COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Borden, it was ordered that the House go into committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Conservation Act, and to provide for the appointment of an officer as assistant to thet chairman and secretary to the commission, who shall have the rank and salary of a deputy head of a department.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PERLEY moved that the House do on Monday next go into Committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 27, of the statutes of 1912, and to provide that whenever application is made to the Board of Grain Commissioners for the appointment of an inspecting officer or weighmaster, or both, at a place which is not a terminal point or a regular inspection point, the board, if satisfied that such an arrangement should he made and that the applicant is a responsible person, may order such arrangement as it deems proper, on condition that, besides the fees payable, the excess, if any, of the cost of carrying out such arrangement over the amount of such fees, shall be paid by the applicant in such manner and at such times as the board may determine; and that the provisions as to the inspection and weighing of grain, and as to the appointment of inspectors and weigh-masters, and of any rules and regulations made under the said provisions, shall apply at every place with respect to which such an arrangement has been made; and also that the annual license fee payable by the proprietor, lessee or manager of any terminal elevator, shall be twenty-five dollars; the annual license fee payable by the owner of an eleva-
[Stage Direction]
tor engaged dn the manufacture of grain products in the western division, shall be five dollars; the annual license fee payable by the owner or lessee of a country elevator, shall be five dollars; the annual license fee payable by an applicant 'to carry on the business of grain commission merchant in the western division, shall be five dollars; and the annual license fee payable by any person to carry on, the business of a truck buyer, shall be five dollars.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I am under
the impression that we passed that motion some days ago.


Mr. BORDEN:: Practically the same.


Mr. PERLEY:: The resolution passed the other day contained references to the Bill that came from the Senate. I spoke to His Honour the Speaker on the subject and he thought that the simplest way out of a technical difficulty would be to reintroduce the resolution. That we are now doing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. BENNETT (Calgary):: I observe in
the newspapers opposed to the Government in western Canada a statement which is now reproduced in the Globe of Tuesday, the 29th, as follows:
It is now understood that the situation is made still worse for the Government by a direct intimation from the Admiralty suggesting that, for the present at least, it will not be well to force the Bill through Parliament.	i
I should like to ask the Government whether there is any truth in any such statement as that because it is rather important, in view of representations that have been made in various newspapers, that the exact situation should he known.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Which Bill is that?


Mr. BENNETT:: The Bill referred to is
the Naval Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: There is absolutely no
foundation for any such statement. No intimation of the kind has been received nor has there "been the slightest suggestion of any such character.



WESTERN FREIGHT RATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina) asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the urgent necessity that the investigation of western freight rates now pending before the Railway Commission should be proceeded with at once so that the unjust burden under which the people Mr. PERLEY.
of western Canada are labouring should be removed without delay.
And leave having been granted:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have no particular apology to offer for bringing this matter before the House at this time. It is a matter which should have been brought before the House and the Government at an earlier date; but owing to the fact that we have had a very prolonged session dealing for the greater part of the time with the Naval Bill, I have not had an opportunity of bringing it to the attention of the House before to-day. This question, as we all know, is of great importance to the people of western Canada. All the representatives in this House from the western provinces know that there is scarcely a question in regard to which more time is devoted in the West or of which more is said than this question of freight rates. It is not my intention to go into details to show that western freight rates are higher than eastern freight rates or to take up time by going into figures. As I said, my main excuse for bringing the matter to the attention of the House at this juncture is the vast importance of the question to the people of western Canada. I have other reasons, one being that statements have been published in certain newspapers to the effect that the Government of Saskatchewan or the Government of Alberta or both have asked their representative before the Railway Commission, Mr. M. K. Cowan, of Toronto, not to facilitate the investigation. I wish to place before the House a statement by Mr. Cowan contained in a newspaper very recently showing that this report is without foundation. I find in the Winnipeg Free Press, of April 18, in a despatch from Ottawa, this .statement:
In order apparently to detract attention from the dallying of 'the Dominion counsel a rumour has been circulated by certain Government members of the House here to the effect that Saskatchewan and Alberta have witliddrawn their counsel from the case. Upon this rumour being brought to the attention of M. IC. Cowan, who was at the capital a few days ago, Mr. Cowan stated that he. had heard of no such rumour, and that there were no reasonable grounds upon .which to base such a rumour so far as Alberta and Saskatchewan were concerned. ' If there is nny such, rumour,^ h© started, it is hbso-lutely false and untrue. The only instructions I have is to pursue the same course in the future as I have done, and that is to do my best to get relief from the burden of unjust freight rates under which Alberta and Saskatchewan are unjustly suffering.'
That I think should dispose of the statement that has been circulated in some newspapers to the effect that Saskatchewan and Alberta were not anxious to proceed with the investigation before the Railway

Commission. Another reason which I have for bringing the matter to the attention of the Government at the present time is that after an examination of some of the records of evidence that has been given before the Railway Commission, I am satisfied that there has been undue delay in the conduct of this investigation. Since April 16, 1912, when the Railway Commission in accordance with the provision contained in section 77 of the Railway Act, and on the ground that Mr. Cowan, acting on behalf of Saskatchewan and Alberta, had made out a case of discrimination in favour of eastern Canada as against western Canada, ruled that it was necessary for the railway companies to justify their freight rates, over a year has elapsed, and nothing has been done by the counsel representing the Dominion Government or by the railway companies. Although two or three meetings have been held since that time, at which evidence was taken, so far as arriving at any result is concerned, practically nothing has been done since April 16, 1912. That is the main reason I have for bringing this matter to the attention of the House to-day.
Without going into details, I believe that the removal of the unjust freight rates in western Canada would to a great extent alleviate the conditions under which the people of that country labour at the present time. We in western Canada know that the past year and the present year up to date, have not been very successful years in that part of the Dominion. I am not here to say that western Canada is not a good country; I believe it is one of the best countries in the world. At the same time the people of western Canada to-day are not enjoying such good conditions as perhaps some men in eastern Canada think, and that is due in part to the unjust freight rates which we have to pay in that country. They are also partially due to the shortage of the crop in 1912. That crop did not turn out to anything like the extent that was anticipated in the early part of the season of last year. The present conditions are also due partially to the shortage of farm labour. Every man who comes from western Canada knows that last year, in particular, it was almost impossible to get farm labour to harvest the crop. It was a very common thing in the district from which I come to pay $4, $4.50 and even $5 a day for an ordinary farm laborer. Another reason is the difficulty of getting grain shipped. I have seen it stated in some newspapers that the conditions which existed in western Canada last year, in regard to the shipment of grain, were better than those which had prevailed in 1911. Owing to the better weather conditions, I believe there was an improvement in the shipment of western grain during 1912-13, as compared with 1911-12, and 1910-11. At the same time I make this
statement, and I can substantiate it by figures, that at every point in Western Canada, outside of the competitive railway points, there was a shortage of cars during the fall of 1912 and the spring of 1913. Another matter which has contributed to the conditions in western Canada to-day is the low price of grain. I speak from personal experience when I say that I have seen wheat that was selling in Ontario for ninety to ninety-five cents per bushel, selling for from fifty to fifty-five cents a bushel in Western Canada. It may be said that the Ontario grade was better than the western grade and I am not in__ a position to compare them, but taking the same grade there was a difference of between forty and forty-five cents in the markets of eastern Canada compared with the price in the markets of western Canada during the past year. Another thing which has contributed to the conditions in western Canada, and this is where the freight rates again come in, is the high prices we pay for every commodity in western Canada. Take the price of cement for instance. In Ontario it was selling for $1.20 per barrel, while in Regina it was $3.25 per barrel, and I am told that the difference of $1.80 was due to the freight rates on the shipments from the East to the West. However, these are not matters with which I intend to deal to-day.
The question which was placed before the Railway Commission in the fall of 1911, was that of discriminating freight rates in the West as compared with the freight rates in eastern Canada, not on shipments coming in or going out, but in regard to the local freight rates in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as compared with the local freight rates in Ontario and Quebec. In the fall of 1911 or in the early part of 1912 the Railway Commission conducted an investigation into the western freight rates. That investigation was undertaken as the result of many representations which had been made to the Railway Commission by boards of Trade in western Canada, and- also by members of Parliament from western Canada and, I believe, by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). As the result of these representations, and having had from one hundred to two hundred complaints presented to them from western Canada, the Railway Commission ordered an investigation into the western freight rates, and the Dominion Government appointed counsel to represent the people of Canada in the investigation. The onus of carrying on that investigation before the Railway Commission rests upon the Dominion Government counsel, and if the Dominion Government counsel are not forcing it in the way they should, in order to get a decision within a reasonable time, the responsibility rests upon this Government. All the Min-
[Stage Direction]
ister of Railways and the Government have to do to-day is to instruct the counsel whom they have employed, and who are the servants of the people, to get the Railway Commission to fix a date when the investigation must go on, for, as affairs stand at the present time, as I shall show from the records of the proceedings before the Railway Commission, no date has been fixed for the resumption of the investigation since January of the present year. A period of four or five months have elapsed since anything was done, and I submit it is the duty of the Dominion Government counsel, who are in charge of this investigation, because the counsel for Saskatchewan and Alberta are not in charge, being there simply by the courtesy of the Railway Commission, to instruct the Dominion counsel to have the investigation completed, and to insist that the railway companies should justify the discriminating rates that exist in western Canada pursuant to the order of the late Mr. Justice Mabee made on April 16, 1912, when he stated that a sufficient case had been made out by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta to shift the onus on to the railway companies. Up to the present time the railway companies have not justified those rates.
I want to give the House a very short history of what has taken place before the Railway Commission. The first meeting of the commission to investigate those western freight rates was held in the city of Ottawa on February 13, 1912. The meeting was adjourned for a period of one week to enable Mr. H. W. Whitla, of Winnipeg, who had been retained as counsel for the Dominion of Canada, to make demands for information from the various railway companies. That was all that was done on that occasion. On February 20, 1912, the Railway Commission met again, and the session was enlarged again until March 8 to enable counsel for the railways to ascertain what material covered by the demand of Mr. Whitla they would be able to produce, to state to the board what material they could produce, and to formulate their objections to certain of the demands made by Mr. Whitla. I find by the records of the Railway Commission that at this meeting Mr. Whitla represented the Dominion Government, and he had associated with him Mr. Du-Vernet, of Toronto, and Mr. Morrison, of Vegreville. Mr. DuVernet withdrew, and in his place Mr. James Bicknell, of Toronto was appointed. At a meeting of March 18, Mr. James Bicknell and Mr. H. W. Whitla and Mr. F. A. Morrison appeared as counsel for the Dominion Government, and the records also indicate that Mr. M. K. Cowan, of Toronto, appeared as counsel for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, with the consent of the Rail-Mr. MARTIN (Retina).
way Commission. The case was then adjourned until April 16,	1912, on which
date it was intimated by counsel representing the Dominion Government they would be ready to go on. On March 8, 1912, counsel representing the Dominion Government said they would be able to go on within a period of four or five weeks. The meeting of April 16, 1912, was the most important one that has yet been held by the Railway Commission in connection with this matter. I wish to point out from the records what took place then because it was on that day and subsequent days that the evidence put in by Mr. Cowan, acting for Alberta and Saskatchewan, induced the Railway Commission to make an order that the railway companies must justify the discriminating rates in western Canada. For the purpose of making the record somewhat complete, I refer to whaJt took place on April 16. Mr. Whitla, counsel for the Dominion Government, said at page 4093:
Mr. Whitla: As I say, Mr. Chairman, the productions were only made within the last few days and it may be quite possible that the figures which have been given us and will be given us may have to be checked by competent men before we can accept them as
Hon. Mr. Mabee:	Are you asking for a
further enlargement?
Mr. Whitla:	X may be compelled to but I
would not say that, Mr. Chairman. I have no intimation from the railway companies when I may expect the first production, it may be within the nexit two or three diays. If I can get the further productions I may be ready to go on in a week.
On the 16th of April, the counsel for the Dominion Government were not ready to go on in spite of the fact that they had had three months in which to get the material ready. Mr. Whitla further said that it seemed that the only way in which to proceed was to fix a day so that the matter would not be left wide open. Then Mr. Mabee said: 'We have done that twice now.' Mr. Beatty, solicitor for the Canadian Pacific railway, stated that he had received on the third day of April a statement from Mr. Bicknell of what had been received from them. I quote:
Mr. Beatty states that he received on the 3rd of April a statement from Bicknell of what had been received from them.
Hon. Mr. Mabee: Then that has been in your hands two weeks?
Mr. Whitla:	No, a very small portion of
them. I had copies for perhaps two days before I left Winnipeg but they are so disconnected and they are picked out from all the demands so that we cannot institute any comparison, otherwise I would have been very pleased to have started to-day. Now that is our misfortune but not our fault.
From this statement of Mr. Whitla it is clearly shown that on the 16th of April,
*

1912, Mr. Whitla asserted before the Board of Railway Commissioners, in the presence of all the counsel, that they would have been pleased to have started that day if they had the figures from which they could make the comparison. That state of affairs on the 16th of April, 1912, is interesting, when it appears again on January 7, 1913, that Mr. Whitla and Mr< Bicknell were still not ready to proceed with this investigation. I quote from the record, page 4096:
Hon. Mr. Malbee: This i.s ithe third time we have tried to get this started. How many more times must we come hack?
Mr. Whitla:	That is exactly what I am
anxious to find out.
Mr. Cowan:	I am anxious on behalf of
Alberta and Saskatchewan to proceed. I have some witnesses subpoenaed here to-day and I am prepared to proceed on behalf of these two provinces.
Hon. Mr. Mabee:	Very well, call your
witnesses.
A very peculiar thing took place when Mr. Cowan asked to be allowed to call his witnesses. Objection was then taken by counsel for the railway companies to Mr. Cowan being permitted to put in evidence on behalf of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the counsel for the railway companies was assisted in that position by Mr. Whitla, counsel for the Dominion Government, who said, amongst other things, at page 4099. This, mark you, Mr. Speaker, is the statement of Mr. Whitla, after the counsel for the railway companies had objected to Mr. Cowan being allowed to proceed:
It is to be considered whether it is advisable to receive evidence at this stage which may possibly be ill digested and not properly prepared for the purpose of an exhaustive investigation of this kind and which may afterwards either be removed from the files or evidence contradictory introduced. I do not know what Mr. Cowan intends to adduce, he has not given us any intimation, but at the same time as I said before, if the commission desires to take evidence now which can only be ' piece meal ' evidence we would welcome any assistance at this stage which the commission sees fit to take.
Hon. Mr. Mabee.- Now it was understood before as I thought that we were to have new evidence submitted to-day to get this inquiry under way and get it started. It was distinctly stated on a former occasion that the commencement of the inquiry need not be delayed until all the information, statistical and the like, had been compiled, but that the inquiry might proceed and we might get along as best we could with the information that came to hand and keep furnishing the members of the commission with additional statistics as they are compiled. It appears now that counsel representing the Government are not prepared to go on with the material that has been furnished, and they suggest that there should be some further delay. On the other hand, counsel represent- I
ing Alberta and Saskatchewan says that he is here ready with witnesses. If seems to me the manifest duty of the commission is to hear these witnesses. . .
Then at page 4101 I quote:
Hon. Mir. Mabee: It does not make any difference whether some evidence is given to-day and some next week or whether the evidence that is given to-day is contradicted later on. I think there is no doubt at all that we should go on with the inquiry and get something done.
As a result of the decision given by the commission, Mr. Cowan, lep resen ting the two provinces, was allowed to put in certain evidence, and he immediately proceeded on the 16th of April to call three witnesses, namely:	W. R. Mclnnes, general freight traffic manager of the Canadian Pacific railway; J. D. Aiundel, general superintendent of the Ontario division of the Canadian Pacific railway, and George H. Shaw, general traffic manager of the Canadian Northern railway. Let me give briefly what counsel, representing the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, was able to establish out of the mouths of these tiaffic experts of the railway companies before the Board of Railway Commissioners. I shall not go into details, but I shall put in succinct form what was actually proven by the evidence of the railway officials tnemselves: In the first place it was proven that freight rates charged by railway companies west of Port Arthur were from twenty-five per cent to one hundred percent higher than the rates charged in Ontario and Quebec; in the second place it was proven from the records of the Canadian Pacific railway that the actual cost of hauling one thousand tons of freight one mile was less in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, than in Ontario and Quebec; in the third place it was proven that the cost of maintenance of lines in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta was $400 less per mile than in Ontario and Quebec; in the fourth place it was proven that the actual transportation expenses were $434 less per mile of road in Saskatchewan and Alberta than in the eastern division of the Canadian Pacific railway; in the fifth place it was proven that taking the total of all operating expenses it costs $863 less per mile to operate railways in Saskatchewan and Alberta than in Ontario and Quebec; and in the sixth place it was proven that the density of traffic was twenty-nine per cent greater in Manitoba and sixteen per cent greater in Saskatchewan and Alberta than in' Ontario and Quebec.
In view of such facts being established, it is very difficult for a man who perhaps does not understand much about railroading to see what possible defence the railway companies could have to the fact that freight rates are so much higher in western
[Stage Direction]
than in eastern Canada. I refer to section 77 of the Railway Act:
Whenever it is shown that any company charges one person, company, or class of persons, or the persons in any district, lower tolls for the same or similar goods, or lower tolls for the same or similar services, than it charges to other persons, companies, or classes of persons, or to the persons in another district, or makes any difference in treatment in respect of such companies or persons, the burden of proving that such lower toll or difference in treatment, does not amount to an undue preference or an unjust discrimination shall lie on the company.
On the 16th of April the Railway Commission took advantage of this provision and ordered that the onus of justifying these discriminatory freight rates was upon the railway company. In spite of that fact, three prominent lawyers of this country, acting on behalf of the Dominion Government have, according to the records of the Railway Commission, done practically nothing up to the present time to further this investigation. What is the reason ? I have seen rather ugly rumours in the newspapers as to the connection of some of these Dominion Government counsel with some other institutions in this country. I do not wish to refer to those matters to-day. Members of the Government have also seen the reports. If the people of Canada are to have any confidence in this Government and in our Railway Commission, something must be done to further the investigation which has now been pending before the commission for a year and a half with no result to the people of western Canada.
The meeting of April 16, 1912, was the most important meeting held on this question. A further meeting was held in Toronto on May 1, 1912, at which the Dominion Government counsel did the only thing which they have done in connection with this investigation. They filed certain exhibits which they got printed in the city of Winnipeg. On May 1, Mr. James Bicknell and Mr. H. W. Whitla were able to do this. These exhibits did not give any new information to the commission; they were merely supplementary to the exhibits already filed by counsel for the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Another meeting was held on May 21, 1912, and nothing was done. At that meeting Mr. Cowan, when asked as to whether or not he was ready to go on, said that he was ready to go on at any time. On June 18, another meeting of the commission was held at which this matter was mentioned. I wish it to be understood that I am not criticising the action of the Railway Commission, because the men who have charge of the investigation are the counsel for the Dominion Government. I believe the men on the Rail-Mr. MARTIN (Regina).
way Commission are the best men that we have in Canada. At a meeting of June 18, 1912, after the order had been made by the Railway Commission shifting the onus of proof on to the railway companies of justifying these discriminatory freight rates, what do you suppose that Mr. Jaimes Bicknell did? He asked the Railway Commission to hold meetings throughout the western provinces in order to see what the people might have to say about the freight rates. The Railway Commission said they would do that, in spite of the fact that they had all the evidence before them and that it had been amply established by evidence of railway officials that freight rates were 25 to 175 per cent higher than in eastern Canada. The Railway Commission went into western Canada for a period of three weeks and held meetings at the following places) Fort William, Winnipeg, Moosejaw, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and Victoria. I venture to say that the Railway Commission had filed with them between 150 and 200 complaints with respect to the these freight rates at that time. A further meeting was held on October 7, 1912, at which the railway companies commenced to put in evidence to justify their freight rates. Practically their whole defence was that freight rates at some points in the northern and western states were just as high as in western Canada. What kind of places do you suppose they cited? They took places like Thief River Falls in the state of Minnesota and Indian villages like Cheyenne in the state of Wyoming, places out of which there was practically no traffic at all, and they compared the freight rates at those points with the freight rates at great centres like the city of Winnipeg and distributing centres like Moose-jaw and Saskatoon and Regina. That is all the defence that they have put in up to the present time. The meeting of October 27, 1912 was finally adjourned and the commission met on January 7, 1913. I wish to refer to what took place at that meeting because it is the last meeting that has been , called in connection with that matter. At page 115 of volume 168 of the proceeding of the Railway Commission, Mr. Cowan made the following statement:
If the Chairman will adjourn until the morning, I will take up Mr. Melnnes then.
He is the freight traffic manager of the Canadian Pacific railway:
I do not want any misunderstanding, I am not in charge of this case. I am here acting for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and I understand I must give way and I will very gladly to my learned friends the Dominion Government counsel. I suppose they are entitled to go on but the hoard very kindly let me step into it. So far as I am concerned I am prepared to take up at any time to-

