Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received a notification of a vacancy having occurred in the representation of the electoral district of Chateauguay, by the death of *James Pollock Brown, Esq., member for the said electoral district, and that I have issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has the Quebec Harbour Commission purchased a quarry in the parish of St. Nicholas, county of LAvis?
Mr. GRAHAM.
2.	If so, from what person, when, for what price and on what conditions?
3.	Has the said commission had a wharf constructed at or near this quarry?
4.	If so, how much will this wharf cost?


Mr. HAZEN:: The following information is supplied by the Quebec Harbour Commission :
1.	The Quebec Harbour Commissioners have purchased a quarry, in the parish of St. Nicholas, county of Levis. It consists of a piece of land situated in the said parish, forming part of lots Nos. 38 and 39, and containing fifteen arpents in area.
2.	The property was purchased from Jules A. Giroux, real estate agent, on the 2nd April, 1913, for the sum of $4,500, cash.
3.	The commissioners are now building a wharf on the property of about 200 feet in length by 20 feet in width.
4.	This wharf when completed is estimated to cost about $5,000.


RIGAUD WHARF, REPAIRS.
*Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What amount have the repairs lately made to the wharf at Rigaud cost?
2.	Who was the overseer?
3.	What salary did he receive and for how many days' work?
4.	Who furnished the materials, what was their cost and what quantity?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	225 authorized for repairs.
2.	Octave Ohevrier.
3.	(a) $3 a day; (b) has not received any pay as the repairs are not completed.
4.	It is estimated that materials will cost about $75, but no vouchers have as yet been presented for payment.


DR, GIROUX.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Was Doctor Giroux the contractor or inspector of the protection works 'in the River Verte, county of Temiscouata, during the summer of 11912?
2.	If so, what was his salary and how much
has he drawn from the Department of Public Works for his work?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Nothing.


MR. JOSEPH COLLIN.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has Mr. Joseph Collin, of He Verte, furnished the timber for the works of the wharf at He Verte, Temiscouata, during the spring, summer, and autumn of 1912? If so, for how much ?
2.	What amount has he drawn as overseer of the works on the said wharf?
3.	Was the timber purchased by the said Collin carried to the place at the expense of the department or of the said overseer ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	$210.24.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


L'ASSOMPTION WHARF.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What caused the Minister of Public Works to omit from his estimates the amount required to construct a wharf on the river L'Assomption, in the town of I/Assomption ?
2.	At whose request was this work abandoned ?
3.	Does the department intend to construct this wharf shortly?
4.	If not, to what use does it intend to appropriate the gireat quantity of timber that has been conveyed to this place for use in this construction?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Other and more pressing works. It was impossible te provide for all works, in the present year's estimates.
2.	No request to abandon the work.
3.	Will receive earnest consideration.
ST. LIN DES LAURENTilDES PUBLIC BUILDING.


Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Referring to a statement made on the 9th of December, 1912, by the (Minister of Public Works that, after having an inquiry made into the matter, the department had reported that the construction of a public building at, St. iLin de.s Laurentides, county of L'Assomption, was urgent, and as the estimates submitted do not contain the amount required for this construction, will the minister explain the reasons for this omission?
2.	At whose request has this enterprise been abandoned or deferred?
3.	Will the department provide in the near future for this construction, which is recognized as necessary?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Providing for other and more pressing requirements.
2.	No request to abandon the work.
3.	Not shortly, as there is no appropriation. Subject to the orders of the chief engineer.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What is the total mileage of railway lines now under construction to be controlled and operated by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and not included in the answer to question 'No. 24 on June 2, 1913?
2.	What is the total amount of the guarantee by the Dominion Government in aid of the construction of such lines?
3.	What is the total amount of the guarantee by provincial governments in aid of the construction of such lines?
4.	What is the total amount of money granted to date by the Dominion Government in aid of the construction of such lines?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The total mileage under construction to be controlled and operated by the Canadian Northern railway is 3,143 miles.
2.	The total amount of guarantees by the Dominion Government on lines referred , to is $43,419,585.
3.	Information being obtained.
4.	The total amount of money granted to date to the lines referred to is $6,180,000.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Return showing the total expenditure to date by the present Administration in connection with the investigation of charged partisan conduct against officials.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all correspondence, papers, &c., in connection with the dismissal of Mr. A. L. Deseve, officer in charge of the fishery hatchery at Magog, Quebec, and the appointment of Mr. L. A. Audet to the said position. -Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Judges Act, chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide for an additional judge of the county courts of the province of Ontario.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
Mr. NESBITT:: I think we have too many county court judges in Ontario for all the work there is to do. In place of appointing more judges, the hon. minister ought to reduce the number and pay them reasonable salaries. I object to men earning fair or unfair wages for working only three or four hours a day, or less.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The reason it has become necessary to provide for an additional judge is that under the law of Ontario, when a county comes to contain a town which has a population in excess of a certain number, that county becomes entitled to an additional county court judge.


Mr. GERMAN:: Is this resolution simply to provide for the appointment of an extra judge for the province generally?


Charles Joseph Doherty: When a county contains a town which has a population in excess of a certain number, that county is entitled to a junior judge. During the course of the year the town of Berlin in the county of Waterloo reached the necessary population. That necessitated our adding one to the number of judges and providing a salary.


William Manley German: Has the judge of that
county court asked for an assistant? Although I cannot go as far as my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) in

regard to the appointment of judges, I think junior judges are being appointed in counties where they are not required, and the senior judges would be quite willing and would prefer to do all the work, and of course get the emolument. The salaries of county court judges are very small; their income does not equal that of a practising barrister of any repute in Ontario. If the senior judge asked for an assistant and said that the work was beyond his capability to take care of it properly, or if the province asked for the appointment of a junior judge, I would have no objection; but a junior judge should not be appointed in a county simply because it happens to have a town of a certain population.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In that particular
county, the conditions were such that, before we were in a position to appoint a junior judge, we found it , necessary to name a deputy judge for a certain period, owing to the state of health of the senior judge.


Mr. PROULX:: The provincial law is that a county or a union of counties which has a population of 80,000 is entitled to a senior and a junior judge. There are certain exceptions, such as Renfrew, Prescott and Russell, Algoma, and a few other large districts. Has the county of Waterloo a population of 80,000?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not the statute under my hand; but, if my memory is correct, a county that has 80,000 of a population is entitled to two county court judges. In addition to that, when a county comes to contain within its limits a town of a certain population, it is entitled to an additional county court judge.
As I understand it, where there is a town of a certain population in the county it is not essential that the total population of the county should be 80,000.


Edmond Proulx: If the amendment was made, it was only reasonable.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think the minister is right, and that the amendment was made at least five or six years ago. Waterloo is one of the counties in which a new judge
is necessary.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: When the memorial was presented to the minister on behalf of the county court judges of Nova Scotia it was pointed out that those judges had more work than the county court judges of Ontario. It does seem extraordinary that they require more judges in Ontario. I agree that, outside the district of Cape Breton and .the district of Halifax, the county court judges of Nova Scotia are not overworked. It is true they are asking for an increase of salary, not because of extra work, but because the cost of living has gone up and because they are not per-Mr. GERMAN.
raitted to engage in any other work. When the minister is proposing an increase in the judges of Ontario, so far as the county court judges are concerned, he should consider the case of the county court judges of Nova Scotia.
Resolution reported and read the first and the second time and agreed to, and referred to the committee to which was referred Bill No. 213, to amend the Judges Act-Mr. Doherty.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that a return in regard to dismissals in Edmonton district for which an order of the House was made, I think, in December last, and to which I have drawn the attention of the minister on a number of occasions, has not yet been brought down so far as I have been informed by the Clerk.


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: The
hon. gentleman seems to be looking at me I may tell him that there were none in my department.


Frank Oliver: I was looking over the
head of the hon. Minister of Customs to catch the eye of the hon. acting Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crothers), of whom I have made inquiry on previous occasions.


Mr. CROTHERS:: I have spoken to the
officers of my department, and they say they will have the return ready as soon as possible.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Next Christmas.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We have had over
two hundred orders to fill, and the work has been very heavy.


Wilfrid Laurier: It surely
should not take so much time to make a return as to make a dismissal.


Frank Oliver: At the risk of incurring
displeasure, I must say there must have been a stupendous number of dismissals in that district.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, but these returns are taker, up in the order in which they are called for. It may be that others are to be prepared in advance of this. I think I shall be able to present this return to morrow.


DISMISSAL OF MARTIN LANIGAN.
Mr. EMMERSON:: Once more, and for
the last time this session, I suppose, I would remind the Prime Minister of the adjourned debate noted under the head of 'Public Bills and Orders' on the motion for the papers relating to the dismissal of

Martin Lanigan, postmaster of Rexton, county of Kent, N.B. It seems to me this would be an opportune time to permit that motion to go through if the Prime Minister could call it.


Mr. BORDEN:: I had a certain time allocated for this several weeks ago, but my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) made a very prolix and it seemed to me unnecessary speech, and I was not able to put it through on that account. As soon as the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robidoux) comes, we will see what can be done.


PARCEL POST.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General) moved second reading of Bill No. 210, relating to Parcel Post.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Will my hon. friend
explain the principal features of the proposed legislation?


Mr. PELLETIER:: The subject matter of this legislation has been under the consideration of the Post Office Department foi quite a long time. My officers, as well as myself, have devoted a good deal of time and attention to it, having in view the idea that the time had come for Canada to follow the example of nearly all civilized countries and to have a regular system of parcel post. The Bill now before the House is the result of that work; it is short, and speaks for itself. We have now on the statute-book legislation which has been there for some time, and which relates to parcel post; this legislation is to be found in the Post Office Act, section 74. I wish to read this section in order to show the committee that the Bill which is now under consideration does not contain any provisions exceeding the powers which are now vested in the Postmaster General of Canada :
That the Postmaster General may establish and maintain a parcel post within Canada and may arrange with the Government of the United Kingdom, any British possession, or any foreign country, for the reciprocal receipt, transmission and delivery of parcels; and closed parcels, other than letters, and not containing letters, may be sent by such parcel post, and when so sent shall be liable to such charges for conveyance and to such regulations as the Postmaster General, from time to time, sees fit to make.
The Postmaster Genera], therefore, now has under the law the right to fix those rates. The Bill provides that the weight of the parcel shall not exceed eleven pounds which is the Postal Union weight, and that it shall not be greater in size than seventy-two inches in length and girth combined.
The fourth section provides that all charges for the conveyance of parcel post must be prepaid in postage stamps. Section 5 says:
The rates of postage applicable to post parcels shall be determined by the Postmaster General, and all powers which the Postmaster General now has with regard to mail matter are hereby vested in him for the parcel post system.
This, as will be seen, is practically a reenactment of the provisions to be found in section 74 of the present Post Office Act. The Bill moreover provides for the appointment of two supervisors or inspectors, who will have to help us to put the law into operation. In the last section of the Bill we have provided that the Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council. This is on the lines of the legislation- adopted by the United States, wherein they declared that the law should come into force at a later period; as a matter of fact it came into force on the first day of January of the present year.
We have tried to follow what we have considered to be the best features of the United States system. Other features of that system, while I shall not say that they are bad, have not been adopted, for obvious reasons. We are going to adopt the zone system, but not on the same lines as the system at present in vogue in the United States. In order to be well understood, let me state in a few words how the zone system is working in the United States. There they have eight postal zones, although we may say that they really have nine. What I would call the ninth zone is their rural mail system, to which a special parcel post rate applies. We have been unable to adopt this principle, because our rural system is not sufficiently complete. Their zones have been fixed as follows; The first zone includes all territory within such quadrangle in conjunction with every contiguous _ quadrangle, representing an area having a mean radial distance of approximately fifty miles from the centre of any given unit of area. The following six zones are determined under a somewhat similar plan, each one increasing in distance from the centre of a given unit of area, and extending outward 150, 300, 600, 1,000, 1,400, and 1,800 miles, the eighth zone including all units of area outside of the seventh. Instead of using townships and counties as units of starting points, it was decided to divide the whole country into blocks of imits, each block being half a degree of longitude east and west. There are 3,500 of these units in the country. This is an admirable but a most complicated system which necessitates a great deal of knowledge and a great deal of work on the part of local postmasters, in order to ascertain what rate shall be charged for this, that or the other parcel.

We have thought it much more convenient to adopt the zone system on an absolutely different footing. Instead _ of taking any place in the country as a point around which a certain line shall be drawn to form a zone, we are going to call the provinces the zones, with the exception of the three maritime provinces, which will be for the purposes of this parcel post system, one province or one zone. The other provinces of Confederation will each form one zone. This, I think, will appeal to the committee as being much more workable and much more easily understood than the complicated zone system of the United States. We intend to have a local zone, somewhat similar to the rural mail zone of the United States, but not on the same principle. We intend having a twenty-mile zone irrespective of provincial boundaries. For instance, Ottawa and Hull will have a right to enjoy the rate for that local zone irrespective of whether the mail matter is posted in one province or the other. That will be the first zone, and it will be given a cheap rate. This is done in order to give the legitimate and necessary protection to local dealers and country merchants who have a right to send parcel post to their customers at a lower rate than people farther away, such as Eatons of Toronto, and other big departmental stores all over the country., I met a deputation of the Retail Merchants' Association who came here jin order to oppose this measure and to try to persuade me that we should not go on with it. After discussing the matter and explaining different points, they went away saying that not only had they no more objection, but that they were satisfied with the principle of the local zone of 20 miles. This is the only exception in which provincial boundaries will not be considered, Outside of that, there will be a rate within the province but outside of the twenty miles. The third zone will be outside of the province, and so on until we have reached all the provinces. When we have attained a certain limit, the province of destination will not be counted as a province for the purpose of this Bill.
It must be understood that the Post Office Department does not intend to operate the parcel post system at a loss. I want to have it distinctly understood that we intend to run it on business principles. I am sure that we can do that with cheap rates, and at the same time have the system self-sustaining. If I am not disappointed, I think we may proclaim this l^w for the first of January, 1914, maybe before. There are a great many obstacles which we have tried to meet, and which I think we have met, but there are some in the -way. We have to consider the position of our mail carriers, who now receive a certain remuneration for their work, and possibly, if the mail matter Mr. PELLETIER.
which is given them for transportation is very much increased, we may expect to be told that the former rates have ceased to be fair and reasonable, and we may have to increase them.
Another objection in the way is that many of our rural mail boxes are going to be too small for parcel post. This is a big obstacle. We have considered what we would have to do in that respect, and, of course, there are several things to be thought of. The farmer who has a box might be disappointed if he had to purchase a bigger box. We shall have to devise some means to meet that situation.


