[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Acting Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 195, to amend the Railway Belt Water Act. He said: Hon. gentlemen will be aware that the province of British Columbia, many years ago, conveyed to the Dominion government a strip of land twenty miles on either side of the right of way of the Canadian Pacific railway, which land is now known as the Railway Belt. Disputes arose between the provincial and Dominion governments concerning the administration of -water-powers within the belt. A decision was finally rendered by the Judicial Committtee of the Privy Council, holding that the Dominion Government had the right to administer the water privileges within that belt. It has been thought that these water rights could be more conveniently and satisfactorily administered by the provincial government, certain reserves being made by the Dominion Government. An Act with that object in view was passed at the last session of this Parliament. This Act has been found in some respects impracticable and unworkable. The object of this Bill is to remedy the defects which have become apparent in the present Act and to make the Act more workable and satisfactory in the interests both of the province and the Dominion.
Mr. OLIVER:: Is the purpose of the Bill that the Act as amended shall be operated under the responsibility of the Dominion Government or under the responsibility of the provincial government?


Mr. CROTHERS:: Partially both. The
Act conveys to the provincial government the right to administer these water-powers, but the Minister of the Interior is responsible, as hon. members will notice by some of the provisions of the Bill, for its administration. We except entirely from the operation of this Bill all areas that are or may be set apart and conducted as Dominion parks. These were not reserved under the Bill passed last session.


Frank Oliver: When the Bill of last session was before the House there was considerable discussion in regard to the protection of irrigation rights already existing. We urged that the Bill should make adequate provision for the protection of rights created under Dominion authority, on the responsibility of the Dominion Government. Might I ask what the provision of the Bill is in that particular?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think my hon. friend will find provisions in the Bill protecting these rights, and particularly with respect to Indian reserves and that sort of thing. We can go into that more in detail on the second reading.


Frank Oliver: But it is especially with
regard to the rights of private owners of

land who had acquired rights of water for irrigation purposes that I inquire. A very considerable readjustment would be necessary, and we wish to be sure that the Government takes the responsibility of protecting the rights which had been created in water in the Railway Belt under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Government.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think the hon. gentleman will find the provisions of the present Bill ample for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Sarah Lillian Attwood.-Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Green, the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. Ill, respecting Imperial Underwriters' Corporation, and to change its name to Imperial Underwriters' Corporation of Canada, were concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 193, to incorporate the Canadian Central and Labrador Railway Company.- Mr. Devlin.

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

Mr. MARTIN (Regina):: *
1.	Has J. P. Jones been appointed to a position on the Grain Commission? If so, what is the position ?
2.	Is this the same J. P. Jones who was manager of the Empire Elevator Company, which company operates a terminal elevator at Fort William?
3.	Is the government aware as to whether or not the said J. P. Jones, when manager of the said company, was fined the amount of $2,500 for mixing grades?


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Yes. A member of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. Mr. Jones was not fined, nor was he prosecuted.


MONTREAL POSTAL STATIONS.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Montreal):: Does the government intend to establish for the use of the citizens of St. James Division, Montreal, any depot where they can quickly procure for themselves postal supplies, such as stamps, post office orders, postal certificates, registration of letters and the delivery of postal parcels, to replace the Amherst Street Depot near St. Catherine Street East, lately closed?


Mr. PELLETIER:: There was formerly a letter carrier depot at 231 Amherst Street, Montreal (St. James' Division). It has been closed in consequence of the completion of a new public building which the late Government decided to erect at the corner of St. Catherine and Plessis, about 1,500 feet east of Amherst Street. It was intended thereby to serve the interests both of St. James and St. Mary's Divisions of Montreal. Postal stations are letter carrier depots serving the surrounding district, and it was then considered that with postal station ' B ' on University Street, one at West-mount in the west, and one on Plessis Street in the east, the interests of the districts along St. Catherine Street should be amply served. In addition, a building intended for a central postal station for the up-town district is being erected on Bishop street. The letter carriers have consequently been transferred from Amherst Street to the new public building on Plessis Street erected for that purpose. However, until some other permanent thing can be done, the present Government intends to temporarily remedy the present situation by establishing immediately a sub-post office at 321 Amherst Street. This sub-post office cannot, of course, be a letter carrier depot, but apart from that it will transact all forms of post office business.


ONTARIO EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
Mr. LAFORTUNE:: What is the total amount paid by the Post Otnce Department to the Ontario Equipment Company from April 1, 1912, to April 1, 1913?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: An answer to this question was given a few days ago to the honourable member for Pictou, N.S. (Mr. Macdonald). See unrevised edition of ' Hansard,' page 9442.


LORNE VALLEY MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings.):: 1.	How many tenders have been received by
the Postmaster General for the conveyance of mails from Lome Valley Post Office, Prince Edward Island, to the Railway Station by 48 Road ?	0
2.	What are the names of the tenderers, the amount of each tender, and which tender has been accepted?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The contract for this service has not yet been awarded.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is it the intention of the Government to retain the services of the Intercolonial Railway Commissioners under Mr. Gutelius?


Mr. COCHRANE:: For the present, Mr. F. P. Brady is retained as general superintendent, and Mr. E. Tiffin, as general traffic manager.


POSTAL NOTE AND MONEY ORDER RATES.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has there been a change in the rates of postal notes and money orders?
2.	If so, what is the change?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A change has been made in the rates on money orders, full particulars of which have already been given in reply to a question asked by the honourable member for Portneuf (Mr. Delisle). See ' Hansard ' unrevised edition, page 8863. There lias been no change in the rates on postal notes.


MAIL BAG LOCKS.
Mr. CARVELL:: Ha6 the Post Office Department lately returned to Mr. Lapointe of Quebec, 6,000 bars for mail bag locks? If so, why?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTY.
Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Hare the applications of Severe Grondin, Eng. Vallee and Chs. Bernard, all of Beauce county, Quebec, for Fenian raid bounty been received at the Department of Militia?
2.	If so, have they been accepted?
3.	Have they been paid?
4.	If not aceepted, for what reason?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Because there is not sufficient evidence presented to show that they were out on active service during the raids.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all papers, telegrams, documents, reports, correspondence, &c., in any way relating to a proposed extension of a wharf or the construction of a new wharf at Finlay Point, Inverness county, N.S.-Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).
For a copy of all papers, telegrams, documents, reports, correspondence, &c., in any way relating, to a proposed drill shed or armoury at Inverness.-Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).
For a copy of all papers, telegrams, documents, reports, correspondence, pay rolls, &c., in any way relating to a. life-saving station which was constructed at Cheticamp, during 1912.-Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).
For a copy of all communications made by the Canadian Forestry Association to the government, between March 31, 1912, and March 31, 1913, with the replies made thereto.-Mr. Oliver.
1. For a return showing the respective names, duties and salaries of officials of the Mr. LEMIEUX.
Immigration Department, of both Inside and Outside Service on March 31, 1911.
2. The respective names, duties and salaries of officials of the Immigration Department of both Inside and Outside Service on March 31, 1913.-Mr. Oliver.
For a copy of all claims made by H. F. Mc-Dougall, of Grand Narrows, N.S., against the Intercolonial Railway, and of all letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with the said claim or claims; together with the particulars of said claims; the amount or amounts paid upon said claim or claims; the particular items of the claim or claims upon which payment if any were made; the date of the filing of the claims and of the payment or payments made thereon; and the total amount paid on said claims or upon any other claims made by the said H. F. Mc-Dougall against the said Intercolonial Railway or the Government of Canada.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all correspondence, papers, &c., in connection with the building of the Post Office at Weedom Station, county of Wolfe.- Mr. Tobin.
For a copy of all correspondence, papers, &c., in connection with the carrying of the mail between St. Francois Xavier de Brampton and Windsor Mills, Quebec.-Mr. Tobin.
For a return showing the names and purposes of the several commissions created by legislation or Orders in Council since October 12, 1911; the names of the members of the several commissioners, with their respective salaries and remuneration; the names of commissions still in existence; and the names of commissions created since October 12, 1911, which have ceased to exist.-Mr. Oliver.
For a copy of all tenders for, and correspondence relating to, the awarding of the contract for the carrying of His Majesty's mail between Warkworth and Colborne, County of Northumberland.-Mr.Grabam.
For a copy of the surrender and of all papers, correspondence and other documents in connection with the surrender of part of the White Bear Indian Reserve; together with a copy of all letters and telegrams referring to this surrender by officials of the department or others, and of the authority on which this surrender was taken, the number of acres surrendered, and how disposed of.-Mr. Bradbury.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Rogers, it was ordered that the House go into Committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to ratify and confirm an agreement between the Western Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company, Ltd., and His Majesty, dated the 9th day of November, 1910, respecting the construction of a dry-dock at the city of Port Arthur, in the province of Ontario, and to authorize the Governor in Council to pay an annual subsidy of three per cent per annum for twenty years upon the sum of $1,258,050, being the cost of the construction of the said dry dock.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General), the House went into Com-

mittee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Government Annuities Act, and to increase the total amount which may be paid by way of an annuity or annuities to an annuitant or to joint annuitants from $600 a year to $1,000 a year.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The House
will be interested in having from my hon. friend some statement as to the reason for this change and the working of the Act generally.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The proposed amendment is one which has been suggested to me by Mr. Basdo, the head of the Annui ties Branch. My right hon. friend knows that the Annuities Branch was formerly under the Department of Trade and Commerce. At the commencement of the last session it was transferred to the Post Office Department, so that the 14,000 postmasters in the country might become agents for this Government insurance. On account of the increased cost of living, Mr. Bastedo and Doctor Coulter, the Deputy Postmaster General, have found that $600, the present limit of an annuity, ought to be increased to $1,000. Some persons who have applied for annuities and who have been told that the maximum amount payable is $600 have said that this amount is not enough to cover the necessities of old age, and as a result Mr. Bastedo has suggested that the amount should be increased. This is the sole object of the present legislation. My right hon. friend has inquired about the general working of the Annuities Branch of the Post Office Department. I may say that this law as passed by the Government of my right hon. friend is to my mind one of the best that could have been placed on the statute book. I have taken some interest in the matter, and I think this form of insurance should be considered as being greatly in the public interest. The cost of a board of administration and the expenses incidental to this kind of insurance are borne by the Government for the benefit of the people. The business has been increasing year by year, although during the past year it has been practically stationary, owing to the fact that the statute was taken advantage of the first years it was put on the statute book, and those who had been engaged to deliver lectures with regard to the plan did not have as much success as they had during the first years. With the very efficient work of Mr. Bastedo is doing, we believe that this system of annuities will increase very much and that the people will derive great benefit from it.


Wilfrid Laurier: The information given by my hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier), I am sure, will be found very satisfactory. The result of the operation of the Act is wdiat we anticipated from the first. When Sir Richard Cartwright introduced the Act, I suggested to him that $600 was too limited an amount and that perhaps it might be well to make it $1,000; but Sir Richard thought" that it would be better to start moderately, see how the system worked, and, later on, if deemed advisable, increase the amount of the annuity. I am glad to know that Mr. Bastedo is still in charge of the Act; he is a very competent officer. My hon. friend stated a moment ago that this year there has been no increase in the business. This may be due to the fact that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) dispensed with the services of many of the men who were lecturing and making the Act known in many parts of the Dominion. If I remember rightly, there was a very clean sweep in . that department, and I do not know that the action taken was at all calculated to improve the working of the Act. These men had a considerable knowledge of the subject, and, I believe, were doing good work. I am aware that when the Act was first introduced there was naturally a rush of people to take advantage of it, which may account for the fact that there was some slackening off in the demand for annuities later on. At the same time, I cannot but feel that the action of the department in dispensing with the services of these lecturers was very injudicious, to say the least of it. I would like to know the number of annuities there are to-day, how many were taken the first year, how many the second year, and so on, and what are the expectations of Mr. Bastedo and those now in charge of the work as to the future expansion of the system. I believe that the step taken to-day of extending the limit to $1,000 is a wise one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I approve of the increase -in the amount of the annuity. I think the system is a great boon to the people of Canada, as it encourages the labouring classes to thrift. I was sorry, however, that this important branch of the public service was detached from a department where admittedly, there was not enough to do and placed' in charge of another department which is already overloaded with business. But, if the step taken has been fruitful of results, I find no fault with it in that sense. I understand that last year, when the transfer was made, it was understood that the different postmasters would become the agents of the department. As a sequel to the question put by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, I would ask the hon. gentleman, when he moves the second reading of his Bill, to state what proportion of

new annuities have been taken through the agency of the various postmasters and as to whether the system is working satisfactorily with the postmasters. What means are taken to induce the public to go to the post office for that purpose? I noticed the other day, walking along the street, that the Post Office Department had advertised by means of huge posters, and I thought, subject to the question of the cost, -that this was a very good method of attracting public attention to this policy of annuities. The posters are well made and really attract the attention of the public. The hon. gentleman might perhaps tell us, in his further information, what number of posters have been distributed in Canada, and whether the distribution is confined to cities or is extended to villages and country districts.


Mr. MURPHY:: In view of the increase in the amount of the annuity, could my hon. friend the Postmaster General state now, or later on, whether there has been an increase in the amount of the premium, or the payment to be made by annuitants? Has there been an increase in the instalments corresponding with the total amount of the annuity itself?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will look over
* Hansard ', and when the Bill comes up for its second reading, I shall be ready to give the information that the hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), have asked for. I am not able to give a list of the places to which these posters have been sent, but I shall be ready to state that _ on the second reading of the Bill. I might say in a general way that Mr. Bastedo has reported to me that the effect of these posters is already felt to a considerable extent. As my hon. friend from Rouville has said, they are very attractive.


Charles Murphy: Will my hon. friend tell us also where these posters were prepared and by whom?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, I will bring that information. My hon. friend from Rouville has told us that perhaps we made a mistake when we transferred this branch from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Post Office Department. I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Rouville has said about the Post Office Department being already overloaded with work, but the reason given by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) was one which appealed to me. It was that the 14,000 postmasters would become the agents of this business. I thought at the time that this was a very good reason, and I did not hesitate, as a matter of public duty, to undertake the Mr. LEMIEUX
work. But we have not found so far that the postmasters are as efficient agents as we expected them to be.
.Mr. LEMIEUX:	Do you give them a
commission?	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is what I am
coming to. Our object was twofold. In the first place, we expected that the postmasters would take an interest in the matter, and that this would tend, to a certain extent, to remove the complaint of a number of postmasters who claimed they were underpaid. We thought that if we could give them an opportunity of earning a little more money by becoming the agents of this branch of the public service, it . would to a certain extent meet their demands for increased pay. To be very frank with my hon. friend, the result of the transfer so far has not shown that our expectations have been realized.
We have given the postmasters a commission. I will not admit that the change has been a bad one, because this year the system is in a transitory stage, and when it is properly re-organized and understood by the people, I believe it will be effective. However, if we find we have made a mistake, there will be no hesitation to retrace our steps.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Are all the postmaster? throughout the Dominion agents ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In one sense they
are. Of course, an annuity payment cannot be taken except at an accounting post office, of which there are four or five thousand in the Dominion; but the other postmasters are agents for transmitting the payments of the local people to the accounting office.


John Howard Sinclair: The postmaster gets no remuneration unless he sends an application ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, because he is remunerated by a commission. The commission is that which was suggested by Mr. Bastedo, who has devoted his energy and talents to this matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is a good officer.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He is a very good
officer. Mr. Bastedo believes that, when the postmasters understand the Act, results will flow to the people and to the postmasters themselves which will be of great advantage to both.


Mr. NESBITT:: Can the Postmaster
General inform us in a general way how much came from the rural districts, and how much from the urban districts ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will ask Mr. Bastedo to look at ' Hansard ' of this morning and give me all the information asked for by hon. gentlemen.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: If we would consolidate in the 14,000 post offices throughout the country, the parcel post, the telephone system, the telegraph system, the annuity system, the savings bank system, the money order system, instead of having 14,000 underpaid officials dotted over the country, we would probably have 20,000 officers to whom we could grant adequate pay. To have the public services of Canada efficient in small towns and outlaying districts, there must be fair remuneration given to the servants of the public. If the services I have mentioned, which hitherto have been scattered, were consolidated, a first-class official, probably with assistants, could be appointed in each office, and day and night service tendered.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is
another important consideration in connection with that suggestion: it is that the postmasters throughout Canada should have permanent tenure of office, and not liable to dismissal at any moment.


William Findlay Maclean: I am
ready for that, and I am glad to hear the right hon. gentleman say he also is ready.


Wilfrid Laurier: If you can
convert the Postmaster General to that idea, it will be a good thing.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the two of us can convert him.


Wilfrid Laurier: The country
postmasters are paid a minimum salary of $35 per annum, and the minimum is the prevailing rule in the country districts. The man appointed to a post office is usually a man engaged in some other avocation of life, and it takes him months and perhaps years to understand the duties of the office; and then, after he has learned the business, he is discharged and in his place is put a new man who has to commence to learn the business all over again. The Postmaster General has been very diligent in cutting off the heads of these officials throughout the country. If the postmasters were sure of the permanency of their offices, they would be much more likely to be competent, to learn their duties and to discharge them efficiently. If an annuitant can go to a post office and pay in his money and get a receipt, it will be a further inducement to him to take out an annuity. It will be more work for the postmasters, and I trust the Postmaster General will see his way to pay them proper remuneration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I believe that the
publication of these posters, referred to by the Postmaster General, will do a great deal of good, but after all, I think the best means of reaching the public is
by way of lectures. The large insurance companies convene their army of agents every year in some city, and the experts of these companies give the agents a series of lectures on how to best reach the public and to explain the rates, which, after all, is a technical question which the man in the street does not always understand. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr-Gauthier) is vice-president of the Societe des Artisans C an ad i ens - F-r a n 5 a i s, which has had a very great success not only in Canada but in the New England states, which success has been achieved by sending lecturers all over the country and explaining directly to the public how the system of the society works. The Postmaster General is himself, I believe, a member of some of these mutual benefit societies, and he will, realize the good results attained by publicly explaining to the people their benefits.	.
When the annuities system was inaugurated, the Government appointed lecturers in the various provinces. In the province of Quebec, one lecturer was appointed for the city of Quebec and one or two for the city of Montreal. The lecturer for the city of Quebec, as my hon. friend knows, was a very able and hard-working gentleman, and I am quite sure that he attained great success. The Montreal lecturer, Mr. Pierre Gravel, was personally known to me and well known in the city of Montreal and throughout the province of Quebec. He had been a commercial traveller. I was sorry when he was dismissed because I thought, with his experience and his enthusiasm for the cause, he would have reaped quite a crop of annuitants.
I quite agree with my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) that the post office should become more and more the centre of activity in every village, as it is at present in every town and city. The time is coming when every public utility will reach the people in the remotest districts of the land. We have an example, which is quite unique, in the province of Ontario; electrical energy is now being spread in every direction, to every town, village and hamlet. The day is not far distant when, as my hon. friend says, the telephone, the telegraph, the cable-


William Findlay Maclean: The money order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The money order and
the postal note are pretty widely sold in every centre.


William Findlay Maclean: And cheques on the
savings bank.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think it is in the interest of the department to extend as widely as possible its money order and postal note department. What I wish to

96M
emphasize is that the post office should also be the station of the telephone, the telegraph, and other public utilities.


William Findlay Maclean: And should be nonpartisan.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the
rub.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, non-partisan. We are told that the outside civil service would be put on the same basis as the inside civil service. When is that reform to be accomplished? When will all our postmasters be guaranteed that, during good behaviour at least, they will not be subject to the action of political parties?


Charles Murphy: Unless they marry a
Grit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I trust my hon. friend will bring down the information for which we are asking.


Mr. LAW:: When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) dispensed with the services of these lecturers, I thought he was making a mistake. I still think so. When the figures are brought down, it will be interesting to note how many annuities have been issued since the services of the lecturers were dispensed with, and how many were issued for the same period while they were lecturing. It was also a mistake to transfer the annuities branch to the Department of the Post Office, which is one of the busiest and most overworked departments of the service. I am glad that the Postmaster General has retained the services of Mr. Bastedo, whom I have always found to be a most faithful and efficient official. I also think that the Postmaster General perhaps made a mistake when he left this matter in the hands of the postmasters of the country, nine-tenths of whom are not in a position to explain this intricate question as fully as lecturers can do whose business it is to do so. For thirty-five dollars a year, a postmaster cannot attend properly to his business, and a good deal of it is done by his wife and family; therefore his services would be of no value whatever in connection with the Annuities Act. Insurance companies would not do one-half the business that they do unless they sent out agents to all parts of the country. The Postmaster General will find it necessary to send out agents to explain the matter to the public.