[Stage Direction]
morrow morning the cross examination of Mr. Mclnnes.
At the conclusion of that hearing, page 655 of the records, Mr. Whitla, one of the counsel for the Dominion Government, said:
The preparation of this case is proceeding with all rapidity
[Stage Direction]
He is the gentleman who stated in the month of March, 1902, that he would be ready to go on in two or three weeks:
-and as I am advised, swiftly drawing to a conclusion. The latest advice, however, which I have received is in the shape of a telegram this morning from our experts and I am able to say that our case will be ready for presentation to the board in about six weeks time.
Nothing further has been heard of this case since the adjournment on January 7, 1913. The closing words of the chief commissioner at that meeting are somewhat instructive:
The Chief Commissioner: Well, Mr. Cowan, what is your position. Do you want to put in anything at all as to reasonableness of rates ?	.
Mr. Cowan: No, Mr. Chairman, the hoard's case was adjourned for my convenience to cross examine on A and B but engagements which were then hanging on me have now got behind and the western freight rates case has stepped up to the front. All my engagements will give way to the western rates case and to the convenience of the counsel in the ease. I am ready to go on at any time. *	*
Then, Mr. Cowan, on page 653 stated:
I will he ready when anybody else is able to go on.
That practically completes everything that I have respecting meetings held by the Railway Commission in connection with this matter.
I wish to emphasize one or two points once more before resuming my seat. What, according to the records, has the counsel employed by the Dominion Government been doing up to the present time? They have been doing absolutely nothing. If it had not been for the fact that some of the western provinces were represented on their own account, I am free to say that nothing at all wou/ld have been done. The Dominion Government counsel are employed by this Government and are supposed to be acting in the interest of the people of western Canada. Up to the present time they have not done so because, whenever the railway companies ask for an adjournment the Dominion Government counsel have been quite prepared to ask for an adjournment also. They are not ready to go on at the present time. If this freight rate investigation is delayed, if a decision is not arrived at within a short period of time, the responsibility for that delay rests
upontheDominion Government counsel and therefore upon the Government of the day I shall not go into figures to show all that that means tothe people of the West; but just let me give an example or two! Two or three years ago, the Regina freight rates case was pending before the Railway Commission. That case was taken before the commission in order to deal with discriminations that existed between the city °f Toronto and the city of Regina and other points in Saskatchewan and Alberta when compared with rates from Toronto to Winnipeg. The commission issued an order to the effect that on the 1st of April, 1910, the railway companies must furnish a new set of rates with respect to certain classes of commodities. That order was appealed by the railway companies to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court upheld the decision. But I am told that up to the present time the railway companies have not complied with that order. They have furnished a new schedule of freight rates on certain commodities, it is true, but, according to business men in the city m.iW ,!ch -1 resic,e' they have not complied with the intention of the order of the commission. The point I make is that the question of freight rates means millions to Jh® province of Saskatchewan alone. Take that Regina freight rate3 case which affects only certain commodities. I am told that Mr. Lanigan said: If you can delay it for f T®ar ** wi!1 mean a million and a half to the Canadian Pacific railway alone The business men te.ll me that it means three millions in one year to the people of Saskatchewan _ alone. _ And the freight rates case that is pending now is much larger and far-reaching than the Regina case. If the decision of the Railway Board is delayed for one year, thus postponing the reduction of freight rates in western Canada it means millions to each of the three western provinces every year. Under such circumstances, I hope no one will blame me for bringing the subject to the attention of the House. The records of the Railway Commission go to prove that the Dominion Government, through its counsel, is simply temporizing with the investigation into the subject of western freight rates. I have shown that the investigation commenced a year and a half ago and I have proved by the records that nothing has been done up to this moment.
It has always seemed to me very peculiar that the manufacturers of eastern Canada did not take greater interest in freight rates on commodities going into the West. The manufacturers of eastern Canada wish to preserve western Canada as their market.
I do not blame them. But I can tell them that one of the greatest obstacles to their retaining the western markets is high
[Stage Direction]
freight rates charged on commodities going into that country. How can any person in the province of Ontario blame a western man for buying an article from the United States when the distance over which that article has to be carried is only one-third, and the freight rates far lower? I do not wish to deal with the question of reciprocity, but to my mind, the great benefit of reciprocity would have been that the western farmers would have had a nearer market and lower freight rates on which they bought, and also a benefit through sending his grain to the American market for the same reason. However, I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of that question.
As I said at the outset, I do not wish to be considered as criticising the action of the Eailway Commission. I am not doing that so far as I can help. But I will say that the Railway Commission up to the present time has occupied a position and enjoyed a reputation before the people of Canada that is sacred and inviolate. But if the people of western Canada are to be delayed for four or five years on the western freight rates question, I should be afraid the position of the commission will not be so sacred or inviolate at the expiration of that time as it is to-day.
I have already referred to section 77 of the Railway Act. All I have to say in conclusion is that I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals, or any other minister who replies to the statement I have made, will not use the arguments ordinarily put forward on behalf of this Government. The excuses are: First, you did it, or did not do it, as the case may be; second, we did not know it had happened; or, third, we have not had time to look into it. I hope we shall not hear any of these things from the Minister of Railways and Canals. I have great respect for the hon. minister and I do not suppose he would use any excuses of that kind in dealing with such a great question as that which I have brought before the House.
Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin, Regina), thought that he was going to stop me from drawing the attention of the House to the fact that he sat in this House for three years before this Govern/nent came into power without bringing this subject before the Railway Commission. But he cannot get away from that fact. The late chairman of the Railway Commission, whose death we all deplore, and to whom I sent the complaint of the western farmers forwarded to me in January, 1912, replied that he had never had anything of the kind referred to him, nor had any request been made to him before to investigate it. I Mr. MARTIN (Regina).
have his letter on file, which I could produce to the House to substantiate that statement. I may say that the death of the late chairman undoubtedly had the effect of putting back this investigation. He had the matter in hand, and the appointing of the new chairman and the great quantity of work placed before the board, naturally had the effect of causing some delay. But I do not think that anyone will find fault with the present chairman. I believe that our predecessors in office were particularly happy in the chairman they appointed, for he proved himself a great servant of the people of Canada. And I have great pleasure in saying, that judging by what has been accomplished in the last few months, the present chairman will prove the equal of any of his predecessors, which is saying a great deal. I might remind the hon. member for Regina of the investigation which was referred to the Railway Board in 1904, and on which no ruling was made until 1910. I refer to the investigation into the subject of express rates. And I may say that when they did bring in their ruling there was no reduction of rates. Since the present chairman took up the case of western freight rates, he has issued an order that express companies, operating west of Sudbury shall reduce their rates by twenty per cent, and he has been in office for only a few months. I understand the railways put in a statement only about two months ago, and tljat the counsel for the Government has been getting experts from the United States, traffic experts, in order to go over that statement and establish his case. This is not a question that can be dealt with in a month; if it is dealt with in a year they will do well. This is a serious question and one that the present Government and the present board have given attention to. We are not humbugging or delaying over this matter, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Regina has said.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: I am glad to hear from the Minister of Railways and Canals that at least the Government are taking this question seriously. We appreciate the hon. minister's statement that a large matter of this kind cannot be brought to a successful conclusion in a very short time. But the minister has not explained some of the statements, made by the hon. member for Regina in this connection. At a certain sitting of the Board of Railway Commissioners in the spring of 1912, over a year ago, the counsel representing the Government and the people before the commission stated that in two or three weeks they would be prepared to go on with the case. The minister has not told us why that counsel has been unable to go on with the case

for over a year since that time. The appeal of the hon. member for Regina to the minister was, as hon. gentlemen observed, an appeal in vain; but that was not unexpected, for we are getting used to the arguments used by members of the Government when they rise to defend their course in regard to any particular matter. The matter of an investigation into the freight rates of western Canada was definitely placed before the Board of Railway Commissioners nearly one year and a half ago. As the minister says, things can not he done all at once, but it does seem strange that the railway companies, who compile their statistics regularly, month by month, throughout the year, have been unable to lay before the Board of Railway Commissioners complete statistics with reference to the cost of transportation throughout the different provinces of Canada, especially in view of the fact that that information is undoubtedly on file in the head offices of the railway companies of this country.
I do not intend to add very much to what has been said by the hon. member for Regina, except to point out that, notwithstanding what the minister has said about the importance of this investigation-and it is because of its importance that we are so insistent that something should be done -it seems to be a strange thing that the counsel for this Government have seen fit to incur a delay extending over almost a year and a half in respect of an investigation the foundation of which information is in the possession of the head offices of the various railway companies of this country. What is the object of sending traffic experts to the United States? We are discussing the matter of freight rate discrimination in the Dominion of Canada; the question before the Board of Railway Commissioners is the discrimination between the East and the West-speaking of these sections of Canada in a popular sense. We are dealing with the discrimination between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, if you like, and the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. We cannot discover any data bearing on this matter by sending traffic experts from the Department of Railways across to the United States; we have that information at home; we have it in the head offices of the various railway companies in this country. After these definite complaints had been placed before the Board of Railway Commissioners, what was the advantage of sending them on an excursion, if you will, throughout the western provinces of Canada? And now we are told that traffic experts are to be sent to the United States to obtain additional information. More than a year ago the counsel representing the provinces of Saskatchewan
and Alberta, Mr. Cowan, of Toronto, definitely proved before the Board of Railway Commissioners that there was an enormous discrimination in the rates charged in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta as against those charged in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The various witnesses-themselves railroad officials-who were examined- by Mr. Cowan also demonstrated that in the prairie provinces the cost of railroad maintenance and operation was less than in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. There was a prima facie case absolutely proven by the statement of the traffic experts of the railways themselves. I contend that immediately upon that evidence being brought before the Board of Railway Commissioners, the Dominion Government's counsel should have said to the railways: Here is evidence which you have yourselves adduced, showing that your rates discriminate against the eastern provinces of Canada; upon you rests the onus and responsibility of demonstrating to the Board of Railway Commissioners why that discrimination exists. That, I say, was the responsibility resting there and then upon the counsel representing this Government, or, rather I should say appointed by this Government to represent the great consuming population of Canada. But the Dominion Government's counsel did not take advantage of the evidence adduced by the counsel for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, but rather aided the railways in the delay which they undoubtedly desired in connection with this investigation. And why ? The executives of this Government are responsible for the appointment of that counsel; to them that counsel must furnish reasons for the delay. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Railways has said to-day, the public generally are persisting, and will persist, in asking the question: For what reasons are the Dominion counsel for the Board of Railway Commissioners delaying the investigation of this matter ? The minister says that the railways have not that information ready. I would remind hon. gentleman that there is apparently no delay in the companies obtaining the information necessary to decide the dividends they are going to pay to their stockholders year by year. As I understand the matter, the whole question of operating expenses and gross and net earnings has to be taken into consideration when those dividends are from time to time declared, so that the minister's argument that the railways did not get the information until two months ago, in my judgment, absolutely falls to the ground.
The hon. member for Regina has mentioned that the public are becoming suspicious that there is something wrong about this matter. We all appreciate the usefulness of the Board of Railway Com-



REVISED


[Stage Direction]
missioners to the people of Canada, and we all -recognize the ability of the personnel of that board. I have no criticism to offer of the present chief commissioner, because from the evidence submitted it appears that the board are not to blame, but that the counsel who represent this Government are the ones upon whom rests the responsibility for the delay in connection with this investigation. The Board of Railway Commissioners hold a high place in the esteem of the people, but the public are suspicious that there are reasons why this investigation is not being proceeded with other than those given by the Minister of Railways. I am not going to draw any inferences. The public press have stated the grievances and complaints of the people along this line. I am sure that these gentlemen, appointed as Dominion counsel, undertook that responsibility with the intention of carrying out their instructions. They are surely acting in sympathy with the wishes of those who appointed them, and if there is delay and protracted delay, without any justifications or excuse or reason being given for that delay, I say that the public are absolutely justified in concluding that the men who are responsible for that delay are not the counsel themselves but the men or the body whom they represent. The condition of affairs brought out in the evidence submitted to that commission through the question" of the counsel appointed by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta must surely convince this House that the case before the commission is the most important that has been brought before that board since its inception. It is the most important case because that evidence, adduced from the mouths of the traffic experts of the various railway companies, absolutely proved to the people of this country that the people of western Canada are being illegitimately robbed, year after year, of millions of dollars by discrimination in freight rates. The people of western Canada are not radicals or anarchists or anything of that kind, but a condition of affairs such as this is surely enough to raise the ire of the most patient of people and I wish to tell the Government frankly that if they allow this state of affairs to continue, when they next appeal to the people of western Canada, they will be told in no uncertain voice what those people think about this pernicious delay for which the Government must certainly be held responsible. I tell the Minister of Railways frankly, notwithstanding the somewhat meagre applause he obtained from men behind him, that he will have to give this House and the country some better reason and some more extensive information as to a valid -reason for this delay before he wil1 ssfisfv us that there is not somewhere ' a nigger in the Mr. NE-ELY.
woodpile ' in connection with the procrastination in this investigation.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: If the Government has no better defense to offer against the charge of bad faith in regard to a matter of stupendous importance to a very large portion of the people of Canada than has been offered by my hon. friend the ^mister of Railways, it will be in order for me to support in some degree the arguments that have already been placed before the House.
I want first of all to urge upon the House that this is not merely a western matter. All Canada is to-day aware that what affects adversely the producer of western Canada affects adversely every business interest throughout Canada. That every cent that is added to the value of the western farmer's product goes into circulation through the general channels of trade and finance throughout this whole Dominion. I do not think anybody will deny that because the return to the western farmer during the years 1911 and 1912 have not been up to expectations or to the realizations of the previous years, the interests of commerce, of industry, of finance and of transportation . throughout eastern Canada have been correspondingly adversely affected.
In this case the charge is that the transportation interest in western Canada takes more than its fair share out of the production and earnings of the people. If that charge is correct, then the interests of commerce and finance and industry of eastern Canada must suffer correspondingly. So that these interests are intimately concerned in the question that is before the Railway Commission to-day and that has now been brought to the attention of this House. I need not discuss at length the details of the question or prove what has been stated and has not been denied-although the minister responsible for the department has been on his feet and has had the opportunity to deny the statement if it was not correct-that is, the statement that there Is absolute and great discrimination in freight as between eastern and western Canada, contrary to the provisions of section 77 of the Railway Act.


Francis Cochrane: Is there any greater
discrimination than there was in 1909, 1910 and 1911?


Frank Oliver: I do not think my hon.
friend is doing himself or his Government justice.


Francis Cochrane: No, but you were not either.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps I was not, but I am not a member of the Government at the present time. I am not charged with the

responsibility of protecting the interests and rights of the people of Canada. My hon. friend is-he and his colleagues. It matters not to the people of Canada to-day whether I did right or wrong a year or a year and a half or two years or ten years ago. It really is not seriously important to the people of Canada whether I am doing right or wrong to-day. But it is important to the people of Canada whether my hon. friend and his colleagues are justly discharging the responsibility which has been laid upon them and protecting the interests of the peopl-e of Canada, or a large section of the people of Canada, according to the terms of the statutes of Canada.
The statement has been ' made and has not been denied that section 77 of the Railway Act is contravened by the conditions as they exist to-day in western Canada in regard to transportation. The responsibility on the Government is either to amend that Act, or to enforce it. If there is any reason in their minds why section 77 of that Act should not remain in the form in which it is, it is for them to stand up in their places in this House and take the responsibility of saying so. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when a statute, plainly worded, is being notoriously contravened, it is not the place of the Government to attempt to shelter themselves behind the reputation of the Railway Commission. Aa my hon. friends on thia side have already said, it is not the Railway Commission that is in question to-day, it is not the facts that are in question to-day, it is the good faith of the Government that is at issue, in regard to actions of the counsel that they have seen fit to employ to push this investigation on behalf of the people of Canada. I do not know what the ideas of the Government are in regard to their duties, but these gentlemen are paid enough to give their whoie time and attention to this work. I submit that the question is important enough to call for their whole time and attention. Perhaps my hon. friends opposite would be interested to know that one of these counsel, Mr. Morrison, was a candidate in the recent elections in Alberta. It is true that he was not a very successful candidate. But the evidence is that he was as good a candidate on behalf of the Conservative party in Alberta as he is a solicitor or counsel on behalf of the people of Canada before the Railway Commission. I may mention that he was defeated by some 400 votes.
My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) and also my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) has drawn attention to the fact that the railway companies have laid evidence before the Railway Commission in regard to freight rates prevailing in the western parts of the United States, instituting comparisons be-
283}
tween those rates and the rates prevailing in western Canada. And my hon. friend from Humboldt has said, that counsel for the Government before the Railway Commission also proposed to consider this question of freight rates in the western States as compared with those in western Canada. If that has any meaning at all, it means that the Government of the day, through their counsel, are lending their countenance to the proposition that it is right and proper- and that it is not discrimination under the Act-if railway rates in western Canada are higher than they are in eastern Canada so long as they are not higher than they are in the western States. If the railway companies are not losing their time entirely by presenting this evidence, it means that in this matter of western freight rates the Government of this country are proposing to take the same position as has been taken by our kings of finance, the bankers, who claim that the western farmer and the western man generally, should pay more for the same service than the people in other parts of Canada. I want to protest here and now against any such discrimination. I protest on behalf of the western part of Canada that the farmer, the rancher, the merchant, the miner, or whoever he may be, is entitled to the protection of the statutes whether he lives east or west of lake Superior.
It is the privilege of this Government to deny the suggestion if they desire to do so, but by allowing their counsel to dally with the question for a whole year and a half, the circumstantial evidence is that in the mat-of freight rates they have placed themselves on the side of discrimination against western interests. It is for them to clear themselves of the suspicion-no, not the suspicion, but to give a reason for that condition of facts-and I submit that they have not given such a reason. It is up to them to give a reason that will have weight and effect, and to show that they are prepared to see that the people west of lake Superior get that consideration and justice under the terms of the Railway Act which that Act was framed and passed by this Parliament to give them.
Let me point out to my hon. friends that the Railway Act was passed by their predecessors, and that the Railway Commission was established by their predecessors. This matter was before Parliament over a year ago, when it was discussed, so that they cannot plead that they had not heard of the matter, at any rate. We propose to insist that the importance of this case is such that it demands a settlement, and a settlement on the terms of the Railway Act, in accordance with the principles of that Act and in accordance

with the interests of the people of western Canada, and of Canada as a whole.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not want to intrude into western affairs, but happening to read a local newspaper published in my own town, the thought suggested itself to me that the people of the West will soon wake up to what hon. gentlemen opposite did when they were in power and to what the present Government have been doing since they came into power to alleviate their condition. Everyone who has paid any attention to the question of the transport of grain from the western provinces knows that year after year the people there had their grain kept in what elevators could be filled and in their granaries because the elevator accommodation at Fort William and Port Arthur was limited. Year after year-to my knowledge for ten or fifteen years-it was proposed that the Government of hon. gentlemen opposite should allow American vessels to go into Port Arthur and Fort William at the close of navigation and be practically floating elevators. But hon. gentlemen opposite were afraid to do so, because they were menaced by the friends of a few Canadian vessel owners who were politically friendly to them. The ex-Minister of the Interior knows that for years it was contended that in order to alleviate the condition of the farmer in the West, American vessels should be allowed to go in there, fill up with grain, lie there through the winter at floating elevators, and then come out in the early spring. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) may have been favourable to that, but he was always over-borne by some person in the Cabinet. The same representation was made last fall to the present Government, and I want to say here that the grain situation was relieved last year in Manitoba and the Northwest territories to a greater extent than it had been for some years preceding. And why? It is because the present Government took the bull by the horns and they told the Canadian vessel owners, whether it pleased them or not, that American vessels were to be allowed to go into Fort William and fall up with grain. Does my hon. friend from Edmonton approve of that policy, which was adopted by this Government last fall?


