[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 37) to incorporate the Western Canadian Life Assurance Company-Mr. Knowles.
On section 6-policy-holders and directors.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Is this in accordance with the Insurance Act ?


Mr. FIELDING.: A clause in this Bill provides that if in any respect its provisions are found to be at variance with those of the Insurance Act as finally passed, the general Act will prevail.
On section 11-Notice of annual meeting.


Mr. SPROULE.: I think it would be well for us to fix a certain date before which the annual meeting should take place, so that the company could send in its returns to the government at the proper time. We have such a provision in all Railway Bills, and it seems to me we ought to have a similar one in Insurance Bills.


William Stevens Fielding: The returns must be made at certain dates, and the presumption is that the company will hold the annual meeting early enough to enable that to be done.
On section 15-Distribution of profits.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This Bill is a little more definite in regard to what is meant by pro-

fits than another Bill which is before the House. They are here stated to be net profits. I think that in all Bills of this kind, it should be made clear that the policyholder shall be entitled to share in all the profits of the company instead of a portion of the profits; because the insurance companies resort to so many devices to put away their money, which is really earned from the policy-holders, that the participating policy-holder does not share in the profits in the proportion that he should. That is clearly the case in the Canada Life Bill, and I take it that it will be the same in this case. If this company, like the Canada Life, were to set apart a certain portion of the earnings every year as a reserve to strengthen the company, that money would really come from the policy-holders, and would be a portion of the profits in which they would have no share at all. It seems to me that there should be a clear and definite statement of what is meant by the distribution of profits as between the policy-holders and the stock holders.


William Stevens Fielding: The provisions of this Bill follow precisely the same lines as those of other Bills of similar character, and I would suggest to my hon. friend whether, if he wishes to press his view, he might more properly do so in connection with the general Biil, so that if there be an amendment made, it will apply to all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I were sure that there would be a general Act passed this session, and that it would contain a clause providing for this, I would have no objection; but it is because of the knowledge I have of the operations of insurance companies and of the difficulties that have arisen in the past on account of the ambiguity of the clauses relating to profits as between policyholders and stock holders, that I mention the matter. When we were dealing with the Canada Life Bill, the solicitor of the company said that it was a very far-reaching Bill. If the law as declared by Sir Robert Finlay with regard to the Canada Life prevails, and were not corrected by parliament, it would affect every life insurance company in the country doing business on the participating policy plan, and the participating policy-holder would properly demand and would be entitled to receive a much larger share of -the profits than he has received heretofore. If we allow the provision before us, which has led to this difficulty, it seems to me that we shall be perpetuating something which has been declared to be veTy defective and not understandable, and I think we should take the earliest opportunity to make it so understandable and clear as to make it impossible for either the public ot the companies or their agents to misunderstand it.


John Allister Currie: I think it would be entirely contrarv to the spirit of the British
811	it llltl
North America Act, and the jurisdiction of this parliament over civil contracts to have any further clauses of this kind included in insurance company charters. I think that a plain provision that the directors would have the power to make such a division of the profits with the participating policyholders as they might from time to time deem necessary, is all the power we should give them. But in this clause we undertake to limit the division of profits to the profits arising from the moneys of the participating policy-holders, and then we further limit the amount the participating policy-holders shall receive. The insurance agent, in canvassing, can make all kinds of representations to the party he wants to insure. He can represent to him that he is to receive a far greater amount than he possibly can receive under this legislation. The party canvassed takes out a policy believing in these representations. He does not find any provision in the policy or contract itself defining what portion of the profit he is to receive but he believes that it is in the company's charter. Then the innocent insurer who has taken out a policy expecting to get a profit of 90 per cent of the whole profits of the company finds, after he has paid in premiums the requisite number of years, that all he is entitled to is only 90 per cent of the profits on his own money. This is all the return he gets for paying in a heavier premium than the ordinary insurance. It strikes me that in every insurance policy, the proportionate amount of profit to accrue to the policyholder should be clearly stated. As far as this Bill is concerned, we have no more right to limit the amount of profit the policy holder is to receive on the participating policy plan than we would have the right in a marriage contract to limit the amount which the wife is entitled to receive out of the profits of a marriage contract in her husband's property, and declare that she shall not receive more than say 10 per cent. For that reason I would ask that the Bill be held over and be referred back to the Minister of Justice for his opinion as to the legality of that clause. In my opinion there is good ground for considering it an infringement of civil rights since it limits the right to contract.


William Stevens Fielding: This clause has been in our insurance charters many years, and no question has ever been raised as to the constitutional power of parliament to enact it. Whatever opinion there may be regarding the wisdom of so distributing the profits, no question has been raised as to the constitutional authority of parliament on the matter. Unless the hon. gentleman has reason to think it is advisable, we ought not to treat this Bill differently from Bills of a similar character.


John Allister Currie: The reason is that this question is a matter of litigation now with companies.


William Stevens Fielding: Not affecting this company.	r:|:%3ll


John Allister Currie: Why should we put in this Bill a clause which may, inside of six months, be declared ultra vires?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not aware that in any litigation, the constitutional power of parliament to pass a clause of this kind is raised. There may be litigation as to the meaning of a similar clause in another charter, but I am not aware of any question being raised touching the constitutional authority of parliament to enact such a clause.


John Allister Currie: This involves a constitutional question. A company enters into a contract with an individual by which he is to participate in the profits. If that be a civil contract, it will be defined according to the civil law of the provinces. Have we the right to limit the scope of the contract and prevent an insurance company from giving more or less than a certain percentage of profits if their contracts should be to the contrary. On several occasions Bills have been before this parliament touching on civil rights. There was one in which the Methodist Missionary Society was concerned. An attempt was made to insert a clause providing that conveyances granting land to that society should contain certain clauses or conditions. This House objected to inserting any clause which would interfere with the rights of the parties to make a civil contract as that was a matter entirely within provincial jurisdiction. I think that we should hesitate before inserting the clause in question. The matter will shortly be decided by the civil courts, and in the meantime I think we should not pass legislation that may be contrary to that finding. I can see no reason why an insurance company should not have the right to distribute its profits to participating holicy-holders in accordance with the contract between them and the company. Leave it to the company to agree to give 10, 20 or 95 per cent of the profits or whatever they like but have that stipulated in the contract. As it is, there is now nothing in the contract, and a man, who has taken out a policy on the faith of representations made to him by an insurance agent, finds there is an Act of parliament limiting his rights and giving him less than he was told he would receive.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not in charge of the Bill and not particularly concerned in its advancement. If my hon. friend's view be correct, it would be better to discuss it when considering the general Bill, so that


William Stevens Fielding: whatever we may do will apply, not to one company alone, but to all.


Mr. KNOWLES.: I would be quite willing to acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) if I could see any reasonable ground for believing his anxiety well founded. It would be rather presumptuous on my part to give an opinion off-hand on a debatable point regarding constitutional law, but I can see no reason for hesitation in this matter. When we have the power to create an insurance company, surely we have the power to place whatever restrictions we may deem advisable, on its operation. True, the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction in matters of civil contracts, but that must be taken within limits, such as in the case before us where we are asked to create a company and define what powers we shall give it. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has called attention to the fact that this is the first occasion when objection has been raised to legislation of this kind; and before being asked to hold the Bill over, we ought to have some stronger reasons given for contending that it is ultra vires. Surely the anxiety of one individual is not sufficient reason for holding over the Bill. With all due regard for the valuable opinion of my hon friend, with which he so kindly favours us on frequent occasions, there is no documentary evidence and no seriously considered opinion submitted which would be a justification for our delay in passing the Bill.


John Allister Currie: I may say that a corporation has no right to divide its profits with its policy-holders or the public unless there is a special clause in its charter allowing it to do so. That is the law in England and every other country. This clause is placed in the charters of insurance companies to enable them to divide their profits and the charters of insurance companies give them the right to secure business not only in Canada, but in foreign countries. Have we the right to impose a limit in insurance contracts restricting the division of profits? Why should not the division of profits be a matter of simple contract between the company and the party insured. If you give a company the power to divide its profits with the policy-holders, why not let the percentage of profits be a matter of contract and written on the policy. Instead of doing this you frame this general clause, which is so worded that it enables an insurance company to avoid putting a clause in their contracts stating the amount of division. Thus a man may be induced to insure with the idea that he is going to receive a much larger percentage, and then, after he has paid in his premiums for many years, he finds, on looking at his policy, that there is no clause telling him what he is going to get,

and he has to refer to an Act of Parliament passed some twenty years before to find out that his profits are limited to a very small percentage. But if this question is going to receive consideration, if the Minister of Finance states that there will be a clause in the Insurance Bill which will deal generally with all companies, I am quite ready to waive my objection.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a clause in the Insurance Bill dealing with the method of distributing profits and raising this very question, so that my hon. friend will have an opportunity of dealing with the whole matter on that clause.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



GREAT WEST PERMANENT LOAN COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 40) to incorporate the Great West Permanent Loan Co.-Mr. Alexander Haggart.
On section 9-Securities for investments.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is provided here that the company ' shall not invest in nor loan money upon the security of the stock of any other loan company Except as hereinafter authorized.' That would indicate that they aTe authorized to invest in the stock of any other company not a loan company. Is not that too wide a power?


William Stevens Fielding: This clause is the same as in the Acts of other similar companies, and is the same as in the general Loan Company's Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On section 16, subsection c,
(c)	Delegate any of their powers to committees consisting of such member or members of their body as they think fit, and any committee so formed shall, in the exercise of the powers so delegated, conform to any regulations that may be imposed on it by the directors.
There was a company started some years ago that adopted this plan of committees, and it seemed to me a very bad one; it proved very disastrous to those who had bought stock in the company. The plan I refer to is that of having a committee in each village or locality. The present section seems to give the company the right to delegate any of their powers to committees. The committees might be given certain limited powers, but the company should not have the right to give any committee the power to incur an obligation, borrow money or anything like that. In the York Loan Company that had such a disastrous history lately, that was one of the features; they had committees all over the country. I think these committees should only do certain routine work, become inspectors, report on property, look after collections, and such things as that. These things could well be done by a committee. But when you go beyond that you are giving them too large powers.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the clause is a usual one, and the superintendent informs me that no case has been brought to his notice of any abuse arising from it. Of course, it is a somewhat broad power to give the company to allow them to delegate their powers to a committee. I take it that the chief purpose of these committees is to encourage local business and create an interest in the company. I would not call them canvassers, although they do seek business for the company. It is to be presumed that the central authority would only delegate to them such powers as may be safely exercised. I am not aware of any real abuse having arisen under the clause. As respects the York Loan Company, I did not understand my hon. friend to say that the troubles arose from the operation of these committees.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can only say that having watched the operation of some of these companies I always regarded this as a bad feature. Here is what they usually do: An agent goes to a village, he wants to rope in certain parties and form a committee for the purpose of doing business in that locality. He makes one chairman, he makes another an inspector, he makes a third a secretary. Each one has a duty to perform, and they are paid in proportion to the amount of work done in that locality. These are all paid officials, though the remuneration they receive is small; but the higher the amount of work done and the larger the loans, the more they are paid. They are all interested parties, interested in getting business for the company, they are concerned in the amount of business they can get for the company. I have thought how easy it would be for the inspector to join with the agent, and with the secretary, and with the chairman, and recommend loans where the security was not perhaps very good, larger loans than they ought to recommend, and do it because they would get a larger commission for it. Individually I do not think they are under any bonds to make them liable for anything they might do improperly, although the general law would cover it. They represent to the public: If you will put your money into this company it will pay you back within a few months, or within a few years a certain return-and it is a return which no company could give legitimately. I know that to be a fact, because I have examined two or three of them, and I know the returns which they promise to give are such that no respectable company in the world could give if they were carrying on a legiti-

mate and honest business. This is done through these committees and the result is that after awhile the companies go down. I remember one that flourished some twenty years ago in our locality and I do not know whether there are two members of that board there to-day who were appointed about twenty years ago. What is the result? People paid in their money, and when they endeavoured afterwards to get a return for it, with the profits that they had reason to expect, according to the representations made to them, they found that they had been egregiously sold, they did not get back one-fourth of the money expected. I remember one man who, I think, paid in $62 or $64, and according to the representations made to him, he ought to have taken out, after a certain term of years, $250, but he took out about $2 less than he paid in. That is in my judgment, a fraudulent and improper transaction, but it is carried on through the exercise of the powers delegated to this special committee. One after another of the contributors, finding that was the case, dropped out of it, and practically lost all the money they had put into it.
Bill reported.



NIAGARA-WELLAND POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 33) respecting the Niagara-Welland Power Company-Mr. Guthrie.
On section 2,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has not this power company started its business?


Mr. GUTHRIE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has it been carrying on operations for any length of time or making any effort to complete its work?


Hugh Guthrie: It was shown before the Private Bills Committee that it has spent between $60,000 and $70,000, but there are now some negotiations with the Ontario government arising out of the policy of the Ontario government with regard to the Ni

raoo siifl omtprBoui oqj up -jgwod uibSt? pany does not want its charter rights to lapse.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADA LIES ASSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
John Allister Currie: I understand that some members desire to look further into this Bill, and I would therefore like to have the consideration of it postponed until a further day. I therefore move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again. '	1


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Mr. PERLEY.: I would like to say two or three words with regard to this matter. As I stated in committee, I am not a shareholder in any way in the Canada Life Assurance Company, but I am a policy-holder and as such I am perfectly satisfied with section No. 2, which is a contentious section, as I consider that it provides what was originally intended and what has actually been done for the last thirty years. But, as a member of parliament a serious question arises as to the retroactive character of this Bill. I spoke about this phase of it the other day in the committee, and I asked Mr. Leighton McCarthy, who had the Bill in charge, regarding our power to pass such legislation and as to the wisdom of our doing it. He answered me giving his reasons for it, which did not seem to be very satisfactory as he was naturally in-teiested in the Bill as the lawyer for the Canada Life and there was no lawyer on the other side to represent the policy-holders. I have looked a little farther into the legal part of this question and I may say that I have found many lawyers opposed to our passing such legislation. Amongst others, I might refer to the argument of two celebrated and well known lawyers in this country who are members of this House, from the ridings of South Essex and North York. Both of these hon. gentlemen spoke the other day regarding the Cobalt Lake matter and presented arguments in that case which seemed to me to be decidedly against the wisdom of this House passing retroactive legislation of this kind. There are a great many policy-holders interested in this question who live not only in Canada but in almost every country in the world, and as I am not a lawyer and am unable to discuss this matter from a legal point of view it seems to me that before we pass this Bill we ought to have a definite statement from the Minister of Justice as to the wisdom of our passing legislation of this kind affecting as it does the possible civil rights of a great many people in a great many countries. I think he should assume the responsibility of advising this House regarding this matter as he is the keeper of the legal conscience of this House. Therefore, I wrote a letter to the hon. Minister of Justice, telling him that I would ask today that he give his opinion regarding the wisdom of passing this legislation, before we should go further with it. I sent the letter to him by mail and I am sorry to learn that he is indisposed. At the same time, I think the promoter of this Bill will agree with me that we should not go any further until we get an official opinion from the Minister of Justice as to whether it is wise and proper for us to pass such legislation. I therefore would be glad to second the motion of my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie).


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: The Bill before the committee has been very carefully considered by the Committee on Hanking and Commerce, which is the proper committee for the consideration of matters of this sort. The questions which my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) has just spoken of were also discussed in that committee, and it seems to me that with respect to private Bills, where the parties are heard before a committee, the decision of the committee ought to be accepted by the House. However, it is quite open to the members of the House, I concede, to discuss it further, and if hon. gentlemen really and truly desire to have it stand over for the purpose of further investigation I certainly am not going to insist upon going on against their wishes. I am naturally desirous that it should be disposed of as quickly as possible. This is an entirely different thing from the Cobalt lake matter which we had here the other day. If it were not I would not be here in charge of this Bill. I may say that I have given it a great deal of careful consideration because I am as much interested as any person in this House in seeing that the rights of the people are not affected by retroactive legislation. It is not a case of retroactive legislation at all, in my judgment. In the Cobalt lake case the matter was going to the courts and the court was the only tribunal that could dispose of it. _ In this case the words used in the Act did not carry out what the real intention of the parties was and this Bill is not to change any law or take away any rights; it is merely to give full effect to what the intention ^ of parliament was at the date of the passing of the Act which is being amended. The courts have no jurisdiction in such a case as this. The judges have said that this is not a question for the courts, but that it is a question for parliament, and that parliament must correct the mistake. In this case parliament must act in a judicial as well as in a legislative capacity. It is for the members of this parliament to deal with the question as judges and say whether or not the case which is set up by the Life Insurance Company has been made out.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: I am not surprised that no policy-holders were present at the discussion of this Bill before the Banking and Commerce Committee, because I do not think the advertisement published announcing that this legislation would come before parliament was sufficient to fix knowledge upon the various policy-holders. As hon. members know, there are some 35,000 policy holders interested in this legislation, but not one of these was present before the committee to oppose it. I would urge the advisability of leaving the Bill over not for a week or a day but until next session, in order that the
policy holders may have an opportunity to examine its contents and be present at the discussions in the committee. The notice of intention to introduce this legislation as published was as follows:
Notice is hereby given that application will be made to the parliament of the Dominion of Canada at the next session thereof for an Act to amend the Acts relating to The Canada Life Assurance Company by changing the date of the annual .meeting and making necessary changes as to notices of meetings consequent thereon and providing for any further changes in the date of such meeting.
Merely formal matters are inserted first in order apparently to conceal the real intent of the Bill. Then there is a small clause:
-defining the provisions as to division of profits.
And then a small clause:
-extending the powers of the company as to holding real estate in Ontario, and for other purposes.
I submit that this is not sufficient notice to the policy holders that they are to be deprived of their salient, vital rights in connection with this Bill. The Bill deals with upwards of $2,000,000 and deprives 35,000 policy-holders of their rights, according to the opinion of one of the best counsel in England. I think the Bill should not be considered this session, but that the company should publish a fair and reasonable advertisement setting out the intention of the Bill so that the policyholders may discuss it and fully understand it.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke) that this differs in its nature from the legislation relating to the Cobalt Lake Mining Company. True, the positions of the two are not exactly the same or at all similar, but this is in its nature retroactive legislation; it is taking away rights that are said, on good advice, to belong to certain policy-holders and transferring these rights to another class interested in the company, the shareholders. It is dealing with most important rights. I was much surprised on looking at the Bill to find that its sponsor was the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke), the very gentleman who moved for the papers in reference to the Cobalt Lake legislation, and who made very caustic references to the action of the Ontario legislature in passing it. Who is proposing this Bill? It emanates not from the policy-holders, but from the shareholders, the beneficiaries. The policy-holders, numbering, 35,000, have had no opportunity to organize and oppose it, and no policy-holder should be expected to come here at his own expense for that purpose.
Progress reported.



ROYAL CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 51) respecting the Royal Casualty and Surety Company of Canada.-Mr. H. H. McLean.
On section 1,
Mr. LENNOX.: I have a letter from a constituent in reference to the name of one company. He speaks of a Bill proposed by the Royal Victoria Life Insurance Company to drop the word 'Victoria' and make it the Royal Life Insurance Company.


William Stevens Fielding: This is not the Bill to which my hon. friend refers. The question of title comes up here, however.
Mr. _ LENNOX. I presume that in the committee the question of title was probably discussed, but my correspondent, who is interested in the Royal Insurance Company, thinks this is not fair. I am not sure whether that is a life company.


William Stevens Fielding: Fire and Life.


Haughton Lennox: This is a life and death company too; it is an accident company, and, _ of course, it involves the element of life insurance in that respect. I submit to the minister that it is worth while considering whether any company should be allowed to use a name that will conflict with the name of an existing company. I know that the minister thinks such a practice should not be encouraged. I find on the Order Paper a Bill to incorporate the Royal Canadian Accident Insurance Company, and I submit that we are having too much royalty in this matter.


William Stevens Fielding: I rather sympathize with the views of my hon friend. This matter was considered before the committee and we had great difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to where the line should be drawn. Some of these names would naturally suggest themselves to anybody, and it has been held that no one company should have a monopoly of such a name. Take, for example, a Bill which we had before us respecting the Great West Loan Company. We have a Great West Life company, and it was suggested that there might be a certain confusing of names. On the other side it is said that the Great West is an expression which we use in describing our great western prairies, and that it would not be proper to let any one set of men take that name to themselves and use it as a monopoly; but if one company is doing one class of business and another company another, we would have to trust to the other words of their title to mark the distinction. Another view expressed at a previous meeting of the committee is that associations organized abroad, either in foreign countries or in Great Bri-Mr. S. SHAEPE.
tain, and haying particular names, should not be permitted to have a monopoly so that other companies could not use similar names in Canada. The last case of the kind which occurred a year ago was with reference to the word 'Travellers.' That is the name of a well-known American company doing business in Canada for many years. Application was made for a charter for a company to be called ' The Travellers of Canada.' Objection was at once taken that there was likely to be confusion, but the committee held that the word ' Travellers ' could not be the property of any set of people; it was a common word which any one could use, and the mere fact that some company abroad had taken it should not debar the parliament of Canada from granting a similar name to a Canadian company. There is great difficulty in determining just where the line should be drawn. Wherever it is likely to create confusion in the public mind, I think we should not grant a similarity of names, but in the discussion before the committee the general view was that we should not permit any company to monopolize a name, especially one which might be common property. Royal is a name of that character; it is a name that is applied to a number of institutions. If we said that the first set of men who seized upon a common word of that kind should have a monopoly of it as applied to business organizations, I think we should be going too far. I am not very clear in my own mind as to whether this name is an invasion of the rule which the committee laid down or not; but taking it all in all, the committee held that the objections raised in this case were not well founded.