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth):: I
had some opportunity, under the old system, of observing what appeared to be the failure of it. In my county in the district surrounding it, there was a very capable lecturer, a Mr. Cameron, a bright, well educated and competent man, who seemed to be thoroughly alive to his duties and who endeavoured to fulfil them. He came to my town on many occasions, and the trouble Mr. LEMIEUX.
was that he could not get an audience to listen to him. I went once or twice to hear him, and found that probably five or six men would turn up to listen to his lecture, which resolved itself more or less into a desultory talk. It was only as a matter of courtesy, and after solicitation that men went to the public hall or the city hall to hear him. What would be true in his case would probably be true in all cases, because he was well qualified to address public audiences. While listening to this discussion, it occurred to me that the insurance idea, if it were properly applied, would arouse the public interest. I do not think it is possible to arouse the public interest in the annuities branch of the service by advertising a lecture on the subject, 'because it is too dry and academic, and does not appeal to the masses. They will not rush to a public hall to hear a lecture upon any such subject. But if these lecturers, instead of attempting to draw audiences, were to go to the individual who is likely to take out an annuity, and have a personal talk, as does the insurance agent, he would be more likely to impress upon the proposed applicant the advantages of such an investment. There would be a direct contact between the officer or the solicitor and the prospective insurer, and the result would be that many individuals would walk to the post office and place their applications. I desire to support the idea advocated by the hon. member for South York, (Mr. McLean). The time is bound to come in this country when the public offices, such as the post office, will be the medium for the transaction of all the matters set out by the hon. gentleman. There can be no question of the cheapness of the service to be brought about by consolidating all the utilities mentioned by the hon. gentleman in such public offices as the post office. The price of the service would be reduced, the remuneration of the postmaster would be increased, and the post office would be a place where persons who desired to do two or three things in one day could do them in the same building. It seems to me that if such a plan is to be worked out, there is no reason why we should wait thirty or forty or fifty years to obtain its benefits. It might at first be instituted in the smaller offices throughout the country, and ultimately be extended to every office in which it could reasonably be done for the benefit of the people. So far as. the postmaster is concerned, I think there should be some permanency in regard to his position. I would make the offices so busy that the postmasters would not have time to take part in political matters, and I think that if their time were taken up in dealing with the various matters which under the proposed plan would be brought under their

control, and they were given a reasonable salary, great good would result.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM:	Everybody seems agreed that the system of Government annuities is a good one. It is designed chiefly for those persons who cannot afford to protect their families or themselves in any other way, but the difficulty is to obtain the interest of the people. In regard to societies and insurance companies, it should be remembered that every member of those organizations is an agent, and constantly brings to the attention of others the advantages of the particular organization with' which he is connected. Some difficulty has been experienced with regard to many of these societies in connection with the security given to the individual who is proposed to he insured by them, but this system of Government annuities is assuredly one which gives the most complete and adequate protection to the individual, and if there could be devised a plan by which the advantages of this system could be brought directly home to the people of Canada, I think the business done by the department would double. It should be recognized that it will take years to get this matter into the minds of the people, especially having regard to a plan so new as this and in sending out these lecturers we were sowing the seed and beginning the work, but the benefit will not be very great unless there is personal contact with the people. If an insurance agent were to hold a meeting in a town perhaps he would have present the policy-holders of his own company, but he would not do much good if he stopped there; he would have to come in contact with the prospective policy-holders not only once or twice, and not even three times, but perhaps a dozen times. By the adoption of some system of personal touch with the people by the sending out of some person authorized by the department, those who first become interested in the matter will themselves become agents and make the work easier. In order that the Canadian Government annuities system may be properly placed before the people by the department, I think that some agent or official with authority and sufficient knowledge to carry on the work should go into the country, staying at the different points a week if necessary, to meet the people personally and discuss the matter with them.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton):: I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) in his statement that there is not very much accomplished by the lecturers who are sent out by the Government in the way of obtaining applicants for government annuities. We had a lecturer down in our part of the country, who was a very capable
man, and to whom it was a pleasure to listen, but unfortunately the people did not take sufficient interest in the matter to attend the lectures, and consequently it was not a great success. In so far as sending out private canvassers is concerned, I think the people can be more readily reached in that way, but I have a suggestion to make. It has been contended that the post offices are the great centres in almost every city and town, and more particularly in the small villages. If the department would undertake to advertise very extensively in the post offices, so that the attention of every person who went there would be drawn to the work the Government is doing in this regard, I think it would be a means of bringing directly to the attention of the people the fact that there is in existence such a thing as this annuities scheme. Nearly every day the villager goes to the post office to get his mail, and if there were in the post office some elaborate sign or advertisement setting forth the advantages of Canadian government annuities he would probably undertake to investigate the matter for himself.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The suggestion of
my hon. friend was evidently considered a good one by the gentleman who is administering the Annuities Branch of the department, because he has himself made that suggestion to me. He has suggested that coloured posters should be placed in the *post offices, and I understand that that is going to be done.
I am glad this matter has come up this morning, and I think that this discussion, which has been participated in by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, will be one of the best advertisements that the Annuities Branch could have. Let me draw the attention of the committee to the outstanding advantages of the government annuities. In the first place, the premiums are very reasonable, and are within the reach of all. In the second place, the Government, except from the broad point of view of helping the public, has nothing to gain by the participation of the people in this annuities system. The Government reaps no benefit from it, but simply administers the law purely and simply in the public interest. The people who become insured in insurance companies and mutual benefit societies are assessed for the cost of administration, but in this case the Government bears that expense. Think of the immense advantage it is to the poor man, who has set aside a few cents a week to provide for his old age, to be absolutely sure that the organization with which he is insured will not go to the wall. His insurance benefits are payable by the Government of Canada, and the administration of the system costs him nothing. I am glad to have an

opportunity of saying again that this is one of the best laws ever placed on the statute book; even though it was put there by political opponents of mine, I must give them credit for it. As it has been placed under the department of which I happen to be in charge at the present moment,' I have given Mr. Bastedo the assurance of my concurrence in his efforts to carry out the plan to the best interests of the people, and he is devoting the greater part of his time to it. He has prepared a booklet, to which I have taken the liberty of adding some notes and suggestions, which is admirably gotten up. This booklet is sent to all the postmasters in any quantity they may desire, for distribution amongst the people. In it the Government annuities system is explained in a most illuminating manner, and I am sure they will be productive of good results. As to what the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has said, I do not feel that I am able to jump at once to the attainment of his highest ideals, which would mean absolute state ownership of everything, but I may tell him that one of his desires is very soon to be realized. I refer to the parcel post, the resolution with regard to which I have already given notice.
I have begn told that the position of postmaster is in no degree permanent, and that I have dismissed many postmasters. That is true, but I think my hon. friend's on the other side will admit that that was not entirely my fault. One of the first letters I received after I was appointed Postmaster General was from a postmaster who was dismissed by the late Government and who wanted to obtain justice.


Wilfrid Laurier: You gave him justice with a vengeance.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think I gave him the justice which my hon. friend would have given him if be had been in my position. This man had been dismissed absolutely without a cause, simply because a member of the House had suggested that he had been a partisan. When did this system of dismissing postmasters begin? Who can gainsay the assertion that it began in 1896? It was carried on on a large scale at that time. In 1905 a resolution was unanimously passed by the House declaring that the oflicials of the Government who took part in politics ought to be dismissed, and my right hon. friend accepted that proposition. When we came into office we were faced with the argument:	Look at what the Liberals did in
1896, and look at the resolution that was unanimously passed in 1905. I think -everyone will admit that the course taken was a reasonable one. I am quite pre-Mr. PELLETIER.
pared to have the postmasters enjoy their positions in a permanent manner. When in England last summer the Postmaster General of England told me that the appointment of postmasters there was absolutely outside of political patronage. I told him the difficulties with which I had to contend, and the very heavy correspondence I had with regard to these dismissals. I asked for his advice, and he said that in England the members of the House never have their political friends appointed as postmasters. Of course, in a country like ours, where this was not started right, we cannot reconstruct things all at once.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am afraid that even
during his trip to England the hon. gem tleman's conscience was tormenting him for what he had done.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
Wilfrid Laurier: You are
boasting.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I may in that respect, but I would not say that I have done it in every respect. But the figures before the House, show that, in proportion to the number of postmasters in 1911 and in 1896, I am no worse than my predecessors. I do not say worse than the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), because he was not there very long.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Five years at least, and dismissed only one.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: More than that, and besides that, the dismissing had all been done before he arrived.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Anyway, if the hon.
gentleman will pay annuities to those whom he has dismissed, I will forgive him.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am very glad this
discussion has taken place, though it is not the occasion to discuss these matters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You will hear more
about them.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am afraid I shall.
I will do my best to explain to hon. gentle-

man opposite what I have done, the best possible under the circumstances.


Frank Oliver: The Postmaster IGeneral boasts that he has dismissed a large number of postmasters for political partisanship.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I did not boast.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman states, and I think I am safe in saying he boasts, and holds it is an act of merit on his part. May I ask him on what ground the appointments in place of those dismissed have been made? Have they not in all cases been made on the ground of political partisanship?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Both on the ground of fitness and of recommendation by our political friends.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the Postmaster
General insist that the question of fitness nas been a serious consideration to the department?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, yes.


Frank Oliver: Do you insist on that?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. I will tell the reason, and the hon. gentleman will see it at once: Our friends on this side, I have confidence, have considered fitness before making a recommendation.
sent throughout the country called upon a man to swear that he had never looked at an electoral list to find out whose name was upon it, that he had never, while driving to the polls, picked up another elector who might have been lame and limping along the road and carried him to the polls, and that he had never expressed or even entertained an opinion upon a public matter of any kind. If he could not swear to all this he lost his official head. That is the gospel of the post office as originated by the present Postmaster General. We have these proclamations in our desks. I wish to remind the Postmaster General of a gentleman in my county named Dunlop.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would remind the
hon. gentleman that we are discussing the question of annuities, and he should confine himself to the question.
Mr. McKenzie : i will come to that in a minute. The Postmaster General did not confine himself to that, but went on to_ boast about the excellence of his administration, and how he had brought it about. And he explained how he had rendered evil for evil, instead of rendering good for evil. If he is quoting Scripture, he ought to remember that Scripture which says that ' he who renders evil for evil, evil shall not depart from his house.' '


Frank Oliver: I think that papers
brought down at my request will show that the hon. gentleman is making a statement that is not well founded.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There may have been


H11SX3.K6S.
[Stage Direction]
Mr D D McKENZIE (North Cape ^et me call to the attention ot the Postmaster General the fact I1 at peculiar rules have been laid down for the Post Office Department as regards the charge of partisanship. Instructions went out to the executioners of the Government generally in the province of Nova Scotia that they should go back only as far as the election of 1908, and that only what took place either in provincial or Dominion elections from that time was to be considered. I think, that as a rule, the examiners, or executioners as I have called them, in the province kept themselves within these limitations. The Post Office Department is- the only one that absolutely ignored that regulation and went back to the Garden of Eden, I may say, and would have gone further back, no doubt, only I understand there was no distribution of males before that time. The Postmaster General went back to original sin in politics and took account of anything he could find from that time on. The iniquitous document which he
Mr. HENDERSON:: What chapter is
that ? I never read it.


Mr. McKENZIE:: My hon. friend from
Haiton says he never read it; I do not think he ever thumbed the Scriptures very much I was going to point out one thing, and I may say that only that a part of this sentence is on ' Hansard,' I would not attempt to go on. I was going to say When you called me to time, Mr. Chairman, that in my county there have been several dismissals, but one in particular in New Campbellton, in which the correspondence as brought down, will show that the Postmaster General had not any inquiry made. He sent one of the executionary warrants to the postmaster, who returned it and said he was not able to make every tittle of the declaration, because once in his life he had acted as an agent at the polls. The records of the department will show the case to be as I have stated. The man did not say whether it was ten years, twenty years, or thirty years before that he had acted as agent. This is hard lines, and it is conduct in which the hon. Postmaster General is not justified in the administration of his department. He can look up the records of my county and he will find ten, fifteen or twenty cases where Conservatives have been appointed if there was any person in the family, son, brother or daughter, cap-
REVISBI} EDITION

able of performing the duties connected with the post office. Not a single Liberal was appointed, and not a single change in the post office was made. Why this general execution should be extended to my county, which did not deserve it, I cannot understand.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: With respect to the matter of dismissals


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman
should confine himself to the subject before the Chair.


William Chisholm: I was going to refer to a statement made by the hon. Postmaster General.


David Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I
rise to a point of order-


William Chisholm: I am going to speak to the point; I have the floor.


David Henderson: Let the hon. member talk to the question, not about dismissals.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The point of order is that the hon. gentleman must confine himself to the question.


David Henderson: I noticed that the hon. gentleman was going to continue the discussion of the question of dismissals. I think it is time that we got back to the question before the Chair.


Mr. GRAHAM:: These postmasters are agents for the annuities branch, and as agents they are certainly part of the machinery under discussion.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: With reference to this point of order, I would like to say that some of us do want to see this session finished; and, while that is so, I think that we have a right to object to the example along these lines set by the horn. Postmaster General himself. I had occasion to go to the Library at the beginning of this discussion, and I was not aware whether, before the hon. Postmoster General began to speak, there had been any reference made to dismissals. When the Postmaster General began to talk about dismissals, I left the Chamber. In fairness to my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm), and in view of what has been said by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), the nestor of order on the other side of the House, an hon. gentleman who should give leadership to all of us, I would submit to him respectfully that a little lesson in leadership to his somewhat inexperienced Postmaster General would not be out of order Mr. McKENZIE.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I would like to tell my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who has always been courteous in this House, that I did not begin this discussion. I have no interest in beginning a discussion about dismissals. I was drawn into this by the remarks of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier), and it was out of courtesy for him that I went into it, because otherwise it might have been said that I ignored what he had said. I was afraid it would be the beginning of a long discussion but I wanted to follow the right hon. leader of the Opposition on the ground that he had chosen.


Wilfrid Laurier: My remarks
were quite opposite to the speech of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. He had stated that this year there had been some falling off in business, and I told him it might be the result of the numerous dismissals that had been made from the department.


William Chisholm: I do not propose to go into a discussion of the question of dismissals, as the question is not before the Chair just now, but it would not be courteous to the committee not to take notice of the remarks -made by the hon. Postmaster General. I think it is only proper that the statement which he made, in effect that he had dismissed no postmasters without good cause, should be considered. There has been no greater sinner since the change of Government with regard to the question of dismissals than the Postmaster General. There has been no discrimination whatsoever and not the slightest consideration has been shown to the rights of those who have been deprived of their positions. The hon. gentleman said that he had not dismissed a postmaster without cause since he assumed office. In what way does he go about this business? He sends out an affidavit or declaration which he requires a postmaster to sign. There is no self-respecting man in Canada who would sign such a declaration.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I hope'the hon. gentleman is not going into the question of the dismissal of postmasters.


William Chisholm: I do not want to be discourteous, and if you say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not in order, I will not continue the discussion any further I would say, however, that an opportunity will come up when I shall be able to show that the Postmaster General has not only dismissed men without cause, but that he has shown the greatest cruelty in his treatment of officials and that he has pursued a course of conduct which was never followed by the late Administration.

Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and agreed to.
Mr. PELLETIER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 196, to amend the Government Annuities Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Chi motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Agriculture), House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend The Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and to provide that when compensation is payable to the owners of horses slaughtered under the provisions of the said Act, such compensation may be paid upon a valuation of not exceeding $200 in the case of a grade horse, and not exceeding $500 in the case of a pure bred horse.
Wilfrid Laurier: Would the
hon. gentleman please explain?


Mr. BURRELL:: The only purpose of this resolution, and the Bill which will be founded thereon, is to increase the valuation of horses that are destroyed and compensated for under the Act. When the Act was put into force in 1904 the price of horses was practically half of what it is to-day. Under the old Act the maximum valuation, for glanders, say, of a grade horse, was $150, and we could only compensate to the extent of two-thirds of the value, or $100. At the present time if a farmer went out to buy an ordinary team of horses he would have to pay at least $400 and probably $500 for it. The maximum valuation would only be $300 for the team, and he would only get $200 compensation. Under these circumstances we ask the House in this resolution and the Bill to increase the maximum valuation from $150 to $200.


William Findlay Maclean: How
many horses did you pay for last year?


Martin Burrell: During last year, for
glanders alone, $60,000 compensation was given, the number of horses destroyed for glanders six hundred and thirty-eight in all Canada; and for dourine, nineteen.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: It would be interesting to know in what sections of Canada glanders prevails.


Martin Burrell: Destroyed for glanders: New Brunswick, ten; Quebec, seventeen; Ontario, seven; Manitoba, twenty-four; Saskatchewan, four hundred and twenty-eight; Alberta, one hundred and fifty-two. There is a gratifying decrease in glanders in Saskatchewan this year as-compared with *he previous year.
304*


William Findlay Maclean: Does that disease originate in the provinces?


Martin Burrell: It is largely brought
into the provinces and of course distributed afterwards. In 1912-13 there were eight hundred and fifty-three horses destroyed in all Canada for glanders, of which there were seven hundred and twenty-two in Saskatchewan, so that the disease is decreasing in Saskatchewan. We have reduced this disease to the minimum in Manitoba and eastern Canada, and there are hopeful signs that we may be able to control it even in Saskatchewan. Under this Bill we propose raising the maximum valuation from $150 to $200 which would mean that a team of horses could be valued at $400 for compensation instead of $300 as before. I think the House will agree that this is very reasonable. There have been demands that the maximum should be still greater, but I do not think we ought to pat it any higher, and the stockowners of the country seem to agree that the present proposal is fair.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In my section of the
country, good farm horses are selling at $300 each, but of course there are a great many others that are not worth more than $50. Is not the tendency to make claims for the maximum sum?


Martin Burrell: There is of course a
tendency to apply for the maximum valuation and for that reason we do not put it higher than $200, but I may tell my hon. friend that the value is, of course, fixed by our officers.
' Mr. NESBITT: Does the minister intend increasing the number of diseases that compensation will be given for?


Martin Burrell: No.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is no intention to compensate for cattle losses because of tuberculosis?


Martin Burrell: Not at present; we are hoping to deal with that question in an educational way.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is the most pressing necessity in my part of the country.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: If
there is any fault to be found with this resolution it is that the maximum is not hio-h enough. ' The minister knows that _ the average price of good farm horses in the West is much beyond $200; even horses taken off the ranch for farming purposes would cost more than. $400 for a team. I would prefer to see the minister put the maximum at $250. It is true the farmers of Saskatchewan have suffered great loss in the past and the reason no doubt is on account of the immense immigration which is coming into that prov-

ince from across the line, the immigrants bringing with them animals which are in the incipient stages of the disease. To a man whose stock in trade is his horses and implements, it is a great loss to him to be compelled to lose horses worth $300 and $350 each and only receive $150, as up to the present, or $200 as now proposed. I think most of our inspectors in the West know their business and they are not going to give the maximum unless the animal is worth it. It ought to be in the discretion of the inspectors to increase the valuation of the animals up to a higher maximum than that now provided for.


Mr. BLAIN:: Can the Minister explain
how this disease is imported into Canada?
I notice from the figures given that the disease is practically non-existent in Ontario so that the disease in the West cannot be attributed to the horses shipped from Ontario to Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Mr OLIVER:: Has the disease been
found on any of the horse ranches in the West? It would be interesting to know this, because of course the horses are not only imported into Alberta and Saskatchewan, but they ' are exported from these provinces as well.^


Martin Burrell: The disease is spread
more or less all over the country and notably in some of the southern districts, and is largely caused by horses suffering from glanders coming in from the western states where a good deal of glanders prevails. Although we have a pretty rigid inspection at the border and we do not compensate for horses unless they have been six months, in the country, even then, with the enormous number of horses brought in by the settlers, it is very difficult to detect the disease. Saskatchewan and Alberta are big provinces undergoing rapid development, and on the whole, although the figures seem large they are not really so considering the difficulties that have been met with in the past. I am glad to note that the tendency is towards a decrease in the disease. I am in hopes that we will be able to control the disease in Saskatchewan and Alberta as we have been gradually able to control it in Manitoba.


Frank Oliver: On the large figures which my hon. friend has given in regard to Saskatchewan and Alberta, could he say how many of these horses, if any, were slaughtered as having developed the disease within the first six months, and .were therefore not eligible for compensation?


Martin Burrell: I have not the record for those, because they are not provided for in the figures which I have given, which are only for compensation.
Mr. NEELY.


Mr. WILLIAM SMITH (South Ontario):: Great care must be taken with the test that is applied for these diseases. In Europe, outside of the city of London, it is not considered satisfactory. I take it, however, that the department is looking carefully after that matter. In answer to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely). I would say that the fault is not all on the side of the Government. The farmer has to be considered in this matter. On that account I think $200 as a maximum is quite sufficient.


Mr. PROULX:: Under the Act, is the
department bound to pay in every case, or is it optional to the department?


Martin Burrell: Under the diseases
which are mentioned, we are bound to pay if we destroy.


Edmond Proulx: Why does the minister
make it optional in the amendment, which says ' may pay.'


Martin Burrell: That is all right.


George Perry Graham: It is decided that ' may ' means ' must.'
At one o'clock, House resumed, and then
took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock, and again went into Committee.


Mr. DAVID WARNOCK (Macleod):: I
entirely approve of this regulation as far as it goes, and if I have any criticism to offer, it is that, in my opinion, it does not go quite far enough. Since 1904 the Government has been paying out annually large sums in compensation for horses destroyed as affected with contagious diseases. For some years, horse owners have been urging that the amount of compensation should be increased, and I may say, I myself, a few years ago, took the matter up with the former veterinary director general, and asked him to have this conpensation increased. He pointed out that, owing to the very large sum annually paid out, the rate of compensation could not very well be increased until such time as these diseases were brought better under control. However, thanks to the efficient system of combatting this disease devised by the former Minister of Agriculture and his very efficient veterinary director general, Dr. J. G. Rutherford, these diseases have been brought largely under control, and during the last three or four years the sums an-nally paid out as compensations are very much less than formerly. I have here a comparative table showing the amount paid out from 1904 in regard to the scheduled diseases, dourine and glanders:

Comparative statement re ' Maladie du Colt ' or ' Do urine/ since its detection in Canada in 1904.
Number of
Year.	Horses.	Value.	Compensation
	destroyed.		paid.
1964-05	.. .. 292	$24,645 06	$16,029 941905-06*	.. .. 120	10,210 00	6,806 481906-07	.. .. 167	15,505 06	10,336 441907-68	.. .. 49	5,175 00	3,449 921908-09	.. .. 28	3,760 60	2,506 541909-16	.. .. 37	5,130 00	3,419 981910-11	.. .. 40	4,960 00	3,306 601911-02	.. .. 18	2,600 00	1,739 99
* 5 months.
In regard to glanders, the following are the figures for the years named:
Twelve months ending October 31, 1905: horses slaughtered, 2,113; valued at $221,777.50. Compensation paid, $147,851.43.
Twelve months ending March 31, 1912: Horses slaughtered, 853; valued at $116,160. Compensation paid, $77,439.95.
If I understood the minister correctly, he said that during the twelve months ending March 31, 1913, the number destroyed was something over 600.


Martin Burrell: It was 638.


David Warnock: The number in 1912-
1913 as compared with 1905 is much less than one-half and the compensation less than one half. Therefore, I think the time has arrived when the Government can very well afford to take the step which this resolution provides for.
Now, I said that in the former years the plea of the Government had been that very large sums had had to be paid out annually, but I find in looking over the report of the veterinary director general for the year ending the 31st March, 1912, that he quite realized that the time had arrived when this compensation might be increased. I quote from his report:
In one particular only would I recommend a change in the existing regulations. As a result of the very considerable increase which has taken place in the price of horses since the inauguration of the present policy, the scale of compensation now paid is altogether too low, and should, in the public interest, be raised to an extent reasonably proportionate to the actual value of the animals destroyed. In this connection it should be borne in mind that if the present policy con-tinuos to be carefully and conscientiously enforced, the expenses for compensation will, as in the past, show a constant and regular decrease, thus eliminating the possibility of a"y t .la-i'gely. augmented outlay on account ot this particular disease.
That had reference to glanders. I congratulate the minister on having adopted the suggestion of the former Veterinary Director General. While the rate of compensation for glanders under this resolution will be fairly satisfactory, giving a maximum of $200 for grade horses, I think
still the rate of compensation for dourine is much too low. The maximum of $500 for registered mare or stallion is probably a fair compensation for a registered mare. It will give the owners $333.32. But in the case of stallions I think that valuation is still much too low. Only $333.32 for a stallion which, perhaps, may have cost $2,000 or $3,000, is not enough. As I have pointed out dourine is being rapidly stamped out, and I think that the compensation for registered stallions could be increased to say, $1,000, which would give the owner $666.66, which sum we could well afford to pay. The amount paid out for stallions affected with dourine is very small, and if the valuation were increased, we should have the better co-operation of owners, which is very much to be desired in stamping out the disease. Another argument in favour of my contention is, that you do not have to pay compensation for so many horses affected with dourine as with glanders. Geldings are not affected with dourine, and so it is only for mares and stallions that compensation is required to be paid on account of this disease. I think that the minister, after consultation with the chief officer of his department, who is very familiar with conditions in the West, might see his way to increase the valuation on registered stallions to at least $1,000.