Frank Oliver: I would say yes; and
now may I ask the hon. member a question?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes.


Frank Oliver: 
William Humphrey Bennett: I have not the data
under my hand, but I am sure that there was always such a pressure in the West that there could not have been a year when every bushel of elevator accommodation was not taxed to the utmost at Fort William.


Frank Oliver: Then I submit to my hon. friend this information:	that there may
have been a very occasional year when that happened, but the general condition was that the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur were not taxed to their full capacity in any winter previous to 1912.


William Humphrey Bennett: That seems a very extraordinary condition of affairs. Here were the farmers of the West, as described by these gentlemen opposite time and again, with their grain piled up in the fields rotting, and here were huge elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur ready to receive that grain.


Frank Oliver: The trouble was the diff-ficulty of getting the grain to Fort William and Port Arthur on account of the car shortage.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina):: And it was just as bad last year.


Francis Cochrane: No, it was not.


William Humphrey Bennett: first and foremost. The railroads, which have built lines in western Canada, have been assisted to a great extent by the people of this country, and it is high time that the people should dictate to the railroads just what freight rates and other charges they should impose. No matter what party is in power, there must be greater control of railroads, especially when we are giving them assistance year in and year out. The railroads in western Canada are doing good business and are making money, but they are not expanding more quickly than they should. There are laTge sections of territory in western Canada without railway facilities where railroads have been promised and not provided. In those sections we have discontented people. This Government should set to work to alleviate that condition. It is a matter of importance not only to western Canada but to Canada as a whole. The prosperity and advancement of western Canada means also the prosperity and advancement of eastern Canada and of the whole Dominion.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works):: I rise simply to say a word or two in connection with what appears to be an implied statement of certain hon. gentlemen opposite throughout their arguments that there was some ground through which they might be able to fasten upon this Government some evidence of bad faith in the administration of the affairs of western Canada in so far as railway facilities are concerned. I absolutely deny that it is possible for any man, either in this House or outside of it, to establish the slightest tittle of evidence of bad faith on the part of the present Administration in carrying out a policy that means to the people of western Canada all the advantages that it is possible to bring to them in connection with the reduction of railway freight rates or the construction of railroads.
We have heard a good deal in regard to the matter of counsel who have had charge of this important case. We all recognize the vast importance of the question that has been submitted to the Railway Commission for their consideration. It is a very broad question, and representative counsel were selected to represent the Government and the people of this Dominion before the Railway Commission. We have also heard something of the counsel appointed by the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Would Mr. Cowan or Mr. anybody else have been here before the Railway Commission if the same policy as had been adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite had been carried on? Hon. gentlemen opposite say now that bad faith is shown; that delay is shown by the action of the counsel appointed in connection with this important case. Had it not Mr. BUCHANAN.
been for the change of government, we would not have had the necessity for these counsel; we would have had the same condition that existed for fifteen years when it was impossible for the farmers and merchants and people of western Canada to obtain the slightest relief at the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite when they governed this country. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) has told us today that, shortly after he was sworn in as Minister of Railways and acting upon the very first petition he received from the people of western Canada registering their complaints in respect to high freight rates, he took the only course that a minister in his place could take to provide a remedy. He transferred the request of those people to the Railway Commission. It was then headed by Mr. Justice Mabee, who drew attention to the fact that that was the first request which he had had during all the time he was chairman to undertake to deal with and to remedy the grievances of the farmers of western Canada. This is a very large question and it has taken considerable time before the Railway Commission. Unfortunately Mr. Mabee died and some time was lost before his successor was appointed. I am glad to know that his successor maintains the high standing of that commission before Parliament and the people of Canada. I am sure, as was evidenced by the fact the other day when he brought down his judgment in respect to the question of express rates and furnished a reduction to the people of western Canada of 20 per cent, that he will give the same effective consideration to the question of railway freight rates. He has much to do and much study to give in order to understand this great question.
My hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) referred to the fact that the commission sat in the city of Regina discussing the question of railway freight rates; that they had before them representatives of the different railway companies, and the argument put before the commission on that occasion by the learned counsel representing the Grand Trunk Pacific railway was to the effect that it was impossible for his company to meet any reduction that might be imposed upon them by the Railway Commission owing to the fact that their line of railway had cost such an extraordinarily laTge amount for its construction. We have always claimed that this was caused by mismanagement, and therefore this is a principal reason for delay by the Railway Commission and by the counsel in order that they may give full consideration to the circumstances and conditions that make it impossible for the Grand Trunk Pacific railway to meet these rates, and in order that they may come to a decision as speedily as possible in the interests of the people of western Canada. I

have every confidence that this matter will be dealt with fairly and speedily by the Railway Commission. They are giving the matter full consideration. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals has told you that it is only two months since they got all the evidence the railways had to place before them, and they are having this evidence analysed and giving it the careful deliberation that it should have before giving a finding. For, you must recollect that while we in western Canada are most desirous of having a regulation of freight rates, we are equally, and if possible even more, interested in having extension of railways in many parts of the prairie provinces fox the convenience of farmers who are settling in those localities. Therefore, the greatest possible care has to be taken by the Railway i Commission before they reach a finding, to be certain that it will not hamper the construction of railways that are such an absolute necessity for the advancement and development of the West.
Now, I do not know that hon. gentlemen opposite touched on any other pomt. It is true that -when they were in power they did not supply, or undertake to supply, any relief to the people of western Canada regarding the question of freight rates. I remember in the years 1900, 1901 and 1902, the Government of the province of Manitoba saw that it would be necessary to find relief from the exorbitant rates that were being charged by the railways at that time. Finding that they could get no support from the Parliament of Canada, that Government undertook to make, and did make, a contract for the carrying- of grain over the distance of 300 miles from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, and in that connection undertook a heavy obligation. The result has been that millions upon millions have been saved every year to the people of Manitoba. In addition to the advantages secured by that contract to the province of Manitoba, there were large benefits also to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. These provinces had the opportunity^ to make similar contracts. They were giving guarantees to the railways to secure the construction of certain lines; but they did r-.ot provide In their contracts that they should have any control of railway freight rates in that country. They did not follow the example that we laid down in Manitoba which has done so much for the people of that province and for the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan. They followed, perhaps, rather the dictates and wishes of the railway people.


William Melville Martin: Was it not decided by the Railway Commission, and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, that the contract made by the Manitoba
Government was ultra vires of that province?


Robert Rogers: No, quite the opposite. My hon. friend is entirely wrong. The then Minister of Railways, Mr. Blair, when it was submitted to this House, acknowledged that we had full and complete power under our contract to provide relief for our own people; and that it was a good valid contract is evidenced by the fact that it is standing to-day and the people of western Canada are getting the full benefit of it.


William Melville Martin: I do not wish to inturrupt the hon. minister, but I would like to ask a further question. Apparently, I am astray in my facts. Since the Railway Commission was established, is it not true that similar contracts are restricted?


Robert Rogers: I do not think it is beyond the powers of any province to make a contract with a railway company that will afford relief to the people it represents, I believe the provinces have absolute power in that matter; we found it so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned. Let me add that, so far as I know, the present Dominion Government are giving through their Minister of Railways and Canals, full and careful consideration to this wide and very important question, and I am satisfied that when the matter has been thoroughly gone into and investigated by the Railway Commission neither this Parliament nor the people of western Canada will have any fault to find with the action of the Government or of the commission. I trust that the long and careful investigation of the matter will result in great advantage to the people of western Canada.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I do not wish to delay the House for more than a few minutes. I would like to say a word before my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) leaves the Chamber. I was extremely interested in hearing the advice he gave that the late Government should have said to some people south of the line: Come on with your American boats. I have understood that my hon. friend was one of a party of men elected to this House on the ery, 'No truck or trade with the Yankees,' -and on the declaration that it would be ruinous to Canada if the lines of our business ran north and south instead of east and west. I offer him congratulations on the fact that light is breaking in a somewhat unexpected quarter.
I have -been interested in the statement made by the ministers who have spoken on this occasion, and I am anxious to take as much consolation as I can for myself and for my fellow farmers, out of the assurance of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways that this mat-

ter is commanding the serious attention of the Government and that it will be gone on with with all possible expedition and energy. I think that is the assurance I had from these hon. ministers, and am very glad to have it; and I want to get as much consolation as possible from it. I wish they had given us that assurance without dealing with this question as a party question. I fail to see evidence on the part of the Government, so far as their spokesmen are concerned, of a due appreciation of the economic conditions of the West. On one point the Minister of Public Works proved himself an extremely bold controversion-alist. He had said, as I understood: It is the first time that a matter of this kind has been inquired into at all. He seemed to wish to take credit to the Government for this fact. I venture to repeat that my hon. friend is extremely bold on this point as a controversalist on this, one of the few occasions when he has favoured the House with his political wisdom. The late Government appointed ttie Railway Commission. We will give them credit for that at any rate. I have said, I do not want to deal with this as a party question, but when it is put before us by two responsible ministers apparently as a party question, one cannot help dealing wuh what they advance. The late Government appointed the Railway Commission. The hon. Minister of Public Works was not responsible for that; he was not a member of that Government; he would not have been eligible. This commission began an investigation into a condition which became accentuated after the present Government came into power; and the Minister of Public Works says: What a good Government we have that is in office when this inquiry is made. My information is that the inquiry was not ordered by the Government, but by the commission appointed by the late Government. That is the kind of point the hon. gentleman puts forward. I hope he will try to see the spirit of it and how it will be judged by the people of the West.


Robert Rogers: The hon. gentleman does not seem to understand that the investigation now being made by the Railway Commission is being made at the request of the Government.
'Mr. OLIVER: The Government appoint these lawyers, who are doing nothing.


Michael Clark: If that be so, I am glad to hear it. I understood that the inquiry originated from the fact that the condition of affairs was pointed out to Parliament and to the Government-whether the late one or the present one-in a speech made by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) in the spring of 1911. There is no Mr. CLARK (Red-Deer).
party question involved in this-and that is what I want to bring home to my hon. friends and to the Government-this is an economic question requiring more serious consideration than it seems to have obtained from hon. gentlemen opposite, 'if one is to judge from the remarks of the minister and others who have spoken on the other side.
As I have said, I do not want to occupy the time of the House for more than a few moments, but I would like to impress emphatically upon the Governments-and this was dwelt upon by my hon. friend from Regina in his opening remarks- that the condition of affairs in western -Canada at the present moment is a very serious one. That is the point which concerns the inhabitants of that part of this country, and, as has been pointed out by several speakers, that is the point which in the end concerns the whole of Canada, because if the western producers suffer, the eastern manufacturers will not be long in suffering also. This is not a question as between the two parties on the opposite sides of the House, and it is not a question as between eastern and western Canada; it is a question which affects the prosperity and the progress of our whole country, and if we could but rid ourselves of party spirit for a moment we would all try to approach it from that point of view and from that point of view alone. That this is a serious question is a statement which scarcely requires any proof by those who know the condition of affairs in the West to-day. I have been very much taken to task because in previous debates this session I have mentioned the serious conditions that prevail in western Canada, and I think that with many sections of the population one incurs very considerable risk in mentioning it, because one cannot forget that a very large number of the people of western Canada are there not to farm, but to speculate in real estate. The economic question, and the really serious question for the people of Canada to-day is the necessity for promoting the production of wealth within the country, and that is what I would like to impress upon every thoughtful [DOT] man in this House. Personally I believe that it can be proved that, with all our railway propagation in the last few years, we have had a very poor corresponding increase in the actual production of wealth within the country, and that is what is the matter with Canada at the present moment. I do not care what steps the Government take to remedy that condition, they are wise steps-whether along the line of traffic or along the line of transportation I will support them. I will support them in my own interests, in the interests of the great mass of producers in the West, and in the interests of the whole country.

I do not want to go back to the question ot reciprocity and to the arguments by which our opponents opposed it, but a kindred thought to the limited nature of our production at the present moment occurs in connection with this argument and with the great question of transportation. We all know the peculiar formation of our country. We have thousands of miles of rocks and trees; they are there, nature has put them there, and when nature places any obstacle in our way we want to take rational methods of overcoming it. Our friends say:	You have got to transport
your material from the East to the West- that is when we do not get a glimmer of light such as came from my non. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) just now- if you are raising steers, you must bring them across this great stretch of country and over Canadian railways. The sight of the rock will he good for the steers' constitution, I suppose; in any case, it is certainly good for hardening the beef and making it bring inferior prices in the British market. But what is the economic result of insisting so strongly upon that line of policy? It is that you cease to produce steers altogether; you are only producing a little more beef in this country than it is necessary for your own consumption at the present moment. I want to bring home to the minister the fact that this is not a question which necessitates the throwing of stones from one side of the House xo the other, and the statement that hon. gentlemen opposite have only been two years in office. I have extended to my hon. friends the utmost sympathy on that point, silent and expressed - very often expressed, I am afraid; it was necessary for me to do so from time to time. But it is not a question of how long we have been in office, or how long the other party were in office; as the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said, this Government has suffered for its faults-they have gone out of power, and what we have got to see and what the present Government have got to see is that the people of Canada do not suffer with them. I do not want the present Government to do anything beyond their capacity, but they have got to live up to their capacity, and a mere exchange of party thrusts an3 darts will be very poor satisfaction to the men who, according to my own knowledge, are having a hard fight to make ends meet upon the prairie. It is true they have got their land, but they cannot eat land. We have an expression out there which refers to a man as being ' land poor '; it is perfectly possible for a man to be land poor. These men are having a hard fight; I know it by experience, and it will be a poor consolation to them that the present Government says to the party opposite:	You did as
little for them as we have done. The question before the House is a double one. It is asserted, in the first place, that there is a discrimination in freight rates as between eastern and western Canada. It appears to me	that it should not
take so very	long	for a	body
properly constituted to find out the facts of the matter. The hon. member for Regina was very courageous in his remarks upon this point, and he made a statement which was not given the slightest notice by the two ministers which have spoken; at least I listened very carefully to what they said, and I could not catch the slightest reference to that statement. He said that there is a tremendous discrimination-and I appeal very strongly to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, because he represents western Canada


Robert Rogers: That is what the Railway Commission are doing-investigating that very matter.


Michael Clark: I am glad to have that assurance.


Frank Oliver: They are not investigating it.


Francis Cochrane: You have said yourself that they were.


Michael Clark: The fact that the Railway Commission are investigating it does not seem to me to excuse the minister from absolutely avoiding all reference to the q estion. If my hon. friends had even said that it was a serious thing that that discrimination should exist, it would have been some satisfaction to me, but they absolutely neglected to refer to the fact that it is being inquired into, and that will not do for the people of western Canada. They would like to be aware of the fact that the ministers are concerned to know whether or not there is a discrimination between the East and the West; thev would like to have tne assurance, in more than words, if possible. that there is not some truth in the suspicion of my hon. friend the member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) that the present Administration has more sympathy with the shareholder and the directors of the rai^ roads than tney have with the hard-working producers of wealth on the plains of western Canada. This question, from this point of view, is one which should surely appeal very strongly to every patriotic Canadian. It is constantly stated that eighty per cent of the shareholders of one great Canadian railway corporation live outside of Canada altogether, and it will be a lamentable day for Canada if we come to have a government in power who are more concerned about the size of the dividends paid to ihe eighty per cent of shareholders living entirely outside of Canada than they are as to the welfare of the producers upon their own plains.

Let me now refer briefly to the second question under debate-and here I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to refer to the perfectly courteous interruption he made to my remarks a few moments ago. The inquiry is why the investigation which he says is going on at this moment was delayed. I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works touched upon that question; I never heard him utter a single word about the delay of the investigation, or whether it had taken place. It is either a fact that that delay took place, or it is not a fact; if the delay took place, the people have a right to be told why it took place. They will not be perfectly satisfied with the statement of the minister that the investigation is now going on at full speed. The Minister of Railways made a statement in this matter which consisted really of two sentences. He said in the first place that he was not going to be debarred by anything said by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) from making the usual answer of the Government. If he had not, he would have been debarred from making any answer at all, because it is the only answer we have ever heard from this Government.


Francis Cochrane: What about the comparison of the two investigations?


