Mr. FOSTER.

It would be well if the hon. gentleman would explain briefly what he proposes to do. That will at least give the appearance of some business being before the House.

Mr. FISHER.

For the benefit of the new member opposite, I shall be happy to repeat (he explanation which I gave in the former parliament. This bill has been called for by reason of certain information obtained as a result of a careful investigation into the business of selling seeds to our farmers. The intention is to control and regulate that business in the view of securing pure seed. This result cannot be obtained under the ordinary methods of trade, and therefore it is not possible for the purchaser at present to judge the quality of the seeds he is buying. It has therefore been found advisable to establish a standard and prevent the selling of any seeds which contain the seeds of certain varieties of weeds, rSome years ago my attention as minister was drawn to the quality of the seeds sold and to the great admixture which they contain of the seeds of bad weeds. Owing to this admixture the growth of certain kinds of weeds was promoted in localities where formerly such weeds were unknown. I caused an investigation to be made, and was startled by the results. It was shown clearly that a large proportion of the seeds sold to the farmers of Canada did contain a considerable admixture of the seeds of noxious weeds ; and in the majority, of cases the farmer was not only not sowing what he thought he was, but was actually sowing the seeds of plants injurious to the crop he hoped to raise. The last parliament, in view of the facts disclosed, decided that some restriction or control should be exercised over the sale of seeds, and the prin-

ciple of a bill, such as the one I propose to introduce, was adopted on two different occasions. Owing, however, to the pressure of other business, these Bills did not become law ; but I hope that in introducing the present measure at this early day of the session, it will become law before this session prorogues. The provisions of the Bill are not as stringent as many think advisable, but I do not wish to proceed too rapidly. There having been practically no supervision hitherto, I Jhink that this measure will be a great step in advance and sufficient for the present, and will, I hope, lead to the complete elimination of the spreading of weeds in Canada through the seed purchased by our farmers. Briefly, the Bill provides for the absolute prohibition of the sale of seeds which contain certain well known widely spread weeds, and it provides further for a standard of seed which shall be sold as No. 1 or of extra quality. It provides further for the imposition of penalties to be imposed for contravention of the Act.

There are some details which, I think, it unnecessary to go into at this stage, but which I shall be glad to explain and discuss when the Bill is before the Committee of the Whole, as is the usual course. I am glad to say that, on former occasions, when the Bill was discussed, the pi-inciple of it was endorsed by gentlemen of all shades of political opinion in the House. It is true that some of the provisions were considered to be too stringent, and some to be difficult of enforcement. I have taken advantage of the discussion which took place and of the representations which have been made by members on both sides of the House, and have, to a certain slight extent, modified the former Bills; and I am now proposing what I believe to be a thoroughly practical and workable measure and one which will accomplish the object sought, so far as it can be accomplished at one step by legislation.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) please tell us from what quarter the opposition to the Bill mainly came ?

Mr. FISHER.

I would not like to say there was any real opposition to the Bill. There was criticism of the details, and there were objections on the part of some dealers in seeds who represented that they could not carry on their business under certain provisions of the Bill that was formerly introduced. It was also thought pos sible that there would be danger of hardship on the part of the people who, in good faith, sold seeds at second or third hand. I think that, in the Bill which I am now proposing, I have to a large extent met these objections. But I must say frankly that if this Bill did not interfere with some of the practices of the seed trade of to-day, the Bill would be useless and unnecessary.

It is because interference with the practices of some of those engaged in the_ seed trade is necessary that I feel I must introduce the Bill.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

I have taken some interest in this Bill in previous sessions. This is the third consecutive year when the matter has come before us. It is incumbent upon the minister to have the legislation passed and put in force. It is hardly worth while to take up the time of the House session after session with a discussion which ends in nothing. No object is to be gained by merely affirming a given principle three years in succession.

Mr. FISHER.

I hope, with the co-operation of hon. members on both sides to carry out my purpose this session and make this Bill law. I shall be disappointed indeed if this cannot be effected. Of course, as I say, I can only do this with the cooperation of the members of the House, my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) included.