Mr. JOHN STANFIELD (Colchester):: Before this resolution is reported, I would ask the minister a question. Is it the intention in the near future to bring in a like Act with regard to compensation for cattle? It is known that there are a lot of tuberculous cattle slaughtered, and their carcases sold for human food. We know of the efforts that are being made to stamp out that terrible disease, the white plague of the north. Some physicians have told me that tuberculous meat sold is apt to cause more cases of this disease. It has been stated here to-day that cases of glanders and other diseases are dying out, and I think we could well afford to spend money in order to promote the health of the people.
Mr. THOS. MACNUTT (Saltcoats):	I
am not going to oppose this measure in any way; I think it is a move in the right direction. Some years ago the compensation was suggested by Dr. Rutherford more for the object of getting the farmers to cooperate rather than to compensate those who lost animals slaughtered on account of diseases. It was agreed that the public money ought not to go to compensate those whose animals were diseased, but in order to stamp out the disease it was necessary to have the co-operation of horse owners. Glanders is a disease easily concealed, and in the old days a farmer would make anj

excuse rather than admit that he had a case of glanders on his place. This is a disease which, when it attacks horses or human beings, cannot be cured. At a certain stage of development, the contagion will spread and nobody knows where it will stop. While the inspectors perhaps do their best to prevent infected animals from crossing the line, some of the animals may have unnoticeable traces of the disease which may develop later on. Of course, the value of animals has increased, but supposing an animal which would have been worth $175 some years ago is to-day worth $250 or $300, a compensation of $133.35 would be less in proportion than the $100 formerly paid. I think it would be in the interests of the country generally if the full value were paid, and then every man who owned an animal which he thought was affected with glanders would report. I believe the disease would be stamped out in that way, and less money would be paid out by the Government in the long run than under the present compensation system. There are some cases in which the farmer would rather conceal the disease than suffer the loss of the animal. In some cases they get rid of the animal, and although there is a law against that, they can do it in such a way as not to leave themselves open to a charge of having wilfully disposed of the animal. In the case of loss under these circumstances, the loss of the animal is not the only consideration. I do not desire to impose my private affairs upon the committee, but as an illustration I may say that within the last ten years I lost over twenty-three horses on two different occasions, and, apart from the loss of the animals, I practically had to build a new barn and buy new harness. I lost two stallions for one of which I received a compensation of $200, when I still owed $700 on the animal. Stallions are on the road a great deal, and if they are affected with any disease they are liable to spread it. I believe that the valuation of such animals should be at least $1,000, provided, of course, that the animal is worth that amount. The inspectors are good men, and they know the value of horses. There is no danger that the farmers will inoculate their animals in order to obtain the compensation. It seems to me that some iurther steps should be taken to secure the co-operation of all the farmers so that the disease might be almost entirely stamped out, and let the first loss be the last.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 1
simply rise to express my sympathy with this resolution. I think that every hon. member of the House, especially members from the West, cannot but be in entire sympathy with this step now being taken by the minister. Representing a constituency extending many miles along the United States boundary, and having been in touch with the farmers for some time, I know that Mr. MACNUTT.
the valuation has not been as high as it should have been. It is the general experience of the medical profession that disease seems to afflict those who are least able to bear the expense, and in my constituency it has been the invariaDie rule that this disease has been most prevalent amongst those farmers who are the least able to bear the loss of their animals. I want to read the following clipping which I received this morning, and wT.hich bears directly on this subject:
A few days ago nine fine work horses belonging to Wilson Miller, a farmer south of Carberry, were ordered by Dr. Still, of the Dominion veterinary department, to be destroyed, they being affected with glanders.
The loss to a farmer of nine horses at this season of the year is certainly a very serious one, and I am thoroughly convinced that the payment to the farmer of two-thirds of one hundred and fifty dollars as compensation was not doing him justice, and that the payment of such a compensation does not tend to rid the country of this unfortunate disease. Some claim that the valuation should be higher. Certainly I believe that two hundred dollars is very fair, and I think we might get into difficulties if the valuation were made too high or if the full amount of the valuation were paid. I think the payment of two-thirds of two hundred dollars as compensation for the loss of the ordinary horse would work in the best interests of the farmer, the department, and all concerned. These diseases sedm to be more prevalent in the West, and we want to get rid of them. I 'believe that the department is taking every possible step to ensure a thorough inspection of these horses as they cross the line, but the inspection points being thirty or forty miles apart, it is difficult to prevent the importation of diseased horses by unscrupulous dealers. It is a fact that settlers coming into this country are for many years unable to have suitable barns with proper ventilation, and when they suffer the loss of these horses I believe that two hundred dollars is a very fair valuation upon which to pay compensation, and that it should not be less.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: What
percentage of horses that were slaughtered were valued under the maximum valuation?


Martin Burrell: I am afraid I cannot
give the figures just now, but I will get them for him.


James Joseph Hughes: Were there any horses at all valued under the maximum?


Martin Burrell: Oh, yes, very much under the maximum. I am glad that hon. gentlemen approve of the course taken in raising the compensation. This question is not without its difficulties, but on the whole

I think we have met it judiciously by raising the compensation to two hundred dollars. I would like toj point out that in regard to animals afflicted with glanders I would not like the committee to think that I intended to convey the impression that all the animals afflicted with this disease were brought in recently from the United States. As a matter of fact, our inspection is very rigid and I think we have been able to keep practically all cases out; but, as the hon. member for McLeod knows very well, there are cases that come in that do not react to the mallein test when in the incubation stage and which may develop later. Most cases have been in the country a long time because the animal may be a disease bearer without showing clinical symptoms himself. In regard to pure-bred stallions, we are raising the amount very substantially. I admit the force of the argument that it might be raised, as the hon. member for Saltcoats has said, up to $1,000 but, after all, the increase from $300 to $500 is a pretty good raise and I might also fairly say in reply that it would have been better for that hon. member and the hon. member for McLeod to have induced my predecessor two, or three or four years ago, to raise that valuation because the price of horses three or four years ago would have justified a raise. I think we are, therefore, meeting the case by the present increase when there had been no increase up to a year and a half ago when the late Administration went out of power.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for McLeod about dourine, what he says about the compensation as regards stallions destroyed for dourine is true but I might point out that only nineteen animals were destroyed for dourine in the whole of Canada last year with a compensation of $2,096 and that out of those, as in the case of glanders, the higher rate, that is for the pure bred, applied to only two stallions and two mares for glanders and four stallions for dourine, out of the whole number of horses. So it is not an ordinary case for a stallion to be killed for this cause. I would also point out that,, after all, animals with dourine are of no use to the owners or to anybody else and it may be said that the owner would lose everything' if no compensation was provided for. We have about 889 horses and mares now under quarantine for dourine. We have had them under quarantine for the last two years but I expect during the present year that a great many of them will be out of quarantine. The difficulty has been that we could not get an accurate diagnosis. We have now a very careful and competent officer, Dr. Watson, of Lethbridge, who has made a special study
of this subject and we are hopeful tha' when he gets through with his work this summer we shall be able to apply an accurate diagnostic test to dourine as to glan ders which would be an immense improve ment on the practice in the past. I think that, on the whole, my hon. friend will agree that this Bill is an important forward step and I am very glad it has received, in the main, such cordial support.
In answer. to the hon. member for Colchester who asked me about an Act to provide for compensation for animals killed for bovine tuberculosis and offered for meat, I need hardly say that this is a difficult question for any government to deal with and one that nearly every government has steaTed clear of. In regard to compensation for animals killed for meat in abattoirs the ground generally taken is that, as these animals are killed for meat for human consumption, if they have tuberculosis to such a degree as to render them unfit for human food it is hardly a case for compensation as they are not suitable for food and I do not know why we should compensate for an animal that is unfit for consumption and so has no value. Then many municipalities and provinces have jurisdiction over that phase of the question. I have, of course, a great deal of sympathy for any man whose animals are slaughtered for disease and it is a phase of the work^ of the department that must 'be handled with the greatest care. That is one of my reasons for trying to secure the services of Dr. Torrance as veterinary director general to succeed Dr. Rutherford, who was a very able man indeed and whom we were loathe to lose. Dr. Torrance has exceptional and very wide knowledge along these lines. I am hopeful this year of doing some work in educational and other ways against bovine tuberculosis that may result in the future in a campaign possibly involving compensation.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. BURRELL thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill 198, to amend the Animals Contagious Diseases Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 186, to amend the Volunteer
Bounty Act, 1912-Mr. Crothers-read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 187, an Act to incorporate the
National Gallery of Canada-Hon. Robert Rogers-read the second time, and House
[Stage Direction]
went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. ROGERS:: There has been no suggestion of any change.


Rodolphe Lemieux: None in contemplation?


Robert Rogers: No.


Frank Oliver: I notice that there is no
limit to the number of members who may constitute the board. I do not suppose it is a very serious matter.


Robert Rogers: I think it is intended we should have only three.


Frank Oliver: There should be some limit to the number.


George Perry Graham: I do not know what limit should be adopted, but there should be some number.


Francis Cochrane: Make it five.


George Perry Graham: Say five.
the purpose of limiting them in regard to real estate. Nobody can give them any real estate, nor can they purchase any, but they may acquire other kinds of property without the consent of the Minister of Public Works.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this not the meaning of it? For instance, it is rumoured that the Government intend to erect a statute in front of the Ottawa post office. Will not the board have jurisdiction over these monuments with regard to their maintenance, and will not the Government, through the board, have to select sites in different places? Perhaps that is the meaning of these last lines in the clause?


Robert Rogers: I think that is probably the intention of the individual who drew the clause. While the matter has not been considered, I think the clause is perfectly plain from that point of view. The board cannot purchase or acquire any real estate without the sanction of the department.
Mr. .BORDEN: It would (be better to say, 'not exceeding so many.*


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr. BORDEN:: Let that clause stand; it will have to be considered.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why not limit the number to the number of provinces?


Robert Laird Borden: There was an arrangement with the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir W'ilfrid Laurier), for reasons which I explained to him, that we should
take up the budget speech at a quarter to four. I would therefore move that this committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


Robert Laird Borden: Xet the clause stand and the minister will consider it.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
Section 2 stands.
On section 3-objects and powers of board; real estate not to be acquired without approval of minister:
[u"I desire to give notice that to-morrow's motion will be made in the following terms:\nResolved, that the action of Mr. Blondin,\nthe Deputy Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, while the committee was considering Bill No. 21, entitled, ' an Act to authorize measures for increasing the effective naval forces of ih\xab( Empire,' in refusing to permit Mr. Carroll, the member for South Cape Breton, to move to add an additional section to - aid BillJ and also in declining to put the motion that the Chairman do now leave the chair, as moved by Mr. Pugsley, the member for the city of St. John, was a violation of the rules and constituted an infringement of the privileges of this House."]
Frank Oliver: I do not see the propriety of this proviso with reference to acquiring real estate. I cannot imagine that there is any idea that this art board, which is to have so much to do in the way of encouraging art and for which provision is made in a building by the Government, should, under any circumstances, have any title to property. It seems that the proviso is uncalled for, and being there, it holds out the idea of responsibility being .assumed by this board which I do not think was in the mind of the House when the resolution was placed before us. I do not think that the purchase of real estate has anything to do with the encouragement of art. I think the purchase of real estate might very well be left directly to the Public Works Department and the Government. Let this art board attend strictly to art, and let the Government attend to the business.


Mr PERLEY:: As I understand that clause, they are given the right to acquire by purchase or otherwise various kinds of property, and that proviso is inserted for
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is usual to give a few days notice of the budget, and it was my intention to have conformed with that practice and to have brought it down on Thursday next, giving notice to-day. I have learned that it will be necessary for me to leave the city for possibly a few days or longer on account of the very serious illness of a member of my family circle; and, in consequence of the lateness of the date in the session and by the courtesy of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), to whom I am much indebted, and my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), who will follow me, I have decided to bring down the budget to-day, and in doing so I will probably facilitate the business of the House.
On this occasion of.my second presentation of the annual statement of the financial affairs of the Dominion it again falls agreeably to my lot to extend my most hearty congratulations to the House and the country upon the prosperous conditions which it continues to be our good fortune to enjoy.
The Budget Speech of 1912 was delivered on March 13, and as our fiscal years ends on March 31, it will be necessary for me,
Mr. BURRELL.

following the usual practice of the past, and before dealing with the current year, to review the results of 1911-12 as disclosed in the completed accounts which, with the report of the Auditor General, have now been public for some considerable time. On the whole the estimate of the year's operations was fairly well borne out. Taking first the revenue, the total receipts for the year ended march 31, 1912, reached the sum of $136,108,217.36, or a little over $100,000 more than I estimated in my statement to the House, and an increase over the revenue of the previous year of $18,327,807.58. This large increase representing about fifteen and a half per cent of the revenue of 1910-11, was fairly evenly distributed over the several months of the year. For the information of the House I submit herewith in tabular form a comparative statement showing the total revenue for each, of the two preceding fiscal years, the sources which derived and the amount and increase from each respectively.
Consolidated Fund Revenue.
Customs.. ..
Excise	
Post Office.. . Railways.. .. Miscellaneous
Of the total revenues it thus appears that over three-fourths was derived from customs and excise. To be more precise 62-4 per cent came from customs and 14 per cent from excise. In the former there was an increase over the previous year of 18-3 per cent , and in the latter of 14 per cent. This very large increase in customs revenue does not appear to have been obtained from any particular lines of importations which were generally of large proportion. The average rate of duty, including both dutiable and free goods, was 16-694 per cent, the average rate of duty on dutiable goods for the same period being 25-963 per cent.
With regard to excise, as might be expected the increased revenue is mainly attributable to the three main items-spirits, tobacco and malt. It will be observed that the railways show a very substantial improvement in receipts and the large volume of nost office revenue, which amounted to $10,492,394.18 or $1,345,441.71 more than in 1910-11, is a fair indication of the increase in general business throughout Canada.
While dealing with the revenue it may be interesting to point out that for the year 1911-12 it was more than double that of 1902-03, ten years previously. The large increases in our receipts in recent years are no doubt due in chief measure to greater consumption consequent upon capital expenditure on railways, and other productive undertakings, the extension of industrial enterprise, the increasing wants of a rapidly growing and generally prosperous community and not least the great stream of immigration from Great Britain, the continent and United States, attracted by the
1910-11.

rich opportunities offered by the Dominion at this great period of its development.
Consolidated Fund Expenditure 1911-12.
I have dealt with revenue for the fiscal year of 1911-12 and turn now to its expenditure. This item embraces two headings, viz: ordinary current expenditure upon its various services and minor public works, and capital expenditure representing outlay upon undertakings of a permanent character or national plant or assets, so to speak.
The ordinary running expenditure for 1911-12 amounted to $98,161,440.77, or an increase of $10,387,242.45 over similar expenditure for the preceding year. A portion of this increase is more apparent than real because it represents outlays for post office and railway service which are counterbalanced by receipts on the other side. The principal items of increase were in the outlays for census, militia, public works and subsidies to provinces. In view of the larger public requirements of the country on account of the general expansion of business and growth of population, the increase is by no means abnormal. The amount of expenditure on this Consolidated Fund Account, as it is called, hae slightly .more than doubled in a period of twelve years.
I have already stated the amount of revenue for the year to have been $136,108,217.36, and the ordinary expenditure to have been $98,161,440.77. It will thus be seen that so far as the ordinary expenses of the country are concerned there was a surplus of $37,946,776.59.

Turning from this class to capital and special expenditures we find the amount charged to those accounts to have been $38,980,641.43, or $1,161,440.77 more than estimated.
The items aie as follows:
Capital and Special Expenditure 1911-12. National Transcontinental
railway	$21,110,352 05
Other railways, canals,
and public works	
9,829,223	90Railway subsidies	
859,400	25
Grand Trunk Pacific railway implementing . . . . 4,994,416 66 Charges of Management
Loan Account	 1,082,121	67
Various miscellaneous items	 1,105,126 90

The expenditure on the Transcontinental railway reached the considerable sum of over $21,000,000, but as the years of heavy construction have passed the outlays for this service will in the future decline materially.
On other railways and cognate works there was an outlay of $3,151,900.74, of which $1,710,448.56 was spent on the Intercolonial railway and $1,153,778.27 on the Quebec bridge.
On canals there was an expenditure of $2,560,938.11, of which $1,746,095.48 represents outlay on the Trent Canal system.
For public works there was applied on capital account the sum of $4,116,385.05, of which $1,167,462.56 was spent on the River St. Lawrence ship channel.
In assisting the construction of sundry railways throughout Canada we paid as railway subsidies $859,400.25; and to meet the obligation of the Crown under the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which has already been fully explained to the House, the sum of $4,994,416.66 was paid to the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
These amounts, with various other obligations, reached, as I have previously stated, a total sum of $38,980,641.43. As against this we had a surplus of Consolidated Fund receipts over Consolidated Fund or ordinary expenditure of $37,946,776.59 to which if there is added the outlay of $1,156,458.16 on account of sinking fund (this, while an expenditure on the one side, representing an investment on the other) we have $39,103,232.75, giving us, as the result of the whole operations of the fiscal year 1911-12 a reduction in the debt of Canada of $122,591.32.
Revenue and Expenditure for 1912-13.
So far I have dealt with the affairs of the fiscal year 1912-13, and I am sure the results must have been most gratifying to Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
the House, inasmuch as, notwithstanding the generous appropriations which were made for all the services of the country, the net result was practically an equilibrium between the revenue on the one hand and expenditure of all kinds on the other. I am happy to announce that the outcome of the last fiscal year, which ended on March 31, will prove even more satisfactory as reflecting by far the highest pitch to which our national revenues and prosperity have yet attained. The revenue for 1912, as I have stated, amounted to $136,108,217.36. I have every expectation that when the books of the fiscal year 1913 are closed, it will be found that the total revenue will have reached the splendid total of $168,250,000, or an increase over the year 1911-12 of over $32,000,000. Some indication of the magnificent growth of the Dominion may be gleaned from the fact that this increase in revenue during the period of one year almost equals the entire revenue of the country twenty years ago.	_
The augmentation of revenue to which I have referred has not been irregular, spasmodic or intermittent in its nature, but has steadily characterized each month of the entire fiscal year. It was, of course, mainly derived from customs receipts, but the other sources of revenue-excise, post office and railways-also gave us very substantial increases.
lSo far as the ordinary running expenditure is concerned, the increase over the previous year was, as anticipated, considerable. The estimates for the year had made generous provision lor public works. Provincial subsidies had increased, partially owing to the result of the census and partly on account of special legislation dealing with Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. The post office, railway, customs and other services demanded larger outlays. Notwithstanding these facts, however, the ordinary current expenditure, which in the previous year amounted to $98,161,440.77, will be found mot to have exceeded $113,250,000, leaving a surplus of $55,000,000, against outlays upon capital and special accounts, that is to say, upon public works, national and permanent in character, the National Transcontinental "and other railways and canals. On these undertakings the expenditure will probably be found not to have exceeded $33,000,000, so that, bearing in mind that the expenditure out of consolidated fund for sinking fund purposes will amount to about $1,300,000, the result of the financial operations of the year will be a reduction of about $23,300,000 in the net debt of the Dominion. That in a period of great financial stringency not only have we not been obliged to resort to the congested money markets of the world, but have


Wilfrid Laurier: How much is that loan? [DOT]


Mr. WHITE:: States and Turkey and to complications connected therewith menacing the peace of Europe. As a result there has been a marked scarcity of money with. the accompanying phenomena of high rates of interest not only for short but for long terms and in consequence a change in the basis upon which high class securities have been marketed. The Bank of England official rate of discount, which at the beginning of 1912 was three and a half per cent, falling in May to three per cent, rose to four per cent by the end of August, and was further increased to five per cent in October. Recently it has been reduced to four and one-half per cent. I rather look for improved conditions, so far as interest rates are concerned, towards the end of the calendar year, hut notwithstanding, I think it may he stated that, speaking of the coming year generally, we may look for reasonably high rates of interest. Usually a money stringency contains within itself, as I have said before, the seeds of its own remedy or cure. Financial houses throughout the world are constantly putting themselves in a stronger position, apprehensive of the future, and as a result there is an accummulation of money from which, in time-as in the case of Europe to-day the prospects of peace having materially brightened-lower rates of interest are certain to result. At all events that has been the general experience. As an outcome of the conditions mentioned some of our provinces, cities and other
municipalities have been obliged to pay a higher rate than hitherto upon new issues of securities. In common with all other high-priced securities our three and one-half per cent 1930-50 stock has suffered a slight decline in quotation, but on the whole its price, having regard to the conditions referred to, has been exceptionally well maintained. The House will recall that the last issue we made, a year ago in February, was underwritten at ninety-eight. A loan such as that would net the Dominion ninety-six or a little over. A recent quotation for our Dominion three and one-half per cent stock was ninety-four to ninety-six. I believe that during this period of exceptional money stringency the credit of the Dominion as reflected in the quotations of its securities has maintained itself among the highest in the world.
The fiscal year of 1911-12 was characterized by a very considerable trade expansion, the aggregate of imports and exports totalling $874,637,794 or over $105,000,000 in excess of the previous year. Large as was this trade, the statistics of the past year show, I am happy to say, a still greater increase, and a total volume amounting to over one billion dollars.
For the information of the House I present herewith a table showing the total imports and exports and aggregate of trade of Canada since 1908 and the percentage of imports thereto.
Total Trade of Canada with all countries (including coin and bullion).
Fiscal year.	Total imports
1908		$ 370,78G,525 309,756,608 391,852,692 472,247,540 559,320,544 691,943,515
1909		
1910		
1911		
1912		
1913 (unrevised)		
Total exports Canadian and Foreign Produce	Aggregate Trade.	Percentage of value of imports with aggregate trade.$	$	%280,006,606	650,793,131	56 97261,512,159	571,268,767	54.22301,358,529	693,211,221	56.52297,196,365	769,443,905	61.37315,317,250	874,637,794	63.94393,232,057	1,085,175,572	63.76
It will be observed that during the past three years the percentage of the value of imports to the aggregate trade has materially risen and in 1912-13 represented nearly sixty-four per cent of the total trade. This condition has called forth criticism on the part of some who put forward the view that if imports continue greatly to exceed exports a country may expect to be drained of its gold in order to meet its international obligations. Without attempting to deal with this balance of trade theory which has so frequently been -shown to be illusory and misleading, it may be pointed out that in five years our total exports have grown from/$280,000,000to $390,000,000, and that while our imports have, increased
in greater degree, explanation is to be found in the fact that during this period of rapid material development and national progress a vast amount of capital expenditure has been and is being made upon railway construction and equipment by our three transcontinental systems, upon great public works and undertakings, in industrial and commercial enterprise and in municipal services and improvements to meet the needs of rapidly growing communities. That is to say, we are in the era of the construction of railways and great national works. Our cities have been growing so rapidly in population and area that the public needs have greatly increased, with the result that they have
Mr. WHITE TLoadsl.

had to make large expenditures of a capital nature upon their various public services. The greater portion of the funds required for this capital and productive expenditure has been borrowed from the British public by the Government of Canada, by the several provinces and by cities and towns, and railway, industrial and other corporations. The money so borrowed has come to Canada not in the form of cash or gold, but in importations of commodities and of materials from Great Britain or elsewhere. In addition to this we must bear in mind the important fact that the stream of immigration coming to our shores from year to year, while bringing sufficient capital for
Trade with the United
its temporary maintenance and adding to our consumption, does not immediately become a producing element in the community. In the light of these considerations it would appear that the apparent adverse balance of trade is due to causes making for the development of the Dominion, and need be the occasion of no anxiety.
The House and the country being always interested in the subject of our trade with the Mother Country, I have prepared and submit herewith a statement showing imports and exports, and establishing that the United Kingdom has shared in the marked expansion of our trade in recent years:
Kingdom-Merchandise only.
Fiscal Year. '	Imports for Consumption from the United Kingdom.	Exports to the United Kingdom Canadian and Foreign Produce.	Aggregate Trade.1908 	$ 94,417,314	$134,477,124	$228,894,438 204,427,22470,682,101	133,745,123	95,336,427	149,630,488	244,966,915 246,897,636 268,739,591109,934,665	136,962,971	116,906,212	151,833,379	138,652,198	177,982,002	316,634,200
It will be observed that for the past six years, with the exception of one year, 1909, when there was a temporary retrogression, there has been a steady advance in the aggregate trade between Canada and the Mother Country. It will also be observed that whereas the amounts of increase for the period covered in imports and exports are nearly the same, viz.: $40,000,000, in each case the percentage of increase in imports is greater than of exports. This is due partly to the considerations which I have previously referred to as to national expenditure upon capital account, and partly owing to the increased demands of the home market for the products of mixed farming, especially that class described as animal products such as bacon, poultry,	cheese, butter and eggs. I do not know of anything more indicative of the increase in the demands of the home market than the falling off that has taken place in the exports of some of the principal items under the heading of animal products, such as butter, eggs, and bacon. Trade with the United States. Of greater volume than our trade with the United Kingdom, and particularly as showing market increase in imports, the statistics of our commercial dealings- with the United States, our great neighbouring republic to the south, will be no doubt of interest to the House and I shall place upon ' Hansard ' a comparative statement covering the past six years:		
Merchandise.
Fiscal Year.	Imports for Consumption from the United States.	Exports to the United States Canadian and Foreign Produce.	Aggregate Trade.1908 	$204,648,885 170,056,178 21.7,502,415 274,844,858 330,428,502 435,783,343	$ 96,920,138 91,022,387 110,614,327 112,208,676 112,956,295 150.961,656	$301,569,023 261,078,565 308,116,742 387,053,534 443,384,797 586,745,0181909 	
1911.. 				
			
