlined the whole work. This demonstration work is in one sense a new policy, but in another it is not. The experimental farm system, even under the late Government, has always included a certain amount of demonstration as well as experimental wo A; so that really it is not a new principle, but an extension of a principle that has always been recognized. We do not propose to buy any of these farms, but to select forty or fifty acres in a thoroughly typical section of each of these districts. We shall choose stations that will be get-at-able by all the farmers in the district, and put in charge the man who already owns that landi, and who will be a practical, sound farmer. He will have to carry out our instructions as regards the routine of crops, and we shall keep a complete record of the work. The expense will be small; about $400 or $500

for each plot. I am hopeful that this policy will benefit the people of the whole country, and that we shall get the work thoroughly started this year.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the land be rented, and' the Government own the crop; will the work be done by day labour, and will these college boys have charge of it ?


Martin Burrell: I said that we were
sending out two graduates of Manitoba College to assist in the work. The director, who knows the conditions out there pretty well, will of course he at the head of the work, and under him will be Mr. John Fixter, who is a thoroughly practical and reliable man, and who for the last few years has been with the Conservation Commission. He will be largely responsible for the work. I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend all the details, but I think my lion. friend from Calgary, who has been out there lately, may have more recent information than I have and may be able to enlighten my hon. friend.
Mr. R, B. BENNETT: With the observations made by the hon. member for Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) I think most of us who live in the West are very heartily in accord. We realize that in order to get successful results we must have two things: first, good seed; and, second, proper cultivation. Dr. Rutherford, who is in charge of the agricultural work in connection with the Canadian Pacific's undertaking near Calgary, pointed out only recently that while those farmers in the drouth-stricken area who had not properly cultivated their soil had failed with their crops twice, other farmers in that same district who had properly cultivated their soil and done the necessary summer-fallowing, had been able to obtain a crop under the most adverse conditions. Many of us have pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture and the Government the necessity of establishing some demonstration plots throughout the territory; not experimental farms, as the hon. gentleman has just suggested, not a utilization in the first instance of what the hon. member for Kings has described as college and academic men, but rather the utilization of th'e good farmer in every district. For there is always in every district a good farmer, some man who is a better husbandman than his neighbour, who cultivates his soil more properly, who selects his seed with care, who estimates weeds, and whose crop gives better results. We all know this kind of farmer; and the idea of the department, so far as I understand it, is to use

the farm of such a man for the demonstration station. Mr. Grisdale, who is well known to us all, and Mr. Fixter, who was with the Conservation Commission, have been sent out to look over the drouth-stricken area, and select 40 acres at points that will be visible to every person passing along the main travelled highway. They will pay the farmer who owns that 40 acres a small sum, for he has to plant the seed and cultivate the ground in the manner that is indicated as best by the men who are supervising the work for the Department of Agriculture. The Government will buy the seed, under certain conditions, and the crop will belong to the farmer. The idea is to show what good seed and good cultivation will do. It is to be an ocular demonstration, which, after all, is the best kind of demonstration, of what good seed and good farming will accomplish in any locality. I was out West only a few days ago, and I understand that Mr. Grisdale has been going over the territory and selecting twenty-five or thirty points at which to establish these demonstration plots. These plots will be in charge, not of college men, as has been suggested, but of the farmers who have been getting the best results in their own particular locality. This kind of farmer is to be asked to permit the use of 40 acres of his land for a visible demonstration of what good farming will do. That is how I understand the matter from my discussions with the director, who is now out West.
Of course, there would be none of them in my particular locality. They are all south of that in the drouth-stricken area because it was decided by the Government that in the area east of Calgary the Canadian Pacific railway was carrying on that class of work, and that the Government need not duplicate it in these places. Neither will this work be carried on at points 'wh'ere the local government has small demonstration plots, such as that at" Medicine Hat. In the territory of my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) there are two or three such plots, and I think the director told me that he was arranging to establish one or two in the locality to wnich the hon. member from Moosejaw has referred, but the difficulty was, having started the plans last fall, to find a particular piece of land that was in such a state of cultivation that it might be used to afford an accurate demonstration to the rest of the community, of what may be done by proper cultivation and good seed.
I think the real value of these demonstration plots cannot be overestimated. If

I had my way in western Canada, I would gee a thousand of them established in the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan within a very short tim'e. That sounds very extreme, but when you come to think of the enormous area of these two provinces and when you come to think of the kind of settlers we are bringing in, my idea is not far wrong. We are bringing men to our land who are not used to cultivation of that particular kind of soil; men who have not been able to understand the true value of good se'ed and who are not themselves able to make those experiments which are necessary to get the best results. The Government has placed at the disposal of the settlers a seed-germinating laboratory, and they have given that supervision and instruction which is essential for the purpose of obtaining the best results. We provide for these settlers small demonstration plots-as I have said, I hope there will be a thousand of them in the two western provinces before many years- which afford visible evidence, which is the best evidence, to the farmers of the locality of what may be acco,mplished by good husbandry, proper cultivation, and good seed, and this will cost the country little or nothing.


William Erskine Knowles: The arrangement is only for one year at a time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what was originally proposed, but I understand it is to be extended for a period of three years.


Martin Burrell: Yes, for three years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three years was the period mentioned for the purpose of establishing what would be the best system of rotation of crops, it being felt that if you merely took a piece of land for one year and took a crop off it, you would not be able to indicate to the settlers of that locality what would be the best rotation of crops to secure the best results in the cultivation of the land there. I feel very sanguine as' to the results which will come from this. I am very hopeful that in northern Alberta, where there are very large numbers of Galician settlers, the establishment of such demonstration plots will do the very greatest amount of good, because these men are really ambitious to make good farmers. I have observed that a large proportion of our foreign population shows perhaps the greatest ambition to become good farmers, but the difficulty they experience is to understand exactly what is the best rotation of crops, how best
to summer fallow, and how to get the best results from proper cultivation. I think this experiment will teach them that. This experiment, small though it is, and only involving twenty-five or thirty demonstration plots, is in my judgment a move in the right direction and one that will do incalculable benefit to our western country.
I am satisfied that if we are to continue a wild system of settlement in - the West we will not obtain any commensurate results for the money we expend. The day of people settling far remote from railways where neighbours are ten miles apart, must pass, and the only hope we have is to bring about a system of settlement in the West which will be based upon a scientific principle, whereby townships will be settled with proper settlers and demonstration plots will be established throughout those townships, so that there will be a real incentive to men to do the very best that is in them, and to obtain the very best possible results from the cultivation of the soil. It will also, in my judgment, lead to the establishment of a sort of social centre in these townships whereby the loneliness incident to the system of settlement followed up to the present time will pass away, and so that there will be happiness and comfort to those who are homesteading in these townships. Without some broad, comprehensive, and far-reaching settlement scneme in western Canada. I look for no great progress along the line of increase of population of a permanent and staple nature. I welcome this experiment, and I think everybody in the West does, as being a move that must inevitably result in a better and more comprehensive scheme of settlement, the introduction of a better system of husbandry, and, more content, more happiness, and what perhaps is of more value still, greater wealth to the state.


William Erskine Knowles: I thank the hon. gentleman (Mr, Bennett) for giving us this information, but I think the minister should be possessed of the details of this a little better, because he has been back from California quite a while and he has his deputy beside him to give him the information. I think the minister shows a little absence of that tense interest he should have in such a serious problem, but no doubt he has been busy with other things. I am not going to say I am against this scheme; in fact I would like to see the minister do a great deal more than this. I was sorry to hear the minister say: I do not see how we could abandon that country
20G2

and these people. The very suggestion of abandoning that country is a joke. It is a grand country; there is no need of the minister saying: We would ..think of abandoning it but we do not dare to.


Martin Burrell: I cannot allow that statement of the hon. member to go unchallenged. I hlave made no suggestion about abandoning that country. What I stated was that the Prime Minister asked me to interview the people in the West when the suggestion was made here and there that the country might better not have been settled, and when it was an open question with some-as to whether it would pay to go on developing it. My view was that such an idea could not be entertained for one moment, and that we should go on with our work in that district. I never thought of suggesting that it should be abandoned.


William Erskine Knowles: I took the minister's words down and he certainly referred to a suggestion about abandoning the country.


Martin Burrell: I am sure my hon. friend does not want to do me an injustice.


William Erskine Knowles: Absolutely no, and I do not think the minister ever thought of abandoning it, but he should not speak as if he thought of such a thing because it will give a wrong impression. As for the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) saying that the country should not have been settled, I say it is as good a district as the average district in the West, and it will do itself credit in a few years when the people really get on their feet. They went in there poor people, they have met with great hardships and reverses, they have been away from railways, they have had to haul their flax and wheat seventy or eighty miles, but in spite of it all they have stood up foursquare to every wind that blew, and to-day they are doing well there, despite everything else except the drouth which came on this year, when they expected to pay off their debts. The idea of saying it is a debatable point whether the country ever should have been opened up is too absurd to be mentioned in this House. It is a splendid country. South of Moosejaw fifty miles and southwest of Gravelbourg they had this year very good crops and there is no relief work there. But further west the rains did not come this year, and if you are going to lay that down as a reason for abandoning them or saying that the country should never have been opened up, then there is an enormous part of Canada which has 
towns, and railways, and churches, and everything else that the people may well clear out of. Surely we are not going to say, because we have had the worst year for fifteen or sixteen years, that a district so stricken is to be deserted.
I do not understand the scheme well enough to be able to approve of it or to criticise it. It seems a kind of buckshot proposition, a little scattering here and there. I do not think many of my constituents will go to see how another farmer twenty or thirty miles away, is going to cultivate a small plot, and I think the Government would have been better advised had they established real experimental farms situated near a railway, which the people would think it worth while to visit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be too academic. They want to have the farmer himself do this work under proper supervision.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think it would be too academic. The minister was once a very fine lecturer on agriculture, and see what a fine robust man he is to-day-a typical farmer, every inch of him. I do not think that, because a man has been through an agricultural college, he is any worse a farmer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fact that a
man has been through a university does not make him a lawyer.
Mr. -KNOWLES: I do not think it keeps him from being a lawyer either; and if it does not help him, it certainly does not hurt him. These demonstration plots will be such little, picayune affairs-I hope they will not be, but if you are going to scatter about twenty of them over the prairies, you are going to have something which perhaps one or. two neighbours will look at, but which it will not be worth any one leaving his work and going far to see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A farmer will have to pass one of these plots every day he goes to market. It is going to be situated on a highway and usually at a corner, so that as he goes to market, even if he does not want to see it, he will have to see it willy-nilly.


William Erskine Knowles: I understand the whole matter. In my district, which is about 200 miles long by 200 miles wide, there will be two of these plots.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was speaking only from very hazy knowledge.


William Erskine Knowles: Well, suppose there are half-a-dozen stuck in my district. The number of people, who will pass a certain corner and see the plot there willy-nilly will be a very small proportion of the people in my large constituency.


William Cameron Edwards: A still smaller proportion would see.the thoroughly-equipped experimental farms that my hon. friend advocates.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend has a
right to his own opinions, but I do not entertain that view. Thousands of people go to our Indian Head experimental farm every year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend is begging the question. I do not think it follows, that because money is spent on a farm on a large scale, the education derived from that farm is any the less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the farmer sometimes thinks.


William Erskine Knowles: I must take exception
to that. As regards my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), I think people will go to experimental farms. In my district we have special excursions to the Indian Head experimental farm from all parts of the compass. Husbands and their wives and children come to the experimental farm in large numbers; and the women look at the things that interest them, such as shade trees, poultry, dairy produce, etc., and the men at anything that interests them, until it is time to return. It is idle to say that men will not go to experimental farms. If that is the custom in Ontario, perhaps the people there are so dashed wise that they will not learn anything; but while the people in my district
are willing to go to experimental farms, I am sure they will not go very much out of their way to see this little bit of a plot which the hon. member for Calgary says they must see willy or nilly when they go to market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not willy, nor nillywilly-nilly.


William Erskine Knowles: I am sorry I had not
the gentleman's name right, but the Hansard man will get it correct.


William Cameron Edwards: It seems to me the hon. member has concerned himself more with the question whether the Department of Agricu.ture of the Government is going to do something that will be a credit to the Government than he has about the farmers.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not catch that.


William Cameron Edwards: You will see it in Han

ard to-morrow.


William Erskine Knowles: I thank the hon. gentleman for Ms courtesy. I will not be bothered looking, because I know it is no good anyway.


William Cameron Edwards: It will, of course, be in the judgment of the House whether it is or not. I was referring to something It'at the hon. member said, and of course it is quite possible it was not of much value.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition, in advocating a farm for the clay-belt, touched a very important point in connection with this whole question; that is, he referred to the climate and the general conditions in that part of the country as being so different, for instance, from what they are at Ottawa or at Guelph, that an experimental farm at Guelph or at Ottawa is really of very little use to that part of the country. We have a very large country with a comparatively small population, and we are far behind other countries in regard to experimental work along agricultural lines; perhaps not so far behind them when you compare this country with-others on the basis of population; but we have to consider the vast areas and the differences of climate and of soil. I am entirely in sympathy with this move on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. I suggested something along the same line, I think, two or three years ago, in speaking of this very subject. It seems to me that our whole agricultural education should be systematized in something the same way as our general education is; that is to say, that as the primary school is a step to the high
20&4

school or the collegiate institute., and the high school a step ito the university, so our education along agricultural lines should work out in the same manner; that is, the fully-equipped experimental farm should be the university for agriculture. If you are going to reach the mass of the people with information that will be of benefit to them, you are not going to do it by sending	out
agricultural bulletins, no matter how valuable the information in them may be, because hardly one out of five hundred farmers reads those bulletins. It is also absolutely true beyond a shadow of a doubt that the general farmer looks upon an experimental farm as something beyond him. He says: " Lots of money is spent on that farm, and I cannot hope with my limited means to do as the experimental farm is doing." In the province of Ontario ill recent years the Government has done a great deal of good by sending men out to do experimental work,, such as demonstrating in this neighbourhood and that neighbourhood, fifteen or twenty or thirty miles apart, how to preserve their orchards by [DOT] spraying, how to get rid of certain weeds by spraying at certain seasons, and so on. Such things are educating the pepole; the farmers have an opportunity of seeing them, and they feel that they can imitate them. The general farmer does not feel that he has the means at his disposal to imitate the work carried on at experimental farms. It is true that occasionally, say once or twice a year, an excursion may be got up to visit an experimental farm, and some of the farmers, who perhaps have the means and want a holiday, will take in that excursion. They see a great many things in a few hours, and they go away confirmed in the idea that it is impossible for them to imitate what tney have seen at that farm. I would like to see this work carried on in the manner the minister has indicated that he intends to carry it on in the West. He wants to have some twenty or thirty stations; lut I would like to see that system spread throughout the Dominion of Canada. I would not stop at
1,000	or at 2,000 of those small 'experimental plots. If you had 10,000 of them scattered turoughout this country, in every constituency, you would get splendid value for every dollar that was spent.
In various European countries they have carried their work on agricultural lines very much further than we have in this country. The result is shown in the statistics of crop returns, not only in grain

but in roots as well. It seems to me we acted wisely in establishing experimental farms here and there in the country to carry on experiments and give the people the benefit of the knowledge they gained. But the people ought also to have the benefit of these little demonstration stations, and these stations should be as numerous as possible. I think the money would bring a big return in the form of a larger yield and in the encouragement it would give to the agricultural population. And that is another element that should be considered. If the minister can succeed in demonstrating in the West that crops can be raised in that drouth district by proper cultivation, it will not be merely one or two or a dozen men going by who will learn and benefit. It is not going to stop there, because, say what you will of the farmer, he is always ready to impart his information to his neighbour. If he has made a success in cultivating his fields in a certain way, he will tell his neighbour; he does not try to keep the information to himself. So, if at these demonstration farms a hundred farmers see and learn the proper course to follow, the information will not benefit these people alone, but they will carry it to hundreds of others. I am heartily in sympathy with this plan, and I hope the minister will carry it out and will establish these smaller demonstration stations throughout the East as well as throughout the West.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not wish to take up much of the time of the committee, but as this is a subject on which I have had something to say in other sessions, I desire to say a few words now. The late Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Fisher, and I used to have a friendly combat every time his Estimates came up as to the utility of experimental farms and the best way of getting to the people the benefits those experimental farms could give.
The plan outlined by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) is not exactly an experiment. I have not a word to say against the general and large experimental farms that have been established in various parts of this country; I believe they have been of great service to the agriculturists of Canada. But we have had these great experimental farms for many years^at Ottawa, at Brandon, at Indian Head, and elsewhere. It did not seem to me that we were getting value, at any rate in western Canada-I say nothing about eastern Canada-for the money expended on these experimental farms. One

suggestion has been made to which we have referred before. The experimental farm in Manitoba is situated on the bajik of a river, on soil different from any other in the province except, perhaps, in one locality.
Now, I am not taking any credit to myself for the adoption of the plan outlined this morning; nevertheless, in justice to myself-and the proof of what I say will be found in Hansard-this plan is identical with or very similar to a plan which I outlined and tried to influence the late Minister of Agriculture to adopt. Soil varies, as my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has said. And that gentleman may say what he likes, he may be as flippant as he pleases about that country to which we have been referring, but the fact is that climatic conditions and soil conditions there are different, perhaps from those of any other place in western Canada. That being so, a different system of farming must be adopted in order to attain success. And that is exactly why we should have these demonstration farms. One experimental farm in the province of Manitoba, situated on a peculiar soil-a splendid soil, none better in the world-would not give to the farmers who live on a different soil, one with more gravel, if you like, or different in some other way, the example and information that they should have in working their land. I used to say to Mr. Fisher, in the kind way in which I always speak, that I thought he should establish demonstration farms.
It has been said here this morning that you can have excursions to your experimental farms. So you can; and it is a good thing and is being adopted more and more. But, nevertheless, here is the experience- and experience is what you can depend upon -both at Brandon and at Indian Head, that very few farmers avail themselves of the excursions to the experimental farms. I have had conversations with Mr. Grisdale about it. I said: "If you cannot get the farmers to come to the experimental farm, you must take the experimental or demonstration farm to the farmers." They are doing that in Manitoba. But who is doing it? The local government. The provincial Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. George Lawrence, has established within the last year or two something like twenty-five of these demonstration farms. They are exactly as outlined by the hon. member for Calgary. Each farm is forty acres in extent. The land is not bought, but is leased by one of the best farmers within a mile or two of the town.
The Government fences it and also supplies the seed in order to be assured that that seed is the very best; and the Government has supervision. The farmer who operates the farm gets no pay, but I think is permitted to have the crop raised on the forty-acre plot.
Now, the farmers in our country, of whatever political party, recognize the importance of that demonstration plot. I have never heard one adveT&e criticism of it. They think it is the best policy that has yet been launched in the interest of the farmer. But it comes from that progressive province in which I have the honour to live, and which has given so many progressive ideas and policies to the western provinces. Take the railway policy, and the telephone policy, and now the demonstration farm policy-they all originated in the province of Manitoba; and I am glad to say, in the interests of western Canada, that they have all been successful.
We have another idea which, I dare say, has been adopted in Alberta and Saskatche-wian, and which with us has proven very successful. We have an agricultural college in Winnipeg, just as you have an agricultural college in Guelph, of whose work we hear glowing accounts. But there was the same difficulty that I have been speaking about in the other case: you could not get the people to this agricultural college, it was too expensive. But in Manitoba- and I do not know but what the same is done in Ontario-they take the agricultural college to the farmers. A train is supplied free by the different railways, and is fitted up practically like the college at Winnipeg or Guelph. That train goes from town to town, its arrival being advertised ahead. So far as, my town of Boissevain is concerned, I never knew that train to come in but there were from two hundred to four hundred people, men, women and children, who came to Boissevain to see the results attained by the agricultural college in Winnipeg, and these people have always gone away well pleased with what they saw and convinced that this policy of the touring agricultural college was one eminently in the interest of the people at large.
If a municipality in Manitoba wants to establish one of these agricultural plots -and our municipalities are, , on the average, about 18 miles square- they have only to make application to the provincial Minister of Agriculture. I believe that this plan is identical with the plan outlined by the hon. member for Calgary. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture

has seen fit to adopt this plan, and I believe it will prove entirely successful.


Mr. BRADBURY:: So far as the northern part of the province of Manitoba is concerned, experimental farms are of very little use, but demonstration farms are of the utmost importance. I believe that if we could induce this Government to clear dozens of tracts of landdn the northern part of Manitoba and to Start demonstration farms there, the work would prove of very great value to the people in that district. Some of the land in that part of the province is very difficult of cultivation. Much of it is covered with scrub timber. The settlers who have gone in there, while they are first-class men, are not always in good financial circumstances, and, without encouragement, it is almost impossible for them to make headway. I have advocated time after time that some comprehensive scheme should b.e adopted by tire Goyemment with a view to assisting these people to acquire and settle these lands. It has been said that I have advocated a paternal government, but I think the time is coming when the Government of Canada should be more paternal than it has been in respect of the farmers. The land in the northern part of Manitoba is, I believe, destined to become the most valuable land in the northwest country, but, owing to the nature of the soil, it cannot be successfully worked unless the Government comes to the assistance of the people. I would not advocate the 40-acre plots in my own district, but I would advocate the Government's taking up 10-acre plots in different parts of the northern portion of the province, clearing them and putting them under cultivation in order to show these people the possibilities of the land. If this were done, I *am sure that the Government would be amply repaid in a very short time, and that the settlers in that part of the country would very soon become a thoroughly independent and prosperous community. I would call the attention of the minister also to the fact that the northern portion of the province is well adapted to dairying, but the people in the district being poor, they require some assistance in order that their efforts along this line may become productive. I have advocated, and I 'advocate now, that the Government of the country should make it possible for these men to secure sufficient stock to start them in the dairying business. If this were done, in a short time these non-productive districts would become productive, and 
every dollar of the money expended by the Government in the way of stock and the clearing of the land would be repaid. I would strongly urge upon the Minister of Agriculture the advisability of his devoting some little attention to assisting the farmers in this part of the province. I agree with what the hon. member for Souris lias said with regard to the efforts of the Manitoba Government in establishing these demonstration farms. Some of them have been established in my own county, and in every case they have proved to be of great value. But the finances of tile provincial government are limited, and I believe that the Dominion Government ought to come to the assistance of the people and do some of the work that the provincial government is not able to do. In my own county we have brought in some 30,000 or 40,000 foreigners. These people deserve encouragement and assistance in order that they may become selfsustaining and prosperous. I wisli to impress upon the committee the fact that these people are industrious and "thrifty; they are doing all that men can do to become good citizens and prosperous farmers, and this they will do if they receive encouragement and assistance from the Government.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: We have discussed this session many matters concerning the district known as the drouth district in Saskatchewan and Alberta, but I question whether any matter that we have taken up in that connection is of as much importance as the question which we have under consideration at the present time. Personally I am in favour of experimental farms, but I am also inclined to believe in the demonstration plot idea which the min' ister has in view. As to the experimental farm at Lethbridge I would not say that the conditions which exist at Lethbridge are exactly similar to those which exist from that point to the Saskatchewan boundary and thence on towards Moosejaw. I have had this complaint from the farmers about the experimental farms. You may tell the farmer that the experimental farm had a good crop while in his own district there was a failure. His argument is that at the experimental farm they have all the facilities for practising farming on a proper scale, they can afford the labour and can put in the crops at the proper seasons and test them all the way through, and so are bound to get a crop of some kind. A a matter of fact, in that drouth district this year there were farmers who had crops because

they happened to get their land in shape, they had summeivfallowed it and got it seeded in the proper time and were able to have crops of 15 bushels to the acre in a district where farmers for miles around did not have a crop of any kind. The experimental plot idea is necessary in my particular district for the reason that the climatic and soil conditions are so varied all through that country, within 100 miles of Lethbridge. In the district of Macleod there were crops this year towards the foothills, in the Pineher Creek country and also along the Calgary and Edmonton line. They had not very large crops, but at the same time they had something. In my own district around Cardston, near Lethbridge, they had crops, and north and west along the Carmangay line of the Canadian Pacific railway they had crops which in some cases were very good. Yet there were instances in that district where farmers did not have anything whatever. I think that the experimental plot idea has a good deal to commend it. At the same time I believe in the experimental farm, I believe it is helpful in giving the farmers directions as to the proper method to follow in their particular district.
As to what has been said by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sc'naffner), I can understand people losing hope about the future of that country owing to the crop failure this year. I have discussed that matter in the House this session and have instanced other sections of Canada and sections of the United States, where similar conditions was met in the early days and overcome. I have hope and I believe that much can be done by proper education of the farmer ; if the farmer, for instance, had had the proper idea about farming methods in that country when he went in there in the beginning he would not have required relief this year. I have been told that by farmers that if they had known how to farm properly when they went in they would have made enough out of'their operations during the time they had been there prior to last year to have put themselves in a safe position to carry them through such a crisis. I have known in that district good yields from seeding on stubble. For a few years farmers there thought they could raise a crop of grain by throwing seed belter skelter over the land because they had ideal conditions, and farmers in many cases seeded on stubble. I have even known volunteer crops of 12 to 15 bushels to the acre, and that made the farmers think
they could do anything with the land there and it would yield a crop. But they have met with adverse conditions and these adverse conditions are driving them to adopt a system of farming which I am satisfied will be successful in that district. -These very adverse conditions are going to be helpful to farmers, in southern Alberta at any rate. The summer-fallowing idea has only been adopted within the last year or two, and where it was adopted last year there were in a great many cases crops of some kind. I believe that that idea, properly practised and followed out, will result in a great deal of success in farming in that part of the country. As for the future of the district, I would mention that in Saskatchewan, in what is known as the Qu'Appelle valley, I have been told that people left the country in the early 80's and on towards the early 90's, because they had to face adverse conditions, thought the country.was not any good; and yet today that country is considered the most fertile district in Saskatchewan. In Manitoba exactly the same conditions were faced by the farmers in the early days of farming in that province. These conditions are being faced in southern Alberta and in southern Saskatchewan. I believe that history will prove that the opening of the country was warranted and that as soon as the farmers acquire the proper knowledge of how to farm in those sections of Alberta and Saskatchewan they will meet with success in their operations. I believe that we should have an experimental farm in the heart of the affected country, and also that the establishment of experimental plots throughout that particular country or for that matter in any part of Canada will be helpful to agriculture.