Edmond Proulx: The department might do as they do with registered letters-put a notice in the box that there is a parcel.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have thought of that. Somebody has suggested that the farmer who wants to keep his box as it is, and for which he has paid, should himself put a wooden box or something near the other box, where the parcels might be deposited. At all events, we will see what can be done about it. I was very much afraid that our space in the post offices of the country would not be sufficient. Judging by the experience of the United States, we have come to the conclusion that there is no great obstacle there, because even where there is very heavy parcel post matter at different points, it is found that the parcels come and go so quickly that the space required is quite moderate. In certain localities, however, the question of this space will be a very important one which we will have to deal with between this and the time the Bill comes into force.
Another important feature is the arrangement that we shall have to make with the railway companies for the transportation of our parcels. There is now between the Post Office Department and the different railway companies a good deal of discussion, I shall not say friction, about the amount which the railway companies now receive for the transportation of the mails. I may say that the quantity of mail matter which is being taken care of by the different railway companies has increased enormously. This is due not so much to the increase in the number of letters as to the increase in the volumes called newspapers which are published. We have sometimes been obliged to have special cars added in order to take care of that part of the mail matter. Our friends, the owners of the newspapers, are enjoying a rate which I think we can not call a rate, because it is only a nominal price, onee quarter of a cent. It is only in Canada that such a rate exists. We shall try to deal with this question at the same time that we make arrangements with the railway companies for the parcel post. We

may be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the two points. At one time, these difficulties seemed insuperable-these and others which we have settled, and to which I did not refer. Those which have not been .settled will have to be met and dealt with, because Canada is bound to have parcel post. Many suggestions have been made to me, and some people have been very insistent that we should have a flat rate for the parcel post. I must say that 1 am absolutely opposed to that. I believe it is of absolutely no use to try it.
I am now going to give the House a few reasons whien I think will appeal to everyone as businesslike. In the first place, it is necessary, in order to protect the country merchants from being swamped by departmental stores and big city concerns, that a route of certain mileage and special rata should be granted from the different towns and villages throughout the country. It is therefore proposed to give a specially low rate for a radius of twenty miles all around said towns or villages, so that goods may be sent from the rural or town merchants to their customers in the surrounding country. This rate will be low so as to make it impossible for it to be applicable for all points within any one province, let alone on anything passing from province to province throughout the Dominion. Therefore this alone will necessitate two distinct rates, which fact makes against the granting of a flat rate.
The argument has been advanced that inasmuch as Great Britain and other European countries have a flat rate, Canada should have the same thing, but the different conditions existing in Canada as compared with England and other European countries must be pointed out. The British Isles have an area of 121,390 square [DOT] miles, as opposed to an area in the province of Ontario, alone of 260,862 square miles, and as opposed to the Dominion of Canada in its entirety of 3,907,000 square miles, and in this small space, less than half the area of the province of Ontario, there is a population of 44,000,000 of people, as compared with 2,500,000 in the province of Ontario, or roughly speaking, a population of 7.200,000 in the whole Dominion. The conditions are therefore entirely different. In England you have thickly congested rural districts, large towns every few miles, and tremendous cities; in Canada you have a population of less than 8,000,000 spread over a vast area, with few cities or large towns, and with vast spaces that must be traversed where no population exists. The conditions in England and other European countries are absolutely favourable to cheap parcel post, whereas in Canada, owing to small population, vast distances and other reasons already pointed out, the conditions
at the present time are the least favourable for parcel post that could possibly occur. The United States, where physical conditions, area, &c., are similar to those of Canada, present a much more favourable ground on which to make comparisons, and the United States now, when it has a population of 90,000,000 of people, an immense postal revenue, an enormous number of large towns and thickly populated rural districts, in granting this boon to the people has found it necessary to adopt the zone system. If the United States with its immense population and revenue and favourable conditions could not afford to give a fiat rate, it would certainly be much more impossible in Canada, where the population is only about one-twelfth that of the United States and the revenue only about one-twentieth, to do other than the United States has done. As a matter of fact, the system which is now being introduced in Canada gives a flat rate within the confines of each province in the Dominion. In other words, we are giving, as compared with what is done in England, a flat rate in an area twice as great as Britain gives parcel post, and where all the conditions as regards population, cost of transportation and labour are much less favourable than in Britain.
An argument that is very often used in favour of a flat rate is that letters are carried from the Atlantic to the Pacific at the same rate as is charged for one mile, and that if it is possible to carry letters at a two cent rate from coast to coast, it would be quite possible to carry parcels at a similar flat rate, and at a much lower charge than is now made. In considering this argument it must be taken into consideration that the price paid for the carriage of letters, even at the two cent rate, is much greater per pound than the nrice naid on parcels, and to cive a flat rate on parcels it would be necessary to have a minimum charge much higher than the public would be prepared to pay and much higher than the charges which it is intended to make. Moreover, the Postmaster General has the exclusive monopoly of sending letters, and, therefore, gets the carriage of them all; in other words, gets the long as well as the short haul. But this would not be true regarding parcels, as he has in no sense the exclusive monopoly of sending parcels, so that the result would be, if a flat rate were fixed, that it would be quite possible for public carriers other than the post office to get the short and profitable haul by reducing the charges on special distances. It might also be observed that the express companies that have carried on business similar to parcel post for a great many years have never adopted the flat rate system, which they would certainly

have done if they had found it 'to their advantage from a business standpoint.
Australia has two rates, one for each state or province, and the other for the rest of the Commonwealth. The lowest rate is twelve cents or 6d. for the first pound, and six cents or 3d. for each additional pound, within each state. The interstate rate, or the rate outside of the province-or state in which a parcel is posted, is sixteen cents or 8d. for the first pound, and twelve cents or 6d. for each additional pound. These rates are much higher than those which we propose to charge, and there is a further limitation in the Australian parcel post, in that no parcel which exceeds three pounds in weight will be accepted for transmission to any point in the Commonwealth not served by railway, coach or steamboat. Nb such restrictions will exist in Canada, but any, parcel posted at any point in Canada, will be transmitted to any other point where there is communication of any kind whatever. In considering parcel post from an Australian standpoint, moreover, it must be remembered that practically they have settlement only about one hundred and fifty miles from the coast in extreme cases, that large portions of their country are unsettled and unpopulated, and that the towns along the coast are served by water rather than by rail or long land routes, which makes possible in Australia a very much cheaper handling of parcels than would be possible in Canada. The calculation made by the English statistician, Mul-hall, some few years ago in regard to the comparative cost of land and sea service showed the cost on the sea to be about one-twenty-ninth of that for railway service.
The express companies make their charges not on a fixed principle throughout the whole country, but on exigency to suit conditions, where there is competition making a lower rate, and where there is no competition making a much higher rate. This is an elasticity which a government department, such as the post office is, cannot easily indulge in. To illustrate this elasticity in which the express companies indulge in making their rates, the rate between Montreal and Toronto is one dollar a hundred, and between Montreal and Kingston, which lies half way between the two "cities, it is the same. Between Montreal and Pembroke, which is one hundred miles shorter, the rate is twenty-five cents a hundred higher. Similarly, while the rate between Montreal and Quebec is seventy-five cents a hundred, the rate between Montreal and Three Rivers, which lies half way between, is also seventy-five cents.
The only countries that can possibly be compared with Canada, owing to similar physical conditions and vast distances, are the United States, Australia and Russia, and in all these countries the zone system Mr. PELLETIEE
has been adopted, after careful consideration. South Africa, which is similar in proportions and physical features, has the merchandise rate of one cent an ounce, the same as in Canada, at the present time.
In order to give a flat rate, a high minimum charge would be required, and as the major portion of all parcels are sent to places within the confines of the province in which they originate, in order to give a comparatively low rate to a few people at a great distance, the interests of the people who are by all odds the greatest in numbers where the short haul would take place, would have to be materially sacrificed.
The last point to which. 1 am going to refer is this: What are the rates going to be? That has not been definitely arranged. We shall arrange it in the simplest and most intelligent way possible. We expect that five or six lines placed in the hands of the local postmaster will explain to him the whole situation. We cannot think of giving this boon to the people of Canada for nothing, or practically nothing; it has to be self-sustaining. I have here comparative statements which have been very carefully prepared in the department, and which show the rates now charged by the express companies in the United States and in Australia, and the present rates upon our fourth-class mail matter, which is the one approaching parcel post. This is a very long, tabulated statement, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House at this late period of the session by reading it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman
might perhaps put it on ' Hansard.'


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is what I was
going to suggest, if the committee is willing. Of course, it has to be done by unanimous consent. I will hand it over to ' Hansard,' so that hon. members will know exactly where we are with regard to our present rates as compared with the United States rates and the other rates that I have referred to. While we charge only 16 cents for one pound, we charge for 11 lbs. $1.76, but the express companies charge only 30 cents. So that the committee will see that our present rates are absolutely ridiculous. They cannot be applied excepting in cases of short hauls and small parcels; and when it comes to larger weight and greater distance there is no comparison whatever. The rates are not evenly balanced. With the unanimous consent of the House, these two statements will be put on ' Hansard.' One takes as a central point the city of Montreal, and the other the city of Toronto. I shall be pleased to answer any question that may be asked me.


COMPARISON OF EXPRESS RATES WITH THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIAN POSTAL RATES ALSO PRESENT CANADIAN
[Stage Direction]
w	.	RATES FOR FOURTH CLASS MATTER.-	i ib.	2 lb.	3 lb.	4 1b.	5 1b.	61b.	71b.	8 lb.	91b.	101b.	111b.Montreal to:	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	| $ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Laprairie-	Express	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25United States	0 05	0 06	0 07	0 08	0 09	0 10	0 11	0 12	0 13	0 14	0 15Australian	0 12	0 18	0 24	0 30	0 36	0 42	0 48	0 54	0 60	0 66	0 72Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Quebec-	Express	0 25	0 30	0 30	0 30	0 35	0 35	0 35	0 35	0 40	0 40	0 40United States	0 07	0 12	0 17	0 22	0 27	0 32	0 37	0 42	0 47	0 52	0 57Australian	0 12	0 18	0 24	0 30	0 36	0 42	0 48	0 54	0 60	0 66	0 72Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76St. John-	Express	0 25	0 30	0 40	0 45	0 50	0 50	0 55	0 55	0 60	0 60	0 65United States	0 08	0 14	0 20	0 26	0 32	0 38	0 44	0 50	0 56	0 62	0 68Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Halifax-*	Express	0 25	0 35	0 45	0 50	0 55	0 60	0 65	0 70	0 75	0 75	0 80United States	0 08	0 14	0 20	0 26	0 32	0 38	0 44	0 50	0 56	0 62	0 68Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Toronto-	Express	0 25	0 30	0 30	0 35	0 40	0 40	0 40	0 40	0 45	0 45	0 45United States	0 08	0 14	0 20	0 26	0 32	0 38	0 44	0 50	0 56	0 62	0 68Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 04	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Windsor-	Express	0 25	0 35	0 45	0 50	0 50	0 60	0 60	0 65	0 70	0 70	0 75United States	0 08	0 14	0 20	0 26	0 32	0 38	0 44	0 50	0 56	0 62	0 68Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Fort William-	Express	0 25	0 35	0 45	0 60	0 70	0 75	0 80	0 85	0 90	0 95	1 05United States	0 09	0 16	0 23	0 30	0 37	0 44	0 51	0 58	0 65	0 72	0 79Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Winnipeg-	Express	0 30	0 35	0 45	0 60	0 75	0 90	1 00	1 05	1 10	1 10	1 25United States	0 10	0 19	0 28	0 37	0 46	0 55	0 64	0 73	0 82	0 91	1 00Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 7611817	JUNE 4, 1913	11313

[Stage Direction]
RATES FOR FOURTH CLASS MATTER -continued.
£
-i
-J 	
- . , - 	
si 	
1	lib.	2 lb.	3 1b.	4 lb.	51b.	61b.	7 1b.	8 lb.	9 1b.	10 lb.	11 lb.n M Montreal to:-continued. g Regina- Express 	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cfs.	$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.0 30	0 35	0 45	0 60	0 80	0 90	1 00	1 10	1 20	1 25	1 60United States	0 11	0 21	0 31	0 41	0 51	0 61	0 71	0 81	0 91	1 01	1 11Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	
Calgary-	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Express	0 30	0 35	0 45	0 60	0 80	0 90	1 00	1 20	1 20	1 25	1 60United States	0 12	0 24	0 36	0 48	0 60	0 72	0 84	0 96	1 08	1 20	1 32Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	
Vancouver-	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Express	0 30	0 35	0 45	0 60	0 80	0 90	1 00	1 20	1 35	1 50	2 00United States	0 12	0 24	0 36	0 48	0 60	0 72	0 84	0 96	1 08	1 20	1 32 .Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	
Toronto to: Woodbridge-	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Express	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 30	0 30	0 30	0 30	0 30	0 30United States	0 05	0 06	0 07	0 08	0 09	0 10	0 11	0 12	0 13	0 14	0 15Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Australian	
Hamilton-	0 12	0 18	0 24	0 30	0 36	0 42	0 48	0 54	0 60	0 66	0 72Express	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 25	0 30	0 30	0 30	0 30	0 30	0 30United States	0 05	0 08	0 11	0 14	0 17	0 20	0 23	0 26	0 29	0 32	0 35Australian	0 12	0 18	0 24	0 30	0 36	0 42	0 48	0 54	0 60	0 66	0 72Present Canadian Rates	
Windsor-	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Express	0 25	0 30	0 35	0 35	0 40	0 45	0 45	0 50	0 50	0 50	0 55United States	>	0 07	0 12	0 17	0 22	0 27	0 32	0 37	0 42	0 47	0 52	0 57Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Australian	
Ottawa-	0 12	0 18	0 24	0 30	0 36	0 42	0 48	0 54	0 60	0 66	0 72Express	0 25	0 30	0 30	0 35	0 40	0 40	0 40	0 40	0 45	0 45	0 45United States	0 07	0 12	0 17	0 22	0 27	0 32	0 37	0 42	0 47	0 52	0 57Australian	0 12	0 18	0 24	0 30	0 36	0 42	0 48	0 54	0 60	0 66	0 72Present Canadian Rates	
Montreal-	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 76Express	0 25-	0 30	0 30	0 35	0 40	0 40	0 40	0 40	0 45	0 45	0 45United States	0 08	0 14	0 20	0 26	0 32	0 36	0 44	0 50	0 56	0 62	0 68Australian	0 16	0 28	0 40	0 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1 00	1 12	1 24	1 36Present Canadian Rates	0 16	0 32	0 48	0 64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1 28	1 44	1 60	1 7611819	COMMONS	11820
Toronto to:-continued. Quebec-
Express	
United States	
Australian	
Present Canadian Rates. St. John-
Express	
United States	
Australian	
Present Canadian Rates, Halifax-
Express	
United States	
Australian	
Present Canadian Rates, Winnipeg-
Express	
United States	
Australian	
Present Canadian Rates, Regina-
Express	
United States	
Australian	
Present Canadian Rates, Calgary-
Express	
United States	
Australian	
Present Canadian Rates. Vancouver-
Express	
United States	
Australian	
Present Canadian Rates.
0	25	0	30	0	400	08	0	14	0	200	16	0	28	0	400	16	0	32	0	480	25	0	35	0	450	08	0	14	0	200	16	0	28	0	400	16	0	32	0	480	25	0	35	0	450	09	0	16	0	230	16	0	28	0	400	16	0	32	0	480	30	0	35	0	450	09	0	16	0	230	16	0	28	0	400	16	0	32	0	480	30	0	35	0	450	10	0	19	0	280	16	0	28	0	400	16	0	32	0	480	30	0	35	0	450	12	0	24	0	360	16	0	28	0	400	16	0	32	0	480	30	0	35	0	450	12	0	24	0	360	16	0	28	0	400	16	0	32	0	480	45	0 50	0 55	0 55	0	55	0	60	0	60	0	600	26	0 32	0 38	0 44	0	50	0	56	0	62	0	680	52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1	00	1	12	1	24	1	360	64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1	28	1	44	1	60	1	760	55	0 65	0 70	0 75	0	75	0	75	0	75	0 85	0	26	0 32	0 38	0 44	0	50	0	56	0	62	0	680 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1	00	1	12	1	24	1	360	64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1	28	1	44	1	60	1	760	60	0 65	0 75	0 80	0 80	0	85	0 85	0	950	30	0 37	0 44	0 51	0	58	0	65	0	72	0	790	52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1	00	1	12	1	24	1	360	64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1	28	1	44	1	60	1	760	60	0 75	0 85	0 95	0	95	1	00	1	05	1	200 30	0 37	0 44	0 51	0	58	0	65	0 72	0	790 52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1	00	1	12	1	24	1	360	64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1	28	1	44	1	60	1	760	50	0 75	0 90	1 00	1	10	1	15	1	20	1	450	37	0 46	0 55	0 64	0	73	0 82	0	91	1	000	52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1	00	1	12	1	24	1	360	64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1	28	1	44	1	60	1	760	60	0 80	0 90	1 00	1	10	1	20	1	25	1	600	48	0 60	0 72	0 84	0	96	1	08	1	20	1	320	52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1	00	1	12	1	24	1	360	64	0 80	0 96	1 12	1	28	1	44	1	60	1	760	60	0 80	0 90	1 00	1	20	1	35	1	50	2	000	48	0 60	0 72	0 84	0	96	1	08	1	20	1	320	52	0 64	0 76	0 88	1	00	1	12	1	24	1	360	64	0 80	*0 96	1 12	1	28	1	44	1	60	1	7611821	JUNE 4, 1913	11822
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, while I do not wish to be critical, understanding perfectly _ well the situation in which my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) finds himself at the end of the session, and that the system is, by its nature, very complex, I might say however that his last words remind me of a certain episode. His last words are that the parcel post will be established, that it will be in force possibly on the 1st January next, but that he is not in a position to give us the rates, which by far is the most important thing for the information of the committee. It reminds me of a visit which Napoleon III made to a certain town in France when he was met by the Mayor. The Mayor complimented Napoleon on -his visit and said that he intended to salute him with the booming of cannon but that he had three good reasons why he did not do so-first: I have no cannon. Napoleon said:	I excuse you from
giving the other two reasons. The hon. gentleman has introduced what might be a very progressive measure, but it is only too bad that the country is not made aware of the proposed rates. However, I understand exactly the situation in which my hon. friend finds himself. Credit must be given to him for having acceded to the request which has been made from both sides of this House since he has taken office, namely, that a parcel post system should be established in Canada, as it has been established in the United States, and in most progressive countries on the old continent. I might remind the House that on two occasions I have moved in favour of parcel post, the last motion having come up before this House on the 15th January last. So far, the objections came from a section of the community which is likely to benefit most by the system. The country storekeeper, of course, has always a host of friends around him, he is the mainstay of the village, of the town, and every Tom, Dick and Harry is around his store. The country storekeeper, or merchant, is afraid lest this parcel post would be beneficial only to the large departmental stores. There is something in that objection, I agree, but it is partly overcome by the statement which was made by my hon. friend a moment ago. Having represented in this House the constituency of Gaspe, I know'that the people there receive their goods by mail from Eaton's, or Simpson's, in Toronto, or Carsley's, or Morgan's, in Montreal. It is - quite easy to understand that the country merchant in Gaspe, at Campbellton in New Brunswick, and even at Fraserville, which should be the natural feeders of that section of the country, are complaining of the competition coming from such a long distance as Toronto is from GaspA I am just pointing out this fact to M. PELLETIER.
illustrate how business is now carried on under the present system. The United States have the same difficulties to contend with, and they have solved them. The parcel post in the United States was established last year; and, with the zone system and a comparatively low rate, they have made a huge success of it. From what I read in the reviews and in the press, I gather that the people of the United States, and especially the country merchants are now enthusiastic in favour of the parcel post system. I believe that the people who are most likely to benefit by the parcel post system are the farmers. Not a year ago the board of trade of Toronto held an investigation on the high cost _ of living. That investigation was presided over by Professor Mackenzie, a well known authority on economics. In his report, Mr. Mackenzie attributes part of the high cost of living in the large cities to the absence of a parcel post system. Here are the words used on that occasion by Professor Mackenzie:
Moreover, we have no parcel post service, so that the express companies, that is to say the railway companies again, can and do make us pay dividends on stock that has been shown to be largely water. It seems to be the universal opinion of shippers and consignees that in spite of-perhaps it is because of-the monopoly these railways enjoy they do not give proper facilities for bringing produce into the city. It would be difficult to overestimate the advantages of a parcel post service such as is maintained throughout Europe, even in Russia, whereby produce could reach the consumer directly from the farmer. The small charge necessary for such service would at once put a limit to the profits of the middleman and would compel the express companies to meet the competition of the postal service.	<
Indeed the enemy of both the producer and the consumer is the middleman. If there is such a high cost of living to-day, it is due first to the transportation rates, and second to the middleman. An expert, Mr. Duncan J. Lewis, who gave evidence before the special committee appointed by Congress when the parcel post service was being established, spoke as follows:	I
have quoted already to the House the different Acts which are required in the delivery of goods by railways. Mr. Lewis now comes to the express companies and the ' small shipments,' which can more easily be compared with the parcel post. He says:
When we think of the ' small' shipment
we think of the express company. It ought to carry this shipment at least between the1 railway towns and cities and meet such needs as the parcel post. It does not and for two reasons, neither of which it can remedy. First, it does not reach the farm or country [DOT]Jore, either to receive or deliver the shipment ; second, it does not carry _ it on sufficiently economical terms. It is burdened