1913 (unrevised)				

Thus it will be seen that our total trade with the United States has doubled in the past six years, but it will be observed that whereas the imports have more than doubled in the period mentioned until they now reach the large aggregate of over $400,000,000 the exports to the United States show only a fifty per cent increase and reach a total of but $150,000,000 or a so-called balance of trade in favour of the United States of $250,000,000 during the past fiscal year. As to this vast yearly increase in imports it must be borne in mind that it has been much more than counterbalanced, as I shall show later, by the aggregate of capital brought to Canada by the steady influx of American settlers who have taken up land in our great West and who speedily assume a commanding place among our most capable, energetic and prosperous agricultural producers. Speaking generally, the imports from the United States embrace almost all
classes of commodities, the principal being manufactures of iron and steel and other metals. Anthracite coal, corn and cotton aggregating over $40,000,000 are on the free list.
With regard to our exports to the United States, it may be said that for the most, part they consist of our raw material, the product of the forest and the mine. A tariff representing an average of over forty per cent upon dutiable goods has been effectual to practically close their markets to our manufacturers.
With regard to our exports generally, I think it advisable to place before the House for its information a classification of the values of Canadian exported produce since 1908. The largest increase has been in the. chief item of agricultural produce (consisting principally of grains and flour), totalling $'66,000,000 in 1908 and $150,000,000 in 1913.
Value of Goods Exported (by classes) from the Dominion-Merchandise only (Canadian produce).
Fiscal Year.	The Mine.	The Fisheries.	The Forest.	Animals and their Produce.1908	
1909	$ 39,177,133 37,257,699 40,089,017 42,787,561 41,324,516 57,442,546	$ 13,867,368 13,319,604 15,663,162 15,675,544 16,704,678 16,336,721	$ 44,170,470 39,667,387 47,517,033 45,439,057 40,892,674 43,255,060	$ 55,101,260 51.349,646 53,926,515 52,244,174 48,210,654 44,784,5931910 	1911	
.	1912	
Value of Goods Exported (by classes) from the Dominion-Merchandise only (Canadian produce).
Fiscal Year.	Agricultural Products.	Manufactures.	Miscellaneous.	Total.1908	$ 66,069,939 71,997,207 90,433,747 82,601,284 107,143,375 150,145,661	$ 28,507,124 28,957,050 31,494,916 35,283,118 35,836,284 43,692,708	$ 67,674 54,931 125,161 285,815 111,676 97,311	$ 246,960,968 242,603,584 379,247,551 274,310,553 290,223,857 355,754,6001909	1910	1911	1912	
1913	(unrevised)	
e	
While dealing with the matter of our trade generally I may be permitted to refer briefly to a phase of our economic activity which in recent years has shown very marked improvement. I allude to the min-Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
eral production of Canada which has more than doubled in the last ten years. In 1912 the total output was set down as $133,000,000 or an increase of over $30,000,000 over the preceding year. The increase was,

principally under the headings of coal, copper, nickel, gold and silver.
Immigration.
I turn now to the important subject of immigration. The steady progress which has characterized our material development and advancement for years past is
attributable in an important measure to the tide of immigration which has flowed into Canada from abroad, principally from Great Britain and the United States. I present herewith information respecting this immigration under three headings, Great Britain and Ireland, other countries except United States, for a period of five years past:
Year.	Great Britain and Ireland.	Other Countries except United States.	United States.	Total
1908-09 		52,901 59,790 123,013 138,121 150,542			
1909-10				103,798	208,794 311,084 354,237 402,432
1910-11					
1911-12				1 - li (iiU 133,710 139,009	
1912-13					
				
In dealing with these figures respecting this subject it must not be forgotten that while the personal element is by far of the greatest importance both from the economic, moral, sociological and national standpoint, the amount of actual wealth brought into the country by the immigrant has been very great. Potentially the desirable homeseeker is a very valuable asset both as a producer of wealth and as a citizen. But when he brings with him in addition to his character and energy working capital he assures an economic productivity almost from the beginning of his citizenship which would not otherwise be possible. From compilations carefully made by the Department of the Interior it has been conservatively estimated that the class of immigration we receive from the United States, that is to say of farmers who have sold out their holdings in the states and have taken up land in western Canada, brings with it capital (including settlers' effects) to the amount of over $1,000 per head or say $5,000 per family of five persons. The total number of such immigrants for the calendar year 1912 was 140,143. Applying the rate above mentioned per head the amount of capital and effects accompanying this immigration would reach a total exceeding $140,000,000 in value. When considering the excess of imports from United States over our exports to United States this large influx of capital to be productively employed in our agriculture must, as I have pointed out previously, not be overlooked.
Fiscal Year 1913-1914.
Thus far I have dealt only with the financial results of the two preceding years, the position of our debt, maturities of loans,
the state of our trade and other features of our national economy which it seemed important to specially note in passing. I now proceed to consider the affairs of the fiscal year upon which we have entered and which ends on March 31, 1914. In this, I shall be obliged to confine myself to statements general in character because the factors entering into the problem are subject to influences and conditions which, belonging to the future, cannot be forecasted with any reasonable degree of certainty.
The main features of our income and expenditure can be fairly well indicated because our revenues on the one hand are principally derived from Customs and Excise and as the rates are established the results depend upon the volume of business. On the other hand, a large portion of the expenditure may be termed fixed or uncontrollable and apart from this the programme for the year will be found substantially in the main and supplementary estimates, although it is always necessary to supplement these again about the close of the fiscal year to meet expenditure for which adequate provision had not been made.
Dealing first with expenditure, the main and supplementary estimates are now before the House. They provide for consolidated fund or ordinary running expenditure $125,850,338 and for capital services $53,301,845 or a total expenditure of $179,152,183. To this must be added supplementary estimates to be brought down and such amount as may be required in the second set of supplementary estimates which as I have stated, are usually presented towards the close of the fiscal year, together with rail-
J

way subsidies under legislation of this and preceding sessions. The aggregate of all these estimates will probably be close to $200,000,000. Then we must further provide for the purchase of Grand Trunk Pacific railway bonds guaranteed by the Dominion to the amount of about $1,000,000 per month under the authority of the legislation to which I have earlier alluded. There will be also the further amount required during the year to meet progress payments on account of construction of the three dreadnoughts which Canada proposes to place at the disposal of His Majesty in order to increase the strength of the Imperial navy, the guardian of our shores and commerce.
On the whole, Mr. Speaker, this constitutes a large and comprehensive programme but not greater than the needs and duty of Canada demand or our revenue and credit abundantly warrant. While the total appears large, having regard to the expenditures of the past and preceding years, it must not be forgotten that a considerable portion of our estimates alw'ays lapse and remain - unexpended. In this regard it is usually safe to make an allowance of ten per cent or even more.
Now, as to the revenue from which the whole, or, we hope, at least, the greater part of this expenditure is to be met, I have already indicated its principal sources in customs, excise, railways and post office. For the year 1912-13 there was, as I have previously shown, a total income of approximately $168,250,000, which represented an unprecedently large increase over the year before. It is too much to expect that this abnormal rate of increase will be maintained during the present year especially in view of the stringent financial conditions to which I have alluded previously and which always have a repressive influence on trade. Without attempting to forecast with any degree of accuracy, I feel confident that the revenues of the year will not only prove adequate to meet the current expenditure but to meet possibly the whole and certainly the greater portion of capital and special expenditure for the year. It is, I think, too much to hope that we shall always be able out of revenue to meet capital expenditure upon great national undertakings of a permanent character, the advantages of which enure for the benefit of generations to come, but it would nevertheless seem a wise policy that in times of abounding prosperity we should conserve our credit and establish as close an equilibrium as may be possible between national income and outgo.
Tariff Changes.
I come now to the matter of tariff changes. For reasons within the knowledge of the House and the country, and to which it is Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
therefore unnecessary that I should specially allude, the budget is unusually late this session. As it has been generally known that no tariff revision of a comprehensive or far-reaching character has been in contemplation it is probable that no serious public inconvenience has been occasioned by the delay. The spring season being now well advanced, any changes made must be of a strictly limited and necessary character and in connection generally with tariff modifications it is, I think, the sound view that they should be made sparingly if at all until the period arrives for a general revision of the schedules, because nothing can be more disturbing to commerce and industrial enterprise than continuous tariff uncertainty or apprehension of tariff change. The commercial and manufacturing community must be in a position to make contracts in advance and to calculate with reasonable exactitude their costs before arranging their business programme for the year. But while this principle is admittedly sound, to give it rigid and inflexible application would lead to occasional public detriment and inconvenience and, therefore, while the rule has been acknowledged, exceptions have continually been made. Our tariff, like all other tariffs, presents many anomalies, but has for over thirty years been based upon the two-fold principle of providing by indirect taxation for our revenue requirements and, by affording a reasonable degree of protection to such production as is properly native to the Dominion, of developing our natural resources, promoting the establishment of diversified national industries, building up our great commercial centres, creating our home markets for our agricultural producers and generally promoting the welfare of the entire community.
General revision of the tariff becomes advisable when it is found necessary to rearrange the rates out of regard to changed or changing economic conditions or to the revenue requirements of the Dominion. Having regard to the prevailing prosperity of the Dominion, as disclosed by the trade statistics which I have presented to the House, and the fact that there is always a delicate adaption of business to the rates of the tariff, there is, I believe, a general consensus of opinion that anything in the nature' of an extensive revision of the tariff is not called for by existing conditions and would be contrary to public interest.
With this general introduction I now turn to the changes which we have to propose for the consideration of the House. The major part of these are rendered necessary by the terms of the trade agreement entered into between representatives of the Dominion and certain of the West Indian colonies as the result of a conven-

tion held here a year ago and validated by Parliament during the present session. As the policy of the agreement was fully discussed during the progress of the Bill it will be unnecessary for me to deal with it now further than to say that the principle of promoting closer trade relationship and improving the steamship and cable communications between Canada and the West Indies has met with the approval of both parties in the House and has been warmly endorsed throughout the Dominion. It is also realized that apart from the material considerations^ of increased trade, a fresh and powerful impetus has been given to the policy of the promotion through preferential trade arrangements of the great cause of Imperial unity throughout the Empire.
In general terms the agreement provides that upon a specified list of commodities, the produce or manufacture of the West Indian colonies, the duties of customs shall not be more than four-fifths of the duties imposed upon similar goods when imported from any foreign country and that upon certain other goods there shall be no duties as against the West Indian colonies but certain minimum duties as against the same goods when imported from any foreign country. The West Indian colonies have for many years enjoyed the benefits and advantages of the British preferential tariff and therefore, in cases where the existing preference is sufficient to cover the twenty per cent preference stipulated for in the agreement, and where, speaking generally, the articles mentioned, are on our free list, no tariff adjustment is necessary. The British preference was extended to the West Indian colonies by the Government of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in 1899 without any consideration in return. I think the view was expressed at that time that Canada felt it to be her duty to assist in restoring prosperity to the West Indian colonies and to the sugar industry especially which was then in a languishing condition. Therefore legislation was introduced in 1899 under which the benefits of the British preference was extended to the West Indian colonies. Of the scheduled list of West Indian goods entitled to the benefits of the agreement many are on the free list and in the case of many others the British preference is amply sufficient to satisfy the terms of the agreement. There are, however, a few articles-principally under the unenumerated item of our tariff-as to which we propose to increase the British preference so that it shall exceed the twenty per cent called for by the agreement,. It is also necessary to provide for the imposition of duties upon the specified lis#*T)f goods mentioned above upon which we are obliged to impose certain mini-305
mum rates when imported from foreign countries. These goods are raw cocoa beans, limejuice, raw and concentrated and fresh limes, These goods are to be on the free list when imported from the West Indies, but in accordance with the terms of the agreement, there is to be a minimum duty imposed when they are imported from foreign countries.
With regard to sugar, which is by far the most important commodity covered by the agreement and which constitutes nine-tenths of our imports from the West Indies, specific provision is made that the privilege which our refiners have hitherto enjoyed of importing raw foreign sugar at preferential rates to an amount equal to twenty per cent of their production shall be abrogated so that the planters of the West Indies may enjoy the stipulated minimum preference as against all foreign raw sugar entering Canada. '
I explained the other day in the course of another debate that the British preference amounting to thirty-one cents per hundred pounds upon raw sugar had been practically all taken at certain seasons of the year, and substantial portions of it taken at other seasons of the year by the planters of the West Indies. I pointed out also that the duty upon refined sugar had been fixed haying regard to the British preference, which our refiners were supposed to obtain the benefit of upon raw sugar. The Hon. Mr. Fielding, my predecessor, having it brought to his attention that the planters took either a substantial portion or the whole of the British preference, was obliged to give a privilege to the sugar refiners in order to put them in a position which it was thought they would be in when the preferential tariff upon sugar was established. The privilege he gave them was to import foreign raw sugar at preferential rates, to the amount of twenty per cent of the amount they refined in any calendar year from raw sugar. The Royal Commission upon whose report this agreement with the West Indies was founded, investigated the matter very fully and came to the conclusion that if the preference were cut down from thirty-one cents per hundred pounds on raw sugar to about fifteen cents, that it would be fair to all parties. The representatives of the West Indian colonies were very desirous, in fact it was a condition precedent to their entering into the agreement, that this twenty per cent privilege which Mr. Fielding had given to the sugar refiners of Canada should be abrogated, so that they would have an exclusive preference as against all raw foreign sugar to the extent of at least twenty per cent, and a minimum of fifteen cents per hundred pounds and the agreement provides accordingly.
Certain tariff changes are therefore specifically called for by reason of the agree-



ment which has been already adopted and validated by this House, and there are some further modifications of a consequential character to which I shall briefly call attention.
Cocoa manufacturers will be obliged to pay duty upon foreign raw cocoa beans which they require for the blends necessary in their manufacture, and there will have to be an adjustment in the duty upon cocoa products.
Similarly, as the twenty per cent, privilege is taken away from our sugar refiners there will have to be a readjustment of the duties upon refined sugar. In the result there will be a considerable loss of revenue upon sugar, of which, however, the public will reap the advantage in slightly reduced prices.
In connection with the sugar tariff-I shall read the resolution a little later-I desire at this stage to point out that upon raw sugar, the rate under the existing preference upon standard raw sugar is fifty-two and a half cents per hundred pounds, preferential rate, and eighty-three and a half cents per hundred pounds general rate or a preference of thirty-one cents.
The existing preference upon refined sugar, testing ninety-nine degrees by the polariscope as compared with ninety-six for the raw sugar by the polariscope, is eighty-three and the general rate is one hundred and twenty-four and a half cents, being a difference of forty-one and a half cents.
There will therefore have to be an adjustment of tariff duties upon raw sugar and upon refined sugar, upon the special articles which the agreement itself required us to deal with, and certain consequential changes by reason of the imposition oi duties against foreign goods, upon these articles.
Apart from the West Indian trade agreement, I have comparatively few changes to propose.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Would the
minister give us the proposed changes in the sugar tariff now?


William Thomas White: On sugar above No. 16 Dutch standard, in colour, and all refined sugar of whatever kind, grade, or standard, testing not more than eighty-eight degrees by the polariscope, for one hundred pounds preferential tariff seventy-two cents, intermediate tariff ninety-three cents, general [DOT]tariff ninety-three cents; and for each additional degree over eighty-eight degrees per hundred pounds, preferential tariff one cent, intermediate tariff one and one-third cents, and general tariff one and one-third cents. If my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) will add eleven to the Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
seventy-two, it will give eighty-three; if he will add to the ninety-three, one and one third upon eleven, he will get $1.07 2-3, so that what I am proposing as the new rate, is eighty-three cents per hundred pounds preference, and a general tariff rate of $1.07 2-3 on refined sugar.
I suppose my hon. friend would now like me to deal with raw sugar. On raw sugar the former preferential rate was fifty-two and a half cents and the general rate eighty-three and one-half cents for ninety-six degrees, which made preference of thirty-one cents. Under the new rates proposed, the preferential will be forty and three-quarters cents for the ninety-six degrees, and the general fifty-seven and a half cents making sixteen and three-quarters of a preference. Let me say in connection with this that it will be observed that the preference is diminished, but as I have stated that was suggested by the report of the Imperial Commission, and it was further rendered necessary by the fact that we are abrogating the privilege given by my predecessor the Hon. Mr. Fielding to the Canadian sugar refiners to import foreign grown raw sugar at preferential rates to an amount equal to twenty per cent of their product for the year. In connection with that, for the inform a-tion of my hon, friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) I may say that the difference on the preferential tariff between raw and refined sugar under our proposals is 42i cents, and on the general tariff between raw and refined is 50J cents. In connection with that, I propose to read for the information of my hon. friend an extract from the budget speech of my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, in the year 1906. He had gone very carefully into this question of the tariff on sugar, and this is what he said:
We think that the schedule of sugar duties we adopted a yew years ago was eminently fair. In 1896 the duty on refined sugar was $1.14, and on the raw, 50 cents per 100 pounds, a difference of 64 cents per hundred in favour of the refiners. We reduced the duty on refined to $1, and left the duty on the raw 50 cents, so that the difference in favour of the refiner became 50 cents. It has been our idea, all through, to give the refiner about that much advantage. Of course, he has to make into account the loss in manufacture and the cost of manufacture.
Passing from the West Indian trade agreement, I come to a few other changes which we propose.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand that under the new tariff the privilege of importing raw sugar at preferential rates is abolished?


William Thomas White: It is abolished. We shall have to repeal that item in the tariff. My right hon. friend will recall that that is required by the express terms of the West Indian trade agreement which was recently validated by Parliament. In other words, the West Indian representatives were very desirous of getting an exclusive preferential market in Canada, and consequently that had to be abolished.
The House will recall that during the summer, on account of the shortage of cement, particularly in western Canada, a temporary reduction of fifty per cent of the duty on cement was made, in order to meet a situation which I believe will not frequently arise. It was due in some measure to lack of transportation facilities. So far as this year is concerned, I believe the transportation facilities available to the cement companies have been so increased that there is not likely to be a recurrence of the shortage. In fact I have rather definite assurances upon that point. We came to the conclusion that it would be possible to make a reduction in the duties upon cement without injuring existing industries. Speaking for myself, I would like to see the cement plants of Canada in a position to supply the needs of the Canadian people. I 'think it goes without saying that, if an industry is native to this country, we would rather see manufactories established through the country able to supply the requirements of the people, thus giving employment to industrial citizens and building up our Dominion, than see that product imported from abroad. If the tariff however, is too high, there is always a danger that prices may be fixed to the detriment of the public. I do not suggest that that is so in the case of cement.
The duty on cement is specific, twelve and one-half cents per hundred pounds. A barrel of cement contains 350 pounds. Therefore the duty on a barrel of cement would be forty-three and three-fourths cents. The cost of production of cement, by reason of improved methods, has been somewhat lessened during the past few years. In view of that fact and in view of the fact that the rate is specific, we think that, without injuring a Canadian industry or preventing Canadian enterprise from establishing cement plants throughout Can-ada^ we can make a slight reduction in the duty. It is an article in almost universal use. It is used by the farmer; it is used in the construction of buildings, in connection with the paving of our streets and for many other purposes. The production in 1909 was about 4,000,000 barrels, and in 1912 the production had increased to 7,000,000 barrels. The British preferential tariff is eight cents; intermediate, eleven cents, and general, twelve and one-half
cents. We came to the conclusion that we would be justified in reducing the tariff to British preferential, seven cents; intermediate, ten cents, and general, ten cents, that is to say in reducing the duty on cement from twelve and one-half cents per hundred pounds to ten cents, or from forty-three and three-fourths cents a barrel to thirty-five cents. The average selling price of cement in the United States is, say, $1.10 or $1.15 per barrel. In some seasons, especially when there is_ overproduction, the price of cement in the United States has gone as low as seventy cents per barrel. I have been informed that a large cement plant is to be established in the West during the coming year.
I hope that it will be one of many, because Canada has abundant raw materials for the production of cement. There is no reason why we should not produce practically the whole of the cement required in Canada.
Another item I have is typecasting and typesetting machines, which are in use in the printing offices throughout Canada. They are made use of by all our newspapers, large and small. For some considerable time past, it has been drawn to the attention of the department that these machines were not manufactured nor likely to be manufactured in Canada. They are manufactured by a large concern in the United States which, I believe, has an agency in Toronto. I therefore propose that typecasting and typesetting machines shall be placed upon the free list. I think we will admit that the newspaper proprietors of Canada as a whole do not make undue profits either upon their capital or upon the intelligence with which they conduct their enterprises.
I think we shall also admit that it is in the interest of the public of Canada that the newspapers of the day should find their way into the homes of the people at as little cost as possible. This concession, therefore, while not very far-reaching in effect, will, I think, conduce to reducing the cost of the production of newspapers, or at all events will go to increase the profits, which as I have stated are very moderate indeed, made by our newspaper proprietors throughout the Dominion, and especially those who are conducting small weekly journals.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the present tariff?


William Thomas White: It is, preferential, twelve
and a half per cent; intermediate, seven-, teen per cent; general, twenty per cent.


Mr. KNOWLES:: What is the average
cost of a typesetting machine?


William Thomas White: Prices vary, and I am
unable at the present moment to answer my hon. friend.


William Findlay Maclean: About
$3,000 to $5,000.


William Thomas White: 
William Thomas White: 
William Thomas White: Item 135a is the one which relates to the manufacture of sugar from beet root, under which Canadian refiners of sugar from beet root have the privilege, up to December 31, 1914, to import raw sugar to an amount equal to their production. The agreement specifies that when that item expires on December 31, 1914, it is not to be renewed.


William Findlay Maclean: I believe the hon. minister said that there would be a very slight reduction in the cost of sugar to the consumer. Could he indicate what fraction of a cent that reduction will be?


William Thomas White: The revenue on sugar will be decreased, 'by the West Indian trade agreement, to the extent of about $600,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Will that accrue to the consumer?
Mr. WHITE (Lead*!


William Thomas White: The benefits, I believe,
will go to the consumer; I think there will be a slight reduction in the price of sugar. As I pointed out in the early part of my remarks, this will be a year of fairly large expenditure, and therefore we are not in a position to reduce the revenue substantially. If the West Indian trade agreement had not been entered into, there would have been no changes. But in the working out of that agreement it is expected that there will be a loss in the revenue, and the benefit of that loss will, I believe, go to the Canadian consumer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much
raw sugar was imported into Canada last year under item 137b?


William Thomas White: I am afraid I have not
the figures as to that.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand that the preference existing in favour of West Indian raw sugar, and of which the refiners of Canada got the benefit, is being abolished?


William Thomas White: We are cutting down the preference on raw sugar from 31 cents to 16i cents.


Frank Oliver: 
William Thomas White: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The importation of raw
sugar which has been permitted to be imported, under the preference, from foreign countries by Canadian sugar refiners, is not to be further permitted?


William Thomas White: We have taken away the
privilege formerly extended to the sugar refiners importing foreign raw sugar at British preferential rates to the extent of 20 per cent of their production.


Frank Oliver: What is to be the difference in the duty on refined sugar?


William Thomas White: Under the present tariff,
which we propose to modify, 411 cents.


Frank Oliver: I want to know the difference between the duty on refined sugar as it is now .and the duty on refined sugar as it "will be under the changes that are proposed?


William Thomas White: The duty on standard
refined sugar, 99 degrees by the polariseope, is 83 cents under the preferential tariff, and the general rate is $1,241 Per hundred pounds. Under the new rate, the preferential tariff remains the same, and the general, $1.07|. It was understood at the time of the cenventicn last year that this British preference of 31 cents would be cut down, as suggested by the Royal Commission, and that there would have to be an adjustment to meet the abolition of the 20 per cent privilege formerly extended to our refiners. Therefore the abolition of the 20 per cent privilege given by my predecessors to the sugar refiners of Canada is the key to the tariff changes which we now propose to make.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Your reduction is proportionately greater than 20 per cent, is it not?


William Thomas White: You cannot judge it from that standpoint; you have to consider the value of the 20 per cent privilege which has . been extended to the sugar refiners of Canada. Having that in view, we have fixed the tariff rates upon raw sugar and refined sugar as I have indicated, as being the best method of being fair to all parties concerned.


