Mr. SPROULE.

I desire to ask the right hon. the First Minister if any special instructions have been given regarding the number of Autonomy Bills to be printed ? AVe received one each this morning, and were informed that we could not get any more. It is very desirable that a large number should be printed, because there are many applications for them.

Sir AVILFRID LAURIER.

The government have no objections to printing a sufficient number.

Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).

AVhen this Bill was before the committee last, some hon. gentlemen took the ground that clause 11 went further than my explanation of what I considered

to be its purpose. I said I would submit their suggestions to the Department of Justice, and asked the officials to draft a clause which would meet the requirements which seemed to be in accord with my intentions and the views of the committee. They suggested a change in clause 11 and also the insertion of two words in clause 10. I move therefore that in clause 10, on the fourth line, after the words ' which he has reason to,' the word 1 suspeet ' be added.

Mr. LENNOX.

The minister changed the penalty under this Bill to a large extent, but the penalty in this clause still remains. It provides for a penalty ' not exceeding $500.' I do not know whether the attencion of the minister has been directed to that point, but I would suggest that this is a very large penalty, particularly having regard to the minister's own suggestion chat the penalty should be made very moderate at the beginning. I am not going to argue the matter but simply call attention to it.

Mr. FISHER.

I would point out that this is not a penalty for the contravention of the Act, but for obstructing an officer in the enforcement o,f the Act. I think that an offence of that kind may require a much heavier penalty than would an ordinary offence against the Act.

Mr. LENNOX.

I agree with that ; but, at the same time, I think that while the Act is new it may happen that when parties enter premises bona fide to carry out the purposes of the Act, those in charge, not having been educated to the new condition of things, may, to some extent obstruct the officer, yet without causing very great inconvenience. As this Bill is educative, as the minister has said, I think that a penalty of less than $500 would accomplish all the purposes sought to be accomplished.

Mr. FISHER.

It would be only in flagrant cases that a penalty of $500 would be imposed by the court. The range of the penalty is from $25 to $500 ; and I think we might leave the discretion with the magistrate.

On section 11,

Any inspector, informant or complainant who finds or has good reason to suspect seeds to be sold, or offered, exposed or had in possession for sale for the purpose of seeding in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall take a sample from the said seeds and forward it to such person as the Governor in Council appoints as an official seed analyst to examine and report upon any seed submitted for analysis under the provisions of this Act.

Mr. FISHER.

I wish to amend this section. It will be remembered that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and

others, thought the clause went further than the intention as declared by me and as desired by the committee. I submitted that question to the Department of Justice, and they suggested certain changes which, I think, meet the view of those who objected, and certainly cause the section to express more clearly what I desire. The section as I propose to amend it will read :

Any purchaser of seeds with respect to which he has reason to suspect or believe that any provision of this Act has been violated, or any person charged with the enforcement of this Act at his request may take a sample from the seeds and forward it to such person-

And so on as in the section already printed. That removes any doubt as to who may take this sample of seeds, and puts the section in the form which, I think, we practically all agree it ought to have.

Mr. LENNOX.

That covers one point very well indeed. But there is another point that, probably, has been lost sight of. The minister will notice that, under section 10, where the official charged with the enforcement of the Act may take samples, there is a provision for payment; and it was urged, when we dere discussing section 11, that there should be similar provision here. That was mentioned when the matter first came up, but, probably, was not adverted to when we subsequently discussed this section. As regards the question of the purchaser taking a sample, the amendment seems to completely overcome the difficulty. But, as regards the person engaged in the enforcement of the Act, there is no provision that he should be entitled to take a sample only upon paying for it. I think that principle should be embodied here, as it has been in section 10.

Mr. FITZPATRICK.

It seems to me that the conditions under section 10 and under section 11 are different. The person charged with the enforcement of the Act goes into premises to see whether the seed kept there is tainted, and takes a sample. There is nothing to suggest impropriety on the part of anybody. But, in the case of section 11, the purchaser complains, practically, that he has been defrauded, that the seed sold to him is not up to the standard set by the Act, and he asks the person charged with the enforcement of the Act to take a sample. There seems to me no reason why that person should be compelled to pay for the seeds.

Mr. LENNOX.

Evidently, I have not made myself understood. What I have said does not apply to the purchaser-he takes a sample from his own lot of seed. But I call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to the fact that, under section i0, any person charged with the enforcement of the Act may enter premises and take samples from any sack and so on, for

wliich sample the owner shall be paid at the current value of the seed. I do not see why if you pay in one case, you should not pay in the other. The conditions are exactly similar. With regard to the person who purchases the seed, of course there is no necessity ; but when you come to deal with the person going in and taking samples under section 11, he should be placed on the same basis as the person charged with the enforcement of the Act under section 10.

Mr. FISHER.

From my understanding of the wording of the clause, I think it is clear that the sample would be taken from the seeds purchased, and would be done by the inspector at the request of the purchaser. I move to amend section 11 so that it should read as follows, after striking out the first four lines.

Any purchaser of seeds, with respect to which he has reason to suspect or believe that any provision of this Act has been violated, or any person charged with the enforcement of this Act. at his request, may take a sample from the said seeds and forward it to such person as the Governor in Council appoints as an official seed analyst, to examine and report upon any seed submitted for analysis under the provisions of this Act.

Mr. FISHER moved :

To add after the words ' inspector, informant or complainant ' the words ' person taking the same.'