Michael Clark: My hon. friend still wants to carry on the comparison. He was not here in opposition, but he is so little satisfied, apparently, with his efforts along the lines of constructive statesmanship that he puts himself in opposition in imagination and, instead of defending his own Administration, he spends his time in criticising the former Government. I ask him if he thinks that is worthy of his position as a minister? It is not worthy. The question is not the difference between the last Government and this, it is a-question whether there is any difference between the freight rates charged in the East and in the West. That is the point on which my hon. friend should concentrate his attention. What is he troubling about? Having got into office so recently is he afraid of losing it? I do not think the danger is altogether beyond the possibility of imagination, I think it is a considerable danger but dwelling on it all the time is not the way to avert it, it will increase it. The only way in which you will prevent yourself from being removed from office will be by putting up a policy that will be of some benefit to the people of Canada. That is the only point of difference, difference between the freight rates in the East and in the West and not difference between the last Administration and this. My hon. friend says they are looking into the matter. The Minister of Public Works made a similar statement, he was Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).
considering the matter. The Government are looking into so many matters that the people are beginning to doubt their powers of vision. That is what is the matter with hon. gentlemen of the Government so far as the political situation is concerned. One would naturally wish that the Government would see something when they look and do something as a result of what they see. A Government that looks and considers and does nothing may be tolerated until the next general election, but it will not be tolerated any longer. I have been giving the Government more or less advice this session with very bad results, they do not pay any attention to me, but I do hope that on this matter they try to do something to make a substantial reduction in these rates as against the people of western Canada and in that way help the producers who are building up the whole country.


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel):: Any person reading or listening to this debate will give the prize to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) for making the most partisan speech in connection with it. I am sure the House and the country have heard quite enough from my hon. friend in the shape of lectures to this Government. My hon. friend never approached a debate in this House since this Government came into power without referring to the reciprocity question. He could not say a few words as he promised on this question without taking a thrust at the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), who kept close to the mark, discussing this question of reduction of freight rates in the West. My hon. friend from Red Deer could not discuss this question without making comparisons between this Government and the late Government, in such a way that almost every sentence uttered by him was of the partisan type that he is constantly condemning in this House but in respect of which he is the greatest sinner who has been in this House for the last fifteen years.


Michael Clark: Would my hon. friend quote
me?


Richard Blain: Yes, I can quote my hon. friend. In this very speech, my hon. friend did not give one statement, he scarcely debated the question at all, he did not make any statements of complaint except the universal political complaint against this Government.


Michael Clark: I quoted the hon. member for Regina. Why does not my hon. friend refer to him also?


Richard Blain: I do not wish to say very much to my hon. friend for Red Deer. He is very kindly and courteous in debate ; but I am sure when he reads this speech he will cease lecturing the Government and pre-

tending to this House and the people of Canada that he is less of a partisan than those who sit around him. For my part, coming from the east of Canada, I have not heard anyone say very much in complaint about the West. If there is any division or cause of division or suggestion about division between the East and the West it comes from the people of the West, such as my hon. friend. If my hon. friend wishes to help the Government in bringing about reduced freight rates for the farmers and people of the West, why does he not compliment the Government for what they have already done since coming into office? My hon. friend had nothing to say about the twenty per cent reduction on express rates brought about by the influence of this Government in connection with the Railway Commission since they came into office; not a word of praise, not a word of compliment to the Government for what they are doing; and yet my hon. friend, a supporter of the late Government, a western farmer himself, athough freight rates in the West were not as he would like them, sat in his place in this House and the Chairman of the Railway Commission was able to make the statement that the first time this important question was brought to his attention to deal with was by the present Minister of Railways and Canals. My hon. friend surely was forgetting his duty, Why did not my hon. friend become as active when he was a supporter of the Government as he is now active as a member of the Opposition? Why did not my hon. friend turn up ' Hansard ' and quote where he himself in this House brought this matter to the attention of the Railway Board when he was a supporter of the late Government? My hon. friend, of course, could not do that because he was a hide-bound supporter of that Government in everything. I have under my hand some statements of his. I shall not read them now but I may at some future time.	,


Frank Oliver: Let us have them, they are good stuff.


David Bradley Neely: Do not refer to them ii you cannot give them.


Richard Blain: My hon. Mends referred to many things, and I do not want to get into any controversy. Any hon. gentleman looking at the record of this Government, after eighteen months in office, and what they have accomplished for the people of the West must have some praise to give to them.


William Melville Martin: Give a. few instances.


Richard Blain: The twenty per cent reduction in express rates.


William Melville Martin: That investigation was
started before the present Government came into office.


Francis Cochrane: It did not start until the present Chairman of the Board was appointed.


William Melville Martin: Even now the rates are not as low as in the East. [DOT]


Richard Blain: They are not satisfied and will not give a word of praise to the Government. They have no word of commendation for that twenty per cent reduction which is a very large reduction in express rates, and I am sure it must be in the interests of the people of Canada, and particularly of the people of the West, because express parcels are being more numerously carried now, and there are more people taking advantage of express service than in years gone by. I rise simply to compliment the Government. When a member of this Government makes a plain, unvarnished statement that they are pressing the Railway Commission, and that the Railway Commission are actively engaged in getting information so that they will be able to bring about some reduction in freight rates, as they have done in express rates, for the West, it does not come with very good grace from hon. gentlemen opposite, those representing western constituencies in particular, to indulge in a partisan discussion such as we have heard to-day without giving credit to the Government for anything they have done for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: As my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) an eastern man, has thought fit to butt into this debate, I may be pardoned if I say a few words. I hope my hon. friend will not consider me discourteous if I fad to follow him in his lecture to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. I want the House to get back to the real question under discussion. As I understand it, the claim has been put forth by many people in western Canada that the freight rates are unduly larger in the West than in the East. This matter was laid, not before the Government, but before the proper tribunal. One would imagine, listening to my hon. friend from Peel and to the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) who, I think, was the greater sinner of the two, that the Government had something to io with this. The Railway Commission was created in 1903 by this Parliament. I do not caTe whether a Liberal Government cr a Conservative Government is entitled to the credit; the commission was created by the Parliament of Canada, and to it was given the exclusive right of dealing with freight rates. This Parliament has noth-


Francis Cochrane: Did they reduce the
rates at all?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, they did to some
extent, though I am bound to say that, in my judgment, they did not go so far as they should have gone. My hon. friend must remember that there has been only one or two changes on the commission. There has been one change caused by death, and one addition, and I believe we have just as good a commission to-day as we ever had. If the commission, in their judgment, found that they were justified in reducing express rates by twenty per cent, that only justifies the action of the late Government in appointing the Railway Commission, and justifies the present Government in maintaining it. So let us get away from all questions as to whether the late Government or the present Government are entitled to any credit, so far as the Railway Commission in the performance of its duty is concerned.
The charge has been made that there is a discrimination in rates. I have not gone into the facts, but I think the statement of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) is correct, because it has not been denied, and if it had not been true it would have been denied by the Minister of Railways. The statement is that the Railway Commission, the only tribunal capable of discussing this matter, has found, as a matter of fact, that the freight rates are discriminative. That is what I want my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Public Works to consider for a few moments. The next Mr. CARVELL.
question is, should they be discriminative? I think that is the logical question to be answered.


Mr. LANCASTER:: If the commission has found that, as a matter of fact, as my hon. friend says, why does it not remedy the defect? That is in their power. Why should he blame this Government?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The next question
which should be discussed is, have the railway companies a right to make discriminative rates?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The commission is
there to cure that discrimination, if it exists.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The question of what
the freight rates should be on any road in Canada is the question to be considered. The railway companies should be allowed to charge rates on traffic which, after paying all running expenses, will yield a reasonable profit on the investment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about
fixed charges?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I include fixed charges. As a matter of fact, according to the statement of my hon. friend from Regina, the Railway Commission have found that the railways in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan cost less per mile to build than the railways in the eastern provinces. The Railway Commission have also found as a matter of fact that it costs less per mile to operate them, than it does to operate the railways in eastern Canada. That is the statement made by my hon. friend from Regina, and it has not been contradicted; therefore, I assume these facts to be correct. Now the question arises, under that condition of facts as found by the Railway Commission, should the commission order the railway companies to reduce their rates? The railway companies say no. Then the Railway Commission says to them, if those rates should not be reduced, the burden is on you to convince us to that effect; you produce to us the evidence that will justify us in retaining those charges as they are; prima facie they ought to be reduced, because your railways cost less to build and to operate, and therefore the rates ought to go down. In other words you are taking from the people a rate that is more than necessary to pay the running expenses and fixed charges and to provide for a reasonable remuneration upon your investment. As I understand it, the whole charge is that the counsel representing this Govern

ment are the cause of the delay. It is not a question of whether this Government was justified in appointing counsel or of whether they are entitled to credit for anything that has been done by the Railway Commission. My hon. friend from

Regina has stated a case showing that, on account of the action of counsel representing the Government, the matter has been delayed for over a year. Now they say vve want to go to the United States to find out the conditions there. .


Francis Cochrane: I did not say that
they were going to the United States for evidence. I said they were getting traffic men from the United States.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the same thing. My hon. friend is quibbling.


Mr. SPEAKER:: According to Peel and
Brand, the use of the word ' quibbling ' is not permissible in Parliament.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the word ' quibbling ' is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it, and say it is the difference between tweedledee and tweedledum. I say to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that they have no right to go to the United States for evidence in respect to freight rates in Canada. My hon. friend knows that in the United States the railroads are built by men who put their own money into them. In some cases they have received slight assistance from municipalities, and possibly from states, but as a rule the railways of the United States are built by private enterprise and private capital, and those people are entitled to charge rates sufficient to yield a reasonable remuneration on their investment, after paying the cost of operation and maintenance. That is not the case in Canada. There is not a railway in Canada that has fifty per cent of private money invested in it. The Canadian Pacific railway has not twenty-five per cent of private money in it; in fact, I doubt whether it has ten per cent. It is true that during recent years the Canadian Pacific railway have been selling stock, mostly common stock, to their stockholders, and a certain _ amount of private money has been put into the corporation, but as against that, everybody knows they have received millions of dollars worth of land, and there is not a mile of their road that has not been subsidized by this Parliament to the extent of $6,000 or $7,000 per mile:


William Humphrey Bennett: I may
tell my hon. friend that a line built last year from near Peterborough to Port Mc-Nichol, did not receive a cent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How long is that road?


William Humphrey Bennett: About 100 miles.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It will be here for a subsidy and it will get it; do not make any mistake about that. If my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) did not state that of his own knowledge, I would feel like denying it. Well, I think there is a good road in northern Ontario that did not receive a subsidy from this Government, but that is not the fault of the Government; the Government tried to give it a subsidy.


Richard Blain: The Canadian Pacific railway from Toronto to Sudbury did not receive any grant from this Government, and it was a very expensive road to build.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friends opposite do not want to be too pernickity about this business; my statement is practically correct.


Francis Cochrane: Correct enough for you.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you go through Canada from one end to the other, you will not find more than two or three lines of railway not subsidized by this Government. My statement is practically correct that all the railways in Canada have been built out of public money. I do not think there is a railway in Canada to-day that has twenty-five per cent of its capital in actual money belonging to the private individuals who are shareholders of the road; these railways got land grants from this Government, subsidies from this Government, subsidies from the provincial governments, guarantee of bonds from this Government and the provincial governments, bonuses from the municipalities, and so on. They are all financed by the public and they are not in the same category at all with the railways in the United States. What would be true of the freight rates that might be charged in the United States would not be a criterion for proper freight rates in Canada. The Minister of Railways is putting up a very poor case when he justifies this delay by saying they are waiting to get evidence from the United States. The charge now is that counsel for the Government are not prosecuting this matter as vigorously as they should. There are three or four reasons which may account for that; one is that they are under the influence of the railways and I am not saying that is true. The other is, that they want delay for some reason, and I might almost go as far as to say that if the Government did not appoint men big enough for a big job, they will get delays as they get them in this case; another reason is that one of these gentlemen is running elections in Alberta. These are the complaints the Government have now to answeT, and not what they have done since they have been in power in reducing freight rates. The Minister of Public Works was going to reduce freight rates in the constituency of Macdonald some time last October; it was reported in the newspapers.


Robert Rogers: That was reported in the irresponsible press.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I notice the Minister of Public Works is willing enough to _ deny anything he can deny, and I am waiting to hear from him with respect to this. I su*' pose he thought he would make some votes in Macdonald, and no doubt he used the argument.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where would the hon. gentleman suggest that the Railway Commission would get evidence of a disinterested character against the railways of this country if not from the United States? The evidence as to the cost of running railways in this country must come from the railways themselves, and they are all interested in the matter. I have considered many a time as to where such disinterested evidence would come from and I should like a suggestion from my hon. friend as to that. The shipper does not know, the consignee does not know what it costs to carry his freight, and if you confine yourself to getting evidence in Canada, you must obtain it from the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern or the Canadia,n Pacific railway, all of which are interested. Where wouM the hon. gentleman suggest that this disinterested evidence should come from if not from the neighbouring republic?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a fair question.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It has bothered me
for a good many years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I frankly say I am not in a position to answer the question, but in my judgment, you do not have to go out of Canada. I believe the Railway Commission, if supported by counsel big enough for the job, could get all the evidence in Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Prom what source?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From the railways themselves.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But they are all interested.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Railway Commission had counsel big enough and able enough, they would bring the Canadian Pacific railway into court with their books, and they would have practical railway men to assist them, and they would be able to find out from the books of the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Northern, exactly what it costs to transport a ton of freight a mile, and what it costs to maintain the road, and what it costs to construct the road, and they will be able to form an intelligent opinion on that without going out of Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman
appreciates the difference between _ getting friendly evidence and evidence which you have to get out of an opposing withess by Mr. ROGERS.
cross-examination, and so on. There is a great difference between the two kinds of evidence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The principle cited by
my hon. friend is true, that you should never rely upon an opponent's witnesses if you can help it. But there are different kinds of evidence and the evidence that is required in this case is not the opinion of witnesses but the facts which are in the possession of every railway company in Canada, who know exactly what it costs per ton to transport freight, to maintain the road, and to construct the road. There are dozens of counsel in Canada, who know enough about railway matters-I think my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is one-to know exactly what books and documents you would want from the railway company to prove this. The Chairman of the Railway Commission has that knowledge, and he can put his finger on exactly the proper document he requires from any railway company in Canada, and he can make it bring that document into court to get at the facts. Mr. Cowan representing Alberta and Saskatchewan found enough to satisfy the Railway Commission that they should decide there was discrimination. Mr. Cowan proved out of the mouth of the witnesses of the railway companies that it cost less to construct a railway on the prairies than it did in the East, and that it cost less to operate a railway on the prairies than it did in the East. What more do you want? But through the dilatory tactics of counsel representing the .Dominion Government, there has been delay month after month during all this time. That is what we are finding fault with to-day. While I do not want to impute dishonourable motives to counsel representing the Government, I think something ought be done to hurry them up. It is all their fault. It is not for the Government to show that the rates are too high; it is for the railway companies to produce evidence to show that their rates should not be reduced. I am afraid hon. gentlemen opposite are approaching this matter from a political standpoint, rather than from a business standpoint. I think the hon. member from Regina deserves the thanks of every man in Canada for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I hope that the Minister of Railways will spur them on, and, if they have' not sufficient ability or willingness to move fast enough, that he will get other men who will. There are plenty of lawyers in Canada who will take retainers from him and who will see the work done properly. If the railway companies are not able to furnish sufficient evidence to justify the present rates, let the counsel press the matter and get a decision from the Railway Commission. I have sufficient faith in the Railway Commission to believe that they

will give a verdict according to the evidence. The evidence will be that the rates should be reduced. If the Railway Commission do come to such a decision, I do not think my friends should find any fault, and I also do not think that their friends will be aggrieved, because they ought to be subject to the laws of the country just as the farmers of the Northwest are. I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will see that this evil is abolished; that these people will bring the matter to a head and that the question will be decided upon its merits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is now fifteen years or over since I went to western Canada. At that time there was just one line of rail communication that was offering anything like transportation facilities to the people of this country; that was the Canadian Pacific railway. Since then we have had two railways projected. They are not yet completed to the coast. The question of freight rates has naturally engaged the attention of the people a great deal during that time. There has been agitation after agitation, as the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has: said, to reduce freight rates upon the Canadian Pacific railway, before competition was offered. The people of western Canada naturally expected that, when new roads were projected, some solution of the problem of the charges made for the carriage of traffic on railways would be offered. It must be remembered that the bonds of the Canadian Northern railway were guaranteed by this Dominion. The bonds of its branch line system are largely guaranteed by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific main line have been guaranteed by this Dominion, and the mountain section was practically built by the Dominion. The branch lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific have been laid by the expenditure of money raised on guarantees of securities guaranteed by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. One would naturally expect that one would find some solution offered by gentlemen, who for fifteen years had control of this country, of the vexed problem of excessive freight rates which the western farmers pay. What do we find to-day? The fixed charges of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company do not amount to $800 per mile or will not when they retire the securities that are now about maturing with the proceeds of the recent stock issue. The fixed charges of the Canadian Northern Railway Company amount to something like $1,000 per mile. The fixed charges of that railway which is the particular pet of the former Administration will amount to over $2,000 per mile for that portion extending from Edmonton to Winnipeg.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That will do twice the
business.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am coming to that.
That being so, I ask the hon. gentleman from Carleton (Mr. Carvell):	What was
the first thing one had to think about in regard to freight rates ? Anyone who has studied railroads at all knows that the first factor in fixing freight rates is the fixed charges.	[DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do you ask me that as a
question?	,


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, if you desire so to construe it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In my judgment, the
Grand Trunk Pacific railway is a much tetter proposition and can do business on a lower rate at $2,000 fixed charges per mile than the one per cent road on fixed charges of $1,000 per mile can do, for the reason that they can haul twice the traffic with the same engine.