George Ewan McCraney: The minister referred to the fact that some additional land had been purchased for the farm at Ros-thern. Would he give the House the particulars of that purchase? He announced last summer that a quarter-section or a half-section had been bought.


Martin Burrell: I will give it at three
o'clock. I have not the exact details now.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister give
a brief summary of what is being done in the province of Quebec by his - department, especially with regard to Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere?


Martin Burrell: We are carrying on the work at Cap Rouge and at Ste. Anne de la

Pocatiere and at Lennoxville in the Eastern Townships, where we have recently established a farm. We are increasing the work at Ste. Anne de la Pocatihre. We are carrying on the work on the usual lines of experimental work at all these stations and are endeavouring to extend the work and help those sections of the country more than before.	[DOT]


Charles Marcil: Is the work at Ste. Anne de la Pocatibre confined to the farm itself or is it extended to the surrounding country?


Martin Burrell: A good deal of the work is confined, as always, to the experimental farm; but in so far as our officers can make known the results that they are achieving to the farmers of the neighbouring district it is their business to do so, and if hon. members say that this is not being done, that every effort is not being made to render that farm beneficial to the country, I will be only too glad to take the matter up.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister give an idea of the chief experiments being made at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere?


Martin Burrell: I think there as at the other farms, they have carried on the various branches of animal husbandry, livestock raising, soil fertilization, rotation of crops and everything that in common parlance is known as advanced agricultural methods. I do not know that we are carrying out any particular lines of work there that we are not carrying out at most of our experimental stations in other districts.


Charles Marcil: How are the results communicated to the farmers in the district?


Martin Burrell: The chief way we have of reaching the farmers generally who cannot visit the farm is by our farm report. This, in the case of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, is a special repor' frcm the superintendent giving the result of all the experimental work, giving the exact conditions on the farm. That report every farmer who is at all interested is entitled to receive, he is .put on the mailing list and gets complete copies of the whole work. If he requires any special bulletins we are only too happy to put him on th!e list and give him every bulletin in which he is interested.


Charles Marcil: Have the farmers to apply to the farm?


Martin Burrell: Either to the farm
there or to the central farm here. The farmer can apply to be put on the list for

all reports or for any special reports in which lie is interested.


Charles Marcil: I have always contended that as there is a great difference in climate and geographical .situation between the two constituencies of Gaspe and Bonaven-ture and the place on the St. Lawrence where the experimental farm is, Bonaven-ture and Gaspe being much further south and nearer to the Maritime Provinces, there should be a demonstration farm of some kind either in Bonaventure or Gaspe. Some years ago New Carlisle was suggested as a suitable location for such a farm. Perhaps the minister may see his way clear to giving us such a farm. I must say a good word of the department for what it has done in my province in assisting the dairying industry, which is becoming quite an important one aown there. The department sent down the Dairy and Cold Storage Commissioner, and he has been of considerable assistance to the various butter factories that have recently been established in my constituency; and other butter factories are b'eing started this year. A number of lecturers have also been sent down to deliver lectures in the parishes of Gaspe and Bonaventure, and I should like to know wheth'er the minister intends to follow up the good seed that has been thus sown, or are the department's efforts to end with the lectures?


Martin Burrell: I know my hon. friend takes a very lively interest in uiat part of the country. But he understands that owing to the financial condition of this country at the present time we hesitate to plunge in large expenditures, even for agriculture; although I must cordiany acknowledge that the Minister of Finance and. my other colleagues have not held up their hands in regard to this department. But we felt that there was at this moment a special need for this kind of work in the West, that no matter how strained the finances might be the Government was absolutely warranted in doing something for those particular districts in the West. Later on I hope we may be able to do this sort of work in other parts of the country, including those * portions of Quebec where the settlers are in considerable need of more advanced methods. I can assure my hon. friend that the matter 'will not be forgotten. *
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.

Experimental farms-maintenance of Central Farm, and establishment and maintaining of additional branch stations, $785,000.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND:: I doubt
if there is a single vote in all these Estimates that is of greater importance to the people of Canada than that which we are now discussing. While to-day there has been a good deal of discussion on this vote by the representatives from various provinces, very little has been said so far by hon. gentlemen who represent Ontario constituencies. I wish to emphasize what has already been said as to the importance of experimental and demonstration farms. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture has acted wisely in providing for the extension of agricultural instruction in this direction, and I feel quite sure that no expenditure of public money in Canada will give better results than will the expenditure of this $785,000. I may say that personally I would like to see a much larger appropriation for this purpose. We have heard a great deal in recent years about educating the farmer in the science of their industry, and I am satisfied that these small demonstration farms or plots will accomplish better results than possibly any other scheme, because through them you bring directly under the eyes of the farms what can be done by the study and practice of advanced agricultural methods.
I was amused at the remarks of the lion.
. member from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that agricultural education of this kind was probably a custom in the province of Ontario, where the people were so " dashed " wise, as he said. I do not think the people of Ontario deserve that sneering remark from the hon. member. They have been the pioneers in agricultural education in this country, and shortly after Confederation, John Carling, afterwards Sir John Carling, then Commissioner of Agriculture in the Government of John Sanfield Macdonald, established the Ontario Agricultural College, the reputation of which has always stood high in Ontario, in Canada, and, I may -say, throughout the world. From the day of its establishment to the present hour, the province of Ontario has paid cheerfully all the expenses in connection with that institution, which has trained more men in the science of agriculture than probably any other institution in the world. And yet the hon. member for Moosejaw finds it not beneath him to sneer at the people of Ontario. When Sir John Carling was Minister of Agriculture in the
Government of Sir John Macdonald, he established the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, and shortly afterwards there were established experimental farms at Nappan, for the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, it being situated near the boundary of these two provinces; at Indian Head, for the Northwest Territories; and at Agassiz, for British Columbia. For twenty-five years afterwards not an experimental or a demonstration farm was established in the whole of Canada, until in 1911, when several others were brought. into being. Let me call attention to the fact that from that time down to the past year not one experimental farm was established in the great province of Ontario. Session after session I have taken this matter up, and I have urged on the Government the necessity of doing justice to the province of Ontario in this respect. I am glad to see that since last session the Minister of Agriculture has made arrangements to establish a demonstration farm in Northern Ontario, along the line of the Transcontinental railway. That part of our province suffered severely through a report that was made by a man who was sent out by the Conservation Commission a few years ago, who went along the line of the Transcontinental railway in a motor car, and made a report which was most damaging to all that northern territory. I commend the minister for establishing this experimental farm in Northern Ontario. .
In view of all the circumstances, it is indeed ungrateful on the part of the hon. member for Moosejaw to sneer at the people of Ontario, forgetting the sacrifices made by them to develop the West. In past years the people of Ontario realized that we had a great heritage in our western country, which needed development and settlement, and to-day we do not complain that the Government is bearing the expense of these agricultural stations throughout the West. But the time has come when Ontario must look to herself to see that she also gets fair treatment. In the matter of immigration, for years past., Ontario has been discriminated against, and the flow of immigration has been diverted to the western provinces, with the result that by the Redistribution Bill, that wealthy province loses six of her representatives in this House. That may please some hon. gentlemen opposite, but :to me it is evidence of the fact that in the future these western provinces must look to themselves and depend on their own resources, without seeking the aid of the other provinces to help them out of their

difficulties. We are told by an hon.-gentleman on the other side of the House that the farmers of the West were not going to see these demonstration stations when they were driving their wheat to the market, thus implying that taking wheat to the market is the only thing that brings a western farmer from his home, which, of course, is an absurd view to take. In my opinion, the sooner demonstration farms are established throughout Canada, in order that our farmers may he taught to practise what is preached, the better it will be for the people of Canada. We have no mean province in Ontario; we have an energetic, an enterprising and an educated people, and they have learned to do for themselves what some of -the people in the western provinces think the Government ought to do tor them. The dairy products of Ontario last year represented a value of $125,000,000, t'hie live stock of Ontario had a value of $510,000,000; the, exports of Ontario last year were $186,000,000, and the imports of Ontario $290,000,000, the latter figures not including interprovincial trade. But that does not represent all the wealth developed by the people of Ontario.	'
So far as fruit growing is concerned, 80 per cent of the fruit of Canada is grown in the province of Ontario; yet there is not a fruit station nor an experimental station maintained in that province by the Dominion Government. Ninety-seven per cent of the grapes and peaches grown in Canada are grown in the province of Ontario; yet you find that, although stations are established in other provinces, such as British Columbia and the Maritime Provinces, the people of Ontario have to do all their experimental work for themselves. A number of experimental farms were established in 1911; but with the exception of a tobacco-growing farm of forty acres in the county of Essex, not one was established in the whole province of Ontario. This should not be a contentious matter; and I would not have made any reference to it, had it not been for the manner in which the hon. member for Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) referred to the people of the province of Ontario. The sooner the people of the western provinces depend upon their own resources and do not come to the Dominion Parliament looking for special favours, the better it will be for all concerned.
The hon. member referred to the necessity of supplying with wheat the farmers in a certain area who unfortunately lost 
their crops last year. In some of the older districts of Ontario where land is very valuable, if the people farmed in the manner in which the people farm in Western Canada, they would not grow very much. In my own county immense numbers of live stock are shipped from western Canada, and are fattened up and placed on the market. Pood is brought, in from western Canada and fed to live stock in the East; in fact, two dealers in foodstuffs for live stock, two feed stores at one shipping point in the county of Oxford during the present winter handled no less than nineteen carloads of cottonseed meal averaging about 22 tons to the car; and other feed in large quantities is being brought in. The Government of this country for many years past pursued one of the most reckless policies-yes, I will say a criminal policy-with regard to the importation of foodstuffs from western Canada. When a Government permits the screenings of grain from the elevators to be shipped out and distributed through some of the older provinces, such as the province of Ontario, it iis doing something for which it ought to be held accountable. Hon. gentlemen here h-avie stated that the western farmer who summer-fallows his land is practically assured of a crop. I 'remember in, the old days in Ontario, when nearly every farmer summer-fallowed his land, but afterwards with a better system of farming he fo-und that it was not necessary. To-day, however, he has to go back to the summerfallowing system -again by reason of the foul seeds that have been distributed over the province of Ontario and that came largely from western Canada. L-ater on in the Estimates the question will be brought up whether the Government of this country should see that all grain shipped to Government elevators is -screened and tiba-t the screenings from -that grain are destroyed and not distributed over the country.
I have taken longer than I intended in regard to this matter, but I want to emphasize the fact that Ontario is no mean province; that outside of the province of Quebec it is the largest province in Canada, and that not 15 per -cent of its area is under cultivation. I commend the minister for his action in establishing an experimental farm in northern Ontario, and I believe he h-as adopted -a splendid method in order to clear that by having interned prisoners do the work, because it ,will undoubtedly reflect gTeot credit on

the northern' country. Notwithstanding Professor Per now's report, in which he istated that that country is not fit for settlement, geographically it is not located as far north as the city of Winnipeg, and it is to-day rich and fertile, although mostly covered with timber; and I am satisfied that the experimental station established there by the hon. Minister of Agriculture will do work that will call the attention of the people of this country to the advantages of location and the capability of the soil of northern Ontario to raise as good crops as are grown in other parts of Canada.


William Erskine Knowles: I have no argument with my hon. friend in regard to the .importance of the province of Ontario in many ways, and I think he has rather misunderstood my remarks. Smely the hon. gentleman does not wish to put me in an unfair light, because I did not make any remarks derogatory to the province of Ontario, as I think he ought to have known if he had been in the chamber at the time. I was advocating that we should have -experimental farms to which the people would go in great numbers. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) stated, as I understood him, that men would not go t-o experimental farms, and I said that, if it be that the people of Ontario know so dashed much that they do not have to go, the people in the West are different: we do not think we are the whole shooting match; we do not think we know everything. True, we do not live in the delectable province of Ontario; but my hon. friend will have to account for having lived in such a godly place as Ontario, and inasmuch as the favours bestowed on him are so much greater, he will have to be so much more careful of the way he walks. My hon. friend has told us many times that Ontario is such a wonderful country, and he has scolded us because some weeds have gone from the West into that province. I do not want my hon. friend to run away with the idea that Ontario is altogether ready for the next world. I dr. not think we send our weeds to the East; 1 think large numbers of weeds, came to us from Ontario at the start, because I cannot imagine any other places that they came from than Bruce and Huron and Oxford, where we got our seed from originally-and some very bad, devilish weeds they were too. My hon. friend should not say the West is under any favour to Ontario, because that is a played-out statement. We are not under
any favours- far from it. True, the policy of the country at present is dictated largely by Ontario and the protectionist spirit. While Ontario has sent us some of its vile weeds, thank Heaven, it has not yet sent us its vile protectionist spirit. We have not the protectionist spirit brooding over us; we do not believe in it yet; but the protectionist spirit controls our politics and we are suffering. We are not, however, under any obligation to Ontario because we are under the heel of Ontario so far as the present Government is concerned. I say that to my hon. friend in all kindness.
My hon. friend speaks about the good land in Ontario. There is a great deal of good land in Ontario and it was here long before my hon. friend and I were born, and much of it was under cultivation; but my hon. friend should for a while take a whack at farming along the Canadian Pacific railway line between North Bay and Fort William and see how much Marquis wheat he can grow in that beautiful part of the province of Ontario. I am more pleased than I can tell my bon. friend to see that to-day, from his seat in the House-I will not say he has given the lie; I speak in all good humour, but he has repudiated the argument of his friends who said that the agricultural belt of the National Transcontinental was no good, because my hon. friend says it is a good country and is going to support a great population. We are pleased to have heard the truth from the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), that this district, through which the late Government built the National Transcontinental, is one of such fertile land that even the very good province of Ontario is proud to have it within its boundaries.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I would like to take up the time of the committee for a' few minutes in raising my voice in protest against this attempt once again to set the East against the West and the West against the East. It seems to me that the farmers of the Dominion of Canada do not require to be put in hostile camps of that- kind, nor will their best interests be served in that way. The West has its own peculiar problems and difficulties, and these have been looked upon with a great deal of consideration by the representatives from other parts of the country. Everything has been done that we could reasonably do-those of us who represent the East-to change conditions in favour of the farmer of the West. I trust that the best representatives from the West

look upon the farmers of the East with the same measure of consideration. Our problems are one, after all. Now, we have some difficulties in the East. I would ask the minister to take into consideration the ininterests of that large tract of the province of Ontario lying between the agricultural and fruit-growing portion of Ontario to the south and the great clay belt to the north. There is there a great stretch of country not quite so favourable for agricultural production, but admirably adapted for a great many things. Our people in the section of country from which I come do not know exactly what can be produced in that country, and we would like very much to see an experimental farm established there. The country of which I speak takes in such districts as Muskoka, Parry Sound, Nipiss-ing and Haliburton and other constituencies further to the east whose conditions are somewhat similar. We believe there are a great many kinds of fruit that can be grown in that country.. We believe it is admirably adapted for the production of a great many kinds of vegetables and roots. True, we produce great numbers of cattle and also no inconsiderable quantity of grain and vegetables. But we are not working under the best conditions. With a view to demonstrating the possibilities of that country, our people have approached the local Government at Toronto and pressed their claim time after time. But we have been met of late with the reply that the lack of funds has made it impossible for the local Government to take part in carrying out our wishes. So, I bring the subject before the Minister of Agriculture for the Dominion and ask his assistance so that we may have some kind of demonstration farm established in that country to show our farmers there what our particular part of this great Dominion is capable of producing. We have been able to come down to the city of Ottawa for two or three years and, at your great annual exhibition, carry off first prize with our display of potatoes. We have been able to do the same in the city of Toronto for eight or ten years handrunning. Our people were able to go to the town of Brockville and take some of the prizes in grain last winter. But our farmers are not educated in a general way to take advantage of the peculiar qualities of our soil. These cases that I mention are the result of individual effort. There is no general effort to demonstrate to our farmers the benefit of certain kinds of cultivation and to show them for what line of 
production our conditions are best suited. Therefore I ask the Minister of Agriculture to give to our section of the country the consideration to which we think it is entitled.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend from
Saskatoon (Mr. McOraney) asked me what land had been bought in connection with the Rosthern farm. A strip of land lying between the station and the right of way of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway and Steamboat Company, containing approximately 15 acres, was bought at the price of $1,000. Another plot of 440 acres was bought from Jacob Janzen. It forms the NE. i and S. i of section 26, tp. 42, range 3, west of the 3rd meridian.
I desire to say just a word in answer to the remarks of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and the remarks of my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright). As to these farms and the work of the Agricultural Department generally, 1 hope that hon. members understand that there is no East and no West in what we are doing. I happen to be a western man myself, my home being much farther west than that of my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) or other hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken. I was also an Ontario man. I think that everybody in this House will agree that what is done for agriculture should be done, so far as possible, equitably throughout the country. It is true, we are making this initial step in demonstration work in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. But that does not mean that northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, Ontario and other parts will be left out, as the work develops and the opportunities warrant. I shall be glad to keep in mind what my hon. friends have said.
M. H. ACHIM (Labelle) (Translation): Mr Chairman, it was not my intention to take much of the time of the minister to air my viewTs on this question, but the prolonged debate on this subject participated in by my hon. friends from the west and from Ontario does away with any hesitation I may have had. In view of that lengthy discussion, I cannot be accused of loquacity if I devote two or three minutes to the province of Quebec. It is not out of place to recall in this House, as elsewhere, that there still exists such a province, which has played an historic and important part in this country.

From the viewpoint of agriculture, it needs envy very little either of the western provinces or the province of Ontario. The complaints that I bring to the minister from my constituency are very much similar to those laid before him by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles). In his reply, the Minister of Agriculture freed me from certain misgivings which have been worrying me for the last two or three years. When I became a member of this House, I received numerous petitions from the district of Labelle, requesting from the Government the establishment of an experimental farm or rather of an agricultural station in that part of the province of Quebec. Heretofore, and more especially during the last few years, new districts such as the Abbitibi, the Temiskaming and New Ontario have engrossed public attention; but it has been too readily forgotten that for some fifty years past the region of Labelle has been opened to settlers by a distinguished and zealous priest, Mgr. Labelle, whom the federal and the provincial governments encouraged in his task and that the new district has helped to alleviate the congestion of some of our cities. And the fact must be kept in mind that in the district of Labelle the soil is not as fertile as in the valleys of the St. Lawrence and of the Ottawa. The settlers of Labelle have migrated for the most part from the valleys of those two rivers and are of course prone to apply the same methods of cultivation with which they had become familiar in those places where the rich clay is very different from the soil of the northern regions. Moreover I must add that many of the settlers had never been on a farm; most of them, are workmen who have been snatched away by this enthusiastic apostle from the dangers of cities and under his guidance have pitched their tents in that region and set themselves to the task of bringing up their children. To-day the influx of settlers has slackened and I must be within the truth when I say that colonization is best brought about by the family. When a father has settled upon a lot and has thrived, he seeks to settle his numerous children around him. Up to the present time, the almost exclusive means of livelihood in those parts was the lumber trade. The forest was the principal source of revenue. Now, unfortunately, lumber is beginning to get scarce; the land is clear and the settler must resort to its cultivation to find his living and the sustenance of his family.
The soil with the exception of a few more fertile localities, is generally poor, and requires for its cultivation appropriate methods. We have here at Ottawa, it is true, an experimental farm with a splendid equipment, but the settlers cannot be expected to take frequent trips of two or three hundred miles to Ottawa at a cost of twenty-five to thirty dollars each for the purpose of obtaining information on the best agricultural methods. My idea is that the settler should not have to come to the experimental farm, but the farm should go to the settler. In this connection, I take pleasure in congratulating the Minister of Agriculture upon his scheme by which those new farms will be made centres of distribution; over those centres, the Ottawa experimental farm will spread its sheltering branches as far as my constituency, to which it would certainly be beneficial.
As regards the measure under consideration, I fully agree with the minister. I heard him state in the course of his reply to the hon. member for Moosejaw that he intended to set up some twenty stations of that type in the West. ' Without the least thought of harming the West, I may, on behalf of my electors, ask the minister if he could not reduce to nineteen the number of western stations and give my county the twentieth. Those districts where 'a fertile soil yields hay, oats and other grain a-plenty are not those whose farmers have most need of scientific model farms. But in our country, where the soil being lighter is of course less fertile, and where climatic disturbances are more frequent and dangerous, I venture to say that agricultural stations are a necessity, because there the land is not made to produce as much as it could, that is, proportionately to the area under cultivation, it should yield one-third more than its present production. The farmers are not acquainted with the scientific methods of cultivation which are best adapted to the nature of the soil and its geological formation.
I may be allowed to express my thanks to the minister for inaugurating such a progressive system that will solve a problem of great importance and for a long time agitated. I hope he will not forget the settlers of the district of Labelle and that he will do as much for them as for the farmers of Ontario and of the Great West.