Haughton Lennox: I quite appreciate that the minister has a pretty difficult task in this matter; but I am inclined to think that in this case we are doing what is probably unwise. There is, I think, a sharp distinction to be drawn between a foreign company and a British company; but I am not ar all sure that there is any sharp distinction to be drawn between a Canadian company and a British company. We might refuse a charter to a foreign company which seeks to obtain a monopoly of a certain name; but when a British company, with our concurrence has been doing business with British people in Canada, I think we might very well deal with it upon the same basis as we would with our own people. That is the first point. There is another point. In the first case we view the matter from the company's standpoint; but it is even more important to view it from the standpoint of the people. The minister touched that note by saying that we want to deal with these matters so that the people will not be confused or misled, and as far as we can avoid repetition of names we should do so. The

' Royal ' is the name of a very desirable insurance company, and people might be led into doing business with a company using that name under a misapprehension of the facts. There is a pretty long way between that name and such a name as the Great West. The Great West is a great inheritance of us all.


William Stevens Fielding: So is Royal.


Haughton Lennox: Not in the same way. We do not propose to give a monopoly of the Great West to one set of people, not even to the Big Four; but when it comes to the question of a word that does not carry with it any property, it is somewhat different.
I hope that whatever the minister may do in this particular instance, he has not made up his mind that in no instance will he restrain the use of the word Royal in connection with a life insurance company, and this is certainly in a sense a life insurance company.


John Allister Currie: I understand tha-t some of the large English companies doing an insurance business in Canada get over the Act by having a Canadian company authorized, and underwriting its stock and its policies. I think the Liverpool, London & Globe, and one or two others, have charters of that description. The insurance agents whio do business for the Royal Fire Insurance Company also, do a casualty business.


William Stevens Fielding: No. The English company does not do an accident business.


John Allister Currie: The agents of the Royal do a casualty business for other companies; and the Royal of England is such a well known company that people taking casualty insurance from those agents assume that the Royal Canadian Company is a child of the English company and are therefore misled. If the promoter of this Bill will give this House the assurance that this oompany is a child of the Royal Insurance'Company, I think we might pass it; but if he does not give us that assurance, I think we should not pass it.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member who has charge of the Bill does not appear to be in his place. Not only have I no assurance of the kind, but such information as I have leads me to believe that this is an independent company.


John Allister Currie: Then I would ask that progress be reported on this Bill until that assurance is given to us.


William Stevens Fielding: That matter was thoroughly considered in the committee. I do not sav that is conclusive, but I doubt whether we can make much improvement in the Bill. This question is in line with other questions which have been discussed again and again. The committee thought
there was a distinction between the Royal Casualty Company and the Royal Fire Insurance Company, and that there could be no confusion. However, I have no desire to press the Bill in the absence of the promoter, and if any considerable number of members wish to consider it further, I have no objection to it standing over.
Progress reported.



CANADA NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 76) to incorporate the Imperial Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. A. Haggart.
William Stevens Fielding: Objection has been taken to the name and it is proposed to substitute Canada National, but this can only be done by the Speaker in the Chair.
Bill reported and read the third time.


Mr.   A.@: HAGGART moved that the Bill be passed and the title changed to Canada National Fire Insurance Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the Royal Casualty and Surety Company of Canada.- Mr. H. H. McLean.
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the Royal Canadian Accident Insurance Company.- Mr. Ames.
Bill (No. 62) to incorporate the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company -Mr. Neely.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 55) to incorporate the British Columbia Life Assurance Company-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 62) to incorporate the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company. -Mr. Neely.
Bill (No. 40) to incorporate the Great West Permanent Loan Company.-Mr. A. Haggart.
Bill (No. 33) respecting the Niagara-Wel-land Power Company.-Mr. Guthrie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 71) respecting a Patent of Thomas L. Smith.-Mr. Bickerdike-considered in committee and reported.
On motion for third reading:
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Has this Bill come under the notice of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and has it had his assent?
Bill read the third time and passed.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the Fort Erie and Buffalo Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 91) to incorporate the Prudential Trust Company, Limited.-Mr. Mac-donell.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company.-Mr. Boyer.
Bill (No. 95) to incorporate the Royal Guardians..-Mr. Lachance.
Bill (No. 96) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the London and Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the National Accident and Guarantee Company of Canada. -Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 104) respecting the Thessalon and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Smyth.

[Stage Direction]
On motion for the second reading of Bill (No. 93) respecting Patents of Ammonal Explosives (1908), Limited. - Mr. A. C. Maedonell.
John Allister Currie: This I take to be with reference to patents for the making of ammonia powders. Some explosives for military purposes are now being manufactured by ammonia process instead of nitrates. This government may be manufacturing such explosives, and it may be that here is doubt about the wisdom of recognizing any such patent as this. The promoter of the Bill is not present to explain the matter, so I would ask that the Bill be allowed to stand.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stands.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. AMES asked:: 1.	What was the price originally paid by the government for the Canada Eastern Railway?
3.	Since the acquisition of the line between Frederiction and Chatham, what has been spent each year for betterment, and what does the government expect to spend under this head during 1909-1910?
3.	What is the approximate value of the rolling stock that has been added to that previously in service on this branch?
4.	What has been each year, since its acquisition by the government, the approximate expenditure for running expenses and the approximate revenue in connection with this branch?


George Eulas Foster: 


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	1905
June 30, Department of Railways and Canals, amount paid at Ottawa	$800,000 00
February 29, Department of Railways and Canals, amount of cheques issued at Ottawa, W. B. Snowball,
R. A. Snowball, W. C. Winslow	 19,000 00

2.	Amounts expended each year on Capital Account since the acquisition of the line between Fredericton and Chatham, from October 1, 1904 to January 31, 1909:
Year 1904-5
Sidings	$ 9,575 05
Platforms	 355 00
Track material and labour. 26,498 10

Year 1905-6
To increase water supply..$ 19,243 04 Semaphores at stations____	1,607 01
Sidings	 10,929 62
'Fredericton and St.
Mary's bridge	300,000 00

Which added to line and supplied. 'Fredericton terminal.
Year 1906-7
To strengthen bridges

To increase water supply..	3,634	48Siding-Fredericton	
96	00
Fencing portion of line not
heretofore fenced	
15,983	36Air compressor at Gibson..	1,780	91Ice house at Gibson.. ..	2,138	76

Year 1907-8
To strengthen bridges... .$111,490 29 To increase water supply.. 11,559 88 Fencing portion of the line
not heretofore fenced

 11,979 24
Improving grades on line. 3,950 49
New turntables	 3,348	08
Air 'compressors at Gibson. 361 54
Electric semaphores	
512	26Siding	
2,382	28To improve telegraph line. 2,498 23 Buildings	
2,695	78

Year 1908-9
To strengthen bridges.. .. $ 8,650 94 To increase water supply.. 10,716 15 Fencing portion of line not
heretofore fenced	
11,267	94Improvements at Loggieville	
309	32New turntables	
1,035	09Electric semaphores	$	417 43Land purchased	
230	00Sidings	
2,303	15Buildings	
7,923	75$ 42,853	77



$597,929 00 INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Capital estimates 1909-1910-Canada Eastern Division.
Sutton Road-Siding to be made
through 100 foot extension	$	875
Ivory's-New shelter and platform..	350
Maloney's-New shelter and platform	350
Cushman's-New shelter and platform	350
Tj pper Nelson-For shelter	 150
Biackville-Loading platform ..$250 To convert old baggage room into waiting
room	300
[Stage Direction]
	550
Forks-New shelter and platform. . ..	350
Upper Biackville-Building for baggage, coal and oil	 250
Weaver's-New shelter and platform	350
Hurley Brook-New shelter and platform	 350
Blissfield-New shelter	 150
Doaktown-Loading platform	 250
Carroll's-To provide a shelter.. ..	150
Carroll's-To lengthen crossing siding
10 cars, 400 feet	 800
Boiestown-To provide additional siding accommodation 20 cars, 800 feet	2,000
Astles-Shelter	 150
Clearwater-Shelter	 150
Cross Creek-To provide a loading platform 70 feet long	 300
350
Cross Creek-To change highway between Cross creek and covered bridge to eliminate 4 road crossings	$1,000
Covered Bridge-Loading siding to
hold 5 cars, 200 feet	
Nashwaak-To provide shelter and
platform	
Manzer's-To provide a shelter.... Marysville - To provide	loading
ground, siding and platform-
Land	$L000
Siding	1,600
Platform	 350
Grading for roadway	 500
Freight shed	 800
[Stage Direction]
 4,250
To provide fencing for 30 miles of line
not previously fenced	 20,000
To put line between Indiantown and Biackville in condition for operation-
Ballast	$10,000	.
Ties and rails	10,000
Fences	 5,000
[Stage Direction]
 25,000
3.	Approximate value of rolling stock that has been added to that previously in service of the Canada Eastern Railway is $57,500, made up as follows:
7 engines at $5,000 each equals. .$35,000 9 passenger cars at $2,500 equals 22,500
Total	$57,500
4.	Approximate operating expenses of the Canada Eastern Railway from October, 1904, ti March, 1908:
1904-	5	$105,790	821905-	6	
152,850	331906- 7	'	
141,243 221907-	8	
198,054	37

[Stage Direction]
Statement showing the Earnings of the Canada Eastern section of the Intercolonial Railway from October _________________________________________1, 1904, to January 31, 1909.________________________________________
Months.	Passenger Traffic Earnings.	Freight Traffic Earnings.	Mails and Sundries.	Total Earnings.1904.	$ cts. 3,403 82 3,207 33 2,449 76	$ cts. 4,667 90 3,386 77 4,859 46	$ cts. 1,470 20 1,432 44 1,522 76	$ cts. 9,542 01 8,026 54 8,831 98
9,060 91	12,914 13	4,425 49	26,400 53
1905.				
	2,423 16 2,338 45 3,874 53 4,489 45 3,394 19 4,754 17 4,175 01 4,090 48 4,861 65 4,396 15 3,013 48 3,257 64	4,338 02 3,127 14 5,540 33 5,588 54 6,674 58 6,930 52 6,637 93 5,745 97 5,452 18 5,985 62 6,035 99 4,962 69	1,468 66 1,439 02 1,476 84 1,492 89 1,496 66 1,815 36 1,772 41 1,937 51 1,791 61 1,812 43 1,626 16 1,516 81	8,229 84 6,904 61 10,891 70 11,570 88 11,565 43 13,500 05 12,585 85 11,773 96 12,105 44 12,194 20 10,675 63 9,737 14
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
November	 								
				
	45,068 86	67,019 5)	19,646 36	131,734 73
				
[Stage Direction]
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-Concluded.
Statement showing the earnings of the Canada Eastern section of the Intercolonial Railway from October
1,	1904, to January 81, 1909.
Months.	Passenger Traffic Earnings.	Freight Traffic Earnings.	Mails and Sundries.	Total Earnings.1906.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.January	2,733 62	6,803 07	1,498 16	11,034 85February.	3,055 23	6,518 73	1,467 88	11,041 84March	3,040 31	6,912 77	1,482 60	11,435 68April	4,785 51	5,621 41	1,271 95	11,678 90May 	3,549 38	7,232 67	1,406 96	12,189 01June	4,200 87	7,249 41	1,622 33	13,072 61July	5,747 58	6,425 32	1,532 46	13,705 36August	3,971 98	6,824 72	1,309 46	12,106 14September	4,577 17	6,550 16	1,290 14	12,417 47October	4,961 93	6,145 43	1,432 80	12,540 16November	„	3,559 43	6,434 26	1,529 59	11,523 28December	4,192 50	5,770 31	1,542 92	11,505 73Total	48,375 54	78,488 26	17,387 25	144,251 051907.	January	2,858 37	5,776 20	1,187 56	9,822 13February	2,946 20	5,861 54	1978 66	9,786 40March	4,254 51	5,680 85	1,143 80	11,079 16April	4,779 84	4,744 46	1,332 76	10,857 06May	
...	4,499 85	6,576 31	1,433 10	12,509 26June	4,296 44	7,582 40	1,496 29	13,375 13July	5,069 61	7,002 60	1,579 62	13,651 83August	5,021 26	7,223 53	1,514 64	13,759 43September	5,700 52	6,961 91	1,434 92	14,097 35October	4,981 85	5,971 99	1,654 78	12,608 62November	4,09C 04	5,801 93	1,659 13	11,557 10December	4,523 60	5,752 13	1,716 10	11,991 83Total	
.	53,028 09	74,935 85	7,131 36	145,095 301908.	January	3,104 75	7,906 86	1,382 91	12,394 52February	3,076 15	7,842 30	1,154 19	12,072 64March	4,204 15	5,524 87	1,300 53	11,029 55April	5,093 15	5,114 97	1,440 52	11,648 64May	4,324 45	7,138 24	1,481 05	12,943 74June	4,996 52	7,881 75	1,715 75	14,594 02July	6,428 08	7,587 25	1,665 00	15,680 33August	5,622 59	6,335 52	1,491 28	13,449 39September	5,269 00	5,059 53	1.792 02	12,120 55October	5,143 34	5,359 58	1,735 14	12,238 06November	4,829 85	4,944 86	1,691 78	11,466 49December	4,981 50	4,810 14	1,783 93	11,575 57Total	57,073 53	75,505 87	18,634 10	151,213 501909.	January	3,576 80	5,228 75	1,237 42	10,042 97
October 1 to December 31, 1904
Year 1905	
Year 1900	
Year 1907	
Year 1908	
Month Jannary, 1909	
Total

[Stage Direction]
9,060 91 45,068 86 48,375 54 53,028 09 57,073 53 3,576 80	12,914 13 67,019 51 78,488 26 74,935 85 75,505 87 5,228 75	4,425 49 19,646 36 17,387 25 17,131 36 18,634 10 1,237 42	26,400 53 131,734 73 144,251 05 145,095 30 151,213 50 10,042 97216,183 73	314,092 37	78,461 98	608,738 08
Mr. GRAHAM.: 



THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE.

Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	Was the franking privilege used by any minister directly or by permission in the distribution of campaign literature issued in the interests of the liberal party after the 21st of July, 1908?
2.	If so, by what ministers, up to what period and to what extent?
3.	To whom was the minister's frank entrusted for the above mentioned use?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General. Yes-just as the same privilege was exercised by ministers of preceding governments. No record being kept of matter so despatched from any post office, it is impossible to tell the quantity franked or by whom. The minister's frank is usually entrusted to his private secretary, or some other official in the minister's office.



FREE MAIL DELIVERY IN CITIES.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	What are the names of the cities in Canada which were granted free mail delivery in the year 1908, and the estimated amount it will cost to deliver the mail per annum under present system in each city over the amount paid before free mail delivery was established?
2.	How many mail and stage routes are in operation outside of the cities, towns and villages in Canada?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	During the year 1908 letter carrier delivery services were established in the undermentioned places at the estimated cost given below:	.Office.	Estimated salaries of carriers.	Estimated cost of equipment.	Total.$	$	$St. Catharines	3,916	344	4,260Sarnia	3,526	301	3,827Fort William	4,405	387	4,792Port Arthur	3,916	344	4,260Moncton	3,526	301	3,827St. Thomas	3,526	301	3,827
As the salaries of carriers are determined by law the amounts payable to them will naturally increase, dependent upon length of service. Moreover, the growth of any particular city or town may call for the enlargement of area of delivery or more frequent deliveries, thus correspondingly increasing the cost. It is impossible to tell what increased cost has been involved by the adoption of the letter carrier system which is provided to prevent public inconvenience, pressure and delays at head office which would be occasioned where only a general delivery wicket was in operation, and which would otherwise undoubtedly call for an enlargement of public buildings as well as an increase in the clerical staff to attend upon the public.
2.	A full list of all mail contracts ap-public buildings as well as an increase in Report.



TOWN SITE OF COCHRANE-G. T. P.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	Is the government aware that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are said to be ignoring the site of the town of Cochrane, at the junction between the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific and laying out a town site a short distance away?
2.	If said circumstances exist, is it within the power of the government to interfere, and is the government likely to take any action in this matter?


George Perry Graham: 1 and 2. The matter is not under the jurisdiction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, but the Transcontinental Railway Commission state they have the question under consideration.



DOCK AT GRAND BEND.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	Is the government aware that there is not a puiblio highway leading to the dook at Grand Bend? If so, will the government investigate the matter and try and remedy the grievance?
2.	How much money was expended on the wharf at St. Joseph in 1908, and does the government intend completing said structure?
3.	Is the government aware that the town of St. Joseph was sold for taxes in 1908, and that the reeve and clerk purchased the site for $700?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Steps are now being taken to expropriate land required ft>T approach.
2.	(a) Expenditure from January 1, 1908,
to date, $748.25.	(b) Resident engineer reports that since the approach of the wharf has been completed the whole work is in good condition.
?. The department has no information to this effect.



BOOKS ENTERING CANADA UNDER BRITISH PREFERENCE.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	How many pounds of books entered Canada under the British preference in 1908, and what amount of duty was collected on same?

2.	How many pounds of papers, magazines and other periodicals entered Canada under the British preference in 1908, and what amount of duty was collected on same?
Hon. WM, PATERSON (Minister of Customs):
1 and 2. The advertising pamphlets and other advertising matter entered under the British preference for the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1908, were as follows: Weight, 118,388 pounds; value, $23,661; duty col-ected, $11,838.80.
The customs returns do not show the weights of imported books, magazines, pamphets and periodicals, except in the case of advertising periodicals and pamphlets.
Books, including novels, periodicals and pamphlets, entered under the preference during the above named fiscal year were valued at $337,027.
Duty collected, $19,848.85.
(Exclusive of papers and magazines entered free from the United Kingdom).



BLOODING OF FRASER RIVER IN MUNICIPALITY OF DELTA.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Has the government received a report from Engineer Ooste, or other official, of damage to the banks of the Fraser river, in the municipality of Delta, through the flooding of the river last summer? If so, what action, if any, has been taken on the report?
2.	Have representations been received from the municipality of Delta in this connection? If so, to what effect and with what result?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to take any steps calculated to prevent similar damage during the period of high water this year ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 3. Upon representations made by Mr. R. Jardine respecting damage done at Port Guichon through extraordinary changes in currents and formation of sand bars, Engineer Goste was directed to make an examination; he reported that the river required to be well studied out before a general plan of improvements could be adopted. A further and more thorough examination is now being made.
2.	Yes, through Mr. John Oliver, M.P.P.; request under consideration, although I am not persuaded that this is a work which should be undertaken by the federal government.



EXPENSES OF ELECTIONS IN NORTH AND SOUTH ONTARIO.

Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE asked:: 1.	Have all the expenses incidental to the holding of the election in North and South Ontario on October 26, 1908, been paid?
2.	If so, what were the amounts in each case, and to whom paid?


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: 


George Perry Graham: All the expenses have been paid.
The amounts claimed and paid are as follows:
Ontario North:
Total claimed	 [DOT] $822 39
Allowances paid to returning
officer	 806 55
Disallowed	$ 15 84
Ontario South:
Total claimed	$890 65
Allowances paid to returning
officer	 888 68
Disallowed	$ 1 97
Note.-The detailed statements of allowances cover fifteen foolscap sheets. A copy can be supplied if required, or information will be given as to any particular individual's account.



ANNUAL ALLOWANCE TO ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN.

Mr. HERRON asked:: 1.	When will the additional annual allowance of $93,750 to the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan, in lieu of public lands, provided for in section 20 subsection 2 of the Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts, cease?
2.	How much of such additional allowance has been paid to date and how much is still to be paid?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	With the half-yearly payments due March 1, 1910.
2.	$375,000 has been paid to each province to date, and $93,750 remains to be paid to each province.



ROYALTY ON COAL IN ALBERTA.

Mr. HERRON asked:: What was the total amount of royalty due and payable to the government on account of coal mined in the province of Alberta during the twelve months ending 31st March, 1908, and how much of the above was collected?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: From the returns of operations filed in the department the exact amount of coal mined subiect to the payment of royalty in the province of Alberta during the above period of twelve months cannot be ascertained, as such returns are frequently received showing the quantity mined during considerable periods, and without showing the quantity which was mined during each of the months comprising such period.
The following amounts are therefore only approximate:
Amount which became due and
payable	$ 52,604 00
Amount collected	 15,720 00



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC BONDS.

George Eulas Foster: How much of the balance of the proceeds of the government guaranteed Grand Trunk Pacific bonds, stated by the Minister of Railways on page 1451 unrevised Hansard, ' as $1,899,264, in hands of the government, is still available for the prairie section, and how much for the mountain section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?


William Stevens Fielding: (a)	Available for the Prairie Section, $1,572,517.09.
(b)	Available for the Mountain Section, $326,747.69.
(e) The special account, in which the balance of the proceeds referred to is kept, stands at $1,911,337.23. The excess of this sum over (a) and (b) represents balance of interest accrued applicable to bond interest but not yet applied.



KINGSTON PENITENTIARY-RESIDENCE FOR DEPUTY WARDEN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Has the government under consideration the building of a residence for the use of the Deputy Warden of Kingston penitentiary?'
2.	If so, have any plans been prepared, and by whom ?
3.	What are dimensions of the building and the estimated cost?
Hon. GEO P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Justice):: 1.	The advisability of building new quarters for the use of the Deputy Warden is being considered.
2	and 3. No plans or estimates have yet been prepared.