down with the same condition of ' transportation accounting ' that prevails with the railways. I insert a list of express acts, eleven in number, which are replaced by the postage stamp in the postal carriage of the shipment.
He enumerates the eleven Acts of the express company. which account for the high cost of transportation on the part of the express company. They are as follows:
The express company-
(1)	Ascertains the rate to be paid.
(2)	Makes out waybill.
(3)	Copies waybill into record of shipment
' forwarded.'
(4)	Copies same in record of shipments
' received.'
(5)	Makes statement of ' shipment sent ' to
auditor.
(6)	Makes same of shipments ' received.'
(7)	Auditor checks waybills against record
of ' sending ' agent. _
(8)	Auditor checks same against record of
' receiving ' agent.
(9)	In case of ' through ' waybills previous
items repeated.
(10)	Auditor makes division of percentages
going to express company and the
railway or railways.
(11)	In case of ' through ' -waybills auditor
makes like division of percentages between express companies and railways.
All this, he says, is eliminated by the parcel post system. He says:
There is one transportation agency in the United States-
-and, I might say, in Canada-
-which is able to divorce the package from the accounting burden. It is the postal system. It is doing so now. The postage stamp takes the place of the eleven processes of the express company, set forth in a preceding page.
I need not dwell at length on this evident difference between the postal system and the express system.
Coming back to the high cost of living, which can certainly be cured to a certain degree by the parcel post, from the same authority I gather the following:
I have had an intelligent farmer go over the incidental products of his farm, which, when produced in less than wagon load quantities, can only be marketed at terrific economic expense. His list includes the following, as to which, if the service included the collection of the price, he says he would ship by the postal van and save the value of his presence on the farm:-Eggs, butter, dressed poultry, meat, country cured; celery, tomatoes, fruits, berries, various; cauliflower, cabbage, turnips, apples, pears, string beans, string peas, carrots, parsnips, beets, sweet corn, salsify, honey. The Postal Department would be chiefly concerned in seeing that these services produced a total revenue sufficient to pay the total expense. A flat rate! per pound might prove too high for the marketability of some of these articles, and yet
be much less than the others could well pay and move to market.
As regards the investigation of the Board of Trade of Toronto, they were so much struck with the evidence gathered by Professor Mackenzie, that they unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of the parcel post as a means of reducing the high cost of living. The resolution is as follows:
Besolved, that the conference committee of one hundred of the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto request that the council of the hoard urge that the Dominion Govern-* ment consider establishing a good parcel post, limited no doubt at first to the more populous localities, hut extended as experience may warrant.
There is no doubt that the parcel post will chiefly benefit the farming community at first, and the consuming community by eliminating by degrees the middleman. We have, as my hon. friend has stated, power to establish parcel post in the Post Office Act, section 74, and in the regulations of the Post Office Department, section 105, we have a provision for fourth class matter. This is the embryo of the parcel post as tny hon. friends know. But a parcel sent from Montreal to Toronto by post costs more than a parcel of the same weight by post from London, England to Toronto. It is simply ridiculous that we get cheaper postal transportation from Great Britain to Canada than between points in Canada. But this state of affairs has existed for many years. I quite understand, that as the hon. gentleman stated a moment ago, Canada was sparsely settled and our distances were vast, we could not have the same rates as in older countries. But now that our territory is being more thickly settled, now that^ we have established a railway system, which makes a network on the map, the time has come when we must adjust the rates and make of our fourteen or fifteen thousand post offices so many agencies for our parcel post. I think that my hon. friend in accepting the zone system of the United States, has done the wise thing; I perfectly agree with him that it is impossible to have a flat rate for a country like Canada. Some years ago, Sir William Mulock established a zone system for the postal transportation of our newspapers. We thought a little later that we should abolish it, but it was on a different principle from the system now proposed. It was very complicated, and we thought that, considering the national unity of Canada, no difference should be made in the distribution of literature as between one portion of the country and the other. But in the establishment of a parcel post system on the lines proposed, my hon. friend cannot do otherwise than accept the zone system. The system of

rates is too technical, and the explanations of my hon. friend are not sufficiently detailed for me to pass judgment on them. I shall await the publication of the schedule of rates before forming an opinion. I hope, however, that the rates will be cheap and popular. In this the hon. gentleman can be guided in his decisions by what has been done by the Wasnington authorities.
The rural mail delivery system can certainly help considerably to establish a cheap parcel post in Canada. But it will be, I am sorry to say, local in the sense that the province of Ontario may be said to be almost the only province that has favoured rural mail delivery ; there are few routes outside of that province.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You certainly have
some routes outside of Ontario.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The province of
Prince Edward Island is pretty well served.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and you have a few counties equipped with rural mail in New Brunswick; practically none in the province of Quebec, and as to the other provinces, I have not seen the figures lately. But on the other hand, I believe that the parcel post will induce the people to take to the rural mail delivery. I am sorry that the rates are not yet ready, but I quite understand that it impossible to fix them immediately because it is a very complicated system and because,, as my hon. friend knows it would be quite easy with the rates hurriedly and improvidently fixed, to put the department in a serious plight. As I do not wish to see the department lose all of its magnificent surplus. I hope, however, that when he comes to take all the facts into consideration, he will see to it that the people are given a cheap and popular rate.
Mr. JOSEPH E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton): I merely rise to congratulate the Postmaster General and the Government on bringing in such a progressive piece of legislation, carrying out a reform which has been before the people of Canada for many years. And I cannot think of any words that would more strongly condemn the want of action of the late Government than those uttered by the former Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux). For years that hon. gentleman was urged to proceed with this legislation, and thus to establish for the people of Canada, for the consumers and farmers of Canada, this system that will be so great a boon to them. But he was afraid


Rodolphe Lemieux: When was it established in the United States?


Mr. ARMSTRONG:: That does not matter. We do not have to wait for the United States to establish reforms before we can Mr. LEMIE0X.
take them up; and the hon. gentleman's own words to-day show that he deserves the severest condemnation for not having taken action in this matter when he was in office. The Postmaster General has shown that he has the courage of his convictions. It will be declared of that hon. gentleman in years to come that he has placed on the statute-book one of the most progressive pieces of legislation, and one of the most advantageous to the farmer and the consumer, that was ever enacted in Canada.
I am very glad indeed that the Postmaster General has taken to himself a few months to decide upon the actual rates which he will place on the statute book, because it is most important that the rates which he establishes in Canada shall be such as will help to make the parcel post system a very great success. I am also glad to hear him say that the Retail Merchants' Association have distinctly stated that they are strongly in favour of the legislation he has suggested and the system which he intends to inaugurate. I cannot think of anything that would be more gratifying to the people of Canada and to the merchants and retailers in general in the small towns and villages of the Dominion than to know that the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada have expressed themselves as being satisfied with the legislation which is now proposed. In years gone by the ex-Postmaster General got up in this House and told us how impossible it was to inaugurate a parcel post system simply because the retailers sent a deputation to Ottawa, one of which I have clearly in mind, and called attention to the many difficulties which would beset his path if he attempted any such legislation. The then Postmaster General was unable to devise some kind of scheme whereby the interests of these men would be protected.
. Mr. LEMIEUX:	My hon. friend makes
a mistake; they came to oppose the co-operative system.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My hon. friend
knows that they took up the parcel post system; he knows that he had deputations along that line.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, no; when it was
rumoured some years ago that a parcel post system was to be introduced, I said that I was deluged with petitions from both sides of the House. I think my hon. friend himself sent me one.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is very true;
I remember bringing the matter to the attention of my hon. friend when one of these deputations was in Ottawa, and I remember the excuse that was given for the non-establishment of a parcel post system. However, I merely wish to say that this is only the first of the many good things this

Government will grant to the people living in the rural districts and to the consumers of Canada. I want to see them go one step further; I want to see them establish trunk telephone and telegraph lines in Canada, so that the different provinces of this Dominion will be connected by, and the people throughout the length and breadth of this land will obtain the benefits of a telephone and telegraph system established in the post offices of the Dominion. Thus will it be made evident that this is a progressive Government, and that they are not afraid to undertake the establishment of^ beneficial means of communication. I sincerely hope that the day is not far distant when this country will he connected with the Motherland by a Government-owned cable system, the chief features concerning which I have not time to bring up and discuss during the present session. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee further than to express my most hearty approval of the legislation that is now proposed, to congratulate the Government upon the inauguration of this system, and to commend the Postmaster General for the amount of energy he has put forth in establishing this great boon for the benefit of the people.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: In the midst of congratulations from ex-Postmaster Generals and possible future Post master Generals, I am quite sure my hon friend must feel that his star has set this session with very great splendour. Perhaps he will allow me as a farmer, representing the western farmers, to add my very hearty congratulations to those which have been offered to him for the courage which he has displayed in undertaking this very useful piece of legislation. Anyone who has regard for the moment to the figures which the Postmaster General brought before the. committee as to the great disparity in area between the United Kingdom and this country, or even the provinces of this country, and the equally great disparity in favour of the United Kingdom in the matter of population, must be struck with the difficulties of the task which the hon. gentleman has undertaken, and with the proportionate courage which he has displayed in tackling these difficulties. I think he said that there are 1,121,000 square miles of land in the United Kingdom which means that the territory embraced by the United Kingdom would not more than half cover the province of Alberta. That single fact gives one a better idea than multitudes of figures as to the tremendous nature of the task which mv hon. friend has undertaken. I am quite sure that the Administration may safely leave it in his hands and m the capM.le hands of his assistants in the Post Office Department. I think that the word of cau
tion which came from my hon. friend the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) as to the difficulties of the task was not a word which my hon. friend the Postmaster General will likely disregard. I wish just in a sentence to express my hope and my confidence that this measure, which will be gratefully welcomed by a large and important section of the people in the farming districts of western Canada, will be economically, cautiously, but nevertheless beneficially worked out to the success which it deserves.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Although I may not, in respect of this measure, use the words of Saint Simeon when he said he wished to depart in peace, I think I can join in one portion of his.song of pTaise, and say that mine eyes have at last seen some kind of salvation in regard to this matter. It has been a long time coming, but it has at last arrived. This is the kind of Bill a progressive legislature ought to introduce. It is short and to the point, and it leaves the details of administration to the department. It is an exemplary Bill; I wish the Railway Act were set out in as comparatively few pages, including the principles and leaving, the administration of the Act largely to the Railway Commission. I hope hereafter that we will have more of this kind of draftsmanship.	This is experimental legislation,
and when legislation is experimental I prefer that all the details should be worked out by the department. I think I shall be able to give in a moment or two some facts which will justify that idea iu regard to legislation of this kind. Section 4 of the Bill says that all charges for the conveyance of parcels by post must be prepaid in postage stamps. That is a convenient arrangement, but it will not permit of the system of accounting which has obtained in the United States, because by reason of their having a special stamp in the United States, they have been.able to ascertain what the actual income from parcel post has been. I would like to occupy the attention of the committee for one moment to quote a few words which explain the position of the United States in this regard. They are contained in a short article taken from the Philadelphia Record, one of the leading papers of the United States, dated June 1, and they will show the committee why the administration of an Act of this kind should be left to the department rather than to definition in the Act creating the service:
Pive months of experience with the parcels post justify the conclusion that it is a money-maker. Two-thirds of the gross income from this branch of postal activity is clear gain, and the estimate of competent observers that'the net profit of its first year in operation will he from fifteen to twenty millions does