William Humphrey Bennett: The lack of knowledge of the hon. member for Carleton on the subject of railroads is greater than I thought it was.
The fixed charge is the first factor in fixing a freight rate. It therefore follows that, in order to find out what is a reasonable freight rate in western Canada, you must investigate the fixed charges of the three railroads that are carrying the traffic. That is obvious. The Canadian Pacific railway has been maintaining a freight rate in western Canada during all these years based upon one principle, which is the governing principle laid down by American roads and which was adopted in this country. Whenever the Canadian Pacific railway had a line to put into operation, it based its freight rates upon figures shown by the United States. Those figures, as we know, were based upon the traffic bearing all that it could carry. In other words the freight traffic should always pay all it could bear. We know that from the day of the first railway. In Canada we have the same nrincinle applied. In other words, the freight rate was just as large as it was possible to get out of the traffic that was carried by the railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The railways give the
farmers just enough to live upon and take the rest.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, they charge just as much as the traffic will bear. My hon. friend from Carleton Shows a lamentable Jack of knowledge in regard to the matter of railways. He should have known that every transcontinental railway that crossed the United States or attempted to cross it went intp the hands of a receiver, except

the Great Northern; and that every one of the roads, including the Northern Pacific, the Union Pacific and the Southern Pacific, were subsidized with enormous land grants and cash, aggregating more than the subsidies-paid by the former Conservative Government to the Canadian Pacific railway. I should like to remind my hon. friend that the Liberal Government of the day offered the Caaadian Pacific railway fifty million acres of land to build the road and could not find a contractor who would undertake it, whereas the Conservative Government offered them twenty-five million acres and they took it. If he would like to see ihe advertisements which appeared in the newspapers of that day, I should be glad to show them to him in the library. We all know, of course, in the light of present day facts that too much was given to the Canadian Pacific railway. It is idle for a man at the present time, in the light of his present knowledge, to condemn the action that was then taken in view of the fact that men possessing the finest intellects of the day, for instance Edward Blake, said that the road would not earn sufficient to pay for grease for the. wheels.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has misunderstood me. I was offering no criticisms on any government for giving a land grant to the Canadian Pacific railway. I do not do so now. I am sorry that they have got it, and therefore they should not be allowed to charge enormous freight rates on account of it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I quite appreciate what my hon. friend has -said. I was only pointing out the facts because he spoke of them having land worth $300,000,000. In fact, they had eighteen million acres of land left, reselling seven million acres to the Government, and I have never heard even my hon. friend from Edmonton place a value of three or four hundred million dollars on this land grant. Even in the light of our present day knowledge, the figures used by my friend from Carleton require a little pruning.
The next road was the Canadian Northern railway. That road is to-day laid with sixty pound steel from Winnipeg to Edmonton, with mud ballast and light ties. They fixed their traffic tolls at the same figures relatively as those which had been fixed by the Canadian Pacific railway. As they were carrying traffic. through the same territory, they naturally could not charge a larger freight rate.
Then came the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. They followed exactly what these other roads did and fixed the same tolls that were fixed and enjoyed by the other- two roads, as my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) knows. In regard to the carriage of passenger traffic, we all know that that road, Mr. BENNETT (Calgary.
not being completely taken over from the contractors, has a very excellent service over a -limited mileage. As to whether or not it is paying, no man except the officials of the company knows, but the rates charged are substantially the same as those charged by the other roads.
There you have the freight rates situation in western Canada. You have to-day, the Canadian Pacific railway, a railway in the highest possible state of efficiency, very economically administered, as the figures show, compared with the railways in the United States; you have the Canar dian Northern railway, carefully and efficiently administered, but physically requiring the same kind of reconstruction that the Canadian Pacific railway had to undergo between the time when I first went' West fifteen years ago and the presenttime. Seven or eight years ago the Canadian Pacific railway was reconstructed, as the hon. member for Edmonton knows. The 56-pound rail, the 1,500 ties to the mile and the mud ballast gave way to the 80-pound rail, the 3,000 ties to the mile and the gravel ballast. The Grand Trunk Pacific, as the hon. member for Carleton has said, was built in the first instance, at a very very high standard of efficiency. In other words it was built with 80-pound steel, with 3,000 ties to the mile, and ballasted with stone and gravel. What follows? The first criticism the people of western Canada are offering is that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific railway traverse substantially for many miles between Edmonton and Winnipeg the same territory. They are not far enough apart. And it is not very hard to see by careful observation

observation that, I know, will be borne out by the hon. member for Regina if he will think about it for a moment- Grand Trunk Pacific trains going out with engine, roadbed and grades sufficient to enable 70 loads to be hauled, but actually hauling, perhaps, 20 loads, for the reason that they have not the traffic to carry. But the fixed charges upon that system must be paid. The agitation to reduce freight rates continues. When this Government came into power the Minister of Railways at once took that matter up with the Railway Commission. My hon. friend from Edmonton says that he protests here and now. I say to him: Why did you not protest then and there for the fifteen years when you sat with your friends on this side of the House? I do say that this 'protesting here and now' comes with ill grace from men who, for ten years, for twelve years, for fifteen years, remained in power and offered no solution for the transportation problem except the creation of new roads built with increased fixed charges that are hung a3 a millstone around the neck of the farmers of western Canada for

_ali time to come are to be met. And this is clear to any man who will analyse these figures. I would ask my hon. friend from Carleton to go to the library and consult the latest issue of Poor's Railway Manual and compare this new with other roads, and see whether we in western Canada have been honestly and fairly dealt with in the enormous charges placed upon us for all time in connection with the last-named road.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 110, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Sharpe (Lisgar).
On section 2-lines of railway authorized:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: An amendment has
been made in clause 2 by changing the words * Little Saskatchewan ' on line 20 to ' Dauphin,' as this appears to be the proper name of that river; and the words ' Crows Nest ' have been properly changed to one word.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-consent of municipalities:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Sections 8, 9 and 10 are the standard clauses in regard to provincial and municipal protection, and section 11 is their application to this charter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.	*

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 118, respecting the Imperial Traction Company.- Mr. Clark (North Bruce).
On sectiton 1-lines of railway authorized:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: In sub-clause (b) of this section the words ' or near ' have been struck out of line 13, and the line is made to go to the western limits of the city of Toronto, not into the city, passing near the town of Milton.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-issue of additional security:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Section 2 as printed in the Bill should not have been there at all, and we struck it out and inserted a new clause dealing with an entirely different matter-limiting the bonding powers on the new line authorized. We made the limitation the same amount per mile as in the 284
old charter-$50,000 for a double track and $30,000 for a single track line.


Frank Oliver: Is it contemplated that
the company shall buy its right of way the same as a railway, or that it shall make arrangements with the municipalities?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Whenever they can
they intend to use the roadway if the municipalities will permit them, otherwise they will have to buy.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
_ House in Committee on Bill No. 177, to incorporate the Athabasca and Grande Prairie Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
On section 1-incorporation:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is a new Bill
that has come from the Senate; it is an entirely new line originating this year. The only amendment we have made is to make the capitalization consistent with the distance-a million and a half instead of a million.


Frank Oliver: Between what points does the line run?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As set out in section 9, it is to run:
Prom some point at or near the junction of the .Solomon river with the Athabasca river in the province of Alberta, in a northwesterly direction to a point at or near the junction of the Smoky river with the Muskeg river in the province of Alberta, thence by the most feasible route in a northerly direction to Dun-vegan in the province of Alberta, passing through Grande Prairie at a point on the westerly side of Bear lake.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 176, respecting the Southampton Railway Company.-Mr. Crocket.
On section 1-declaration:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: We had to reconstruct this Bill, in order to do in the usual way, instead of in an unusual and doubtful way, what was desired to be done. There is in New Brunswick a provincial road thirteen miles in length which has been assisted by the province to the extent of $12,000 a mile, andthe Canadian Pacific railway obtained the right to use this road for ninety-nine years. The provincial government have consented as guardians or trustees of the people in regard to the provincial road just as we ar*



the custodians oi the peoples' rights in regard to Dominion charters. They gave consent on behalf of the lessees. It was necessary that the Dominion Parliament should, consent in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway, the Dominion creature. That has been done in the usual way. The Senate declared the road to be for the general advantage of Canada, taking it from provincial jurisdiction simply because it wanted to lease to a Dominion road. What we have done is to recommend that the title of the Bill shall be'changed on the third reading to 'An Act respecting the Southampton Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.' We have changed the preamble to set forth the *acts as they are:
That whereas the Southampton Railway Company has by its petition represented that it was incorporated by chapter 46 of the statutes of 1910 of the province of New Brunswick, and that by chapter 12 of the statutes of 1911 of New Brunswick it was authorized to enter into an agreement and lease with the Canadian Pacific railway, hereinafter called the company, as herein provided.
We struck out the clause making the declaration that it should be a woTk for the general advantage of Canada. We have the usual amalgamation clause but we specifically mention what the amalgamation is to be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that is satisfactory. There are disputes regarding rights of way and I was wondering if the effect of declaring this to- be a work for the general advantage of Canada would be to bring it under Dominion jurisdiction and possibly affect existing litigation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is one thing we had in view in the changes that were made.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that is quite satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed, the title to be: ' An Act respecting the Southampton Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.'

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Martin, that the House do now adjourn.
Richard Bedford Bennett: At six o'clock I had drawn attention to the fact that the first factoT to be considered in fixing a freight-rate was the fixed charges that had to be borne to enable a railway company to meet its obligations on its securities. I pointed out what these charges were in respect to the three great roads in western Canada. I had pointed out it when I Mr. LANCASTER
first went West, fifteen years ago, we had only one road. At present we have three and I would ask any gentleman opposite to point out a single instance in which there has been any reduction in freight rates by reason of their transportation policy. I say that that is an important and serious thing for the people to consider and when gentlemen come here to oppose and criticise the first effort that has been made to have the tribunal created by law seriously consider the whole question, I ask them whether they can point to a single reduction that was made in the burden of freight rates cast on the people of the West, during the fifteen years they were in power.
There is, however, an outstanding case in which rates in western Canada have been reduced. The Government of Manitoba took over the Northern Pacific lines, and subsequently leased them to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. By reason of their taking over these lines they reduced the freight rates on grain by a very substantial sum and also reduced the rates on general commodities twenty-five per cent. That reduction had a direct effect upon the freight rate policy of the other roads in western Canada, and the Canadian Pacific railway, long before there was what I might call any efficient competition from other lines, made certain reductions by reason of the policy of the Manitoba Government. These are the facts which may be ascertained from the records, and about which there can be no real dispute. We had the new provinces created, and they commenced to guarantee the securities of branch lines. Unlike the province of Manitoba, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta not only guarantee the securities of the branch lines for the roads I have mentioned, some of them operating under provincial charters, and some of them under federal charters, but in the province of Alberta, and in one instance at least in the province of Saskatchewan, they exempted those lines from ail forms of taxation for the whole period of the guarantee, and made no bargain of any kind, shape or description, as to the rates that might be charged by those lines for transportation.


William Melville Martin: To what line in Saskatchewan does my hon. friend refer ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The Grand Trunk Pacific branch lines.


William Melville Martin: That is not so. Not a
branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific is exempted.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk railway both did it. Now they are not exempt in Saskatchewan for the whole, but in AlbeTta they are still exempt for the whole period of guarantee.


William Melville Martin: I know nothing about
Alberta.


William Humphrey Bennett: My hon. friend knows
what the facts are in Saskatchewan. I have pointed out what they were originally in that province and what they are now. It is true that they saw the error of their ways, so far as that is concerned, but my hon. friend does not assert and cannot assert that they made any condition as to the amount of rates that should be charged.


William Melville Martin: For the very good reason that they cannot.


William Humphrey Bennett: Heretofore I have had
a fair regard for the legal acumen of the hon. gentleman, but when he says that they cannot, he either says something which he knows to be absolutely incorrect, or he is more ignorant than I thought he was. Either horn of the dilemma is sufficient for my purpose. The province of British Columbia legislating after the legislatures of Alberta and Saskatchewan, did make a binding contract for control of rates that ousted the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the branch lines that were guaranteed, as my hon. friend should know, held local charters over which the local legislature had supreme and complete control until such time as they were brought under federal control and obtained federal charters. He should know that. We have the province of Manitoba with control over its freight rates by reason of the agreement made with the Canadian Northern Railway Company. We have the province of Saskatchewan without control, and we have the province of Alberta without control, and in addition the railways being exempted from taxation for the whole period of the guarantee. In addition to that, we have the province of Manitoba taking two per cent of the gross,earnings for taxation, while in Saskatchewan the sum now fixed is merely a nominal one per mile, that is according to the statutes, at least-my hon. friend from Regina may have different information as to that. These are the facts. This Government came into power with these facts before them, and the first thing they did was to refer the matter to the tribunal created by law for that purpose, and that tribunal heard evidence. It is perfectly true that the first thing the late chairman of that board did was to hold that the onus was on the railway companies to show that their rates were not an undue preference or an unjust discrimination. Judging from the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin)	and the hon. member for
Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)-the hon. member 284i
for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) did seem to realize that it was a judicial matter-the debate has proceeded this afternoon upon an entirely erroneous conception of the statute. Either my hon. friend from Edmonton did not read the statute, or he did not want to read it. I repeat that these are the facts. Then the matter came before the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that board ruled that the onus was on the railway companies to establish that was not undue preference or unjust discrimination in the rates. Here is the section of the Act which I will read. My hon. friend from Regina in my judgment attempted to make it appear that what the Railway Commission was doing now was something that was not authorized by the statute, and the hon. member for Edmonton who followed stated that the railways were violating the statutes and should be brought to ask for doing so. For ten years he was not much concerned about that, but it has suddenly struck him that it would be a nice thing to be concerned about it. It is another case of here and now, instead of there and then. Here is the section:
Whenever it is shown that any company charges one person, company, or class of persons, or the persons in any district, lower tolls for the same or similar goods, or lower tolls for the same or similar eeir vices, than it charges to other persons, companies, or classes of persons, or to the persons in another district, or makes any difference in treatment in respect of such companies or persons, the burden of proving that such lower toll oir difference in treatment, does not amount to an undue preference or an unjust discrimination shall lie on the company.
It is not any difference in tolls that gives that board jurisdiction, it is not discrimination, it is not a change in tolls; it must be an undue preference, or an unjust discrimination. My hon. friend from Regina has surely overlooked that it must be an undue preference or an unjust discrimination. The learned chairman of the board said that the onus was on the companies to establish their case. He said:	I rule that these rates are undue
and unjust. Then what was. the further matter at issue? The additional matter at issue became the reasonableness of the tolls as a whole, and the question which the Board of Railway Commissioners is today considering is not only the question ot unjust discrimination or undue preference, it is the question of whether or not the rates charged in western Canada bear any proportion to the service rendered by the transportation companies. That is the problem now being considered. Then what happened? There were adjournments as my hon. friend from Regina read from the record. Had he read a line or two further down he would have found that it was counsel for the provinces of Saskat-

chewan and Alberta who made the application for the long adjournment. Here are the words which appear in the manuscript of my hon. friend (Mr. Martin):
The next meeting was held by the hoard on October 7, when the railway companies endeavoured to justify the onus of proof which had been cast upon them on the 16th day of April.	.... Mr. Cowan
stated that in view of his other engagements and the immense mass of statistics to he digested that he could not proceed on the date named by the Chief Commissioner-November 4. However, owing to representations made by Mr. Cowan the meeting was subsequently postponed to January 7, 1913.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Whose counsel was Mr. Cowan?


William Humphrey Bennett: He was counsel for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and this is what I find on page 11 of my hon. friend's manuscript:
Mr. Cowan had no assistance in fighting for this apparently long adjournment. The counsel for the Dominion Government had not even intimated that they were not prepared and ready to go on on the 4th of November, and after the Chief Commissioner had suggested the 4th of November, he asked Mr.-Whitla at page 9975:


The Chairman:: What do you say, Mr. Whitla?
Mr. Whitla: Mr. Chairman, as far as counsel for the Dominion Government is concerned we are largely in the hands of the board. This is one branch of the case, discrimination only.
The Chief Commissioner: I think it is every branch of the case, discrimination and everything.
What then is the position? We find that the meetings were held and evidence was taken, and the case was adjourned six or seven weeks ago for the purpose of enabling a mass of statistics to be put in by the railway companies in answer to the parole evidence and statistics submitted by the Dominion and by the provinces. My hon. friend says, why go to the United States to get evidence? He knows as well as any man living, as was said by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) that you cannot possibly get disinterested evidence unless you go to someone who is disinterested, and in the Dominion the three great railroads were all represented by counsel before that board. I wish to point out to this House what is the serious feature of this whole case, as it is a matter which sooner or later must be brought to the attention of the House, that is the statement that was made by Mr. Hanna on behalf of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and by a representative of the Grand Trunk Pacific that if the railways were pressed to the point urged by counsel it would be impossible for these railways to carry on Mr. BENNETT (Calgary).
their business, having regard to the magnitude of their fixed charges and the cost of operation.
These are statements made before the tribunal and supported by statistics. Is it not a matter of supreme concern to the people of this country that such a question should be carefully considered; is it a light matter for a tribunal charged with that grave responsibility, to say: we will, by one stroke of the pen, cut down the rates of all these transportion companies ? And, if the evidence produced by the Canadian Northern and by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Companies be correct, then the solvency of these two companies is threatened, and their ability to pay the fixed charges put upon them by this Parliament is jeopardized. That is the seriousness of the position.
When the hon. gentleman from Regina (Mr. Martin) attempts to make political capital out of this, I would have him understand that not only the credit of the railways but the credit of Canada is at issue, because anything that injuriously affects the welfare of these two great railway companies is detrimental to the welfare of the whole Dominion. If, as I said, the statements made on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the Canadian Northern Company are correct, then the guarantees of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta might have to become effective and what would the hon. gentleman from Regina think of that? The hon. gentleman told us that he did not come here to criticise the Board of Railway Commissioners, but he did come to criticise the Government, and with a longing that is ever present in his mind to gain some little publicity by an attack on this Government which is endeavouring to do something for.this country and to do it honestly and well, he cheerfully launched out in his unfounded criticism. But, the criticism of the hon. gentleman is really directed against the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. And why? The very first section of the Act creating that tribunal declares it is a court of record, and the hon. member stands here while this case is subjudice, and he condems that Board for having granted an adjournment. Is that his idea of professional etiquette; is it his idea of the duty of counsel to criticise a court and to endeavour to prejudice it in the eyes of the country? And all that he is able to charge against the Board of Railway Commissioners is that it granted an adjournment, which was urged in the first instance by counsel for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. When that court of record, constituted by statute, did grant the adjournment, counsel for this Government stood in his place as was his duty and said:

I am in the hands of the court. The hon. member condemns counsel for that. The adjournment was granted, not at the instance of the federal Government, and not at the instance of the counsel who represented the people and who are so sneeringly referred to by the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell). Let me tell him that the gentlemen who represent the Dominion of Canada before the tribunal in this case have forgotten more law than he ever knew or than he ever will know. Let me tell the hon. member for Regina that it ill becomes a young man like him to speak in such sneering terms about the qualifications of the legal gentlemen who represent the people of Canada in that case; let me tell him further that the counsel for the Dominion are gentlemen quite equal in their profession to the gentleman who represents the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am not saying much when I say that. When it comes to a question of law, no one would accuse that gentleman of being a profound lawyer. A profound knowledge of the fundamental principles upon which railway freight rates are based, is as foreign to him as it is to the hon. gentleman himself. A more complex, intricate and difficult problem never engaged the attention of any tribunal than this question of the adjustment of freight rates in western Canada. The gentlemen who are charged with the responsibility of adjusting these rates have a duty not only to western Canada but to the'people of the whole country, because every part of Canada must be affected by their judgment. More than that, the credit of the country itself is affected.
The hon. gentleman from Regina (Mr. Martin) has come into this high court of Parliament, while a case was still under consideration by the Court created by this Parliament; while the evidence is incomplete, while the witnesses are still to be called, while the arguments of counsel had not been made, and he has stated that be-that court granted an adjournment that was asked for in the first instance by counsel for the provinces, whom he lauds so highly, in order that his other engagements might be kept, the Government of Canada is guilty of laches in not prosecuting the case. This is the first reflection I have heard in this country upon the bona fides of any judicial tribunal, and, Sir, there is no doubt in the world that his attack upon the Railway Commission, is as wholly unwarranted as it is possible -for anything to be unwarranted. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) said he had the highest opinion of the Railway Board, and he added that during all the time he occupied a'seat in this House, he never heard a Conservative member make the slightest criticism of that tribunal. He is right. It is not the habit of the members of the Conservative party With whom I am associated to cast reflections upon ti,e judiciary of the land, ho matter how strong in some instances the temptation may be.. It is an attribute of the Conservative party in this country to show respect for our constituted judicial tribunals, and I would commend our example in that respect to some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. As a matter of fact the Government had had no more to do with the adjournment granted by the Board of Railway Commissioners than has the hon. gentleman himself. I would point out to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that if he is so particularly anxious about the vindication of the law in this case it is perfectly open to him, and it has been open to him for the last eight years, to go down to the Board of Railway Commissioners and put in motion himself the machinery that will enable the case to be proceeded with. The procedure before that tribunal allows him to do that, but I have not heard of him having done it. But this afternoon, dealing with a large problem affecting the well-being of the entire community, the hon. gentleman made a vicious attack upon the Minister of Railways, who since he assumed the portfolio has engaged himself day and night in the conscientious discharge of his duties, and who is not the official joker to the Administration, as some Ministers of Railways have been. No man knows better than the hon. member for Regina that the Minister of Railways has made an honest effort to solve this problem, and no man knows better than he that if any undue delay has occurred it is not the Government that is responsible. The hon. member knows all this but in order to make a little political capital for himself, and in the* hope that tomorrow morning his name will be extended in big type across the Liberal newspapers in the West, and that the Regina Leader will tell how he fought for the rights of the West, struggled for the down-trodden farmers of the plains against the great octopus which is crushing out the lives of the farmers of the West-


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Do not look so angry.