William Findlay Maclean: It is, perhaps, not desirable to argue from the standpoint of probabilities, but there is a probability that a disturbance of the sugar industry in the United States will take place before the 1st of September of this year. Would that in any way involve a change in the policy in regard to sugar that you now propose to adopt?


William Thomas White: I prefer to wait until the
changes take place, and would rather not discuss the matter except to say that our
agreement with the British West Indies gives them a preference as against foreign sugar. In other words, we can adjust our tariffs as we wish, so far as foreign countries are concerned, as long as we observe the terms of this agreement and the preference which we have granted to the West Indian colonies. I do not know whether that fully answers the question of my hon. friend, but I believe it is the only answer I can give at the present time, as I would not like to express an opinion not knowing precisely what he has in view or the situation of which he speaks.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why does the minister
set the value of ditching machines at $3,000?


William Thomas White: There are other ditching
machines used for dredging and other like purposes, apart from farming altogether. On inquiry we find that $2,600 or $2,700 is the maximum paid for ditching machines by farmers and we desire to cover the case of the farmer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You know it is the custom in Ontario for threshers, for instance, to go around and thresh for various people at so much a bushel or a day. These ditching outfits are worked in the same way.


William Findlay Maclean: But it is a different ditcher.


William Thomas White: I know that $2,500 or 2,600 is the value of the machines used in that way.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: A little higher than that.


Mr. WILCOX:: No, Sir, $2,200.


William Thomas White: Very careful inquiries were made as to this by my department and the Customs Department and I was advised that this would cover the cost of the machines required.
I wish to refer to one item which requires some explanation, item 535 in the present tariff reads:
Cotton sewing thread in hanks.
The present duty on that is ten per cent, twelve and one-half per cent and fifteen per cent. Item 532 provides that yarns number forty and finer, are on the free list. There had grown up a practice in the Customs Department at some of the ports of levying this duty upon twisted yarn of forty and finer. At other ports that has been classified as thread and ten per cent, twelve and one-half per cent and fifteen per cent has been imposed. In other words, there were different practices really on account of the difficulty of classification. There are manufacturers in the city of Montreal engaged in the manufacture of thread and in Toronto, Hamilton and eleswhere, there are small manufacturers who import this twisted | yarn, forty and finer, which, when it is

twisted, is undoubtedly thread and would come under item 535. These manufacturers import it free, size it, spool it and sell it. The question was brought to the attention of the Customs Department last year and tljere is no doubt whatever, and the Customs Department so decided, that yarn of the kind I mentioned, forty and finer and twisted is undoubtedly thread. The result is that since last February the Customs Department has been making uniform the practice of levying the duty of ten per cent, twelve and one-half per cent and fifteen per cent upon cotton sewing thread in hanks under tariff item 535. All the manufacturers who get that in as raw material and wind it as I have stated, size it and spool it and sell it, complain of the change of practice and, after going into the matter very carefully, we have decided, having regard to the whole situation, that it would be better that we should reduce the tariff on item 535.


William Findlay Maclean: Does that interfere with the big thread monopoly that controls the thread trade of the world now? The local manufacturers have been complaining of the arbitrary conduct of the monopoly.


William Thomas White: I think the company to which my hon. friend refers will complain of this reduction in the tariff item. We have reduced this, at present the position is that the Customs Department are levying ten per cent, twelve and one-half per cent and fifteen per cent upon yarn of forty and finer twisted, under a ruling that that is thread. It is undoubtedly thread. The effect of making uniform the practice of the department was, as I have stated, to impose this duty upon this twisted yarn which is the raw material of certain manufacturers in Toronto, Hamilton and other places who import it and spool it. We reduced that to seven and one-half per cent, ten per cent and ten per cent as the best mode of dealing with the whole situation.


John Howard Sinclair: In a discussion last year it was brought to the attention of the minister that cotton twine and unbarked marlin used for making lobster traps was taxed, and it was pointed out that it was not the intention to tax twine for fishing purposes. The minister said he would look into the matter during the recess. Has that matter been considered by the minister in his reductions?


William Thomas White: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. Minister
of Finance (Mr. White) has the sympathy of the House in the circumstances which compel him to leave the city this evening, and which necessitated the delivery of his budget a little earlier than he anticipated. We upon this side of the House are hardly prepared to continue the debate today, and, in accordance with the arrangement between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, which can be resumed at a date to be agreed upon, and which, I suppose, will depend upon the date upon which the Minister of Finance will return to the House.


William Thomas White: I will arrange with my
hon. friend a convenient time. In the meantime, I desire to lay upon the table notice of the legislation respecting the bounty upon lead-bearing ores.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 185, to amend the Government Railways Act-Mr. Cochrane-read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1-acquisition of railways and works:
William Findlay Maclean: When
does the Minister of Railways propose to bring the Intercolonial system into the province of Ontario? That province has assisted very largely in the construction of the Intercolonial railway and a very large number of the people of Ontario and of the other parts of the Dominion would like to see the extension of the Intercolonial railway not only into Ontario but into the West. I would suggest that it would be in the public interest and in the direction of the improvement of the Intercolonial railway system if it could be extended into the province of Ontario, to the Georgian bay, to the Niagara river, and to the Detroit river. I believe this extension would have a great effect in modifying the railway rates that prevail in Ontario; I believe it would make the Intercolonial railway much more profitable, and it certainly would strengthen the power of the Intercolonial railway to regulate rates generally.


Francis Cochrane: There is an agreement existing between the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial for exchange of traffic east and west, and six months' notice has to be given for the termination of that agreement. It is under consideration, with reference to the other railways that the Intercolonial railway should get running rights or exchange of traffic.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Does the minister think it right to take authority to build lines of

railway to the extent of twenty-five miles each? That is a pretty large authority to give the minister without having to come to Parliament, as it might mean the expenditure of one million dollars for each twentyl-five miles. I do not desire to obstruct the Bill in any way, but I suggest to the minister that it might be well to limit that to ten miles. Where branches of the length of twenty-five miles are required, there would be ample opportunity for the minister to come to Parliament and get a vote. I think if this were limited to ten miles there would be no objection.


Francis Cochrane: There is no difference in the principle.


William Pugsley: If that be so, why not make a hundred miles; the Intercolonial Railway Act at present gives the minister power to build five miles. If you double that and make it ten miles it would be quite enough.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not very competent to form an opinion on that question myself. It would be for the minister to say what the necessities are from time to time.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think there
is' much difference between ten miles and twenty-five miles; certainly the principle is the same. The necessity for it at all events would not occur very often.


William Pugsley: Try it at ten miles
now.


Francis Cochrane: Make it twenty miles for a compromise.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Has the minister in mir-.d any particular railways that will be covered by this mileage of twenty-five miles? I understand that at times it might be desirable to build a spur line, but I think the principle of giving the department power to. build twenty-five miles is going a long way. I want to see the minister have ample and complete power to enable him to carry out the idea of widening and extending the influence of the Intercolonial railway, and I would not withhold any power from him that was necessary to carry out that policy, but it seems to me that power to build twenty-five miles is more than would be usually required. If a line were contemplated that would be twenty-five miles long, the minister could start his ten miles first and later on ask Parliament for power to expend more money. I do not fancy that my hon. friend will always be Minister of Railways. I am speaking of it from the standpoint of giving the head of the department the full .and comprehensive powers that are involved in this measure. I think the ten miles would certainly be ample to meet the necessities of the ease, and would Mr. PUGSLEY.
enable him to carry out any project that he might in the ordinary course of events require to carry out.


Francis Cochrane: I do not know any
particular case just now, but I thought, if some of these branch lines were extended further, we could operate to greater advantage. This was the object of asking the greater distance of five or six miles. There is not a great difference between ten and twenty miles.


William Findlay Maclean: Ten miles would not be much for St. John.


Francis Cochrane: Let it go at twenty
miles.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	This idea of twentyfive miles strikes me with great significance, and I would not like to see it cut down at all. It fits in splendidly for the county of Victoria. I had an idea that the minister had that section particularly in his mind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Henry Robert Emmerson: If it is the hon. minister's intention to continue the Government Managing Board, what officials of that board are to be kept on?


Francis Cochrane: That was answered today in reply to a question, I think of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux.)


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why is it that two of
the commissioners, the second and the third are removed. I understand Mr. Caron will not be there any more.


Francis Cochrane: There are only two left out of the five.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand that
Mr. Pottinger is to retire under the Superannuation Act or under the Provident Fund Act. I think he comes under the Superannuation Act.


Francis Cochrane: Mr. Pottinger retires
at about $4,900 a year under the Superannuation Act.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am very sorry to
see him retire because I appreciate the excellence of the work he has done on the railway. I oftentimes think he knows a great deal more about the Intercolonial than perhaps any other man in Canada does.


Francis Cochrane: He ought to. He has
been fifty years on it, I understand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He has been on it for a long time. He has been a faithful public servant, and has striven to serve the public interest without regard to any other element.
*9661


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that, with the exception of Mr. Brady and Mr. Tiffin the services of the other commissioners have been dispensed with?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I regret very much the dismissal of Mr. Caron who was very well known to the members of this House. He was supposed to be an excellent commissioner, especially in that section of the country where the French language is spoken. He had special charge of the claims in the province of Quebec.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will the minister
state what the salaries are? I understand that Mr. Gutelius' salary is $20,000?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What are the salaries paid to Mir. Brady and Mr. Tiffin since the change was made?


Francis Cochrane: No change was made in their salaries yet. Mr. Gutelius has to go down there to see things first.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Brady is now
in receipt of $7,000?	,


Francis Cochrane: $6,000. Mr. Pottinger was receiving $7,000, and the other commissioners $6,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was any charge made
against Mr. Caron?


Francis Cochrane: No, the board has been dissolved.


William Chisholm: I understand that
Mr. Caron was legal adviser to the board. Now that his services have been dispensed with, is it the intention of the department to have someone else act in that capacity?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know
whether or not it will be necessary. If it is, a legal adviser will have to be got. That matter has not been settled yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not being
thought of in advance.


Francis Cochrane: No, because the general manager cannot give an intelligent opinion until he has gone over the system and decided himself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If no charge has been
made against Mr. Caron and if the hon. minister is thinking of having a legal adviser connected with the office, I would suggest to him to think over the injustice done to Mr. Caron. He is a man of education. He sat in this House for several years. He took great interest in the Intercolonial. He left #the city of Ottawa, where he had a very excellent practice, and went to Moncton to reside. All who have come in contact with him will say
that Mr. Caron was a diligent official, a credit to the department. If my hon. friend has to take a gentleman with legal knowledge, I would suggest that he think twice before dismissing Mr. Caron, especially as in that position he can well serve the interests of the Intercolonial on that large .section of the railway where the French language is spoken. There are many claims on the part of farmers from the county of Bonaventure and even in some parts of the northern section of New Brunswick, where the French language is spoken exclusively. Mr. Caron was specially apt in settling differences between the farmers and the Intercolonial.
Bill reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


FRUIT MARKING.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Agriculture) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Inspection and Sale Act, chapter 85 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide: (1) that the Governor in Council, by regulation, may prescribe the kinds of imported fruit, the packages containing which must be branded or marked; the brands or marks to be used thereon; the manner and places in which such fruit is to be inspected and such packages branded or marked; (2) that all packages of fruit not branded or marked in accordance with such regulations shall be forfeited, and (3) that any person violating any regulation shall be liable to a fine of not more than $50 and costs.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Martin Burrell: This amendment of the Fruit Marks Act relates to the inspection of fruit in the Northwest and all over the country as well. It is designed to put the Act in such a shape that we can place everybody, both the Canadian grower and his foreign competitor, on an equal basis. When the Act was first put on the statute-book, it was designed primarily for the export trade, not only for Nova Scotia, but for other parts of Canada that were exporting fruit. It is only in quite recent years that the tremendous competition from outside points into our country has been experienced; and, with the development of that competition, especially during the last year or two when it has been abnormally heavy, it has been found there was a weakness in the old Act, inasmuch as it was rather doubtful whether we had the power to deai in the case of the importer, with the branding and marking provided for under our

Act. Consequently, this resolution and the Bill to be founded upon it are designed to give to the department power to put everybody on an equal basis as regards the marking of the fruit. I might point out to the committee that during the last year or two there has been an enormous amount of fruit coming into all parts of the country, not only the prairie provinces but British Columbia and Ontario as well, through American channels, which is not graded and marked in accordance with our own Act. I think the Canadian grower who is kept up to the strict requirements of the Act feels that he is facing competition that does not put him on an absolutely fair basis; and this amendment will give power to the department, therefore to deal specifically with imported fruit, and thus remove a doubt which existed under the Act as to whether we had the legal power to deal with importations in the same way as with our own product.


William Erskine Knowles: I would ask the minister whether this legislation is in response to the request which was made to him by a delegation of fruit growers which waited on him two months or more ago.


Martin Burrell: It is in response practically to a demand which has been growing for many years, as I remember. Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows that fruit growing is my own special business, and so I am fairly familiar with conditions both East and West. During the last three or four years there have been repeated demands to have the Fruit Marks Act put in such a shape that it would place everybody on exactly the same basis. During this year there was an abnormal glut in our market of surplus fruit from the various producing districts of the western states and the situation got rather acute. We had not only a very large number of resolutions sent from all over the country, but we had before the Agricultural Committee an inquiry into this whole matter at which representative witnesses from Nova Scotia, from Ontario and from British Columbia-these being the three largest fruit-growing provinces-were sworn and gave evidence; and I think I speak quite accurately when I say that there was absolute unanimity of opinion and complete agreement in the evidence given. So, although it is true in a sense that this may be the result of the various delegations that have been down to Ottawa this year to give evidence before the committee, it is true also that it is the culmination of a large number of requests made during the last three or four years.


William Erskine Knowles: The reason I have asked is that I have reasonable grounds for believing that an application from the protected fruit-growing industry visited the minister and requested him
Mr. BURRELL.
to put an additional duty on fruit. He could not see his way to that, lest there should be an outcry on the prairies. The second best suggestion these fruit-growers from British Columbia had to- prefer to the minister was to ask that he at least take to himself power to make regulations which would be a very great handicap upon the coming of American fruit into Canada. The regulation, if one wnich the general interest of the country would require, would receive no opposition from me; but, representing a fruit consuming and fruit purchasing people, unless I receive further information on the subject, I am against it. I think this is merely-and I do not use the word in an offensive sense-an underhand way-I say again I do not use the word in an offensive sense-of giving to the fruit-growers of British Columbia the protection they seek against the competition, and I think the not unreasonable competition of the American fruit-grower. I have pretty good information that while the Government have flatly refused to grant an increase in the duty on fruit, because that would be so transparent and so flagrant, yet they practically promised this delegation that they would agree to their second request and change the administration and regulation in connection with the Fruit Marks Act. The measure here proposed will give to the minister the power to put what is in effect a tariff on fruit coming into the country from the United States.


Martin Burrell: No.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister is taking power to make regulations that there shall be certain marks put on the fruit boxes at the place of shipment.


Martin Burrell: Not necessarily.


William Erskine Knowles: The power is there.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend will
pardon me; it is quite obvious that we would not have the power to impose upon a grower, for instance, in the Yakima valley, Washington, the duty of placing on his packages a certain mark. We cannot touch the growers on the other side of the line.


William Erskine Knowles: You can stop the trade.
I am surprised that the hon. minister, who is usually so fair, should give such a technical answer. I know that if a man does wrong in the State of Washington you cannot punish him in British Columbia or Saskatchewan.
' Mr. BURRELL: My hon. friend surely would not impose conditions which would dace the foreign competitor on anything Dut an equal footing with the home producer?


William Erskine Knowles: The question the minister put is no doubt a very plausible one,

but I am only a plain man, and I am not going to commit myself by giving a sweeping answer to such a question. I know that the hon. minister is a fruit grower, and no doubt, a reputable and independent one, but the fruit growers, I fear, have his ear to a greater extent than the grain growers have. The power the minister proposes to take under this resolution is one which he might exercise in a way that would have the very same effect as if the Finance Minister, in his Budget Speech, had announced his intention to place additional restrictions against the importation of fruit into this country. I am against giving to any person, even the hon. Minister of Agriculture, the power to create an additional difficulty and an added expense with regard to the bringing into this country of fruit for consumption by my constituents. The growers of apples in the States of Washington and Oregon are such large dealers and their market is so very extensive that they are not going to change the size of their boxes or go to any trouble with regard to putting special marks on them merely to obtain the benefits of the comparatively small market afforded to them in Canada. The truth of the matter is that when you effect restrictions either as to the size of the packages or the placing thereon of special marks, you are going to cause the United States shipper to refrain from shipping his goods into Canada as effectually as if you were to impose an additional duty. The original intention of this Act was that it should apply to foreign shipments out of Canada, and that there should be Government inspection of and control over the shipment of. fruit. Afterwards it was applied to fruit shipped between one part of our country and another. But if you make the men who are catering to the immense market of ninety millions in the United States conform to arbitrary legislation with regard to the size or stamping of the boxes, I am afraid that you are going to prejudice them to such an extent that they will not consider our market as being worth the trouble. Under the existing scale of duties, Canadian growers receive all the protection they ought to have. They get protection of thirteen and one-third cents a box on apples, and in addition they enjoy a differential freight and express rate amounting to almost fifteen cents a box, so that the total protection enjoyed by them in regard to apples is something like twenty-eight cents a box, which is forty per cent of the value of the apples f.o.b. This advantage in the freight rates applies to Alberta and Saskatchewan, and as the minister is aware, the province of British Columbia does not commence to supply all our demands. I regard this as a suspicious resolution, as something which is
brought forward to please political friends in that stronghold of Conservativism, British Columbia, where they love protection so much, and as something that will work out to their benefit and to the detriment of the consumers on the prairies. I know the minister would not do anything underhand, but I desire to warn him to be careful that he is not unconsciously made the instrument of those clever fruit growers in that province. I think the British Columbia dealers are getting on very well at present. If the consumers on the prairies do not kick very much, I think the British Columbia fruit growers should let sleeping dogs lie, and not send delegations to Ottawa asking for additional duties and for stricter regulations against the very small competition they have from the United Sates. I am very suspicious of this legislation, and if carried I predict that it will work out to the further protection of the orchard interests in British Columbia.


John Howard Sinclair: The wording of this
resolution is rather peculiar, and I would like to ask the minister what this means:
That the Governor in Council may prescribe the kinds of imported fruit.
I suppose that does not mean the Governor in Council may prescribe that certain kinds of fruit may not be imported into Canada?


Martin Burrell: Certainly not. It prescribes the kinds of imported fruit, the packages containing which must be branded or marked. Our Act, in its working out, is largely designed for the apple or standard fruit trade. There are many fruits that are not designed to be marked or branded in a special way, even under our Act. It is quite obvious that there are many fruits not grown in Canada, such as citrus fruits, that we would not touch at all. I was rather surprised at the tone of the criticism launched at this resolution by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles). I do not think this resolution or the Bill which is to follow will be found to be at all underhand, or, indeed, to be anything but most absolutely fair. My hon. friend has evidently given a little study to this matter, and he says he has grave suspicions that something very dark and nefarious lurks behind this Bill. If I was a lawyer, I would certainly have given a great deal of attention to matters of law, like my hon. friend, but, if he will allow me to say so, having been following one business for thirty years, I certainly have had to give a great deal of attention to that particular business in all its various details, and I can assure him that not only my business capacity, but also as Minister of Agriculture and as a representative of the people of British Columbia in this

House. I have given the fullest and fairest consideration to the whole matter. I shall not have time to go into it now; my hon. friend will readily admit on the second reading of the Bill there will be given a better opportunity to answer questions and thresh out matters in connection with the Bill. I would like to point out, however, that this Act is not designed to prevent the importation of fruit from the United States; far from it. My hon. friend has yet to meet, as I have, a British Columbia or Ontario or Nova Scotia fruit grower who does not cheerfully realize that it is up to him to meet competition from the United States or from any other country, and to meet it in the fullest and fairest way. My hon. friend seems to have the idea that under the new regulations we would have very extraordinary powers. The regulations are limited by the powers of the Act itself. We can only make them according to the spirit and letter of the Act itself. I frankly tell my hon. friend that I do not think he is speaking the mind of all his own people. I would point out to him that it is true that $150,000,000 of Canadian money is wrapped up in the fruit growing industry in Canada. In many lines of fruit people have to wait for, five, six or seven years before getting any return on their investment and surely that industry is at least deserving of fair encouragement by any government in this country. I think my hon. friend will admit that.


William Erskine Knowles: Certainly.


Martin Burrell: Let me add that the
growers have felt for years that they were entitled to more protection. My hon. friend has worked out the protection they receive in rather a larger measure than can be justified by the facts and certainly the growers have repeatedly urged requests for a raising of the tariff. I have frankly told my fruit growing friends that, notwithstanding any sympathy I might have in that regard, it was hopeless to expect the Government to deal at this session with any revision of the tariff except in one or two extraordinary cases such as the minister has dealt with and that I could certainly hold out no hope that they would get a raising of the tariff on fruit this session.


William Erskine Knowles: Not this session but there is hope for the future?


Martin Burrell: This session certainly. It is time enough to deal with future questions as they come up. I am not dealing with future question or expressing any opinions. I also pointed out that it might be difficult to get what they wanted this year, even in the face of a tremendous Mr. BURRELL.
dumping of American fruit which sometimes brought nothing to the American producers. The fruit men made a strong plea for the exercise of the dumping clause in our own legislative power but I pointed out the difficulty there, although I admitted the justice of their plea, for I could give many instances in which ten carloads or fifteen carloads sometimes came into this country in one day, not bought by importers but simply sent on consignment for anything it would fetch, even if it fetched nothing that would give a return to the producer himself. In many cases the big valleys of the western United States this year produced thousands of carloads of fruit and were overstocked in their own markets so that they did not get enough to pay for the freight and packing. Many thousands of trees in some of the western valleys were left simply unpicked. When those conditions existed there was fair justification for asking the exercise of our powers under the dumping Act but I said the difficulties were such that it was not possible to deal with it. They also urged the charging of an inspection fee. Although I had a strong sympathy with this suggestion, I had again to say that the Government thought it was better not to touch that and simply to confine ourselves to an Act which would make the American competitors come into the Canadian markets on an exact equality with the Canadian producer; and if my hon. friend has a word to say in opposition to a sentiment of that kind, he places himself in an extraordinary position. This Act is not designed only for the grower or for the importer of American canned fruits, it is also designed in the interest of the consumer. It is eminently propjer and right that the consumer when buying fruit should know that he is buying what the fruit purports to be from the marking of the package. I think everyone will agree that in that respect the Fruit Marks Act has been a benefit to the fruit consumers of Canada, and it has strengthened the proper packing and grading along all lines. He could not object to that. My hon. friend said, in regard to the tariff, that this was only increasing the difficulties of getting American fruit. I want to quote to him an authority from the prairies who says he represents the prairie farmers. I am quoting from a debate in this House not many years ago on the tarriff:
I speak for a class of people very far removed from the place where fruit is produced, and I regard it as a most artificial arrangement that we who live so far away from Niagara should be called upon to build up a trade there to an extent that is not re-sonable. We are not loath to pay a little duty and to do a little protecting when it is for the sake of our brother farmers. If it

were for any class of people other than those who are farmers like onrselves out there,
I would oppose this duty, even as it stands here to-night. We are giving a large protection for these people, hut I am free to say to the people whom I represent, and I often have to defend this fruit duty out there, that it is for the tillers of the soil that this item is there, and it is because of that that we are willing to accept the duty.
That was the language of Mr. Knowles, the hon. member for Regina in 1907. If he knew, as I know, the conditions of the thousands of men who for years have been putting into Their fruit investments every cent of capital they have; have for years waited patiently for results, and have developed the fruit industry under great hardships, he would sympathize with them when at last they met a condition of things where the American producer, who was flooded in his own markets, could come into the Canadian markets with brands absolutely misleading as far as the public is concerned, putting on his packages such marks that he could sell fruit that was often not better than, and sometimes inferior to, the British Columbia fruit, because the grower in British Columbia had To live up to the stringent requirements of an Act that the American compeTitor was not subjected to. I am sure that he would sympathize with that type of farmer and at least grant Mm that measure of justice which would give him a fair and even competition on his own ground. I assure my hon. friend and other gentlemen interested in this question in the West-and I know they are very much interested in seeing that their constituents, the consumers, get fair-play-that, as Minister of Agriculture, I am interested in seeing that the farmers of Canada get fair-play as well as the consumers, and this Bill is for nothing but to insure that when producers, whether they are American, Canadian or from anywhere else come into the Canadian markets they will all have to toe the same mark in catering for the consumers of Canada.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister has read some remarks which I made a good many years ago at the time of the tariff revision, in 1907 I think. That is a long time ago. Fruit has got high in the meantime.