Mr. J. GIRARD (Chicoutimi and Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the condition of my throat does not allow me to make a lengthy speech, but 1 deem it my duty to express my views in a few words



I listened with keen interest to the remarks that have-been made on this most important topic, agriculture, and my congratulations are due the hon. members from western constituencies for the convincing arguments they have brought to support their contentions. It was also a pleasure to hear the explanations given by the minister during the debate; his efficient work is praiseworthy and his initiative in the furtherance of agricultural interests commendable. The item now before us relates to experimental farms. I can see that the subject absorbs the attention of all members, but especially of those from the western prairies, and also that in the more northern districts, the farmers, through their representatives, attach much importance to this question, which, in fact, is for us of the most vital consequence. I realize that in the particular circumstances in which Canada is placed, the minister cannot easily satisfy the demands made upon him from all parts of the country. To get over the present difficulty it has been suggested that demonstration farms or stations be established on a much smaller - scale than the branches of the experimental farm. Doubtless the scheme is practical and under the circumstances will be very beneficial. But the minister's solicitude must not extend exclusively to the western provinces. Every session for the last few years, the Canadian Parliament has been called upon to provide aid for the settlers of the new provinces. This year we are asked to vote the large sum of ten millions to provide seed for those farmers who have settled on the Government lands_. That grant is not a gift but will have to be repaid by all those who have been helped. The Dominion Government had to take such a course because, at the time the new provinces were erected, it kept to itself the control of the public lands; but in view of the obligations which that reservation entails, had we not better amend the law and put those provinces on the same footing as the older provinces, transfer to them the full control of their own lands and let them shift for themselves. Does it not seem anomalous that next spring the farmers of the province of Quebec as well as those from the eastern provinces, will have, as. they have been doing, every year, to purchase large quantities of seed grain from the west itself. Is it not an oddity that we easterners are buying our -seed from the west while at the same time we are asked to advance millions of dollars'to the very people who supply us with what we want. On account 
of the nefarious war which shakes all Europe and even the whole world, Canada is placed in a peculiar position; its evident duty and interest lie in increasing to its limits its agricultural production, so as to enable Europe, by supplying it with the necessaries of life, to stave off starvation. With this in view, the Minister of Agriculture has organized throughout the country a series of patriotic lectures, as they are called, having for their object to awaken the farmers to -the necessities that have arisen and still more to those that will arise in the future; and also to point out to the farming community that now is the time to go to work and take the necessary steps to meet the needs I have jhist mentioned by an unprecedented excess of production. There has been generally a happy selection of lecturers. The farmers attended the meetings in large numbers and listened with deep interest to the important discussions carried on. The scheme is a patriotic one and its beginning as a means of theoretical education bodes well for its success; but as was pointed out in to-day's debate, it must necessarily be supplemented by object lessons, by an increase in the number of experimental farms and by the establishment of agricultural stations. I desire at this juncture to warn the minister that it is of the utmost importance that these lectures on agriculture should be kept free from all party politics. At one of the meetings wThich have been success-, ffilly carried out by Hon-. Mr. Burrell in the province of Quebec, after two officers of his department, Messrs. Fortier and Gingras had delivered their lectures, *which they always manage to render practical, a man by the name of Gareau, lecturer for the Quebec Government got up to speak. In an outburst of vituperation, he warned the audience against the movement organized by the Dominion Department of Agriculture to awaken the farmer t-o the necessity of improving his stock, and against their taking advantage of the offer of the department, who lends choice bulls to those farmers who wish to improve their methods and who apply to the minister at Ottawa. This man Gareau went so for as to denounce the Minister of Agriculture as the agent of certain cattle-breeders of Ontario and of the eastern townships, who desire to get rid of old worn-out animals. How can practical results be secured when such partisan wrangling is carried on before the farmers who have attended the lectures in good faith and are put at a loss to know what to do when the Minister of Agriculture

hands over to the Quebec Government a special subsidy of $190,000 a year as a help to agriculture in that province, it seems to me that the only proper thing to do for the Provincial Government is to employ none but men of judgment and discretion, and not mere election agents, who, disregarding all propriety, and callous to the public interest, drag the Dominion Minister in the mire for no purpose but to disparage the good work he is doing.
In past years, I spoke in this House of the question now before the House in so far as my constituency was concerned. I am aware that in this forum, our own separate local interests must not monopolize our attention, but the interest of every locality must, be considered as those of the one great Canadian family. But if I revert to the discussion that has taken place here to-day, the most serious complaints and the most forcible arguments that have been heard have come from the representatives of the most northern districts. It has been shown how, even in the West there is found, with a difference in latitude, great differences in geological formations and climatic influences, that create, in the more northern regions, even on the best farms, special difficulties of cultivation. If on the western plains, which are so fertile, the higher latitudes present special problems to the agriculturist, the same endures in the eastern provinces. In the East, there are localities favoured with mild winters; others where it is colder and others still are found, as my county, where a severe winter lasts for six or seven months and where climatic conditions differ radically from those of the province of Quebec, because the atmospheric currents are different and. so the chances of successful cultivation are lessened. The soil is fertile, the farmers live comfortably, and from the railway records we see that the agricultural population, which numbers
30,000	in the districts of Chicoutimi and Lake St. John, has secured from the cheese and live stock industries more than two million dollars of revenue. But such a revenue can be obtained under such special circumstances only by harder labour, and a better grasp of the underlying principles of good farming than what is required in other more favoured sections of the province, on account of the more strenuous efforts exacted from the tiller of the soil by a less bountiful Providence, so to speak, and the continued climatic disturbances.
To the north and south of the Lauren-tians, the Dominion Government has estab-131J
lished branches of the experimental farm at Compton, in the eastern townships, at Cap Rouge and at Sainte Anne de la Pocatiere. Moreover, a philanthrophic Canadian millionaire has erected in the vicinity at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, the famous Macdonald agricultural college, which is after all an experimental farm, perhaps the best equipped in this country. We also have in that part of the province agricultural schools at Oka and at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, which are in their way experimental farms on a smaller scale. Here then in the province of Quebec we find six very important practical institutions, of which two, under the control of the Dominion authorities, are situated in the same district and subject to absolutely the same climate.
Excursions of farmers to the experimental farms have been suggested. Of course, such trips have a certain educative value, but others have stated here before me that they cannot be of much help especially when the visitors come from a region subject to a different climate and having a different geological formation. I have myself at different times organized similar excursions to the central experimental farm at Ottawa. Coming from such a distance, the excursionists found little time to appreciate the methods used and so different were the nature of the soil and the climatic conditions, that, after their return home, they found they had brought back very little that could avail them on their farms.
We now hear on a sudden of a great agricultural movement along the Transcontinental railway, around Lake Abitibi, a new region about whose geology and climate nothing is known. Why such a leap in the dark, and why overlook the province of Quebec, especially those localities where settlement has already been shown to be possible, . where agriculture can .be carried on with success and where there - are still left, as in the Matapedia valley, especially in my constituency, lands of great fertility, on which numerous parishes could be established, but wherein farmers hesitate to settle through fear of unfavourable geographical conditions. It seems to me more rational to take all possible means to maintain and increase a country's population in well known districts rather than let those regions shift for themselves and confine our efforts to those localities in which success is quite uncertain. That policy explains why I take it to be my duty to state anew in this House the needs of my electors, and tr

insist on the minister and the Government doing immediately what is fair by us.
During the last few years, I have maintained with the department an active correspondence on this subject. I have forwarded numerous petitions, and our position has been put before the minister in a clear light. The answers were never unfavourable, but a definite asquiesc'ence is yet to come. Other places more favourably located have received attention while the department, without any ill-will, I know, has been neglecting that part of the province wherein the first experimental farm ought to have been established. The minister, I hope, accepts my remarks in the same spirit in which I make them. I advocate now the claims of justice and common sense, and of course common sense, as ever, is bound to triumph, and the long expected answer will come in due course.
On behalf of my electors, I must express publicly to the Minister of Agriculture our appreciation of all he has been doing to promote the welfare of the farming community of which I am a representative. He also deserves the thanks of that community for the practical assistance given to the improvement of cattle, especially of milch cows. The farmers greatly appreciate the help he has given them, and I deem it my duty to tell him so in this House.
As regards the educational work to be continued, I believe that the minister would do well to take advantage of the rights which accrue to him from the federal subsidies to the different provinces to be devoted to the promotion of agriculture, and introduce in this country the system followed in Germany, France, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where experimental stations, agricultural colleges and lyceums have been established in large numbers in every section of their respective territories. To put the final touch to the education of farmers' sons and daughters, the Government, at its own expense sends them to visit the best colleges and the most practical farms, so that, by this comparative study, they may become better farmers and develop a greater love for the calling of their parents. That course will, better than all else, help to make agriculture more congenial to them and to keep on the soil the children who would forsake it for the cities.
We are now in the throes of a financial crisis; everybody must make sacrifices; economy is the watch-word. But an expenditure which cannot be cut down or delayed, is that which aims at stirring up

the farmers' apathy, awakening them to the needs and obligations of their profession, and making agriculture as prosperous as lies in the power of a Government. If there is on the surface of the earth an industry which more than another has not remained stationary, it is assuredly agriculture, so, whatever may be the actual stress, I respectfully submit that the Government cannot devote too much of our revenue to its upbuilding and prosperity, and it is the duty of public men who understand the true interests of the country to help the efforts of the Government in that direction.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure for .me to be able to listen from the beginning to this debate participated in by both English and French speakers, and I must say that I fully concur in the remarks which have been made by the hon. members for Labelle (Mr. Achim) and for Chicoutimi (Mr. Girard):	I submit that
the climatic conditions which prevail in the county of Rimouski and the eastern portion of the province of Quebec, call for greater assistance from the Government than the old part of Ontario and even the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which all enjoy the benefit of a most favourable climate. The farmers of the eastern districts of the province of Quebec have to cope with inclement weather conditions. Seeding cannot take place before the month of June; and very often early frosts blast the hopes of an abundant harvest ; to that the inhabitants of those regions, with a winter season lasting generally all of seven months, show greater courage and endurance that the farmers of Ontario and the other provinces in which winter lasts but three or four months. Those districts especially have a right to look to the paternal solicitude of the Government. In Ontario, fruits grow abundantly and grain ripens easily. Once the land is sowed; the farmer has only to wait for the crops to ripen; he has no fears of frost.
The representatives of the western provinces are anxious for the Government help that will enable them to purchase seed grain. They are indeed fortunate in having secured a law which favdurs them to the exclusion of certain other parts of this country who. need such assistance a good 'deal more than they. I fail to see, as also the hon. member for Chicoutimi, why we grant millions to the farmers of the west to help them in procuring seed grain, when,

in the eastern part of Quebec, where I have my residence, we .often have to purchase our own seed grain from the western farmers. It seems to me that those farmers could bear certain inconveniences and obtain their seed from their neighbours without continually appealing for assistance from the Government.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. member allow me to call his attention to the fact that, after asking this explanation from the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche), I was made to understand that the seed thus furnished to the western farmer is not given but sold to him, and as security the Government takes a lien on his harvest. It is a mere loan.


Herménégilde Boulay: I am thankful for the information, but I can say that the farmers of the province of Quebec would be glad to enjoy the same privilege. If the same course were followed for such districts as Temiscouata, Bonaventure, Chicoutimi, and Gaspe, which often find themselves in distress, I believe that the farmers would be glad to take advantage of such loans, because quite often at spring-time, they have not the money to buy their seed grain and they could easily in the fall repay out of their harvest the money that would have been advanced to them by the Government.
I have already pleaded' for an experimental farm in the county of Rimouski. There is one already in the county of Kamouraska, et Ste. Anne de la Poca-tiere, but on oooount of the distance, our farmers cannot easily visit it. The Gaspe peninsula, comprising the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure, is so to speak, a small province in itself, and there especially the farmers require to be helped along. If an experimental farm cannot be established in the county of Matane, for instance, the least that could be done would be the establishment of agricultural stations, which would be of great usefulness to the farmers. If an experimental farm were erected in the Matapedia valley, where the land is of the best to be found in that country for farming, it would render great services to Bonaventure an,d Rimouski, where good results could be expected at an early date. I entertain the fervent hope that the Minister of Agriculture will not henceforth overlook those districts which have a greater call on his attention than other parts of the country. Our farmers show such courage and struggle so bravely against an adverse climate that they should be given more encouragement than elsewhere. We would think ourselves fortunate if we lived in a country like the province of Ontario or even the western part of Quebec or New Brunswick, where the climate is a great deal milder than ours, but there we are and there we must stay, and the Government is in duty bound to extend to us its solicitude.
Now I may be allowed a slight criticism of the staff of the Department of Agriculture. I find that in that department, especially among the higher officers it is impossible for a French-speaking person who does not speak English to make himself understood. Those higher officers who are frequently in communication with the farmers of Quebec, ought to understand French. We go to their offices, and no matter how important the information we desire, it cannot be given us. These officers, moreover, go into the English speaking sections of the country and deliver lectures for the benefit of the English-speaking farmers, while the province of Quebec, whose population does not speak English cannot derive any advantage from such visits, because those officers do not speak French. I claim that all higher officers should speak French so as to be able to meet every elector and every farmer of Canada. For the most part, they are competent men and qualified for their position. It would be a great advantage for the province of Quebec to meet them and hear them expound the best agricultural methods; but we are deprived of that opportunity. When we call at the department, we have to pick up an interpreter among the young clerks or stenographers. I myself speak English with a certain fluency, but when I have to discuss technical questions I cannot express myself with as much freedom in English as I do in French. The other day I ventured into a room where nine employees were at work and not one of them could understand me. This state of things is- the same in all the departments and the Department of Agriculture is not an exception. The staff of the Department of Agriculture, according to the Civil Service List of 1913, comprises 31 French Canadians and 237 Englishspeaking employees. It seems to me that such a condition is unfair and that there should be a larger number of French Canadians, more in keeping with the importance of the French-speaking population of this country.


Martin Burrell: I
appreciate the remarks made by my hon. friends from the province of Quebec and I

take note of them. The requirements of the province of Quebec will be dealt with in the same spirit as those of the other provinces.
I understood my hon. friend to say that a great many of the officials of the department are unable to speak the French language. I may say that the director of th'e experimental farm speaks French fluently, and a great many of our other officers are familiar with the French language.


Mr. ROCHON (Translation):: As I rise
for the first time to address this House, 1 take a great deal of pleasure in seconding the remarks made by the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard) in his denunciation of those officers of the provincial government who take advantage of their position to throw discredit on the officers of the Dominion Government.
I also agree with what was said by the member for Labelle (Mr. Achim), in his plea for equal justice for the beautiful district, through whibh, flow the rivers Gatineau, La Rouge, and Du Nord, a land which some years ago the late Father Labelle opened in the north and, with prophetic insight pointed out to the settler.
Arts and Agriculture-for the administration and enforcement of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, $100,000.


James Joseph Hughes: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to the regulations regarding the shipment of potatoes from areas affected with powdery scab to foreign countries. In the case of Prince Edward Island, these shipments would be made to the islands of Newfoundland, St. Pierre and Miquelon. The regulations affecting the shipments of potatoes under these conditions are such that, if enforced, we could not ship at all. Shipments made from our province are made very largely by water, and it would be quite impossible to comply with the regulations as I find them in the Royal Gazette. I understand that the department permits shipments to be made without regard to these regulations, and I should like to have it definitely understood whether or not that is the case.


Martin Burrell: Regulation B, section 2, which has regard to shipments from infected areas, is in accord with the Destructive Insects and Pest Act. Our regulations say that within the infected area you can move the products concerned virtually without inspection, but when you come to ship to another province which is not infected, you would have to have an inspection.

There is nothing to stop you from shipping your potatoes to Newfoundland except any objection which might be made by those to whom you ship. We do not have any inspection of shipments of potatoes going to Newfoundland; if the Newfoundland people say to you that your potatoes are infected, the onus is on you.


James Joseph Hughes: There is a good deal of doubt as to whether the potatoes in our province are really affected by powdery scab. When the potatoes are loaded into the ship the shipper has no means of knowing whether they are affected with powdery scab or not, and if some fussy official comes along -who, perhaps, does not know a great deal about powdery scab, he can give the shipper a great deal of inconvenience under the present regulations. It is to provide against a condition of that kind that 1 should like to have the matters cleared up.


Martin Burrell: None of our inspectors are concerned with shipments to a foreign country; they would be concerned only with shipments to other provinces of Canada which are free from powdery scab. I quite admit that in all these things there is a good deal of inconvenience to potato growers, and I can only assure my hon. friend that the feeling which I have always held very strongly is that it is unfortunate that the United States should have taken the drastic action which they did take in this matter. The action that we have taken * in this country has been entirely owing to the stand taken by the United States authorities. I have always firmly believed that this disease is not anything like as injurious in its nature as potato canker, and perhaps not more serious than the ordinary scab. However, we were face to face with an embargo upon our potatoes on the part of the United States, and, in order to accede to the request of the shippers to give them as good a market as we could, these regulations were made. The people of the eastern provinces thought that it was better that these regulations should be put into effect and that they should get some kind of a market than that -they -Should have no market at all in the United States. A short while ago a shipment of potatoes was refused at Boston on the ground that they were infected with powdery scab, and the embargo was replaced on the whole country. I am informed by my inspectors, however, that the officials, after searching for seven hours, found but two

potatoes which were infected with powdeTy scab. I cannot speak with authority, but I am inclined to think that the United States authorities will gradually come to the conclusion that this disease is not. as serious as they at first thought it was, and that the whole embargo will be wiped out. It has done good, however, in calling the attention of the potato growers of the country to the necessity for wiping out any serious disease of potatoes. I can only tell my bbn. friend that so far as we are concerned we are simply- making these regulations to try and give shippers a market under the best possible conditions.	[DOT]


James Joseph Hughes: I am quite pleased to have the assurance of the minister that there will be no trouble so far as shipments from our province are concerned. I agree, too, that the United States was not justified in putting into force such drastic regulations. I think that we ourselves were somewhat to blame, because in the autumn of 1913 we sent a man to Washington who told the American authorities that our potatoes were diseased. We could hardly expect them to take any other course than to take us at our word, and so they imposed very stringent regulations against the exportation of our potatoes.


Martin Burrell: I know that my hon. friend would not wish to be misleading. We could not deny that we had powdery scab; and as for our officer saying that we had it, he was only stating what they already knew. They had their men in the country, and they knew absolutely, as we knew absolutely, that wre had powdery scab. I do not personally attach the importance to the disease that some people do; but you cannot conceal the fact that the disease is in the country. We have it to-day, but I do not believe that it is of the serious nature that many people believe.


James Joseph Hughes: In my province there is no doubt about that.


Martin Burrell: We have not any doubt; we know.


James Joseph Hughes: Some few years ago two officials of the department from Ottawa visited our province and visited the premises of one particular man who was a representative potato grower.* They informed this man that he had powdery scab, and told him he must not on any account use his potatoes for seed purposes, that he must get potatoes from some other person
where he would be sure that they would be free from disease. This particular person attached no importance to the instruction, and went on using his potatoes for seed purposes. He had two crops, and this autumn two other officials came along, visited his farm, and gave him a clean bill of health as having no powdery scab on his place, while some other farmers had it. A thing of that kind becomes well known in the surrounding neighbourhood, and it leaves everybody in doubt. I think the first officials must have been mistaken. The scab they saw must have been the old scab that was not at all dangerous.
Last autumn two gentlemen came to the province to lecture on this subject, Mr. Adams and Mr. Holmden. Mr. Adams, who was supposed to know a good deal about this disease, came from Ireland, where they have it very extensively. He lectured on the causes of the disease and the method of propagation. He told us that . a moist climate was favourable to its production, and also a soil in which lime naturally occurred. In the province of Prince Edward Island we have a moist climate; that would be against us; but our soil contains no lime. The other gentleman followed him the same night, and lectured on the prevention of the disease. He advised the farmers to spray their cellars or potato warehouses with a solution of formaldehyde or, in the absence of that, with a preparation of lime, which would kill the spores. We asked him to tell us why lime in the soil would propagate the spores and in the cellar would kill them-and we did not get an answer. I presume ther'e is an answer. These are the things that lead farmers to believe that these men do not know much about their subjects, after all. It would b'e better for the men sent out in that way to be thoroughly posted on their subjects before going to lecture people, becaus'e questions are sure to be asked. For my own information and for the information of others, I would be glad to know how lime in the soil will propagate that disease and lime in the cellar will cure it.


Martin Burrell: I could not attempt to answer all the expert or technical questions my hon. friend puts. I may say, however, that occasionally a good dose of whisky will save a man's life and perhaps if you give a dose of whisky to the next fellow it will kill him. It depends on the condition of the man.


Mr. GRAHAM:: And something on the
quality of the whisky, too.


Martin Burrell: Yes. I think that what my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) has said does not contradict anything I have advanced, and I hope that conditions will become more favourable very soon.


James Joseph Hughes: I notice that some of the members of the House are very anxious to have lecturers sent into their respective districts to instruct the farmers in the best methods of farming. I do not ask the minister to send any lecturers into our district. Our experience is that these gentlemen do not know much about farming. They may have spent a year or two perhaps in college and learned the names of vegetables and plants, but beyond that our experience is that those who come to our province know very little about practical farming. The consequence is that the farmers do not, in any number, go to hear them. The minister can save that expenditure so far as our province is concerned. Some few years ago a lecturer came to our province who advocated deep ploughing. He told the farmers that they had a second farm under the one they were using and that they could obtain access to it by deep ploughing and thus get virgin soil and much better crops. A year or two after that another man came along and condemned that absolutely. He opposed deep ploughing or much ploughing of any kind. He advocated surface cultivation.


William Henry Sharpe: What do you think about it?
.Mr. HUGHES: I am addressing my remarks to the chairman and the minister, who know what I am talking about. Another lecturer came to our province, I think last year, and a number of farmers went to listen to him. One man asked him what he would do to bring in a worn-out field, or worn-out land, and the prompt answer was: Sow clover on it. The minister knows well enough that that was no answer to give to a practical farmer, that the land would have to be well cultivated and in good condition before you could get a catch of clover. Yrou might as well sow the clover on the sea shore as on a worn-out field. Consequently practical farmers go away from meetings of that kind and doubt (everything they have hearu. I would therefore ask the minister to send a better class of men to our province, if he has any at all, and if he has not any of a better class, not to send any, and save that much expense. These are practical questions, and upon them I am sure the minister will agree with me.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister given up all hopes of having the embargo on our potatoes removed? This matter came up when the minister was away. The Minister of Customs stated in the House that the shipment came from New Brunswick, but the hon. member from Carleton (Mr. Carvell), who took part in the debate, was most positive that there was no powdery scab in that shipment at all; and what the minister now says confirms that statement. Have the American authorities extended that embargo to the whole of Canada?


Martin Burrell: Apparently they have, and apparently they are within their rights, because they explicitly stated that if any powdery scab was found they would restore the embargo. They find powdery scab undoubtedly, although in exceedingly small quantities, and after a great deal of trouble. I do not say that there is no hope of getting that embargo removed. On the contrary I am inclined to believe that in the course of not a very long time the attitude of the United States authorities, especially of the technical officers, will be entirely changed, and that they will come to the conclusion that the situation doss not warrant such drastic action.
For the development of the dairying industries, and the improvement in transportation, sale and trade in food and other agricultural products, $150,000.


Charles Marcil: Is the minister going to give the same facilities as last year for the transportation of butter from eastern Quebec to the Montreal market? Quite a number of butter factories have been started on the Gaspe peninsula, and the people there are much interested in this question.


Martin Burrell: We expect to give the same facilities.


Mr. TOBIN:: I would like to call the attention of the minister to a letter that I received from the president of the Eastern Townships Associated Boards of Trade. The letter, which encloses a resolution, is as follows:
(Sherbrooke, Que., April 1, 1915.
B. W. Tobin, Esq., M.P.,
House of Parliament,
Ottawa, Ont..
Dear Sir:
We have the honour to transmit herewith copy of resolution adopted at the recent annual meeting of the Eastern Townships Associated Boards of Trade.
We may say that delegates from the various Farmers' Clubs joined with the Associated

Boards at that meeting and were most emphatic in their expressions with regard to the serious condition which has been created through the increased prices ot feed. It was pointed out that unless something was done to prevent the inflation of prices by speculators the consequences would be disastrous in the matter of agricultural production, and that the output of many of our farms would be lessened.
Yours very truly,
Eastern Townships Associated Boards of Trade,
V. E. Morrill,
President.
Has the minister received a copy of that letter?


Martin Burrell: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend any information about that, as I only got back a few days ago and have not yet had time to look over my correspondence.


Edmund William Tobin: I will read the resolution which the letter encloses:
Extract from minutes of annual meeting of the Eastern Townships Associated Boards of Trade, held at Sherbooke, March 16, 1915:
It was moved by J. A. Watson, seconded by Geo. W. A. Reburn, and resolved:
That whereas the Eastern Townships Associated Boards of Trade have learned from the delegates to this meeting from Farmers' Clubs that the production of our farmers cannot well be increased until the price of feed for our cattle and food for our population be reduced to within a measurcable distance of where these prices were before the outbreak of hos. tilities;
Whereas the milling companies are obliging dealers in the Eastern Townships to accept, in each shipment of feed, many bags of flour which they do not actually require, at the excessive, increased prevailing price, which is unreasonable when the present price of wheat is considered, thus loading ordinary dealers with high-priced flour ;
Whereas it is evident that the present price of grain is not increased sufficiently to warrant the excessive and increased price now charged for flour, bran, shorts, etc., by the milling companies of the Dominion ;
Whereas this is certainly done in restraint of trade;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that these Eastern Townships Associated Boards of Trade protest against such increased price of food stuffs, in so far as this increase is not absolutely justifiable;
That this protest be rendered effective by ' forwarding copy of this resolution to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to the Minister of Agriculture, and to the members of Parliament representing the Eastern Townships at Ottawa, with a request that it be handed for action to the commission which has already been appointed to investigate the high cost of living.
And furthermore that these Eastern Townships Associated Boards of Trade severely deprecate the idea of any persons or companies using present war conditions to enrich themselves.
Certified true copy.
W. M. Hillhouse, Acting Secretary.
I hope the minister will take this matter into his consideration, and lay the letter and resolution before the High Cost of Living Commission.


Martin Burrell: The deputy informs me that lie thinks the letter was received and transferred to the Department of Trade .and Commerce, with which it had more to do. It would probably he placed before the High Cost of Living Commission, whose report I am informed is in the hands of the printer.


George Perry Graham: This item covers a multitude of things. What does the minister propose to do for the development of the dairying industry?