STEAMSHIP COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CANADA AND GERMANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWKE-by Mr. Calvert-asked:
1.	Has the attention of the government been directed to the statement that a steamship line known as the Canada Line has been formed to offer direct communication between Hamburg, Rotterdam, Bremen and Canada?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the administration to open negotiations with the German government, with a view to the entrance of Canadian farm produce to the markets of the German empire on better terms than now obtain, as between this country and that?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	The Government have observed references in the public press to a proposed steamship line between German ports and Canada.
2.	It is not deemed expedient in the public interest to make any statement at present concerning the commercial relations between Germany and Canada. The government will give all due consideration to any
proposals which the German authorities may wish to make for the improvement of such relations.



NAVIGABILITY OF DIXON'S ENTRANCE, TUCK'S INLET AND HARBOUR OF PRINCE RUPERT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN-by Mr. Barnard-asked:
Has the government been furnished with any report, or copy of any report, made for the imperial government upon the navigability of Dixon's entrance ,Tuck's inlet, or the harbour of Prince Rupert?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The Department of Marine and Fisheries has no knowledge of any such report.



GRAIN ELEVATOR AT VANCOUVER.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN-by Mr. Barnard-asked:
Has the government decided to build a grain elevator at the Port of Vancouver? If not, is the matter under consideration by the government ?
William Stevens Fielding: The answer is ' No.'



MAIL DELIVERY IN CENTRAL PARK, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN-by Mr. Barnard-asked:
1.	Has the government received a petition from some 500 persons residing in the rural district of Central Park, in the province of British Columbia, praying for a rural mail delivery in that district? If so, has the receipt of the petition been acknowledged?
2.	Is it the intention of the department to
grant the prayer of that petition? If not, why not ?	_
3.	Has the department had complaints, or does the department know, that the post office facilities in that district are insufficient?
4.	If so, does the department intend to improve these facilities, and how?
Hon. R. LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: A petition was received containing 338, not 500, signatures, asking for the establishment of rural mail delivery in the Central Paik district, but through an unintentional oversight, its receipt was not acknowledged. The matter having been referred to the post office inspector for report, it was ascertained that a rural mail delivery system was not desired by the petitioners, but rather a free letter carrier delivery service, but, as such services are only established in municipalities having a population of at least 12,000 and a total postal revenue of $20,000, conditions were not such at Central Park as to warrant favourable consideration being given to the application. It might be added that the revenue of Central Park for the last fiscal year amounted to only $389.58.
The department is not aware that the postal facilities in the district of Central Park are insufficient.



MONTREAL WOOLLEN MILLS.

Haughton Lennox: Has the attention of the government been called to the press announcement that the Montreal Woollen Mills will be compelled to permanently close down by the 1st of April next, owing, as is alleged, to the unsatisfactory condition of Canadian Tariff Laws?


William Stevens Fielding: The government has no information or. the subject beyond what has appeared in the press.



HOLLAND RIVER CANAL.

Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Who were employed to value the land of the right of way for the canal from Holland river to Newmarket, and were these parties entrusted with any other duties than valuation of lands?
2.	What was the remuneration of each of these valuators?
3.	For how long were they employed, and upon what terms?
4.	(a) What properties did they value, (b) at what amount or rate in each case, (c) what was the acreage of each property, (d) in how many cases, by names, were the valuations accepted by the owners, (e) in how many cases by names, were the valuations finally rejected by the owners, (f) in what cases were expropriation proceedings resorted to, and (g) with what result as compared with valuators' figures?
5.	Have titles to all properties been required ?


George Perry Graham: This will be quite a lengthy return. My hon. friend had better let it stand as a notice of motion for a return.


Haughton Lennox: Will it make any difference in time?


George Perry Graham: No, it will take the same length of time. It will take a great many sheets to contain the information.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands as a notice of motion for a return.
LEASE OF LAND TO N. & A. BOUR-BONNAIS.
Mr. LORTIE-by Mr. Lavergne-asked:
1.	Is the place known by the name of Foret, in the parish of St. Ignace or Coteau du Lac, in the county of Soulanges, leased to any person? If so, what is the name of the lessee?
2.	For how many years is it leased, and what is the annual rent?
3.	Should the tenant desire to surrender his lease, would the government be disposed to grant his request?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes; to N. and A. Bourbonnais.
2.	(a) One parcel of land containing 3 acres, as described in lease, at $18 per


Rodolphe Lemieux: annum, during pleasure, (h) Second parcel of land containing 6* acres, for a term of 21 years, at $39 per annum.
3.	The government would have no objection.



UNPAID BALANCES IN CHARTERED BANKS.

Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the amount of the dividends, deposits or balances which have remained unpaid for more than five years in the hands of the chartered banks, according to the latest returns required to be furnished to the government by the various banks by section lit, subsection 1, chapter 29, R. S. Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: Dividends, $3,864.19; deposits or balances, $556,332.91.



TIMBER PERMIT ISSUED TO T. A.


Mr. CAMPBELL asked:: 1.	What sections in townships 80 and 31, range 22, are included in the permit held by Theo. A. Burrows?
2.	Are there any more sections granted to him under permit?
3.	If so, what is the location and description?
4.	What expenditure does the department make annually protecting these holdings from
trespass?
5.	How many years can these timber lands be held without operation?
6.	Has the permit holder the right to absolutely denude these lands of every stick of timber ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: 1.	Township 30, range 22, west 1st meridian-section 5, south half and northwest quarter-section 7, northeast quarter-section 12, section 13, west half-section 15, southeast quarter-section 16, southwest quarter-section 19, east half-section, 23, south half and northeast quarter-section 24, north half and southeast quarter-section 25, north naif-section 27, east half-section 28, section 31, southwest quarter-section 32, south halfsection 34 and sections 35 and 36.
Township 31, range 22, west 1st meridian- west half of section 9, and north half and southwest quarter of section 31.
2.	Yes.
3.	Sections 6, 7, 18, 19, and 30, township 30, range 21, west 1st meridian; sections 6. 7, and 18, and the north half of section 19, township 31, range 21; sections 3, 5, 6, 7, northwest quarter 10, west half 15, section 16, east half-section 17, sections 18 and 19, west half section 20, section 21, west halfsection 28 and section 30, township 32, range 22; and sections 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 24 and 35, township 32, range 23.
4.	None.

5.	The berth comprising the above-mentioned lands is subject to cancellation if not operated to a reasonable extent.
6.	The permit holder has not the right to cut timber of a less diameter than ten inches at the stump.



LAKE MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMPBELL-by Mr. Schaffner-asked:
1.	Fid the government send an engineer last fall to Fairford district, on Lake Manitoba, to inquire into the feasibility of lowering Lake Manitoba?
2.	If so, what was his report of the feasibility, of the probable location of channel, and of the probable cost?
3.	Does the government propose to go on with this work in whole or in part this year?
4.	Has the government or any of the ministers received any petition from the settlers in that locality asking for such work to be undertaken ?
William Pugsley: 

ROUGH AND BROKEN STONE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.

Mr. BLONDIN asked:: (Translation.)
1 During the years 1906, 1907 and 1908, did the government ask for tenders for furnishing rough, and broken stone for the use oi the Marine Department on the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers, what were the prices asked, and what are the names of those who got the contract?
3.	What quantity of broken stone and of rough stone did each contractor deliver, and at what price?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.)
1.	The department has asked tenders, and contracts were given in 1906, for broken stone, ballast, and. rough stone. These contracts were continued during the years
1907 and 1908.	.
2.	The following tenders were received for broken stone:
Total	 10,377 toises
Messrs. Germain and Leduc have furnished the following quantity of ballast at $10.90 per toise:
During the year	1906	
1,086"	"	1907	
813"	"	1908	
1,298Total	3,197
rELEPHONIC STATIONS BETWEEN MONTREAL AND QUEBEC- FOR THE USE OF NAVIGATION.


Hon. Mr. ECREMENT asked :: (Translation.)
How many telephone stations are there at present between Montreal and Quebec, for the use of navigation, and where are they situated ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) The telephone service on the river St. Lawrence for the use of navigation is composed ol the following stations :	Montreal. Longue
Point, Vercheres, Sorel, Three Rivers, Bat-iscan, St. Jean Deschaillons, Portneuf, St. Nicholas, Cap Rouge, Quebec, Crane is* land (below Quebec.)



ESCAPE OF BILL MINER.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1. Was a letter sent on or about the date ana in the terms indicated, or on similar terms, by any officials of the Department of Justice at Ottawa to the warden of British Columbia penitentiary, namely:-
Ottawa, September 28, 1906. Dear Sir,-The minister has been pleased to authorize you to permit Mr. Alex. D. McIntyre, barrister of Kamloops, B.C., to see his clients in the penitentiary 'at any time during business hours in your presence or in the presence of Mr. Harvey or other officer whom you name. You will please permit Mr. McIntyre's clients to reply promptly to all letters from Mr. McIntyre to them.
Yours very sincerely,



DOUGLAS STEWART, GEO. W. DAWSON,

[Stage Direction]
Warden White,	Inspectors.
New Westminster, B.C.
2. If so, at whose request was this letter sent?
8- Had Mr. Alex. D. McIntyre applications before the department with respect to any clients, other than for permission to visit and receive communications?
4.	Were any visits made or did any communications pass to and from the penitentiary as the result of an order in above or similar terms?
5.	Was the convict Bill Miner one of the clients of Mr. Alex. D. McIntyre, and is this the Alex. D. McIntyre mentioned at the inquiry into the circumstances of Miner's escape?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Justice):: 1.	Yes.
2.	By direction of the Minister of Justice, on the request of Mr. McIntyre.
3.	No.	.
4.	None, so far as the department is aware, unless it may be the visit of ' his lawyer from up country/ which Instructor MacKenzie stated in his evidence Miner had told him about.
5.	(a) In applying for the permission given by the letter quoted, Mr. McIntyre stated that he was ' senior counsel for the prisoners,' and that it was necessary for him as counsel to communicate with the prisoners by letter or personally in order to prepare for an appeal from their conviction which he intended to take. This is, as the department understands, the same McIntyre who was mentioned at the inquiry into Miner's escape.
r 8;,,Was the complaint communicated to Mr. LeBlanc before bis dismissal?
4.	Was it made the subject of an investigation? If so, how?
5.	How long had Mr. LeBlanc held the position, and what was the date of his dismissal?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 
William Stevens Fielding: The accounts of the loan are not completed. A portion of the moneys has not yet been paid in. It is probable that the effective rate of interest per unit will be as near as may be 4J.



GASPE-PERCE MAIL CONTRACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Perley-asked:
1.	When does the mail contract from Gaspd to Perce expire?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to call for tenders? If so, when?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	30th of June, 1909.
2.	Tenders will be called for at once.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CROCKET-By Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	What was the cause of the dismissal of O. J. O. LeBlanc from the position of fishery overseer for the county of Kent, New Brunswick?
2.	Was complaint made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries? If so, when and by whom?
Mr.   BRODETJB@: For a return showing: 1. The number and names of the various dredges owned by the government.
2.	When and by whom constructed, or when and from whom purchased.
3.	The price paid for each dredge.
4.	On what work each dredge has been engaged in each of the years 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908.
5.	How many months during each of these years each dredge was working, and how many cubic yards of material each dredge removed per month.
0. The cost of maintaining and cost of operating each dredge for each of these years.
7.	The names of the dredges leased during these years, if any, to whom leased, on what terms, and what amounts were received each year under such leases.-Mr. German.

For a return showing, in respect of the election for the House of Commons, held in the county of Montcalm on the 26th of October, 1908, and in respect of each polling subdivision (a) the number of votes polled for each candidate; (b) the total number of valid votes polled; (c) the number of rejected ballots ; (d) the number of spoiled ballots; (e) the number of voters on the revised voters' list; (f) the number of ballot papers in the possession of the deputy returning officer at the hour of the opening of the poll; (g) the number of ballot papers remaining unused in the hands of the deputy returning officer at the close of the poll; (h) the name and the address of the returning officer and the names and addresses of each of his deputies and poll clerks; (i) all correspondence between the government, or any officer thereof, and the returning officer, or any deputy returning officer or poll clerk or any candidate in respect of said election. -Mr. Ames.	.
For a return showing the amounts paid during the years 1903-1904, 1905-1906, and 19071908, by the following departments, (a) Marine and Fisheries, (b) Railways and Canals, (c) Customs, (d) Post Office, (e) Militia and Defence, and (f) Public Works, to the following persons, firms and companies, viz:-The Wilson Gas Buoys Company, the Canadian Fog Signal Company, James Murphy, William R. Blakiston, James Holliday, Allison Davie, J. B. Cote, Adolphe Huot, Joseph Samson, Samson & Filion, E. Pelletier, Napoleon Mercier, S6verin Martel, Michel Thibodeau, Edmond Belanger & Co., Marier & Tremblay, Terreau & Racine, Rock City Tobacco Company, J. N. Martineau, George Marchand, Jean Drolet, Elie Amyot, Charles A. Parent, A. N. Melvin, W G. Robertson, Wm. Robertson & Co., Howell & Co., St. John Iron Works, Charles McDonald, John A. Moore, Wm. J. Vroom, John A. McAvity, McAvity Bros., George McAvity, Patrick J. Mooney, Poison Bros, or Poison Iron Works, Merwin & Company, F. L. Brooks & Company, F. S. Brooks, Safety Company, Submarine Company, Wm. J. Allan and Mr. Willard.-Mr. S. Sharpe.
For a copy of the report of the Conciliation Board in connection with the freight clerks of Halifax and St. John.-Mr. Crosby.
For a return showing what amount of money has been expended by the government for printing in connection with immigration matters during the fiscal year 1908 and up to 1st March, 1909 ; the amount of money that that has been expended for advertising m newspapers for the same purpose; the names of the said newspapers and the amount paid to each; what pamphlets were issued, their names, from whom they were purchased, by whom published, and what prices were paid fcr each.-Mr. Uriah Wilson.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a message fromj the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows:
Grey,	[DOT]
The Governor General presents to the House of Commons supplementary estimates of sums
required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending on the 31st of March, 1909, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
March 15, 1909.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, His Excellency's message, together with the estimates, was referred to Committee of Supply-



PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved;
That in the opinion of this House the system of election prevalent in this country fails to reflect, in our representative assemblies, correctly, and in accurate proportions, the currents of public opinion which should find expression by the votes of the electorate. It is therefore desirable to reform our electoral law, by the adoption of an improved method of proportional representation whereby the House of Commons may become the faithful expression of the will of the electors as manifested by their votes; that a select committee of this House be appointed to investigate the different systems of proportional representation adopted or suggested elsewhere, as an improvement upon our present methods of election, with power to extend said inquiry to all the various forms of the proportional representation laws proposed or in force.
He said: I deem it, Mr. Speaker, a privilege to have this opportunity of placing before the House, in support of the motion you have just read, some explanatory observations upon a subject which has engrossed the attention of public men in all democratic countries for the past quarter of a century. It is a large subject, but, however extensive its scope, I will endeavour to curtail my remarks as much as possible. I feel that the reforms which I have in view cannot be carried out immediately. I feel also that my present object ought to be merely to draw the attention of parliament and the country to the duty which now seems to be put upon us, in *common with all other free peoples, of examining the anomalies and the abuses which have rendered these reforms necessary and even urgent, and in this manner helping towards a trial of some of the reforms which I am about to suggest-a trial which might be made in our own country, and which would serve to preserve our institutions from what I think might be termed complete ruin and failure. No one, I suppose, will deny that representative institutions all over the world_ have proved a comparative failure. Admissions of this fact can be found in the books of all writers of every nation who have treated this important subject within the past twenty or twenty-five years.


Mr. TALBOT.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Is it according to the rules of the House that the hon. gentleman should read his speech F


Mr. MONK.: My object in quoting largely from my notes, Mr. Speaker, is to make my observations as short as possible but I will endeavour to conform to what is a very wise rule of the House. It has been claimed that our popular assemblies, in which is lodged^ the direction and control of the nation's legislative and administrative powers do not now reflect the opinions, the desires or the aspirations of the electorate at large. It is claimed that the representation which we now have in parliament is only a partial one, that in reality it is a distortion, that a very large number of the electors are quite unrepresented in the council of the nation,, and that the council of the nation, or parliament, ought to be an exact mirror of public opinion, and of the desires, the aspirations and the will of the_ people generally. The claim is that the direction of public affairs is in this manner very frequently placed in the hands of men who are all-powerful, and yet who represent only a bare majority, very often even only a minority of the electorate at large, and that the rest of the qualified electors have no voice, no control whatever, over the affairs of the country. The final result of this situation is that the unrepresented are not to-day in a very different condition from the unfortunate condition in which were the villains in the olden times They were deprived of power; they had no voice in the affairs of the country; they were attached to the glebe; they were absolutely ignored. To-day those who are thus unrepresented are, if I may use the expression, the slaves of the urn instead of being as the villains were formerly. Under the outward signs of liberty they have not in reality a greatly improved position over that of the unfortunate men of bygone .Now, what is the cause of this state of affairs, and of the consequent abuses which have so greatly, within the past twenty or twenty-five years, brought representative institutions into disrepute and created, what every one I think has noticed, a want of interest in the administration of public affairs and in the elections which have for their object the production in parliament of a faithful reflection of public opinion throughout the country ? There has resulted, as every body knows, not only a want of interest, but a kind of void between parliament, between the representative assembly, between the council, when one reverts to municipal affairs, and the electorate from which these assemblies emanate; and the real reason for that regrettable state of affairs can be found in our greatly deficient system of representation. The principle which ought to underlie the creation of a representative assem-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: bly surely is this, that it should afford representation not merely to a part but to the whole of the electorate; otherwise of course it loses its representative character. If the powers, legislative, administrative, executive, are unlimited, and if those powers are wielded by one-half, or one-half plus one, of the electorate, the other half less one of the electorate, who have no voice or control whatever in the country's affairs, are quite powerless; so that it is impossible to say that such an assembly is really and truly a faithful reflection of the nation that has called it into existence. Even admitting the necessity of this crude system of a bare majority which has prevailed hitherto, and which is repugnant to the idea of a truly representative body, as the founders of our representative institutions conceived that body to be, matters become very much worse when we find, as we often do, that instead of a majority, even a bare majority, being in power and ruling the people, as a matter of fact, through the numberless deformations of our electoral system, the majority in the representative body does not as a matter of fact represent the majority of the electorate, but in fact represents a minority. In effect, the country is governed by a minority, sometimes quite a considerable minority, of the electorate, who rule the majority, and the majority are left without any recourse whatever. Such instances are by no means rare. Let me give one from a foreign country. In the French Chamber of 1881, 1885 and 1889, the ruling party in parliament represented a minority of the electors who had actually voted and a very feeble minority of the electorate, if one takes into consideration those who abstained from voting at all. In numerous cases, not only in France, but in our own country, a considerable portion of the electors cannot be said to be represented since they have not cast their ballots. In France, in the cases which I have mentioned, the reality was in direct violation of the principle that in a democracy the laws must emanate from all the nation, or at any rate from the majority of the representatives of every part of the nation. In theory our legislation must be sanctioned by all our citizens or a majority of their representatives. In England electoral reform is one of the burning questions of the day. To show that the strange anomaly I have mentioned is not confined to France,
I shall, with the permission of the House, quote briefly from an article which appeared in the ' Westminster Beview ' of September, 1907, on proportional representation. The writer describes the situation in England in a fair and forcible manner. He says:
Commencing with the general election in 1874, we find, according to Lord Avebury's figures, the Tories in an actual majority of