not seem unreasonable. The usefulness of a public service to the people is not measured, however, by its dividend return. If it does not adequately perform the functions which constitute its reasons for existence it cannot be pronounced a success, no matter how profitable it may be in dollars. and cents. The desideratum is an instrumentality of commerce that will move to its natural market a potentially enormous volume of farm and factory products in lots of less than 100 pounds, this being the minimum weight for which the railroads will make a rate.
That this potential traffic has not even begun to be mobilized by the parcels post appears clearly enough from the fact that the average weight of the parcels handled by the service^ is about three pounds.
The obvious reason for this is the excessiveness of the parcels post rates. That they are too high is indicated by the net profit of 200 per cent above cost of handling; and for parcels approximating the 11-pound limit the rates are prohibitory, being as high as, or higher than, prevalent express charges. The situation cannot be relieved by any practicable lowering of express company rates; for the companies are compelled by their intercorporate accounting to treat every package as a transportation unit. It must be way-billed and manifested and recorded; the share of each express and railroad line in the total rate must be apportioned; in short, there is as much costly and unavoidable red tape connected with the forwarding of a one-pound express package as there is connected with the shipment of a carload of freight. If the postal authorities had to go through this process and keep a record of every piece of mail the cost of sending a one-ounce letter would be nearly 10 cents; indeed, this is the fee for registration.
Because all these complexities are replaced, in the 'case of a piece of mail, by the affixing of a postage stamp, and because the post office pays for transportation at wholesale rates, this institution can carry merchandise in retail quantities more economically than any other agency; and the post office has command of the only system of transportation which is universal and extends, through its rural delivery routes, to the homes of our more than 50,000,000 of non-urban population.
Moreover, the post office is the only agency that can handle the traffic in less than 100-pound packages at a cost of about one-third the ruling express rates. Congressman David J. Lewis, the author of the postal express law, in a brief submitted to the Postmaster General, shows that a rate of three cents for the first pound and one-half cent for each additional pound, together with an increased charge of one-half cent per pound for each additional 100 miles of transportation, would be feasible, and leave the Government a margin of more than 20 per cent above the cost of service; and he proves his contention to the hilt. A weekly basket of assorted farm products, weighing 50 pounds, could be sent to the urban consumer 100 miles away at a cost of 28 cents-and the kitchen would be supplied at farm prices plus the postage.
This is only an example of the many ways in which a system of exchanging commodities in retail quantifies would tend to reduce the cost of living-and there is ample
Mr. MACLEAN (South York)
authority given in the postal express law of 1912 to alter rates, classifications and zones by administrative order, without further legislation.
That is a great point, only it would tend very much to an early reduction of the cost if we could adopt the system of special stamps rather than the ordinary postage stamp. I know it has been an inconvenience in the United States, but by reason of it there has been a strict accounting of the cost of parcel post in United States so that after five months experience they are prepared to prove that the profit has been over 200 per cent, the man who introduced the matter and who has given the greatest attention to it is able to suggest to Congress and to the department, on the experience of that five months, that not only can the limit of the size of parcels be changed from eleven pounds to one hundred pounds, but the price can be immediately reduced. Therefore it is one of the most progressive and up-to-date propositions ever presented to the American people. I am glad to say that at last we are getting under way in this matter, that we are to have a parcel post system. I do not quite like the idea of its going over until the 1st of January next. Perhaps that may be necessary, but in the meantime the system can be organized and we can leave it to the department to work out; but if it is at all possible, in order to show what the exact earnings of the department may be, I think it would be well to have a special stamp for the purpose, I would suggest to the minister that he should consider that and perhaps take power to make a regulation in regard to the special stamp if he should see fit. But at last parcel post is likely to come. It is in the interest of the whole country and I hope not only to see it started but to see it extended to its greatest point. I would ask the minister whether there will be provision for the interchange of parcels between United States and Canada under the new Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: That will lead to annexation.
Mr. MACLEAN; There is annexation in all things

it depends-


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no, draw the line at annexation.


William Findlay Maclean: -but not annexation of legislatures.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have an international agreement now, and we have an arrangement with the United States for parcels of four and two-sixth pounds. For any additional weight we shall have to make some other arrangement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It will come under the postal union regulations.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The American Government refused to make any arrangement in that respect.


William Findlay Maclean: Will Canadian parcels, under this system, be forwarded in the United States without additional cost?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Not by parcel post. Under the present arrangement we can send parcels up to four and two-sixths pounds. Of course that will continue. For everything in excess of that we will have to make another arrangement.
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth). Very briefly, I should like to add my word of commendation to the Postmaster General for this Bill relating to parcel post as presented to the House. I think that we have to-day a very marked contrast between the methods of the late Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) and the present Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier); for even to-day, with this Bill before us, with parcel post almost inaugurated, we still have the exPostmaster General standing in this House arguing in favour of the inauguration of parcel post. If he does not wake up soon., the whole system will be inaugurated before he realizes that the administration of the Post Office Department is in the hands of a progressive minister, who does not wait for preliminary arguments, but who puts in operation that which is for the welfare of the Canadian people. I would draw the attention of the minister to the excellent opportunity which he has in the inauguration of the parcel post for taking into consideration the proper remuneration of the postmasters and mail carriers throughout the country districts, and also for the arrangement and adjustment of the rents of the post offices in the smaller villages and country towns throughout the Dominion. At the present time, the rents of the post offices in those places are absurdly low. Imagine a postmaster in a village with four hundred or five hundred of a population, and with a revenue of from $600 to $700 being allowed only from $30 to $40 rent for the building in which the post office is situated. I am sure the people will support the Postmaster General in giving an increase of rent to the postmasters. They will support enthusiastically the increase of salaries to the postmasters in the small towns and villages, because they are certainly entitled to it, particularly in view of the increased woTk which the parcels post will put upon them. I hope that the Postmaster General will consider this matter, and regard it as an opportune time to properly remunerate the officers who will carry out the parcel post system. I hope that at the same time he will use the opportunity to make a change in the rural mail boxes,
for notwithstanding what the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) claims as advantages in the mail box, which he bargained for and purchased, it is totallv -mfit for the uses to which it is put. It is a cheap box, easily put out of order, inconvenient for the courier inserting the mail, and on the wholb, too expensive for the farmer. It should be done away with at the earliest opportunity. I again congratulate the Postmaster General on bringing in this legislation, and especially on being able to remove the one great obstacle to it in the past, the possibility of interference with the business of the country merchant. I am sure that the system, which he now proposes, of a special low rate for the area within twenty miles of the small towns will be very satisfactory to the retail merchants of those towns, and will give them an advantage over the large concerns in the larger centres with which they have now to compete. '


William Findlay Maclean: Would
the minister give us a specific example of how a parcel will go, say from Toronto to Saskatoon ? That parcel would pass from the province of Ontario, through Manitoba, and into a third zone. How many zones are there?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There are as many
zones as there are provinces.


William Findlay Maclean: Would that be six?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Seven, the three
maritime provinces being one zone.


William Findlay Maclean: You deduct one in certain cases?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Suppose a parcel went
from Toronto to Calgary, that would be through four provinces?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: From Toronto to Calgary would be three zones.


William Findlay Maclean: It would be the rate that applies to third zones?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is not quite
settled yet.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock, and' again went into Committee.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I
admit that it may not perhaps be a matter of satisfaction if one ventures to break in with a jarring note upon the congratulations which seem to have been the order of the morning upon this particular measure. But there are several considerations in regard to it that I think the committee and the House should give some attention, to before they adopt this proposition. I

11&36
was surprised that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) should have given notice of his approaching political demise by declaring, like Simeon of old, that he was now about to depart in peace.


William Findlay Maclean: I said
that the first part did not apply, but that the second did.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend
should not be mixing up these adages and these old and trite statements for fear they may come true all round. I do not think my hon. friend need say that because this Bill has been introduced it warrants him in withdrawing from political life, because the measure is a very crude proposition. It simply means that we are giving a blank cheque to the hon. Postmaster General to do what he likes in regard to this business for the next year. That is not the way in which a matter of this kind should be approached. In the United States they gave a great deal of deliberation to the question before they finally propounded a scheme. They have 80,000,000 people, a revenue of $225,000,000 in their post office service, and the financial side of the problem was not the serious one that it would be in Canada. Here, we have 8,000,000 people with a revenue of $12,000,000 in the post office service. For some reason or other the minister is taking this great leap in the dark and hon. gentlemen seem to be dropping after him on the question without having regard to the conditions, or without any particular desire to realize where we are going to end. There is too much proneness on the part of some hon. gentlemen, particularly on the other side of the House, to follow the lead of the United States and it is rather peculiar that it should be so in regard to this matter. The moment the United States propose anything in regard to a question of public policy, forthwith, the hon. member for South York, and the hon. member for East Lambton proceed to say: We must have it in Canada.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My hon. friend must have heard the hon. Postmaster General say that I was advocating this question before there was any investigation or any legislation proposed in the United States. If the hon. gentleman will look up ' Hansard ' he will find that I had been discussing this matter for years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend
from East Lambton was in advance of the United States upon this question, it is something that hon. members of the House were not aware of. The United States were considering and dealing with this question for a number of years, and I am satisfied that my hon. friend from Lambton and my hon. friend from York were after all following the lead of the agitators there upon the question. Long before the question was Mr. MACDONALD.
seriously presented to this House the United States Congress had been considering legislation which was introduced from time to time by members dealing with the proposition. I had an opportunity a couple of months ago of meeting Congressman Lewis of Baltimore, who is said to be the father of the	United States parcel
post proposition, and he told me of the	long	period	of	inquiry,
examination into conditions, and accumulation of information that had to be gone through by that Country before they were able to propose anything like a well considered measure which would be adopted by Congress or carried into effect. Why is there this sudden development of a parcel post idea as embodied in a measure of this kind? It simply gives the Postmaster General carte blanche to go on. It simply says: Parcel post is hereby established and will be maintained in Canada. That language is very significant. That is the enacting clause of the measure, and the one which, I iassume, is supposed to create immediately this parcel post system; but in regard to everything else, except a limitation as to weight and the payment for the conveyance of parcels, the whole thing is left in the hands of the Postmaster General.
The principle of the Civil Service Act in regard to the appointment of officials especially fitted for the carrying out of this Act is violated by section 6; and yet we are asked to congratulate ourselves in the dying hours of the session that what is said to be an important system has been submitted to us. If a measure of this kind is going to be of any value to the people of Canada it should receive more consideration by this Parliament before it is adopted. I think the Postmaster General should hold over this measure until next session, prepare all the facts in regard to the matter, go into this question fully, tell us what he is going to do, what his rates are going to be, how he is going to maintain the system, and put the whole proposition in a statute, so that Parliament will be able to know just what is going to be done. To say that we shall simply declare that a parcel post shall be established and then let the Postmaster General do as he pleases in regard to it is not proper legislation, and it is not the proper way of approaching a subject that is as important as hon. gentlemen seem to think this is. Why this measure is prepared and presented at this time in the way in which it has been presented ought to have more explanation than has been given. Why should the Postmaster General bring for- ' ward a measure under which he, and he alone, is to determine everything in regard to it? What is Parliament for?

The United States Post Office Department and individual Congressmen gave years of attention to the study of this question in order to frame a well-devised and certain system before they undertook to put it into force. But we are beginning the other way, and the Postmaster General is being congratulated upon the fact that at last a Bill has been presented for parcel post which is nothing but a blank cheque presented to the minister under which he is to do just as he pleases with regard to the matter. No satisfactory results can be obtained from legislation of that kind in regard to the establishment of a parcel post system. I submit that this measure should stand over until next session, but that in the meantime the Post Office Department should prepare all the facts in regard to it in order that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, at the next session, may be in a position to know just how this matter is worked out and to consider and to amend if necessary such proposition as is placed before them, in order that all parts of the country may be satisfied. Any other course will only result in discomfiture. I venture to say that, if the Postmaster General does bring into effect this crude proposition, it will prove largely unsatisfactory to the people, especially under the operation of the last clause of the Bill. My hon. friend cannot possibly frame a measure which would be satisfactory to the conditions in all the provinces of this Dominion without giving opportunity to the representatives of the people in Parliament to declare what their special needs are in regard to the matter. Hence it is that I submit this measure should stand over. If we are to have parcel post, let us have it after the fullest deliberation and examination into the conditions, so that the system will be one that will be satisfactory. To proceed under this Bill can only result in dissatisfaction and in the creation of conditions that will require immediate and continuous amendment. The hon. gentleman, who seems so anxious in regard to his Bill, will be the first one to admit his disappointment. I make this suggestion, in the interests of the proposition itself, that it should be established under proper conditions and with the judgment of Parliament behind it. In the interests of the country, this measure at this period of the session, should be allowed to stand.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: May I ask my hon. friend the Postmaster General why, under section 6 of this Bill, he proposes to appoint two officials, who I presume are necessary to put the Bill into operation, rather than appoint them under the terms of the Civil Service Act ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We may want somebody who has special qualificaions or powers of organization for that purpose. We have nobody in mind now.


Charles Murphy: The Civil Service Act makes provision for that under section 21.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If we can do it under the Civil Service Act, we shall be glad to do so. We are taking this power in case we need it.


Charles Murphy: 
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If we can get them through the Civil Service Commission, all right. If there are parties outside, whom we consider better qualified, we shall certainly use this section, because it was put there for that purpose.


Mr. C. GAUVREAU:: Mr. Chairman,
when the Postmaster General introduced this Bill this morning, it was my intention to*object to its provisions, and I had resolved to take a stand in compliance with the request forwarded to me by the Retailers' Association. If I am to believe the hon. minister's statement of this morning, that association not only does not object to the passing of the Bill, but approves of it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My statement of this morning wras to the following effect: When the question came up before the House on January 15 last, and the hon. member for Rouville made certain remarks in connection, I received immediately after a communication from the Retailers' Association, wherein they stated their objections against the pasing of the Bill and requested me to postpone its introduction until a deputation which they were to send to Ottawa would have made known their views. The president of that association is Mr. P. J. Cote, of Quebec. I wrote at once to Mr. Cote that I would be very glad to meet them and discuss the question with them.
The association sent me two delegates who met me at my office and stated their objections. They rested entirely on the fear of competition which these gentlemen anticipated on the part of departmental stores. I explained to them the meaning of the Bill, pointing out that there would be among other things a special rate within a radius of twenty miles, so as to protect the retailer. Following on those explanations, these gentlemen stated that, not only did they no longer object, but that -they approved of the Bill


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: In view of the explanations tendered by the hon. Postmaster General, I beg to withdraw my opposition to the Bill.


Frank Oliver: I
am very strongly in favour of the Government of Canada establishing a parcel post system, provided that system is established to give the greatest reasonable amount of benefit , to the people for the least possible amount of cost. I am decidedly opposed, however, to the giving of a blank authority to my hon. friend the Postmaster General. The importance of the question of legislating for Canada in regard to a parcel post system, renders it necessary that it should be dealt with by Parliament just as any other subject of interest and importance to the whole of the people of Canada.
I realize that it is the traditional policy of the party now in power to centralize authority in the hands of the Government. We have had many examples of that principle in the legislation of the former and particularly of the present session. This is only another manifestation of that principle. From my point of view the principle is none the better because it is acted upon so often. In fact, the more frequently the principle of parliamentary control of legislation is departed from .the greater will be the abuse and the greater the objection. As a parliamentary representative I cannot be a party to placing in the hands of the Postmaster General the authority that properly belongs to Parliament to regulate a great public service. I would not wish to be understood as making any improper suggestions; but, if I might be privileged to use the word, I would say that the Bill which the hon. the Postmaster General has put before the House is a ' bluff.' There is no provision in the Bill that establishes a parcel post system. It is true that it gives my hon. friend the authority to establish a parcel post system. As a representative of a constituency, I do not think I am warranted in failing to exercise the responsibility placed upon me to see that legislation in regard to parcel post as in regard to other matters is, so far as I can bring pressure to bear, in the interests of the people whom I represent.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If this is a bluff, my hon. friend from Edmonton will have lots of opportunity to call the bluff.


Frank Oliver: It is on the point my hon. friend has raised that I wish to speak. My hon. friend has said that he hoped to have the system in operation by the 1st of January 1914, not before. In all human probability Parliament will sit again 'befpre that date.


Mr. BELAND:: Not too sure.