William Pugsley: That is longer than 1909.


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, longer than 1909. I still stand by that, I agree with what I said. All that I said was that if there must be protection that which is least distasteful to us is that which goes to our brother tillers of the soil. I do not believe in protection at all, I abhor it but if there is to be protection the place where we least welcome the attack on it will be against the
protection to the fruit growers, because they are farmers and are not organized and are of little strength. That is entirely different from giving consideration to the great incorporated trusts, monopolies and combines with which our friends opposite are on such close terms. The minister has said that the Washington fruit growers dumped their fruit, I presume he means into the prairie provinces. I am not going to set up as an expert in fruit with the minister, but I am credibly informed by men who give all their time to the fruit business, wholesale fruit buyers, as large as there are in western Canada, I am informed by two of them that they have obtained information from shippers in the State of Washington, that they get the best price for all the shipments into the Canadian markets, after they pay the duty and that there is nothing in the way of dumping, simply getting the best price. I have here a letter, the signer of which I shall not disclose, but I will make his sentiments my sentiments as I have absolute confidence in what he says. He writes:
I am advised that the British Columbia, growers complain that the American shippers have been dumping their fruit into the Canadian market, that is selling it for less money on this side than in their own markets. I have letters from the managers of three of the largest associations in Washington and in each case they state that on Canadian markets they obtain better prices for their fruit than in any state in the Union, and from personal knowledge I know that to be the case.
I dismiss that dumping business as just a kind of blanket charge because the fruit growers who want more protection know the weakness of their case and they make that charge that we cannot disprove. Under the machinery of the law they have the opportunity to prove it and they have the Minister of Agriculture to help them into the bargain. In any event, if they do dump it, I wish they would dump more. If the minister lived on the prairies he would wish that more people were around leaving strawberries or apples or any fruit at his door. The complaint I make is that they are not dumping enough.


Martin Burrell: I did not pretend to
argue on that question. I dismissed it as having nothing to do with the resolution.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister will agree that we are equally transgressors.


Martin Burrell: I was simply saying
that we had not acceded to it.


William Erskine Knowles: My complaint is that
the fruit growers to-day have far the better end of the stick and they should be satisfied with what they have. We are afraid of this legislation and if the fruit growers are not satisfied they will stir the

people up so that they will agitate against the existing duty. The Minister ot Agriculture says that he owns trait orchards in British Columbia.


Martin Burrell: I did not say anything about it.


William Erskine Knowles: He said he was interested in the fruit business, and I assumed he was an owner. I thought I was fair in saying that he owned it when he said he was in the fruit business in British Columbia, and if the minister is in the fruit business in British Columbia, I think I am safe in saying that the minister's fruit farm has in the last six or seven years been multiplied in value all the way from five to ten times.


William Smith: Why?


William Erskine Knowles: Because the fruit growers of British Columbia have had the market of the prairie consumers. More than that, it is the prairie men who have gone out to British Columbia and have spent their money in buying land there that has caused the fruit lands of British Columbia to become extremely valuable. We on the prairies have made their fruit land valuable and then the fruit growers come back with the argument that because they have stocked up their orchards with trees and increased their plants and because their land has become so valuable, we must pay more for our fruit. Because they have been able to find a very profitable market on the prairies their land has gone up in value and then they say to us: Our land has become so valuable, that you must give us a great big percentage of profit. In some instances the land is worth fifty times what it was from five to eight years ago. If the land has gone up in value so rapidly, it is evidence that it must be a profitable business. The fruit growers must make enormous profits if their plants have multiplied in value from five to ten times in the course of as many years. They ought to be satisfied with that and not try to use that as an argument for making increased profits at the expense of the consumers upon the prairies. We welcome their fruit in our country, but I will say this: Let the fruit growers be satisfied to find on the prairies a profitable market for their product and do not let them try to make us a mark because there is a limit to what we will stand from them.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I agree largely with what the hon. member for Moose)aw (Mr. Knowles) has said in regard to this matter. I believe that the intentions of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture are good, but at the same time I live close to the province of British Columbia, and I know something about the comparative prices of fruit. The fruit growers in Washington have now an entrance into Mr KNOWLES.
that part of the country, and American fruit is the lever in fixing a fair price, which can be used against the British Columbia fruit grower to a great extent. I look upon this amendment as permitting the possibility of obstacles being placed in the way of the entrance of American fruit at the present rate of duty into the province of Alberta. I am in sympathy with the British Columbia fruit grower. I would like to see British Columbia fruit used entirely on the prairies, if it can compete on a fair basis with the fruit from Washington. I believe that British Columbia has not taken advantage of the opportunities on the prairies by organizing properly to dispose of its fruit. The Washington growers look after the business of the prairies, the wholesalers handle their fruit very freely, and they get it in packed to the satisfaction of the consumer. The complaint I have heard against British Columbia frequently is that the fruit growers _ there have not an organization on the prairies to handle their fruit and to see that it arrives on the market in good shape and properly packed. They look upon the people of the prairies as being convenient to them. The people on the prairies are only too glad to purchase British Columbia fruit, but not at a premium over American fruit. We should not have any obstacles placed in the way of this American fruit coming into Alberta. I do not know where the minister intends to place these inspectors, but with regard to fruit coming from Washington, I presume that the inspectors would be stationed at some point in the state of Washington, or at the points of entry into British Columbia and Alberta. The fruit may be interfered with on its way into these provinces by officials who are anxious to protect and assist the British Columbia fruit growers. They might be over officious in that way. If the British Columbia fruit grower can develop the trade of the prairies, and if he can ship his fruit into Alberta and Saskatchewan, and sell it at as cheap a price as the American fruit can be placed on the market, and if it is a good grade of fruit, I would much prefer seeing British Columbia fruit used entirely on the prairies. But, as the minister knows, Washington fruit is used largely at the present time in face of the duty that exists and in competition with British Columbia fruit. Unquestionably, British Columbia fruit is good, but the British Columbia growers should organize a better system of disposing of their fruit on the prairies than that which they have at the present time. It would be a great injustice to the consumers of fruit o,n the prairie if obstacles were placed in the way of the entrance of competitive fruit. There is also the question of freight and express rates with which British Columbia fruit growers have to con-

tend, but these difficulties ought to be overcome and the fruit growers ought to be able to arrange for proper transportation facilities so that they will be able to reach the large centres of consumption upon the prairies and place their fruit on the market there in a condition and at a price to successfully compete with American fruit.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to ask the minister if the intention of the Bill is to make the foreign shipper conform with the same regulations as the Canadian shipper has to conform with and if the marks are all the same.


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the minister see
that the department notifies the foreign shippers of these regulations so that their fruit will not be subject to confiscation?


Martin Burrell: Undoubtedly; we have no other wish at all. As a matter of fact, they have been supposed to comply with the regulations, but it has been impossible to make them comply altogether with the marks that the Act prescribes. I would like to say, in answer to what has been said by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) that there is a little mistake about the way in which this matter has been taken up by the hon. member for Moosejaw. After all, this Act is only designed to make the Canadian producer live up to certain standard of packing, grading and marking when he ships to England or anywhere in this country. The consumer then knows exactly what he is getting because the marks and brands are provided for, and all the Act does is to make everyone else who is catering to the Canadian consumer simply live up to the spirit and the letter of the Act in Canada, to which the Canadian producer has to live up.	.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):: One objection to this is that it is apt to lead to vexatious regulations with regard to the importation of American fruit. From the evidence I have heard in the Agricultural Committee this session, it would appear that the agitation for an Act of this kind is coming from British Columbia. The Washington shippers have been shipping a great deal of fruit into western Canada, particularly into Alberta, and these gentlemen from British Columbia were crude enough to suggest to the committee that vexatious delays should be placed against the importation of American fruit coming into this country. I would point out to the minister that the wording of the resolution places a great deal of power in the hands of the minister or any official of the department. The port of entry at which the inspection shall be made might '


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
admit of a great deal of difficulty on the part of the importers of American fruit if the officials of the Government were not very careful to give due consideration to the matter. We on the prairies depend a great deal at present on American fruit, and probably seventy-five per cent of the apple shipments to Alberta come from the United States. I have no reason to say that these apples as they are shipped are not up to the standard. The reason for changing the Marks Act cannot be to improve the grade of the fruit very materially, because on the evidence brought out at the Agricultural Committee there was no objection particularly taken to the grade of fruit shipped by the Washington shippers into Alberta. I think the minister should be very careful in introducing this measure to see that no discrimination ot vexatious delay should accrue to importers of American apples into Alberta.
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: Representing the farmers of the east as I do, I would like to ask the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) if it is true or not that the value and the price of western lands have grown so enormously as to be really the wonder of the civilized world. Is that true ?


William Erskine Knowles: That is not true.


John Hampden Burnham: Well, have these values grown.


William Erskine Knowles: They have grown.


John Hampden Burnham: The value of western
lands has greatly increased ?


William Erskine Knowles: The values have increased considerably, but the farmers of the West do not want any protection. They are not afraid of anybody in competition.


John Hampden Burnham: I am not speaking of
that; I am asking if the value of western lands has grown very greatly or if this boom which we hear so much about is all nonsense.


William Erskine Knowles: The Western lands
have increased in value extremely.


John Hampden Burnham: Let me ask the hon. member if the farmers of the West want the whole business; do they want everything ?


William Erskine Knowles: I would answer my
hon. friend briefly; if we were all getting to be millionaires in the West, what does that matter; we still have our rights. Have not the manufacturers in Toronto increased their wealth and built their clubs and mansions, and whoever heard of us writing to them and saying we want so much on every bushel of wheat out of all the money you are making. We might


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
make that demand with much better grace, because they are making the money out of us; we are not making it out of them. The people I represent have found that the land which they own has increased in value, but it (has increased in value by their own honest and independent labour and not under any protective tariff. It has not increased in value by the farmers of the West taking it out of their brother Canadians in any other way; certainly not by shouting: No truck with the Yankees, and folding the British flag about us and taking all we can take from every poor fellow we can fleece or skin. We have made our way intelligently like men and ask favours from no one, and that is an entirely different thing from the way in which the protected interests, whether fruit growers or manufacturers, have made their piles.
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER, (Kings, N.S.):	Representing a county that produces a very large quantity of fruit, I wish to put myself on record as being heartily in favour of this resolution. Inasmuch as a great deal of fruit of eastern Canada is shipped to the West and as such fruit undergoes a thorough and rigid inspection in order that it may be graded, and in ordeT that the western dealer may get proper value for his money, it would seem to me only just and fair that the fruit coming from the United States or anywhere else should be subject to that uniform inspection which all Canadian fruit has to undergo. During the past year considerable difficulty has been felt in eastern Canada, particularly in the Maritime provinces, over the regulations of the Fruit Marks Act, which have been felt to be somewhat harsh. But I firmly believe that the farmers, taking a sane view of the situation, realize that an honest effort is being made by the legislation to assist them to meet competition from abroad. I am sure that as soon as they understand these measures fully they will be more than satisfied with the regulations that are from time to time put into effect. I might say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Moosejaw, but at this particular time it is not necessary. It would appear to me that inasmuch as the West has not been isolated from the rest of the Dominion, and inasmuch as it is a part of the Dominion it must share in the general prosperity of the Dominion. To say that the western lands have become valuable apart from and without any Te-flex influence of the East or of the manufacturing industries which have in a very large measure assisted in the building up of the Dominion, seems to me to be a statement rather far-fetched. I am sure the hon. member for Moosejaw does not Mr. KNOWLES.
do himself justice when he made the observations he did. With' these words of approval of the resolution I have nothing more to say.
Mr. R. F. GREEN (Kootenay):: I want to put this matter in a few brief words, in such a light before the House, that I think every hon. gentleman will understand it. We in British Columbia, where a great deal of the fruit that is supplied to Die Northwest territories is grown, are not asking for anything unfair nor are we asking for any advantage over anybody else. It seems to me that no hon. gentleman in this House, no matter what part of Canada he represents, can fairly stand up in this House and claim to take from us that measure of protection that is contained in putting us upon the same level as everybody else in the same Canadian
market.	. ___*
Under the Inspection Act, our fruit must be inspected, graded and marked. American fruit is brought into our markets to compete with our fruit. The markings are entirely different. The Americans mark theirs ' choice,' * fine ' and ' extra fine. We are not allowed to mark ours in that way. Usually their choice fruit is the worst fruit that they put up. All we ask for, and I think every hon. member will admit that we are entitled to it, is that the American fruit growers be put on the same basis as we are, and that they be compelled to mark their fruits as they are graded under our Fruit Marks Act, so that when you buy a case of fruit, whether it is American or Canadian, you can tell from the marking exactly what grade of fruit vou are buying.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: From some of the remarks made by hon. gentlemen opposite, it seems to me tnat this legislation is for the protection of the fruit growers. If that is so, I think this is an ulterior purpose. From the wording of the resolution, it would seem that the only purpose would be for the protection of the consumer. If the matter is dealt with in the right spirit, that should be the only object. If this is fair legislation, its only purpose can be the protection of the consumer. It seems rather strange that the consumer is the man who is complaining about this legislation. Did the prairie farmer ask for this legislation?


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend states
that this should be in the interest of the consumer. I admit it should be. He seems to assume that it should not be in the interest of the grower, to protect the grower. Supposing he or any other hon. member were engaged in a certain line of business, fruit growing or farming or any other kind of business, and the laws of

Canada compelled him, when selling in Canada, to live up to the rigid requirements of a certain statute; would he not expect that he should be protected to the extent that any other man selling his own line of commodities should live up to the same requirements that he has to live up to?


Levi Thomson: I anticipated the question which my hon. friend has asked. He will kindly allow me to answer it in my own way. Let us take the case of wheat or any other grain grown in the prairies, which may be shipped to the United States. As a grower of grain, I do not ask that the American grower must have his grain graded according to our system. I am quite willing to let the Canadian purchaser buy the grain on the grades which the Americans provide. Let him examine that grain. He will find out how that grain grades and' what the grades mean. In the same way the purchaser of apples and other fruit will learn after a while what the American brands mean. I presume that there is legislation in the United States to compel fruit growers there to have their fruit inspected and branded. In that case, there is no "reason why the fruit grower should not be prepared to let us buy fruit from any other country subject to the grades or brands that are provided for in that country. We are quite competent to decide whether or not the American fruit which we are receiving is properly inspected and branded. If a certain grade of fruit is not satisfactory for our purposes, we will not continue buying it, just the same as the buyer of grain in the United States, if the grades are not satisfactory to him, will not buy. I would not for a moment ask that the grain coming in from the United States shall be subject to our grades. That is not necessary, provided they have grades which they maintain there, and they must maintain their grades or the consumer will not purchase. I am not in the position of my hon. friend who knows from experience something about buying American fruit, because in my particular part of the country we buy very little American fruit. We buy principally Canadian fruit, but we do not want to be prevented from buying American fruit provided we can buy it more cheaply, after the duty is paid, than British Columbia and Ontario fruit. I have no objection to giving reasonable protection to the British Columbia fruit growers, but this legislation is passed, not for the protection of the fruit growers, but presumably for the protection of the consumer m Canada of American fruit. The consumer, whom you are presumed to be protecting and helping, does not want to have anything to do with this legislation. Why then force it on him?
306$
Mr. GEO. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk):	I
am very much surprised at the arguments of my hon. friends from the West. I am a western man and I think I know something about the conditions which prevail in regard to fruit which comes into western Canada? I cannot understand the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Thomson), when he says that he, as a wheat grower, asks for no protection. There is no analogy between the wheat grown in Manitoba and the fruit grown in the East or in British Columbia. It is admitted that Manitoba and the western provinces grow the best wheat in the world.


Levi Thomson: In British Columbia
they claim they grow the best apples in the world.


Mr. BRADBURY:: They (the wheat
growers) fear no competition from anybody. This legislation is not asking for any protection except to the consumer, and perhaps incidentally to the producer of fruits. My hon. friend knows that even the Ontario packers, before the Act came into force, imposed upon the people of the West through the way in which the apples and other fruit sent into our country were marked. If I understand the amendment properly, it only intends to place the Americans to come into our market and ing as the Canadian producer. Why should we as Canadians, having a great fruit industry in this country, allow the Americans to come into our market and to sell their products in competition with ours under almost false pretences, with marks that are altogether deceptive and marks that are altogether misleading? We would not allow Canadians to brand theirs and send them into our country, as one of our friends on the other side said. American apples are marked * Fine ' and ' Extra Choice,' and some of these ' Fine ' and ' Extra Choice ' do not begin to compare with our ' No. 1.'


James McCrie Douglas: In the evidence brought before the Agricultural Committee, British Columbia growers testified that the 'Choice' brand, sent on by the American fruit growers were better than our ' No. 2', and a little poorer than our 'No. 1.' Their 'Fancy' was a better grade than our 'No. 1' and a better grade than we can get at all.


George Henry Bradbury: I think every hon.
member will recognize that when an article that is marked 'Choice' coming into the market, the consumer is very apt to assume that it is a better article than one branded 'No. 1,' while as a matter of fact it is inferior. Why should Americans come into our market in competition with our own fruit industry on an unfair basis? I know that the representatives of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta perhaps do

not appreciate the fact that Manitoba is now becoming a fruit producing country, producing apples, and we want to protect that industry. I cannot understand why hon. members should object to having Americans placed on an equal footing with our own growers.


William Erskine Knowles: What do you produce in apples-No. 1 hard?


George Henry Bradbury: I am satisfied that
these western representatives cannot be serious on this question, because there are no members of this House who are more anxious for the protection of the industry of their own section, the wheat industry, than these hon. gentlemen. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) a moment ago, said this Bill should protect the consumer only. Now how would he like it if we applied that to the producer of wheat and said that the legislation which we have been fighting for day after day in this House should be not for the protection of wheat-growers but for the protection of the consumer only?


Michael Clark: Is not the hon. gentleman contradicting himself? Has not he said that our wheat fears no competition.


George Henry Bradbury: I say that now. But my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle took the position that this should provide for the consumer and for the consumer alone.


Levi Thomson: Did not
I say that I had no objection to a reasonable protection to the Hurt growers? Did not the hon. gentleman hear that?


George Henry Bradbury: Yes, I heard that.


Levi Thomson: Then, what are you talking about?


George Henry Bradbury: I admit that that is the statement that my hon. friend made at first, but he went on to say that this Bill should provide for The consumer and the consumer alone. Now, there is no real protection in this for the fruit growers ; the only effect of it is to place the American fruit growers coming into competition with our Canadian fruit growers on the same footing, compelling them to mark and brand their apples the same as ours are branded, so that when the consumer goes down to the store to buy a barrel of apples, if he buys 'No. 1,' he knows what he is buying. I think it only reasonable that a measure of this kind should go through. So far as the Western country is concerned, I am satisfied that it will benefit very much by this legislation.


Levi Thomson: I do not think the hon. gentleman is quite fair in any part of his argument. I did not make the remarks he has attributed to me. It is Mr. BRADBURY.
true, I said that I presumed the object of the Act was to protect the interests of the consumer, and the Minister of Agriculture nodded his head-meaning, 1 assume, that he agreed to that. That being so, we have a right to assume that this Bill is for the protection of the consumer and not of the producer. But, as a matter of fact, the consumer is objecting to it. The men you are assuming to protect are objecting.
Mr. SMITH (South Ontario) Why?


Levi Thomson: Because we fear that the legislation will be used in suoh a way as to interfere with the freedom of our actions and hamper the American producer and shipper so as to make it as awkward for him as it can be made. I think the minister will agree with me that it is hard to undertake to protect a particular class, provided it is an intelligent class, when that class unanimously objects to the protection. Now with regard to this branding that we talk about. I presume the hon. gentleman will admit that we farmers have some intelligence-


George Henry Bradbury: Some of them are very intelligent.


Levi Thomson: Thank you. If we buy apples from the United States marked ' Choice ' we are able to tell what ' Choice ' means after we handle one box. We do not care whether the apples are called [DOT] Choice,' ' Choice Extra,' ' Fine No. 2,' or ' No. 20.' We do not care about the name so long as we get the quality. And we know the quality


William Smith: How do
you know?


Levi Thomson: Perhaps the hon. gentleman thinks we are so green we do not know an apple when we eat it.


William Smith: I think so.


Levi Thomson: We are a pretty green lot according to the hon. gentleman's estimate. But perhaps we have some taste at least in our mouths, as well as my hon. friend. We can distinguish a good apple from a bad one, and we do not care what you call it so long as it proves itself good when we eat it. If we get the wrong thing by a certain brand one time, we will avoid that afterwards. I understand that there is a complete system of marking in the United States. And if I am wrong in that I can understand why this legislation is brought forward. This legislation is put forward as for the protection of the consumer; the fact is the consumer is not asking for it and has no need of it.


Martin Burrell: I wish to point out to
my hon. friend, who was not in the House during the previous Parliament nor the Parliament before, that the Government

which he supported-which I presume he supported if he has been any time in politics, which at any rate many hon. members from the West supported-put upon the statute-book legislation providing as follows:
Every person who by himself or through the agency of another person, packs fruit in a closed package, intended for sale, shall cause the package to be marked in a plain and indelible manner, in letters not less than half an inch in length, before it is taken from the premises where it is packed,-
(a)	With the initials of his Christian names, his full surname, and his address, or, in the case of a firm or corporation, with the firm or corporate name or address;
(b) with the name of the variety or varieties; and
(c)	with a designation of the grade of fruit,
which shall include one of the following four marks, viz.:	'Fancy', 'No. 2', 'No.
Then follows a description of the grades. The previous Government intended that everybody who sold fruit in Canada should live up to that Act. This was enacted under the direction of Mr. Fisher, the then Minister of Agriculture. I never heard a word of protest from anybody about that. When we came to take action against persons for marking their fruit not in accordance with the Act, we found that under the designation ' packer ' we could not reach them. In Ontario and British Columbia on the part of the consumer we could prosecute growers and packers who marked their fruit not in accordance with the statute enacted under a Liberal Government. What we ask for is that what was done by a previous government should be made unmistakable.


Levi Thomson: Is it not possible for this Government to defend some action of theirs on its own merits instead of by appealing to what the late Government did?


Martin Burrell: If my hon. friend will
pardon me, I think that is an extraordinary remark to make. I hope I am not so hide-bound a partisan that I am not prepared to recognize any useful legislation placed on the statute-book by the late Government. That would be taking a very extraordinary stand. I simply say I believe that the Act passed by the late Government was a good one, but if we can see any way of improving that Act by making it simpler and clearer, is it not our business to do so? Would I not be a very extraordinary Minister of Agriculture if I did not recognize that if the Act were weak it should be strenghtened? I think my hon. friend's remarks were entirely uncalled for.


David Bradley Neely: The
legislation to which my hen. friend has refered, and which, I think, was placed on the statute-book in 1906, refers only to the marking, branding, inspecting and packing in the Dominion of Canada of fruit produced by Canadian fruit growers. This is what I would like to ask the minister. In the case of our fruit being shipped across the line to the United States, has the United States got legislation similar to this now proposed by the minister? Have the fruit growing states passed similar legislation to this, aside from their tariff laws, compelling the Canadian fruit exporters to brand and mark his fruit according to the legislation of the United States? If they have not, I think this proposed legislation is absolutely and totally uncalled for.