48, whereas upon the votes, they would have been in a majority of 38.
In 1880 the Liberals gained 44 more seats than they were entitled to upon the votes cast in their favour, but after deducting these and adding them to their opponents, they would still have been left with an actual majority of 78, fully entitling them to office.
The results of the general election in 1885 were not materially different, and the question of office would still have remained unaffected by the proper results of the election in 1886. Here the Tories, whilst entitled upon their votes to a majority of only 29, obtained an actual majority of 119.
So, too, in 1892. The party victorious at the poll was in any case entitled to the administration. With a majority of 200,000 votes, the Liberals secured a majority of 40 seats, although proportionately they were entitled to 30 only.
The climax was reached, however, in 1895. The Tories gained 411 seats, the Liberals 259. Out of 6,331,000, 4,792,512 electors went to the poll, 2,412,100 supporting the Tory party, and 2,380,412 the Liberals, showing a majority of 31,688 electors in favour of the former. And yet upon this insignificant majority of votes, the Tory party secured the enormous majority of 152 representatives in the House of Commons.
As each member represented on the average about 7,000 electors, it will be seen that the true majority would have been 4 to 5.
Further on he says:
The haphazard nature of the present system may be gauged by a comparison between the figures of the >1892 and the 1895 elections. In the former the Liberals, with a majority of 200,000 votes secured a majority of 40 seats only; in the latter the Tories, with a majority of 103,814 (taking the highest figures), obtained a working majority of 152. With half the number of majority of votes, they secured a majority of representation nearly four times as large.
It is sometimes said that the results of the contested elections should alone be used for the present comparison, because it is impossible to determine what votes would have been cast in the un contested constituencies. In all the figures here given, those for the last contested election have been taken, and this is the nearest approach to accuracy which can be made. -Some writers count the whole of the possible votes to the sitting member, a method entirely unjustifiable and unreliable. If in the 1895 election the figures for the contested seats alone are taken a remarkable result is obtained, little flattering to the Unionist party. The Liberals polled
1,800,000	votes and the Unionists 1,775,000 with the result that the latter secured a majority representation of 77 seats, whereas according to Lord Avebury, >by proportionate representation the Liberals would have been in an actual majority of three seats. And I venture to again here observe that even this majority of 100,000 votes would probably have been' wiped out by the abolition of the plural vote. In England and Wales alone, for the year 1886, there were 68,000 electors with more than one vote. The average number of
votes possessed by each elector was consequently something at least greater than two.
It was probably two and a half to three. As three-fourths, to put it moderately, of plural voters are admittedly Tories, even in the disastrous year of 1895, the Liberals would, under a real system of representation, including the abolition of the plural votes, have secured a small majority in the House, instead of occupying the impotent and ignominious position they filled.
The results of the 1900 election were equally unsatisfactory and manifestly unfair. With a majority of about 80,000 votes, the Unionists secured a majority of 134 members. Their majority, apart from the plural vote, should have been about 8. With the abolition of the plural vote, the Liberals would have been in a majority of about the same number.
The figures for the >1906 election are even more instructive. Omitting Ireland from consideration, out of a total electorate of 6,483,000, 5,426,000 went to the poll. Of these 56'4 per cent of the votes were cast for the government, and 43 -6 per cent for the opposition. Upon this calculation the real proportional representation would be 316, instead of 428 members for the government, and 244, instead of 132, members for the opposition. Those figures are taken from the ' Pall Mall Gazette ' and may be taken as approximately correct.
I shall not quote at greater length to show that in England the general elections have given quite different proportions in the House from what they have produced throughout the country. Upon several occasions within the past 25 or 30 years, a minority of the electors has secured a majority in the House, so that the country has been governed by representatives of the minority. Having shown what very grave instances have occurred both in France and England, let us turn to our own country and examine the results of the last election. But before doing so, I shall quote from a speech made by Sir Richard Cartwright on a motion in the Senate for reform of that body in 1906. On that occasion the right hon. senator spoke as follows of proportional representation, also of the present system, and of some very peculiar occurrences in his own native province of Ontario. He said:
I have long been convinced that our present system of representation is radically faulty, that in some important respects it is not merely vicious in theory, but vicious in practice. I want it to be distinctly and clearly understood that I am the last man to dispute the right of the majority to rule, nor do I desire in the slightest degree to dispute the consequent right of the majority to a majority of the representatives; but I do dispute the right of the majority to arrogate to itself an unfair proportion of the representatives of the people. I will illustrate my position. Let me suppose that one side controls 100,000 voters, and the other side controlled 90,000, and that there are 190,000 representatives to be elected. It is perfectly just and right, it appears to

me, that 100,000 voters should return 100 representatives, and that those who control
90,000	should return 90 representatives; but it is not fair that those who control 100,0.00 voters should return 150 representatives, aad that those who control 90,000 should return but 40. Yet that is what I have seen; that is what our system tends to; that is what has occurred again and again, and will occur again and again under the system under which we are at present working. I know the common argument perfectly well, that it is as fair for one side as the other, that each has its chance in turn. This is true, and is all the worse. Each side in turn obtains more power than it ought to have; each side is tempted to abuse it; possibly each side does abuse it; and I may add that this system offers, as no other system does, a steady and perpetual premium to gerrymander and corruption. I propose to make good my words.
Continuing, the right hon. gentleman gives statistics for the province of Ontario to show that, beginning in 1882, and previous to 1906, there has never been a proportionate representation of the complexion of the electorate in the House of Commons. I do not feel justified in taking up the time of the House to quote these statistics, but I may say that the statement is an interesting one which goes far to establish the thesis I have the honour to defend at the present moment.
Let me now refer particularly to the last general election as illustrating the proposition which is under discussion. I have taken my figures in regard to the election from a newspaper which published the figures as official, the Toronto ' News ' of January 19 last. Everything leads me to believe that these figures are correct. We find that the strictly Liberal vote amounted to less than _ half of the total votes given at the election. The majority jof liberal votes over Conservative amounted to 24,117. The independent vote numbered 24,893. Therefore, while there was a majority of Liberals over Conservatives of 24,117, there was a majority of Conservatives and Independents over Liberals of 776. The 'News' says:
Revised figures for the recent general election are now available; it will be recalled that the first set of figures published was incorrect as regards several provinces. Even now some restatement is necessary, as the quasi-official statement put out makes no al-'ranee for an independent vote of nearly 25,000, and allots all the votes polled to one party or the other. Making the necessary rearrangement; allowing the total of over 10,000 m Maisonneuve as Independent (Labour) and Mr. Martin's 2,000 in Vancouver; and omitting the Yukon, where the election has not taken place; we have the following:-
Provinces.
Ontario	
Quebec	
Nova Scotia


New Brunswick .. ..: Prince Edward Island
Manitoba	
British Columbia.. ..
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Lib.	Con.	Ind.223,501	235,509	2,730150,844	126,424	10,75956,588	54,500	40,716	34,945	14,496	14,286	30,915	35,071	2,07813,412	17,503	6,45323,777	19,746	2,43933,415	25,563	434587,664	563,547	24,893
Three Acclamations.
Several remarks must be made. Three acclamations, Rouviile and Comox-Atlin (Liberal) and South York (Conservative) are not counted. In Ontario the total vote for Mr. Russell, East Toronto, 4*,039 in all, is credited to the Liberals. In Halifax and St. John, where electors have two votes each, both votes are counted; in Ottawa, where the same condition prevails, only one vote is counted. In Kings, Nova Scotia, Mr. Eaton, Sir Frederick Borden's opponent, is regarded as a Conservative, Mr. Robitaille in Quebec county is reckoned with the Conservatives.
It will be seen that the total vote polled was 1,176,104, and the proportions were:
Liberals	 49.96 per cent.
Conservatives	
47.91	"Independents	
2.11	"
Popular Majority Against.
The government thus fell just a few short of half the votes. There is a very small popular majority against it if we combine Conservatives and Independents.
Now, if .these are taken as the figures- and I think we may consider them, if not absolutely accurate, at any rate sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the argument-let us consider for a moment what should have been, under that vote, the representation in the House of the electorate at large under a system of proportional representation. In order to arrive at the result, as I am not much of a mathematician, I have had the calculations made by an expert and absolutely reliable mathematician. And he has proceeded in the following manner: He has divided the total vote in each province by the number of seats allotted to that province, and has attributed to the Liberal column and the Conservative column respectively, and to the independent column where there was an independent vote, its proportioal representation. These are the results of that operation, which, I think, are well worth considering at the present moment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Statement of Proportional Representation based on figures of Dominion Elections, 1908.
'(Yukon Electoral District omitted.)
Province.	Number of Members.	Liberal proportion.	Conserv- ative proportion.	Independent proportion.	Unit of represen- tation.Ontario	86	416	44	Fraction.	5,369Quebec	65	34	28-5	24	4,43118	9	9	6,17113	7	6	5,8204	2	2	7,195Manitoba	10	4'5	5	Fraction.	6,806British Columbia..	7	25	33	1-2	5,338Alberta	7	3 6	3	Fraction.	6,566Saskatchewan	10	56	43	Fraction.	5,941* Total	220	109 8	105-1	3 + fractions	Dominion of Canada	220	110	105 4	46	5,346
The expert who carefully worked out these figures, adds these remarks under the asterisk reference:
* This line, being the addition of the above columns, is put in to show that the above calculation must be right since it corresponds pretty closely to the lowest line. The figures in the lowest line are the correct ones for the Dominion, taken as a whole.
Now, sir, what follows from these statistics? It follows that to-day we are governed by a legislative and executive power which is created in reality by a minority of the votes of the whole country, and that, I say, is a violation, is a disregard of the fundamental principle of representation. Of those voters whose numbers I have just given, and who voted adversely to this state of affairs, there is not one who has any control, any direction of any kind, in the management of the country's affairs. On the other hand, the spectacle which our American neighbours offer in their own country, as regards the representative system there, and which has existed since the foundation of the republic, i3 not any better than the spectacle presented by the countries to which I have already referred, including our own. Indeed,I think we have admissions from American writers that the system there has produced even worse results in the great republic than it has produced in other countries enjoying the benefit of representative institutions. Let me quote from the excellent work of Prof. Commons on 'Proportional Representation.' He says, on page 1:
The American people are fairly content with their executive and judicial departments of government. But they feel that their long-aching bodies have painfully failed. This conviction pertains to all grades of legislatures, municipal, state and federal. The newspapers speak what the people feel ;
and, judging therefrom, it is popular to denounce aldermen, legislators and congressmen. When Congress is in session, the business interests are reported to be in agony until it adjourns. The cry that rises towards the end of a legislature's session is humiliating. The ' San Erancisco Bulletin ' is quoted as saying:
' It is not possible to speak in measured terms of the thing that goes by the name of legislature in this State. It has of late years been the vilest deliberative body in the world. The assemblage has become one of bandits instead of law-makers. Everything within its grasp for years has been for sale. The commissions to high office which it confers are the outward and visible signs of felony rather than of. careful and wise selection.'
Every State in the union can furnish examples more or less approaching to this. Statements almost as extreme are made regarding Congress. Great corporations and syndicates seeking legislative favours are known to control the Acts of both branches. The patriotic ability and even the personal character of members are widely distrusted and denounced.
Much more is to be found written by Prof. Commons in support of a general denunciation of the representative system as it exists to-day throughout the United States, not only in federal affairs, not only in state affairs, but also in the transaction of municipal business. Now, sir, there is one point upon which all writers and reports agree, that is, in condemnation of the single member district, the small electoral district, with one member, as one of the principal causes of the present evil. They maintain that the singe member districts, the ward districts, in our municipal representation is often the chief and only cause of this regrettable state of affairs. All argue that the larger the area of representation, the better and more widely known, the more representative and invariably the more independent are the men who are brought forward as candidates

in those larger and multiple districts; the more varied also are the interests involved, and consequently the discussion will take a wider range. It will not be limited merely to local and parochial matters, to purely local issues. In the larger groupings the issues are brought before the people as being bound up in the interests of a larger district, and invariably the better men, the more independent men are select ed for the representation. Small intrigue and petty clique dwindle into insignificance when you have a large electoral district instead of a small one. The result of the enlargement of the electoral district has been in every instance where it has been tried to produce a better class of candidates and, in the discussion there is an entire absence of small, personal issues, the real and fundamental interests of the country come to the front and the electorate have a far greater interest in the contest than they have in the case of smaller electoral districts.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, the great difficulty m the treatment of a subject of this kind is that as soon as you begin studying it you find it is a subject of great actuality and that the material placed at your disposal within the last 15 or 20 years is so considerable that it is difficult to exercise a judicious choice so as to be able to lay the subject before an assembly such as this within a given time, that is the reason that I have been obliged to condense the result of such researches as I have been able to make-and that condensation is one of the most difficult parts of the work, because as members of the House who have given some attention to the subject well know, we have moved forward a great deal since the days when the only classic works upon the subject of proportional representation was the well known work by Mr. Thomas Hare written in the early 50's and such support as John Stewart Mill gave to Hare's views in his own immortal writings.
When you left the Chair at six o'clock I was pointing out the great inconvenience, objections and dangers of the small single-membered constituency, and I had said that there was there the difficulty of choosing a candidate who would be acceptable to represent properly in the House the large interests of the country, the nature of a political campaign in a very limited constitu-' ency, the power of intrigue and political trickery of every description, such as we have ' all, if not known at any rate heard of in our political experience. All writers and all public men who have thought deeply upon the subject agree that in the Mr. MONK.
enlarged constituency, in the grouping of constituencies, you do away with political corruption. There are no two opinions upon that subject; it becomes impossible in a very large constituency to have recourse to corrupt methods, to political trickery, to the work of obscure managers and organizations, and to that large number of devices used in politics which have for their object to defeat the proper, free and independent will of the electorate. I do not wish to insist upon that. Those members of the House who will study the question will all arrive at the conclusion to which the most eminent writers in every country have arrived, that this larger constituency does away with political corruption. From my own experience covering a number of years in our own country, I do not think the electorate of this country is what you would call a corrupt electorate. In our small single-membered constituencies with, I sup-nose. an average of 5,000 electors, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that you will find 4,500 voters who are quite beyond the reach of corrupt methods, that there is no possibility of reaching them by any of the devices against which our laws, imperfect as they are, have sought to provide. But you will find within every constituency a certain number of voters who are absolutely indifferent as to the candidates, as to any question of political principle or political party, who are simply anxious to use their votes to gain money. Side by side with these men, who are the curse of our system, you will find a certain number of faddists, men of extreme views, who are not very numerous it is true, but who on account of the power they have in a small constituency very often Tender the member elect far more dependent than he really ought to be. These I think are general conclusions to which any member of this House who has observed our political atmosnhere with any degree of care would undoubtedly arrive and to which he would adhere very readily.
I do not wish to refer at any length to the evil of gerrymandering which has become, as everybody knows, on this continent of America particularly, a very great evil indeed, in connection with elections; that is the dividing up of constituencies in such a manner by the party in power as to ensure almost as a certainty the result of any election held in a constituency. Before leaving the subject of the great evils of the existing system, let me repeat that it is my belief, which I have the honour of sharing with a great many men far more eminent than myself, who have written on that subject and thought deeply on it, that the root of the whole evil of our system lies in the small-membered constituency. Under that system we often see such strange occurrences as the following:	You will find a
constituency not necessarily gerrymandered

that has had leanings towards one political party. Perhaps ever since confederation that constituency has voted for one political party. What happens? Those of the minority having long ago given up any idea ot obtaining any share whatever in the representation, of having any hope whatever ot ever obtaining a voice in parliament, have ceased practically to take any interest whatever in the election of members. They cease to study the great questions of the day; they know that the election within the limits of their small constituency is a foregone conclusion, and they give up all hope oi ever having a word to say in the administration of the affairs of the country. It has been urged I know as an answer to the undoubted evil presented by such constituencies that those who are in a minority m those constituencies have their opinions voiced and are in reality represented by members belonging to their party who are in other constituencies. That is an argument that should have no weight whatever with any reasonable man who knows anything of politics, because it would be idle to pretend that the aspirations, the feelings, the wants, the ideals of an electorate in one constituency can properly find expression in parliament through a member who has never seen the electors of that county, who knows nothing of them and has no mandate whatever to represent them. It would be absurd to suppose that a minority in a constituency, say in Ontario or even in some parts of Quebec which has voted Liberal since confederation, would be properly represented in this House by a member from some other constituency in some other province or even in the same province who happened to represent a constituency which voted exactly the other way. That contention has been sometimes urged, but I find that all writers of any experience and repute who have treated the subject consider it as absolutely unfounded We have had the experience of what I might call, in a sense, the larger constituency, within the limits of my own province.
We have under our provincial representation the constituency of Hochelaga that surrounds the city of Montreal. It has grown during the past few years to quite enormous proportions. It is an extremely extensive constituency-I speak in reference to its provincial representation, because federally it has long ago been changed-the number of the electors approximating 40,000. You have there as a rule two candidates, and that constituency, which I understand is about to be sub-divided, has illustrated the argument which I am urging for larger constituencies. You have candidates who are well known, who enjoy a wide reputation, and it is impossible to resort to the methods of corruption, the political vices and tricks and the dominating influence of small politics. That is the experience which in a limited degree has appeared to prove some of the assertions which I have been making in regard to the advantage of large constituencies. In our own country, where the system of patronage prevails, or has prevailed, to what I think everybody will admit has been an odious degree, the objection to the smaller electoral district becomes still greater; because, for instance, in a very large constituency, say of the size of the entire island of Montreal, it would be impossible to resort to the promise of a great many small public works, which by the admission of everybody are not at present advantageous, when we have such immense problems to solve in connection, for instance, with the problem of transportation. Nobody in a grouped constituency within the limits I have just indicated, could advocate the construction of a small wharf or a small public building, but would be obliged to consider the relation of such a large territory as the island and city of Montreal to the all-important question of transportation. He would be obliged to lay before the electors, not promises of small and very often useless, though comparatively costly improvements, but the necessity of carrying out such a plan of transportation as was laid before the country and the government some yeaTS ago by a commission composed of very experienced men, who after considerable labour had in my opinion solved that very vital question in every part of the country. I have therefore endeavored to show that under present conditions you have not in parliament a faithful mirror of the feelings and opinions of the electorate, as it were a microcosm of the electorate, but as a rule exactly the opposite. You find, in many cases, in every country where the single-member constituency exists in actual operation, the government of the people by a minority of the electors; and in almost every case, even in England, where we are accustomed to look for what is right and proper and well calculated in electoral matters, an utter disproportion between the representation in parliament and the vote of the electors.
It goes without saying that the question I have treated, in a very limited and general way, has engaged the attention, in every country enjoying representative institutions, of most of the public men, and has resulted in the production of numerous works, by very competent publicists and writers, in every country in Europe; and I think most of these books have been written within the last twenty years. The question of reform is at the present moment the actual burning question in England. The Question is, what kind, of remedy can be applied to such a regrettable state of affairs? Of course, you cannot expect to find people who have thought of the subject to be of the same opinion. I wish to

currence des listes avec double vote simul-tane,' or a competition of lists, the conditions being that the voter exercises his own personal preference. That, I say, is the system which they have in Belgium and the calculation of the results is made by a very improved mathematical method which is known by the name of the system _ D'Hondt, after the inventor. I do not feel justified m explaining fully that system, but it is a very simple one and we find it nowhere better explained than in a very interesting report or blue book presented to the House of Commons in England. It is a ' Report of His Majesty's representatives in foreign countries and in British colonies respecting the application of the principle of proportional representation in public elections.' You have there a collection of the reports of all the representatives of _ the British government in foreign countries and also throughout the British dependencies, and you have there, from the ambassador at Brussels, or from one of the attaches at Brussels, an explanation of the Belgian system which makes it clear to the most ordinary intelligence. In this connection I might say at once, lest I forget it, that the objection is very often urged that these systems, excellent in their results and faithful to the principle of proportionate representation, are not susceptible of comprehension by the average elector and that it is impossible to find any ordinary elector capable of understanding the principle or the method adopted by the Proportional Representation Society or the scientific principle adopted in Belgium. The answer to that is that where these systems are in use there are less ballots spoiled than in the countries where the old system exists. Very few ballots were spoiled in the two test elections held in England, an infinitessi-mally small proportion, and m Belgium, and the British dependencies where the system exists the proportion of ballots spoiled is remarkably small. There is a story of a prominent advocate of proportional representation who was also an African explorer; he tried the system on a tribe in the centre of Africa and after explaining it to them an election was held in which there was not a single ballot spoiled. It is a mistake to imagine that the elector does not understand the ballot. I have often heard from returning officers that what you call the lower and less instructed class understand the ballot which we have without any explanation and that very often it is to the intelligent and educated that the deputy returning officers are obliged to explain the methods of voting.
I would say a word in regard to France where the system of single member constituencies, or scrutin d'arondissement, is in force to-day. It exists in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, but in France you Mr. MONK.
have a host of writers who have studied the question. It is just as live a question in Fiance as it is in England and there is a report by what is in France the equivalent of the Royal Commission in England in which they recommend the adoption of the Belgian system of lists with some modifications as to simplicity and the ensuring of greater liberty to the electors.
In the United States they have tried different systems of representation, all the suggested improvements of culmulative voting, general ticket transferable voting; there is no place where electoral experiments have been so numerous or varied as in the United States. But they too have their Proportional Representation League tha.t quite recently, at one of its largest meetings _ at Saratoga, adopted a model Bill providing for proportional representation in congressional elections as well as for state and municipal elections. That model Bill can be found in the journals of the Proportional Representation Society of the United States. There was a Bill introduced into Congress by Mr. Johnson of Ohio as far back as 1892 in favor of proportional representation as applied to the election of members of the house of representatives. In Switzerland the system has been adopted with respect to the cantonal elections. It has been very often urged that with the system of proportional representation you cannot have a strong, stable government. It is suggested that after all, imperfect and tainted with vices as is the present system, you are pretty sure that you will have a strong and clear result even if the result gives an advantage to the minority of the electors. Yet, it is a question whether that contention is well founded. In France they have the single member constituency system and they have had numerous changes of government and not for many years what you might call a strong and stable government. That kind of argument would not apply to that country nor to Spain or Italy. It is suggested that with the present system you would have a division of the country into two great parties with no groups, no factions, no small grouping of electors. That contention is not well founded. In France, Germany and Italy you have groups, you have the electorate divided into groups which are quite numerous and for many years you have had these groups even in England. They have there Unionists, Liberal Unionists, Conservative Unionists, the Irish party, the Labor party, the Radical party and the Socialist party. I do not find that the proposition is well founded that the system of to-day has the effect of dividing the country into two strong dominant parties and that you are not exposed to factions under the present system or that you have an element of stability which you would not find