Frank Oliver: Not too sure; but, according to the routine of parliamentary ses-Mr. PELLETIER.
sions, it will in the natural course of events sit in November next. There is no reason why my hon. friend could not, between now and November next, take measures to inform himself fully with regard to such proposals as he may see fit to place before Parliament when it meets, on the responsibility of the Government. Assuming that he has used due dilligence ' during the intervening months, assuming that he is able to bring before Parliament an acceptable measure-and there seems to be no good reason why he should not be able to do so-Parliament could have the advantage of advising, criticising, possibly amending and to some extent directing, the character of that measure; at any rate members of Parliament would have such opportunity as membership in Parliament gives them to protect the interests they are here to represent in the consideration of that measure and still have the measure become law and be carried into operation as early as my hon. friend proposes to operate under the present Bill. I ask this committee if such a course of action on the part of my hon. friend would not be, not only more in accordance with the principles of parliamentary government but more in accordance with the public interest looked at from every point of view. I must say that the course my hon. friend has followed since he became Postmaster General has not inspired me with that confidence in his good will that would lead me to hand over to him a blank authority to do as he pleases in regard to the establishment of a very important public service. In any case, it is the business of this Government in any of its departments-and in the Post Office Department more than any other, because the work of that department touches more intimately and more universally the people in their most intimate affairs-to submit their legislative proposals to Parliament for its consideration and approval, and no department of Government has the right to come to Parliament and ask for such authority as is proposed to be given under this Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I desire to say just one word to supplement what has just been stated by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald); not that I wish to be unduly critical of my hon. friend the Postmaster General, but, in view of the language used this morning by my hon. friend from_East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), who is always ready to pelt me with epithets. To that hon. gentleman I would say that his enthusiasm over this legislation is somewhat premature. When the Postmaster General comes before this House with a schedule of rates acceptable to the people and actually giving cheap parcel post, then he will be entitled to the
*

encomiums which the hon. member for East Lambton heaped upon him this morning. But he is not entitled to them yet. As the hon. Postmaster General himself stated this morning, and as the hon. member for East Lambton knows, there is no more in this Bill than we have already on the statute book. If you read section 74 of the Post Office Act, you will find the following:
The Postmaster General may establish and maintain parcel post within Canada.
The Postmaster General is already clothed with authority in this matter, and we have parcel post actually established under the regulations of the Post Office Department, though established under a misnomer-it is called fourth-class matter. This is provided for in the regulations as follows:
This class includes merchandise of all descriptions, such as confectionery, dry goods, groceries, hardware, stationery (including blank books, &c.) not included in the first, second and third classes, and not excluded by the general prohibitory regulations with respect to objectionable matter. The rate of postage for articles in this class is one cent for each ounce or fraction thereof.


Charles Murphy: How long has that regulation been in existence?


Rodolphe Lemieux: For twenty-five years
or more. When I was Postmaster General, I attempted on many occasions to alter that so as to give the eleven-pound limit and the cheaper rate. But vainly; I always found objection somewhere, objections from the express companies and, I am bound to say objections even from some of the postoffice clerks. The only man who was sympathetic was my friend Mr. Ross, the superintendent of the post office in Toronto, who is the authority on this subject in Canada, and who has prepared, to his credit be it said, a long and very accurate report on the subject. If the Postmaster General will follow that report he will come pretty near giving to the people of Canada such a parcel post as they should have. Of course, unquestionably, it is difficult to establish the system. And, much as my hon. friend from East Lambton may say about our not following the United States, it is not a bad thing to have the experience of the United States as a guide in matters of this kind. The one year of experience in this matter which the United States has had will help the Postmaster General immensely in his framing of rates and regulations. So-, we have the parcel post, though under a misnomer. This Bill only states that parcel post is hereby established, but the Postmaster General does not fix the rates. I know it is a difficult thing to fix the rates. I hope that between now and the first of January the Postmaster General will have what the
United States have -had, a commission of experts on the subject. Let that commission be headed by Mr. Ross -and let it include the best experts. There should be no false shame in this matter; there is no reason why even the American postal experts should not appear before that commission and give their experience. When I was Postmaster General, it happened that we had to consult the Washington authorities. Moreover, the Washington officials themselves come to us and consult us on post office matters. There should be no objection to our consulting Washington on business which may involve the department in difficulties if it is not wisely carried out. We had a convention with the United States, and it was so intricate and so interlocked, that, as a matter of course, we had to consult them. Once more, I say that, for my par-t, I have no objection to this Bill. As my hon. friend from South York stated this Bill will be real legislation only when we get the rates. I hope the rates will he cheap and popular. But the Bill is no more than we now have on the statute-book; what we have in addition is the promise of the Postmaster General that before the 1st of January next he will fix the rates.	-


Mr. BURNHAM (West Peterborough):: In view of what has been said before in the way of encouraging the Postmaster General to bring on this Bill, the actions of the members of the Opposition at this time seem very strange. There must be some objection to the passage of this Bill which we do not see at the present time. Allow me to say in my humble way that the people of this country are so anxious for parcel post that they would rather take only a fairly good system than have none at all; half a loaf is much better than no bread. I have yet to see that the objections that have been made by members of the Opposition who have spoken are not met by section 5:
Tlie rates of postage applicable to post parcels shall be determined by the Postmaster General, and all powers which the Postmaster General now has with regard to mail matter are hereby vested in him for the parcel post system.
There is nothing new about this provision; it simply enlarges the scope of the present powers of the Postmaster General. To urge that this Bill should be postponed in order that a parcel post system should be devised is simply to put off the interests of the people-I make no insinuation-it is to put off the just demands of the people of Canada in the interests of the express companies.
Bill reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When shall this Bill be read the third time? -


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At the next sitting of the House.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Now.


Frank Oliver: Can the Bill be read the third time without unanimous consent?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, if reported from the committee without amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When the rates are prepared and definitely settled, will they be published in the Canadian Gazette?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They will be made public, yes.
Bill read the third time, and passed.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of Bill No. 244, to authorize the granting of Subsidies in aid of the construction of the railways andjiridges therein mentioned.
Mr. CARVELL:: I wish to call the attention of my hon friend the Minister of Railways to an assertion made by him based on information received from one of his officials, namely that a certain change in the grade of the St. John and Quebec railway would mean a saving of four miles of line. I think the minister was in error, and possibly he will state whether or not the assertion was correct.


Mr. COCHRANE :: The chief engineer
was sitting before me at the time, and gave me information to that effect, but he came to me this morning and told me that the saving would be only half a mile.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in commitee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Cochrane, Bill No. 245, to authorize the granting of Subsidies in aid of the construction of certain lines of railway of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company respectively, was read the second time, and .House went into committee thereon.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the Bill be amended by inserting the following as section 6:
The granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the said company shall be subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at all times provide and secure to other companies over the line of railway of the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, situated in the province of British Columbia, from a point at Yellowheatl pass to Vancou-
Mr. SPEAKER.
ver at the mouth of the Fraser river, such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights as will afford to all railways connecting with the said railway so subsidized reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running power, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways, and the said board shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to he levied and taken by the company hereby subsidized: Provided always that any decision of the said board made under this section may be at any time varied, changed or rescinded by the Governor in Council, as he deems just and proper.
The CHAIRMAN:: I would like to ask
the advice of Mr. Speaker on this motion. A ruling has been made by His Honour with regard to it, and I understand that His Honour would like to make a further explanation to the House.
Mr SPEAKER, having resumed the Chair, said:	With regard to the question
which was raised last night and which I afterwards looked up, I find that the English rule, according to May's Parliamentary Procedure, appears to be the ruling that I made; but the Canadian practice is a little different. May, at page 615, says:
The constitutional principle which vests in the Crown the sole responsibility over national expenditure, and which forbids the Commons to increase the sums demanded by the Crown for the service of the state, is strictly enforced in the Committees of Supply, and Ways and Means.
At page 616, May says:
Nor can the committee attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a grant, nor alter its destination.
But the Canadian practice, as set forth in Bourinot at page 601, is:
It is not allowable at this stage-more than any other-to increase or alter the destination of a grant of money, recommended by the Governor General, but it is always in order to propose an amendment stating the conditions under which the House makes a grant of money.
Thus there is a difference between the practice which has been followed in this House and the English practice. The Canadian House has admitted that amendments attaching conditions may be imposed, while the British House docs not.
House resumed in committee. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Amendment negatived on division.


Frank Oliver: I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Buchanan, that the following be added to the Bill, as section 6:
The granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the said

companies shall, within two months froip. the date of the passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Railw ay Commissioners for Canada, a schedule of traffic rates upon the lines of the said companies now1 or hereafter to he constructed w-est of Fort William, which shall be the same as now apply on the lines of the said companies in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except in so far and to such extent as the said railway companies may be able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort William, and the said schedule shall be subject to the authority and control of the said Board of Railway Commissioners, to be revised and adjusted by them in accordance with the foregoing provision.
Amendment negatived, on division.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to move,
seconded by Mr. Buchanan, that the following be added to the Bill as clause 6:
That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company shall be subject to the conditions that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at any time, after the completion of the lines or railway above mentioned, require such railway company as is then operating the railway system w-hich includes these lines, to file a schedule of freight rates from such points touched by the lines of such company in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as they may designate, not including points in Ontario west of Sudbury, to such points in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, touched by the lines of the said company as they may designate. And the Board of Railway Commissioners shall revise such schedule of rates so that they shall be no higher than the rates per mile charged for like service over railway lines in the United States and Canada between New York and Winnipeg by way of Chicago and Minneapolis. The said rates shall be binding upon the said railway company until further revised by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
Amendment negatived, on division.
On section 8-transfer of stock to Crown:


William Manley German: I desire to move an amendment to section 8. It will really have to supplant sections 8 and 9. If the committee will excuse me for a moment, I shall have to alter the wording of my amendment.


Michael Clark: While the hon. member for Welland is looking for his place, can the Prime Minister let us know when we are going to prorogue?


Robert Laird Borden: Just as soon as we can.
' Mr. GERMAN:	The hon. member for
Red Deer has received such an absolutely satisfactory answer to his question, that I beg to move that clauses 8 and 9 be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:	.
The grants made under this Act shall be repayable with interest half-yearly at the rate of 4 per cent per annum not later than the 1st of July, 1933, and to be secured by debentures charged upon the undertaking, equipment property, rights and franchises of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company, ranking next after the securities already issued and at present existing against each and all of said companies, and also be further secured by a transfer to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada in trust for His Majesty, shares in the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company of the par value of fifteen million dollars which said stock shall be deemed to be fully paid-up non-assessable and not subject to calls and to be transferred upon the books of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and which said shares of stock shall be on the repayment by the said company of the said sum of fifteen million dollars, and all interest thereon retransferred to the said company, their successors or assigns.
1 make this motion for the reason that I do not believe the Canadian Government should be a shareholder in any public corporation. I do not think it is in the interest of the country, or in the interest of the Government, that it should be. I think that if this company are receiving $15,000,000 they should do as the Grand Trunk Pacific did-give Canada security for the money they are getting.
Amendment negatived on division.


Francis Cochrane: With the consent of the House I would move:
That section 8 be amended by striking out the words ' the Governor in Council ' in the 31st line, and inserting in lieu thereof the word * Parliament ', and that in line 33 the word ' he ' be struck out and the word ' it' be substituted therefor.
This makes the consent of Parliament necessary instead of that of the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Last evening, it was suggested that the Government should follow the practice adopted in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of providing for representation on the board of directors of the company. It struck me in the course of the discussion that the Prime Minister did not seem to attach much importance to such representation. I desire to urge upon him that, under the provisions of this measure, a situation is created wherein the country becomes a stockholder in the company, and, unless the Government takes some step on this occasion that stock will be entirely without representation upon the

board of directors. The fact that the country is the holder of $7,000,000 worth of stock in the corporation demands, it seems to me, some representation upon the board. The country would not be in a position to have its interests protected unless it had such representation. The policy which was insisted upon in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific, in which the country was not a stockholder, has met with results which, I am sure, must have been in the interest of the country, because it enabled the Government to be advised from time to time as to the various internal movements of the directors of the company. Without representation on the board, we would be in this position, that while we were large stockholders, we would know nothing whatever about the passing interests of the company.


Robert Laird Borden: I will take into consideration what my hon. friend has urged. He is quite correct in saying that I do not think it would be of any great importance to have representation. That conclusion was reached from what I saw of the value of representation upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Board.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is no stock
there.


Robert Laird Borden: The Government has voting power, I suppose, if it desires to exercise it. However, I will give my best consideration to the hon. gentleman's suggestion, and we can amend the Bill at another session, if necessary.
Bill reported.
Mr. COCHRANE moved the third reading of the Bill.


Frank Oliver: Before the motion is carried, I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Buchanan:
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, hut that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of amendment as follows:-
' That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the conditions that the said companies shall, within two months from the date of the passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, a schedule of traffic rates upon the lines of the said companies now or hereafter to be constructed west of Fort William, which shall be the same as now apply on the lines of the said companies in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except in so far and to such extent as the said railway companies may be able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort William, and the said schedule shall be subject to the authority and control of the said Board of Railway Commissioners, to be revised and adjusted by them in accordance with the foregoing provision.'
Mr. MACDONALD.
House divided on the proposed amendment :
YEAS:
Messieurs:
Bel and,
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Buchanan,
Carroll,
Carvell,
Delisle,
Fortier,
Gauvreau,
German,
Graham,
Hughes
(King's, P.E.I.), Lachance,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Lapointe Montreal,
St. James),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Lemieux,
Macdonald.
Maclean (York, O.), MacNutt,
McKenzie,
Mblloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Proulx,
Robb,
Ross,
Sinclair,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tobin,
Verville,
Warnoek.-37.
NAYS: Messieurs:
Achim,
A mes,
Armstrong (Lambton), Barrette,
Beattie,
Beliemare,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Boyce,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Chabot,
Clare,
Cochrane,
Coderre,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Foster (King's, N.S.), Fripp,
Garland,
Girard,
Guilbault,
Hartt,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Jameson,
Kemp,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lavalde,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
McKay,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Mondou,
Morphy,
Morrison,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Paquet,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Perley,
Reid (Grenville), Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thornton,
Walker,
Wallace,
Weichel,
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Wentworth),
Wright.-78. PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Aikins,
Arthurs,
Baker,
Opposition.
Turriff,
Devlin,
Kay,

Barnard,	Martin (Regina),
Bristol,	Bickerdike,
Bowman,	Turgeon,
Burrell,	Douglas,
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Tremain,	Chisholm (Inverness),
Davidson,	Chisholm (Antigonish),
Northrup,	Clarke (Red Deer),
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
White (Leeds),	Emmerson,
Fowler,	McLean (Sunbury),
Best,	Wilson (Laval),
Greeen,	Knowles,
Hazen,	Pugsley,
McCurdy,	Maclean (Halifax),
Robidoux,	Michaud,
Alguire,	Boyer,
Foster (Toronto),	'Clarke (Essex),
Roche,	Gordon,
Wilcox,	Cruise,
Elson,	Demers,
Clements,	McCoig,
'Munson,	McCraney,
Marshall,	McCrae,
Barker,	Bureau,
Gauthier (Gaspd),	Gauthier, ! (St. Hyacinthe),
Ball,	Kyte,
Lesperance,	Power,
Currie,	Guthrie,
Webster, .	Lovell,
Edwards,	Law,
Cromwell,	Loggie,
Armstrong (York),	McMillan,
Clarke (Wellington),	Champagne,
Porter,	Richards,
Forget,	White (Victoria),
Carrick,	Cardin,
Burnham,	Brouillard,
Osier,	Seguin,
Thompson (Yukon),	Reid (Restigouche),
Stewart (Hamilton,	Martin (St. Mary's),
Rainville,	Lafortune,
Lamarche,	Cash,
Sevigmy,	Pacaud,


Mr. TURGEON:: I am paired with the
hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Bowman); otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness):: I am
paired with the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Tremain); otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. WHITE (Minister of Finance):: I
am paired with the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson); otherwise I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I am paired with the
hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin); otherwise I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I am paired with the
hon. membeT for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Robi-doux); otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


John Douglas Hazen: I am paired with the
hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Pugsley); otherwise I would have voted against the amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am paired with the
hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil); otherwise I would have voted against the amendment.