Frank Oliver: The Canadian Pacific railway is all right, do not worry.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am glad my hon.
friend from Edmonton has mentioned that, although he will probably be unable to appreciate the fact that I am one man in this House who is $10,000 a year poorer because I severed my connection with the Canadian Pacific railway. I will admit that the hon. member for Edmonton cannot understand any man doing that.


Frank Oliver: Not the member for
Calgary.

8980


William Humphrey Bennett: Oh, well, I do not
remember of any photograph having appeared in any newspaper of a document with reference to any sums of money 1
have received. I merely mention that in passing.
These are the broad facts of the case and they speak for themselves. My hon. friend from Regina cannot contradict them; they cannot be contradicted. Let me tell him that discrimination does not give you a case before the Board of Railway Commissioners. The rates from Toronto to Sudbury and the Soo are the same, but that does not give you a case; the rates between Fort William, Calgary and Edmonton, are the same, but that does not give you a case although the mileage is entirely different. Your claim must be based upon something other than that, 'but I hesitate to discuss the case because it is now before the board. I would hate to think for a single moment that the Board of Railway Commissioners gave a decision upon this case that would open up three weeks or a month or six months from now the whole matter again. It must be based upon law and accurate knowledge. Let me give my hon. friend a case. I happened to be in Spokane when the case of the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern was being heard. That case was started nearly twenty years ago before the Inter-State Commerce Commission. What was the point? The point at issue was as to whether or not the charge made by a railway company for the carriage of traffic to the coast-that is to the sea- could be less than the pro rata charge made to an inland town like Spokane. The Board of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce at Spokane fought that matter during all the intervening years, beaten today, victorious to-morrow, then beaten again, until finally about three years ago they got a judgment in their favour. What happened? The case was re-heard; and even to-day, despite that long struggle, no order has been made effective to reduce the freight rates to Spokane and to place them upon the basis for which they were contending.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does- the hon. member
hold that out as a precedent for this country?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, but the Supreme
Court of the United States held that the rates charged to terminii could not be applied to inland towns.
We, in Calgary, Edmonton and Regina, have endeavoured from time to time to invoke the aid of that Spokane case in order to have rates charged from the Atlantic seaboard to Calgary, Edmonton and Regina made pro rata to the traffic rates to the Pacific seaboard, but we have been unable to do it. The Supreme Court of the United Mr. BENNETT (Calgary*
States has upheld the contention that the rate for through traffic does not bear any pro rata relation to the rate to intervening points.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. member
mean to argue that the Railway Commission would not have power to decide the matter the other way?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have no doubt about the fact that the Railway Commission would have power to fix any rates at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Where does the application come in?


William Humphrey Bennett: The question as to
what should be a reasonable rate is also now before the tribunal. There must be a rate fixed having regard to the fixed charges, the physical conditions of the country and all the surrounding circumstances, the density of the traffic and so on. My hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) was entirely wrong in his statement about that. When he spoke about the density of traffic, he spoke about something that was alleged in the prima facie case established by the records of the Vancouver case. The companies in determining the density of traffic included in their figures the traffic of Manitoba for instance as being not only Manitoba traffic proper but all the traffic of Alberta and Saskatchewan that passed through that province as well as that of British Columbia. When the matter was heard and the railway companies in their answer in rebuttal, they destroyed that entirely. The facts which were summarized by my friend from Regina this afternoon are the facts of this prima facie case before the evidence had been heard at all. As to whether or not the prima facie case has been entirely destroyed must rest with the judgfes just as a prima facie case must be considered in the light of the evidence given by and for the defendant. I trust I make myself clear upon that point. One of the very great difficulties under; which we laboured was apparently a false conception as to our statistics, because we had regarded the prima facie case as being based upon a correct statement, whereas in fact it was based upon all the traffic from all the provinces, having regard to the density of traffic in the country through which it passed to reach Fort William. When it comes down to a question of relative rates, my hon. friend from Regina knows that the freight tolls per mile in Canada are about three-quarters of a cent per ton per mile. That is something less than the sum earned by most of the railways traversing the same kind of territory in the United States. That is part of the answer put in by the Railway companies. I hope my friend has read

it, because it is extremely interesting and at the same time difficult reading. What has to be considered is whether or not the commission is able from the evidence that is produced before it and the evidence given by the statistics to conclude first, that there has been an undue preference between the East and the West, that is that western freight rates have been raised unduly in comparison with those in the East and whether there has been undue discrimination between the East and the West at the expense of the West. If that is not established, there further remains the question as to the reasonableness of the freight rates. All these matters are matters which must be determined by that court, and I submit that it is unfair to ask this Parliament to endeavour to prejudge that case or to blame the judges for doing the best they can with a most difficult case. If it took the Inter-State Commerce Commission in Spokane years and years to deal with that great problem, is it fair to say that, because this case has not made rapid enough progress, this Parliament must criticise and censure the men who. are endeavouring to do their duty. That is what this motion is and it is most unfair.
I have heard a good deal this afternoon as to the intolerable burden that is being borne by the people of the West in connection with freight rates. My hon. friend from Edmonton has referred to the fact that it is my business to know something of freight rates. He cannot understand that it is no longer my business. I have endeavoured to profit from the knowledge I learned. For several years it was my business to know something of freight rates There is a burden borne by the farmers of the West that is even worse than freight rates. I suppose it has not crossed the 'mind of the average member to ask himself how much of this burden that is borne 'by the people of the West is really because of the freight rates and how much because of something else. I should like to tell my hon. friends that bad roads cost the farmers of the West more than excessive freight rates. As my friends may question that, let me prove it. It has been absolutely and conclusively demonstrated that, owing to the nature of the soil and the bad roads which we have in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the farmers are able to haul to the market only something like forty bushels of grain per load and that the average distance that the farmers are from the elevators and railroads at the present time is between fifteen and twenty miles. That sounds like a very small load. Given good roads in a dry season, they are able to haul from eighty to a hundred bushels of grain to the market. I have interviewed the farmers and have obtained that information from them. If the
farmer's time is worth anything at all, and if his team is worth anything, it means that it had cost him all the way from ten to fifteen cents a bushel to haul his grain from the farm to the elevator. The freight charges from the elevator to Fort William are in many instances no greater than that. In one instance that came under my notice, the sum charged to transport the wheat from the railway elevator to Liverpool was less than the sum it cost the farmer to haul it. from his field to the elevator. That is then the real burden interfering with the farmers getting the profits they should from their husbandry? The excessive charge that is made upon them to get 'their crop to the railways in the first instance varies from ten to fifteen cents a bushel. The other evening h-on. gentlemen opposite were content to put themselves on record as opposed to the only effort I have seen in Canada to provide a general system of highways. That is the reason the West is so vitally interested in a matter of that character.
It has been said that we should discuss this matter without any party spirit. Did hon. gentlemen opposite make their observations in a non-partisan spirit? The hon. member for Red Deer attacked the Government for not reducing freight rates. But the hon. member for Carleton said, very properly, that this matter was in the hands of a court. The hon. member for Edmonton shows no spirit of partisanship-none whatever-that is, not more than usual. The hon. member for Regina, as I said, in his desire to obtain publicity, showed just that party spirit that always characterizes his utterances. The hon. member for Medicine Hat, I must say, did seem to desire to say something free from party animus. I have looked over the Votes and Proceedings of this House, for a good many years, and I cannot remember having ever seen the names of these hon. gentlemen who appealed for a lack of party spirit recorded as voting in a way that would indicate that they had any mind or opinions beyond that mind and those opinions that might be given to them by those who directed their destinies. Especially is this true of the hon. member for Red Deer, who vaunts his independence outdoors, but in this House, votes yea or nay as he is told..
Now, so far as the facts in this case are concerned, I have indicated in a general way what they are, and I say frankly that those facts cannot be controverted or contradicted. I do not propose to constitute myself a court of appeal for the purpose of determining the justice of the case that is endeavoured to be made by the people of the West, because I believe it serves no good purpose to the farmers on the western plains to merely say that they are suffering rfom exeesive rates still less to endeavour to 'censure a court 'before it has given its opiu

89?4
ion, to pre-judge a case that has not been heard, to sit in the seat of the scornful as did my horn friend from Regina, without hearkening to the witnesses, without waiting for the addresses of counsel, but endeavouring to constitute himself a judge in Israel, lest some benefit might come to the Government that has instituted this inquiry which, I believe, will he of untold benefit to the people of western Canada.


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland):: I have listened to my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) with a great deal of care; and I should have listened with greater pleasure had there not been introduced into his remarks a spirit of partisanship, a venom, if I may use the expression, which was not called for. It may be that the hon. gentleman cannot address the House in any other manner. The effort has been made to represent the course taken by hon. members on this side with reference to this question as one of condemnation of a court created by this Parliament, this being the result of partisan spirit. Of course, no one would ever eharge my hon. friend from Calgary with having any party venom in his make-up; and yet they could hardly iisten even to the remarks he uttered in closing his address to-day without concluding that he and other hon. gentlemen opposite were most interested in dealing with this matter from a persona] and political standpoint instead of from the standpoint of conditions which have prevailed in western Canada. I have been in this House a good many years, and I am bound to say that the subject under discussion this afternoon is one that has been very prolific of debate in the past. Never has there been a year during the time T have had the honour of a seat in this House when this subject has not been presented in one form or another, not merely once but on many occasions during a session. This time the matter has been presented, and I think very ably presented, by my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin). It certainly was presented in a calm and deliberative way, and the hon. gentleman's position was sustained by facts which prove his case clearly up to the hilt. That case my hon. friend who has just taken his seat has not attempted to answer.
I was very much amused at the hon. member for Calgary when he turned from the question of the railway grievances on account of freight rates to the conditions prevailing in western Canada as respects highways. He argued in effect that because the farmers are under a heavy burden by reason of the condition of their highways, due to the soil and other conditions and to the fact that they have no turnpike roads, because they are suffering disadvantages in this way, therefore this.
Mr. BENNETT 'Calagry).
Parliament is not interested in considering the question as to the disadvantages under which they labour in connection with the freight rates-that because they are burdened with heavy costs in transportation from their farms to the railway stations therefore they should be burdened with heavy freight rates to the markets which they are seeking with their products.
The hon. gentleman says that the fact that you consider this matter and deal with it in the way it has been dealt with this afternoon means that you are attacking the tribunal, you Are dealing with a case that is sub judice, that befere the case is determined you are dealing with the court. Not so, Mr. Speaker. The Railway Board, a very excellent tribunal and a very successful one, was the creation of this Parliament. We delegated to them certain authority and certain powers, and in so delegating that authority we have a right to see that they exercise it. My hon. friend from Regina has shown that this matter has not been properly and satisfactorily dealt with by that board. He has shown the grievance under which the farmers and the public of western Canada labour, and he has pointed out that there have been delays that are unwarranted. My hon. friend from Calgary has said: Oh, but the representative of the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta asked for an adjournment from November until the 7th of January. Did that representa^ tive ask on behalf of the provinces for inaction from January 7 down to the present time? It may be that when the evidence was put in before the tribunal that representative wished to study, and so asked for an adjournment. But he did not ask it for a longer time than the 7th of January. And even though there is justification for the Railway Board not dealing with the case promptly before January last, certainly that is no justification for the delay that has resulted since that date.
I think we do not always bear in mind what has occurred. Away back in the years that have gone, this subject has been a matter of general complaint by almost every member coming from western Canada, whether he sat to the right or to the left of the Speaker, and many theories have been advanced as to the causes of the discrimination which has existed. Admittedly there have been very excessive railway freight rates in western Canada, and admittedly there has been discrimination against the West in favour of the East. We have on many occasions in the past gone into the causes of these conditions as they exist, and I do not intend to do so at this time. It has been truly said by many members from western Canada that this condition originated away back at the time of the con-

struction of the Canadian Pacific railway, and that it was due to the monopoly that was granted to that railway at the time of its inception and construction. I do not . propose to discuss that feature of the matter, nor to go into the merits of the action taken with respect to that monopoly. In any case, that monopoly did exist, whether justified or not. It may have been a very logical result of the conditions which prevailed in those years, and it may have been the only solution to what was admittedly a very serious problem.
The hon. member for Calgary has referred to the fact that the Mackenzie Administration sought to have the Canadian Pacific railway constructed at an even greater price than was subsequently paid. He might have gone further and said that the Government of Canada turned away from the construction of the road as a government work and sought to find a company to take hold of it. That was in the early seventies, and later on another government was successful in securing a company to take hold of the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, and they successfully put it through. It has been! claimed that this was done at very great expense to the country. Admitting that it was, it might with equal candor be said that it was justified by reason of the existing conditions. I have heard hon. members say on the floor of this House that the construction of that road, in the construction of portions of the railway that were handed over to the Canadian Pacific1 railway corporation, in the land grants and in the money subsidies, cost the people of this country about $400,000,000. They have argued that on the floor of this House, to their own satisfaction at least, but it is immaterial in the discussion of this question whether the road cost $400,000,000 or whether it cost less or even more. We must all admit that there was given to this company at the time of the construction of the road, a complete control of the freight rates that they should impose upon the traffic of western Canada. They did exercise their rights in that regard, and for many years they were not subject to any control. They were exempt from the control of the Government, and afterwards when the Railway Board was created, they for many years stood aloof and refused to be subject to its juris-[DOT] diction.
The hon. member for Calgary has repeated his usual argument, that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were for fifteen years entrusted with the government of this country, and during that period they were inactive in this regard and did nothing. Even if they were, that was no answer to the charges brought to the attention of this House by the hon. member for Regina this afternoon. The
question of freight rates on the Canadian Pacific railway could not be dealt with by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council previous to the coming into force of the Railway Act of 1903; no attempt was ever made by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to deal with or to regulate freight rates on the different lines of railway throughout Canada. In 1903 the Liberal Government of that day created a board and gave them power to regulate and control the freight rates not only of eastern Canada but in western Canada as well. As 1 have said, the Canadian Pacific railway stood aloof and declined to come within the jurisdiction of that board. When the Crow's Nest Pass contract between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific railway was entered into, one of the considerations was that there should be a reduction of freight rates on western traffic in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway. Up to that time and for some years afterwards there was no competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in western Canada, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, under pressure brought to bear by the Laurier Administration at the time of the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass railway, revolutionized, I might almost say, their freight tariff, or, at least, moderated and lowered it, to the advantage and benefit of the people who were interested in western traffic. Subsequently, when these other railways, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific, to which my hon. friend has referred, began to loom on the horizon as competitors, then it was that the Canadian Pacific railway voluntarily came forward and said:	We will
submit to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission; we will place ourselves on a parity with the other railway companies of Canada in that regard, and we will graciously permit the Railway Commission of Canada to regulate our freight tariff in connection with their regulation of other freight tariffs. They did that, as I say, as a matter of grace; but there is not to be found on the statute books of this country any enactment which compels them to submit to the orders and decrees of the Railway Commission. A Bill was introduced this session by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), relating to this very subject, but it is buried in the morgue of troublesome legislation-under public Bills and orders, where it is to be found as No. 36. It cannot be resurrected and cannot be dealt with. The company have not brought legislation binding themselves to submit to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Government has not brought in any Bill imposing that legal obligation upon them. A private member brings in such a Bill and that private mem-

ber under the rules of the House, must be shut out from forcing that measure through so that the Canadian Pacific railway would stand on an equal footing with other railway corporations in Canada in relation to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission over it.
My hon. friend said that there has been fifteen years of inactivity. There is to the credit of the party now sitting on this side of the House, first the action taken with respect to the Crow's Nest agreement in securing from the Canadian Pacific railway a lessening of freight rates. There is the action of that party in 1903 in the enactment of the Railway Act and the creation of a Railway Commission regulating the railways of the country and having entire jurisdiction with respect to the tolls and tariffs which railways might charge on freight and passengers. Then they constructed the Grand Trunk Pacific and aided the construction of the Canadian Northern railway. I shall not stop to say how that aid was given, but both of these railways were assisted and created to provide additional railway facilities and incidentally competition through the West in the matter of railway facilities. The very moment that was done the Canadian Pacific railway was forced or atleast persuaded to come within the jurisdiction of the board which regulates the freight tariff of the country. But my hon. friend from Calgary, by a strange method of logic, says that to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific is due in a very large measure, if not wholly, the difficulties and the grievances in regard to excessive freight rates in western Canada; and by a peculiar process of reasoning he says that freight rates must be controlled and governed by what he is pleased to term fixed charges. He has said that the Canadian Northern railway fixed charges were $1,000 per mile and the Grand Trunk fixed charges were about $2,000 per mile. T shalf deal with the principle that should govern and be taken into consideration in the matter of determining the reasonableness of freight rates but when my hon. friend goes to that extreme and charges the complaints of the West to the construction by the Laurier Government of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, it seems to me that he is driven into a very small corner indeed. Let me say that while the fixed charges are a factor in the matter of regulating the reasonableness of freight Tates they are not by any means the controlling factor, in fact, Sir, they are a very small and insignificant feature in the determining of that reasonableness and for obvious reasons. A railway may be constructed in the most flimsy manner, as was the Canadian Pacific railway, admittedly, originally, with its wooden trestles, with its very imperfect Mr. EMMERSON
ballasting, with its want of permanency, built for the moment and to meet a contingency.
I am not complaining of the course taken. In doing that they were, I believe, serving the best interests not only of themseves but of the country. In so doing they determined what is known as the fixed charges. But the governing charges are the cost of operation and transporting the traffic over the line. The less permanent a line of railway is, the less perfect it is, the less money invested in its roadbed and in its rolling stock, the greater in proportion is the cost of maintenance and operation. My hon. friend has perhaps a certain object in view in calling attention to the fixed charges of the Grand Trunk Pacific and placing them at $2,000 and the Canadian Pacific railway fixed charges at $800 per mile. The Canadian Pacific railway may represent $800 per mile for its fixed charges originally but we all recognize that the Canadian Pacific railway up to date, the transcontinental line known as the Canadian Pacific railway across this continent to-day, is an entirely different railway from the Canadian Pacific railway as it was when it was first opened to traffic in the early eighties. Why the change? It certainly has cost money. Where wooden trestles were you will find heavy fills.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member is taking great latitude in this debate. The definite matter of urgent importance handed to me is that the investigation of western freight rates now pending before the Railway Commission should be proceeded with at once. That is a defined matter. There is, of course, a bearing when you come to show the different fixed charges, and what elements might enter into the determination of freight rates, as it might or might not cause delay in the investigation. I think that would be pertinent; but the history of these railways beyond that would not be permissible on this definite matter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You will admit that
the hon. member for Calgary went into the question of the cost of those two railways and made a comparison and I am simply answering him. I claim the privilege of following him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I felt more than once
that I should call attention to it, but I felt that he was dealing with the history of these railways and showing that, on account of that it required a much longer time for the commission to deal with the freight rates having to do with these inquiries. That is, to my mind, directly applicable to the subject.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not understand that he was putting the case in that way,