Martin Burrell: Yes, it covers quite a lot of items. We propose to carry-on the activities we have been engaged in for the last two or three years. One very important item is the carrying on of the work of the record centres. Speaking from memory, I think we have thirty-two centres at the present time; quite a large numheT of them iare in Ontario. The animals tested in each centre	run
from 700 to 1,000. At the end of the year the farmers associated with the centre are able to see ho a profitable their animals [DOT]are, what is the percentage of butter fat and so on, and whither or not the animals are paying their hoard bill. It is a very valuable work. Then there other items such as the model cheese factory, model creamery, refrigerator car service and cold storage for fruit. It is practically the same work as was carried on last year, there being very little increase this year on any of the lines I have mentioned.


George Perry Graham: How does the quality of our cheese compare with that of other years, and with that of other countries? Are we maintaining our high reputation?


Martin Burrell: My impression is that we are. As my hon. friend can understand, I have not had any late word about it, as I have not had time to see any of the officials. I shall be very glad to get the information for my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: How do our butter exports compare this	year	with	last?	Airewe consuming ail making as much?	our butter?	Are	we


Martin Burrell: There	was	none	exported ikust year, and I imagine it will be the same this year. I think we are making as much. I shall be very glad to take a note of what my hon. friend says and hand it to the dairy commissioner.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps one of the officials could 'hand me the information, for members ame often asked these questions, even when going along on the train. Some of us who are interested in agricultural societies give special prizes to encourage the raising of various kinds of stock, milch cows, for instance, and dairy herds. Has the department any suggestion to make as to the best use that can be made of these prize distributions? For instance, I know of one member that gives [DOT]two prizes for the best dairy herd. The idea in giving a prize is to stimulate competition between the ordinary farmers as well as between the producers of the very finest stock, but we find that .the same people get the prizes every year, no matter how you change it around, and they are, of course, entitled to them because they exhibit the best herds. Is there any suggestion by which a prize can be given that would be a stimulus outside of those who produce pure-breds?


Martin Burrell: The only thing you
could do would be to Offer prizes to those who never got a prize before.


George Perry Graham: I thought of that, but
I had reference more to what we would exclude in a prize of that kind.


Martin Burrell: It is a pretty wide subject and I would be very glad to get suggestions with reference to it.


Charles Marcil: Dairying is becoming an important industry in my constituency, and I would like to know from the minister if he has had an application from Bonaventure for one of these cow-testing machines?


Martin Burrell: What we usually do is to try to find some district where the dairying industry is not quite up to the mark, where there are a sufficient number of cows, and where the people are anxious to bring their dairying up to the highest standard. We have now thirty or forty of these stations, and this year I do not think we can do any more than carry them on, although we hope to extend the work later. For the last year or two we have been reaching out to all districts possible, including many in Quebec, and in Ontario, and in the West. It does not follow that because there is an application for a dairy-record district that we establish one, because it means a great deal of expense and we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. A great many applications have come in with which we have not been able to deal.


Charles Marcil: The farmers in a county like that which I represent have a great many hardships to encounter which are not the lot of other farmers in Canada. The summer lasts for five months and the farmer has seven months of winter to face. In Bonaventure, ten or twelve butter factories have sprung up in recent years, and some are coming into existence in Gaspe county. The farmers are far removed from the markets; they have to depend on an out-of-date railway, the climatic conditions are severe in that part of the country, and the people are most certainly deserving of help from the Department of Agriculture.


Martin Burrell: I will bear that- in
mind.


James McCrie Douglas: I have before me a number of pamphlets issued by the Department of Agriculture, dealing with the dairying industry, cold storage, cow tests, ice on the farm, butter-making on the farm, and so on, and all these pamphlets contain most valuable information for the farmer. I find on inquiry at the department that the supply of this literature is very limited and that the system of distribution is, to my mind, inadequate. The members representing rural constituencies would, I believe, value most highly a generous supply of literature of this description. We do get a certain number of copies of the evidence taken before the Agricultural Committee of this House, but to my mind it is of little value from the educational point of view and only useful as an attestation of the fact that certain members attended that committee.
I should like to have 400 or 500 copies of each of the publications I have referred to for distribution throughout my constituency, but I have been informed by the department that some of them are out of print, and that the supply is not equal to the demand. Does not the minister think it would be in the interests of agriculture and of the country generally to spend a little more money in distributing a liberal supply of this literature, and possibly to economize on the printing and distribution of certain blue books which are worthless? *


George Ewan McCraney: I endorse the suggestion of my hon. friend t'hiat money spent by the Government in the publication and distribution of such pamphlets as he has mentioned would be far better spent than on a number of publications which are of no use whatever. Many of the blue books I receive go to the waste-paper basket; I

do not want to read them, and I have no place to put them, and the two copies of each being sent simply doubles the nuisance. The British Government print and distribute certain publications, such as the correspondence in connection with the war, which are issued at a mere nominal fee, and that is not a bad" idea. For example, t'be white papers of the French Government, which is quite a large volume, has been issued at the price of one penny. The members of this House receive a bound edition of the sessional papers. Since I have been a - member I have sent my copy to the University library where I can have access to it, and where the public can have access to it as well. I have let it be known in the public library and other places that these books are available there.
I believe that if some of our libraries were supplied with the sessional papers, and if the members of Parliament were not supplied with so many, it would be an improvement. The publications of the Department of Agriculture are, as a rule, very valuable, and I should like to see a wider distribution of them.


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: I believe that a great deal of public money is wasted in publishing and distributing Government reports that are not read by anybody. I and others have studied the matter, and I think it can be safely said that a saving of half a million dollars per annum could easily be made if more regard for economy were displayed in the distribution of these parliamentary publications. Only a few short days ago a report went through here, perhaps unnoticed, by which the usual allotment of the copies per member has been reduced to one. Henceforth for a year my hon. friend will not be burdened with more than one copy of each parliamentary publication. Apart from that a great saving can be effected, because there go to members of Parliament, newspaper offices and elsewhere a great many publications that they do not need and that are simply a burden to them. The Department of Trade and Commerce have a system by which they ascertain by means of return postcards whether their publications are desired or not, and the same rule could be applied to all parliamentary publications, so that no publications would go to those who did not desire them and had no use for them. I rose simply to tell my hon. friend that he will not be burdened as much as he was
before, although, even after this, he may be burdened more than he wants to be.


Martin Burrell: Some of the remarks
which have been made are absolutely true, although I think they apply more to the other departments than to the Department of Agriculture. The rule in the Department oi Agriculture is that every farmer in Canada, if he applies, can get all our literature; or if any member wants to give a list of the farmers to whom he would like to have it sent, they are put on our list and receive our publications. We find that is the only method to pursue, because if hon. members had to distribute our publications themselves, there would be a duplication and a lot of unnecessary work On our experimental farm list we have more than 80,000 names, and we issue more than 2,000,000 publications every year, and a lot of this matter is very highly appreciated and is doing a lot of good. If the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Dougilas) or the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Hugh Ol-ark) know of any people -to whom they want us to send thiis literature -we shall be only too glad to send it. We do not charge for doing so, because there is a feeling in Canada against paying for Government publications, and we have made a charge only in the case of some expensive publications, of which there is quite a limited issue.


George Ewan McCraney: My observations did not apply in any sense to the publications of the Department of Agriculture, because I have always found them excellent, and they are the class of publication for which I would like to see the -money provided.


James McCrie Douglas: Would the minister give me some information as to the scarcity of these pamphlets at present? I understand from one of the officers of the department that the supply has been practically exhausted, and that is why I wish the minister would have more of them published.


Martin Burrell: As a matter of fact, there is not a great call for many of the bulletins and they have been allowed to go out of print. This year, in consequence of the campaign we have been carrying on in connection with our agricultural work, there has been such an enormous demand for a number of the bulletins and pamphlets that the supply has been practically exhausted; but we are putting in fresh orders to have them issued again, so that, although in some cases there may be a -scarcity, we shall soon be able to remedy that.


Mr. BRODER:: One thing that should not be overlooked is that the same bulletin will not suit all sections of the country. Why not get those that will suit the different sections and publish more of them, and economize in that way? As far as blue books are concerned, the local newspapers which are supplied with all these documents, make very little use of them, and it would be better to have them sent by request. A great saving could be made in that way, and what was saved might be expended in increasing the issue of the agricultural bulletin which is so much desired by the people throughout the country.


Mr. McCREA:: I understand the hon. member has in the employment of his department a Mr. Giard, who is thoroughbred livestock commissioner. What are his duties and what is his remuneration? I understand that he has opened an office in Sherbrooke, and I would like to know the names of Ms employees, their salaries and their duties. I am asking for this not for the sake of criticism, but simply to know what has been done. My contention is that neither this Government nor any other Government has done what it should have done for the cause of agriculture; and any money legitimately and wisely spent for agricultural purposes will never have any criticism from me, because agriculture is one of the things that have been seriously neglected. If the minister cannot give me the information off-hand, if he will give it to me be-for the end of the session, I shall be satisfied.


Martin Burrell: I can give it to my hon. friend when we come to the live-stock vote. Mr. A. W. Giard is representative of the live-stock branch for Quebec.


James Alexander Robb: Can the minister tell us if
any progress has been made in the manufacture of butter and cheese in the Eastern Townships, or is there an increased exportation of cream to the United States from the Eastern Townships?


Martin Burrell: 1 am sorry I cannot
tell my hon. friend that off-hand, but I will try to get the information before I get through with my Estimates.


James Alexander Robb: In the Montreal Gazette the statement is made that cream all the way from Stanstead through to Richmond was exported to the United States and that the farmers of that particular district proposed to ask the department to establish butter 
and cheese factories to off-set that exportation. The minister might also have that looked up.
Towards the encouragement of cold storage warehouses for the better preservation and handling of perishable food products, $200,000.


George Perry Graham: How is this work progressing?


Martin Burrell: This is exactly the same vote that we have always put in. It is paid in six instalments for the encouragement of cold storage industries under our control; that is, we have control of the rates and give for each warehouse a grant based on 30 per cent of the cost of construction, the plant having to conform to our specifications and the warehouse having to be a public utility. This work has been in operation for a great many years, and we are carrying it on along the same lines.


George Perry Graham: How many plants have you?


Martin Burrell: About twenty-six or
twenty-seven scattered throughout the country. The practice has been followed not to establish or encourage them in districts where they will conflict with cold storage plants that are serving a public purpose.


George Perry Graham: Is there one at Brockville?


Martin Burrell: Yes, it has had its fifth instalment. It was built at a total cost of $52,000.


George Perry Graham: What is the name of this company?


Martin Burrell: I have not the exact name. I will give my hon. friend the information this evening. I see that the fifth instalment is due in 1915, so they must have been established about five years ago.


Air. LOGGIE:: What is the cost of the cold storage at Port Hawkesbury, and how many instalments are still due?


Martin Burrell: The cost is $200,000, and the third instalment is due in February, 1916.


William Stewart Loggie: What provision is there for the control of rates of cold storage plants after the instalments have been paid?


Martin Burrell: I do not think there is any provision of that kind, for it is practically impossible to carry it out. Of course, we have control during the time the instalments are being paid, because we can refuse

to pay if they do not carry out the conditions on which the subsidy is paid. It' has had to be a question largely of good faith.


William Stewart Loggie: After the instalments are all paid, I fancy the Government has not much real control over the rates or operation of the plants.


Martin Burrell: I do not know that we have. Of course, we never had.


Frank Oliver: What is the position in regard to the cold storage establishment at Edmonton?


Martin Burrell: The third ',r'stalment is due in February, T916, so, apparently, two instalments have been paid.


Frank Oliver: Are there reports as to the operations of the establishment?


Martin Burrell: I presume that the cold storage commissioner would have that. We always send a man out before instalments are paid to see that everything is according to conditions.


Mr. KYTE:: What is the amount of subsidy paid to the cold storage plant at Port Hawkesbury?


Martin Burrell: It is 30 per cent on the cost, the cost being $200,000. It is at the same rate as the subsidy paid to others.


George William Kyte: Will the payment of the balance depend on any inspection?
. Mr. BURRELL: Yes, we do not pay unless they conform to the requirements of the department.
Exhibitions, $250,000.


George Perry Graham: The minister is not lacking in information on this subject, for he has it at first hand. He will be able to inform not only the House but the department about these exhibits, particularly the big one.


Martin Burrell: If my hon. friend has
any special questions to ask, I would like to direct what I have to say to answering those questions. [DOT]


George Perry Graham: I am willing to leave it to the minister to give us such information as he thinks best about the Canadian exhibit and how it sizes up with those of other countries. Also, he might tell us what benefit we shall derive as Canadians from the expenditure of this money. We 5 p.m. should be glad to know about those who are in charge of this work, and any other points about our exhibit that deserve special mention. I think
it would be very interesting to the country to have a report of that kind from the minister on his return from California.


Martin Burrell: I do not wish to take up more of the time of the committee than is necessary, but I am glad to speak a word on this subject, as it is one in which I am interested and I know that that interest is shared by all. The man in charge of this work is Colonel Hutchison, the commissioner, who has been in the service of the department for about fifteen years. The long experience he has had in connection with other exhibitions has served him splendidly in this case. Two years ago, when the subject of a Panama-Pacific exposition was first spoken of, we had two deputations, one from San Diego and one from San Francisco, asking Canada to take part. We came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to take part in more than one exhibition, and, after consideration, we decided that the San Francisco exposition would he the most important. At that time I suggested to the Prime Minister that if Canada took part in the exhibition there, especially in view of the colossal scale on which the exhibition was to be carried out, we must make a first-class exhibition or not exhibit at all. I got the consent of the Prime Minister and of my colleagues, and later on the support of the House, to a vote that amounts practically to twice what we have ever spent in an international exhibition before. I have just had the pleasure and responsibility of going to assist in the dedication of the Canadian building and have had the advantage of seeing what they were doing. I can only say that the exhibition is an extraordinarily important one. And, although the war is undoubtedly doing some injury to it in preventing attendance from Europe, they are getting a tremendous attendance from all over their own country and from South America and Canada; and perhaps on the whole, the attendance will justify the expectations of the promoters. The prime minister has just suggested to me that I should say something about the general character of the exposition. It is pretty hard to describe in a word an affair so big as this, for they have spent $18,000,000 to $20,000,000 in connection with the various buildings. Nearly every state of the Union has a separate building, some of them very expensive and very beautiful. Practically all the nations in the world, all the leading nations with the exception, I think, of Germany and. Austria, have buildings of their own and very large ex-

hibits. The French, the Italian and the Argentine exhibits are not quite ready; these nations are just completing their buildings. The other states and nations have their buildings practically completed and the exhibits installed.
So far as our own work is concerned, I have no hesitation in saying that not only has Canada the best exhibit it ever had at any exhibition, but it is quite evident we have been made the centre of attraction of the whole exhibition among the nations. We have the best exhibit and the best building, I think, of the whole exhibition.
Some hon members: Hear, hear.


Martin Burrell: If I felt justified in
taking up the time of the committee, I could give any amount of testimony to this, because Californians have been most generous in their praise, I do not think I can do better than read a couple of very short extracts from newspapers published in prominent counties in California devoted to fruit-growing. The Merced California Sun, in the coir''1 of an editorial article entitled "The Feature of the Fair," says:
The one thing on the exposition grounds that is attracting most attention and causing the most talk is the Canadian building and its contents. Wherever you go you hear people talking about it and advising others to see it.
. . . The Sun will not attempt a description of Canada's offering, further than to say that all of the vast resources of that great country are shown in a manner so original, so unique, so attractive that there is nothing else on the exposition grounds to compare with it. The Canadian building and its contents are in a class by themselves, and our advice to Merced visitors to the fair is to " See Canada First,'' and then see it again as often as your time will permit.
I wish to read a portion of another article from the Fresno, California, Republican, as follows:
Every local booster in California ought to visit the Canadian building at the exposition, if for nothing but a visible demonstration that the best local advertising, is that which does not advertise the locality at all. Simply as an exploitation of the country and its resources, this Canadian building is incomparably the most skillfully presented exhibit on the grounds. The thing presented is not Nova Scotia, or Quebec, or Alberta or British Columbia, but Canada. After going through the building one feels that he has made a tour of Canada itself. Direct exploitation or promotion is tactfully kept in the background. The impression given is that the Canadian people, proud of their country, wish to share with all the world this enjoyment of its beauty and riches. The commerical suggestion is nowhere - directly made, and .yet almost unconsciously

the impulsive comment of every visitor is " Let's go to Canada and buy a farm."
I could give dozens of similar quotations, but I shall not weary the committee by reading them. Colonel Hutchison and the members of the permanent staff who have been doing this work for a great many years, deserve great credit for the work which they have accomplished in the face of tremendous competition. Colonel Hutchison has given the most loyal service. He has marked abilities for this special kind of work, and, to use a phrase that is understood by all men, he has made a killing, so far as >this particular undertaking goes-Tttie Canadian building was the only one in the grounds which was completed and ready on the very day the Fair opened. It was crowded on that day, an$ has been crowded every day since. The people of California and all visitors have been absolutely generous in their appreciation of Canada's exhibit. It appeals to the American imagination that at a time when a small country like this has had the task of sending 50,000 of its citizens across the seas-to fight the Empire's battles, it has also had the energy to take part in this great exposition, to put up one of the best buildings and to show the finest exhibit among all the exhibits of other nations of the world. I should like to add my appreciation of the hospitality and kindness that was extended to me as a Canadian during my visit to the exposition and my attendance at the dedication ceremonies. Nothing could exceed the warm and cordial feeling shown by the people of California towards Canada and Canadians and their warm appreciation of Canada's participation m the Panama-Pacific Exposition.
Mr. A_. A. McLEAN: A gentleman who is a former Canadian wrote me a few days ago saying that he was present at the exposition in San Francisco, and he asked me to tell the minister that as a former Canadian he was proud of the exhibit which Canada is making at that exposition. He sent me a copy of a leading newspaper published in the State of Washington, which gives an account of the exhibit made by that State. It says that the Washington State exhibit is a very poor one. The article says:
That the Washington State exhibit at San Francisco is not a success is the preliminary report submitted to the Chamber of Commerce by L. Roy Slater who was asked by manager Gordon C. Corbaley to make an investigation and report.

The report is a lengthy one, but at the end of it the following reference to the Canadian exhibit is made:
The Canadians have beaten everything in sight. They have the greatest exhibit, and better than a.ll the rest of them combined. They have been shrewd enough to take advantage of our exposition to make their own exhibit the feature of the whole show, and it not only reflects great credit upon their country hut upon the men who have, charge of it.
So that we ought to congratulate the hon. minister on the splendid manner in which Canada's exhibit has been put before the people of the world.


William Erskine Knowles: I am in a position to know that what the minister has said with regard to Canada's participation in this exposition is not at all exaggerated. I was in 'Frisco on Christmas Day and the day previous, and it was general talk then that Canada's exhibit was the only one ready for the opening of the fair. I had the opportunity of meeting a scoto or more of persons who had iseen the exhibit, and I am sure that the newspaper .reports which the minister has read are not at all exaggerated. The reports which I have bad from Canadians and others is to the effect that the tastefulness of Canada's exhibit, the manner in which it was handled by Colonel Hutchison and the general management of it by the Department of Agriculture reflects great credit upon our country. In Los Angeles I met some persons who had been present at the opening of the exposition, and they were of the opinion that our representative there made himself persona grata. I do not wish to make the minister blush, but I believe that Colonel Hutchison and the department have produced in a difficult year a Canadian exhibit that, it is nothing more than fair to say, does very great credit to Canada.


George Perry Graham: In view of Canada's
superior exhibit, is there any suggestion of having a Canadian clay or a Canadian week? I have received a number of communications from former Canadians who say that they have been endeavouring to have the directors appoint a special period as a Canadian period, for one or two days or longer. If that were done, Canada would like to know about it, so that if they have any idea of attending the exposition they may be there on Canadian day or Canadian week, as the case may be.


Martin Burrell: We have been in the
habit of doing something like that in connection with nearly all expositions in which
we participate. We did have, in a sense, a special Canadian day when the dedication of the Canadian building took place. When I went there to deliver the formal dedication speech, the president of the exposition was present, together with the Governor of the state, the National commissioner and the mayor of the city. These officials gave speeches in particular honour of Canada and of the fact that Canada was participating in the Exposition. After that a reception was held upstairs for all Canadians who were present. This function was very widely advertised. At the same time, I do not think that the suggestion of a Canadian day is at all a bad idea. W'e Have had in mind the idea of having later a Canadian day, and it would be well if this were done, to give Canadians an opportunity of singling out that special period for visiting the exposition.
Health of animals, $540,000,
Mr. D. C, ROSS (Middlesex West): I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a matter to which I referred this morning, and to which some weeks ago I called the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister. It is a matter of great importance to the province of Ontario, old Ontario particularly. The principle has been accepted by both parties that farmers and grazers whose animals must be slaughtered for the public good to prevent the spread of any contagious disease shall be compensated. The Act is, however, an old one, and the compensation that the Government is allowed to give by Order in Council under the Act is not at present in keeping with the prices of cattle and hogs. Insurance companies and railway companies have raised the maximum amounts that they will pay in case of the death of cattle, and I think the Government should not lag behind at this time, especially as we are to-day threatened in Ontario with a very terrible disease. At present all a farmer can get for a grade animal that has been slaughtered in the public interest is $40. The minister well knows that that is no compensation in that case. All he can get for the killing of a grade hog is $15, which is a wholly inadequate compensation. I made the suggestion to the Prime Minister some time ago that the Government might introduce an amendment to the Act, because I do not see that anything else can bring about the result I desire to attain. I do not think it is too late yet for the Minister of Agriculture to bring in such an amendment.

He could easily raise the limit of $60 to $110, and the limit of $15 to what he thinks proper. It may be that the Government will not have to pay these prices, because the foot and mouth disease may not get into the country; but at present there is alarm in regard to it, and I think the Government ought to take the necessary precautions before the disease reaches the country. I should judge from what the minister has said to me in conversation that his idea would be that if the disease should come into Ontario, compensation should be made to the farmers by a measure which would be made retroactive. If the session is so far advanced that it is impossible to amend the Act, the minister's statement to me is some solace; but I think that my suggestion would be a much better solution, and I would submit it to the consideration of the minister and the Government.
I wish to say a word also about the publications of the department. They are issuing some splendid publications. The only trouble I see about them is that the members are not able to get as many copies of those publications as they would like to distribute. On making application, I was told that I could get six. There are publications in regard to the growth of small fruit, butter making, the preservation of cream for butter making, the culture of cabbage and asparagus and vegetables in general, which certainly would be very useful to all farmers and market gardeners. These pamphlets are excellent. I think the minister should make a regulation that each member should be allowed to have at least 50 or 100 copies of these pamphlets instead of six.
Mr.. BURRELL:	Referring to my hon.
friend's conversation with me, while I did say that if the foot and mouth disease should unfortunately come into this country, necessitating the killing of cattle and the Act were altered, it would be made retroactive, I would not like to make any positive statement as to what alteration there might be. I do not fear that we shall have the foot and mouth disease. Of course, no man can say it is impossible, because there are at the present time, in spite of all efforts that have been made in the United States, 20 states under quarantine. The United States have killed about
100,000	animals, about 50,000 head of cattle and roughly about 50,000 hogs. Roughly speaking they have spent about $1,000,000 in compensation. Tiiat compensation is not fixed along the same line as ours because there the State bears one-half the

expense and the federal authorities the other half, and the State has usually fixed the appraisement of the value. Speaking offhand I think that for pure bred animals their maximum valuation has been placed at about $125, where we have fixed the maximum at $150. We are, of course, not relaxing any precautions that we have taken. This is the fifth outbreak that has occurred in the United States since 1870, which was the year of the first outbreak, the last being in 1908. The present outbreak, of course, is by far the most severe they have ever had. They say they are getting it largely under control. I understand there is no outbreak in the country west of Illinois, but we do not feel justified in relaxing our restrictions although they have fallen rather harshly on certain interests. We felt, however, that the interests of the farmers were paramount and that we could not run the risk of getting foot and mouth disease in this country. As regards compensation, although I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. friend has said, it must be always borne in mind that while the principle of compensation has been accepted by this House and by the department, nearly every country in the world in its compensation has fixed its values at lower amounts than we have fixed in Canada. We did recognize some few years ago that the valhe of horses had increased so tremendously since the Act was first put on the Statute book that we should raise it from $150 to $200. I am not sure that it should not be raised on hogs as well. As to cattle, as a matter of fact, we have not had any disease scheduled which has entailed the killing of cattle so that that question has not been under consideration except in so far as it arises owing to the possibility of the-foot and mouth disease getting into the country. The subject is a big one and a debatable one, and I question whether it would be wise at this late hour of the session to enter upon it. I will, however, promise my hon. friend that everything he has said will be given the most, serious consideration by the department. I will be glad to bring the subject to the attention of my colleagues and I believe that something ought to be done. If the foot and mouth disease comes here I shall certainly give the suggestion of my hon. friend the most sympathetic consideration and 'endeavour to arrange compensation in such a way that there shall be no hardship or unfair loss coming on those whose herds happen to be affected.