under proportional representation. I do not think that the proposition is well founded. However, there is a strong desire, even in England where the reform is earnestly desired, to maintain the division of party and to the authorities there and to many others it seems undesirable to depart suddenly from the division at present existing into parties and to have this one single list, freedom of course for the elector but one single list as proposed by the Proportional Representation League. Many who are in favor of the proportional representation consequently advocate the list system, they would not do away with the list system and they incline to view with favour the Belgian list system whereby each party would have its own list, and there would be apportionment of the seats between the two lists. There is strong ground for the contention that the men who take the liveliest interest in the Proportional Representation League are not averse to the recognition of the division of lists.
There is of course the difficulty of details as to the disposal of remainders. That is to say when you have with the quotient found a certain number of representatives who with the quotient are absolutely found in the number of votes on each list and some representatives still remain !to be elected, how will you operate? This question has received many solutions. There is the solution adopted by the Proportional Representation League in England which is fair enough. The Belgians have a system which does away with the remainder completely. The only objection to that system, which is mathematically perfect and very easy to understand, is that while it gives small parties some modicum of representation it also has the effect of increasing the representation of larger parties. In some parts of the United States they proceed in a similar way and do away with remainders. I shall not go into that because I do not think time justifies my doing so but it is a very interesting question and has been fully treated by those who have studied the question, so that abundant material on this point is to be found in all the writers.
Another difficulty which I anticipate may be suggested in regard to this question is whether we are going to do away with byelections, that very important element in our political life. That is to say in one of these large constituencies where there are from 7 to 15 representatives what could you do when a vacancy occurs? That problem has been solved in Denmark I believe, at any rate in Belgium, and in some other countries that have adopted the proportional representation system, by electing at the same time as the representatives are elected, supplementaries who are destined to fill vacancies. In other places the vacancy is filled by taking the man next on
the list, who has come nearest to fulfilling the conditions for election.. This, however, does not seem to meet with approval in England and is repugnant to our ideas. A solution has been suggested in England in the maintenance of the present electoral divisions to this extent that in the grouping of constituencies to form the larger electoral districts, the older divisions could be maintained and the man elected, the one who would be first elected, who would have succeeded in having the largest number of votes, would be free to choose the particular subdivision he would represent. It i3 argued with, I think, great accuracy that the person would choose invariably the constituency with which he would have always been associated, from which he would have received the largest support, with which he was most intimately connected. There is no doubt about that and in this manner each of the candidates elected would have a choice of constituency, and an elected member would choose that division or subdivision with which he was most intimately connected. In that case, when the by-election became necessary by the creation of a vacancy, it would be possible, a very important element in our political life, to test public opinion by having one election in that particular district. I believe that with that adjunct the reform offers no very considerable difficulties, although the efforts I have made so far have been to make known to the House in a general way the nature of the reform which we contemplate, and its far reaching and beneficial results. I have been obliged to confine myself to very strict limits, to the question in its broadest possible aspects. I have not however, neglected the consideration of how the improved system might find application in our own country.
I shall not detain the House by going at length into details of conclusions on that particular point, but in the researches I have made in connection with this. I have found no obstacles to this great reform. It is true that in some of the vast tracts of the country, as for instance in British Columbia or in the prairie provinces, the grouping of constitunecies at first sight is a difficult problem, not so much the grouping as the obtaining of the result. One would be obliged in a constituency of very large area to await results. The operations themselves are simple and can be performed as quickly as in England, but you would have to wait. It is better in place of obtaining a result in a few hours which is an unsatisfactory result, which is associated with a system condemned by everybody, a crude system giving free action to all kinds of abuses, to wait a little longer and obtain satisfactory results under a satisfactory system. Where the aggregations of population are greater, as in larger

cities, there are absolutely no obstacles to : the trial of that system immediately. It could be tried at once in large cities where you could easily group the constituencies and people would, upon that test, realize what an immense advantage in every respect these changes would bring about. Hence it would be a school where we could learn the advantages of the system and study the methods of applying it generally throughout the country. In my own province there are differences of race and religion which at first sight might present some difficulties, although, of course, the primary object of the system I am advocating is to ensure a representation of the minority within the province, and to ensure a satisfactory representation of the minority in the Dominion as well. There would be very little difficulty in applying that system within the limits of provinces where these diflerences of race and religion occur and the results would,
I am sure, prove most satisfactory. I regret that I am not able to go into details in regard to that, although on some future occasion, if the government decide to give practical effect to the suggestions I have made this afternoon, I may be able to communicate the results of my studies on that subject to the House. Finally, I have endeavoured to show this: in the first place, the admitted failure of our present system of representation; the dissatisfaction with it which exists everywhere, not only in this country, but in every other country where the system is in force. I have endeavoured, secondly, to show the suggested improvement of the present condition of affairs by the adoption of some system of election which would secure the true manifestation in parliament of the opinions of the entire electorate. I have tried, in the third place, to show the changes which are at present beinv worked out in all other democratic countries, or are engaging the serious attention of public opinion. I can only add that the duty of our own country is to fall in with this great democratic movement all over the world, to take our place in the procession of improvement, to give this question serious study, either by the committee which this motion suggests, or, better still, by_ a small commission who would have the time and the means available for a complete study of the system proposed and its applicability in our country. It is our duty at the present moment not to remain indifferent, side bv side as we are with the great republic, which is making considerable tentative efforts in the direction of reform. We too must show that the democratic spirit is alive amongst us, and we must equal, if not surpass, our neighbours in the way of reform.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House Mr. MONK.
has listened with pleasure to the speech of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, in which he has brought to our notice one of the most interesting problems in connection with representative government. I do not rise for the purpose of offering any objection to my hon. friend's resolution-to its main purpose. On the contrary, I think we shall all admit, in the light of what he has presented to us, that the subject is worthy of study and investigation. My only purpose is to suggest to my hon. friend whether he has not, in the form of his resolution, gone a little farther than is necessary. I want to suggest to him that he might modify, not the purpose or the substance of his resolution, but only its form. In the early part of it he asks the House to commit itself to the principle of proportional representation. I would not think that was necessary to the purpose of my hon. friend.
I do not understand that he presents this question to the House as a settled question unon which conclusions have been reached. I would rather understand from his speech that he regards it as an open question calling for investigation and study. I would therefore suggest to my hon. friend that he would serve his purpose and secure the co-operation of the House generally, if he would remove from the resolution the first portion, so that it would begin at the seventh line and read as follows:
That a select standing committee of this House be appointed to investigate the different systems of proportional representation adopted or suggested elsewhere as an improvement upon our present methods of election, with power to extend said inquiry to all the various forms of the proportional representation laws proposed or in force.
I can well understand that there may be some hon. members of the House who feel that the present system, with its admitted imperfections, is perhaps after all as effective as any other that we aTe likely .to obtain. The question, interesting and important as it is, is by no means new, because for many years the question of minority representation or proportional representation has engaged the attention of students of constitutional government. Although very much has been said and written on it, the mother of parliaments, to which we naturally look for example, has up to the present time not been able to find anything better than the good old system of government by the majority of the people in the respective constituencies. I do not _ think my hon. friend finds it necessary to his purpose to ask us to declare to-day in favour of the principle of proportional representation. I rather think that the spirit of his whole speech, which we have listened to with so much interest and pleasure, is that this is a question that invites our attention, investigation and careful study. In that spirit I would suggest to my hon. friend

whether he might not modify his resolution in the way I have proposed, and in that form I have no doubt it will secure the unanimous approval of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If I may be allowed, I would say that I am very well satisfied with the spirit in which the suggestion I have made has been received by the government. All I desire, and all I am sure that the members of this House desire, is to have the question examined, without committing ourselves to any special reform. I wondered, after I had given notice of this motion and after I had learned of the action taken by the British government, whether a commission would not perhaps be more satisfactory; but in the meantime the nomination of a committee would be very satisfactory to myself.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest to my hon. friend that he add to the resolution the usual words, ' with power to send for persons, papers and records,' which with his consent the clerk will add. I understand that my hon. friend consents to the amendment I suggest.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.
Motion as amended agreed to.



THE RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the vacancy on the Board of Railway Commissioners caused by the death of the late Hon. Mr. Greenway should be immediately filled by the appointment of an able and practical farmer of the west, in order that the best interests of the agriculturists may be protected.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the resolution which I have had on the Order Paper for some time, and which I now move, I do not desire to make any lengthy remarks, nor do I wish it to be understood that I am moving the resolution for the purpose of making any political capital or gain. I move it in the endeavour to impress on the hon. members of this House, and the government in particular, how important it is that the vacancy on the Board of Railway Commissioners resulting from the death of the late Hon. Mr. Greenway, should be immediately filled, and that the appointment should go to a practical farmer of the west. My reason for mentioning the west is that the board as at present constituted is composed entirely of eastern members. The man appointed to the position should be one who has had some experience in the pioneer life of the west, he should be an honest man, he should be a capable man, he should be a courageous and energetic man, not afraid to stand out for the interests of the agricultural class. There are many professions practised in this country with which it is a credit for
any man to be connected. To my mind there is no profession more noble, more honourable, more important, than that of agriculture, and I regret to say that the agriculturists in this country have not got that representation in our legislative halls and on our boards and commissions to which they are entitled. I need not argue that agriculture is the principal industry of Canada. That has long since been conceded and it is admitted almost every day in this House. But what I cannot understand is that we should find hon. gentlemen apparently so anxious to stand up for the farmers, and yet when it comes to appropriate the necessary money for the development of the great industry, this government is parsimonious to an extreme.
On looking through the statistics, I find that there are in Canada at present 575,000 practical farmers, that is men who depend on the cultivation of their own farms for a living. And I find that out of a population of 6,500,000, 3,775,000 are depending on the operations Of farming. I find that there is invested in agriculture in this country $2,440,000,000, and that the revenue from our agricultural sources amounts annually to about $700,000,000, which is more than that derived from all the other industries put together. I find further that the agricultural exports from the country amount to about $150,000,000 annually. Now, I am not going to take up time travelling irom the Atlantic to the Pacific to show where those farms are located or where this large amount of capital is invested, but shall content myself with saying that the major portion of this immense capital is invested in the west and that our resources come largely from the west, notwithstanding the fact that these new provinces are still in their infancy. But notwithstanding _ the large number of people engaged in agriculture, the large amount of money invested and the large revenue coming from that source, I regret to say that the farmers, who can produce as capable representatives as any other class in this country, have but a small representation in our legislative halls and on our important boards. Let me refer for a moment to the parliament which was dissolved last summer, and I am not doing so for the purpose of making any invidious reflections. In that parliament, composed of 214 members, there were but 13 farmers. As to the number of practical farmers in this parliament, with its increased representation, I am not able to say, that I want to point out that 90 per cent of the constituents represented m this House are farmers, and that the farmers expect the members of this House to stand up for their interest when anything pertaining to it is in question, ror that reason I claim that there is not one hon. gentleman in this House who can get away from supporting my resolution.



The Board of Bailway Commissioners, which was created some six or seven years ago, is a very important body, I do not know that there is any legislative body in the Dominion whose work has been more beneficial to 'the general public than that board. When it was first suggested, by means of petitions from the municipalities throughout the Dominion and personal letters to the government of the day, both sides of the House were anxious to give to the people such a board as they desired; and the board parliament created was not long in operation until it was found that the work was too strenuous for the railway commissioners to accomplish without submitting themselves to a very severe strain. I believe that the excess of work imposed upon one of the brightest men that we had in this country, who was chairman of that commission, shortened his days. It was then found that it would be wise to reorganize the board. That was the stand taken by the leader of the opposition and agitated by him on the hustings, but the government did not see fit to reorganize the board in the manner suggested by the leader of the opposition but did see fit to increase its members; and when they came to make the extra appointment, we in the west were pleased to know that they put on that commission a practical farmer in the person of the late Mr. Greenway. And we all regret that his death prevented our having the benefit of that work which no doubt so able a man would have been able to perform. No doubt it is the intention of the government to replace Mr. Greenway, and I appeal on behalf of the farmers of the west to have that appointment go to a practical farmer. Many members will probably ask: have you in the ranks of the farming profession a man qualified for this position? I have had that question put to me since I put this resolution on the Order Paper. To that question I reply that in the ranks of the farming profession there are men as capable of filling this position as can be found in any other profession, and I believe that if the government will make a little effort they will have no difficulty finding in the west such a person. I claim that this vacancy should have been filled before this. There is no board to which it is as easy for the farmers to go as the Board of Railway Commissioners. In a sense, the board comes to them. And I believe that, had the board had in its membership a representative of the farmers, there would have been a better understanding of the grievances and obstacles with which the farmers of that western country have had to contend in relation to the transportation problem, which, after all, is the great problem in the development of the west.
I have already asked: Is such a man available? I need hardly remind the Mr. STAPLES.
Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) that the farmers of the west believe they have a proper man for that position. I do not know that it would be out of order for me to make mention of the name, for it has been in the press and has come to the attention of the government through petitions and personal letters, but I do not mention the name. The gentleman is a voter in the constituency I have the honour to represent. And, while he is politically opposed to me I can assure the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways that they will make no mistake in giving to the farmers that particular person as their representative in the Railway Commission.
I claim that the farmers of this country are not getting justice; they are not getting, if you will allow the expression, a square deal. Some person is responsible for it. If I may be permitted, I would say that the man to whom we first look is the man whom the farmers have sent to represent them in the ministry. This hon. gentleman is placed in that position to champion and advocate the interests of the farmers. But we find, as I have already intimated, that we are not getting the necessary money to develop the industry: of agriculture. We have heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) state, time and again, that if he had the necessary money, he would have no difficulty in giving to the farmers the consideration to which they are entitled. I am not here particularly to complain of the small sum of money we are getting, but I do complain that the minister is not putting up the fight he should to get his share of the appropriations that are made. The Minister of Agriculture is given about half a million dollars, where the Department of Marine and Fisheries gets $5,000,000 annually and the Department of Militia about $5,000,000. True, the Minister of Agriculture tries to explain that in the last parliament his annual oppropriations amounted to about $1,000,000. But if he will leave aside the items which ought not to have been charged to his department, he will find that I am not far astray in saying that the farmers are only getting about half a| million. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what right has the Minister of Agriculture to allow the large item of archives to be charged up to agriculture? What has census statistics to do with agriculture? What have criminal statistics to do with agriculture? What has the Year-Book, what has Historical Data Regarding Canadian Families? What has the Patent Record to do with the Department of Agriculture? Yet the Minister of Agriculture allows these to be charged up to his department. It would seem that, as the ministers sit at the council board, when they find an expenditure which no department wishes to shoulder, the Minister of Agriculture says: Charge it up to the

Department of Agriculture, because the poor farmer, in his ignorance will never know that is charged to the Agriculture Department. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) laughs. But I want to say to him that the farmers do not treat this as a laughing matter. The Minister of Agriculture appears to go away out of his sphere in much that he does. He wants to be in all the big debates m this House, he wants to introduce legislation such as the Civil Service Bill-yes, and the Militia Bill. But I do not know that he has made a great success of the legislation he has taken charge of; I find about as much complaint about it, as about the department of which he has the honour to be in charge.
I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he has been doing when these appropriations were under discussion? What was he doing, for example, when the Department of Militia asked for and succeeded in getting, last session, appropriations amounting to about $5,000,000? Where was he when $90,000 was being asked for tire erection of dwellings for servants at the Royal Military college, making a cost of $6,000 to $7,000 for each house, every one a modern residence equipped with electric light and all other modern conveniences. Did the hon. Minister of Agriculture think of the people he is supposed to represent? Did he think of the people who had paid this money? Did he think of people who had to go out to the far prairie or to the backwoods there to hew down timber to build a shanty or construct a hut of sods? Had the minister given the consideration to his department that he should have given, he would have said: No; I will not allow such an amount to be appropriated for such a purpose. When they were appropriating a large amount of money, more than $20,000, to build a residence for the chief astronomer, could not the minister think of a better way to utilize the money than to build a comfortable home for an official already well paid? Then take-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) understand the question before the House? I have allowed a certain amount of latitude, but I think


William D. Staples: Speaking to the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is not a point of order, it is merely to call attention to the question before the House-the appointment of a railway commissioner.


William D. Staples: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to explain that the farmer is not properly represented, as the resolution states. However, Mr. Speaker, if I am getting wide of the mark I will be only too pleased to bow to your wishes. I do not intend in any case to take up much time. I only intended to bring this matter 83i
before the government and ask them to give the agriculturists representation on that board. I feel, and the farmers of the west feel, that they are entitled to have a farmer placed upon that board, a farmer who has had to go through pioneer life in that country, a man who understands the obstacles that the early settlers have to overcome in the development of that country. There is no class of people who have done more to build up this great Canada of ours than the farmers, there is no class who have contributed more in taxation and otherwise to build up this country than the farmers, and in my opinion there is no class who are receiving so little consideration as the farmers. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take heed to what I suggest to-night. I hope that when this government ask for any more appropriations to equip a vessel like the ' Montcalm,' with silver spoons and silver teapots costing $18 or $20 a piece, they will remember the pioneer who is away out on the prairie, or in the backwoods, and use some of the money for his relief which is now being wasted in other directions. In conclusion I again appeal to this government on behalf of the farmers, because they constitute, as I have said, about ninety per cent of the voters in the western constituencies, and are consequently deserving of much more consideration from the government than they are at present receiving.


Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris).: In rising to second the motion of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) I shall detain the House but a short time. Nevertheless, I realize that this is one of the most important and far reaching questions that has been presented to this House, or will be presented to it, during the present session. I shall endeavour to show to this House that the farmer is more largely interested in freight rates and passenger Tates than any other class of citizens in this country, and if I can show that the farmers are as large or larger supporters of the railways than any other class of citizens then surely, Mr. Speaker, the motion of my hon. friend deserves the support of this House and of the government. I do not wish to confine my remarks to the farmers of the west, although I have the honour of representing a very important farming constituency in the western country, but I wish to broaden my outlook and to include all the farmers in this country. I ask this government to place a representative of the farmers upon the- Board of Railway^ Commissioners,, a body which has been organized to hear the real or alleged grievances of the farmers, and to adjudicate them in the best interest of all parties concerned. Sir, I do not need at this time to expatiate on the great importance of the Board of Railway Commissioners in this country. I desire to give


William D. Staples: I do not want to be misrepresented by the hon. gentleman. I said that 3,788,000 were depending directly upon the operations of the farmers.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I am very pleased to accept my hon. friend's explanation. He never makes a mistake. The number dependent upon the farmers was given in answer to a question, and the statement of my hon. friend was 3,788,000, but I maintain that if there are 7,000,000 people in Canada there are 7,000,000 people directly dependent on the farmers. True it may be that like Macawber's wife's twins, for a time we are permitted to draw our nourishment from nature's fount, but we have not travelled very far along the journey of life before we switch off and become dependent upon what the farmers produce. The figures which I propose to quote are appalling. We wonder how it is that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), out of all the revenue of this country, can only get the paltry sum of from $500,000 to $700,000 for the farmers. Let me give the following figures to the House:
Invested in agriculture, 1908.. .. $2,440,000,000
Farm buildings	 395,815,143
Farms and lots	 1,007,454,358
Taking these two last items together we have $1,403,269,501 as the value of farm property including buildings and land. Now, let me make a litle comparison between this and the amount invested in the manufacturing industries of this country. We have lands and buildings used by the manufacturing industries valued at $467,274,905, and capital invested, $846,585,023. The value of farm products in June, 1908, was as follows:
Horses	 $264,000,000
Milch cows	 99,000,000
Horned cattle	 122,000,000
Sheep	 15,000,000
Swine	 31,000,000
Total
I am endeavouring to show the support that the farmer gives to the railway. Until recently the Board of Railway Commissioners devoted themselves almost absolutely to the question of transportation. The number of animals exported in 1908 was 157,279. If you take 30 to the carload you have 7,863 carloads of cattle that the trains were called upon to carry during the year 1908. Last year we grew in this country over 112,000,000 bushels of wheat. The area under wheat in 1908 was 6,610,300 acres. From that production of wheat we must deduct a little over 9,000,000 bushels for seed. Deducting also the amount required for home consumption, we have left for transportation about 75,000,000 bushels of wheat. This would make 75,000 carloads, 25,000 train loads and, averaging 20 trains to the day, it would take the railways 125 days, or about ii months to ship out the wheat grown in this country in one year. Does not this give the farmers some just claim to representation on this Board of Railway Commissioners?
Take apples. We grew in 1891 something over 7,000,000 bushels. In 1901 that had increased almost three times, it had grown to 18,626,186 bushels. In 1906 we grew in Canada 25,000,000 bushels of apples. Three bushels to the barrel would reduce this to 8,000,000 barrels which, at a reasonable price, say $1.25 a barrel, would be worth $10,000,000 and would fill 44,480 cars or, at 30 cars to the train, 1,481 train loads.
I might make an estimate of these combined. The value of farm animals and their products for 1908 was $531,000,000. The crop values of 1908 came to $432,534,000. The cheese, butter, milk, condensed milk and apples of this country amounted in 1908 to over $100,000,000, and apples to $10,000,000, making a total of $1,073,534,000. The beauty of this is that although this country was able to produce crops of such enormous value the land was left in just as good condition as ever to produce as large or larger crops in the next year. It is not so with the mines. You dig a hole and extract gold or silver and you have nothing left but the hole-I am told that in many mines the hole is all you ever do have. It is not so with the products of the farm, you can take this great amount one year and your farm is in just as good condition next year.
I may be met with the argument that this is a new country and that you cannot expect that the manufactures of this country will have become as important as the farming industry and its products. Let me call attention to the United States which is surely not a young country. If the agricultural products of the United States have increased in equal ratio and have kept ahead of the other industries of that country, have I not the right to argue that the same condition of affairs will exist in this 1 country as now exist in the United States?



$531,000,000 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
In 1905 the capital invested in manufactures in the United States was over $13,000,000,000. The capital invested in railroads was $13,000,000,000. The capital invested in agriculture was not $13,000,000,000 but more than twice that amount, it was over $30,000,000,000. The net return from products, manufactures, was $2,093,893,976; from railroads, $616,341,657, and from agriculture, net return, $2,945,461,200. If that is so it is high time that the representatives of this country, even although they may not be as practical farmers as my hon. friend (Mr. Staples), should realize from a business point of view the great importance of the farming industry. I want to warn the Minister of Agriculture that the farmers are beginning to wake up. I shall not take up that issue to-night. I intend to take it up later and to show not only the government supporters but the leader of the opposition and every one on this side that they will waken up one morning and find that the farmers are going to do what they ought to do, that is run this country.
As to the Board of Railway Commissioners, no body of men in this country are charged with graver duties or burdened with severer responsibilities. I say without fear of contradiction that no question approaches in magnitude, in difficulty or in importance, this great question of transportation. Let us meet it fairly and squarely. I do not ask parliament that a farmer from the west should be chosen, although I would be justified in doing so. The four great provinces of the west, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia are the great agricultural provinces, they are the great sources of profit to the railways. Why are the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway so anxious to get into that country? Not for fun, they are business propositions, they are anxious to get there because thev know the farmers of that country will produce the stuff that will give business to these railways. Let us not consider creed or nationality, but in the appointment of men to this important institution let us recognize the claim of the farmer. I hope that the appointment has not gone so far that the minister cannot adopt the suggestions so eloquently made by my hon. friend from Macdonald and place upon the Board of Railway Commissioners a practical farmer.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I would not have to say a great deal had it not been for the delicate attention the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr .Staples) has bestowed on me. It seemed to me that he had rather more at heart the showing up of my own delinquencies than the needs of the farmer or the constitution of the commission. His colleague (Mr. Schaffner) has said that his hon. friend does not make mistakes. I am Mr. SCHAFFNER.
sorry I cannot agree with that, because it will be my duty to show that he has made a few mistakes in the remarks he has made. In the first place he says that the Department of Agriculture has received about $500,000 in respect of agricultural work in the estimates. If he had studied the estimates of this session for the ensuing year he would have seen that after taking out all the estimates which he mentioned for extraneous subjects in the Department of Agriculture that department is asking the House for $782,000. I would like, however, to refer to the figures of a few years ago, and just out of curiosity I sent for the Appropriation Bill of 1895, the year before we came into office.