but in an entirely different way and he
sought to make it a political question. I am following the trail that was blazed by my hon. friend. It would seem to be only fair that I should be permitted to follow that line, and I shall reach a conclusion in the relevancy of which I think, you, Sir, will concur.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have watched the debate very closely, and I have felt disposed several times to interfere. It must be understood that it is with great reluctance that the Speaker interferes in such discussions. In so far as references were made to show the impossibility of bringing to a rapid termination the question under consideration by the Railway Commission, I think they were applicable to the case; but when an hon. member goes into the history of the Crow's Nest railway and other road3, it seems to me that he is taking rather a wide latitude in a matter of definite specific and urgent importance.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is of importance
that this matter should be dealt with promptly, and I was just coming to the point raised by-my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett). He spoke of the fixed charges. Now the reason why the Canadian Pacific railway fixed charges are put at 800 is because the road has been changed in character. They have been taken out of the earnings of the road. Therefore the fixed charges do not appear in proportion to the fixed charges of the other roads. The Grand Trunk Pacific was made a permanent road, with stone and steel culverts, and its grades of an entirely different character from that of the grades on the Canadian Pacific railway. My hon. friend can take this consolation that away back in 1879 and 1880 and 1881, the Government and the people of Canada treated the Canadian Pacific railway so generously, contributed to their coffers so freely, and gave them such immense blocks of land that the Canadian Pacific railway has been able to wrest and wring from the pockets of the people of Canada sufficient not only to pay handsome dividends but to have a surplus of earnings enabling it to change the whole character of the road and to make it permanent, so that the fixed charges, so called, would not bear against them in the way it was anticipated. That is a relevant point it seems to me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I confess that it does
not appear so to me. The question as to the fixed charges of those roads, however they may have been brought about, and whether high or low, does not seem to me a matter of any importance. The question of how the Railway Commission should obtain information in order to reach a proper conclusibn as to the fixed charges, is relevant, but how the fixed charges
came to be made, does not seem to me of special importance in this discussion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend from Calgary made a charge that the party on this side of the House had done nothing for fifteen years and were doing nothing to remedy the situation. I have attempted to show that when the late Government was charged with responsibility, and since they have sat in Opposition their attitude has been to insist upon these grievances being remedied by this commission, and promptly. At the last session of this Parliament a resolution was introduced in this House by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways proposing to grant a subsidy of $12,000 per mile to a railway company in British Columbia, and the Liberal Opposition in this House sought to make it a condition precedent of the granting of the subsidy to have the railway which was to be thus aided submit to the, jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. But the Government declined to impose that condition, and granted the subsidy.
My hon. friend from Calgary has referred to the attitude of the Saskatchewan Government and of the Alberta Government. While I thought that that had nothing to do with the question before the House, it seemed to me that in view of the course he had taken, it was proper for me to show the other side of the shield, and to show the responsibility of this Government, without in any way attempting to deal with the responsibility of the governments of the prairie provinces. They may have been derelict in their duty, but is that an answer to the charge that may be brought against this Government of dereliction of duty? There was another case, that of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, in which it was proposed to grant a large subsidy to the Government of Ontario not merely in aid of the construction of that road, but to recoup the Government of Ontario for the money expended on it. At the last session of this House the Liberal Opposition proposed that that railway should come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, but that also was opposed by the present Government. This Government are responsible for the conditions which prevail in connection with the freight rates in the West, so far as they have existed during the past two years. It is not necessary for me to attempt to make any excuses for conditions which prevailed under the former Government, though it may be a matter of satisfaction to my hon. friend from Calgary to make statements which cannot be supported, and which have been refuted by me already in the instances to which I have called your attention. I hold that the matter of the reasonableness of freight rates on railways in Canada, as well as on railways anywhere on the face of the globe

is not wholly, or even measureably, based on fixed charges. It must be based upon the cost of operation and the cost of maintenance of the road, upon the cost of transporting traffic over rails of tlhat road. These are the governing features, and in that cost the gradients are a governing feature. The curvature of the line is not less important. The actual cost of transportation of traffic over any railway in Canada can be demonstrated to a mathematical certainty. The Intercolonial has that cost brought down to a certainty every year, and there is not a railway in Canada that, does not do it.
This important question, as to whether the freight rates in western Canada are on a reasonable basis, and whether they are or are not discriminatory as against the West, should be adjudicated on without interminable delay. On the 7th of January last the Minister of Railways was clothed with power to tell the Railway Commission that this matter must be attended to, but he has not shown that he has taken action, nor has he shown that his counsel has made any attempt to expedite the decision of the board. Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are responsible for the conditions that prevail in western Canada.
I shall net inquire, but I do say that this has been a burning question almost ever since the beginning -of the operation of the Canadian Pacific railway, and admittedly there are grievances in the West which call for a remedy. The tariffs of the railway companies are operative, so long as no exception is taken to them by the board, and it is obvious that if the decision of the commission can be deferred, benefit will accrue to the Tailway companies to the detriment of the people of the West. The admitted delays in this matter, even since the 7th of January last are inexcusable and indefensible, and the Government apparently is responsible. Apparently at every hearing counsel for the Government is reconciled to delay; the board itself has not been exercising that diligence it was its duty to exercise, and the people continue to suffer. The hon. member for Regina has wisely brought this matter to the attention of the House and of the country, and if the Minister of Railways even now exercises diligence, I have no doubt that before ten days it can be dealt with.
We are told that a traffic expert has to be obtained from the United States, but I think everyone will admit that the traffic experts of the Government railways of Canada would be disinterested as between the public and the railway companies. That being so, there is no necessity for bringing an expert from the United States. The Government could have gone to Mr. Tiffin, traffic manager of the Inter-Mr. EMMERSON
colonial railway; they could have gone to Mr. Hardweil of the Railway Commission, men who are the equal in my judgment of any man they can import from the United States. I am sure the Canadian Pacific railway would have confidence in whatever opinion was given by Mr. Tiffin, and there are others on the Intercolonial whose evidence would be of material assistance if required. This evidence could he obtained within twenty-four hours. What good is a traffic expert from the United States who has not a knowledge of the conditions that prevail in railway operation in Canada. Our climatic conditions affect the road-bed and the rolling stock and the operation of trains, all of which are factors in the determination of the rates, and Canadian traffic experts are best qualified to give evidence on these points.


Mr. JAMESON:: The hon. member for
Welland (Mr. German), speaking in this House on the 25th of April last said:
We have the Intercolonial. The best thing the Government of Canada could do for the people of Canada is to get rid of it at the earliest moment on the best terms it can possibly secure.
Does the hon. member for Westmorland agree with the hon. member for Welland in that?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In years gone by,
when the Hon. John Haggart, whose memory I revere, was a member of this House, he was talking the same thing with respect to the Intercolonial. I was no more responsible for his judgment in that respect than I am for the judgment of my hon. friend from Welland. My own opinion is known. I may say that when Mr. Hanna came before the Board of Railway Commissioners and said that if they lowered the rates there would be ruin and desolation to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, surely the onus was on him to prove it outside of his mere statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question is out of order, in the first place, because it refers to a debate which took place during the current session, and, in the second place, because it has no bearing on the subject under discussion.


Clarence Jameson: The hon. gentleman introduced the question himself.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman knows what my views are.


Mr. JAMES McKAY (Prince Albert) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members to the left of you are hardly sincere in this matter, judging from the remarks which they made on a previous occasion and the remarks which they have made during this debate. Some hon. members take the position that this Government are culpable for everything that may be a detriment to the

people in the West; whereas, if anything to the benefit of the West may emanate from this investigation, then the Railway Commission is to get credit for that benefit. It is manifestly unfair to take that attitude. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has taken the stand that the present Administration is not entitled to any credit for the investigation that is going on at present. He claims that this investigation is owing to a resolution that was introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) some time last session. That resolution was introduced on the 25th of February; whereas I find the facts, so far as the beginning of this investigation is concerned, are that the hon. Minister of Railways when communicated with by the Board of Trade of Winnipeg submitted their resolution to the Railway Commission long before February. I wish again to read that letter addressed to the hon. Minister of Railways after he communicated that resolution to the Railway Commission. It is on record in 'Hansard,' vol. I, page 1930, and is as follows:
Ottawa, Nov. 24, 1911.
My dear Sir,-I beg to asknowledge receipt of yours of 20th inst., inclosing copy of resolution of the Winnipeg Board of Trade. This is the first complaint that has been directly made to the board regarding western rates generally. A good deal has appeared irom time to time in the western papers, but no step was taken by anybody there for a general investigation regarding rates throughout tneipro vinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
No doubt you remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the discussion that took place on that occasion, the Prime Minister stated that so far as his Government was concerned he would see that there was a full investigation with regard to this matter and that counsel wTould be furnished in order that the public interest would be protected. This Government therefore took active measures to have this investigation take place as early as the 20th of November; 19JF whereas during all the years that the Opposition were in power they remained passive. It is true that an odd member here and there may have discussed this matter, but he never took an active interest on the floor of Parliament in order to press the Government which he was supporting to take action. When this resolution wrs brought up by the Opposition on the 25th of February, 1912, some months after the present Administration had taken active measures in connection with this investigation, they endeavoured to get some credit for the benefit that would result from that investigation. The attitude to-day is exactly in accordance with that line of policy. They to-day say: Do not make political
capital out of this matter, it is too important. But they are the ones who are endeavouring to make political capital out of it. They see the. benefit that is going to accrue to the West by this investigation, and they are endeavouring to slip in now and to make the cry that there is undue delay and to show to the public that they are the people who are forcing this investigation. The very remarks that have dropped from the lips of some of the speakers on the Opposition show this.
This is a very important question so far as the West is concerned. The Opposition members, instead of taking their present attitude, should endeavour to deal with this matter from a purely national standpoint and to do everything they can to assist the Government in bringing this investigation to a successful issue. Gentlemen, who have spoken on this matter from the left of Mr. Speaker, have endeavoured to make out that there should be absolutely no credit to the present Administration for the results or findings of the commission. It is true that great credit is due to the commission for what they have done. Owing to the large amount of business that necessarily comes before the commission it is not likely_ that they will take up big questions of this character on their own initiative unless they get assistance from the Government of the day. As the former Administration remained passive in this matter, the commission although charged with the same powers during the years that the [DOT]former Administration held office, did not exercise those powers until the present Government came into power. The people in the West will be right when they come to-the conclusion that they will expect some results out of this investigation. I am glad to see that the members on the Opposition benches are apparently sharing that view with the people of the West and are endeavouring to -claim some credit for the resuits that are going to accrue from this investigation, because we are satisfied that there will be some benefits to the people of the West when the commission have completed their duty. We see already the results with regard to express rates. Some years ago there was an investigation in connection with express rates, but we did not receive any benefits from it because the tormer Administration did not give that assistance to the commission which they should have given. In conclusion, I sub-JW1 j ,a^ the present Government is entitled to some credit for the manner in which they have dealt with this matter. Motion negatived.



THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Ball No. 179, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.-Mr. Hazen.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 182, to incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.-Mr. Hazen.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of the Hon. Robert Rogers (Minister of Public Works), House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient (a) to provide for the incorporation of the National Gallery of Canada, and to transfer its property to and vest it in a board of trustees for the Government of Canada; (b) to authorize the board to acquire pictures, statuary, works of art and other property; and (c) to provide for the remuneration of such officers and servants as may be required, and for the reasonable travelling and other expenses of the board.
(Mt. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
William Pugsley: The minister might
please explain the object of this resolution.


Robert Rogers: The object of the resolution is to provide that in place of managing our National Art Gallery by an advisory council, as in the past, it shall hereafter be managed under a board of trustees.
The National Art Gallery of Canada was the outcome of the establishment of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts 1880, by the" Marquis of Lome, and Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise, during the term of their Vice-Royalty. This establishment placed in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Public Works, for public exhibition the diploma pictures which the newly appointed Academicians deposited on their election. From this beginning the national gallery has grown by means of the annual grants voted by the Dominion Government for the purpose. In 1907, the expenditure of these grants was placed in the hands of the Advisory Arts Council, whose first president was the late Hon. George Alexander Drummond, K.C.C.V.O., and whose members now are Sir Edmund Walker, K.C.M. G., C.V.O., L.L.D., D.C.L., president; Senator Arthur Boyer, and Dr. Francis J. Shepherd, while the work of the gallery is carried on by the director.
It will thus be seen that although the national gallery has been in existence for thirty-two years it has had only a very few years of systematic government, and during these last years such real progress has been made that it is possible to forecast a future for the national gallery of Canada which will see it take a fitting place among the art galleries of the British overseas dominions. The national gallery has now in its possession some four hundred paintings, drawings, etchings, and pieces of sculpture, and in addition an exceptionally well mounted and arranged collection of casts. This collection, which occupies the two lower floors of the space, allotted to the national gallery in the Victoria Memor-
Mr. McKAY.
ial Museum at Ottawa, takes up the story of sculpture at the Temple of the Parthenon, 447 B.C., carries it down through the great Hellenistic and Graeco_ Roman, periods to the Mediaeval Gothic of the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, and thence to the Italian and French Renaissance, leaving it for the present with the French portraits of the eighteenth century. In this exhibit, which is to be largely augmented, each object is prepared and coloured as nearly like its original as possible, and it is intended both for the visitor who comes for pleasure, and for the student who comes to copy, that it will prove a valuable opportunity to learn something of the history and progress of sculpture and design.
There is no doubt that Canada has, growing along with her material prosperity a strong and virile art which only needs to be fostered and encouraged in order to become a great factor in her growth as a nation. No country can be a great nation until it has a great art. I would like, however, since there seems to be some doubt about the matter, to make clear that this encouragement of our national art in its broadest and best sense is not achieved by the exclusive purchase of Canadian works of art. The purpose of the National Art Gallery is mainly educative, and as a knowledge and understanding of art is only to be gained by the comparison of one work of art with another, so for this comparison to lead always to higher ideals and understanding we needs must have in addition to our own Canadian pictures the best examples we can afford of the world's artistic achievements by which we may judge the merit and progress of our own efforts. It is on these lines that the purchase of works of art for the National Art Gallery is proceeding.
With this idea in view, it is believed that the art gallery can be best cared for bv handing it over to a board of trustees who will give it efficient and proper management, so that it will be conducted along lines that will carry out the views set forth in the memorandum I have just read.


William Pugsley: I scarcely think the
committee will agree that the Minister of Public Works has afforded any reason why this resolution should be adopted. The plan which has been pursued in the past has been to leave the matter of the purchase of works of art and the calling for tenders for the various statues erected in public places, to the Advisory Art Council; this was done in connection with the erection of the statue on the St. Lawrence, and, indeed, everything connected with the art gallery. The Government has in the past been exceedingly fortunate in securing without remuneration the ser-

vinces of gentlemen who are thoroughly qualified to discharge these important duties. I can, therefore, see no reason why an incorporated body to be known as the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery of Canada should be appointed. I think it is upon my hon. friend to show some reason for making the proposed change. Is there any dissatisfaction with the present plan? Does it not work satisfactorily ? Does not the memorandum that the minister has read show that under the guiding hand of the Advisory Art Council during the years subsequent to the establishment of the gallery a very satisfactory advancement has been made, so that today the art gallery has become well worthy of Canada? There is another objection to the resolution, a portion of which reads as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the incorporation of the National Art Gallery of Canada.
Is it intended to incorporate the National Art Gallery? Surely the intention must be to incorporate a board of trustees of the National Art Gallery of Canada. Someone has drawn the resolution, it seems to me without a proper appreciation of what should be done and what is intended to be effected. It would be absurd to incorporate the National Art Gallery, which consists of the pictures, exhibits, &c., and the rooms m which the works of art are kept, yet it is provided to incorporate the National Art Gallery and' to transfer its property to and vest it in a board of trustees for the Government of Canada. I think the hon. minister ought to explain what that means. It must be intended by this resolution to incorporate a board of trustees of the National Art Gallery of Canada, and transfer the property of the Government-the property which the Government now has in the various works of art-to this board of trustees proposed to be incorporated. The resolution goes on to say:
To authorize the board to acquire pictures, statuary, works of art and other property.
In the past the Minister of Public Works has authorized the advisory arts council to purchase only such works of art as have been provided for by Parliament by appropriations from year to year. Is it intended to change this procedure? Is it intended to vest in the board of trustees an arbitrary power to purchase such works of art as they see fit, and to commit Parliament from year to year to the payment of such bills as they may incur? If so, it is a very unwise power to give them. It seems to me that the resolution ought to be amended fb read:
To authorize the board, to the extent to which appropriations for the purpose may be
made from year to year by Parliament, to acquire pictures, statuary, works of art and other property.
While I was minister I declined to give the advisory art council any such arbitrary power as would seem to be embodied in this resolution; I asked Parliament each year for an appropriation, the amount of which was, I think, $10,000. The resolution goes on to say:
To provide for the remuneration of such officers and servants as may be required, and for the reasonable travelling and other expenses of the board.
I think that also should be provided by an appropriation from year to year. I cannot see the object of passing a resolution in these general terms, which, as I have said, would authorize this board to commit the country to a very much larger expenditure than Parliament might be willing to incur if it were called upon to vote the money from year to year.


Mr. HAZEN:: It seems to me to be somewhat incongruous that an art gallery should be under the control of the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works in Canada has to deal with the construction of breakwaters, the improvement of harbours, the erection of public buildings, and matters of that nature, which have to do entirely with the material advancement of the country. The man who is selected for the position of Minister of Public Works is chosen because he possesses qualities enabling him to deal with such matters to the advantage of the country and in the public interest. A man might be admirably adapted to the position of Minister of Public Works and for the carrying on of such matters of importance as would come before that department, and yet have very little of the training, culture or knowledge that would enable him to be a good judge of paintings, sculpture, and works of art, or to be in a position to know what should be selected in order to cultivate the artistic tastes of the people of the country. That has been recognized in the past by the appointment of this advisory committee. If the Minister of Public Works were selecting pictures or other works of art for the National Art Gallery, he would feel that he should be guided altogether by the advice of this advisory committee. That, at least, is the way I would feel, realizing that my knowledge of art was not sufficient to enable me to judge as to what should be purchased foT an art gallery; I would place the matter largely in the hands of this advisory committee. That plan, however, has not worked out satisfactory, and it is felt that it would be very much better to incorporate a body composed of men of taste and of talent, similar to those who have constitu-

ted the advisory committee in the past, and let them manage the art gallery, without the interference of the Minister of Public Works, and without calling upon him to confirm their judgment in regard to the works of art that time from time they might think it desirable to purchase. A somewhat analagous case occurred last year with respect to the Biological Board. That Board is composed of scientific men, chiefly representatives of the universities of the country and to facilitate their work I asked Parliament to establish the Biological Board, on a basis which would enable them to carry on their work unhampered by the Marine and Fishery Department. Parliament agreed and the Bill became law. It is not intended to give to this Board of Trustees a free hand to purchase whatever they please, irrespective of cost. But if we had a Minister of Public Works who would arbitrarily exercise his own judgment and overrule that of the advisory committee and of the trustees we might have a selection of works of art of an inferior quality which, instead of being a credit and ornament to the capital would be almost a disgrace.