Frank Oliver: The time to take care of a situation is before it arises rather than afterwards. If we are in imminent danger, as we must be-


Martin Burrell: I do not think we are.


Frank Oliver: -as we must be in imminent danger of the spread of this terrible disease, it seems to me the minister and the House would do w ell to make such preparation as would seem to be necessary so that when it comes we will be in the very best position to deal with it. The principle of compensation to farmers for animals slaughtered in the public interest is, I fancy, something like this:	If the owner
of the diseased cattle is going to suffer the loss of his cattle because of the disease, he is impelled by the ordinary instincts of self-preservation to try to shove that loss off on to his neighbour, that is to say, he will try to dispose of the diseased animal. Compensation is granted so that he will not have that inducement; but, if the compensation is far below the valuation, the inducement still remains. As a matter of fact, the compensation has, measurably, if not actually, to be brought up to the valuation of the animal, or else the purpose of the compensation is in a large measure lost. But after all, the amount of the compensation is only a small part of the transaction. The great object is the prevention of the spread of the disease, and the tremendously greater losses that might follow because of it. I speak somewhat feelingly on this question of compensation, because in our part of the country tremendous losses have been suffered through diseased hogs; and I know whereof I speak when I say that the owner who suspects disease in his herd is inclined to escape from the loss by disposing of the animals to other parties. I am not prepared to say what should be done as to valuation in the case of hogs or cattle. But I am prepared to say this:	that in view of the imminent
danger to Canada of this terrible foot and mouth disease, this Parliament could not better spend its time than in making whatever preparations are adequate and possible to meet that contingency.


Martin Burrell: I do not regard the danger as imminent because, since the outbreak of the disease last October, the United States authorities have been working at it practically all the time, and every month has seen them in a much stronger position to prevent the spread of the disease. Our 132
restrictions are not relaxed at all: we are watching the matter very closely. I am glad to have heard my hon. friend speak as he has, because some people do not hold these views on compensation. It is a very big subject, and very debatable. As far as any reasonable compensation will assist in stamping out the disease, I am in favour of it; and we have to make the compensation reasonable, otherwise the owner of diseased stock would spread the disease.


Frank Oliver: I might bring to the notice of the minister a case at Edmonton, where the owner of ' some hogs that had to be destroyed had not yet received compensation when I left there. I brought the matter to the attention of the department and of the minister last session, I think.


Martin Burrell: I understand that on account of the large amount of hog cholera the vote was exhausted.


Frank Oliver: I hope that compensation will be given in this case, because the destruction of these hogs means ruin to the owner, and even the maximum compensation that the law allows will not be adequate to prevent this ruin. I certainly think this man should be compensated.


Martin Burrell: I quite appreciate that-


James Alexander Robb: Is. there still an embargo against all animals coming into Canada from the United States?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Does it apply to remounts bought in the United States for shipment to England or France?


Martin Burrell: As I understand it, the special arrangements that were made some time ago for transport through the country of remounts, still obtain, i have not had an opportunity since my return of discussing the matter with the Veterinary Director-General, but I do not think there has been any change in the arrangements.
Mr. SPEArvER: Is there any provision for compensation for animals slaughtered on account of tuberculosis?
Mr. BURRELL-: Some time ago an Order in Council was passed by which assistance in stamping out the disease could be given to municipalities of over 5,000 population. The regulations of tthis Order in Council provide for compensation a little more liberal, I think, than the compensation provided in the Act as it stands at present.



One or two municipalities, Ottawa and Winnipeg for instance, have had this matter under consideration with a view to taking advantage of the regulations.


Andrew Broder: If an animal is really diseased, the owner does not get compensation at all.


Martin Burrell: Oh, yes.


Andrew Broder: That is not generally
done.


Martin Burrell: Oh, yes.


Andrew Broder: He gets very little compensation if the animal is diseased.


William Cameron Edwards: He does not get compensation until the disease is diagnosed by the Government inspector?


Martin Burrell: No; the fact of disease must be established.


Duncan Campbell Ross: I should like to know why
the Order in Council limits this compensation to towns and cities of over 5,000 population. I notice that subsection 3 of section 5 of the Order in Council says:
Valuation shall be made by the inspector, and shall not exceed the maximum valuation for cattle as specified in section 6 of the Act.
So the valuation is just the same as in the Act.


Martin Burrell: We had a great deal of discussion about that. We have been urged again and again to do something to help in stamping out bovine tuberculosis, which, as my hon.. friend knows, is a very great menace to the cattle of Ontario. At the same time, every government has always more or less shied from the subject, because of its magnitude and the extraordinary expenditure that would be involved if you were to introduce wholesale compensation. Of course, we have authority to deal with it, and so have the provinces; but only one, British Columbia, has taken up the matter itself. It has passed an Act providing for compensation for animals that are destroyed on account of disease. On account of the menace to the health of human life we came to the conclusion that we might perhaps do something to assist in stamping out the disease, and the reason why we finally dealt with cities and towns of over
5,000	population was because it was chiefly in the large cities and towns that the poor children were most exposed to the danger of impure milk. In the more scattered districts of the country people can look out for themselves a little better than those in the towns.

Again, in municipalities there is generally some system of control by licensing, but that very seldom prevails in the rural districts. Of course it might be said that it is not very logical to draw the line as we have done, but we thought we should first deal with cities of over 5,000 population for the reasons I have indicated.
For the administration and enforcement of the Meat and Canned Foods Act, $275,000.


Frank Oliver: What work is done under this vote?


Martin Burrell: This is to pay for the inspection and control of all the abattoirs in the country. As my hon. friend knows, under the Meat and Canned Foods Act no one in Canada can ship meat from one province to another or out of the country unless from an establishment which is under Government control an'd inspection. We maintain a staff of inspectors who see the animals killed and the distribution of the carcase, who f& fact watch the meat at every stage. Every diseased animal is condemned, and sometimes certain diseased parts only are condemned. This system 'of inspection ensures that nothing can be shipped from one province to another or out of the country unless it has been pronounced by the Government inspectors absolutely free from disease.


Frank Oliver: That does not apply to animals slaughtered for local sale?


Martin Burrell: No.


Frank Oliver: Even in the abattoirs?


Martin Burrell: At the abattoirs it would include everything. The legislation was enacted principally to protect our export trade, and it was then concluded that within its own boundaries a province might very well look after its own health and the inspection of meat. Some of the provinces have done so and some have not. If a firm like the Matthews Company or the Davies Company were killing and selling even in their own province, . nothing could come out of their establishments -that was not inspected.


Frank Oliver: Then there is nothing to prohibit any person else from killing and selling without inspection?


Martin Burrell: No.


William Cameron Edwards: There is one difficulty in connection with this inspection which I wish to bring before the attention of the minister. Recently, I understand, the

Militia Department has advertised for a supply of meat for the barracks and military college at Kingston, and it is stipulated that the meat to be supplied requires Government inspection. It seems to me that this is another way of saying that the only meat that can be supplied will be meat from Toronto or Montreal or places where these large abattoirs are, and, as a result, the people of the locality surrounding Kingston are excluded from tendering, unless, of course, they get their supplies from these large firms. In that way this inspection has a tendency towards creating a monopoly or centralization, which I do not think is fair. Government inspection was designed to protect our export trade, but if Government inspection is required for the supply of meat to Government institutions then there would appear to be no alternative but to get that meat from the large meat packers whose products are inspected. I think the Government should carry this inspection system further, and that inspectors should be appointed in different centres. In Kingston is located the Royal Military College, the barracks, the Kingston penitentiary, the Rockwood Asylum, and it seems to me that in all fairness to the people of the district they should have an equal show with the big companies to tender to supply meat to these institutions. Why could not the Government appoint competent men to inspect the meat in these centres, so that the farmers of the district might be able to sell to Government institutions.


James McCrie Douglas: In the province of Alberta the question of monopoly comes up in another way. Under the provincial Act all meat killed at the abattoirs of the Swift Packing Company or P. Burns & Company has to bear the Government inspection stamp, and the city of Edmonton has made a regulation that no farmer is permitted to sell slaughtered meat unless it is killed at these abattoirs where, of course, it necessarily must bear the Government stamp. The farmers claim that this has a tendency to create a monopoly and to prevent competition in the sale of meat. The provincial Act requires that the animal shall be slaughtered in these abattoirs and inspected by the officers of the Agriculture Department.


Martin Burrell: You will have to get after your provincial Minister of Agriculture.


James McCrie Douglas: The point is whether it is wise to have the regulations in connection 1321
with the sale of meat so stringent as to create a monopoly. The complaint of the hon. member for F-rontenac (Mr. Edwards) is that there are not enough meat inspectors and that a monopoly is in consequence created, but in Alberta the monopoly is created by having-too many inspectors.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: The way out of it is to follow the example of the city of Toronto, which owns a municipal abattoir, from which the meat is supplied to all the local butchers. The city of Toronto has absolutely the best abattoir in Canada, and it has been a great success. There is no reason why the smaller towns sfiould not follow that example and have all the local cattle killed in a well-regulated local abattoir. The people are entitled to protection even more than trade is entitled to protection, and while I agree with the member foT Frontenac that there ought to be local inspectors, I see no means of remedying the difficulty other than by establishing municipal abattoirs.


Martin Burrell: 
Donald Sutherland: It seems most peculiar that all the meats for export are inspected by Government inspectors, while a large proportion of the meats which are consumed by the people at, home are no-t inspected at all. As I understand it, the meats that are supplied to the soldiers in the London camp are not Government inspected, and I do not think that is right. I contend that it is an absolute impossibility for an inspector, no matter how efficient he may be, to detect from the dressed carcase whether the animal was diseased or not. When you come to look into the matter and find how many ani-

mals are really diseased and how many parts of these animals are diseased, it is quite a revelation., The percentage of meat killed in an abattoir that finds its way into the fertilizing plant is astonishingly large. I believe that Canadian^live stock are becoming more subject to disease from year to year, and I think the day is not far 'distant, when in order to protect the health of our people the Government will find it necessary to adopt still more stringent regulations.
In order to protect the health of the people, a more reasonable compensation should be paid to those who suffer loss through having their animals destroyed for the purpose of eradicating such diseases. I do not like the idea of our own people being supplied with uninspected meats, whereas we have to have government inspection of all meats exported from Canada. The quicker this matter is remedied the better it will be for all concerned.
Arts and Agriculture-publication branch, $15,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is this new item?


Martin Burrell: Hitherto the separate
branches have dealt with their own publications-they do so to some extent now- and up to last year and this year the vote was confined to the vote for the International Institute of Agriculture. We have separated that vote and are allowing that branch to deal only with the International Institute. The work of publication is increasing so rapidly that we are making a separate branch out of it, with Mr. Spencer at the head.


Wilfrid Laurier: You will only have one publication now?


Martin Burrell: All our publications
now except that of the International Institute will be under this branch. Probably the word " distribution " would be better than the word " publications," because it is a distribution of the publications of all the branches.


Duncan Campbell Ross: Will the minister consider
favourably or seriously my suggestion of giving each member the option of asking the department to supply him with 50 or 100 copies instead of 6 of any pamphlet published?


Martin Burrell: I have of course pointed out to my hon. friend the difficulty that arises in giving each member many copies

of each publication, that practice leading to endless complications. As I have stated, however, we are going to consider the whole matter carefully, and I shall be glad to bear in mind what my hon. friend has suggested.


William Cameron Edwards: There is one publication published recently by the department, called the War Issue of the Department of Agriculture. I read that through very carefully and secured as many copies of it as I could-less than half a dozen-and I think there is so much information in that bulletin in regard to the various countries engaged in this great war that the minister would be well advised to get out a number, of them and give to each member at least 100 copies. I am sure the general public would be very glad to have it in their possession.
For the development of the live stock industry, $550,000.


Mr. NEELY:: What is the reason for this increase of $150,000?


Martin Burrell: 
Wilfrid Laurier: What standard?


Martin Burrell: What we have laid down with regard to assistance is that there must be an expenditure on the part of the exhibition of at least $5,000 in prize money for the various classes of live stock before we can assist them with any financial grant. That would practically include all the greater shows of the country, both winter shows and fall exhibitions, which made live stock a really important feature. We had to draw the line somewhere, and I asked the officers of our live stock branch to get into contact with all the leading members of the industry, and to try to get a fair idea as to the best way of assisting them. The conditions governing this assistance may be briefly stated as follows: Fair associations, whose shows are open in all classes to the whole of Canada, and which have paid out in the utility classes of live stock and poultry at their last preceding show the sum of $5,000 or over, will be given a grant equal to 50 per cent of the actual amount paid out, tftiie maximum grant to any show not to exceed the sum of $5,000. Fair boards, when making application to the Live Stock Branch for this grant, must forward a certified and properly subscribed statement of the auditor's report of all prize money paid out at the last show in the classes previously referred to; also a copy .of the proposed prize list for the succeeding year. The revising of thte prize list shall be subject to the approval of the Live Stock Commissioner. That was with the idea that we should have some control really useful in the assisting and development of the industry. All pure-bred live stock exhibited at shows which receive the benefit of this grant must be registered, in the name of the exhibitor, in the Canadian National Live Stock Records. In all questions of policy or matters of dispute, the 'decision of the live stock commissioner shall be final.
There may be details to work out; but I think the live stock men of the country felt generally that some assistance of that kind was absolutely necessary to prevent some of the shows from going undeT, and it, also, according ito them, would prove a tremendous stimulus in this particular industry to the perpetuation of a better class of stock and to increasing the stock,
which is somewhat below par in this country as it is in the United States. I think some assistance of this kind is necessary, although it means considerable increase in this time of financial stringency, and will have the support of those members of this House who believe that the live stock industry is of extraordinary importance in our general sdheme of agriculture.


James Alexander Robb: Will the minister tell us how many exhibitions in Canada come up to the standard he has named?


Martin Burrell: It would be very hard to give imy hon. friend the exact information; but I remember going over the question before I left for California, and I should think twenty-five or thirty would come under that rule.


George Perry Graham: Do I understand from the minister that the standard would have to be $5,000 or more expended at the last preceding exhibition for pure bred stock only?


Martin Burrell: No, not necessarily for pure-bred cattle-for all utility stock.


David Bradley Neely: It is almost six o'clock, but I would ask the minister, when he resumes with his Estimates, if he will be good enough to give the committee a statement of the number of pure-bred animals that have been purchased under this department in the various provinces of Canada in the past year, and where these animals have been placed.	[DOT]


Martin Burrell: I think I can give my hon. friend that information.
At six o'clock, the House resumed and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 107, respecting a patent of John Millen & Son, Limited.-Mr. Webster.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Cecil Howard Lambert.-Mr. Sam. Sharpe.

[Stage Direction]
The House m Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Arts and Agriculture-for the deveolpment of the live stock industry, $550,000.
['I am sure the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) will be scandalized when he hears that the hon. minister is going on with these repairs. It was a useful work when the late Government took it up, and I approve the action of this Government in going ahead with it.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 12.10 a.m., Wednesday.\nWednesday, April 7, 1915.']
Martin Burrell: The hon. member for
Humboldt (Mr. Neely) asked me for a list

of animals purchased. It is as follows: Stallions: Prince Edward Island, 2; Nova Scotia, 3; New Brunswick, 2; Quebec, 35; Ontario, 6; Manitoba, 6; Saskatchewan, 18; Alberta, 25. Bulls:	Maritime Provinces,
39; Quebec, 110; Ontario, 32; Manitoba, 30; Saskatchewan, 127; Alberta, 70; British Columbia, 6. Boars: Prince Edward Island, 3; Nova Scotia, 9; New Brunswick, 5; Quebec, 71; Ontario, 9; Manitoba,9; Saskatchewan, 50; Alberta, 28; British Columbia, 1. Bams: Prince Edward Island, 55; Nova Scotia, 86; New Brunswick, 18; Quebec, 206; Ontario, 27; Manitoba, 7; Saskatchewan, 5; Alberta, 12.


David Bradley Neely: Were these animals purchased and distributed in the same province?


Martin Burrell: Occasionally they are
taken from one province to another, but the general rule is that where we can get satisfactory animals, they are purchased and distributed as far as possible in the same province.


David Bradley Neely: **soil, and to confine their purchases of horses to the United States and other countries. They were told to leave the Canadian horse market alone until the Canadian Government had secured all the horses they required, so that the price should not be advanced against this Government. I do not know how far this statement is true, but I know that the purchasing agent of the British Government, stated to a member of . this House that that was the condition of affairs. If there is any truth in the statement, then this Government is guilty of malicious, almost criminal, injury to the horse breeders of this country. What is the use of spending money for the purpose of improving the live stock business of this country if the Government do not assist our stock breeders to secure a market when that market is available? There was an opportunity for our stock breeders to get rid of a surplus of animals, many of which were unfitted for farm work, but the Government. did not help them to secure that opportunity. So far from helping them, according to this statement they put obstacles in the way of our stock breeders availing themselves of a market which was brought to their door. The opportunity was turned away by the action of this Government. I want to be fair, but I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture and the Government that that is the feeling throughout a large part of this country both in the East and in the West. For some reason or other, while French and English buyers are plentiful in the United States and down as far as Texas, in Canada there is a woeful dearth in the demand for cavalry and artillery horses. If there is such an embargo placed on purchases from outside by this Government, it is up to this Government to take that embargo off at once; it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture on whose shoulders rests responsibility to protect the interests of the agriculturist, the stock-breeder, and the farmer, to see that the embargo is lifted. The number of horses purchased or likely to be purchased by the Canadian Government is only a very small percentage of the number of horses which are for sale at present. Surely the stock-breeder and the farmer are not to be deprived of this' opportunity to get a good price for thair surplus stock, simply because the Canadian Government wishes to monopolize this market for themselves, so that they may purchase horses cheaper than they otherwise could. We all believe that our agricultural industry

is the most important in Canada; we believe that Canada is playing to-day its greatest part in the world's drama by the food supplies which it is able to furnish to the allied armies in Europe. If it be important, as it is important, and as the members of the Government tell us, it is important, that production should be stimulated in every possible way, then we must carry that proposition one step further and we must see that the necessary markets are found for this increased production. If this suspicion of which I have spoken is not well founded, then it is only fair and just to the Government that they should have an opportunity to make a full denial. We would like to know the truth about this.
We in the West have no fault to find with the price we have received for our -grain, but we know that up to date the horses we have sold have been sold at a very moderate and reasonable price. I believe that in Western Canada we have furnished horses for military purposes at a lower price than they have been secured for anywhere else in Canada or anywhere else in the United States. I know that the minister has been absent on foreign soil from his department for some weeks, and it is possible this has not been brought to his attention, but I tell him now that if he wishes to assist the live stock industry in this country-and he evidently is trying to do it under this vote for the improvement and development of the live stock industry-he must take the responsibility of seeing to it that iany farmer in Canada, who has a horse suitable for military purposes which he wants to place on the market, be not deprived of the opportunity to do so. I trust the minister will see to it that the Government will encourage foreign horse buyers to come to Canada even though it means that when the Canadian Government comes to buy the horses they require they may have to pay a few dollars more to the farmer who is entitled to this extra profit if he raises the right kind of horse.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the representative of a ho.rse-growing province, I have had occasion to bring the matter referred to by the hon. member (Mr. Neely) to the attention of the Government on more than one occasion. If my hon. friend from Humboldt were as anxious to obtain firsthand information as he apparently is to create some sort of prejudice in the minds of the people against the Government, he

would have learned that the Administration has been acting in this matter absolutely along the line that one -would expect, having regard to our responsibilities as a part of the British Empire. I ventured to bring the matter to the attention, of the Prime Minister himself on two or three occasions, iand I found that there were many aspects of the case which, because of certain imperial responsibilities and international complications in connection with the matter, he could not even discuss with a member of Parliament, much less with Parliament itself. I was content that the matter should be left entirely in his hands, and I know that other members of the House who are conscious of the enormous responsibilities that the Government of Canada has to carry at this time, were content that the matter should be dealt with by the Prime Minister as best he could.
I am sure that no farmer in Western Canada and no citizen of Canada will believe that the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) is any more anxious that the farmers of Western Canada should sell their horses, than is the Government of Canada. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) said that the Government maliciously did this.


David Bradley Neely: I said if they did it, it was a malicious thing to do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well, and in the
very next sentence the hon. gentleman referred to the proud place that Canada is taking in this war. If Canada is taking a proud place in this war, it is because those who are responsible for the Government of Canada are acting in accord and in unison with the Imperial Government at Westminster. So far as I have been able to ascertain, having brought the matter to the attention of the Government on behalf of the horse-breeders of Alberta, the action which the Government has taken is in harmony with the imperial responsibilites of Canada.


David Bradley Neely: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what he means by the action which the Government has taken? What action did the Government take?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Government, so far
as I could ascertain from the inquiries I have made, was not in a position to disclose to me or to this House everything that might be connected with military operations. I was advised, as other members of this House who inquired were advised, that the Imperial Government thought that it 'was not an opportune time to purchase
horses in Western Canada, but that because of certain international possibilities horses [DOT]were being purchased elsewhere for the present. I was assured, not only by the Government but by a British officer whom I met, that we who live in Western Canada need not have the slightest fear but that every possible facility will be afforded us in due course to sell every horse we have that is suitable for military purposes or for any other purpose. That I believe to be so, and I accepted it because I believe that the Government is as well seized with a sense of its responsibility as is any private member of this House. The Government being possessed of large information wlhich we could not ask it to furnish us with, and which in the ordinary course of events it could not very well furnish to us, I conveyed to my constituents and to the people of the province in which I reside the information that everything that could be done by this Government, in view of the position we occupy, would be done in due course to give them an opportunity to sell their horses. That I believe to be the case. Perhaps Alberta is the greatest horse-producing part of Canada; but I have ascertained from inquiries I have made that the Ihorses we now have upon the ranges are not fitted without a great deal of training for either artillery, transport or cavalry purposes, and our ranchers are now training their horses, because an untrained horse that will shy at an automobile is not exactly the kind of horse to place near tfhe firing line beside big guns. In the ordinary course of events, a transport horse is not a very good transport animal if, coming into a city, he is afraid of an automobile. What would he do when he would be close beside the operations that are being carried on on the plains of Belgium or France? It requires months and years of training to make a cavalry horse. As regards the number of horses purchased, the hon. gentleman must have been misinformed, because horses have recently been purchased, not in hundreds but in thousands, in the western provinces. The number of. horses assembled at Brandon a!t one time was 1,800, and more are about to be purchased for the third contingent. The first thing we Ibave to do in Western Canada to find a market for our horses is to have them trained for transport, cavalry and artillery purposes, and my hon. friend from Maeleod (Mr. Warnock) will bear me out that the range

horse is not very well adapted for the purposes that I have mentioned. I am also informed that as the war progresses, the class of horses we have on our plains will be in the greatest demand, although just now that it is not the class that is required. In due course, if we faint not, our horses will command the highest possible price, and there will be no reason for us to have any complaint because of lack of opportunity to sell. The farmers that I have met in Western Canada, when they have understood the situation, have not ventured to complain in the terms in which the hon. gentleman has; but they have been content to accept the assurance of wie Government that every possible effort is being made to assure a ready sale for our horses consistent with the demands upon us by reason of the military operations of the Empire and its Allies.


David Bradley Neely: I am sure 1 am very gratified to the hon. member for Calgary for his explanation-


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to say a few words before he goes on. He will realize that the allied powers, in regard to horses, as to which the wastage is enormous, had to look pretty far ahead in the early months of the war, and certain arrangements were made, which I am not at the moment free to disclose to the House, hut which I would have no objection to mention privately to my hon. friend or to any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House; indeed, I have already communicated them to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who desired some information on the subject. Not only was that the case, but it came to our attention some two or three months ago that the horses required by the various allied powers were not always horses of the same type or class; that one power, for example, might find use for horses which would not be required in the service of another power. Arrangements had to be made, as I understand, between the powers, as to where the provision of horses that would be required could be obtained, and with those arrangements, which were arrived at under a very distinct understanding, we could not very well presume to interfere. We did, however, make the suggestion some four or five weeks ago that there was a certain class of horses in Canada which were not required by one of the powers, but which might be found very useful for the purposes of another power, and that notwithstanding the

arrangements first entered into to which I have no more than alluded, we hoped it might be possible that an opportunity might be given for the purchase in Canada of horses of that type by the power to which I have last referred. The arrangements and conditions which have been brought to our attention are not only of a confidential, but , to a certain extent of a very complicated character, and I hope my hon. friend will do us the justice of believing that it has been our greatest desire to bring about a condition of affairs under which the farmers of Canada, whether in the East or in the West, will have an opportunity to dispose of their horses at remunerative prices. I would be very glad to supplement what I have said in a private interview with my hon. friend, if he will be good enough to give me an opportunity.