Michael Clark: I am paired
with the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup); otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. MACDONALD moved in amendment:
That the said Bill he not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amendment by adding the following:-
' That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company shall be subject to the conditions that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at any time, after the completion of the lines* of railway above mentioned, require such railway company as is then operating the railway system which includes these lines, to file a schedule of freight rates from such points' touched by the lines of such company in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as they may designate, not including points in Ontario west of Sudbury, to such points in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, touched by the lines of the said company as they may designate. And the Board of Railway Commissioners shall revise such schedule of rates so that they shall be no higher than the rates per mile charged for like service over railway lines in the United States and Canada between New York and Winnipeg by way of Chicago and Minneapolis. The said rates shall be binding upon the said railway company until further revised by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.'


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I might
say in regard to this amendment, as in respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), that it does not seem to carry the matter farther than it is already carried by the Railway Act of Canada. The hon. gentleman desires an amendment providing that a certain schedule of freight rates shall be filed by this Company, and that the rates shall not be higher than certain rates which prevail by routes partly through the United States and partly through Canada. But in the end his amendment remits the whole matter absolutely to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, as it is already vested in that board, because we find at the end of it these words:
The said rates shall be binding upon the said railway company until further revised by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.	,	) |



So that even if such a schedule weTe prepared and brought into effect by the Railway Commissioners, it might be revised and altered next day. It seems to me that one observation indicates the futility of the amendment. It is not of a permanent character and it has no good effect, because eventually it leaves the whole matter just where it was before. The matter is at the present time under the Board of Railway Commissioners. An amendment of this kind would do no good and it would only tend to complicate the situation. The question of railway rates in the western country has been left to the Board of Railway Commissioners, and on the whole it has received reasonably effective action from that Commission. It may be that from time to time some delay has taken place on account of the enormous stress of work laid upon the commission in view of the great extent of the transportation lines of this country and the variety of the problems that have arisen. On the whole I think they have done reasonably good work, and, at all events, the amendment of my hon. friend does not tend to assist in relieving any situation or difficulty that may now exist.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to say, in answer to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, that there is this distinction created by this amendment, if it is included in the Bill, that there is laid down for the guidance of the Board of Railway Commissioners certain rules that are to be the determining factor in the preparation of these rates. As the matter stands, the whole question is open to the Board to deal with along general lines. This is a definite declaration by Parliament that in the framing of these rates hereafter, in so far as its conduct is concerned, the Board of Railway Commissioners must frame them with this object in view, and having before it the freight rates of the United States, and the idea that there is to be given to the Canadian people lower freight rates, so that we will be able to carry freight from the East on our own soil and over our own lines of transportation. The limitation which, this legislation would impose *would be binding upon the board of Railway Commissioners and the schedules which they would prepare would be of such a character as to give relief and bring about conditions which would be in the interest of the people of Canada as a whole.
House divided on the proposed amendment:
YEAS:
Messieurs:
Boivin,	Lemieux,
Bourassa,	Loggie,
Mr. BORDEN.
Buchanan,	Macdonald.
Carroll,	Maclean (York, 0.),
Carvell,	MacNutt,
Delisle,	McKenzie,
Fortier,	Molloy,
Gauvreau,	Murphy,
German,	Neely,
Graham,	Oliver,
Hughes	Papineau,
(King's, P.E.I.),	Pardee,
Lachance,	Proulx,
Lanctot,	Robb,
Lapointe	Ross,
(Kamouraska),	Sinclair,
Lapointe (Montreal.	, Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
St. James),	Tobin,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),Verville,	
Law,	Warnock.-37.
	NAYS:
Messieurs:	
Achim,	McLean
Ames,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Armstrong (Lambton), Meighen,	
Barrette,	Merner,
Beattie,	MIddlebro,
Bellemare,	Mondou,
Bennett (Caigary),	Morphy,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Morrison,
Blain,	Nantel,
Blondin,	Nicholson,
Borden,	Nickle, .
Boulay,	Paquet,
Boyce,	Paul,
Boys,	Pelletier,
Brabazon,	Perley,
Bradbury,	Reid (Grenville),
Broder,	Rhodes,
Clare,	Rogers,
Cochrane,	Schaffner,
Coderre,	Sexsmith,
Crocket,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Crothers,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Elliot,	Shepherd,
Fisher,	Smith,
Foster (Kings, N.S.	), Smyth,
Fripp,	Stanfield,
Garland,	Steele,
Gauthier (Gaspe),	Stevens,
Girard,	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Guilbault,	Sutherland,
Hartt,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Thoburn,
Hepburn,	Thompson (Yukon),
J a,meson,	Thornton,
Kemp,	Walker,
Lalor,	W allace,
Lancaster,	Weichel,
Lavallee,	White (Renfrew),
Lewis,	Wilson (Wentworth),
Macdonell, McKay,	Wright.-80.
PAIRS: '	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Aikins,	Turriff,
Arthurs,	Devlin,
Baker,	Kay,
Barnard,	Martin (Regina),
Bristol,	Biekerdike,
Bowman,	Turgeon,
Burrell,	Douglas,
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Tremain,	Chisholm (Inverness)

Davidson,	Chisholm (Antigonish),
Northrup,	Clark (Red Deer),
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
White (Leeds),	Emmerson.
Fowler,	McLean (Sunbury),
Best,	Wi-lson (Laval),
Green,	Knowles,
Hazen,	Pugsley,
McCurdy,	Maclean (Halifax),
Robidoux,	Michaud,
Alguire,	Boyer,
Foster (Toronto),	Clarke (Essex),
Roche,	Gordon,
Wilcox,	Cruise,
Elson,	Demers,
Clements,	McCoig,
Munson,	M'cCraney,
Marshall,	McCrae,
Barker,	Bureau,
Ball,	Kyte,
Lesperance,	Power,
Currie,	Guthrie,
Webster,	Lovell,
Edwards,	Nesbitt,
Cromwell,	Reid (Restigouche),
Armstrong (York),	McMillan,
Clarke (Wellington),	Champagne,
Porter,	Richards,
Forget,	White (Victoria),
Garrick,	Cardin,
Burnham,	Brouillard,
Osier,	Seguin,
Stewart (Hamilton),	Martin (St. Mary's),
Rainville,	Lafortune,
Lamarche,	Cash,
iSevigny,	Pacaud,
Chabot,	Beland,
Amendment negatived.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Before this Bill is finally-disposed of, I beg to movfe. seconded by Mr. Pardee:
That the said Bill be not read now the third time, but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend the same by inserting the following as clause 6:
' That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies shall be subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at all times provide and secure to other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights as will afford to all railways connecting with the railway and bridges so subsidized reasonable and proper facilties in exercising such running power, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways; and the said board shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and bridges hereby subsidized:	Provided always
that any decision of the said board made under this section may be at any time varied, changed or rescinded by the Governor in Council, as he deems just and proper.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the question is
put, I should like to make it clear that section 6 of the Bill as it is before the committee contains these provisions with regard to the companies to which subsidies
|
are granted by this Bill, but the hon. gentleman desires to provide that similar provisions shall be applied to another company that has no connection with the Bill at all. The reasons which induced the hon. gentleman to take that course were indicated by him when the House was in committee on that Bill. I made such answer as I thought was necessary on that occasion, and I will not take up the time of the House to repeat now what I then said. I would merely add that so far as concerns the practical question, I am thoroughly convinced that when this line comes to be operated as a transcontinental line from the Atlantic to the Pacific, no difficulty will be found to exist. The line must be operated under the control and jurisdiction of one company, and when that time comes it is abundantly clear that such arrangements must be reached as will enable the Board of Railway Commisioners of Canada to exercise jurisdiction.
. Mr. GRAHAM: The reason this amendment is moved affecting a company not included in the Bill is this: The company not mentioned in the Bill before the House is thd Canadian Northern Pacific which forms with the roads mentioned in the Bill, the transcontinental line of the Canadian Northern Railway system. Under an arrangement made with the British Columbia Government, the Canadian Northern Pacific is excepted and agrees to be excepted from the control of the Board of Dominion Railway Commissioners. It being a transcontinental line, I submit that in the interest of the people of Canada this line in its entirety, including the Canadian Northern Pacific should be under the Board of Railway Commissioners, particularly as to rates; and this amendment is to place that link in the transcontinental line, with the other links, under that board.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A portion of this
amendment at least is out of order-the portion on which the House has twice already registered its verdict with regard to the control of rates by the Board of Rail way Commissioners. This is practically the same thing for the third time, but the rest of the amendment will of course be in order.


Robert Laird Borden: It relates to another
company and is different in that respect.
Amendment negatived on the same division as last recorded.


William Manley German: Before the Bill is read
the third time, I desire to move:
That the said Bill be not now read tlie third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend the same by striking out sections 8 and 9 and adding in lieu thereof the following:

* The grants made under this Act shall be repayable with interest half-yearly at the rate of four per cent per annum not later than the 1st July, 1933, and to be secured by debentures charged upon the undertaking, equipment and property, rights and franchises of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company, ranking nest after the securities already issued and at present existing against each and all of said companies, and also be further secured by a transfer to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada in trust for His Majesty shares in the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company of the par value of fifteen million dollars which said stock shall be deemed to be fully paid up nonassessable and not subject to calls and to be transferred upon the books of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and which said shares of stock shall be on the, repayment by the said company of the said sum of fifteen millions dollars, and all interest thereon retransferred to the said company, their successors or assigns.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment which
the hon. gentleman proposes seems to me to be of a rather curious nature. It would appear to be his desire that the House should give a larger sum than the Government proposes. Certain subsidies have been provided for in the Bill which is before the House. The amendment of the hon. gentleman leaves this intact, and further provides that we should give a loan of $15,000,000 to this Company.	[DOT]


William Manley German: Oh, no.


Robert Laird Borden: That may not be what the hon. gentleman means, but it is what the resolution says. The amendment does not propose to strike anything out of the Bill; it proposes to amend it by providing that there shall be a loan of $15,000,000; therefore if the hon. gentleman's amendment were adopted there would be not payable only the subsidy of $15,000,000, but a loan of $15,000,000 as well. I do not think the hon. gentleman has made out any case for that, and it seems, to me, for that reason alone, that it would be' proper for the House to reject the motion.


William Manley German: The amendment says
that the grants made under the provisions of this Bill shall be repayable, and the grants to be made under the provisions of the Bill are the subsidies. The right hon. gentleman is evading the question.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is quite mistaken; he proposes to amend the resolution by providing for an advance out of the consolidated revenue fund of $15,000,000.


William Manley German: No; the hon. gentleman has not seen the resolution.
Mr. GERMAN.


Robert Laird Borden: I am reading the one he proposed yesterday.


William Manley German: This is not the same as the resolution I proposed yesterday, because the Speaker ruled that one out of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may say that in my opinion this amendment also is out of order. The resolution which came before this House for consideration and which received the assent of the Crown, was for a subsidy. This one is for a loan, re-payable; it has not received the assent of the Crown, and is therefore out of order.


William Manley German: I beg leave to appeal
from your ruling to the House, and I wish to speak on the point of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. member
appeals, it is without debate.
Having read the main motion and the proposed amendment thei^to:
Mr. SPEAKER said: This amendment I ruled out of order on the well-understood principle that it is not permissible to increase or alter the destination of a grant of money recommended by the Governor Gen- -eral. In support of this Bourinot cites Canadian Commons Journals, 1875, page 240, Decisions of Canadian Speakers, No. 160, 10th June, 1869; No. 176, 6th May, 1870. The amendment contemplates an expenditure different from that proposed by the resolution which came before this House, and which had received the assent of the Governor 'General. The original resolution and the Bill founded upon it provided for an absolute grant of money, whereas the amendment provides for a loan of money, and is therefore different from the grant provided for in the resolution to which the assent of the Crown was given, and from the Bill based upon it. My ruling was that for that reason the resolution was out of order. From that ruling Mr. German appeals to the House.
House divided on the question:	shall
the ruling of the Chair be confirmed?
YEAS:
Messieurs
Achim,	Maedonell,
Ames,	Maclean (York, O.),
Armstrong (Lambton).McKay,
Barrette,
Beattie,
Bellemare,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Boyce,
Boys,
MoLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Mondou,
Morphy,
Morrison,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Paquet,

Brabazon,	Paul,
Bradbury,	Pelletier,
Broder,	Perlev,
Clare,	Reid (Grenville),
Cochrane,	Rhodes,
Coderre,	Rogers,
Crocket,	Schaffner,
Cromwell,	Sexsmith,
Crothers,	.Sharpe (Lisgar),
Currie,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Elliot,	Shepherd,
Fisher,	Smith,
Foster (Kings, N.S.), Smyth,	
Fripp,	Stanfield,
Garland,	Steele,
Gauthier (Gasp6),	Stevens,
Girard,	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Guilbault,	Sutherland,
Hartt,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Thoburn,
Hepburn,	Thompson (Yukon),
Jameson,	Thornton,
Kemp,	Walker,
Lalor,	Wallace,
Lancaster,	Weichel,
Lapointe (Montreal, White (Renfrew),	
St. James),	Wilson (Wentworth),
Lavalee,	Wright.-82.
 NAYS: Messieurs
Boivin,	Loggie,
Bourassa,	Macdonald,
Buchanan,	MacNutt,
Carroll,	McKenzie,
Car veil,	Molloy,
Delisle,	Murphy,
Fortier,	Neely,
Gauvreau,	Oliver,
German,	Papineau,
Graham,	Pardee,
Hughes	Proulx,
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Richards,
Lachance,	Robb,
Lanctot,	Ross,
Lapointe	Sinclair,
(Kamouraska),	Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),Tobin,	
Law,	Verville,
Lemieux,	Warnock.-36. PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Aikins,	Turriff,
Arthurs,	Devlin,
Baker,	Kay,
Barnard,	Martin (Regina),
Bristol,	Bickerdike,
Bowman,	Turgeon,
Burrell,	Douglas,
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Tremaine,	Chisholm (Inverness),
Davidson,	Chisholm (Antigonish),
Northrup,	Clark (Red Deer),
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
White (Leeds,	Emmerson,
Fowler,	McLean (Sunbury),
Best,	Wilson (Laval),
Green,	Knowles,
Hazen,	Pugsley,
McCurdy,	Maclean (Halifax),
Robidoux,	Michaud,
Alguire,	McMillan,
Foster (Toronto),	Clarke (Essex),
Roche,	Gordon,
Wilcox,	Cruise,
Elson,	Demers,
Clements,	McCoig, McCraney,
Clark (Wellington),	
Marshall,	McCrea,
Barker,	Bureau,
Ball,	Kyte,
Lesperance,	Power,
Lewis,	Guthrie,
Webster,	Lovell,
Armstrong (York),	Champagne,
Munson,	Boyer,
Forget,	White (Victoria),
Porter,	Reid Restigouche),
Carrick,	Cardin,
Osier,	Seguin,
Burnham,	Brouillard, .
Stewrart (Hamilton),	Martin (St. Mary's
Rainville,	*Lafortune,
Lamarche,	Cash,
Sevigny,	Pacaud,
Monk,	Gauthier (St. Hyacinthe).
Ruling of the Chair confirmed.