William D. Staples: I am not criticising the
late government.
* Mr. FISHER. I know that my hon. friend would not criticise the previous government. I dare say that when that government was in power, my hon. friend knew very little about public affairs in Canada; if he had, perhaps he would not have said everything he has said to-night. Under that government, in 1895, the purely agricultural oppropriations for the benefit of the farmers came to $161,000. There was $40,000 more of advances to be made for dairy purposes, but that did not stay with the farmers, but came back into the public treasury; so that $161,000 was the amount by which under the Conservative regime the treasury of Canada was the poorer for the benefit of the farmers.


William D. Staples: Will the hon. minister in fairness tell the House how much money was being expended in the Dominion of Canada previous to 1896, and figure out what proportion the farmers got ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. Roughly speaking, the expenditure has increased by a little more than double for the whole of Canada, while the expenditure on agriculture has amounted to nearly five times as much. I can give the exact figures to my hon. friend, if he is seeking information, which he is sadly in need of. My hon. friend dwelt upon my iniquities in charging to agriculture the archives, the patent record, the census and statistics, the statistical year-book, and so on. I said a few minutes ago that my hon. friend probably did not know much about political questions in Canada when his party was in power some thirteen or fourteen years ago; but if he will look back to that time, he will find that these expenditures are placed under the control of the Department of Agriculture by statute; and being a law-abiding citizen and minister, I keep them in the Department of Agriculture. The hon. member, if he goes back a little further, will find that these laws were put upon the statute-book by the old Conservative government, and if he goes

back through the eighteen long years during which the Tory party ruled this country before 1896, he will find that under that regime the law-abiding ministers, of that day, Tory though they were, put the archives, the patent record, the census and statistics and the year-book also under the Department of Agriculture; and if the Department of Agriculture is that omnium gatherum which the hon. gentleman describes it, it is due to the fact that under the old Tory regime all these outside services were put into that department-why? Because it did so little for agriculture that its then minister had nothing to do, and the Tory party put under his control any thing and everything the other ministers wanted to get rid of. But we have been doing something for agriculture, we have been increasing the expenditure on agriculture, we have been enlarging the Department of Agriculture until to-day it is doing five times the work it did in those days, spends five times the amount of money, and shows five times that appreciation of the interests and the power of agriculture that our predecessors showed. My hon. friend from Souris has said that the farmers were rising in their might and were going to wake up and Tun things in this country. I can tell my hon. friend that since the ministry at present in power have come in, they have been largely run by the agricultural vote; and if to-day, and during the last election, and the election before, and the election before that, and the election before that again, the Liberal party have been able to defeat the Conservative party, it has been largely because the agricultural vote of Canada has supported the Liberal party. We have shown consideration for the farmers in every respect, we shall be glad to show it in the future as we have done in the past, and if at any time the agricultural interests are not carefully safeguarded before the Railway Committee, _ I am quite sure that this government will see that they are looked after.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, I cannot congratulate the hon. Minister of Agriculture on his speech. My hon. friend here points out the importance of the farming interest in the Northwest, the immense development and production of that section, and claims that the expenditure for agricultural purposes is not large enough. The minister replies with the tu quoque argument. Whenever you find a gentleman using that argument, you may conclude that he has no other argument to offer; it is an admission that the hon. gentleman who spoke before him is right. The hon. minister says: I sent for the statutes of 1895, and I find that the Tory government expended only $161,000 on agriculture. Suppose it did. The Tory government established the Department of Agriculture and appointed the first minister. If we have a Department of Agriculture to-day, it is due to the Conservative government. The hon. minister forgot to tell us that from 1874 to 1878, when these gentlemen were in power, not one cent was spent for agricultural purposes. If the Northwest has to-day products amounting to $180,000,000, it is due to the progressive Conservative government which built the Canadian Pacific Railway in spite of the opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite. Everything that is in the Department of Agriculture amounting to anything was initiated by the Conservative government, and the hon. gentleman has done nothing but follow the example set by them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) and the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples). But I heard with regret the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eisher). It was certainly a humiliating position for a minister specially charged with the advancement of the greatest industry in this country, to take when, in reply to the fair criticisms made on his department, he gave us nothing but politics of the smallest description. Just let us go back ten years and find vhat this minister has done for the agriculturists of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Hon. gentlemen mav well say oh, but if they will follow back his record what will they find? They will find him first introducing his scissors policy, in which he invented a pair of scissors to cut the peaches off the tree-peaches that had no stems. Then they will find him with his chicken fattening stations, established in different parts of the country, at the expense of tens of thousands of dollars, where he was trying to educate our farmers' wives to line up their chickens and fatten them with a squirt gun. Then what about his cold storage proposition? Have we not been pounding at his door for years trying to impress on him the necessity of improving our cold storage system and giving us a better means of transportation. But what has he been doing? I need hardly tell you the history of that cold storage system of his. It has been a perfect farce. Look at the money he has spent in equipping vessels to carry our perishable products across the ocean. He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in that direction and yet has no control over the temperatures in the boats or on the cars. Year after year we have been trying to convince him that he should have control over the temperatures of these boats and cars, but he keeps on making appointments in his depart-

ment and piling up the expenses but doing nothing to make our cold storage transportation what it ought to be. Compare for a moment the system of cold storage across the Atlantic from the Dominion to the markets of the world with the system in operation from New Zealand, or the system which brings the chilled meat from the Argentine Republic and lands it in the British market. I might go on to tell you about the improvements he has attempted to make with regard to the fruit marketing Act and about his squandering of the people's money in other measures he has brought before this House. In nearly every one of them, he has made a complete failure. And to-day we find him rising in his place and condemning my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) for trying to urge on the government the necessity for appointing a practical farmer to the Railway Commission. What has he done towards helping to remove the cattle embargo in the old country? Why,
- you find him standing up and telling the people that they do not want mutual preference in the British market. Nor will he make an effort to get our goods into the German market, the second best market in the world. A few months ago we found him telling the farmers in his own province that they do not want rural free mail delivery.


Mr. NESBITT.: What has rural free mail delivery to do with the question before the House?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. gentleman is raising a point of order, he should do so definitely and not in the form of a question.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My point of order is that the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the resolution before the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The purpose of the resolution appears to be shown in the last few words:	'In order that the best interests of the agriculturist may be protected.' That certainly opens up agricultural questions, but I think that these agricultural matters should be discussed in the light of the preceding part of the resolution, and that is how they are to be protected by the appointment of an agriculturalist to the Board of Railway Commissioners, rather than by a close study of other matters connected with agriculture.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I quite recognize that several of the hon. gentlemen who preceded me have wandered somewhat afield, but I think that the Minister of Agriculture was responsible for having introduced a number of subjects into the discussion not expressly covered by the resolution.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But what has rural mail delivery to do with it?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sorry to see the hon. member for North Oxford taking the position he does. I am sorry to see that he does not take sufficient interest in matters pertaining to the farming interests to have them discussed on the floor of parliament. But I feel satisfied that when he goes back to his constituents and meets the different farmers of his constituency-and I have no doubt there are lots of brainy men among them-he will find that they will resent the position he has taken, in attempting to criticise any hon. member for trying to show up the sins of the Department of Agriculture. Coming back to the question before the House, I wish to point out that the hon. gentleman from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) was perfectly justified in urging on the government the necessity for appointing a practical farmer on the Railway Commission. I know he does not intend that the appointment should be limited to practical farmers from the west, because he recognizes that the farmers in the east are also in need of representation on that board. I need hardly call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that an immense quantity of perishable products go out of our country every year, and that these require to be handled by men who understand their transportation, and consequently some one acquainted with that subject in particular should be on the Board of Railway Commissioners. I might also mention that the express companies have a great deal to do with the transportation of perishable products. I have in my mind one man who last year paid out $50,000 to the express companies for the transportation of perishable products, and I know of many others in our farming districts who pay out large sums to these companies. We need, therefore, on that commission a man thoroughly conversant with that subject. We need also one conversant with the question of railway crossings, and it must be admitted that the one class most interested in these are the farming class. Then there are questions of drainage which come before that board and in regard to which it is important to have some farmer, who thoroughly understands these questions, on that Railway Commission, for very important questions of this kind come before the Railway Commission from time to time. The question of the carriage of the mails to distant districts claims the attention of the people living in the rural parts of Canada. The independent telephone and telegraph companies are also interested in having a man to represent them on the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not intend to take up further time. I content myself with expressing the earnest hope that the government will support this resolution^ and, that when the time comes to appoint a man on the railway commission a man

thoroughly conversant with the farming interest will be appointed.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will be in pretty general agreement with me when I state that if, as the hon. member for East I.ambton (Mr. Armstrong) said, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) threw down the political gauntlet, it is certainly equally true that the hon. member himself showed great readiness in taking that gauntlet up. He introduced into his opening remarks	an amount of heat
which, to my mind, is utterly foreign to any agricultural question. I think the spirit that should animate us is one of pastoral calm, but I failed to catch that mood in the remarks of the hon. member. The Minister of Agriculture needs no defence from me; but, after all, I should venture to urge that he has the right of every other member of the House to defend himself when he is attacked

 and he was very strongly attacked, for a mild mannered man. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture has left; I should have offered him a little consolation. I am told that the late Sir John A. Macdonald used to say that if you want to find the best apple tree you do not need to look at the branches,-find the tree with the most stones lying under it. Judged by that standard the House and the country will agree that, in the Minister of Agriculture we have a man who gives most punctiliously careful, able and successful attention to the duties of a very important office.
Now, to turn to the resolution before the House, if it comes to a vote I intend to vote against that resolution. It did not suit me to give a silent vote, because I happen to resemble both the mover and the seconder of the resolution in that I represent an agricultural constituency. I have the advantage of at least the seconder of the resolution in that I not only represent an agricultural constituency but am myself a farmer, so far as Canada is concerned.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: So am I as much a farmer as the hon. member (Mr. Michael Clark). How much does he farm-how many acres?


Michael Clark: I am going to prove still that I have the advantage over my hon. friend and interrupter; I am a farmer; I have never done anything but farm in Canada. Can my hon. friend state that also? He is silent now. He admits that I have the advantage over him. I am not sure but that, if I were a careful man, the fact that I am a farmer would make me careful about voting against the resolution because, after all, the appointment to the railway commissionership is a kind of rig a man could drive. The Minister of'Railways and Canals need not take that remark in any spirit more serious than the spirit in which I make it.
I think that the mover of the resolution clearly proved too much. If I understand his argument, his attempt was to prove that where the farmers' interests are particularly concerned, a farmer was the man to do the business of the position. Then the hon. gentleman immediately started out to disprove his own position by proving that a horrible mistake had been made in the case of the Department of Agriculture by appointing a farmer to the position. If the Minister of Agriculture, being a practical farmer, is such a horrible failure in his position, surely that ought to warn us against supporting the mover of the resolution. In regard to the seconder of the resolution, I am bound to say that, as I listened to him, I wondered how he ever had the conscience, being, as I understand a medical man, to sit as the representative of an agricultural community. If he holds the farmer to be of such importance as his language describes him, if he was not merely repeating that kind of speech which all of us make more or less when we are appealing to an agricultural community- for I believe it is a common saying in this country that everyone is a farmer at election time-if he was not merely repeating one of these speeches, he should retire from his present position and let a farmer succeed him to represent a purely farming constituency. What did the hon. gentleman say in regard to the farmer? He also proved too much. He said that the farmer's importance is such that everybody knows it. If that be so, you cannot pick the wrong man for the position of the Railway Commission. For, if everyone knows the importance of the farmer, whoever you appoint will look after the farmers.
Now, I wish, in a couple of sentences, to give the House the reasons why I object to the principle of the resolution. My hon. friends the mover and seconder of the resolution will, at any rate, give to me the credit that I cannot be speaking for my constituents' support, nor am I speaking from any selfish or grafting reason, because I am a farmer and a representative of farmers. My first reason for objecting to the principle of the resolution is that I have held the political creed known as the Liberal creed all my life, and it forbids me to make class distinction. I had a friend who spent his early years in Australia. He was one of the best men I ever knew in the north of England, and one of the best farmers in my native county. In the days when he went to Australia, in many places throughout the empire there was a property qualification for voting. A paper was sent to him containing a column, which he was to fill up stating the qualifications by which he claimed to be put

upon the suffrage, and in this column he wrote the one word: ' Manhood In my Liberal creed, it is a greater thing to be a man than to be a farmer, it is a greater thing to be a man than to be a cabinet minister. Manhood is the test of citizenship, with me, it is the true test in making any appointments'. Following this line, what are you going to look for in a railroad commissioner? Capacity for work, qualifications for the position, ability to examine into, not only the needs of the farmer, but the needs of the whole community. You want judicial qualities in a man, you want a man who can procure and appreciate evidence from all classes. I feel perfectly sure that the government, in making an appointment, will look for those broader tests, and look away from the narrower tests called for in the resolution.
My second reason is this, that I do not believe it is right to restrict the choice of the government to any particular class in making this nomination. If I may venture to mention one thing that has struck me with surprise in this House, and I do so with great modesty, it has been the amount of sectionalism, the amount of provincialism, the amount of class thinking which has characterized the debates that I have had the honour of listening to in the short time I have been a member of this House. We want, if I understand the needs of my adopted country which I have learned to love, we want to develop in this country a sense of nationhood, and if that be our aim, we must place no restriction upon the government that they shall make their nominations from any particular class of people. If you are animated by the spirit of nationhood, in selecting a man for any position, I do not care whether it be deputy speaker of the Senate, or speaker of the House of Commons, or a member of this House, or a member of the cabinet, you will not look to any class, even though it be the great class to which I am proud to belong, but you will look in every case for a Canadian and a man.


Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: It is with great pleasure that I rise to say a few words in favour of the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples). I do so, not only from a sense of loyalty to him, but from a sense of the duty I owe to the farmers whom I am here to represent. I do it moreover because I am also a farmer, and I have the honour to represent in this House over 9,000 farmers in the Northwest. I say, therefore, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this question, because it affords me an opportunity of advocating their interests. But while I rise with pleasure to support this motion, my pleasure is tinged with a very sincere regret when I remember that the cause of this debate is the demise of a gentleman who stood high in the records of Mr. M. CLARK.
Canadian history. It is the demise of the Hon. Thomas Greenway which has furnished the occasion for this discussion. For twenty-five years Mr. Greenway took an active part in the politics of Manitoba. Although he made some political mistakes, from my point of view, still he was a man who did much to build up the great Northwest. He was a man of many parts, a lovable man in many ways, a man who was a strong personal friend of mine, though a political adversary. Many of the laws which he was instrumental in placing upon the statute book of Manitoba were, I believe, in the best interests of the people of that province. He was the leader of the great Liberal party in Manitoba, and might yet have been the leader, had he not been misled by the same influences that I told the First Minister had misled him with regard to the late elections in Manitoba.
I regret that this discussion has drifted into party politics, whereas we are, or should be, discussing the advisability of placing a representative of the farmers on the Railway Board in succession to the late Mr. Greenway, who was himself one of the most trusted and representative farmers in all Canada. Sir, we who advocate this resolution are not here representing only a fraction of the people of Manitoba, we are here representing over 140,000 farmers. It is their dictum we are asking this House to follow and it is their interest we are asking this government to consider. This House, through the Minister of Railways, has been asked by the farmers of the west to appoint a man whom they can trust, a man who sympathizes with their interests, to a position on the Board of Railway Commissioners. This is not a matter to be laughed at, as was done by my hon. friend who has just spoken, and by the Minister of Agriculture, it is a matter for the serious consideration of the members of this House, a matter to be discussed on common sense lines. Now let me point out the importance of these 140,000 farmers to Canada as wealth producers. Take my own province of Manitoba. The farmers of Manitoba last year raised farm produce to the value of sixty-six and a half million dollars, the result of the toil of their hands and the sweat of their brows. In Saskatchewan they produced thirty-seven and a half million dollars worth. They did not find this wealth by chance, they had to toil for it, and have they not a right to be listened to? In Alberta they produced fourteen and a half million dollars worth, a total for the three provinces of $118,500,000. Surely these people ought to be recognized as a factor in governing the appointment of members of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Looking east, we find that from the eastern boundary of Manitoba to the Atlantic ocean, agricultural products last year amounted to no less a sum than $236,000,000. And yet the Minister of Agricul-

ture dares to get up here and say that he is not here to listen to them. I say he is here to listen to them, he must listen to them, and this House must listen to them.
In speaking of the value of the farm products of the west, I have not said anything about the stock holdings there which roughly are as follows :
Sheep and
Horses.	Cattle.	hogs.Manitoba	..	$24,000,000	$10,000,000	$11,500,000Saska tchewan	
35,000,000	10,000,000	1,500,000


Alberta ..: ..	24,000,000	20,000,000	1,000,000Showing a total of $116,000,000 worth of stock, and yet the Minister of Agriculture, who is here representing the farmers, says that we are not here to listen to those people, but that we will make the appointment as we choose. I hold that these farmers have to be listened to. They have the right to be listened to. They are the wealth producers of the great western country, and were it not for them there would not need to be a railway commission at all. I have not taken into consideration the fact that millions of dollars worth of property are owned by the farmers of Canada. The farm buildings and real estate owned by the farmers of Canada, as quoted by my hion. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner), amount in value to-buildings-$395,-000,000	and-real	estate-$1,007,000,000.Surely that is a sufficient reason for asking this government to consider the claims of the farmers in this regard. When the late Hon. Thos. Greenway received the appointment this government congratulated themselves and pointed out to the people of Canada that they had appointed to that position a man who was a practical farmer. They said, prior to the election: We have put an actual farmer into that position to look after your interests. What do they say now? The Minister of Agriculture derides hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, who get up and make the suggestion that what the farmers ask for should be granted. To be accurate I wrote down the words of the Minister of Agriculture with reference to a computation, amounting to half a million dollars, made by my hon. friend from Macdonald and the words of the minister were these: 'However, that is as near as he can get to the actual facts.' I leave it to any member of this House to say if, in our experience, since we have been going through the estimates this year, it is possible to get any minister nearer to the actual facts than that. I think that if he came within a quarter of a millii.n at a guess he would be very lucky. The Minister of Agriculture went on to apply the tu quoque argument and to say that the census, the archives, and the patents were introduced into the Department of Agriculture by the Tories. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have been twelve years in power. They condemned everything we did when we were in power and they have had twelve years to correct these things, but they have not done it, and they use them as excuses for their own misdoings. When you plant twigs in a nursery and they grow up there comes a certain time when they must be transplanted, and we are trying to tell the Minister of Agriculture that it is now time to transplant and to allow of a maturer and larger growth of those matters which concern the farming interests. That is what the farmers are asking. The hon. gentleman, instead of agreeing, as he should have agreed, being the Minister of Agriculture, with many of the things said by the gentleman who preceded him in the debate, sneered at him for lauding the farmers. It is the laughing stock of Canada that the Minister of Agriculture poses as a farmer. It is time he knew it and I am glad to tell him _ if he did not know it before. The only kind of farmer that he is is the kind that farms the farmers and that is the wrong kind for a Minister of Agriculture.	He establishes chicken fattening stations and says to the farmers wives that if they spend about ten cents more per lb. on a chicken than they can possibly get for it on the market, they will be successful. That is the kind of a Minister of Agriculture he is. He is the kind that sits there in his seat and allows the Department of Militia to grasp the public money that ought to be spent for the benefit of the farmers instead of being spent in making-shall I say-carpet knights. There is no money available for the advancement of the interests of the farmers, who are the greatest wealth producers of the country. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) reprimanded hon. gentlemen on this side of the House for having introduced politics into the debate. I want to tell that hon. gentleman that I never in my life saw any one follow a bad example to a greater extent than he has done. He handed out a very nice certificate of character in the first place to himself, and later on to the Minister of Agriculture, and he said that he regretted the attack, the onslaught, that was made on the Minister of Agriculture, whom he described as a very mild mannered man. I would bring to his attention a quotation from Ralph Balderwood which, to my mind, possibly applies to his description of the Minister of Agriculture. Sir Ralph Balderwood, in speaking of a very bad character, said:
A milder mannered man never cut a throat or scuttled a ship.
Having reference to the present occasion, I think the hon. gentleman will admit that
2G47

Ralph Balderwood's words were absolutely prophetic. The hon. member for Ked Deer made what I regard as a little slip of the tongue when, in speaking of himself, having previously been referring to the minister, he said: , I, at least am not speaking with any selfish or grafting mptive,' 1 characterize that as a slip of the tongue because it would be a very harsh criticism and a very severe reflection upon his own minister from the hon. member for Red Deer. It might be all right coming from me. The hon. member for Red Deer prided himself lastly on the fact that he had taken a certain stand in politics. Among the tenets of his peculiar political creed, and I might say that in this he does not agree with the rest of his party, is that he does not believe in class distinction, but in the next breath he said: 'I am a farmer.' Is that not taking credit to himself for belonging to the great party of Canada?