David Bradley Neely: I am sure I am very
gratified for the trouble the right hon. the Prime Minister has taken to give us some explanation in regard to the situation, and I quite understand that there may be conditions surrounding this matter that cannot very well be given to the public or even to this House; but the information which was given to me and on which I based my remarks a few moments ago was not along the lines of the information given by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and just now by the Prime Minister. My information was that the British Government actually sent their agent to Canada to purchase horses, and that the Canadian Government, wishing to retain the Canadian horses for itself, had requested the British buyers not to pursue the purchasing of horses on Canadian soil until the Canadian Government had itself secured at fair and reasonable prices a sufficient number with which to equip the Canadian contingents. If the Government says that there is no truth in that report, that settles the matter so far as I am concerned, and I am certainly quite ready and prepared to take the word of the Prime Minister to that effect. The Prime Minister was not here when I referred to the widespread impression that the Government of Canada was responsible for the withdrawal from Canada of British horse buyers, because of the necessity of the Canadian Government tp secure a sufficient quantity of horses at a reasonable price, which price of course, would be enhanced if this Govern-had to compete with the purchasers for the British and French Governments. If the Prime Minister will tell us whether that

information is right or wrong, that will clear up the matter so far as I am concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no doubt whatever that persons who have been commissioned to purchase horses for the expeditionary forces wished to be in a position in which they could be absolutely certain of securing a sufficient number of the requisite type, not only to supply the first needs of the forces tout also to make good the enormous wastage that must necessarily take place as soon as these forces arrived at the front. But I can, I think, explain to my hon. friend that there was another predominating cause which led to the withdrawal, temporarily, from Canada of the British buyers. I should not feel free to enter into the reason for it tonight, but at some future day I may he able to explain it to the House. It would not be proper to do so at the moment, though I should have no objection to communicating it privately to my hon. friend, if he desires to know it.


James Alexander Robb: Would the Prime Minister say if the Government has prohibited the exportation of Canadian horses to the United States?


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to horses and also with respect to other animals and commodities that were of a certain character, such as might make them useful to an enemy if they came into their possession, or the exportation of which might weaken the resources of the Empire for the purpose of carrying on the war, we received suggestions early in the succession of events after the outbreak of hostilities, and have received such suggestions from time to time since, from the Imperial Government; and with few exceptions -I think with no exceptions, but sometimes after a discussion by cable-we have carried out the view which they thought would be essential for the welfare of the Empire and the maintenance of our strength for the great conflict in which we are engaged. My recollection is that the exportation of horses, and other articles as well, was prohibited except to British possessions. There is an enormous list of articles embraced in the different orders in council. The same course was pursued here as was pursued in Great Britain. Recently, in Great Britain, all these Orders in Council have been consolidated into a general Order in Council for the purpose of convenience.
We have been engaged during 9 p.m. the last three or four weeks in consolidating our various Orders in Council, and the work is now practically done, so that we hope at a very early day to pass an Order in Council which will give a complete list of the articles the exportation of which is prohibited, whether to all countries other than British dominions or to specified countries. I might explain that arrangements have been made with the Imperial Government by which a certain discretion is to be exercised by the Governor in Council or a minister of the Crown, with regard to the exportation of certain articles-or the importation of certain articles, for that matter. If it should appear that the exportation of certain articles generally prohibited, is important for certain reasons to a particular country for a stated period or for some particular purpose, the Governor in Council or the minister may have the right to issue a license for that exportation. On the other hand, it has been found sometimes essential to permit the importation from German or Austrian sources of certain articles essentially necessary for some institution in this country, for instance, an agricultural college, or for the purposes of some industry in Canada, the maintainance of which is important in the public interest. These instances, however, are only occasional occurrences, and for the most part, the Orders in Council passed have been strictly observed and have not been departed from except with the general or special sanction of the Imperial authority.


James Alexander Robb: The toon, member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) was in good company when he found fault with the Government for sending British buyers to the United States. I have heTe a copy of the Winnipeg Telegram which also finds fault because the British Buyers were sent to Chicago to buy horses. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) apparently did not quite know what sort of horses were required for cavalry purposes, or what sort were bought in the United States. He made the statement that the Alberta horses were not suitable, nor trained, for cavalry purposes. He is in conflict with the Winnipeg Telegram, for they make a statement that the horses bought in Chicago are wild horses from the southwestern prairies and that the stock men there have secured cowboys to train, them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
James Alexander Robb: They train them in the yard after taking them from the prairie.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not always.


James Alexander Robb: That is the statement in the Winnipeg Telegram. Accepting the statements from the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and ithe Minister of Agriculture (Mir. Burrell) that they are responsible for comparatively few horses having been purchased by these British buyers in Canada so far, would it not be fair to the Canadian farmer, especially as he has carried his horses through the winter, at a time when oats were higher than they have been for many years in Canada, and hay also high and scarce, to advance the price for the horses bought hereafter in Canada? The price paid for the military horses that were bought is an arbitrary price fixed by the buyer, and the farmer was simply told he might take it or leave it. I do not -now find fault with that, for perhaps that is the only way it could be done. But would not the Government take it into consideration that the farmer has carried that -house through the winter though he could have sold his oati at a profit, and that he is entitled to a profit on the horse.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is force in what the hon. member suggests. I am not sure that the price is arbitrarily fixed at the present time. My recollection does not -agree with the statement of the hon. gentleman though I do not wish to speak with certainty, because it is only an impression, though a distinct impression. Of course, my hon. friend will understand that a Government buying a large number of horses over a great stretch of territory such as is comprised within Canada must endeavour to be pretty careful to get value for the money. It is said-I am not very familiar with the subject myself-that one may not always get good value unless he keeps his eyes open. I do not think that buyers have gone elsewhere, solely for the reason which the hon. gentleman suggests; indeed, I know to the contrary. But inasmuch as, owing to causes upon which I shall not
TMr. Robb.]
dwell at the moment and to which it is not desirable that I should refer, our farmers have kept and fed their horses during the winter, I really agree with the hon. gentleman that this is a circumstance which may fairly be taken into consideration, -and I think it will be taken into consideration.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Would it not be wise, now that the farmers are promised a market for their horses, for the Department of Agriculture to establish some sort of bureau by which the Government would (have information -as to the approximate number of horses there are available in Canada at the present time for war purposes? I understand that three weeks after the outbreak of war there was not a horse for sale in England, for the reason that a bureau (had been established and upon the outbreak of the war men were sent in every direction and all available horses in the whole country were picked up.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member means that they took a census of the horses.


John Angus McMillan: Yes, the facts concerning marketable horses are kept on record, as I understand it. I think that a somewhat similar system should be adopted in this country. I had occasion to go to Montreal to satisfy myself as to the situation with regard to horses, and I had the privilege of looking over 1,030 horses whidh- were turned into two large yards. As many of these horses had come from my own county, I asked the gentleman in charge what the cost of the horses was to the British Government, and I was amazed to hear that they were -paying $185 plus $5 for every horse in these yards. Horses may be taken from Glengarry to Montreal -at a cost of $1, and the -amount paid the Glengarry man for one of these horses was only $110 or $115, by reason of the fact that there was no competition. The matter was entirely in the hands of the gentlemen who came into the county to buy the horses. As hay and grain were scarce, the farmers were obliged to let the horses go at whatever they could get for them. The result was that for good, sound, young horses, suitable for military purposes, -the farmers obtained only $110 or $115. If you place the purchase of horses in the hands of any one man, he will take advantage of the situation and pay the farmers whatever he thinks fit. If the farmers had received the amount paid by the British Government for -the horses delivered in Montreal, they would be perfectly satis-

fled, but there was a difference of $65 in respect of every horse that left my county between the price paid to the person selling and the price paid in Montreal. While I was there I asked this gentleman also why he and his associates were leaving Canada- they were leaving next week-'and I was informed that they were leaving at the request of the Canadian Government, who had asked them to discontinue purchasing horses in Canada. He explained to me, when I asked him why this should be, that the Dominion Government required horses for their own military purposes in Canada, and that it would be unwise for the British Government to go into competition with them until such time as the Canadian Government should secure what horses they themselves required. It was pointed out that the price of horses would naturally be increased by competition. I do not propose to make any charges; I am willing to accept the statement of the Prime Minister that there was good reason for doing that, but if that is the situation, it is a serious matter, and one to which the Government should give their immediate attention. The price of horses should be allowed to advance, because at the present time an opportunity is offered by which we can restore this important industry to its proper standing. Unless you allow the British and French Governments to come into the market and buy up the surplus horses in Canada, after the war is over the price of horses will drop too low to make their sale profitable to the Canadian farmers.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not absolutely clear as to the average price that has been paid for horses in Canada by the Canadian Government, but I am quite sure that it is much higher than the price mentioned by my hon. friend; I think it runs up to $170. I can assure my hon. friend that we have really had a great many complaints from various sources in the country because the Government insisted upon buying direct from the farmer instead of from dealers. I myself have been assailed with a great many complaints in this respect. It has been the policy of the Government to buy horses direct from the farmer, and if any different practice has been pursued in my hon. friend's county, I should like to know of it and to make inquiry. Sir Adam Beck has had charge of the purchasing of horses in Ontario, and 1 have seen him three or four times in regard to the matter. He assures me that the
policy of the department has been carried out throughout the province of Ontario.


John Angus McMillan: I was referring to the purchase of horses by the British Government, and to the fact that there was a large difference between the price the farmer received and the price the British Government paid. I was suggesting that tne Government should look into this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I was under
the impression that my hon. friend was referring to horses purchased by the Canadian Government. I do not deny that the persons who have been commissioned to buy horses for the Canadian Government were veiy anxious indeed that they should have an opportunity of obtaining a sufficient supply for the Canadian expeditionary force and of making some provision for wastage. The idea was that the horses lor our own expeditionary forces should be purchased in Canada and that a condition should not be brought about under which we would have tc go to some other country to obtain horses of the requisite type. So far as the purchase of horses by British buyers in the United States is concerned, three causes for this were operating. To these I have already alluded; I should be very glad to explain them to my hon. friend, and I am sure that he would recognize the force of them.
I have had several communications with purchasers of horses for the Canadian Government, more especially with Sir Adam Beck, as to having the British and French Governments come into this country and purchase horses, and I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to bring about an arrangement under which that could be done, so that the Canadian owner of horses should have the best possible opportunity to dispose of his animals at a remunerative price. While everything in that connection may not have been perfectly satisfactory in the past, for reasons which I have not fully stated, but to which I have alluded, I am strongly in hopes that in the future the conditions may be improved and that we may give to the Canadian farmer opportunities even more abundant than in the past of disposing of his animals.


Edmond Proulx: Does my right hon. friend think that the department bought directly from the farmers after the appointment of Six Adam Beck or before? I think since his

appointment they have done so, but not before.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not speaking of the horses for the first contingent. I am not absolutely sure of that, but as soon as it was possible for us to make arrangements, after the strain and hurry and confusion of the early part of the war, the policy was proposed by the Minister of Militia to myse'lf and the other members of the Government that the purchases should be made direct from the farmers. We all acquiesced in that and that policy has been carried out ever since.


John Howard Sinclair: The horses bought in Nova Scotia were not bought directly from the farmers. It has been proven in the Public Accounts Committee that middlemen were employed in Nova Scotia and when the middleman had collected a certain number of horses he turned them over to the Government and a cheque was issued to him for a large amount of money to pay for the horses. It does not seem that the money that was paid to the middleman was the same as was paid to the farmer. There is no evidence of that before the committee. The evidence, in fact, is the other way.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend must be alluding to some horses purchased in the early weeks of the war for the first contingent. The purchase of horses in the Maritime Provinces has been under the direction of Sir Adam Beck and has been carried on by persons selected by him. I am quite sure that the arrangement to which I have alluded has been carried out in Nova Scotia as elsewhere.


Frank Oliver: This matter is one of very great importance and it is evident that there is a condition whereby the farmers of Canada have not profited by the sale of horses to the extent they might reasonably have expected. The responsibility for this fact seems to be somewhat difficult to fix. Whether it was the policy of the Government of Canada, or whether the Government of Canada was merely carrying out the policy imposed on it by the Imperial Government, does not seem to be altogether clear. I would have understood from the statement of the Premier a few minutes ago that it was the policy of the Government of Canada that other buyers should not buy horses in Canada until the needs of the Canadian Government had been supplied. That was a matter of Canadian policy, not a matter of Imperial policy. Whatever the policy of the Imperial Government which was im-

posed upon the Government of Canada might be, we are quite willing to accept the judgment of the Imperial Government in that matter, provided due representations were made to the Imperial Government as to the conditions which existed and which were to be met in Canada by the Government of Canada. There being a superabundance of horses in Canada and an underabundance of money, it was desirable that there should be an exchange of horses for money wherever that could be satis-actorily accomplished, and it was, I take it, the business of the Government of Canada to place that Canadian situation emphatically before the Imperial authorities, so that it would be only in case the greater and more pressing needs of the Empire had to be met that the Canadian farmer would be forced to hold his horses through an expensive winter, with the probability of not being able to get better prices in the spring. We appreciate the necessity and the propriety of regulations being framed to the end that supplies or materials of any kind that might be of use to an enemy country should not be acquired by that country from Canada by indirect means. To that end regulations have been framed which apply to horses. But why should regulations be framed to apply to horses when such regulations are not framed to apply to nickel, which is just as much a necessity of war as horses, and is not only as much a product of Canada, but is very much more exclusively a product of Canada than are horses. While I do not wish to unduly criticise the Government at this time, I do not think I would be acting fairly by the people whom I represent if I did not say here and now that, as the ease has been placed before the House this evening, it does not appear to me that the Government has acted with the consideration towards the interests of the farmers of Canada that might reasonably have been expected. .


Mr. BARKER:: I wish to say a few words on this subject, because the various gentlemen who have spoken have confused four or five different episodes or occasions. It happens that I was here when a general officer of the British Empire was sent out first in connection with the purchase of horses. I know him very well, he has been many years in the British army, but he is a Canadian born, and I fancy there are thousands of people in this country who know him. The gentleman who opened this argument charged the Government here with some neglect in connection with his visit. The gentleman to whom I refer did

not come out to act for the Canadian Government; he was sent out by the British Government to see how far horses could be procured here for the British army. He went to Toronto, and, as he is a Canadian, he knows all about our part of the country.
I was asked by a member of the Government if I would go to Toronto and see this general officer and offer him any assistance I could afford him in the way of directing him to people he should see, or anything of that kind. I did see him. He had opened an office in Toronto, and had a small staff of junior officers with him, and was getting ready to buy horses. He was not asking this Government what he should pay for horses or anything of that kind; he knew all about that, I fancy, a great deal better than this Government or any member of this House. He is a thorough soldier, acquainted with his business. I had an interview with him. He was very thankful to the Government for having asked me to go to him and give him any assistance I could in the way of directions about seeing people, and I had a talk with him. He asked me to come and see him again. I saw him a few days afterwards, but I found that his orders had been countermanded.
They did not ask permission from this Government to countermand the orders, they simply changed their directions, and very much because of some change in the sale of horses in the United States, with which this Government had nothing to do and nothing to say. The gentleman at once found that his object in coming was cancelled, and he went home. If any one wants to know his name I can give it. It is a well-known name in Canada. The gentleman is not in any sense a Canadian officer or a Canadian official, but an officer in the British army. That is all there is to that part of the story, and all the rest of the story has been built on that. The horses that have been spoken of were not the horses that that officer of the British army was sent out to buy. All that came long after he went home.


Frank Oliver: We are discussing an item of $550,000-an increase of $150,000 over last year-for the development of the live stock industry. The Government is asking for this large amount of money and for this large increase for the purpose of developing the live stock industry. I 'do not know how you are going to develop the live stock industry unless you provide a market for the sale of the live stock after it has been produced. What is the use of producing live stock unless you can
dispose of it, and dispose of it profitably?
I do not wish to criticise the Government unduly, but, since my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has rushed to their rescue so valiantly, let me point out to him that if the British buyer came to Canada to get horses for the British army and afterwards was instructed by the Imperial authorities not to buy horses in Canada, it was certainly up to the Government of Canada to make strong and urgent representations to the Imperial Government that we had for sale in Canada horses that would be suitable for war purposes and which we would be very glad to sell.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman not see that he has overlooked what I have said? Because of what happened in the United States, this officer got instructions from home not to buy horses in Canada. Having received those instructions his duty as an officer of the British army was to go home, and he did so.


Frank Oliver: This Government has
agents for the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the British Isles, and we have a Department of Agriculture whose business it is to promote the live stock industry. If we have any purpose at all in promoting that industry, surely it was the duty of the Government, with all tlhis multitude of councillors and means of publicity and argument, to represent to the Imperial Government that when they wanted to buy horses ' Canada certainly had horses that she wanted to sell. Does the hon. member- for Hamilton wish us to conclude that tlhe Government of Canada did not make any such representation?


Samuel Barker: I wish you to conclude that an officer of the British army came out here to buy certain horses. He had orders from home not to buy, and Ihe went home. I cannot say any more than that.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps the minister could give us some information about federal assistance to the horse breeding industry. I notice that the regulations fix the minimum service fee at not less than $12. Is that a misprint? Should minimum read maximum?


Martin Burrell: I will refer to that in a moment. Just before dinner I promised to get some information for tihe hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in regard to the butter and cheese industries. He asked me if our cheese was sustaining its reputation, and what was the condition

in regard to exports. The report of our Commissioner is that the production is as it was a year ago. The exports of cheese for the nine months ending December, 1914, were 134,108,000 pounds. The home consumption is increasing. Our cheese never stood higher than it does at present. It is in a class by itself, so far as the export trade is concerned. Canadian butter, speaking generally, is improving in quality. Our exports are more than they were a year ago. Up to December, 1914, we exported 2,283,197 pounds, as against 1,011,653 pounds the previous year.


George Perry Graham: An increase of 100 per cent.


Martin Burrell: The .percentage is very gratifying. Our imports are heavier than our exports, but not quite so heavy as they were the previous year. My Ih'on, friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) asked me a question about the exports of cream. In the nine months ending December, 1914, we exported 1,776,000 gallons. This question is more or less related to the butter question, and my hon. friend will no doubt draw his own conclusions. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) asked me a question about Mr. Giard. Mr. Giard is not exactly the Live Stock Commissioner for Quebec. He is a representative of the Live Stock Branch in the province of Quebec, and performs such duties as are assigned to him by the Live Stock Commissioner at Ottawa. He is principally engaged in the distribution of live stock to associations. He inspects the various associations, and also the animals that have been purchased and sent to them. He has recently been assisting in the organization of our lecture work in connection with the Patriotism-and-Production campaign in the province of Quebec. His headquarters are at Sherbrooke. His salary is $1,800 a year. He has no office, and no assistants. The hon. member for Renfrew also asked me a question about a cold storage company in Broekville. The contract was entered into with the St. Lawrence Produce Company, which has been reorganized and is now known as the Whyte Packing Company. In reply to my hon. friend from Huntingdon, the minimum service fee is not less than $12. I presume that he is familiar with the general scheme as outlined in this little pamphlet.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I have one of those.
My objection is that the Government are

practically raising the service fee by $2. I understand that the general fee throughout the country, at all events in our section, is $10 except where there is an extra good horse.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend's district is much more fortunate than the West as regards really high-class animals.


James Alexander Robb: We produce high-class animals in that part of the country. The objection I have to this is that the Government are giving a preference to the breeding of remounts. They are paying only $4 towards encouraging the breeding of draught horses that will sell anywhere from $200 to $250, while they are paying $4.80 to encourage the breeding of remounts that, as has been proved here to-night, will sell for from $110 to $175. It seems to me that the minister might very well revise that policy.


Martin Burrell: I discussed that matter very thoroughly with the Live Stock Commissioner last year and I am perfectly certain that it was after consultation with the men interested in the stimulation of the horse industry throughout the country that this scheme was finally adopted. It is a little on the lines of the English scheme. The 40 per cent for thoroughbred mares was partly a concession to the fact that remounts might be necessary. There was a great deal of criticism, some of it is possibly harsh and some of it possibly deserved, of the system which was in vogue before we took office, and as the feeling of the House seemed to be against it we adopted this modified form of assistance in regard to remounts which, in view of existing circumstances, was warranted. As to the general merits of the scheme I frankly admit that I cannot discuss it as intelligently as I should like to because it is some time since I have had an opportunity of looking into it. It was my earnest desire that the Commissioner of the Live Stock Branch should consult the horse people of the country, to get the best information he could, with the idea of giving that assistance which was most needed and most likely to improve the breed of horses. There may be some demerits, and I shall bear in mind the suggestions of my hon. friend and take them up with the Live Stock Commissioner.


James Alexander Robb: Will the minister explain why a minimum service fee is fixed?


Martin Burrell: The chief object of that was to encourage the finest type of sires.

I do not know how it is in Quebec, but I know that in British Columbia, to get anything like a valuable sire, the service would be twenty-five dollars.
Mr. -GRAHAM: Has the minister any suggestion to offer as to the establishment of a bureau for taking the census of available horses in the country?


Martin Burrell: That is done in Great Britain by the War Office, and you can understand how in a small country like England which is not larger territorially than one of our western constituencies, the War Office, with its splendid machinery, can get accurate information. For Canada, so enormous in extent and with divided jurisdiction, there would, I think, be great difficulty in getting an adequate census of the available horses, but I shall have our officers look into it.


George Perry Graham: It might be done through some machinery in the different counties.


Martin Burrell: It might.


George Perry Graham: One of the members of the Horse Breeders' Association spent an hour impressing on me the idea of having a bureau for a census of horses, but I got more light to-night on the subject from the few remarks made by the hon. member for Glengarry than ever I had before.


David Bradley Neely: If application is made to
the department for a bull, does the department take any steps to see what kind of animal is sent?


Martin Burrell: That is left to the association; usually we send whatever breed they ask for.


David Bradley Neely: Is that wise?


Martin Burrell: I think so. If we started to dictate to the association what kind of animal should be sent, we would run up against serious criticism.


David Bradley Neely: It should conform to the type of animal in the locality.


Martin Burrell: There are a great many localities in which they have not developed along special lines, and usually w<e send them the particular breed they prefer.


George Perry Graham: Generally speaking, is the quality of horses in Canada improving?'


Martin Burrell: I think it is.


George Perry Graham: In some parts of Ontario we have a splendid type of horse, while in others there doe's not seem to be any interest 133
taken in the horse-breeding industry. I remember that some years ago I was interested in exhibitions and I declined to allow prizes to be given in certain classes, for the reason that the judges allowed a horse that was not a carriage horse to be entered in that class because there were no other entries, but the Provincial Government which controls the exhibitions, has restricted that kind of thing in later years. I know two or three of our enterprising horsemen who lost a good deal of money in importing horses in an endeavour to improve the stock, and I look with a good deal of favour on any -aid that can be given to bring about a general improvement of the standard of different classes of horses. I am glad to see the Government moving along the line of improving horse-flesh, because I am very fond of a good horse and it is very important that it should be impressed on those who raise horses that it is easier to feed a good horse than a scrub, and a good deal more interesting, because the good horse shows some return for the care you give him. I have been very much interested, having attended some of the gatherings with the minister at different times and listened to the discussions. That is one jf the reasons why I referred to th-e question about the bureau, because I heard it discussed and it impressed -itself upon me. As I understand it, we have in Canada-I am speaking more particularly of the province in which I hve -different associations. There is the association of breeders of Clydesdales and Percherons, and there are associations of the breeders of the other different standard-bred horses. Have they each a different grant?


Martin Burrell: They all belong to the Canadian Live Stock Record.


George Perry Graham: Approximately how much does the horse industry get from the Dominion treasury every year?


Martin Burrell: I would not say that offhand, because as a matter of fact we give a lump sum to the Canadian Live Stock Record for the purpose of assisting the Record in keeping the breeds pure.


David Bradley Neely: Does the department do anything in the way of education along the line of this new policy of supplying purebred animals; that is to say, does the department contemplate doing anything in the way of sending out men from the department to size up the situation through



Canada generally? How far does the minister propose t-o go with this policy?


Martin Burrell: We have officers who are following up this work in every province. As my hon. friend can understand-and I very much appreciate what he has said in connection with that work-the forming of tihese associations is an educational work in itself, and by following it up and inspecting the animals and answering continual questions in regard to the policy, we find it is educational work from the top to the bottom. We have such a tremendous response from all parts of the country, especially from the more newly settled portions, that it is pretty bard to keep up with the work.