Resolution reported.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

I thought in connection with this matter the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would have made some explanation to the House and to the country of the resignation of the late chairman of the Railway Commission. It was a very sudden resignation, and took place in the midst of a political fight, and requires, as I think, an explanation to the country. In fact, the organs of hon. gentlemen opposite from the ' Globe ' down to the Montreal ' Witness ' are on record as demanding an explanation of that circumstance ; and I trusted that the explanation would be forthcoming to-day. Probably later on in the session, and in connection with the appointment of a successor to the late chairman of the Railway Commission, Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

we will have that explanation. It is certainly due to the country, it is certainly due to the right hon. gentleman and his friends to make that statement at the present moment. But I will wait for what is to come; certainly an explanation ought to be forthcoming, and probably will be forthcoming. As to the statement of the right hon. gentleman in seeking elsewhere and in another court for a man competent to fill the position, he is not going to work in the right way. He is robbing Peter to pay Paul, he is unmanning the Supreme Court to man the Railway Commission, which is not good policy. I do not think that it is good policy to shift the highest judicial officers from one court to another, not that I lack confidence in the competence of any member of the Supreme Court to be chairman of the Railway Commission. But it is evident now that the Railway Commission is to remain unmanned for at last three weeks more, although the great commercial interests, the great railway interests are inconvenienced by the present condition of affairs. It also follows from what the right hon. gentleman said, that the Supreme Court will then for a long period remain unmanned, without its full quota of members to enable it to discharge the duties that we expect from it. So that on the whole the explanation made here to-day is in no wise satisfactory, and I trust that a much better explanation in several directions will be offered at a very early day.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER.

There is another point which has been raised with regard to which the right hon. gentleman might give us some information. It. has been stated in the newspapers that some cases relating to the Northwest, for instance, which were heard by three commissioners before the resignation of Mr. Blair, will have to be reheard, and that there is no provision in the Act, no method by which these cases, having once been heard before the resignation of the chairman, can be adjudged by the remainder of the commission, or by the commission when it is filled by the appointment of another and third person. That of course would lead to a great deal of delay and a great deal of hardship. If that is so, something must be wrong with the Act; if it is not so, why, of course the public will be relieved of the apprehension which has been, I think, rather widespread.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I am afraid the statement which has been made by my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is only too true, and that the applications which were heard by three commissioners, but which were not disposed of when Mr. Blair resigned, may have to be heard again. A new commissioner must be appointed, and, of course, before these cases are disposed of he must hear the parties for himself. That rule applies in all courts under similar circumstances. One of the reasons why the gentleman we applied to refused to take the place on the

commission vacated by Mr. Blair was that hf>

had alreauy heard several cases in the Supreme Court, which would have to be reheard if he suddenly resigned his position. We thought it was inevitable that some parties should suffer, and that it was better that the cases he heard should be disposed of, so that no one might be inconvenienced by the change of officers. I do not agree with my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that in offering the position to a judge of the Supreme Court we were robbing Peter to pay Paul- I think nothing could be more in accordance with the good administration of justice, and a proper administration of the Commission, than to select a gentleman such as we have selected, who has experience not only in legal matters but also experience to a large extent in railway matters. When the time comes to make the appointment, as it will come within a short period, I think the selection will meet the approval of even our hypercritical friends on the other side of the House. I am sorry also that I cannot gratify the- what shall I say ?-the rather fastidious curiosity of my hon. friend with regard to the manner of Mr. Blair's resignation. He expected me to give him information upon that. I may say to my hon. friend, and perhaps it is notorious to him, that I was not consulted with regard to that resignation, and I am at a loss to give him any explanation of it. But since we are in the way of making confessions, I rather expected that my hon. friend would he in a position to give us some information himself, because I have read a good deal of what I supposed to be information in a certain newspaper with which my hon. friend is connected. But if the hon.' gentleman was only speaking from hearsay, that is another thing. If he has any information he can give it to us; for my part I have none.