Martin Burrell: They have not in the
United States the same federal legislation that we have. They have recently passed an Act, not as comprehensive or as good as this proposed legislation, but hitherto they have dealt with the matter practically through the States. They are now dealing more particularly with the branding and marking through the various associations throughout the country. I may say, however, that if commodities are sent into that country, where their own producers have to live up to certain requirements, you may take it for granted that the United States authorities will not allow foreign competitors to come into their markets on unequal terms.


David Bradley Neely: That is not a very definite answer to the question I asked the hon. minister. The minister knows perfectly well that the legislation placed on the statute-books by the recent Administration was designed to protect the fruit growers in Canada and the purchaser outside of Canada in respect of fruit grown in the orchards of Canada.


Martin Burrell: May I ask my hon.
friend why the consumer should be protected against the deceptive and rapacious grower in Canada, and not against the deceptive and rapacious grower in some other country?


David Bradley Neely: I think we can very safely assume that the consumer in Canada is very well protected by the legislation to which the minister has referred-the legislation existing in the United States covering the packing, inspecting, branding and marking of packages of fruit shipped out of that country. There is not one practical reason why this legislation is in the interests of the consumer of fruits in this country, and we all come under that class to a greater or less extent. When the wholesalers of this country receive a consignment of United States fruit which has been packed, branded and marked under the legislation of the State from which that may be exported into Canada, the pack-

ages being marked choice or fancy or anything else you like, they know perfectly well what these brands mean. A great deal of the wheat and other grain exported from Canada is graded differently from that of other countries, but the millers in Great Britain, who import our wheat, know what No. 1 Manitoba hard means, and they are familiar with each and every Canadian and United States grade; they are not deceived because the quality of the United States No. 1 grade is away below the Canadian grade No. 1. For the life of me I cannot see anything in this proposed legislation, except that we are to confer on the Governor in Council-which in this case means the Minister of Agriculture, as he is head of this Department-power to hamper by regulations as to branding, inspecting and marking of packages of fruit coming into Canada from the United States, the ingress of fruit into this country, notwithstanding the fact that at the present time we have a fairly substantial tariff which amply protects the Canadian fruit grower against the incoming of fruit from the United States and from other countries. We are acting on an assumption that has not been demonstrated by the minister, -and which we have no rieht to accept. We are assuming that the fruit that comes in from the United States into Canada is not properly marked and branded according to the legislation of the country from which it comes. As the minister comes from the province of British Columbia, it is altogether probable that the greatest amount of pressure in connection with this proposed legislation came from the minister's own province, and we can do nothing else than assume 'that this legislation is being placed on our statute book for the express purpose of giving to the minister power to make the shipment of fruit from the United States into western Canada more difficult. We in the western country have sufficent drawbacks to overcome without having burden after burden added to them. Anybody who has lived or travelled in the West is familiar with the very high prices we have to pay for fruit. We are not grumbling, but under the tariff legislation now on our statute-book the British Columbia fruit grower has abundant protection, and 1 certainly object, on behalf of the people of the prairie provinces to any legislation- that will give to the minister or anybody else power to make it more difficult for us to get fruit from outside countries if w'e cannot advantageously get it from the fruit growers in British Columbia.
Mr. WM. SMITH (South Ontario): I do not know that I am an expert on the apple business, but I do know that between 1887 and 1896 I heard gentlemen on the other Mr. NEELY.
side decry in a very forcible way Canadian industries, and say that we should buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. For the last couple of months I have heard hon. gentlemen telling us that we should build our ships in Canada, that they should be built by Canadian people.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Carried.
Mr. SMITH; That they should be built of Canadian material. But when it comes to this, they are prepared to go back upon all their records. All that we ask now is that the Americans or any other foreign people sending fruit into Canada shall be put in the same position as the Canadians, that they must mark their fruit in the same way as we mark ours.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I want to emphasize
one point made by the hon. member for Moosejaw. If the Canadian Government places American fruit under certain regulations is it not possible that these regulations would lead them to decide that it was not worth while packing under Canadian conditions to meet the relatively small trade that they would have in Canada ? Where does the minister propose to place his inspectors ?


Martin Burrell: I do not think there
will be the difficulties the hon. member anticipates. The American packers use boxes of the same cubic measurements inside as ours although they use two packages, the California and the Washington. I think it will be found that when the Americans learn that they must mark according to the requirements of our Act they will do so. The inspectors would naturally be placed at the ports of entry where carloads would come in.


William Erskine Knowles: If conditions were reversed and a foreign country required that we should pack our goods, apples, butter, or whatever it might be, in accordance with their regulations, would it not tend to greatly decrease our exports to that country ?


Martin Burrell: I do not think so.


William Erskine Knowles: The only possible way
in which there can be freedom of trade is for each country to recognize the honesty of the administration of the laws of the other. I am credibly informed that a deputation asked point blank for an increased duty and the minister said that although his sympathies might be such and such, they could not expect an increased duty. Then they came back with the second request, namely that the regulations should be so framed that importation of fruit into this country would be greatly discouraged, and the minister has not denied that under this he has the

power to practically stop the importation of fruit into this country.


Martin Burrell: Oh, no.


William Erskine Knowles: By regulation he may
prescribe the kinds of imported fruits. That would give the minister power to prevent any fruit coming from another country; he could prescribe that it should not be imported. Their kind is not our kind, their conditions and standards are different, and the minister, if he cared to act arbitrarily, would have power to make such regulations as would practically prohibit the coming of that fruit into Canada. 1 object to the power going out of this Parliament to do a thing which is virtually a prohibition of free interchange of any commodity. We had a somewhat similar case in regard to lumber a few years ago when we contended that by regulations the Government were practically increasing the duty on lumber by two or three dollars. The Government replied that the Liberal Government had encouraged smuggling. When the matter was threshed out in the courts it was found that we were right and they were wrong, and that there had been no smuggling at all. Representing the consumers, I am afraid of this legislation and think that things might be left as they are. The people of British Columbia find their markets for fruit and lumber on the prairies, and surely they should be contented as they are. They do not do us any good, but we have nothing against them; but let there be a limit to all things, and do not place any restrictions that will make the procuring of fruit on the prairie still more difficult and expensive.


Mr. C. J. THORNTON (Durham):: The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Knowles) would lead us to believe that the minister, by this amendment, has power to prohibit the importation of fruit. The clause reads:
May prescribe the kind of imported fruits the packages of which must he branded or marked.	(
That is all it does, there is no prohibition whatever. He simply states what kinds of fruits are to be branded and marked. The experience of the last few years has taught us the absolute necessity of stringent inspection to protect the consumers. The evidence that we had before the Committee on Agriculture during this session has been such as to convince us of the necessity of still more stringent inspection in the interest both of the producer and consumer. This amendment aims at more stringent inspection. It simply provides for the kinds of fruit that are to be branded, the brands that are to be used, the places >at which the fruit is to be inspected and the fine that is to be
imposed for violation of the law. That is the simple power that we are putting into the hands of the minister, and, in the interest of both the consumer and producer, it is absolutely necessary in view of the evidence we have had before the Committee on Agriculture. Not only am I surprised at the statements made by some hon. members from the prairie provinces, but, Mr. Chairman, you will have noticed that hon. members from the province of Nova Scotia have nothing to say against this proposed amendment. A demand came from the province of Nova Scotia, as embodied in the evidence before the Agricultural Committee during this last session, for such an amendment to the Act as this. I am surprised at the attitude of hon. members from the western provinces, who so violently opposed this amendment. Without a question imported fruit should be subject to the same inspection and branding as our own home grown fruit.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend (Mr. Thornton) is assuming something that I contend again neither he nor anyone else in this committee has any right to assume. Let us be frank about this legislation and let the minister be frank. The hon. minister who has taken bis seat ought to have been frank also. As long as we understand that this legislation is enacted for the benefit of the fruit grower there will be no false pretences. If the consuming public, if the people who have to buy the fruit, have made strong representations to the minister to have this change made in the regulations, we have had no evidence of it brought before us. We would like to know from the minister if representations have been made. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has assumed exactly what the minister asks us to assume and that without producing any information, evidence or proof of the fact that it is the consumer who requires this protection. If the consumer requires this protection, he is asking for it. Let us have the files, let the minister give us the information as to the deputations of consumers that have asked for this protection from low grade fruit being placed on the markets, or from being imported from other countries, and by which consumers are deceived in the quality of the fruit they purchase.
Mr. JOHN A. BEST (Dufferin): Almost every member of the Committee on Agriculture, from Saskatchewan and Alberta, at the two sittings of the committee that were held during the present session when the question was up for consideration, asked that	there should	be more stringent regulations on fruit coming into the West. I am a member of that commit-

tee and I say that every member asked for a more stringent law.


James McCrie Douglas: They were asked by the fruit growers of Ontario who wanted to be protected from fruit coming into the country.


Mr. BEST:: And by the consumers of the West.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (Algoma West):: With regard to the necessity of more stringent regulations for the marketing of fruit that is imported, I can only speak from my own experience last year in my own riding. I had heard some very strong complaints with regard to the importation of qualities of apples from the American side at Sault Ste. Marie. It was brought to my notice that somebody had imported (this fruit which was unmarked and which was fraudulently packed having regard to the Canadian standards. There were no marks by which the Canadian purchaser could satisfy himself as to what grade of fruit he was buying. The man who imported this fruit palmed off on unsuspecting purchasers at a price below the .ordinary prices a large quantity of these spurious goods. The barrels and boxes were so packed that the best fruit appeared at the top. For a while this gentleman did a land office business, but when the people found they had been mulcted the man disappeared. Acting on behalf of the consumer, the man who had been cheated by the absence of 'any such protection -as is provided for by this resolution, I immediately brought the matter to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) to send an inspector to examine the fruit and I am quite sure the inspector will corroborate my statement as to the condition of affairs. There is one instance that occurs to me personally in which the consumers would have been protected by such legislation as this and to my mind it is sufficient to show that (this proposed amendment is absolutely necessary.
Eesolution reported, read the first and the second time and agreed to.
Mr. BURRELL moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 199, to amend the Inspection and Sale Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane
(Minister of Railways and Canals) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Railway Act, and to provide that the Chief Mr. BEST.
Commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada shall be paid an annual salary of $12,600.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is anything'being done for the other commissioners, or only for the chief?


Francis Cochrane: It has not been thought wise at the present time to changq the salaries of any of the others. I may say that I had agreed with the late Judge Mabee to raise his salary to this amount. The present chairman of the board left a salary of $14,000 a year to come here, and he came without any promise at all as to getting an increase. This Court is in some respects the most important court in the land, and it possibly comes closer to the wants of the people than any other. I feel that we are not asking too much in asking that the Chief Commissioner's salary should be raised to this amount. When the Bill is introduced it will contain a provision precluding the railway companies from changing terminal points without considering the interest of the men who are located at these terminal points. I do not feel that the general consolidation of the Railway Act can be gone on with this session, but I think it will protect the railway employees from anything that may occur as to the changing of these terminal points before next session. There will he included in the Bill a provision with respect to that.


William Findlay Maclean: I have no objection to increasing the salary of the chief commissioner, but I would like to have included in this Bill an amendment transferring to Parliament certain questions that are now supposed to be referred to the board. I do not believe that we can obtain from this Board of Railway Commissioners that removal of grievances in connection with transportation which the people call for. To-day the grievances, especially in the West, as to an inequality of rates, whether freight, or telegraph, or express charges, are supposed to be dealt with by the Board of Railway Commissioners, but I did hope we would have legislation introduced this session which would take out of the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission these matters and have the principle declared by this Parliament that there should be equality of no-t only railway rates but telegraph and express rates all over the country. For over two years we have had this question up before the Railway Board and relief is not yet in sight. We maintain this Railway Commission at great expense; it is travelling all over the country; it is taking a lot of evidence, and it is doing everything but granting that relief which the needs of the country call for. I believe,

Sir, that relief in the end can only come from Parliament, and the people are looking for that relief from Parliament. The underlying principle of freight charges in this country should not be a matter for the Railway Commission hut for Parliament to decide. The differences in equality in freight rates should be dealt with by Parliament and not be left to the Commission. If we had a principle of that kind incorporated in our legislation we know that the Canadian Pacific railway could afford to reduce its freight charges and other charges in the West by probably forty per cent, and still make large profits for its shareholders. But, we are told we cannot have equality of freight charges in Canada because we have two other railways which cannot stand the competition which would result. If that is the case Parliament must settle that and the Railway Commission cannot settle it. It may be that Parliament will be able to find some kind of cmpensation for these other two companies, which we are told were to be competitive, and which now confess they cannot be competitive as against equality of rates all over the country. I regret we have not that legislation a present. I appreciate what the minister says, that circumstances have occurred which perhaps prevented in a way the consolidation of the Railway Act this year but I do take this opportunity to again assert that the only relief for this large and substantial grievance that exists in western Canada can only come from Parliament. That commission is taking any amount of evidence; we have multiplied counsel to associate themselves with these cases; the provinces of the West have employed counsel as well, and all kinds of documents are presented to the board, but the Railway Commissioners could not settle the policy with respect to this matter, even if we pay them $25,000 a year. The only hope of relief must come in the way of legislation by this Parliament embodying the principle in legislation that equality of freight rates must obtain, and that all the people of Canada who are equal contributors to the subsidizing of railways are entitled to equal treatment from these railways. I am told that the Railway Commission to-day is delaying because they are afraid to take a stand on principle and a stand on policy. If that is the case, the Railway Commission, no matter how well it is paid, is not doing what it was expected to do. In the United States, the Railway Commission there is barred by certain constitutional limitations, but still they are giving some relief, but immediate relief is not in sight for us today and it will never come from the Railway Commission. Parliament must lay down the underlying principle. Look at the widespread classification of freight that the railways have drawn up themselves and
imposed on this country. It is almost impossible now to have that classification simplified in the interests of the shipper, and Parliament ought to put in the Railway Act a principle supporting the idea of simple classification. The commission is growing in size, growing in numbers, growing in salaries, growing in the number of lawyers that are retained, and I am told that the lawyers for the railway companies are coming to the hearing of this case with big trunkfuls of briefs and evidence which has not been digested, and which, if it is digested, cannot be handled in a satisfactory way by the Railway Commission. My protest may be feeble, I am speaking only for myself, but I say the conviction that is growing on the people of Canada is that the railway grievances in their substantial form must be approached in Parliament, and relief must come immediately from Parliament if it is to be effective. Relief is not in sight to-day, and I have not seen anybody who can give a satisfactory reason to the people of Canada why this discrimination in railway charges should prevail against the West in favour of the East; nor can anybody tell me now that that enormously rich corporation, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, should not forthwith reduce their rates. I believe they are willing to do so if a way can be found to make them do it. If that concession involves some temporary and unfair discrimination against the other two roads, then Parliament may find a way of compensation. The Railway Commission cannot find the method of compensation; they cannot devise the policy necessary to meet the case. Therefore, while I admit the ability of the Chairman and the good services which he has rendered to the commission, that commission have made no substantial headway in dealing with the great question of the inequality of rates, of simplifying the classification of rates, and are not in a position to define a policy that ought to underly railway charges in this country, because the charges are not split up into state charges as they are in the States, with more or less state jurisdiction over them. Parliament has unlimited power; it has delegated that power to the commission, but the policy has not been delegated. We can never get a commission, po matter how much energy they display, to come to a conclusion in favour of equality in rates. The West is entitled to equal freight rates and, by reason of that overflowing treasury, of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to that reduction which we were promised years ago and to which we are entitled, as I believe and have always contended, according to the original charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway

Company. I again direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and the Government to the fact that the relief that the West calls for will not come from the commission but from some kind of action by this House, led by the Minister af Railways, by amendments to the Railway Act.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am pleased to see that the Government are recognizing the important services of the Chairman of the Railway Commission by incrasing his salary in accordance with the responsibility of his position. I am only sorry that the great services of Mr. Justice Mabee were not recognized in a similar fashion. We have a capable man at the head of the Railway Commission, and I think he deserves this increase.
I would be very sorry to see the question of freight rates dragged into this House and wrangled out here. No time would be saved by any such experiment. I can imagine a committee of this House listening for weeks and months to trunkfuls of evidence and trying to fathom this very intricate question. I do not agree with my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean). I think the question is in the proper hands, and I have no doubt that the commission will satisfy the people of the country in their findings, as soon as it is possible for them to complete their labours. They have a great many questions constantly before them. I presume in time, as the importance of the Railway Commission increases, as it must, owing to the increased prosperity of the country, that tire other members of the commission will also be recognized.


Mr. R. LANCTOT (Lapraire-Napierville):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, as a farmer and as representing the county of Lapraire-Napierville, entirely inhabited by a farming community, I wish to enter a protest, in their name, against this resolution asking that the salary of the chairman of the Railway Commission be increased from $10,000 to $12,500 per annum. The first reason of my opposition is that the highest salary paid, in this country, to a public officer, that is to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, is but $10,000, and the fact that the Prime Minister himself gets but $12,000. I fail to see why the chairman of the Railway Commission should get a higher salary than the Prime Minister or the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
I may add that there are other members of that commission who get $8,000 each, per annum.
If the hon. Minister of Railways is still the head of that department next year, he will, perhaps, apply for an increase in behalf of the other four commis-Mr. W. P. MACLEAN (South York).
sioners who, I think, are already well paid. By the way, I may say that the Government is always desirous of favouring the big fellows. We have, in the civil service, many employees who get modest salaries, varying from one thousand to twelve or fifteen hundred dollars per annum, men who have families to bring up, as those high grade officers have, and nevertheless, nobody ever talks of an increase in their behalf, whereas we are increasing by $2,500, at one stroke, the salary of just one man whom we have recently appointed chairman of the commission. This is doing an injustice to all the other employees of the country. For that reason, I am against the resolution now before you, Mr. Chairman, and I propose:
That $12,500 be struck out of the resolution and $10,000 be inserted in place thereof.


Francis Cochrane: In reply to my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), I know that the commission appointed by my predecessor have for some time been investigating the question of telephone and telegraph lines and have not yet reported. I have endeavoured to bring this investigation to a close so as to give effect to whatever finding the commission may make. They will report very soon in reference to western freight rates. When discussing this subject here the other day, a number of hon. members felt that a case had been made, showing inequality of rates in the West. There is no doubt about that. The Chairman of the Commission tells me there are 230,000 different tariff rates to be considered. Anyone who thinks of that will shudder at the idea of this House trying to go through and to adjust this enormous number of rates. It may seem that they have been investigating this question for a long time, but I feel that, in order to go through all this detail and to get the rates on an equal basis, the commission are not taking too long. I am quite safe in saying that within a couple of months they will bring in a ruling in reference to the question of rates.
In reference to the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Lanctot), the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does not get more than $10,000 is no reason why the members of the Railway Commission, which comes so closely into contact with the public, should not be well paid. I feel that our Supreme Court judges do not get enough. That does not come under my department. I hope the time will come when the Supreme Court judges will be better paid, because we cannot expect in a young country like this, to get good men capable of filling these very important positions unless we are prepared to give them a decent living. And, as the cost of living, which is so much talked about in this

country has gone up, what was good enough for this position ten years ago, $10,000 a year, is not equal to that now. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. gentleman.


William Ashbury Buchanan: May I ask the minister if any arrangement has been made or is being made that a superannuation allowance shall be granted to the retiring members of the Railway Commission? I understand that these men were appointed for ten years, subject to re-appointment. And some of the members are getting old, and when their time expires, they will not be looking for re-appointment. I would like to know if the minister has decided upon any superannuation for retiring members of the commission?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether
the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) is aware, but special provision was made in the case of two gentlemen who filled the position of chairman of the commission. Mr. Justice Killam, and Mr. Justice Mabee were both gentlemen who had been on the Bench for some years. When they were appointed to the position of chairmen to the Railway Commission, special provision was made that their service as chairmen should count in respect of their superannuation. They had partially earned their superannuation as judges, but their service as chairmen of the commission was to count. That, roughly speaking, was the effect of the arrangement. Outside of that there has never been any provision for superannuation allowance for the members of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada.


David Bradley Neely: The Prime Minister replying to the hon. member for Medicine Hat gave some information as to two gentlemen who had been taken from the Bench to become chairmen of the Board of Railway Commissioners. But that is not all that the hon. gentleman asked


Francis Cochrane: No superannuation allowance has been made for any others.


David Bradley Neely: I understand that. But 1 think the hon. member for Medicine Hat was asking if the Government were considering any plan to provide superannuation for these gentlemen. Take, for instance, the present chairman; he was not taken from the Bench, but was taken from his practice which he had to give up, and separating himself from that practice for ten years, will break up his connection. And the other members of the commission are in the same position. I would like to know whether the Government have anything in view to make provision for that.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I was asking also in regard to members of the Board of Railway Commissioners who are retiring within a few years at the expiry of their term of appointment, ten years.


Francis Cochrane: No provision made for them.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no provision
under the law at present, except in the case to which I have alluded, and I have always understood that the two gentlemen whom I mentioned declined to accept the chairmanship of the commission except on a provision of that kind. There has been no such arrangement made for the new Chairman, nor, I think could there have been an arrangement of that kind entered into, because he had not been a member of the Judicial Bench. It is perfectly true as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Buchanan), has mentioned, that appointment to the Board of Railway Commissioners does not carry with it an opportunity for a retiring allowance as does an appointment to the Bench. It is also perfectly true that unless the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada is taken from the Judicial Bench as a man of experience and ability must be selected, it is usually true that he must give up a very much larger income than even that provided by the amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways. These are matters for consideration. My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely), has asked whether the Government has any announcement to make on the subject. At the present time, I cannot say the Government has reached any conclusion on the subject, nor has there been very much opportunity to consider it, but we will not forget what the hon. gentleman has suggested in that regard, and later we may have an opportunity to give it more consideration than it has had up to this time. However, I do not want to be understood as committing the Government to the proposal that there shall be a superannuation or an allowance. The subject has not been considered and we are not in a position to make an announcement now.


William Pugsley: I am inclined to think that it would be difficult to get a first class man as Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, a position which does not carry with it any superannuation allowance, for a salary less than the salary proposed, $12,500. But I think the Government ought to consider the salaries of all the judicial or semi-judicial positions with a view to having something like an equality in those salaries. It seems somewhat absurd for a man in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island, a chief justice, and these gentlemen like some of the puisne judges, are men of great ability, to be given only $7,000 a year, while a gentleman holding the position of Chairman of the Railway Commission, presumably of no greater ability than some of these others, receives nearly double the salary. There is an anomaly also in the

members of the International Waterways Commission. That is a tribunal which ought to be, if it is filled toy good men who separate themselves entirely from the ordinary political and legal work, ought to command the respect of the people of both countries and ought to be one of the most valuable tribunals ever created in any country to settle questions arising between two countries. These gentlemen receive $7,500. But I understand they are allowed to practise their profession. One
fentleman I know, a very important mem-er of the commission may be hearing an important international case to-day and to-morrow may be carrying on a case in the county court. I do say that not only does that detract from the standing of the International Waterways Court, but it enables a member of that court who receives $7,500 to earn a great deal more from his professional work, making his income double that of a Supreme Court judge. It is always discouraging to a judge of the highest court to find a gentleman occupying a judicial position appointed to a tribunal of no great importance getting a greater salary than a judge of the highest court in the country receives. I think there should be some effort to arrive at an equality in the salaries in order to do justice to the gentlemen occupying these high positions, and so that the best men can be obtained. So far as the resolution is concerned, I for one am inclined to think the amount is not too large.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will no doubt appreciate the fact that the members of the commission, to whom he has alluded, are appointed for a period which may not exceed five years, and in addition to that, 'the position does not carry superannuation. The course which was adopted with regard to the three gentlemen appointed was, I think, that laid down by the late Government.