Donald Sutherland: What proportion of male animals are purchased in tlhe province in which they are distributed?


Martin Burrell: I cannot give the figures offhand. I can get it from the Live Stock Branch for the hon. member.


Donald Sutherland: I have heard for
some time past that a large proportion of the animals distributed in each province is purchased in that province.


Martin Burrell: So far as possible we
have adopted that principle.


Donald Sutherland: 
Martin Burrell: I think my hon. friend
is quite right, and the policy will work out in that way. We have adopted the principle of trying to encourage the breeders in the various provinces by buying their horses. Where we cannot do so, we generally have to fall back on the province of Ontario, which is so celebrated for its livestock production. If we buy in the other provinces, it simply means the stimulus of the breeding trade in Ontario, which goes out to the other provinces the more animals that are distributed. I think Ontario will reap some benefit indirectly.


Donald Sutherland: Am I correct in
stating that the prices in the other provinces are higher than in Ontario?


Martin Burrell: I cannot speak positively about that, because I have not the figures.
Arts and Agriculture-to enforce the Seed Act, to test seeds for farmers and seed merchants, to encourage the production and use of superior seeds, and to encourage the production of farm and garden crop, $140,000.


George Perry Graham: What is the increase?


Martin Burrell: The amount is practically the same as that of last year, except that there is a little increase in the maintenance of seed laboratories for purity and germination tests. The work is increasing all the time; we are testing a very large number of samples sent from all parts of the country, and it is doing such a tremendous amount of good that we want to increase the strength of our laboratories. Then for seed inspection and enforcement of the Seed Control Act, including salaries and expenses of temporary inspectors, there is an increase from $12,000 to $15,000, and there is also an increase in the subventions to growers of field roots and certain garden seeds. We are doing something in the way of encouraging the production of high class seeds, so that we shall not have to depend so much upon supplies from outside. Otherwise, the work is practically the same. We are carrying on the same system of assistance, giving subventions to seed fairs and so on; that is

giving a proportion of the prize money that is given by the various provinces. We base the subventions, on the acreage under crop and the number of fairs held, and we also give supplementary assistance. The subventions have been immensely appreciated by the provinces.


George Perry Graham: The provinces hold the
seed exhibitions?


Martin Burrell: Yes, and we give them the subventions.


James Alexander Robb: Has the minister's attention been drawn to the possibility of a scarcity of small seeds owing to the war in countries from which we have been importing seeds?


Martin Burrell: Yes, we have been looking into that matter, and it is for that reason a good thing that we have been giving subventions and assistance for the production amongst our own growers of such seeds, and we are getting very encouraging results.
Arts and Agriculture-for the administration and carrying out of tile provisions of the Agricultural Instruction Act, $25,000.


George Perry Graham: What is this?


Martin Burrell: This is in connection
with the Agricultural Instruction Act, the agreements with all the provinces and the work connected witlx it ot inspection of the agreements and following up the work that is done.


George Perry Graham: There is no friction between the Government and the provinces?


Mr. BL  RRELL@: No, the work is going
along satisfactorily,


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Would the minister
kindly put on Hansard the details relating to the Agricultural Act as applied to Ontario?


Martin Burrell: These are the appropriations for the fiscal year 1914-15:
Ontario.
District representatives	$100,000 00
O. A. C. short courses, travelling and living expenses of winners of acre profit and live stock competitions	 1,500 00
To encourage agriculture in the public and high schools, to be available for grants and for travelling and living expenses of teachers and others in attendance at short courses or other educational gatherings, in addition to services, expenses and equipment and to be paid out on recommendation of the Department of Education	 13,000 00
133J
Educational work in connection with marketing of farm products, including organization of co-operative societies, collection, printing and distribution of information on current prices and
systems of marketing	 1,000 00
Building at Ontario Agricultural College, including completion of buildings under construction. ..	72,000 00
Stock and seed judging short courses and Institute lecture work.. 7,500 00 Women's Institute work, including
courses in cooking, sewing,	etc..	7,500	00.
Short courses for fall fair and field crop judges, including travelling
and living expenses	
1,500	00Drainage work	
4,000	00
Demonstrations and instruction in
vegetable growing.,	
2,500	00Demonstration work on soils..	..	5,000	00
Demonstration work in spraying,
pruning and packing of fruits. .	7,500 00
Demonstrations and instructions on
live stock and poultry	
4,500	00Work on bee-keeping	
1,000	00Lectures on horticulture	
500	00Miscellaneous	
1,868	83Total	$230,868 83
Grant to Dominion Exposition, $50,000.


George Perry Graham: Who gets this $50,0.00 this year?


Martin Burrell: Last year that vote came by rotation to British Columbia. They were advanced one-third of the amount, something less than $17,000. But afterwards t'he Militia Department took possession of their exhibition building, and on account of the breaking out of the war they found it hopeless to attempt an exhibition. So they asked if I would let it stand over and give them the balance of the money this year. This year, by Tights, it would have gone to Nova Scotia- Halifax has put in a strong plea for it. It has been practically arranged, subject to the vote of the House; but there is a little doubt whether British Columbia or Nova Scotia would go on with it this year or next year. I think it will have to depend upon the developments of the war. As the vote is here, I think we had better leave it and see how it works out.


George Perry Graham: What has become of the proposition for a Winnipeg World's exhibition?


Martin Burrell: I have not heard anything about that.
Quarantine-salaries and contingencies of organized districts and public health in other districts, $225,000.


George Perry Graham: What relation has the medical department to the Conservation Commission? Can the minister tell me what

work the Commission of Conservation is doing in connection with public health ?_


Martin Burrell: I am afraid I cannot. Their work is generally of an investigative kind, with a view to use educationally and in the activities of the several departments. They carried on certain work with illustration farms, but they will drop that, feeling that it is better to leave it with the department. I suppose their medical work has nothing to do with the quarantine, but is rather work of investigation and education.


George Perry Graham: Has the Government
made up its mind as to the establishment of a health department with a medical man at its head? That has been discussed for a long time. Occasionally we see in the press that changes are to be made in the Cabinet, that a member of the Government is to be shifted to the head of a new health department and another gentleman appointed in his place. The country is anxious about this. Can the minister give us any information ?


Martin Burrell: Not any definite information. The matter has been under advisement. But, under the pressure of work, which seems to have been the lot of this Administration for the last year or two, these reorganizing matters have been left in abeyance. In Heaven's good time, I suppose, we shall be able to consider the matter.


George Perry Graham: I suppose we can take it for granted that a gentleman could be found willing to accept the management of that department?


Martin Burrell: Possibly.


George Perry Graham: I desire to speak of a matter which was brought forcefully to my attention a few weeks ago. The health of the people, whether conserved by Governments, by commissions or by
10 p.m. their own good common sense, is intimately bound up with the life insurance business. At a recent meeting I attended, one of the most interesting papers I have ever heard was read by a lady. She had entitled that paper "Live a little longer." I have brought it to the attention of the Commission of Conservation, and I think the ideas put forward in that paper are worthy of consideration by the Government. The young lady who read the paper is from Berlin, Ont., and is now a resident of Rochester. In that city, it seems, they have adopted the plan of having instruction given periodically- I think once a week-to all classes, not

only to young people, but adults as well, in the treatment of sudden illness until the physician can be summoned; how to prevent certain diseases, and generally how to care for health. These lectures are given by qualified physicians and nurses, and practical illustrations are given of attending to patients.


Martin Burrell: The St. John Ambulance Association is doing work of the same kind, and we give them a vote.


George Perry Graham: Yes, they work along that line. In Rochester, this instruction is very general. In this propagandist movement they use the school buildings, which are unused half the time, and could be put to no better use. The results, as indicated by the paper to which I have referred, are very marked. The people in all sections of that city, the poor as well as the wealthy, are taking an interest in the work. While the results do not interfere in any way with professional practice, a knowledge is cultivated among ordinary people of how to treat diseases, from some of which the patents would die if they were left without this attention.
I would advise the Government to get in touch with that organization in Rochester and see if this test could not be made in some of our large or even in some of our smaller centres. Thousands die in this and every other country through absolute ignorance of how to treat disease in its first stages, or before a physician can be secured.
Quarantine-Tracadie and D'Arcy island' lazaretto, and leprosy generally, $11,000.


George Perry Graham: How many physicians
have you there?


Martin Burrell: At Tracadie, only one. At D'Arcy island, we have only a caretaker.
Quarantine-Public Works Health Act.


George Perry Graham: What is the Public Works Health Act?


Martin Burrell: It, is in connection with the sanitary condition of railway camps, and so on. We have two inspectors, and there is provision for another if the railway situation advises a readjustment.


George Perry Graham: Who are the inspectors?


Martin Burrell: Dr. Clendenan in the West and Dr. Fisher in the East.
Arts and Agriculture-health of animals- further amount required, $65,000.


Martin Burrell: This was necessitated by the unusual and very large expenditure

which was made chiefly in connection with the outbreak of hog cholera, and partly in connection with durine. There were serious outbreaks of hog cholera with which we had to deal, the expenditures are covered by this supplementary vote.


Frank Oliver: What is the valuation upon which remuneration is paid in respect of hogs?


Martin Burrell: $15 is the maximum
valuation for ordinary hogs; upon that valuation two-thirds is paid, $10.
Arts and Agriculture-to provide a further amount for the administration and enforcement of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, Governor General's warrant, $20,000.


Martin Burrell: Upon the declaration of the embargo by the United States it was absolutely necessary that we should appoint inspectors to see that their requirements were complied with. We had no provision in the Estimates for this, and we had to proceed by Governor General's warrant.
Arts and Agriculture, exhibitions-further amount required, $30,000.


Martin Burrell: I move that this item be Struck out. The amount is unnecessary, and we can get along very well without it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has any decision been reached as to where the next Dominion exhibition shall be held?


Martin Burrell: I have already answered that question by pointing out that the matter as it now stands was left for the purpose of giving the exhibition to British Columbia. British Columbia had it last year, but owing to the fact that the Militia Department took over their buildings after the war broke out, they did not Ihold it. The understanding is that they may hold it this year, and Nova Scotia will get it the following year. If British Columbia does not hold it this year, they will hold it next year, and Halifax will get it the year following.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think representations have been made by the Halifax Board of Trade that the holding of the exhibition in Nova Scotia should be postponed until 1916.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and item struck out.
Legislation-House of Commons-salaries, etc., $490,662.50.
['I think representations have been made by the Halifax Board of Trade that the holding of the exhibition in Nova Scotia should be postponed until 1916.']
Mr. SPEAKER:: I move that this resolution be amended by reducing the amount of the second item-salaries-from $209,350
to $207,350, and by inserting after the. words "Serjeant-at-Arms" in the last item -Estimates of the Serjeant-at-Arms-the words: "including salary of Stanley S. Spencer at $700."


George Perry Graham: Is the item large enough to cover that amount?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
['Yes.']
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose the attention of many hon. gentlemen has been called to the fact that for attendance at the August session of Par' lament some of the employees of the Hout. of Commons, chiefly messengers, received s per diem allowance as usual, but the total amount received was comparatively so small that in some cases,
I understand, after paying disbursements for travelling expenses, these employees returned home out of pocket. I have not made any particular investigation into the matter, but it has been called to my attention by two or three persons on behalf of these employees.
I daresay it has also been called to the attention of Mr. Speaker. I am inclined to think that if the facts are as I state them, some little consideration should be given to their request, because if their disbursements exceeded the payment received for the August session it would be only fair that some allowance should be made. It may be quite true that some members of the House of Commons suffered in the same way in that session, but, of course, there is no objection on the part of hon. gentlemen. I mention this particularly to inquire of the Speaker if any request has been made to him concerning this matter and what his decision was.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An application was made by the sessional employees of the House on the understanding that the session would only last for about two months. Their claim was that the amount received when the travelling and other expenses were deducted would leave a very small balance coming to them. As it was not known at that time how long the House would sit, it was thought well to defer decision for some time until we would have better knowledge of the duration of the session. I submitted their request to the Internal Economy Commission and after looking into it carefully it was decided that it could not be taken up and their request granted. To grant their request at the time would have in-

vclved a very considerable .expenditure. The daily payment to the sessional .staff is $627.24. They desired to be paid for 100 days whether the session lasted that long or not. If the session lasted 100 days they would not ask any additional payment, but they did ask that 100 days should be the minimum. That would call for an expenditure of $62,724 for the session. Up to April 1, the session had lasted 56 days. That would give them $35,125, and the balance to make up the 100 days would be $27,598. The commission thought, in view of the fact that if this was taken up and the request granted it would certainly result in a great many more applications being made to deal with other employees, it would not be well to grant the request at that stage of the session, if done at all. Of course it was not then known how long the session would last. It has already lasted some days past the 1st of April, and we do not know just when it will close. The decision was that the request could not be entertained, although it was admitted that many of the employees would have very little over their expenses, providing the session closed about the 1st of April.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN. I intended to say that my remarks would also apply to the Hansard amanuenses. There may be some objection to making an extra allowance calculating on the basis of a session of 100 days. That might be a bad precedent to establish. I should thjnk that some allowance might have been made in connection with the August session at least.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This included the debates amanuenses, 9 at $5 a day; 19 sessional clerks at $5 a day and 16 at $4 a day; four committee amanuenses af $5 a day; the stenographers, doorkeepers, bookkeepers, servants and charwomen. Of course if it is the wish of the House to grant their request or any portion of it we would have to do so.


Charles Marcil: How were the Hansard staff and translators paid for the August session?	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Hansard staff and translators are paid by the year.


Angus Alexander McLean: The clerks who
came here for the August session in some cases had to travel quite long distances and some of them did not receive enough to pay their expenses. I would suggest that they be remunerated in some way for that short session. The clerks who came from northern Ontario and from the Maritime Provinces
	-
were out of pocket. A Maritime Province clerk would have to pay railway fare and expenses of $25 or $30 and receiving $4 a day for seven days he would get $28. The messengers who would have the same expenses received only $22.75 for the seven days. They lost their time and were some of them out of pocket. I would suggest that something be done for these men. Those who receive higheT wages perhaps need not receive the same consideration as these men on small salaries. I would also suggest that as this is a short session they should be granted remuneration for at least 100 days.,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With reference to the short session, knowing it was likely to be a very short session, I instructed those whose duty it was to notify the employees that we were likely to have a short session and that-it was optional with them to come or not, so they were not exactly taken unawares. Of course, if anything was done it could not be done by enlarging this vote as we have not power to do that; but it might be paid in another way.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think it would be advisable to fix a certain number of days like 100; but I do think, in all fairness, that some consideration should be given to these men for their services during the short session- in August. It does not seem to be dealing squarely with men to ask them to come down here when we need their services and pay them less than it costs them to come here. I think the country is big enough to at least give them something for their services over and above their expenses. Some consideration should be given to these officials for the session in August.


George Ewan McCraney: What is the practice with regard to the employment of messengers and members of the sessional staff? I gather from the remarks of the hon. member from Prince Edward Island that members of the staff are selected from points distant from the 'capital and that this is largely a grievance over travelling expenses. When I came down in August I was surprised, having in view the fact that we were to have a session of five or six days only, that the House was as fully manned as it was. As there was a great deal of expense going on I wondered if there was anything to justify their being here for such a short session. Perhaps the Speaker can tell us whether the whole staff was on at the opening of the session in August.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think they were all here with the exception of two or three. The

great bulk of the staff are located within a reasonable distance of Ottawa, but some come from Prince Edward Island, and others from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or the West.


Robert Rogers: There is a great deal of
reason in what has been said as to the small amount paid to the officers of the House during the short session we had in August. Of course we cannot very well correct that matter at the present moment, but I am sure that no member of the House would desire to see the staff come here and go home out of pocket, whether the session was long or short. I have never heard any complaint myself, but perhaps some other members of the Government have. I will bring it to the attention of the Government, and if anything can be done we shall be glad to do it.
Legislation-Library of Parliament-salaries, $33,850.
Mr, SPEAKER: I beg to move that this item of $33,850 be reduced to $31,550. There is one position that we did not think it necessary to fill, and I thought it would only be a temptation to leave the amount there.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Legislation-general-contingent expenses in connection with the voters' lists, $6,000.
['There is a great deal of\nreason in what has been said as to the small amount paid to the officers of the House during the short session we had in August. Of course we cannot very well correct that matter at the present moment, but I am sure that no member of the House would desire to see the staff come here and go home out of pocket, whether the session was long or short. I have never heard any complaint myself, but perhaps some other members of the Government have. I will bring it to the attention of the Government, and if anything can be done we shall be glad to do it.\nLegislation-Library of Parliament-salaries, $33,850.\nMr, SPEAKER: I beg to move that this item of $33,850 be reduced to $31,550. There is one position that we did not think it necessary to fill, and I thought it would only be a temptation to leave the amount there.']
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does it cost, to print the voters' lists for the whole of Canada?


Robert Rogers: I have no idea; it is not connected with my department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps the minister
can tell us when it is expected that the next voters' lists will be used?
- Mr. ROGERS: It takes a very long time to print the lists.


Edmond Proulx: I have been told that at the Printing Bureau they are working day and night on the voters' lists. They worked until midnight last Saturday.


Robert Rogers: This is the first time
I have heard of it.
Public Works-harbours and rivers, N.S.- Jamesville-to complete breakwater, $3,400.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: How much work has been done on that breakwater?


Robert Rogers: This amount is for repairs, and to complete the work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would not be for repairs, because the work is new, I understand.


Robert Rogers: This amount is asked for by the district engineer to complete the construction of the breakwater commenced last year. The works when completed will consist of an isolated crib-work breakwater with creosoted timber substructure, 170 feet long and 16 feet wide, connected with shore by a creosoted timber pile approach 152 feet in length. The chief engineer informs me that this is not for repairs, but to complete the work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is in my riding,
but I was not aware that the work had been commenced at all.


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer informs me that it has.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: By tender and contract?


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer says
no.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What was the cost?


Robert Rogers: $1,800 has been spent, and we are asking for $3,400 to complete the work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was it during last
winter that this work was being done? I am always on the alert if anything is being done in my riding, but I never heard anything about this.


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer says
that the work was done in 1914-15. I shall be glad to get any particulars that my hon. friend wants.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the size of the breakwater?


Robert Rogers: 115 feet long and 16 feet wide, connected with the shore by timber piles 152 feet in length.-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What depth of water?


Robert Rogers: I have no information
as to that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who has charge of the construction?


Robert Rogers: I cannot give that information at the moment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister
bring clown information as to who had charge of the work, the number of days occupied in it, the material used, and generally speaking, how it was constructed?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George Perry Graham: It looks as if there had been nothing done with regard to a number of these works for which we are now voting money.


Robert Rogers: These votes are almost
entirely re-votes and they are for works we were not able to undertake before August last. There is really nothing new in these Estimates that has not been passed upon by the House before. What items are in for repairs and maintenance have all been inserted on the recommendation of the district engineers.


George Perry Graham: I suppose all these works will be done this year?


Robert Rogers: We will undertake as many of them as we can.
Lunenburg harbour improvements, $35,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose this is for dredging?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Have tenders been asked for?


Robert Rogers: Not up to date.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister decides
to go on with the work will he ask for tenders?


Robert Rogers: Certainly.
Mill Cove-extension of breakwater, $10,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will tenders be asked for this work?


Robert Rogers: Yes, for everything over
So,000.
McKay's Point-repairs to wharf, $900.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is McKay's
point in my county, is this work to be done there?


Robert Rogers: It is in Cape Breton
North.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is this vote for?


Robert Rogers: The covering of the wharf is in such a dangerous condition that teams dare not go on it, and this vote is for repairs.
North West Cove (Tanoook island, breakwater), $42,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is this vote to
replace the old breakwater which has been in existence there for a long time?


Robert Rogers: Yes. The timber was
asked for last year. Tenders were called for on August 17, 1914, and three tenders were received.


John Howard Sinclair: Why was a contract not awarded?


Robert Rogers: The tenders were called
for on the 17th of August, and we did not award the contract.


John Howard Sinclair: Will it be award*'d no ,v ?


Robert Rogers: I do not know. The
work does not seem to have been pressed very much since that time. If we can get out of doing it, we will.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was any objection made to award the contract to the lowest tenderer?


Robert Rogers: None whatever. We invariably award the contract to the lowest tenderer?


John Howard Sinclair: Is this a new work?


Robert Rogers: Yes. It is not new in
the Estimates this year.
Plaster mines wharf, $1,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is Plaster Mines in
North Cape Breton?


Robert Rogers: In Victoria county.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Wnat is the estimated cost of the wnarf?


Robert Rogers: 


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Have you called for
tenders?


Robert Rogers: Not yet. AVe will, call for tenders.
Porter's lake-boat channel to Three Fathoms harbour, $10,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will this money be expended this year?


Robert Rogers: We shall have to spend something for the re-opening of the outlet.
South bay, Ingonish, to complete wharf extension, $2,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a very important piece of work, and I wish to call the minister's attention to it. The $2,500 that he has in tihe Estimates is not going to be of much service. The wharf was put in the wrong place. It is so short that steamers cannot come alongside at all, and the water is so deep that, if the department is going to extend the wharf, it will find it an extremely expensive matter. This $2,500 will be a

mere drop in the bucket for any useful extension of a wharf at that place. The hon. min;ster will find the early history in the department that the wharf that should have been utilized was known as the Corson wharf, and in 1911 there was money .in the Estimates to buy that wharf and to put it into first-class shape. Instead of that-I do not know on whose advice-the department built this wharf on a rocky bar where it is almost impossible to haul anything to or from it. The Corson wharf, which was the one formerly in use, should have been bought. Mr. Corson, who is a wealthy, American living in that part of the country, built this wharf for himself; he built a good road to it, and ihe is willing to sell tne wharf to the Government for what it cost him. He is not looking for any profit, and his price will be found most reasonable. Any one who has seen Corson wharf will say it - pretty cheap at ~.e price he is asking for it, and it would be better to abandon what has been done on the old wiharf and buy this one.


Robert Rogers: I am not familiar -with the earlier history of the conditions and of the wharf to which my hon. friend refers. I have before me only the information in respect to this particular vote with which my hon. friend is apparently familiar. I am not in a position to say whether his judgment is better than that of the engineer who made the recommendation or not, but I shall have the matter looked into and see what can be done.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am anxious that the people should have the best service that the money can afford, and that the Government should have the best possible value for its expenditure; and as one who is very familiar witih the conditions and who was aboard the steamer several times when she attempted to come to this wharf, I am afraid it would be a very expensive piece of business to try to make a proper wharf at the place where a start has been made, whereas Mr. Corson's wharf is a first-class one and cheap at the price asked.
Tracadie harbour improvements, $12,300.


John Howard Sinclair: Apparently there has been some expenditure; what is the state of the work now?


Robert Rogers: There has been a very small expenditure for emergency repairs.


John Howard Sinclair: This item has stood for a long time, I understand. It has been
there ever since the by-election in Anti-gonish, two or three years ago. It is time that something should be done. Does the minister purpose spending the .money during the present season?


Robert Rogers: I shall be glad to take the advice of my hon. friend and endeavour to advance the work if I possibly can.
Yarmouth harbour-improvements, $82,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is this for
dredging?


Robert Rogers: It is to provide a better entrance to the harbour, to remove obstructions, and also for an extension of the breakwater and dredging.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This vote was in last year. Was any work done last season?


Robert Rogers: I do not see here any memorandum of what was done last year.


George Perry Graham: We voted $87,000 last year. It would seem that $5,000 was expended.


Robert Rogers: That is probably what we expected to spend when the Estimates were made, but the chief engineer tells me that it was not expended.
Mr. MACLEAN; No expenditure made last year?


Robert Rogers: Apparently not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Were tenders asked for? Mr. ROGERS: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not?


Robert Rogers: This sum was only voted in June, and we did not get to it.
M'r. MACLEAN: That does not seem a sufficient excuse for not proceeding with the work. I am sorry the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law) is not present.


Robert Rogers: I am sure that if that hon. gentleman were present 'he would not complain very much, for we have spent a large sum on Yarmouth harbour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think that if the hon. member were here he would complain, and justly, of the failure of the department to proceed with the expenditure last year to some extent at least. Yarmouth is a very important harbour and shipping point. A line of steamers plies between Boston and Yarmouth, and from Yarmouth a great deal of trade is carried on between Nova Scotia and American ports. It is also the route

of a great deal of summer tourist travel. It is a tidal harbour, and to my own knowledge it requires a great deal of work. The money having been voted, I submit that the department should proceed with the work. At least tender's might have been
11 p.m. called for, so that the contractor would have been ready to proceed with the work this spring. Does the minister propose asking for tenders?