Michael Clark: I desire to
state that I am paired with the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). Had I voted I should have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.
House divided on the motion of Mr. Cochrane for the third reading of the Bill:
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ackim,	Maclean (York, 0.),
Ames.	McKay,
Armstrong (Lambton), McLean	
Barrette,	(Queens, P.E.I.),,
Beattie,	Meighen,
Bellemare,	Merner,
Bennett (Calgary),	Middlebro,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Mondou,
Blain,	Morphy,
Blondin,	Morrison,
Borden,	Nantel,
Boulay,	Nicholson,
Boyce,	Nickle,
Boys,	Paquet,
Brabazon,	Paul,
Bradbury,	Pelletier,
Broder,	Perley,
Clare,	Reid (Grenville),
Cochrane,	Rhodes,
Coderre,	Rogers,
Crocket,	Schaffner,
Cromwell,	Sexsmith,
Crother6,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Currie,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Elliot,	Shepherd,
Fisher,	Smith,
Foster (Kings, N.S.),	Smyth,
Fripp,	Stanfield,
Garland,	Steele,
Gauthier (Gasp4),	Steven9,
Girard,	Stewart (Lunenburg)
Guilbault,	Sutherland,
Hartt,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Thoburn,
Hepburn,	Thompson (Yukon),
Jameson,	Thornton,
Kemp,	Walker,

Lalor,	Wallace,
Lancaster,	Weicliel,
Lapointe (Montreal, White (Renfrew),
St. James),	Wilson (Wentworth),
Lavalde,	Wright.-83.
Macdonell,
NAYS:
Messieurs
Boivin,	Loggie,
Bourassa,	Macdonald,
Buchanan,	MacNutt,
Carvell,	McKenzie,
Champagne,	Mo lloy,
Delisle,	Murphy,
Fortier,	Oliver,
Gauvreau,	Papineau, -
German,	Pardee,
Graham,	Proulx,
Hughes	Richards,
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Robb,
Lachance,	Ross,
Lanctot,	Sinclair,
Lapointe	Thomson (Qu'Appelle).
(Kamouraska),	Tobin,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),Verville,	
Law,	Warnock.-35.
Lemieux,	{
PAIRS: -	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Aikins,	Turriff,
Arthurs,	Devlin,
Baker,	Kay,
Barnard,	Martin (Regin*),
Biistol.	Bickerdike,
Bowman,	Turgeon,
Burrell,	Douglas,
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Tremaine,	Chisholm (Inverness),
Davidson,	Chisholm (Antigonish),
Northrup,	Clark (Red Deer),
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
White (Leeds),	Emmerson,
Fowler,	McLean (Sunbury),
Best,	Wilson (Laval),
Green,	Knowles,
Ha-zen,	Pugsley,
McCurdy,	Maclean (Halifax),
Robidoux,	Michaud,
Alguire,	McMillan,
Foster (Toronto),	Clarke (Essex),
Roche,	Gordon,
Wilcox,	Cruise,
Eison,	Demers,
Clements,	McCoig,
Clark (Wellington),	McCraney,
Marshall,	McCrea,
Barker,	Bureau,
Ball,	Kyte,
Lesperanee,	Power,
Lewis,	Guthrie,
Webster,	Lovell,
Armstrong (York),	Champagne,
Munson,	Boyer,
Forget,	White (Victoria),
Porter,	Reid (Restigouche),
Garrick,	Cardin,
Osier,	Seguin,
Burnham,	Brouillard,
Stewart (Hamilton),	Martin (St. Mary's),
Rainville,	Lafortune,
Lamarche,	Cash,
Se vigny,	Pacaud,
Monk,	Gauthier i (St. Hyacinthe),
Mr. CLARK (Red	Deer).


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals) Bill No. 246, to authorize a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, was read the second time.
House went into Committee on the Bill. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
George Perry Graham: Is the literal construction of each section exactly as it was in the resolution?


William Thomas White: The resolution is general
in character, while the Bill is particular, and the sections of the Bill are not strictly the same as in the resolution.


George Perry Graham: Have they been compared carefully to see that there is no departure from the principle of the resolution?


William Thomas White: There is no departure
from the principle of the resolution, and I believe that the Bill is properly founded on the resolution.


Frank Oliver: I desire to move as an
amendment, the insertion of a clause similar in effect to that which I moved in connection with the subsidy to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. While this is not a subsidy Bill, as it provides merely for a loan, for which I assume the country has ample security, the condition of affairs existing in the western country in regard to railroad rates calls for a remedy. While I do not wish to be understood as objecting to the form which the aid to the Grand Trunk Pacific takes in this Bill, or to the amount of the aid, I consider that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has received from this Government, directly and indirectly, such aid as fully warrants this Parliament, at this time, attaching to the proposed loan conditions which will protect, as far as we can, the interests of the people of the West in regard to freight rates. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Carvell, that the Bill be amended by adding to it the following clause:
That the granting of the loan hereafter provided and the receipt thereof by the company shall be subject to the conditions that the said company shall, within two months from the date of the passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, a schedule of traffic rates upon the lines of the said company west of Fort William, which shall be the same as now apply on the lines of the said company in that provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except in so far and to such extent as the said railway company may be able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort Wil-

liam, and the said schedule shall be subject to the authority and control of the said Board of Railway Commissioners, to be revised and adjusted by them in accordance with the foregoing provision.	-
I have stated to the committee on a former occasion the reasons why it appears to me to be necessary that a specific arrangement should be made in order that the relief that is urgently required by the people of the western c. untry in the matter of freight rates should be given. My right hon. friend the leader of the Government has done me the honour to suggest that the motion of like character which I moved in connection with the Bill granting the subsidy to the Canadian Northern Railway Company was made rather with the view of political effect, than for the purpose of rendering efficient aid. It is true that any motion made from this side of the House to amend a Government measure, is not effective unless it is impressed favourably upon the mind of the Government. Notwithstanding that fact, members of Parliament sitting in opposition have a like responsibility with members sitting on the other side of the House and supporting the Government, to declare their minds in regard to matters of interest to their constituents, and I submit it is not becoming to the Prime Minister that when a proposition dealing with a matter that is admitted to be of great interest and of serious importance to the people of western Canada is submitted for the consideration of this House, the act of submitting it is subjected to any such criticism as the right hon. gentleman saw fit to give vent to in the House last night. If it is impossible for us to impress our views upon the Government that is dealing with these things it is at least our duty to do what we may in order to make that impression. I do not wish to detain the committee, but I must reiterate that the condition that exists in the Northwest, admitting everything that my right hon. friend has said, calls for a remedy and the people of western Canada are entitled to look to this Parliament for that remedy. My right hon. friend has not only seen fit to refuse them that remedy, (but he has seen fit to take such action here to-day as to prevent even a proper voicing of the opinions of the House in regard to an important feature of this proposed aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company.


Robert Laird Borden: The motion which the
hon. gentleman has proposed by way of amendment to the Bill is one which does not seem to me to have any merit or justification inasmuch as the whole question which is covered by his amendment has been entrusted to the Railway Commission under the Act which was passed ten years ago, or in 1903. With all deference to the views of the hon. member for Edmonton
(Mr. Oliver), I cannot see that the object which he has in mind would be advanced by the proposition which he has made inasmuch as the principle which he has laid down is one that is already being acted upon by the Railway Commissioners who are dealing with the subject in accordance with certain definite principles which they have laid down and which must regulate their action. The principles so laid down ought to justify themselves in the view of the hon. member for Edmonton. The hon. gentleman will no doubt agree that it would be absolutely impossible for this Parliament to undertake an investigation into the conditions that are specified in his resolution. The Board of Railway Commissioners have a trained staff of experts to assist them to investigate this question, they have legal gentlemen before them to assist them in the investigation, they have all the machinery which this House absolutely lacks for the purpose of carrying on any investigation of the kind and I repeat that, notwithstanding the earnestness with which the hon. gentleman has advocated his amendment, the passing of the amendment would not improve the situation, but would rather tend to complicate it.


William Findlay Maclean: In view
of ail the study I have given to this matter of freight rates, I am convinced that the only remedy is by Parliament laying down principles, the insertion of these principles in the Railway Act, and especially the insertion of the principle of equality of treatment. I do not believe that relief will ever come from investigation on the part of the Railway Commissioners, but I believe that Parliament must direct the Railway Commission that there is one underlying principle governing and that principle is equality of rates. I am sure that if such a conclusion is not reached there will be an agitation for public ownership in this country. If we cannot get the principle of equality in rates inserted in the Railway Act there is another quick procedure and I believe to-day that the quickest and shortest solution of the railway question and the easiest way to bring all the lines within the immediate jurisdiction of this Parliament is for the Dominion of Canada to buy the common stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We have practically built the Grand Trunk Pacific out of the public treasury and we have not control of the road, we have not control of the rates and we have practically nothing for what we have given them except the control that is vested in the Railway Commission. The way to get complete and absolute control of the Grand Trunk Pacific is for the Government to buy in the shares of the company. By that means they will get control of the Grand Trunk railway and Grand Trunk Pacific and by linking them with the Intercolonial railway they will imme-

diately be able to give the people of Canada a transcontinental line that will be dominant in the maritime provinces, in Quebec, in Ontario and throughout the West. I believe that the people to-day are prepared to undertake that venture. It may be that we are only buying back what we have already built but it will not cost a great deal of money to control the Grand Trunk Pacific. We can do this under the legislation which now exists in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. We might be able to do it in other ways, for instance by going into the open market and buying the stock. But the solution is the acquisition by this Government of the Grand Trunk railway and Grand Trunk Pacific, their consolidation with the Intercolonial railway, and then to run that consolidated railway in the interests of the people and with complete control over the rates. It will not be a hard thing to do. I totally disagree with what was said by the hon. member for Welland this afternoon when he stated that he did not believe in the nation holding the shares of a railway company. I do not agree with him at all. We should begin to buy shares of the Grand Trunk Pacific or the shares of any railway wherever we can get them, and we should use them for the purpose of gradually getting control of these systems and consolidating them with the present Government railway.
Mr. BUCHANAN moved that the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
That the granting of the loan herein provided and the receipt thereof by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall he subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at any time, after the completion of the lines of railway above mentioned, require such railway company as is then operating the railway system which includes these lines, to file a schedule of freight rates from such points touched by the lines of such company in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as they may designate, not including points in Ontario west of Sudbury, to such points in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, touched by the lines of the said company as they may designate. And the Board of Railway Commissioners shall revise such schedule of rates so tnat they shall be no higher than the rates per mile charged for like service over railway lines in the United States and Canada between New York and Winnipeg by way of Chicago and Minneapolis. The said rates shall be binding upon the said railway company until further revised by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
He said:	In moving this amendment I
would say that I come from a part of western Canada where railways are in demand, but I believe that I represent the opinion of the majority of the people there when I say that this Government, or any Mr. MACLEAN (South York).
other government in Canada, in making certain advances to railways, either in the nature of subsidies or loans, should insist upon receiving something in return. In the past I believe all governments have-been more or less generous to the railway companies but the time has come to call a halt in that respect and if we have to do anything to, assist railways we should receive something in return so that the people will be benefited. I claim that, in this particular amendment and the other amendments that have been moved on this side of the House, we have been aiming in that direction. The people in western Canada are clamouring for railroads, but at the same time they are clamouring for protection from high freight rates. If we have to assist railroads, we should see that the people are properly protected when we are handing over the money. I am somewhat inclined to agree with the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in this respect, that in some of the subsidies we are granting it might be much better that, when we are going to the assistance of these railroads so lavishly, we should secure absolute control over them and operate them if necessary. I am more or less a believer in government ownership and operation of railroads in the Dominion of Canada. I believe it would be a relief from the high freight Tates that exist in the West, and we would be able to keep the other railroads under control. I have also been a believer in municipal ownership, and I have not yet found that I have been mistaken in that regard.


Robert Laird Borden: This resolution, if I am
not mistaken, is of a character similar to the one moved when the House was in committee yesterday upon another Bill. It provides that the granting of the loan shall be subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at any time, after the completion of the line of railway, require the company to file a certain schedule of freight rates. The best answer to the motion is this: that without this amendment the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada can do the very thing which is asked. This amendment therefore adds nothing to the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners; and, so far as I am able to appreciate its import, it could only serve to complicate the situation.
Amendment negatived on division.
On the schedule:


George Perry Graham: This schedule is a
little complicated, and no doubt Tefers to legislation in reference to the western division of the Grand Trunk Pacific. If

my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will give us a short explanation of what this is, it will be of interest to the House and will probably save many questions.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend's request is a very proper one, when we are dealing with large sums of money. There is an error in the schedule which I wish to correct. Section 8 of the Bill says:
The Governor in Council may, on the certificate of the chief engineer of the western division of the said railway appointed by the Governor in Council, or on the certificate of 6uch other officer as the Governor in Council may appoint for the purpose, authorize and direct the Minister of Finance to make advances to the company out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, upon the pledge of debentures as aforesaid, of such sums as the chief engineer or other officer may certify have been expended by the company in construction -woi'k on either the prairie or mountain section of the said western division, as the word ' sums ' and the words ' construction work ' are defined in the schedule to this Act.
I desire to move that the figure " 7 ' in the first line of section 1 of the schedule be changed to ' 8/ and also the figure ' 7 ' in section 2, line 1, be changed to '8.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Thomas White: 
George Perry Graham: Can the hon. gentleman tell me as to the time it will take to complete the mountain section ?


William Thomas White: Of course, it will be only an estimate. I think they are aiming at the end of 1914. Of course, we are desirous that it should be expedited as rapidly as possible.	.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Mr. WHITE moved the third reading of the Bill.
Frank Oliver: Before the Bill is read the third time, I desire to move:
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend it by adding as section 15 thereof the following:-
' That the granting of such loan and the receipt thereof by the company shall be subject to the conditions that the said company shall, within two months from the date of ithe passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada a schedule of traffis rates upon the Hines of the said; company west of Fort William, which shaft be the same as now apply on the lines of the Grand Trunk Company in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except in so far and to such extent as the said railway company may he able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort William; and the said schedule shall be subject to thej authority and control of the said Board of' Railway Commissioners, to be revised and adjusted by them in accordance -with the foregoing provision.'
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: In offering to the House
this, amendment, I desire to draw attention to the difference in the conditions surrounding the enterprise that it is proposed to aid by the Bill before the House and the conditions surrounding the enterprise aided by the Bill passed immediately before. The aid agreed to [DOT] in the earlier part of this afternoon was a gift of $15,000,000. The aid proposed to be given by means of the Bill now under consideration is a loan of $15,000,000, a loan which is acknowledged by the debentures of the company receiving the money, guaranteed by another railway company, and, as I read the Act, giving the Government all the authority to recover that is possessed by any creditor against -any railway company. While the greater assistance is given to the company that was the subject of the Bill of this afternoon, I wish to point out that, according to my judgment, the conditions surrounding the enterprises render that enterprise which is under consideration by the Bill now before the House entitled to greater and not less consideration at the hands of Parliament. In doing so I do not wish to say anything derogatory to the enterprise already aided and neither do I wish to say anything that will unduly or unwarrantably excuse the enterprise that we are now considering for Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
any part of its failure to meet expecta-drew attention at considerable length, and
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance drew attention at considerable length, and no doubt with great accuracy, to the enormous cost that has been incurred in respect of this enterprise of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am not proposing to find any fault with his figures, but I wish for a moment to draw attention to some of the conditions surrouding that enterprise which it appears to me justify to a greater degree the expenditure of the public money that has been expended on it than those public moneys that have been already spent on the enterprise under consideration this afternoon. I desire to speak particularly of that part of the Grand Trunk Pacific enterprise which opens up new country. From Edmonton westward to the Pacific coast, the distance is something over eight hundred miles. For every foot of that distance, excepting such radius as naturally would be tributary to the city of Edmonton; that is a distance of thirty or forty miles, every foot of that eight hundred miles traversed by the Grand Trunk Pacific is through absolutely new country, a country that was absolutely unoccupied until the [DOT]construction of that railroad was begun. The building of that railroad has added to the effective territory of Canada an area, served by the Grand Trunk Pacific and its branch lines between Edmonton and Prince Rupert, as a home of population and as a field for the production of wealth, absolutely as great as the area of the United Kingdom. What the actual ultimate value of the territory will be, no one can tell, but that it is and will be of stupendous value there is no question. Every shovelful of earth, every ton of rock that has been moved, has been taken out under conditions absolutely created by and at the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It has been not only a pioneer enterprise, but absolutely a creative enterprise, and while it is to be regretted that the cost is as great as it is, my view of the cost is that, so far as the money contributed by the Dominion of Canada is concerned, Canada is expending that money, not for the building of eight hundred miles of railroad, but for the creation of eight hundred miles of territory, and in doing so, let the figures be as high as the Minister of Finance has placed them, still there is substantial merit in the enterprise and the Dominion of Canada has gained and not lost by its being carried forward.
From Quebec to Winnipeg, a distance of fourteen hundred miles, or, we will say, something over twelve hundred miles, the conditions are absolutely similar to those on the Grand Trunk Pacific from Edmonton to