Michael Clark: I did not ask to be made a commissioner on that account.


Glenlyon Campbell: The manner in which suggestions from this side of the House are treated is most regrettable. If a Conservative introduces a resolution which is in the interests of Canada, the other side, for political reasons, I cannot attribute it to anything else, absolutely reject it. I would remind my hon. friend of the words of Holy Writ, 'Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ?' I am strongly in favour of the resolution proposed. The farmers of the west, the farmers of all Canada, are desirous of having representation on that board. They represent the wealth-producing people of Canada. They have a right to be heard, they have a right to be listened to, and their wishes should be granted.


Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher).: I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Macdonald in criticising the qualifications of the present Minister of Agriculture. I believe and the people believe that he is the best and most competent Minister of Agriculture Canada has ever had. He is just as much a farmer as the hon. member who has just spoken, and a great deal more; I believe he pays more attention to the farming interest of this coun-tiy. I have heard it stated during the last campaign that the three previous Ministers of Agriculture were not aware that milk came from a cow.
Is it necessary that this appointment should be made at once? Did the member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) introduce this resolution because a constituent of his is looking for the appointment? Because he has canvassed members from the west for assistance to get that position. Perhaps it is. The hon. member says he is a political opponent, but in that case my information is not correct as I was informed before Mr. CAMPBELL.
this resolution was written that this gentleman is a supporter of the hon. member.


William D. Staples: The hon. member has asked a question and I have a right to answer.


John Patrick Molloy: I did not ask a question.


William D. Staples: I rise to a point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has the floor.


John Patrick Molloy: Whether he is a supporter or an opponent of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) makes no difference to this House or to the people of this country. I am surprised-and pleased to hear


William D. Staples: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Provencher has stated that I mentioned a particular individual to be appointed to that board.


John Patrick Molloy: No.


William D. Staples: I never mentioned any name.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not a point of order.


John Patrick Molloy: I am glad that the late hon. gentlemen who had a seat in this House and who was appointed to the Railway Commission, now that he is dead, received some credit from his political opponents. They say in the west that the dead Indian is the good Indian, and I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite think that the good Grit is the dead Grit.
I hope that this appointment will be made shortly, although there is nothing on record to show that the country is suffering. I believe that the present members of the commission are quite capable of handling the business that comes before them to the satisfaction of the country, and it is admitted by hon. gentlemen opposite that the work is being well done and in the interests of the country as a whole. I cannot accept or follow the advice given by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) that we should follow the example of the United States and entirely eliminate politics in such appointments. I hope, if it is necessary, as I believe it is, that the vacancy on the board will be filled as soon as possible and this government is quite well qualified to make that appointment at the proper time. I said I hoped it would go to the west because I am a western man. So far as I am concerned, I would have pretty nearly every appointment paid for by the people of Canada go to the west. Let them all go to the west, and I hope this one in particular will go to the west, and if a farmer is the best available man, let us have a farmer by all means. If the best available man is not a farmer, then we do not need a farmer and I hope one will not be appointed. The very fact of

appointing a farmer might be detrimental to the interests of farmers. A farmer might be appointed who would not be as well qualified to fill the position as the next man in line. Is that not true? Is there any guarantee that if this government does appoint a farmer he will be the best available man and will fill the position better than any one else? I do not think so. It does not necessarily follow. We hear particularly at election time, from some speakers and candidates in rural districts, the cry 'the farmer, the farmer, the farmer, I will do anything on earth for the farmer. It is just stage play, the greater part of it. Sometimes the Grits are guilty as well as the Tories. The greater part of it is in vote-catching, and I believe this resolution is intended as a vote-catcher, but I believe it will fail.


William D. Staples: I rise to a point of order. I ask the hon. gentleman to retract the statement.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not think that is a point of order.


William D. Staples: He says it is a vote-catcher and I say it is not.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has the floor.


John Patrick Molloy: I have to repeat that if there was a strong move made by that strong organization known as the Grain Growers' Association, it is being used by the hon. member for Macdonald as a vote catcher. It was a vote catcher for the next election, which is at present a considerable way off. I hope that the appointment will be given to a western man, that he will be the best available man for the position, and that he will be a farmer. That is all I have to say.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt).: Mr. Speaker, when I first saw this resolution on the Order Paper, I was glad to feel that there was a certain ground on which I could stand shoulder to shoulder to some extent with a political opponent from the west. In the heat of elections we are apt to say of the other side. ' Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?' When I first saw the resolution on the Order Paper I was inclined the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) a good deal of credit; but after listening to his remarks in support of it,
I have to retract a great deal of that credit.
I had supposed that the hon. member was moving the resolution in the interest of the western farmers; but the tenor of his remarks has been more in the interests of the political party to which he belongs.
I have the honour of having been elected by the votes of the farmers of a district in what I consider to be the banner province of western Canada, Saskatchewan, and I want to say that the farmers of the west appreciate the importance and value to the west of the Board of Railway Commissioners instituted by the present government. The farmers of the constituency I represent have no serious fault to find with the present government for the treatment they have received from that government since it has been in power. In the first place, the need of a board of Railway commissioners for Canada grew out of the transportation policy of this Liberal government. Until 1896 there were no transportation questions to solve in this country by a board of railway commissioners, because we had in the northwest only one railroad, what I conceive to be the greatest railroad monopoly on the continent of North America, the Canadian Pacific Railway. The few farmers who were in the west prior to 1896 were in the hands of that powerful corporation, because under the terms of the contract by which the railway was built, the government had practically no control over it or the way it did business. It could charge whatever rates for freight and passengers it pleased, and it had the farmers of the west completely in its power. The first remedy that came to the western Canada farmer was the vigorous action of this government in the construction of lines of railroad that would compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Having thus created the need for a board of railway commissioners, this government proceeded to establish that board, and it is something to the credit of this government that members of the opposition, when they speak on this question, are compelled to give the government that credit. Before this government came into power the farmers of the west needed relief in the very worst way; they came to this parliament again and again asking for relief; they came to this parliament asking for bread, and were given a stone. It was not until this government came into power that the farmers of the west received any of that consideration which his place in the industrial economy of this country entitles him to. The western Canadian farmer does appreciate this board of Railway Commissioners. It is a convenient court of appeal. It is a means of reaching the solution of the many transportation problems of the west that he never had before. With regard to that part of the resolution dealing with the appointment of a man to the vacancy brought about by the demise of the late Hon. Thos. Greenway, I believe that if a vote of the farmers of the west were taken on this question, they would not vote in favour of the resolution moved by the honourable member for Macdonald. The farmer of the west fs not a sentimentalist, but is above all things a practical man, who looks for results, and is not above taking advantage of every kind of inventive and mechanical skill and using it for the betterment of his

condition. What he wants is to obtain results from the efforts of this Railway Commission. If a farmer were appointed to it just because he is a farmer, and did not ably represent the farming interests and all the interests of all the' people of Western Canada as well as the farmers, the farmers of western Canada would be the first to condemn the government for appointing such a man. What the farmer of the west wants is that the government, in making the appointment, shall not consider any class distinction of any sort whatever, but shall appoint a man who has every qualification necessary for the proper carrying out of the duties of the office. I did not hear very distinctly all the remarks of the hon. member for Macdonald when he was introducing this resolution; but it did seem to me that he was endeavouring to bring it down to a very fine point. If I am not mistaken, he had reference to seme man in his own constituency who had been highly recommended by the farmers of the west and whom he himself would be pleased to have appointed. These remarks from the hon. member from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) could not but lead to the conclusion that there was a coloured gentleman somewhere in the fence, and when he came to that part of his speech I felt that we had at last discovered the location of that coloured gentleman. Then the hon. member for Souris, who undertook to second this resolution, tried to impress on the government the necessity of filling this vacancy with a western Canadian farmer. Is it not rather peculiar that the hon member for Souris does not see the position in which he places himself by supporting this motion? The hon. gentleman, like myself and some others in this House representing rural constituencies, is not a farmer but follows another profession. No doubt he thinks that in electing himself, a medical man, to represent them in this_ House, his constituents made the best choice possible. But he does not wish his own election to be taken as a precedent in the filling of the vacancy on the Board of Railway Commissioners, that vacancy must of necessity be filled by a farmer. But if the contention of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) be correct, the hon. member for Souris should not occupy a seat in this House because his is a rural constituency, and the hon. gentleman should have seen that a farmer was sent here and not himself. I wish to say this, that so far as I am concerned, I am in sympathy with the word ' western ' which is used in this resolution When this House established the Board of Railway Commissioners, they made the number six, and there are only five at present. If this House saw fit in its wisdom to establish a board of six, and one seat becomes vacant, that seat ought to be filled. And in my opinion the board re-Mr. NEELY. '
quires a man who thoroughly understands and appreciates the conditions in the west.
I am prepared to go that far in support of the resolution. I would like to see a western man appointed, and I think the government, when making a selection, ought to cast their eyes over the territory from Lake Superior to at least the Rocky mountains.
I suppose a British Columbian would say to the Pacific coast. I mention this because I think that a western man, probably in the majority of cases, understands the western conditions better than any other man probably can. But having said that much, I must deprecate the unseemly haste expressed by it. This resolution calls for the immediate filling of this vacancy. But I am not aware that the country is suffering very seriously at present. It may be true that five men are doing the work of six. It may be that the western interests will be better represented on this board when a new appointment is made and a western man is given the appointment; but so far as that is concerned, the main thing in these appointments is to get a man who will fill the position in the best possible manner. And I think the government should take sufficient time to look over the ground carefully and consider the possibilities of the situation thoroughly before they make a selection of such grave importance.
There is no amendment proposed and I do not, for my part, intend presenting one, but 1 do not think it would be a good thing for this House to pass the resolution in its present shape. It would restrict too much the choice. I think it urges undue haste in the making of this appointment, and therefore in conclusion I would say that I am prepared to support the view that the appointment should be filled, and I would be glad indeed if the government would see their way clear to appoint a western man. But the other part of the resolution, which limits the choice to that of a farmer and demands the immediatte filling of the office, I cannot conscientiously support.


Mr. A. MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: I had not intended addressing the House on this resolution because I did not anticipate that it would meet with the opposition that it has encountered. I have been rather amused at many of the reasons to which hon. members have had to resort in order to bring themselves into line with the party whip and lead themselves to what the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has described as a conscientious conclusion to oppose the motion. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), took very high and mighty ground. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) got down to something much more practical and made rather a frank statement of his position. He was followed by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) in much the same fashion; and I want to discriminate just for a

moment or two and contrast the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Red Deer with those advanced by the hon. member for Provencher. My hon. friend from Red Deer says we know no class or community in this country, no distinction of times and place, and that the only consideration which ought to move this government should be that of qualification. That is to say from whatever part of Canada, race or creed a man may come, he ought to be selected if he be the ablest and best qualified to fill the vacancy. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) however, in deference to the wishes of his constituents-and no doubt also in deference to the hope he has of being elected again some four years from now-trusts that the appointment will be given to a western man.
The hon. member for Provencher would go a little further-he would step down another grade from the position of the hon. member for Humboldt, and hopes that the new commissioner will be a western man and a farmer. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has a considerable task before him in this House, as was pointed out by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) some weeks ago. He has many conversions to effect in the ranks of his own party. The resolution declares that in the opinion of this House the position of commissioner made vacant by the death of Mr. Greenway should be filled. The hon. member for Humboldt, who knows that this vacancy has existed for six months, acknowledges that it ought to be filled, but in order to make himself absolutely conscientious in opposing it he says that for it to be filled within six months is unseemly haste. The resolution goes on to declare that the position should be filled by the appointment of an able and practical farmer. In the first two positions that the appointment should be made and it should be made shortly, the hon. member for Provencher agrees. And I agree with him. In the next point - that is the appointee should be an able and practical farmer he agrees, and I agree with him. In the next point, that this farmer should come from the west the hon. member for Provencher coincides, and I coincide with him. He also agrees that the reasons are that the interests of agriculture should be looked after; and I agree with him. Wherein does the hon. gentleman differ from me?
I propose to vote for this resolution and he proposes to vote against it. I agree with the resolution in all its details and every phrase it utters. The hon. member for Provencher does the same, but he comes to the conclusion that he will vote against the resolution, while I come to the conclusion that I will vote for it. The reason for the hon. member's conclusions, I am afraid, is that the government has decided that they cannot support this resolution, and the
hon. member for Provencher supports the government.
I desire to devote just a moment in answer to the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (M. Michael Clark). He told us that the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) proved too much: he says that that hon. gentleman proved that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) was not capably administering the department over which he presides; that the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer, and therefore this proof should act as a warning against the appiontment of farmers. And the hon. member for Provencher who evidently has been studying the appointments made by this government, warns the House, that if the government appoints a farmer that is no warrant that he will be a man able to fill the position. This resolution does not call for the appointment of a farmer because he is a farmer, but calls for the selection of a man in every respect fit to fill the position, and a farmer besides. It may be that the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer, but it is impossible to argue from that that a man could not be selected from among the farmers of Canada who would be a good Minister of Agriculture. The Board of Railway Commissioners, as has been stated by hon. members, is a most important body. No one appreciates more than I do the importance of that board. I should have thought it would be enough for the hon. member for Humboldt that the member who moved the resolution and gave credit to the government for the inauguration of that board to be able to state that as a reason for his determination to support this resolution, and not be drawn away from that position because the hon. member for Macdonald chose to criticise the Department of Agriculture. I should think it would be enough to prove to him that the hon. member was not animated by party feeling when he so freely gave credit to the government for the appointment of the railway board. I join in giving that credit, because the appointment of this board was a distinct step in advance for the people of this country. We must remember, however, that the establishment of the Railway Board was brought about much in the same way as the reforms we are now trying to bring about by this resolution-by petitions . from the farmers of this country, by the agitation of municipal bodies and the strong and earnest effort of members on this side of the House. When, under these circumstances, we are willing to accord to the government credit for the appointment of the board, surely that should be enough to allow these hon. members at least to follow their first and virgin determination and support the resolution.

Now, membership on this board, I admit, demands a high standard of qualification. I believe that the duties devolving upon the members of the Railway Board are of equal difficulty, in many respects, with those devolving upon the Supreme Court. A member of this board needs to be of Supreme Court calibre, perhaps not in legal attainments, but certainly in general mental qualification. But I am not one of those who believe or fear with the hon. member for members for Red Deed, Provencher, and Humboldt, that men of that calibre cannot be found in the ranks of our western farmers. There are men among these western farmers who are quite competent to fill the position if the government will make a choice among them. Believing that, knowing it as a matter of actual knowledge, I should be derelict in my duty did I not vote for this resolution. The hon. member for Humbolt strikes the key note when he says that a man familiar with western conditions will best be able to perform the duties. The hon. member for Red Deer states that we should know no class, no locality, in this matter. But he is a supporter of the government that has always followed the principle which has been recognized ever since confederation, that one member of the cabinet should come from this section and another from that. We only ask for the extension of that principle to the Railway Board. How can the hon. member for Red Deer logically support the one position if he is not prepared to support the other? What is the principle that is thus recognized? It is that a member from New Brunswick better understands New Brunswick conditions, that a member from British Columbia better understands the conditions of that province. Similarly, on the Board of Railway Commissioners a member who has had to do with railway conditions in a given province will better understand the needs of that province.
On that principle I support the resolution, which requires that one man at least should hold a seat on that board who understands the distinctive features of transportation in the western country. Now how can the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) support that feature of the resolution and fail to go further and support the feature which calls for the appointment of a farmer? If a man from New Brunswick, or a man from the west, for that matter, is better qualified to speak for the west, to legislate for the west,, why then is not a man who comes from the farm, and who has devoted twenty or thirty years to practical farming, not better qualified to speak for the farmer in the deliberations of that board? There is no logic whatever in the position taken by the hon. member for Humboldt. What we ask is that, other things being equal, a qualified farmer be appointed to Mr. MEIGHEN.
the board, on the principle that the farmers, so numerous in this country, have a right to be represented there. Now what are the problems that come up for decision on that board? A large proportion of them concern the farmers more directly than any other class of people. More than one-half of the time of that board is taken up with questions involving the interests of the farmers, on the one hand, and sometimes altogether. That board,since the death of Mr. Greenway, six months ago, has been without any man who understands class interests, and this resolution demands that that state of affairs be_ remedied by the selection of a farmer. Now the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) says also that the member for Souris proved too much, when he proved that a farmeT could better understand farming conditions than any other man, because he said, if that principle were .carried out, the farmers would not have elected the member for Souris, who is a doctor, to represent that constituency. Now surely a resolution like this demands more serious consideration than that at the hands of this House, it demands the exercise of some degree of reason. We all admit that conditions may not be equal in all cases, and that it would be possible for the constituency of Macdonald, or the constituency of Souris, to send a farmer to this House who would not make a desirable representative, but we are not prepared to admit that in sending the present members they are not sending the best men they can find. Now I desire to be understood, 1 would not for a moment advocate any appointment to the Board of Railway Commissioners which would lessen the efficiency of that board. I would not do anything to lessen the efficiency of that board, even at the demand of the Grain Growers' Association, or of any other hody of men, but I believe^ that a condition now exists in which the interests of the Grain Growers' Association, as well as of the municipalities and the farmers, can be consulted, and the efficiency of that board not be interfered with at all, and for that reason I shall support the resolution. And I further say that he who votes the other way at this time, acknowledging the immense interests as members have freely acknowledged, to be_ represented by the character of appointment aimed at, proclaims to his country and to his constituents by that vote, that in his opinion there is no practical western farmer qualified to measure for the office, and he must take the full responsibility for that position.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: Representing as I do a western constituency, and a constituency whose electors are for the most part farmers, I must necessarily take

an interest in this resolution. As a matter of fact, in nearly all western constituencies a majority of the electors are farmers; this being the case, the resolution before the House is one that we must necessarily consider from their standpoint. I must, however, express some surprise at seeing a resolution moved by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples), a representative of the Conservative party, calling upon the government to appoint a farmer to the Railway Commission. I have only to point out the fact that three of the Ministers of Agriculture under the Conservative government, were a brewer, a lawyer and a doctor.
I have no fault to find with those appointments, doubtless they were good appointments, but it does appear to me a little inconsistent for a Conservative member of parliament to move a resolution to force the government to appoint a western farmer on the Railway Commission. I think we ought to take a broader view of the resolution which is before' the House. So far as I can gather, hon. gentlemen opposite support this resolution for no other purpose than to make it apepar that they have the farmer's interests specially at heart, and they desire to gain a little political capital on that ground. That is a very narrow view to take of so important a question. If that is not the object of the hon. member for Macdonald, then the only other object he can have in view, it seems to me, is to force the government to appoint a man from his own constituency, which is a still more narrow view.
Now let us see what this resolution calls for. In the first place, it calls for an immediate appointment. Now, is there an immediate necessity for this appointment being made to the Railway Commission? I do not know whether any hon. gentleman opposite has any evidence that there is an immediate necessity for the appointment of another member of the Railway Commission, and unless there is such evidence, I think this House would be ill-advised in forcing the government to make an immediate appointment of any person. Let us see who compose at present the Board of Railway Commissioners. We have first of all, Mr. Justice Mabee, a gentleman of undoubted ability, and who stands as high perhaps in his profession as any other man in this country, a man thoroughly well equipped to deal with any question coming before that commission. Then we have Mr. Bernier, who was Minister of Inland Revenue in this government for some yeaTS, who was a farmer in the province of Quebec, and at the same time a notary public. Now if I understand the business of a notary, he is a man who has to do conveyancing and deal with other matters which bring him in close touch with the farmers. Then we have Dr. Mills, formerly principal of the Agricultural College at Guelph. Then 84
we have Mr. D'Arcy Scott, and Mr. S. J. Maclean, who helped to organize the Railway Commission in this country. So the farmers have already two representatives on that commission at the present time, and they are well represented by these two gentlemen. It is to be remembered that had it not been for the Liberal party coming into power in 1896, there would havfTBeen no necessity of bringing forward a resolution in this House to consider the appointment of a railway commissioner, for there would have been no Railway Commission in Canada. Prior to that time railway companies were allowed to do as they pleased. We had nothing but railway monopolies. Since that time conditions have been considerably alleviated owing to the foresight of this government and the administrative ability shown by the Railway Commission in dealing with railway problems.
The other side of this resolution deals with the appointment of a western farmer to the Railway Commission. We must all admit that we are dependent upon the farmers. Several hon. gentlemen have said so during this debate and there is no use of disputing that fact. The farming community represents a very much larger amount of capital than any other industry in Canada and it is the most important class as far as the production of material wealth is concerned. But, let us see where these appointments came from considering the connection of the word ' western ' with the resolution. Of the five representatives upon the Railway Commission four are from the province of Ontario and one from the province of Quebec. Members from the maritime provinces have just as good a right to move a resolution advocating the appointment immediately of some man from the maritime provinces as we who come from the west have. I think that we are all too much inclined, not excepting the members from Saskatchewan, to adopt a policy of sectionalism and provincialism when we are advocating any principle in this House. If a resolution is introduced you will find certain members from one province speaking upon it, when another resolution is introduced it will be discussed by another set of members, whereas we ought to approach these questions in a broad, national spirit and keep in view the interests of Canada as a whole. If we would devote our time to the consideration of large Canadian questions and forget that we are citizens of Saskatchewan or of Manitoba remembering that we are dealing with the affairs of a great country and are interested in building up a united national spirit, not forgetting our connection with the mother country, we would be doing something to promote the welfare of Canada as a whole. As far as the appointment of a farmer is concerned I do not care whether it is a farmer or a doctor or a lawyer,



a mercantile man or what kind of a business man it is as long as he is a man properly equipped to fill the position of Railway Commissioner if it is necessary to fill that position at the present time. I will say this however that in view of the importance of the transportation problem to western Canada-and it is the most important question in western Canada at the present time-and in view of the fact that possibly this question concerns western Canada more than it does any other portion of the Dominion, western Canada should be represented on the Railway Commission. I would urge upon the government the necessity, of- endeavouring, in filling that position, if it is to be filled at the present time, to appoint a western man. Since these are the views I have on this question I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher, that all the words after ' that ' in the resolution be struck out and that the following be substituted:
The duties of the Railway Commission are such as to demand the appointment of the most capable man available who is acquainted with western railway conditions.
I move this amendment to the resolution having the fullest confidence that the government will exercise a wise discretion in making the appointment to the Railway Commission, and that it will select the very best man available, a characteristic which it has so well exhibited in the past.


Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Mr. Speaker, at this very late hour I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House with any very lengthy argument.
I merely wish to put myself on record in connection with this matter and to express my regret that a representative of the great province of Saskatchewan should get up and argue against the terms of this resolution, which should commend themselves to every westerner and to every representative of the farming community. In regard to the amendment which has been proposed by my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. W. M. Martin) it is just as well that he did put that amendment before us in set terms, because I defy any member of this House to know what he was driving at in his speech. First, he argued that we ought not to ask that a westerner be appointed to the Railway Commission. He argues that we should do away with all sectionalism, and then he gets up a moment later and moves an amendment to the effect that the man who is to be appointed to the board should be acquainted with western railway conditions. Let me point out also that the hon. gentlemen who have spoken from that side of the House are very much divided in their opinions as to what are the necessities of the case in connection with this appointment. Two or three of them have argued that the appointment


William Melville Martin: should be made immediately. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) said that the one thing that he wanted was that the appointment should be made at once, and others have asked that it should be made immediately. Now, we have the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment taking the ground that there is no necessity for an immediate appointment to the board, and other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have also taken the same ground. I promised that I would not take up any length of time in debating this question at this late hour. I would like to put myself on record in this way: I believe, first of all, that the board should have a man thoroughly acquainted with western conditions. Western conditions are certainly very dissimilar in a great many respects from eastern conditions. Secondly, granted that the new member for that board should be a westerner, and my hon. friend opposite apparently now considers that he ought to be a westerner, then I consider that the man who would be most in sympathy with western conditions and needs would be a farmer of the west. Man for man I suppose that the farmers of the west come into more immediate contact with the railway companies than persons belonging to any other part of the Dominion. Farmers ship their own wheat, order their own cars and come into actual communication and business nego-* tiations with the railway companies. They understand the immense difficulties that they are up against in the shipment of their wheat. They know what delays to their cars mean, they know what the difficulties are in getting the right kind of cars, they know the difficulties in the way with regard to the weighing of their grain and they are familiar with all other questions in connection with the shipment of their wheat. Only the farmers, I contend, can look at these questions from the farmer's point of view. It has been said over and over again in this House this evening that the farmers are very important members of the community and should carry very great weight in it. They are entitled to more representation than they have at the present time. We have heard a very able speech this afternoon upon the question of proportional representation. I regret to say that in the nature of things the farmers are unable to get proportional representation in this House, but hon. gentlemen opposite could very well give them proportional representation in the administration of the affairs of this country and particularly I think the government could give them proportional representation by placing one representative farmer from the west on the Railway Board. I trust they will reconsider their decision and that they will vote in favour of the motion proposed by my hon. friend from Macdonald declaring that the

appointment to the Railway Commission should be made immediately, that the person to be appointed should be a western man and a practical farmer.


Mr. M. S. SCHELL (South Oxford).: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on the resolution that is before the House. I had no intention of speaking when the discussion opened but because of some remarks made by the mover of the resolution and one or two of those who followed him in reference to the government's action and policy in regard to transportation matters I feel constrained to make a few remarks.
Dealing with the resolution first, I do not think there is a member who would not agree that the legislation which was enacted by this government in the constitution of a board of Railway Commissioners, has been the most important piece of legislation in the interest of the Dominion of Canada that has ever been put upon the statute-books. The commission have justified that statement by the work they have accomplished during the few short years they have been constituted as a board. The men who, have been appointed from time to time, have been in every way eminently fitted for the position. Words of appreciation have been given from time to time by our friends on the other side of the House as to the personnel of the commission, and I cannot recall any adverse criticism in connection with the appointments to that board. I find from to-day's papers that two members of the Board of Commissioners have been through western Canada to the Pacific coast dealing with disputed questions and out of 333 cases that have come before them they have settled at least 90 per cent promptly and satisfactorily. The few that have not been dealt with are held over for expert information in order that the board may arrive at a proper conclusion. As to the immediate appointment of a commissioner I think the government know best whether there is need for one being appointed at once or not, and I favour the amendment that has been moved, to leave the appointment in the hands of the government to deal with when they consider that the appointment is opportune or necessary. As to whether the appointee should be a farmer or not, I am glad to hear so many members anxious to qualify themselves as farmers; doctors and lawyers seem to vie with each other in giving the impression in the House that they are farmers, or if not they would like to he. It is a good omen, it is at least an appreciation of the good work that is being done by the agricultural industry of Canada. The work accomplished by the Minister of Agriculture during his twelve years of office has conduced very materially to the high position of the agriculturist in Canada to-day.
An attempt has been made to criticise the 84i
policy of the government in connection with cold storage. The member for South Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart) claimed that cold storage was established before 1896. It was spoken of then but I do not know of anything practical being; done by the government prior to 1896 towards the establishment of cold storage on cars or steamships.


Mr. BRODER.: The hon. gentleman is not correct; cold storage was installed on two railways and on a number of steamships before this government came into power.


Malcolm Smith Schell: The Conservative government did what they could to induce the steamship companies to instal a cold storage system but in 1897 the present Minister of Agriculture entered into an arrangement with the Allan line to equip two or three of their steamers with cold storage plants, giving a subsidy, and the system proved so satisfactory and necessary that other steamship lines were compelled to introduce a similar system without any assistance from the government. The opposition claim some credit that prior to 1896 the government undertook to supervise or instal a system of cold storage on steamships plying to European ports.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SHEARER.: The hon. member will not forget that the question before us is an appointment to the Railway Commission. Of course I have allowed considerable latitude because the subject has a bearing on agriculture but to go back to 1896 would be rather an infringement.


Malcolm Smith Schell: I entirely appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker. I felt the discussion was irrelevant when it was introduced by the mover of the resolution and one or two who followed him. The member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) made practically all his speech in criticism of the government system of cold storage.


Mr. BARKER.: I rise to a point of order. You ruled, I think, that the gentleman is out of order. At this time of the night 1 do not think that should be persisted in.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The time of night has nothing to do with it. A speech on any specific question having no relevancy to the motion would be out of order but an allusion to such a subject would not.


Malcolm Smith Schell: With a due appreciation of the form the debate has taken I shall not detain you with more than one or two statements. If hon. gentlemen do not care to hear them I suppose it is an evidence that they feel the cause of the opposition is not very good, that their position is not sound. The results of the system of cold storage that has been introduced-


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: Order.


Malcolm Smith Schell: -are so apparent and important that the exports of this country have increased in a wonderful ratio.


Richard Stuart Lake: I rise to a point of order. The words of the amendment read:
That the duties of the Railway Commission are such as to demand the appointment of the most capable man available who is acquainted with western railway conditions.
I appeal to you, Sir, that the hon. gentleman is not in order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman must confine himself to the amendment.


Malcolm Smith Schell: I certainly will do so; I appreciate the point of order thoroughly. I believe that the same judgment, the same discernment, the same appreciation of the needs of this country, that the government had when they provided for a Board of Railway Commissioners, will continue to actuate them in dealing with this appointment. I believe that the government appreciates the needs of the great western part of this Dominion as well as the eastern part. The west is great; I do not know that it is any greater than the eastern part of the Dominion; but we appreciate it as fully as anybody can possibly do; and I believe that the government, in the appointment they will make, will consider not the agricultural interests alone, as the resolution specifies, but the interest of the people of this Dominion as a whole. If they can find a farmer in every way qualified, I believe the government would as readily appoint him as a lawyer or a doctor or a business man or a journalist, or any one else. I support heartily the amendment to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Regina.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: I do not intend to weary the House at this time of the night with more than one or two observations. The two points that have come up in this debate are whether the new commissioner should be from the west, and whether he should be a man who has a practical acquaintance with that great business which is the basis of Canadian prosperity, namely, agriculture. As far as I have followed the discussion up to the present time, I do not think there is much dispute in the minds of hon. gentlemen of the proposition that it is extremely desirable that the new commissioner should be a man from the west, and one who is thoroughly acquainted with western conditions. That is true, from the fact that the late commissioner, whose demise we all deplore, the Hon. Thomas Greenway, was essentially a western man. When we consider the vast and growing progress of the west, we must realize the importance of having a western


Malcolm Smith Schell: man appointed to the vacancy. The mover of this resolution spoke of the desirability of having a practical farmer appointed. I have no doubt that he has conceived his resolution in the broadest spirit, and meant to include the great sister industry of horticulture. I speak of this more particularly for this reason, that although it is true that in this country horticulture is a subsidiary industry to that of grain growing, it is an immensely important one, far more important than most men in the west realize. I may say that ten acres in fruit will produce as much transportation as 100 acres in grain, and the day is not far distant when the fruit industry of the west will be one of enormous interest to the Railway Commission. I am sure that my hon. friend who moved this resolution will understand that I assent to it because I believe it to be broad enough to include both horticulture and grain growing.


William D. Staples: That was the intention.


Martin Burrell: Now, I do not want to be behind any hon. gentleman, on either side of the House, in expressing the approval we in the west all feel of the creation of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I have always said, in every campaign in which I have taken any part against the piesent government or its representatives, that the creation of that board was one of the best things the present government ever did. Three years ago, when I had the honour of representing the province of British Columbia at a fruit conference in Ottawa, I was asked to represent that province in an interview with the Prime Minister to request him to have put under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners the great express companies which have so much important work to do in carrying our fruit products; and it was satisfactory to us to find that the government enlarged the jurisdiction of the commission to embrace those companies. I am perfectly sure, therefore, that any man who is largely concerned in horticulture would be as anxious to carry out the aims of the wheat growers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as any man on their part would concern himself with our problems in connection with the transportation of fruit. I am going to support the resolution, because the mover of the amendment simply asks for the appointment of a man who understands the railway conditions of the west; and having been connected for a quarter of a century with agriculture and horticulture, I think that this resolution fills a need that the amendment does not fill, because it directly connects the vacant commission-ership with land products and the shipment of land products. I can only say in closing that I hope the government, in making this appointment, will appoint a western man who is directly and largely interested in the raising of either grain or

fruit and its transportation, and that they will make it as soon as possible.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, lest my silence might be misunderstood, I think that I should say a few words on this question. The country is divided into very many classes. We have merchants, bankers, mechanics, artisans, farmers. You cannot fool any of these classes very long at a time; and when we attempt to make a certain distinction in selecting men for certain positions, the duties of which are applicable to all classes, I am inclined to think that the class to which we appeal will not take it seriously. What the farmers want is somebody on the board who will see that they get their products carried at a fair rate. Outside of those who would be willing to accept the duties of such an office, and their friends and others who might be interested in their welfare, the great mass of the farmers, as everybody else, want a man on this board who will see that they get fair play in the carrying of their products, both as to price and as to speed, and they are not particular whether the man appointed to this office is a farmer or not. Naturally, like the rest of us, just as journalists are pleased when a man in their ranks is appointed to a certain position, so are the farmers. I could get a petition from all the journalists of Canada asking for the appointment of a journalist to a certain position. I had representations from the telegraphers that, as they were well versed in the running of railways, they ought to have a man on this board. 1 have been asked time and again by gentlemen representing the commerical travellers to place one of their number on this board, as they not only travel more than any other class, but are interested in having freight rates right, because the quantity of orders they get depends largely on the transportation afforded for the goods they sell. The railway engineers asked me to put one of their number on the board, as they understood everything connected with the running of trains, and the services of such a man would be very valuable.
Every class is interested in this transportation problem, and I am not objecting at all to the farmers urging that one of their class should be appointed. We all would like to see men in the same walks of life as ourselves put in these responsible positions; but the main duty of the government is to see that the man placed in such a position is one who will fulfil its duties ably and impartially, regardless of class or section. If we are selecting a jury to try a case brought by a merchant before a court, n.o one would think of insisting that we must have merchants on the jury. What we want is men who will give the case a fair trial without regard to class.
It is a mistake to think that this board is to be composed of men who are to act in the sense of pleaders or advocates for any particular interest in the community. On the contrary they are to hear the representations of all and give fair play to all. The arguments advanced by some hon. gentlemen in favour of the resolution are the strongest against it. If a farmer is to be appointed and he is to act, as they insinuate he ought to act, in the interest of the farmers alone, he is not fit to be on the board and ought not to get the position, because he would be simply there as an advocate of the farmers' interests. Every member of the board is supposed to hear the cases that come before him and adjudicate fairly between farmers, railway men, merchants, shippers and others. He is supposed to find out the right thing to do and do it regardless of any particular interests and not act as the advocate of any particular class. The moment he takes the latter course, he ceases to be an independent member of the board and might as well be engaged as a solicitor to plead the cases that come before the board.
Just one more remark before I get through. It has been argued that only a small amount of money has been given to benefit the farmers, but the hon. gentleman who made that argument answered it in five minutes, because he pointed out, as a reason why a farmer should go on the board, that the farmers are the greatest customers of the railways. Well, if they are the greatest customers of the railways every dollar spent in aiding a railway to carry their produce to market gives them more benefit than any other class. Consequently the $450,000,000 given to aid railways and solve the transportation problem have been given to the largest extent to the farming community. This is not a one man commission. It is not a commission with any .one idea. What we want is a board that will do its work well and treat all with equal impartiality ; and I submit, notwithstanding what has been said that the Board of Railway Commissioners is one which has been filling the requisite. If this vacancy is to be filled, it must be filled by some one, no matter to what class he belongs, who will see that every one who comes before the commission shall be fairly dealt with, just as fairly as if he were acting as the sole commissioner. But if the contention of hon. gentlemen who favour the resolution before the House were to be carried out, he would give his decisions	always in favour of his
own class. The first requisite of every member of this Board of Railway Commissioners must be that he will be a man who will act with even justice; and unless such justice rules in the findings of that body it

will soon lose public confidence. I am not adverse to having a western man on that commission. If_we were to apply to that board the principle which is theoretically right, we would select the best man regardless of anything else but his qualifications for the position. But the same argument would apply to other positions. The theory is a good one but we do not carry it out in practice. The west has great interests, the traffic from the west across our railways is most important, and I fully believe-and am not backward in asserting my belief-that when this position comes to be filled, everything else being equal, the man who fills it ought to come from that part of Canada. But I do object to having parliament nail us down in our selection to any place or class because that might impair the efficiency of the board, and as a member of the government and responsible to the people, I.am not prepared to do that.


Andrew Broder: Ido not rise to discuss the question as to who should be put on the railway board, but wish to correct the statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Schell), with regard to cold storage.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The discussion of cold storage is not relevant to the question before the House.


Andrew Broder: I merely wish to answer a question put by the hon. member who asked when the cold storage system had been inaugurated. In the sessional papers of 1896, vol. 29, No. 5, I find in the report of the Minister of Agriculture of 1895. sessional paper No. 8, in which appears the following paragraph:
This action was followed by the inaugura-ton of the cold storage service, in which arrangements were made whereby refrigerator cars for butter were run during the summer on the main lines of railways leading into Montreal. These were used to pick up small lots of butter offered weekly. The shippers of butter by these cars and routes, were allowed to ship at the usual ' less than carload rates ' without any charge for the icing or special service
Ten steamships were fitted up; 35,605 packages of butter were carried in isolated compartments.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: In what state was that butter landed?


Andrew Broder: It was shipped to England and landed in good condition.


John Herron: I merely rise to put myself on record in favour of the motion moved by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples). Just a word with reference to a remark of the Minister of Railways. He said that a number of jour-Mr. GRAHAM.
nalists or merchants would not be likely to call in farmers to adjudicate.


George Perry Graham: I made no such statement or anything near it.


John Herron: Let me illustrate my point another way. Suippose ,a dispute arose between journalists or lawyers or manufacturers, would they be likely to call in a number of farmers to settle them? Is not this a case where practical farmers are required? The interests of the western farmers have attained such an extent today that they should be represented on the Board of Railway Commissioners, and for that reason I shall support the resolution. I am much surprised at the attitude taken by a number of western men, particularly at the action taken by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) in moving an amendment in order to side track this very important resolution. I cannot understand why members from the prairie section should oppose the placing of a practical farmer on this Railway Board.


John Allister Currie: I shall detain the House but a moment in order to point out the significance of the amendment. The amendment says that the man to be appointed should be one well acquainted with western railway conditions. I think that the House would have adopted the amendment without question had the word 'railway' been changed to 'farming.' The hon. Minister of Railways has said that wa should not narrow down this question to any particular class. But, as a matter of fact this amendment narrows it to some railway man. I cannot see it in any other light. I do not wish to cast a silent vote, for I think that whoever is appointed should be thoroughly familiar with the farming conditions of the west. The railway conditions are only a part of this question and for that reason I think it in the interest of the commission that whoever is appointed should be as well versed in farming conditions as in railway conditions.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps I may be allowed to make a suggestion. It might meet the difficulty if we were to change it to 'transportation.'


Haughton Lennox: It will take a lot of changing


George Perry Graham: It's all right; I was changing for the benefit of hon. members opposite, not for myself.
House divided on amendment (Mr. W. M. Martin.)
YEAS:
Messieurs
Allen,	MoCraney,
Beauparlant.	McGiverin,
Beland.	Molntyre (Perth),

Boyer,	McKenzie.
Brodeur,	MoLean (Sunbury),
Brown,	McMillan.
Calvert,	Marcile (Bagot),
Carrier,	Martin (Montreal. St.
Carvell,	Mary's),
Cash,	Martin (Regina).
Chisholm (Inverness),	Mayrand.
Clark (Red Deer),	Meigs.
Clarke (Essex),	Michaud,
Congdon,	Mollov.
Conmee,	Murphy.
Currie (Prince Ewd.),	Nesbitt.
Delisle.	Neely.
Demers,	Oliver.
Dubeau.	Papineau,
Dugas,	Parent,
Ecrement,	Pickup.
Emmerson,	Proulx.
Ethier,	Prowse.
Fielding,	Pugsley,
Fisher.	Rankin.
Fowke.	Reid (Restigouohe).
Gauvreau.	Richards,
Geoffrion,	Robb.
German.	Rov (Montmagny).
Gervais.	Rutan.
Graham.	Savoie.
Hartv.	Schell.
Hodgins.	Seguin,
Hunt.	Sinclair.
Kyte.	Smith (Middlesex).
Lachance.	Smith (Stormont),
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Talbot.
Napierville).	Templeman,
Lanctot (Richelieu).	Tobin.
Lapointe.	Tolmie,
Lavergne,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
LeBlano,	Turcotte (Quebeo
Loggie.	County),
Lovell,	Turgeon.
Low.	Verville.
Maclean (Lunenburg), Warburton,	
MaoNutt.	White (Victoria, Alta),
MoAlister.	Wilson (Laval).-91.
McColl.	
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Borden (Halifax),
Borden (Sir Fredk.),	Sproule,
Macdonald,	Lancaster.
Gordon (Kent),	Henderson.
Lemieux.	Haggart (Lanark),
Stratton.	Gordon (Nipissing),
Sifton,	Foster,
Sutherland,	Cowan.
Guthrie,	Maclean (York, S.),
Bickerdike,	Elson,
Pardee.	Clare,
Smith (Nanaimo).	Macdonell,
Black.	Osier,
McIntyre (Strathcona).MoCarthy.	
Law,	Wright.
Martin (Wellington).	Crocket.
Knowles,	Worthington,
McCoig.	Bristol,
Fortier.	Lortie,
Girard.	Forget,
Miller,	Lalor.
Devlin,	Arthurs.
Champagne,	Crothers.
Roy (Dorchester),	Donnelly.
MoLean (Huron),	Magrath,
Paterson.	Prioe,
Sealey,	Smyth.
Chew,	Middlebro,
Todd,	Lewis.
Harris.	Beattie.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and motion as amended agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: On a motion to go into Supply, the Minister of Railways will make a statement concerning railways, and proceed with his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1 o'clock a.m. Tuesday.
Ames.
Armstrong,
Barker,
Barnard.
Barr.
Blain.
Blondin.
Boyce.
Bradbury,
Broder.
Burrell.
Campbell. * Chisholm (Huron), Crosby.
Currie (Simooe). Daniel.
Doherty.
Edwards.
Fraser.
Goodeve.
Haggart (Winnipeg). Herron.
Hughes,
Jameson,
Kidd.
Lake.
Lennox.
Maddin,
Marshall.
Meighen,
Monk.
Nantel.
Northrup.
Owen.
Paquet.
Perley,
Reid (Grenville). Rhodes.
Roche,
Russell,
Sohaffner,
Sexsmith.
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Stanfield,
Staples.
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster),
Thoburn,
Thornton.
Wallace.
White (Renfrew). Wilson (Lennox and Addington).-54.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 16, 1909.