Robert Rogers: We have spent a good deal of money in Yarmouth harbour. In 1911-12, we spent $60,000; in 1912-13, $33,000. There is no doubt that this is a harbour that will entail a heavy expenditure yet before it is completed. We have spent a good deal in addition in dredging. As my hon. friend has stated, this is a very important harbour, and the Government are disposed to make an expenditure there at the earliest possible moment, because of the present necessity of work of that kind as shown by the amount that is asked for.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that the department will proceed to ask for tenders?


Robert Rogers: As soon as possible.


John Howard Sinclair: Before we pass from the Nova Scotia items, I want to call the attention of the minister to the necessity of making some repairs on the public wharf at Country Harbour. That wharf is in a dilapidated state and should be repaired. It is a wharf of considerable importance, and I do not think the costs of the repairs would be very great. No doubt the engineer has the information in his office. If the minister will make a note of it and see that attention is paid to it, I shall be much obliged.


Robert Rogers: I will make a note of it.
Public Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers, P.E.I.-Brudenell, wharf reconstruction, $4,500.


James Joseph Hughes: What does reconstruction mean in this case?


Robert Rogers: The old wharf at Brudenell, which is the only wharf in the vicinity, has become impassable, and reconstruction is desired.


James Joseph Hughes: By whom was the old wharf owned?


Robert Rogers: This wharf, which was built many years ago, is owned by the local Government. It is 305 feet long, with an approach twenty feet wide and a pier head of thirty feet. Its rebuilding will give
	1
shipping facilities to a rich agricultural district of about two hundred inhabitants.


James Joseph Hughes: What depth of water is there at that wharf?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid I cannot supply that information. The site of the old wharf is near the head of navigation of the Brudenell river, three and a half miles west of Georgetown and two miles southward from the Cardigan station and the Georgetown branch line of the Prince Edward Island railway.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it intended to proceed with the work this coming summer?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: My information is that there is not enough water there to accommodate vessels. Has the minister any information to that effect?


Robert Rogers: There may be information in the department; I will make a note of it.
Charlottetown harbour, $28,000.


James Joseph Hughes: How is that amount to be expended?


Robert Rogers: This amount is required to complete the dredging under contract in connection with the construction of a marine slip in Charlottetown harbour near Southport. The slip is required for the accommodation of the class of vessels frequenting the waters in the vicinity of this harbour, and of the ships of the Marine Department and of the Dominion Government. The capacity of the proposed slip will be 3,000 tons, and it will accommodate vessels 350 feet long.
North lake-boat harbour, $21,000.


James Joseph Hughes: This item has been voted every year since the present Government came into power. What is the object of voting it every year and not doing anything with the money?


Robert Rogers: We are practising
economy, on the advice of hon. gentlemen opposite.


James Joseph Hughes: That is not an answer to my question.


Angus Alexander McLean: I think I can
answer the question. The reason is that the hon. member for Kings opposes the expenditure. He has got his friends to claim that their land will be over-run by water if this breakwater is constructed. I do not think there is any valid reason for

the objection of the hon. member or the contention oh his friends. If this breakwater is built, it will be a great benefit to the fishermen in my hon. friend's constituency, and the only reason for its not being built is perverseness on the part of my hon. friend and his friends because the Conservative Government is giving this great boon to the people on the north side of the island, who have no other harbour in that vicinity for shelter. That is the reason given to me even by some friends of the hon. gentleman.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman's imagination is very strong; he is at sea, without rudder or compass. Surely he knows that I have not enough influence with this Government to prevent them from doing a good thing if they were determined to do it. Any person who gave information of that kind to my hon. friend was simply playing with him. I never opposed this project. I am quite in favour of having a boat harbour on that part of the coast, and I realize that it would be a very great advantage to the fishermen of that part of our province. That is the reason why I am asking the Government why they have this vote in the Estimates from year to year and still do not proceed to expend it. I do not like to see the Government fool the people in that part of tlhe country, and I should like to have a definite statement from the minister as to what he intends to do during the coming summer. The hon. member for Queens need not be afraid of any opposition on my part; I will not oppose the construction of a boat harbour there if the Government intends to go ahead with the the work, but I do not like to see the Government pretend that they are going to do something when really they have no intention of doing it.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is very
much mistaken in saying that the Government are trying to fool the people. If there is any cause for delay, the responsibility rests upon the people themselves. We have endeavoured to get the title to the necessary land for this work; it has been impossible to get it, and the engineers of the department recommend that we should not start the work until we secure a proper title. If my hon. friend can help us to get that title we are prepared to go on with the work at any time. If there has been delay, it is chargeable to the people of the vicinity where this work is to be carried on, not to the Government.
Mr. ,T. J. HUGHES:	The minister is
either not familiar with conditions in that part of the country, or he has been misinformed, because there is no question of a title to this land at all. If a boat harbour were constructed, it would be on land that belongs to the Crown. The minister has made a statement not in accordance with the facts. The facts are that some persons in the neighbourhood were under the impression that their farms might be affected by the construction of this boat harbour, and the Department of Public Works sent an emissary to these people to get them to sign a document that if their lands were injured they would not ask the department for any compensation. The minister told me that himseslf last year, and consequently I am on firm ground in making that statement. I venture the assertion that such a proposition was never made to any persons in Canada before, the private individual whose land might be injured by the construction of a public work asked to sign a document that in the event of his property being injured he would not ask for compensation, thus ruling himself out of court. The department must surely have known that nobody in his senses would sign such a document as that. The people refused, as anybody would have done under similar circumstances. That is the title to the land on which the minister is a little astray. So far as the boat har-1 our itself is concerned, there is no title in question, as the place where the harbour would be constructed belongs to the Crown and the question of title could not arise. 1 had nothing to do with that, notwithstanding the statement of my hon. friend from Queens county (Mr. McLean). I want to know the facts in connection with the matter.


Angus Alexander McLean: I think my hon.
friend knows very well that this boat harbour would have been built a year ago, or would have been commenced, if he himself had not deliberately put his political, friends up to claiming damages.


James Joseph Hughes: I must emphatically
contradict that statement; there is not a word of truth in it. It is absolutely untrue, absolutely, and I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


Angus Alexander McLean: I will not withdraw a
statement which is correct.


James Joseph Hughes: I say the statement is
absolutely untrue.


Angus Alexander McLean: The hon. gentleman himself a few days ago in this House charged against Mr. J. D. Hegan, a gentleman who was engineer


James Joseph Hughes: That is getting kway
from the facts, this is another thing.


Angus Alexander McLean: No, I am not getting
away from it.


James Joseph Hughes: I rise to a point of
order. The hon. gentleman has made the statement that I went to my political friends and asked them to make a claim for damages in connection with this work and to object to the construction of it. That statement is absolutely untrue, absolutely, there is not one word of truth in it.


Robert Rogers: I do not think my hon.
friend is quoting the words of my hon. friend from Queens county correctly. I do not think he made the statement that the hon. member went to his political friends to get them to make a claim.


James Joseph Hughes: What statement did he make?


Robert Rogers: He said the friends of the hon. gentleman.


James Joseph Hughes: The friends? Even that statement is not true.


Angus Alexander McLean: The hon. gentleman is very apt to make statements of the character of that which he has just made, that statements are not true. The other night in this House he made a statement that the consulting engineer, Mr. J. B. Hegan, was dismissed and superannuated by this Government.


James Joseph Hughes: No, I did not.


Angus Alexander McLean: It is in Hansard and I can read it to the House. As a matter of fact Mr. Hegan was never superannuated. He made the statement, further that Mr. Hegan was approached by Liberal Conservatives in Prince Edward Island and that, he was forced out of his office, that he was approached for graft on contracts.
I want to tell the hon. gentleman and the committee that that statement has no foundation whatever in fact. Mr. Hegan was never approached by any person. Any one would be led to believe from the hon. gentleman's statement that Mr. Hegan had informed the hon. member that he had been so approached, that Mr. Hegan states emphatically that he never made such a statement to the hon. gentleman, and that his statement in this House is

absolutely untrue and false, and I have in my hand an affidavit made by Mr. Hegan to that effect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of order. We had a very explicit ruling from the Chairman of this committee that discussions in committee must be germane to the matter before the committee. We might as well know whether these rulings are to be observed or not. The vote before the House has nothing to do with whether a certain gentleman was superannuated or not.


Angus Alexander McLean: Perhaps the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton is just as big a transgressor as any man in this House. He should be the last man to make the statement he has just made because he is always transgressing the rule, if such a rule exists. I am going to read Mr. Hegan's affidavit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I want the ruling of the Chair. I take the point of order that the discussion, according to the ruling of the Chair, must be germane to the vote under consideration. It is well within the memory of every man in this House that the hon. member from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) who had the floor was called to order by the Chair and this ruling was announced, that the discussion must be germane to the question before the Chair. . If the Chairman will say that is not the rule and that a member can switch off to anything he thinks proper, let us understand it that way; but if the ruling is to be observed, I submit that the hon. member at this moment cannot speak upon the subject that he is bringing up.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Blain):: I think it is well understood by the committee and by all members that the item under discussion must be spoken to, and I am sure the hon. member will abide by that rule.


Angus Alexander McLean: The only thing I can do under the circumstances, as a charge of graft was made against an official of this country, which the official denies, is to take another opportunity to place the matter before the Houise to show that the statements made by the hon. member for Kings are not always correct.


James Joseph Hughes: In justice to myself I state most emphatically that I never made any charge against Mr. Hegan, an official of the Public Works Department, never at any time.


Angus Alexander McLean: It is in Hansard.


James Joseph Hughes: Does the minister intend to proceed with the work during the coming summer?


Robert Rogers: As soon as we get this famous question of damages settled we will be glad to go on, but we cannot go on until it is settled.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Gan you not expropriate?


Robert Rogers: We could not expropriate on the question of damages.


James Joseph Hughes: The title is not under
consideration at all. Does the minister expect that it would be reasonable to ask men owning property that might be injured by the construction of a work, to sign a document in advance that if their property was injured they would not ask for any compensation? Has that ever been done under similar circumstances in the Dominion of Canada?


Robert Rogers: It has been done very, very frequently in the Public Works Department, in various portions of Canada; and I can say further that unless we can get a favourable arrangement with the people there we cannot go on with the work. But the moment we do get a favourable arrangement we will be glad to go on immediately.


James Joseph Hughes: That is equivalent to saying that unless the men in the neighbourhood who own land sign a document of that character you will not proceed with the work?


Robert Rogers: There are a large number of people there who have already agreed to the conditions which have been imposed, and simply a few are holding out with a view to blocking the work, as I understand it.


James Joseph Hughes: There would not be a large number affected. A man who owned property that could not by any possibility be affected would of course sign a document of that kind, because there would be no danger to him in signing it. I repeat it is most unreasonable to ask these people to sign an agreement of that character. It has certainly never been done before in our province.' The object is of course apparent.


Robert Rogers: I understand they have all signed but two._


James Joseph Hughes: These two might be the ones whose property would be most affected. It is most unjust to ask these men to sign a document of that kind.
Public Works

harbours and rivers, P.E.I.- Souris-extension of breakwater, $40,000.


Robert Rogers: I beg to move that this item be reduced to $6,000. The contract is completed, and $6,000 is all that is required.


James Joseph Hughes: Will any repairs
be necessary to the work during the coming summer?


Robert Rogers: We have of course the
general vote, out of which we could make any necessary repairs.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was there not some dispute about injuries to the breakwater last fall?


Robert Rogers: There was some difficulty, but it had been settled.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Joseph Hughes: Before we pass this item I should like to ask the minister if any extension or repairs will be made to Little Sand breakwater this year. I do not see any item for that purpose.


Robert Rogers: We have nothing in the Estimates for it.


James Joseph Hughes: I have information here to the effect that when the breakwater was built at that place a space was left between the breakwater and the shore, and that the contractor or somebody else put a little clay on the rocks in order to bring them level with the breakwater. The next high tide, or certainly the next storm, washed the clay away. I should like to know if the end of the breakwater was really built in this flimsy way, and if any steps will be taken during the coming summer to complete the breakwater.


Robert Rogers: I have nothing before me to supply the information my hon. friend asks for. We shall have a sufficient amount in the general vote to make any repairs that are necessary.
Public Works-harbours and rivers, N.B.- Bathurst-harbour improvements, $100,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Is this to be done by contract?


Robert Rogers: An Order in Council was passed on October 23, 1914, recommending that authority be given to arrange with the Northern Dredging and Construction Company, Limited, for the dredging during the balance of the season of 1914, of a quantity of 100,000 cubic yards, place measure, at 30 cents per cubic yard, meaning an over-expenditure of $30,000 of the appropriation of

$100,000; the company to wait for payment of this work until Parliament shall have granted an additional appropriation at its next session.
Campbellton-deep water wharf accommodation, $50,000.


Charles Marcil: What is this for?


Robert Rogers: This amount is required for widening and extending deep water wharves and dredging berths at Campbellton. The proposed extension will be 600 feet long and 55 feet wide, built on a foundation dredged to 25 feet at L.W.O.S.T. In addition the present wharves are to be widened to 55 feet by the construction of a crib-work, 20 feet wide, for a length of 883 feet along the inner face.


Charles Marcil: Is the work under way?


Robert Rogers: No.


Charles Marcil: Will it be proceeded with this year?


Robert Rogers: I am not sure. During the present year some repairs will be necessary. Campbellton, which is now the second largest shipping port of New Brunswick, shipped in 1913, 54,351,943 feet of lumber. It is a divisional point on the Intercolonial railway and the terminus of the International railway. In addition to the lumber shipments a large business is done in coal, and there is considerable traffic with points in Bonaventure and Gaspe counties, Que., a steamer making bi-weekly trips on this route. The present deep water wharves have a length on the outer face of 1,188 feet. The approach is about 175 feet in average width and 350 feet long. The Shives wharf was purchased in 1902-3 and forms part of the deep water wharf. The total expenditure to March 31, 1914, was $287,169.36.


Charles Marcil: I understand that $287,000 has been spent, and that $280,000 is to be expended.


Robert Rogers: That estimate covers a
period of years.
Dalhousie-repairs to deep water wharf,


Charles Marcil: What amount has been expended up to date?


Robert Rogers: 


Charles Marcil: Is it intended to do any dredging this year on the Restigouche river between Dalhousie and Campbellton? .


Robert Rogers: We have a general dredging vote. Is there necessity for dredging there?


Charles Marcil: There has been dredging done in the past, and if half a million dollars is to be expended for a wharf at Campbellton, you will have to dredge to enab'e the boats to reach it.
Green Point (Beresford)-breakwater, $10,-
000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: This amount has been voted and re-voted since 1911, and last year the minister promised me the work would be done. Until then I placed the onus on tihe shoulders of the Minister of Marine, because I thought he was interfering. May I expect to have that work line this year?


Robert Rogers: It is like a number of other works that we have not been able to carry on during the past year, but we hope for letter things this season.


Onésiphore Turgeon: When does the minister intend to have this work done?


Robert Rogers: As soon as we possibly can.


Onésiphore Turgeon: When will that be?


Robert Rogers: I would not like to be definite about it.
River St. John and tributaries-construction of wharves in tidal waters, $34,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This seems to be an irregular way of wording a vote. You could build several wharves, not costing more than $5,000 each, over nearly a hundred miles, under this wording.


Robert Rogers: We have been following the wording of this particular vote for a number of years.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It does not look right.


Robert Rogers: It does not.
Tracadie-to construct breakwater and bieastworks, $5,000.
.Mr. TURGEON: This vote has been in the Estimates for the last three or four years. Does the minister intend to do any work this year?


Robert Rogers: The amount of the estimate is very small compared with the importance of the work, and until we can ask Parliament to vote a much larger sum it is difficult for me to assure my Ihon. friend that we can go on with the work. The estimate for this work is $70,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I admit that the amount in the Estimates is very small, but I expected it would be larger and that the work would be commenced.
Sackville-approach to new wharf, $800.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) urged on the Minister of Railways the building of this approach to the wharf at Sackville. It seems to be an urgent work for the Sackville people, as they cannot get to the wharf unless it is built, and I would ask the minister if he intends to proceed with it this year?


Robert Rogers: This amount will provide the approadh to the wharf, and that will be done immediately.
Batiscan-wharf, $3,000.


Mr. BUREAU:: There was $18,000 voted
last year; will this vote finish the work?


Robert Rogers: There apparently is some error in the amount named here.


Jacques Bureau: What is the proper
amount?


Robert Rogers: It will require $8,000 more to complete the work.
Bersimis-wharf, $2,000.


Mr.   SEGUES@Translation: Mr. Chairman, in the Estimates now before the House, both for the province of Quebec and for the other provinces, there appear a number of items for the construction of wharves, from which I conclude that the Government's policy is not antagonistic to the building of wharves in this country, and by which is deepened my regret at the minister's omitting to include in the Estimates of this session the amount necessary for the construction of a wharf at L'Assomption. I am not raising a new question. As early as 1911, the late Government had had plans prepared and had provided for this work, which is indispensable not only to the town of L'Assomption, but also to that whole district. The necessary amount was to be found in the Estimates of 1911-12 and 191213; but later was cut off, and the legitimate demands of L'Assomption were denied. The work had been started under the late Government, and a quantity of material had been brought on the ground; but with the coming into power of the present administration the work was discontinued notwithstanding that the money was again voted in 1912-13, and the material is still on the shore where it is going to waste. The other
day, when I advocated in this House the right of the town of St. Lin to a post office and taunted the minister for his indifference in the matter, the reply came, quite undeserved, that possibly I had not pressed my request sufficiently. In this particular case of a wharf for L'Assomption, I did repeatedly call the attention of the minister to it, and I know that representations have come to the Government from more welcome sources; I deem it my duty to warn the minister and this House that the Government's best friends at L'Assomption are disappointed to find that their claims have been heeded so very little by him. Joseph Edouard Faribault, K.C., perhaps the most prominent Conservative at L'Assomption, urged his leaders to action, but, only a few days ago, he confessed to me his vexation at having had to go a-begging to the dispensers of government patronage with no better result.
It is no matter of great surprise to me that the minister should show preferences to and be more favourably inclined towards his Tory supporters; but how comes it that he is so callous to the requests of his best friends at L'Assomption. All good movements for the betterment of conditions in my county find in me a staunch supporter; and the minister may feel sure that, unless he heed the claims of his good friends of L'Assomption, I shall not fail to take advantage of his indifference, and I shall succeed in proving to those good people that they need not expect fair dealing at the hands of the present Administration. Be fair towards all the citizens of the town of L'Assomption and of that whole section and, more especially, listen, to your best friends, if you do not want to provoke their just resentment.
In taking my seat, 1 would ask the minister if he intends to carry on this work?


Robert Rogers: I am very pleased to
know that my hon. friend notes with such satisfaction the large sums of money we are spending in the various public works that we are undertaking in the different counties of the province of Quebec. I regret that he apparently is not satisfied with the amount being spent in the county of L'Assomption.


Charles Marcil: He complains that the
item has been struck out altogether.


Robert Rogers: It is true that in 1910-11 a small item was put in the Estimates and some little work was done by day labour just immediately previous to the election of that year, and it is evident that that

work has not been considered of such a pressing necessity as to warrant the Government in going on with that particular wharf. There is a certain reason why a wharf should be built at the point named by my hon. friend, but I think he will agree with me that there is no very pressing necessity for that particular piece of work.
I do not suppose it will be necessary to go into the details of the public buildings in so far as the river improvements on the wharf in the constituency of L'Assomption to which my hon. friend has referred; but I can assure my hon. friend that we will give it that consideration that its importance deserves, and while we have no amount in the Estimates this year, let us hope that we shall have to put one in next year, if the conditions demand it.


Mr.   SEGIJIN@Translation: 1 must
acknowledge to the minister that he shows some willingness for the future. However, I must report that this work is of more immediate import than, judging from his statements, he seems to think. This wharf is urgently needed, and in this year's Estimates I see that many small towns of less importance than L'Assomption are granted appropriations for wharves. Again I say the requirements of L'Assomption are more pressing than those of many other towns which are provided for in this year's Estimates.
Cap Chat-extension of training pier, $7,500.


Charles Marcil: What is the total cost
of this work?


Robert Rogers: $30,000.


Charles Marcil: Is the work under way
now?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Charles Marcil: Has a contract been
awarded?


Robert Rogers: No.


Charles Marcil: What is the depth of
water at Cap Chat?


Robert Rogers: I have not the information here.
Cap de la Madeleine-enlargement of wharf, $4,000.


Jacques Bureau: Will this $4,000 complete the work?


Robert Rogers: No. If my hon. friend
will look at the Supplementary Estimates he will find something else in there for this work.


Jacques Bureau: Was this work given by
contract, and if so, to whom.


Robert Rogers: Charles PagA


Jacques Bureau: Of Three Rivers?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Were tenders called for
this work?


Robert Rogers: Yes, F. A. Barette, $64,000, and Charles Page, $49,000.


Jacques Bureau: The other day I asked
the following question:
What is the amount mentioned in the contract for the construction of the wharf at Cap de la Madeleine?
The answer was:
Schedule rates, approximately, $56,000.
If a contract is given for $49,000, how can the 'cost be $56,000.


Robert Rogers: An extra expenditure ol
$6,694.20 was entailed over the approximate contract price of $49,461.92, making a total of $56,156.12. Authority was given to substitute British Columbia fir for white pine, pitch pine and tamarack specified for the upper section from low water line to the wharf extension under contract.


Jacques Bureau: That hardly answers my question. There was a change made in the contract, British Columbia fir being called for instead of pine and spruce. Was Mr. Page given his price for fir, or were tenders called for?


Robert Rogers: No tenders were called for; the price was named by the department, I fancy.	,


Jacques Bureau: What was the reason for the change?


Robert Rogers: It was impossible to find the required length of timber in the native wood, and it was necessary to 'Substitute British Columbia fir.


Jacques Bureau: What is the size of the wharf?


Robert Rogers: It is 150 feet long by 20 feet wide.


Jacques Bureau: With a slip in the centre.


Robert Rogers: The other section is 200 by 40 feet.


Jacques Bureau: Are there data in the department as to the number of boats that docked at that pier last year, or for the last four or five years?


Robert Rogers: Nothing has been docked there, because the work was under construction.


Jacques Bureau: 
Robert Rogers: I am not sufficiently familiar with local conditions to give my hon. friend that information.


Jacques Bureau: I want the House to get the information, and I can give it if you ' like. This is a little wharf situated at the mouth of the St. Maurice river in the county of Champlain. I do not think two steamers ever docked there, and it is easy to see from the length of the dock, 150 feet, that they could not be very large steamers. In the old days, when the wharf was first built, there used to be pilgrimages there, as there was a shrine. There was a little boat called L'Etoile, that used to dock there, carrying pilgrims to the shrine. But I understand that Cap de la Made-laine was a very expensive parish in elections. The hon. minister (Mr. Rogers) speaks of L'Assomption being expensive, but that was before the elections. In this case, this was done after the elections, and was done to square the present member's election accounts. That is my information; if the minister can give better, I hope he will supply it.
Cap St. Ignace-repairs to wharf, $1,000.


Charles Marcil: Is that work started?


Robert Rogers: No.


Charles Marcil: Will tenders he called for? What is the amount proposed to 'be expended?


Robert Rogers: We have nothing very definite, as to the amount. We are going to have another survey made.


Charles Marcil: Do you propose to make a deep water wharf?


Robert Rogers: Yes; twenty-five feet at low water.
Disraeli-repairs to wharf-$2,200.


Edmund William Tobin: May I ask where this wharf is situated?


Robert Rogers: This is in Beauce county at the end of lake Aylmer on the Quebec Central railway, 52 miles east of Sherbrooke.


Edmund William Tobin: Is there any water there?


Robert Rogers: I presume there is; I hope there is.
Mr. TObIn : I would like to know. A few years ago statements were made by members of this House, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) being one, that there was no water in this lake and that this work was not useful. The hon. gentleman * went down on an excursion with
12 m. the late hon. member for Lennox, and some other gentleman, and had a photograph taken there, and returned with the statement that there was no water. What repairs is the minister going to make to this wharf?


Robert Rogers: The amount is required to replace the present wooden flooring 50 feet long by 36 feet wide with gravel and stone, and to effect other repairs, the estimated cost of which is $2,000.


Edmund William Tobin: I am sure the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) will be scandalized when he hears that the hon. minister is going on with these repairs. It was a useful work when the late Government took it up, and I approve the action of this Government in going ahead with it.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 12.10 a.m., Wednesday.
Wednesday, April 7, 1915.