William Pugsley: Under this resolution
surely all that Parliament will have to do would be to foot the Bills.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend is criticising the framing of the resolution. The details of the measure will be in the Bill and I think he will find there that the points he has in mind are fully met.


William Pugsley: This is a money Bill and the Bill cannot go beyond the resolution.


John Douglas Hazen: The Bill will not go as far as the resolution.


William Pugsley: The resolution should be in the same form as the Bill.


John Douglas Hazen: I think it is clear what the meaning is and it would be hardly worth while to amend the resolution now.


William Pugsley: It might be done in the committee now by unanimous consent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not insert the words before National Gallery ' a Board of Trustees? '


John Douglas Hazen: We might amend it to read:
That it is expedient to provide for the incorporation of a Board of Trustees of the National Gallery of Canada and to transfer the property in the said gallery to and vest it in the said board of Trustees for the Government of Canada.


William Pugsley: I would suggest that, in order to make it clear, we should make a further amendment. We know very well that Boards of Trustees, if Mr. HAZEN.
given a free hand to acquire valuable works of art are very apt to use their judgment and to think that the Government will approve afterwards of what they do.


John Douglas Hazen: The only funds the Board can expend are those appropriated by Parliament and any funds they may receive by request or in any other manner and their expenditures are subject to review by the Auditor General.


William Pugsley: Should there not be an appropriation which will govern them? It seems to me the Board ought always to have in view the appropriation which would be made. During the present session, for instance, the appropriation may not be made till the very last days of Parliament. They ought always to be kept within the appropriation.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not see how the money could be paid otherwise, the Auditor Gem eral would not sanction it.


William Pugsley: Suppose they bought a picture in England for $20,000. It would be sent out here to the board. The statute authorizes them to buy it, and the Government is bound to pay for it. The Government would have to submit to Parliament a [DOT]vote for the purpose, otherwise a suit could be brought against the board and recovery made. There would be no escape for the Government, so far as payment is concerned. Why not s.iy:
, To authorize the .board to the amount of appropriations which may from time to time be made by Parliament to acquire pictures, statuary, works of art and other property.
Or:
To acquire pictures, statuary, works of art and other property to the amount of such appropriations as may from time to time be made by Parliament.
That would make it clear.


John Douglas Hazen: That would not be sufficient, because it is among the possibilities that people interested in work of this sort might make a bequest to the trustees for the purpose of buying pictures and works of art.


William Pugsley: They could expend that outside of the statute.


John Douglas Hazen: But you are limiting it.
The Bill puts it very plainly. In Bills introduced by means of a resolution, because they are money Bills, it is not usual to set forth all the details in the resolution. Section (b) of the resolution-
To authorize the board to acquire pictures, statuary, works of art and other property makes reasonably clear the intention of the Bill.	'

-does not give the trustees the slightest authority. The authority given to the trustees is given to them by the statute, and when the clause relating to that comes before Parliament it will be time to consider it. It seems to me that section (b) is. sufficiently c'ear so far as the resolution is concerned.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to offer any serious opposition to this resolution, I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that it is another departure on the part of this Government from the principle of government and parliamentary responsibility. It is in the same class as the Bill in aid of agriculture, which removed to a large extent and for a term of years the responsibility from Parliament. This resolution proposes that a board shall be created to which money shall be voted, and that that board shall account to the Auditor General, but not to the Ministry or to Parliament. I admit it is not a very serious matter, but it is a principle to which I wish to register my objection. I do not think that the reasons so well given by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are sufficiently weighty to warrant the important change in principle that is involved in this resolution. My hon. friend made a remark as to the unlikelihood of the Minister of Public Works being a competent art critic. Of course, while we will admit that an hon. gentleman may be a very excellent Minister of Public Works and not a capable art critic, there is no reason why a competent Minister of Public Works should not also be a competent art critic. I do not know that there is any reason for supposing that we have not at the present time in our present Minister of Public Works-


John Douglas Hazen: You think he is an artist anyway.


Frank Oliver: -an hon. gentleman who would be entirely competent to discharge the duties and responsibilities that rest upon him in connection with the National Art Gallery. But even assuming that his recognized and universally known modesty would prevent him from assuming alone that responsibility, he has, as the Minister of Marine has said, the assistance of an advisory board, selected I presume by himself, or it may be by the Government, who may be the most competent and capable art critics that can be found. Possibly the men who are to-day the advisory hoard, would the the board contemplated under this resolution. There is no reason why competence shjuld not exist in the men who constitute an advisory board, as well as in a board who are to be given authority to expend public money outside the control of this Parliament. Even from the point of view which the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries has pi iced before the House,
I do not see any reason for making the change, and I see very great objection to the extension of the principle of expending public money without direct ministerial and parliamentary responsibility. It appears from this resolution, and from what has been said that >all Parliament has to do is to vote money from year to year and that the Auditor General will audit the accounts. That is not a satisfactory principle, and while this is not -a very important matter, and one in regard to which an exception would be permissible if in any, I submit that the principle is objectionable, and I do not think any sufficient reason has been advanced for departing from the principle which at present obtains.


Robert Rogers: I think my hon. friend
'will find when the Bill is introduced that every objection which has been raised is pretty well covered. When we get to the discussion of the Bill we shall be glad to consider any suggestion that hon. gentlemen opposite have to make. We are 'anxious to make the Bill as perfect as possible.


William Pugsley: Is it the intention to
do away with the services of the present advisory board?


Robert Rogers: Not so far as I know.


John Douglas Hazen: They will be made the
trustees, I suppose?


William Humphrey Bennett: I take it 'that when this Bill comes into effect there will be a committee-I do not know how many there will be on it, or (who will constitute it-to govern this National Gallery.
I have not travelled a great deal, but I have seen some art galleries open on Sundays, and I hope and trust that this committee when constituted will not be such strict Sunday observers as the present Min- * ister of Public Works and those who preceded him, but that they will insist on having the National Gallery open on Sundays. If a man goes into any art gallery in an American city, he sees a number of young women copying pictures. In that way a taste is cultivated, and these young women become artists good or bad. It seems to me tbat in a city like Ottawa, where there are so many people of different nationalities and of different religions, the National Art Gallery should not be closed on Sundays. I remember going down there one Sunday last winter, and to my amazement I found the place closed. I trust the committee when appointed will not take such strict Sabbatarian views as the Ministers of Public Works have taken in the past, but that they win be amenable to reason, will live in the light <af the present cen-
.SEVISED EDITION

fury, and will have the gallery open every Sunday in the year. The rich people have their automobiles and everything else, and why should it be denied to mechanics to take their children there on Sundays to see the works of art? Another matter which I think the advisory council should consider is that they should 'Sacrifice quantity Tather than quality.


Mr. KYTE:: The Minister of Public
Works has informed the committee that this resolution is to be the basis of a measure designed for the purpose of extending the scope of the Royal Victoria Museum as a Canadian national art gallery. If that idea is to be made effective, active efforts should be taken to procure art specimens from parts of Canada that have not hitherto been exploited. Up to the present, I think I am safe in saying, our art exhibits have been purchased from well known artists or from those whose repute has been personally known to the members of the committee entrusted with' their seleotion. I assume that I properly interpret the idea of a Canadian national gallery when I assert that the creations of Canadian artists should have a place there, whether they are to be found in marble palaces or in the humblest cottages of the land. Artists, like poets, are born, not made; Canada is a large country, and I am aware that there are specimens of art of a very high order to be found in places where art specimens have not hitherto been sought. I would hope that when this commission is appointed and the experts are to be sent abroad to gather Canadian art exhibits, a visit will be made by them to Nova Scotia and to the county of Richmond. There are in the village of Black River in the county of Richmond, specimens of the highest art, produced by ladies who were born in the county and whose works have received the highest encomiums when exhibited in the art galleries of Europe and of the United States. About 1845, two young ladies of culture and refinement, living in the old town of Arichat, and who were endowed with great artistic taste cultivated by study, undertook to produce certain historical pictures in embroidery, which they completed after fifteen years of most patient and exhaustive effort. These picture embroideries represent four historical events:	The
first is entitled, ' Concealment of the Regalia of Scotland, (1652).' This portrays an incident which occurred in Scotland at the time of the Commonwealth, when the regalia of Scotland were kept in Dunottar Castle. To prevent their confiscation during the siege *of the castle in 1652, they were cleverly conveyed away, through the midst of the unsuspecting besiegers, by Mrs. Grainger, the wife cf -the Minister of Kinneff Church, Mr. BENNETT (East Simcoe).
who took them to Kinneff, where they were safely buried near the pulpit by her husband. The second is an embroidery entitled ' Magna Charta,' which shows the barons of England demanding the charter from King John; there are twelve principal figures under the oak of Runnymede; the army is in the background. The third work is * David before Saul,' a scriptural picture, showing David playing the harp before Saul, and the Queen standing beside the latter. The fourth work is entitled ' Ossian,' and shows the poet Ossian when in hiding in the Highlands of Scotland; the fair Moira is kneeling beside him; the lake and snow-capped mountains are in the background. Each piece is almost four feet square and took four years to complete. Woven tapestries are quite common and are to be found in the art galleries of Europe and in many private residences in England and elsewhere, but this particular embroidered tapestry represented by these works of art is very rare indeed. There is only one similar specimen which I can recall and which was made by Fraulein Ripberger in Dresden, and which is now on exhibition in the art gallery in that famous city. It is a reproduction of Raphael's painting of the Sistine Madonna. The description of this work applies so particularly and minutely to the four pictures I am speaking of and which are the property of the lady in the county of Richmond, that I may be permitted to read it:
Famous painters have sought to copy Raphael's ' Sistine Madonna,' hut have laid their brushes down in despair.- And what painters have failed to do with the brush one woman has accomplished with her needle.
Fraulein Clara Ripberger, of Dresden, has dared to create-if is nothing less than a creation-this picture a second time. The bare suggestion of an embroidered copy of Raphael's masterpiece caused a smile when the exhibition of the Madonna in needle-work was announced in Dresden.
Curiosity alone drew an incredulous few to the first exhibition. But incredulity quickly turned to admiration. At the ordinary distance to a beholder the embroidery seemed a marvelously fine copy of the Madonna in oil. The spirit, the power of Raphael, seemed to have passed into the hand that did the work. The spell of the original was all there-the magnificence o,f the colouring, the expression of the faces, the- plasticity of the draperies, the haze of the cherubic glory and the sense of vision. Could this be embroidery?
Noted artists came and looked. They would not accept the word of the artist until they had examined both sides of the canvas and recognized that every square inch of the work was unmistakably done by the needle alone. The contention that the eyes at least had been painted had to be abandoned. Not a brushful of paint had touched the picture. Filoselle silk of various colours and in stitches of various lengths, had wrought the marvel. There was no suggestion of -tapestry

or Gobelin work. It is needle painting, not weaving, both in the flesh tones and expressions of the faces, and in the reproduction of the draperies.
I have stated that these ladies expended fifteen years in the work thus produced.	They sent to Europe for
the materials, and one can conceive the enormous amount of time and patience necessarily employed before the embroideries were completed. Industry and patience are often the accompaniments of great intellectual gifts and these gifts were possessed in a marvellous degree by the ladies I refer to. These were the Misses Elizabeth and Maria Ballam, daughters of a distinguished family in Richmond county seventy-five years ago. One of the ladies who assisted in this work died several years ago and the survivor has been totally blind for some time, so that it is not permitted to her in her declining years even to view the creations of her own artistic endowments. I have stated that these works were taken around the world and exhibited in various museums in Europe, Australia and the United States. A very large amount of money was offered for them by the late Senator Hearst of California in the year 1878, but the Misses Ballam thought that these pictures ought to be the property of the people of Canada and exhibited in some national museum here rather than become the property of a private individual in a foreign country. Inasmuch as the Minister of Public Works is now taking steps to further enlarge the purposes of the Canadian Art Gallery, I would suggest that he send one of his experts to Nova Scotia to make investigation as to the real artistic value of these embroideries. I do not asK him to purchase them unless they do possess real art value of which of course I have no doubt. I would suggest that after his commission is appointed and the experts employed, that no time should be lost in sending one of them to Richmond county to examine these works of art, lest they should fall into the hands of private owners. As I have said, the survivor of the ladies who produced these works is blind; she is eighty-two years old and has not long to live. She is willing that these pictures should become the property of the Canadian Art Gallery, and if the experts deem they are worthy of a place in the Royal Victoria Museum, efforts should be made by the minister and by his advisory board to acquire them for the nation.


Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon):: I want to
say a word or two in support of the suggestion of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte). I had the privilege some years ago of seeing the tapestries to which he refers. I am glad to know from his remarks that those tapestries are still in the possession of the Ballam family at Black River, and 285J
that it is possible that they may be had by the Government for exhibition in our national gallery. I have seen some tapestries in this country and in Europe; and while I do not pose as an art critic, I feel assured that if the board which we are about to create will send an expert down to examine those magnificent works of art, they will not be at all disappointed in the excellence of those tapestries. They are works of art and have been well preserved and have been exhibited in Europe, in the United States and in Australia. When the board is created, I hope that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) will make that suggestion to the chairman of that board, and have someone competent to judge as to the value of those works visit that farm House at Black River.
I am glad to say a word in support of this measure. In Canada we have been accused of the sin of materialism. In this age of materialism, we have been accused of being a most materialistic people, and I am glad to know that the aesthetic side of our nationality is being developed in this way, and I have no doubt that it will be more generously supported as art develops. I am glad to find that the pictures and statuary. that we have are so well housed in the museum. I feel, however, that the people of this city and country are not as well acquainted as they might be with the fact that we have an art gallery here. The incoming board might do very well in advertising those works of art which we have in the Victoria museum. I am glad to support the suggestion made by the hen. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) that for certain hours during every Sunday this gallery should be open to the public, and further, that during week days students should be permitted to enter that art gallery and to copy the pictures, and also that students of statuary should be able to go in there and to model as they do in every other art gallery of prominence throughout this continent and Europe. The primary idea in subsidizing an institution of this kind is to develop the love of art. I have no doubt, if this is done, the art gallery will serve a portion of our people and will take a place among our institutions that it has not taken in the past.


Mt. LEMIEUX:: I wish to say a word
or two on this resolution, which I am pleased to endorse, although this seems to be a departure from the usual practice of keeping money under parliamentary control. We have seen what strides Canada has made during the past few years by the organization of the Department of Archives. Some years ago when the archives were lost, so to speak, in the Langevin block, the Hon. Mr. Fisher decided to appoint Dr. Doughty to erect a new building and to

give him a new staff, giving him at the same time large powers to acquire valuable papers. Dr. Doughty was in a position to organize a department which is certainly a credit to Canada, and I might say to North America itself. The most valuable collections are to be found in our Canadian archives. The same might also be said of this new art gallery which Canada now intends to have.
I second wdth pleasure the remarks which have been made by my hon. friend from Eichmond (Mr. Kyte). There are untold treasures in this country, not to speak of what my friend has mentioned as existing in the county of Eichmond, which according to his statement would be chefs-d'oeuvre. A few years ago an artist from England came to Canada, with the intention of spneding only a few weeks in Quebec. Whilst there he visited Laval University and a few of the oldest families. He discovered there some of the most remarkable paintings that exist in the world to-day. The result was such that he decided to stay in Canada; and, if I mistake not, he is still in the city of Quebec repairing and repainting those pictures, most valuable all of them, which were found in and around Quebec. He discovered some very valuable paintings especially in the old parishes, that had been brought over at the time of the French Bevolution by the priests who fled from France. The churches in our province are full of those chefs-d'oeuvre, and it might well occupy the time of our Art Commission to locate them.
My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has spoken very strongly in favour of opening the museum on Sundays. I know that Canada is a very religious country, but I always thought that Sabbath observance was a special feature of the great city of London, England. If anyone of us goes to London, even in that stern and unbending Sunday observing city, one finds practically all the museums and all the art galleries open to the public on that day. I remember the last time I went to England-and the first time-to my surprise, I could visit these galleries. I spent one Sunday afternoon in the famous Wallace collection. If in London they are not scandalized at the idea, surely we in the city of Ottawa should imitate our kinsmen on the other side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Chairman, I take great pleasure in the fact that the people of this country are awakening to the beauties of art. Until some years ago the reproach which my hon. friend from the Yukon mentioned a moment ago, that we were a materialistic people was only too true. Perhaps there was not in the country the wealth there is today. Wealth has that special feature, that it brings forth the culture and the love of art. The death of Mr. Pierpont Morgan is probably tlie best example that wealth can bring Mr. LEMIEUX.
art to America and can be made the cause of splendid collections being acquired for the American people. Not very long ago, the millionaires-because there are now many millionaires in Montreal-started a gallery on Sherbrooke street and it is quite a credit to the city. I am told that at the last Salon some very beautiful paintings were exhibited there; and I understand that from year to year we are not only to have Canadian art productions but also the competition of foreign artists who will exhibit their paintings with those of Canadian artists. May I ask the Minister of Public Works if the old advisory board is to be maintained as part of the new corporation to be created by this Bill?


Mr. EOGEES:: That is the intention, so
far as I know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because Sir Byron
Walker, Senator Boyer and Dr. Shepherd have given their time gratuitously for the cause of art, and they are men of high standing in the community, men of knowledge and of sterling honesty and even though there is a change of government, they should be maintained in the positions which they have occupied not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the public, giving their services, as I have said, gratuitously. The Minister of Public Works says they will be maintained. For my part, I shall vote for the Bill with pleasure.


Mr. BUENHAM:: I have been communicated with by a few artists of prominence, one in particular, who protested against the manner in which the Canadian national gallery, has been collected in the past, and I must say that I agree with him. I am not an artist nor do I subscribe to the theory that if people want pictures they should paint them themselves. I am more broad-minded than that, but at the same time, I do insist that a national gallery should be national. Some mention has been made here of copies. It requires but little knowledge of art to know that in a matter of this kind copies of paintings do not count at all. They do little to develop originality. A national gallery which would warrant the expenditure of large sums of money- for you cannot get artistic productions for small sums-should be for the development of Canadian art, not only Canadian artists but Canadian subjects. We have in Canada not only magnificent opportunities but many artists of note and talent. Their achievements abroad have shown that. But I do think it is inexcusable that our national gallery should register a long list of paintings by foreign artists and on foreign subjects. If private collections are to be made of these things, that is all right, but sd far as I am concerned, I Mo not think the Government is warranted in developing

what may be called foreign art. It is too late to speak at length, but I enter my protest against the development of a Canadian national gallery on any other lines than these.
Resolution reported.
Mr. ROGERS thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 186, to incorporate the National Gallery of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 5, 1913.