William Pugsley: I do not think there was any Order in Council passed on the subject. When the matter came before me I informed one of the gentlemen at all events, Mr. Barnhill, that he would be expected to devote all his time to the work.


Robert Laird Borden: I speak subject to correction, but I am certainly under the impression that I found some record of the then Prime Minister's statement that they would not be debarred from practicing. I quite agree that I do not recollect any Order in Council to that effect, but I think that was the policy as I understood it.


William Pugsley: Perhaps I might refresh my right hon. friend's memory. I think he will find a letter from Sir George Gib-Mr. PUGSLEY.
bons in which he stated that he preferred being employed by the day. The Order in Council passed by the late Government, however, provided for an annual salary of $7,500.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember that. I have a distinct recollection-unless I am greatly mistaken-of a letter from Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the effect that I have just mentioned.


William Pugsley: Possibly there may have been.
Amendment (Mr. Lanctot) negatived.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.
Mr. COCHRANE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 200, to amend the Railway Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the consideration of Bill No. 21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire, as amended in Committee of the Whole-Mr. Borden:
William Pugsley: I rise to object to this Bill being taken into consideration at the present time. I would like to call my right hon. friend's attention to the fact that he gave the right hon. leader of the Opposition a memorandum of certain bills that would come up for consideration at this sitting. When the leader of the Opposition informed me that it would not toe convenient for him to be here, he called my attention to the list handed to him by the Prime Minister, and this Bill was not among them.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the right hon. gentleman under the impression that this Bill would not come up?


William Pugsley: I am satisfied he must have been.


Robert Laird Borden: Then we will not go on.


THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House went into Committee 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 the Chairman and secretary to the Commission, who shall have the rank and salary of a deputy head of a department.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. BELAND:: This does not increase
the number of salaried officials?


Robert Laird Borden: No. It lias been suggested that instead of appointing a secretary, one of the present officials mi^ht foe appointed as assistant to the Chairman and secretary to the Commission, with a view to his discharging as a permanent official, some of the duties now assumed by the Chairman, and doing more useful and effective work than he has been able to do under the present system. The Bill ,as proposed to be introduced has been commended to my consideration by Mr. Sifton, the Chairman of the Commission. I consulted him and Mr. White, the secretary, before deciding to bring this measure before the House. Mr. Sifton is thoroughly of the opinion that more effective work could foe done if this measure were passed and if the 'staff of the Commission were reorganized to that extent.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The appointment of a
deputy head will mean the addition of one official?


Robert Laird Borden: It does not mean the
addition of an official; it means that one of
the officials Who is now employed by the commission will receive a different status
and a slightly increased salary. It is not the intention to appoint any additional officials-at least no such intention has been communicated to me.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.
Mr. BORDEN thereupon moved far leave to introduce Bill No. 204, to amend the Conservation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	.

William Pugsley: For fear my right hon. friend may misunderstand me about item number 6, I have spoken to the chief whip on our side. While it is true that the leader of the Opposition showed me on the Order Paper to day my right hon. friend's reference and number 6 was not included, yet the chief whip of this side siays that there was no agreement that it would not be taken up. I think it only right to mention that to my right hon. friend, so that he will understand that that is the position.


Robert Laird Borden: In the absence of the
right hon. leader of the Opposition, and in view of the objection raised by my hon. friend, I would not proceed without his consent. I am perfectly ready to proceed, and would prefer to do so, but I do not want to be understood as taking the slightest advantage of the absence of the leader of the Opposition.


William Pugsley: The difficulty is that the
chief whip of this side told the chief
whip of the Conservative side that we would be willing to go on. I am perfectly willing to waive my objection in view of that understanding.


Mr. PARDEE:: It is only Tight to say, so far as any agreement is concerned, the Government are at perfect liberty to proceed with number 6, and I think the chief whip of the Government will bear me out in this. There was some talk at six o'clock, and I distinctly stated that if the Government saw fit to proceed with the measure, so far as we were concerned, we would be quite willing to proceed. I make that statement so that there may be no misunderstanding whatever.
On the order being called for the consideration of Bill No. 21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire, as amended in Committee of the Whole-Mr. Borden:


Robert Laird Borden: That the said Bill, as amended, be now considered.
Mr. PUGSLEY, in amendment, moved:
That Bill 21, entitled 1 an Act to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire,' be not now considered, but that the same be referred back to a Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of considering an amendment proposed thereto by Mr. Carroll, the member for South Cape Breton, and likewise for the purpose of having the said Bill, with any amendment or amendments, regularly and properly reported to the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not consider this amendment in order. It seems to me it should set out that the Bill he amended in some special direction, and if necessary give "the proposed amendment. It does not do so; it says: 'an amendment proposed by Mr. Carroll.'


William Pugsley: The reason why I make my motion is that the report of the committee has not yet been received by the House, is not properly before the House, and not properly on the Order Paper. You have only to look at ' Hansard ' to ascertain that. As a matter of fact, when the chairman of the_ committee handed yon the Bill you put the question to the House: when shall the report be received? and immediately my right hon. friend the Prime Minister moved the adjournment of the House, so that no order was passed by the House for the reception of the report, and therefore it is not in a position to be taken into consideration. That is one ground. I would call Your Honour's attention to page 9827 of ' Hansard.' This is what took place. After some discussion with regard to the report of the committee,

which I felt it my duty to allege was not in accordance with the facts, I said:
Mr. Pugsley: The Chairman made a false report to you.	.	,
Mr. Speaker:	When shall this report he
received ?
That is the question Your Honour put. Some hon. meinbers cried out: 'No, don t receive it.' My right hon. friend then moved immediately the adjournment of the House. That is the statement in Hansard.' Mr. Borden moved the adjournment of the House. Then the question was put, and Your Honour declared the motion for adjournment carried, so that the report is not properly upon the Order Paper.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the question was asked, I immediately followed it by stating :	' At the next sitting of the House.
I remember stating that because I was not aware whether it was the desire to consider it at that sitting or at the next sitting of the House, and the clerk reminded me of the order, and I left it at that. I think it would be in order to move that the report be not now considered, but that the Bill be referred back for further consideration; but I do not think that the proposed amendment is regular ot that it would be in ordeT.


William Pugsley: Would Your Honour allow me to discuss that briefly?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Pugsley: I was addressing myself to His Honour the Speaker. I do not think it is quite in order or in keeping with the dignity of the House for any gentleman, when the Speaker is appealed to, to call out and in that way intimate what the Speaker should do. When a gentleman says no, that is rather a reflection upon the Speaker I was appealing to His Honour the Speaker as the impartial presiding officer of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I remember very distinctly, and I can refer to the clerk, who came up and spoke to me about it, as I said I was not aware whether it was desired to proceed with the consideration at that sitting: The rule says:
All amendments made in committee are reported by the Chairman to the House, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the Bill is open to debate and amendment, before it is. ordered for a third readin". But when a Bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the House.


William Pugsley: Of course, I cannot dispute Your Honour's word and if Your Honour feels sure that you have a recollection of it, I would not. All I can say is that I did not hear you, and certainly Mr. PUGSLEY.
' Hansard ' did not and I doubt if any hon. member heard you.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite sure that
the House must have heard me, and I can appeal to the clerk, who stood beside me. I was not aware whether it was the desire to deal with it then or at a future time, and he reminded me that it must be at the next sitting of the House. I repeated that quite loudly.


William Pugsley: To be accurate, I
might say, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing in ' Hansard ' beyond what I have said. There is another reason why I claim that the amendment should not be considered to-night, and it is this-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to understand where we are. If the hon. member is speaking on this motion, of course, he could not do so, because I have held that it is not in order. But if he makes the motion that the Bill be referred back for further consideration, he will be in order and can speak on it.


William Pugsley: With Your Honour's
permission I will change the motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have the Votes and
Proceedings before me, and they say that:
' The Bill was reported with an amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House.'


William Pugsley: We are in this position, that it does not appear to have been accepted according to ' Hansard. The Votes and Proceedings say that it was. They are made up afterwards by the clerk. Your Honour's recollection is that it was. Then, I beg to move:
That Bill No. 21, an Act to authorize measures for increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire, be not now considered but that the same be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for further consideration.
In support of this motion I would like to call Your Honour's attention to the fact that, before the report was submitted to Your Honour, there were two motions before the committee. One was an amendment by my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) to the effect that Canadian materials should be used, in so far as practicable, in the construction of the vessels provided for by the Bill. The Chairman refused to allow the member for South Cape Breton to place that amendment before the committee. I submit that it was illegal and irregular for him to refuse. I am sure you will see the importance of it because, if the Chairman was right, then all that the Government has to do is to postpone from one day to another the various clauses of a Bill, then take advantage

of the opportunity immediately to rise, move that the committee report the Bill and in that way absolutely prevent any member of the House from moving an additional section, or additional sections, to the Bill. The effect of making a motion that further consideration of different sections be postponed and that they shall be the first business considered upon the date to which the consideration is postponed, prevents the consideration of any additional sections which may be proposed until the clauses, the consideration of which has been postponed, have been disposed of. Therefore, it absolutely prevents any private members of the House from suggesting any additional sections for the consideration of the committee. The Chairman held that the hon. member for South Cape Breton should not have the opportunity of putting that amendment. Now, I submit that he was clearly wrong. But further, Sir, when he was about putting the motion that the Bill be reported, I moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. That is a very important motion. If it had carried it would have superseded the motion of the right hon. the Prime Minister and would have left the matter open for my hon. friend from South Cape Breton, or for any other hon. member to again seek to claim the Chairman's ear for the purpose of proposing an additional section. It clearly appears upon ' Hansard ' that the motion was put and 1 desire to say upon mv responsibility as a member of this House that the Chairman undoubtedly heard the motion, because he actually put the motion to the committee and immediately afterwards changed it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member is now getting upon ground which would have_ to be approached in another way. Bourinot, at page 280, says, in reference to the Chair:
If a member wishes to challenge his action or conduct, he must proceed in the usual way, by giving notice of a motion on the subject.
Therefore, if the aim of the hon. member is to deal with the Chairman's conduct, it would not be permissible for him to do it in that way. It would be necessary for him to move a substantive motion after giving the usual notice.


William Pugsley: I am not challenging
the conduct or motives of the Chairman. I am not reflecting upon his motives.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. gentleman is challenging his action, and that is the same thing. The action of the Chairman cdnnot be discussed in this irregular way.


William Pugsley: The motion which Your Honour Tefers to is a .notion the obiect of
which would be to censure the Chairman. But, my motion goes farther than that; my motion goes to the foundation of the report to Your Honour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The rule says:	'If a
member wishes to challenge his action.' If that is not challenging the Chairman's action I do not know what plain English means and therefore it would be improper. I think the hon. member would be quite in order to make the motion which he proposes and to support that without challenging the conduct of the Chair.


William Pugsley: Well, I will simply
state the facts for Your Honour as I understand that is what Your Honour means. A motion, a3 I have said, was made that the Chairman leave the Chair. That motion was made under rule 15 which has not been altered by the resolution that was passed by a majority of the House. Rule 15 is as follows:
A motion that the Chairman leave the Chair, is always in order, and shall take precedence of any other motion.
My contention is that that motion having
been moved, as appears by ' Hansard ' and, as I stated, on my responsibility as a member of this House, it was the duty of the Chairman, under the rules, to have put it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I call the hon. member to order, because he is violating in the same way the principle that I have already twice referred to. The hon. member is quite in order to move that the Bill be referred back; but I am quite sure that he is not in order when doing that in questioning either the motives or the action of the Chairman. That can only be done in the proper way.


William Pugsley: How can I get it back unless I show Your Honour there has been an irregularity and illegality in the proceedings?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A Bill may be referred back many times without giving any special reason other than that it is the desire to amend it in some direction by adding a clause or in some other way. It is a very common practice to refer a Bill back, and it does not require that it should be made the occasion of a reflection on the regularity of the conduct of the Chairman or the propriety of his action. There was a proposed amendment read by the hon. member (Mr. Carroll) which it would be quite competent to read again, and to give it as a reason why it is desired to refer the Bill back.


William Pugsley: Do I understand Your Honour to say that as a reason for referring the Bill back I cannot show that the

Chairman acted contrary to the rules of the House, and that in the case of a motion which supersedes another motion, he illegally and improperly ignored it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I think the hon.
gentleman is too old a parliamentarian to speak in that way; he is giving a very ba.d example to younger members. The rule is so plain and so easily understood that it should be conformed to.


William Pugsley: I can remember a time when judges used to almost commit lawyers for contempt of court because they challenged the decisions of the court, but in modem days that idea is regarded as barbarous. Every lawyer has to-day the right to criticise judgments and to show error in these judgments, and surely in this age-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have given my ruling on this point, and if the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) is not satisfied, he can appeal to the House. But, I must insist on maintaining the rules of the House.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, my experience in the past has shown me there is not much use appealing to the House. I understand that Yout Honour refuses to allow me to show that the Chairman ignored the motion that he leave the Chair. Is that Your Honour's ruling?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My ruling is that an
hon. member cannot reflect on the Chair or call in question the action of the Chair, except in the regular way.


Frank Oliver: There is a belief in the
minds of a large number of the members in this House that the Chairman did not properly report this Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Oliver: That belief being in their minds and the Bill therefore not being properly before the House in its present stage, I would ask Your Honour what remedy is the House to have, believing that its rules have been broken?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The remedy is to give
notice of a motion to call in question the conduct of the Chair, and then the House, if it so wills, can rectify its own conduct in such way as it sees fit. That is the remedy and the proper one.


Henri Sévérin Béland: But if the Bill has
passed.


Frank Oliver: I think all of us on this side of the House wish to draw a distinction between the passage of the Bill according to the rules of the House, and any question there may be in regard to the propriety of the action of the Chairman. The two matters are in our minds distinct. We Mr. PUGSLEY.
are prepared, if it is necessary, to challenge the action of the Chairman, but the main point is to nave a thorough understanding as to what the rules of the House-mean, and what their effect is, as illustrated by this concrete case, and we want to know then if it is Your Honour's ruling that this Bill is properly before the House and if it is not we want to have the procedure taken that will put it before the House properly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is to my mind the
easiest thing in the world to make a motion to refer the Bill back. If that is agreed to, the Bill will be before the committee as it was, and then a remedy can be had if it is regarded as not having been properly reported to the House. So far as I know, in my judgment, it is properly reported to the House. That is so far as I know, but I was not cognizant of everything that took place. But if there is anything to rectify, the thing to do is to refer the Bill back and put it in the position it was in before.


Frank Oliver: That is the point. We are not anxious to refer it back for the purpose of amendment; we are anxious to refer it back because it is improperly in its present stage before the House, and in order to give reasons why it should be referred back we have to give a statement as to how it comes to be in its present stage, without desiring to reflect upon any person's action.


William Pugsley: Let me clearly understand. Your Honour will see that in order to ask to have the Bill referred back we have to convince the majority of this House that it should be referred back; and what better way can you point out in which we can induce the majority so to believe than to show if I can that the chairman had illegally reported the Bill. I am sure the House then would feel it its duty to rectify the error of the chairman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In doing that, the hon. member must see that he is reflecting directly on the Chair, and the rule says that cannot be done in that way.


William Pugsley: Bless my soul; if the
facts reflect on the Chair, so much the worse for the Chair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am endeavouring to
keep the procedure within proper lines so far as I can, and in accordance with the rules.


William Erskine Knowles: Would it be out of
order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members of this House were to criticise the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and the right hon. the Prime Minister, showing that they had dictated to the Chair and made a tool of the Chair ? Would that be in order, criticising not the Chairman, but these hon. members ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It certainly would not
be in order.


Frank Oliver: If I may again trespass- I am aware that I am trespassing, but I do it with your permission, Mr. Speaker- if it is the belief of a large minority of the members of this House that the rules which are on the order book for the purpose of regulating the business of the House, in the protection of the lights of the minority as well as in the assertion of the rights of the majority- if they believe, I say, that these rules have been violated, and if they can show properly and plainly that they have been violated, is there no remedy within the rules of the House ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a remedy by doing as I have suggested from the first, namely, to put a notice on the paper and discuss it until the House reaches a conclusion as to what is right to be done in the premises. That is the proper remedy.


William Pugsley: Would the Bill be allowed to stand in the meantime ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know about
that.


Frank Oliver: I would respectfully urge that it is a question that affects the position of the Bill. If we are not entitled t-o discuss it in connection with the Bill then the Bill should certainly stand until we have settled this question, because it is a matter	that goes to the
very root of the rights of the House. We should have the point settled before it is applied to this particular Bill. 1 take it that it is the desire of everybody that having rules we shall have the benefit of them, either assisting us in our views or protecting us in our rights. The other night, Mr. Speaker, you appealed to us for order, for the maintenance of the prerogatives of the House and for the support of the rules. Every person, who has the responsibility of representing the people of this country in Parliament, must be desirous of having the business of the House carried on with due decoroum and due respect to the rules; but we must have the belief that the rules are properly interpreted, or we cannot be expected to give to the rulings that respect that is absolutely necessary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the
motion to refer back the Bill to committee does not necessarily mean a reflection on the Chair. We are simply asking to have it referred back, because in our judgment an error in procedure was rpade. I would like to have your Honour's opinion on this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not understand the hon. member. I see no difficulty in discussing the motion to refer the Bill back, but I do see strong grounds against reflecting upon the conduct of the Chair, or discussing the conduct of the Chair without giving due notice and putting it in proper form. The other day an hon. member, when the Chairman had made a ruling, said that the leader of the Government had not the floor. No one but the Chairman has the Tight to say who has the floor. The only way in which his ruling can be challenged, if two members get up at the same time, is to move that the other member has the floor. To flatly contradict the Chairman, to say that his ruling is not correct and to discuss the question, seems to me to be very much out of order.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Had he not recognized
the member for South Cape Breton?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Chairman, as I understood it, did not say that he recognized any person; he merely said that the leader of the Government had the floor.


William Erskine Knowles: The member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) said that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was for the Chairman, and not for anybody else to say who had the floor. The only way to challenge his ruling would be to move that the other member be now heard.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Oliver: We are at the Speaker's discretion. I take it for granted that the Speaker is anxious that we should have this matter adjusted amicably.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The motion is to refer
the Bill back to the committee and, unless the hon. member is speaking to the motion, he is out of order.


Frank Oliver: The question before the
House at the present time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Oliver: Absolutely with your permission, Sir, the question before the House at the present time is as to whether the rules have been maintained or whether they have been broken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I must call the hon. member to order. That is not the motion before the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Frank Oliver: There are too many men [DOT]on this side of the House-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The motion
which I read from the Chair was that the Bill be referred back. That motion, which was moved by the hon. member for St. John, is the question before the House.
REVISED EDITION [DOT]


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, you
stopped me from giving reasons. You stopped me from discussing the conduct of the Chairman in ignoring my motion that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. That is the point of order which the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is discussing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The point of order, if it may be called a point of order, was settled long ago. I ruled against it.


William Pugsley: Then I appeal from
your Honour's decision to the House.
The question having been put as follows:
Mr. Pugsley moved that Bill No. 21 as amended be referred back to Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Mr. Speaker ruled that an hon. member could not discuss the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee in the matter of reporting the Bill. Mr. Pugsley appealed from the ruling of the Chair.
House divided on the question: shall the ruling of the Chair be confirmed?
YEAS:
Carroll,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Delisle,
Demers,
Douglas,
Fortier,
Gauthier (St. Hyacinthe), Gauvreau, Knowles,
Kyte,
Lanetot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Law,
Lemieux,
Macdonald,
MaeNutt,
Martin, (Montreal,
(Ste. Mary's), M'iehaud,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Proulx,
Reid (Restigouche), Ricfliards,
Robb,
Sinclair,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Turgeon,
Warnoek,
White
(Victoria, Alta.)-37.


Francis Cochrane: I beg to state that I
was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of
the Chair.


William Pugsley: I was paired with the
hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the Chair.
Messieurs
Alguire,
Armstrong (Eambton) Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boyce,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Crothers,
Currie,
Davidson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Foster (King's N.S.), Fowler,
Fripp,
Garland,
Girard,
Green,
Hartt,
Henderson,
J ameson,
Lancaster,
Lewis,
McKay,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Merner,
Morphy,
Morrison,
Munson,
N an tel,
Nicholson,
Paquet,
Pelletier,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Robidoux,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thornton,
Walker,
Wallace,
Webster,
Weichel,
White (Renfrew), Wright.-74.
NAYS:
Messieurs.
Boivin,	McKenzie,
Bureau,	Marcile (Bagot),
Mr. SPEAKER.


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the-
Minister of Justice.


Mr. AIKINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff).


Mr. NORTHRUP:: I was paired with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. CROCKET:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Car-veil). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.
Ruling confirmed.
On the motion of Mr. Pugsley in amendment, that the Bill be referred back for further consideration:


Henri Sévérin Béland: I wish to give you a reason why this Bill should be referred back to a Committee of the Whole for further consideration. In order to have this reason well understood, I must read a few extracts from the debate which took place on Friday. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) had the floor, speaking on a sub-amendment to clause 2 he said:
I beg to move that the following he added as section 7 of the Bill. _
Whenever practicable, in the construction of the ships provided under this Act, the contractors or builders shall he hound to accept steel and other materials produced in Canada at the current prices for the time) being in Canada.
After the hon. member had read this proposed clause, the Chairman rose and said: The Chairman:	I think it would be more
advisable if the hon. member would defer

his motion until we have disposed of clause 6. There is an amendment and a sub-amendment to clause 3.
That appeared to be quite reasonable. Then we proceeded to the time of the sitting when clause 6 was disposed of. After section 6 was agreed to:
Mr. Borden: I beg to move Mr. Chairman, that the Bill be reported as amended.
Mr. Carroll:	This afternoon I intimated
that I proposed to make a motion adding another clause to the Bill.
Mr. Meighen:	I rise to a point of order.
Some hon. Members:	Order; sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Let the hon. member state his point of order. A point of order is always in order.
Mr. Meighen:	My point of order is that
the Prime Minister having moved that we report an amendment cannot be moved.
So, you will see that the hon. member for St. John has good cause to move that this Bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration. And while I am on this point, I would like to know from you under what rule the motion has to be made to report a Bill from the Com mittee of the Whole. I have been in this House for a great many years, and I have attended the consideration of numberless Bills in Committee of the Whole, and I have always noticed that after all the clauses had been considered the Chairman, as a measure of precaution, says, 'Shall I report the Bill?' We all understood that question as having been put in view of the fact that some hon. member had wished to add a clause to the Bill. I do not see how he could ignore that fact, because I well remember that the right hon. gentleman was present when the hon. member for South Cape Breton attempted to move that clause. But be that as it may, he moved, to report the Bill, and then Mr. Carroll moved to add a clause, and the right to move that motion was denied to the hon. member. So you will see, the ground is indeed very strong upon which he should appeal to the House to refer this Bill to the committee for further consideration. No one in that debate had been able to point to anything under the new rules which could stop my hon. friend-


Mr. LANCASTER:: Except that two
o'clock in the morning had arrrived.


Henri Sévérin Béland: But the two-o'clock-inthe-morning part of the rule does not preclude the hon. member from moving an additional sub-clause. That rule bears only on the clauses with regard to which notice has been given at a previous sitting. Surely no notice was given upon this additional clause, because nobody knew about it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would say, with regard to the question the hon. member puts, as to the regularity of procedure in making
the motion, that the best authorities we have on parliamentary procedure say that every question that is settled before the House is either directly or presumably on motion. A question is settled except on the basis of a motion.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Before the House, you
say, Mr. Speaker?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the House or
Committee. In that case ' the House ' includes the Committee. All questions are settled upon a motion, whether the motion is specified at the time or not.
Motion (Mr. Pugsley) 'oat on division.
Amendment to the Bill read the second time, and concurred in.
Mr. BORDEN moved the adjournment of the House. He said:	We will take the
third reading to-morrow.


William Pugsley: There is a motion of
which the hon. member for Pictou will give notice.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 13, 1913.