Prince Rupert, for twelve hundred miles traversing an absolutely unoccupied country, hundreds of miles distant, for a large
part- of the distance, from the nearest productive occupation or settlement. The value of the Transcontinental, between Winnipeg and Quebec, has not only been the building of a railroad; it has been the creation of a country, and as such it stands in an entirely different position, so far as value to Canada is concerned, from the enterprise that we aided by this legislation this afternoon.
Not only so, but by reason of the route that has been taken, Winnipeg, the converging point of the traffic of the wheat fields, has been brought nearly two hundred miles nearer to ocean navigation than it was before. From every side, the enterprise that is now under consideration is valuable not for its mere existence, but for that which it has created. If I may make a comparison, the Canadian Northern Railway Company has done magnifieient pioneer creative work in the prairie West, but the work which it has now in hand, and for which it is being aided by Parliament, is essentially not creative work. It is work which is necessary to the well-being of the system already established. It is desirable from a national point of view, as giving transcontinental railway competition, but it is as a competitor for railway traffic that it is valuable, and not in a creative capacity, as is the enterprise now under consideration. And yet, in dealing with these two enterprises, neither of them completed, and both of them requiring assistance, this Parliament gives to the one of lesser merit a gift of $15,000,000, and to the other a loan absolutely secured.
I have moved, Mr. Speaker, to attach a certain condition to the loan that is now under consideration. I do so with full regard to the aid that the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific is to the development of the Dominion of Canada. But towards that enterprise the Dominion of Canada has contributed liberally, and when we are considering the question of further aid, I maintain, as I did on the former occasion, that that is the time to consider a readjustment of conditions which will secure for our people a maximum of benefit in consideration of the advantage given.
I have heard the right hon. the Premier say and repeat that the amendment I have the honour to offer is not necessary, and not valuable; and I understood him to say that it would not be effective even if it vrere carried. I wish to contend that the view which he expressed in regard to the authority of the Railway Commission, as set forth in the Railway Act, is not warranted by the facts, as we
know them. I do not know what interpretation he may be pleased to place upon the terms of the Railway Act. I am not in a position to say with authority how the terms of that Act, should be interpreted, but I am in a position to say that the object that I have in view in moving this amendment has not yet been attained under the Railway Act, as it stands, and I am anxious that it should be attained. There is no mandate in the Railway Act requiring the Board of Railway Commissioners to equalize rates between eastern and western Canada. No such provision can be found in that Act. I will admit that the Railway Cimmission has power to equalize those rates, just as the members of this Parliament have power to vote to themselves $10,000 as a sessional indemnity. But because they have the power to do that, it does not follow that they are going to do so, or that it would be right if they did so. The Railway Commission has the power under the Railway Act to do many things, but the Railway Commission is governed by conditions and principles that are expressed in the Railway Act, and I assert that the Prime Minister has no right to say that the country is entitled to receive at the hands of the Railway Commission that which I ask this Parliament to instruct the Railway Commission to give under the authority they have. The Railway Commission had power to reduce express rates in the West to the same level as express rates in the East. The Railway Commission took cognizance of the facts both East and West. They delivered a decision which, I am bound to think, was in accordance with their best judgment, and they decided not to reduce western express rates to the level of eastern express rates. Does imy right hon. friend say that the Railway Commission did wrong when they rendered that decision? He will not say so. Then if they did right, when they rendered that decision, I ask him on what ground does he assert that there is no purpose in the amendment that I have placed before the House.
I contend that the fact that this Parliament is giving to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern the aid that has been given out of the public treasury entitles the country to a return upon that payment in rates which shall be equal in western Canada to those in eastern Canada having regard to the extra cost of operation if such exists. That is what the amendment asserts, that is what the people of western Canada are entitled to, and it is a necessity to the well-being and development of this country. When the country is even loaning the Grand Trunk Pacific $15,000,000, is the time to make a specific arrangement with them whereby the de-

mand that has been voiced all over the prairie country during the past several years shall secure the result desired. I am not speaking alone here; I have the demand of the Winnipeg Board of Trade. If the right hon. gentleman thinks I do not know what I am talking about or that I am talking only for political effect, I would refer him to the Winnipeg Board of Trade, a body of gentlemen, who, I think, it may fairly be presumed, do know what they are talking about and certainly are not talking for political effect. If I wanted further authority for moving the amendment I might refer my right hon. friend to the precedent of the Government of Canada in dealing with the Crowsnest Pass railway in 1898, and the Government of Manitoba in dealing with the Canadian Northern Railway Company in 1901. We have a condition existing to-day in the West that calls for a remedy and the fact that we in Parliament are agreeing to provide this money warrants us in securing that remedy.
I move the amendment believing it is my duty and the duty of every member of this House to take this opportunity to provide that remedy.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from
Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has repeated at considerable length and in somewhat extended form observations to the same effect that we have heard from him on three or four occasions. I do not desire to be understood as suggesting that the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about, nor do I wish to be understood as casting any reflection upon him by reason of the arguments which he has put forward. I have already pointed out some of the reasons why I do not think it is desirable that an amendment of this character should be accepted by the committee or by the House. Some of the observations that I made last evening to which he took exception are very much borne out by the amendment which he has offered just now and to which apparently he has not given very much consideration. I would like to know from him, before I begin to consider his amendment, what are the lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific in Ontario and Quebec to which he alludes in this resolution. I am not aware that that company operates any lines in Ontario and Quebec. Perhaps he would be good enough to explain so that I will understand his point.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the right hon.
gentleman does not hold in his hand the motion I made.


Robert Laird Borden: I hold the one that Mr. Speaker has handed down to me as the one that the hon. gentleman moved. I will read it to him. It is marked in his own handwriting with his name, and it is the [DOT]Mr. OLIVER.	.	'
motion which he has proposed, as I understand it.


Frank Oliver: There is an error some where.


Robert Laird Borden: There is obviously an
error, but it would have been well for the hon. gentleman to have considered well this resolution before he proposed it. This is-the resolution which he seriously asks this House to accept:
That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the company, shall be subject to the condition that the said company shall, within two months from the date of the passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, a schedule of traffic upon the lines of the said company now or hereafter to be constructed west of Fort William, which shall be the same as now apply on the lines of the said company in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except in so far and to such extent as the said railway company may be able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort William, and the said schedule shall be subject to the authority and control of the said Board of Railway Commissioners.
Therefore the hon. gentleman has taken up half an hour of the time of the House in asking us to apply to the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company west _ of Fort William the same rates as those which apply to its lines in Ontario and Quebec,, when a moment's reflection should have convinced him, as every hon. gentleman in the House knows, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is operating no lines in Ontario and Quebec. Before taking up that amount of time at this stage of the session, the hon. gentleman might have taken the trouble to read his resolution or to understand it. I do not know that any meaning at all can be attached to the resolution. If there are any lines of the resolution. If there are any lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company being operated in Ontario or Quebec, I am not aware of them. If there_ are no such lines being operated in Ontario or Quebec, then the hon. gentleman's resolution is absolutely meaningless, and the time of the House has been unnecessarily sacrificed by the remarks which he has seen fit to-deliver.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask if the right hon. the Premier rests his objections to my remarks, and to the tenor of the resolution on the wording which he has mentioned?


Robert Laird Borden: I made all necessary
observations with regard to the matter before. I do not see fit to occupy the time of the House in repeating them.
Amendment negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Cochrane) agreed to, and Bill read the third time, and passed.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE REPORTER.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have the honour to inform the House that I have directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the table the recommendation and other papers respecting the appointment of Herbert Thomas Owen, as reporter on the committee section of the staff.


TIMISKAMING AND NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane '(Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 247, to authorize the granting of Subsidies to the Government of the province of Ontario in aid of the construction of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Blain in the Chair.)
On section 2-subsidies to Government of Ontario for construction of railways:
George Perry Graham: I think this should be
stated in the usual terms. I suppose it would amount to the same thing, but it might not. Why not use the terms of the Subsidies Act?


Francis Cochrane: It is already built, and cost over $49,000 per mile.


George Perry Graham: What I say is that the result will no doubt be the same; but it will be a precedent for some other Bill that might not be the same.


Francis Cochrane: It was the law clerk of the department who drafted it. But he got no special instructions, and I cannot tell why he put it that way.


George Perry Graham: I suppose it is because, as my hon. friend says, it will be the same thing anyway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The proposition contained in this Bill is one that ought not to be voted in this committee or ratified by Parliament. The object of granting railway subsidies is to induce the construction of railways in sections which have not already the advantage of railway communication. Where you have railways constructed and railway communication established, whether by a company or by a province, it is absurd and ridiculous, and it is unprecedented, to ask this Parliament to go on and-


Francis Cochrane: It has already been established.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is exactly what I am' pointing out-that it has already been established.


Francis Cochrane: No, what I mean is that the precedent has been established.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In what case ?


Francis Cochrane: I will give it later on; I have not it at hand at the moment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This Bill is presented to Parliament under the name of a Bill ' in aid of the construction of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway.' What is really proposed is a subsidy and bonus to the province of Ontario,-neither more nor less. It is absurd for the minister to come to this committee and ask it to vote a * railway subsidy ' under these conditions. Why does not he come down boldly, and why does not the Government come down boldly with the proposition to grant so much additional money to the province of Ontario. This railway was constructed as a publio work within the province. Under the terms of Confederation, the provincial authorities are given the exclusive right to provide for the construction of public works within the province. If this Government of Ontario is entitled to come and ask the federal Government to give this large sum of money, $2,000,000, because they happen to construct a publio work within the province, then every provincial Government in the Dominion of Canada that has at any time since Confederation constructed a publio work within the province, has an equal right to come to this Government and, under the precedent which it is here proposed to establish, ask the Dominion of Canada to give them the money. Why does the minister introduce this Bill under the title ' To authorize the granting of subsidies to the Governmenlt of the province of Ontario in aid of the construction of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway'? Why does he want to bring in a Bill under false pretences ?


Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario):: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the matter with my hon. friend from North Ontario ?


Francis Cochrane: 1	do not think I
am bringing in the measure under false pretences.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I may say that the statement in the title is absolutely untrue. This is not a proposition to grant aid to the construction of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway. That railway is already constructed. What sense is there in proposing a measure to grant aid to the construction of a road that is already consummated? When the hon. gentleman comes here with a measure with a false title, there is only one thing to do, for us who use the English language, and that is to use the word which accurately applies to the state of affairs.


Francis Cochrane: If it does you any
good, go on.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman cannot object to the truth even though it may 'be distasteful. The hon. gentleman i3 here with a Bill to grant a subsidy in aid of the construction of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway. What is that railway? It is a railway that was constructed by the Government of the province of Ontario some years ago, running up to a town bearing the same name as the Minister of Railways-called after him. That road has been in operation for years, providing the facilities and affording all the advantages of railway communication to the people who live along that line. To say that this is granting aid to the construction of a railway is not a mere misnomer, it is to say what is untrue. What encouragement do we need to give to the construction of a project that has already been brought to fruition? The title of this Bill should be ' An Act to provide for giving to the province of Ontario a gift of $2,000,000.' My hon. friend is not fair in regard to this disposition of money. In my province, the hon. member for Guys-boro (Mr. Sinclair) and others come and ask the minister to take charge, in the furtherance of the operation of the Government railway which he controls, of the construction of a railway into a part of the country which is now without railway communication. And when this is asked of him the hon. gentleman says: Before I will even look at the project, somebody must come and satisfy me, not only that I am going to get interest on the money-


Francis Cochrane: I take exception to
that. I never said anything of the kind. I said I wanted to have some assurance that there was business enough to pay running expenses. I did not' want any interest.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What kind of assurance?


Francis Cochrane: I have not been able to get any kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: From whom?


Francis Cochrane: From anybody.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is laying down impossible conditions. What is the good of the minister saying that he will engage in the construction of a public work if he is given assurance from somebody whom he does not name, of facts which he does not declare. Who can give him such assurance? Is there anyone in Parliament or out of it who can give him assurance such as he asks that will be of any value or furnish any basis for the carrying out of the project submitted? My hon. friend will give $2,000,000 Mr. COCHRANE.
as a gift to the Provincial Government with which he was formerly connected, under the pretext that it is to aid in the construction of railways, but he will not find or spend five cents in the province of Nova Scotia to give railway communication to portions of the country that have not it now, and cannot get it except through him.


Francis Cochrane: That is another statement that cannot bear the light of day, because we are building a road there now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where?


Francis Cochrane: From Dartmouth to
Dean.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the minister in a
position to give the committee a statement as to the financial results of the operation of the Timiskaming railway during the last year?


Francis Cochrane: The total amount of
revenue and receipts was $1,707,450.07; operating expenses, $1,394,697.69, making a surplus of revenue over operating expenses of $322,752.38. But there is fixed charge of interest on bonds for the construction of the road amounting to $746,000, leaving a deficit of $423,247.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How many years has the road been in operation?


Francis Cochrane: The first sod was turned in 1902, during the election.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it true that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company made an agreement with the Government of Ontario by which it obtained running
rights over the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will that not bring a
revenue to the road in future that it has not enjoyed in the past?


Francis Cochrane: I have not before me the particulars of the agreement to which my hon. friend refers, but if my memory serves me right the added revenue will not be sufficient to make up the deficit. We cannot expect as large a business over that railway as there has been in the past, because what helped it out at first to a very great extent was the boom in Cobalt and Porcupine. This resulted in a great deal of passenger traffic which we cannot now expect, as Cobalt and Porcupine have now settled down into mining camps.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What revenue will the railway receive through the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific?


Francis Cochrane: I think about $300,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On the basis of the business that was done last year, that will practically even up the interest and running expenses.


Francis Cochrane: There will still be a deficit of about $124,000. We are not coming here under any false pretences, and I must throw that charge back at the hon. gentleman. Sir George Ross, now leader of the Opposition in the Senate, when he started this road made an application for a subsidy during the regime of our predecessors in office. When Sir James Whitney came into office he also made an application for a subsidy, and I introduced the same resolution last year as I am introducing this year. The Senate in its wisdom thought it was not right, and threw the Bill out, but they did not hesitate to sanction the subsidy which was granted to the Canadian Northern railway in British Columbia at $12,000 a mile, three times as much as the amount proposed to be given to the Ontario company. This road was started as a colonization road. It opened up a large clay belt in that part of the country, extending into the province of Quebec. The Liberal Government of the province of Quebec has given an extremely large subsidy to the road, encouraging the opening up of the clay belt north of Montreal. I believe it is a good policy on the part of any government to subsidize any province that will have sufficient stamina to develop its own resources as Ontario is doing and has done, and I think it is right and proper that this Parliament should help out any province that will do the same thing. I may say to the hon. member for Pictou that I shall be glad, as long as I am Minister of Railways, any

time that the Nova Scotia Government wants to build a railroad in any portion of their province, to recommend a subsidy equal to this one. When the matter of the railway in Nova Scotia of which my hou. friend has spoken was discussed in the House on a previous occasion, I said to the hon. member for Guysborough that this year I would send a traffic expert through that country to find out whether the Government is justified in making any expenditure there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did the minister proceed with the construction of the railway to Dean Settlement? He had no such assurance as he asked for in the other case.


Francis Cochrane: I found the contract
let there; if the contract had not been let as it was, I would not have interfered with it. The contract was let from Country Harbour to Guysborougih, arid no provision was made for connection with the main line. I feel very strongly with regard to this matter, because I do not think that the remarks of hon. gentlemen have been fair. We are not here for the purpose of making any misrepresentations, and the province of Ontario does not seek to make any misrepresentations. I claim that this road was a great help in the construction of the Transcontinental; they were enabled to get their supplies through an almost impassable country; it would have cost ten times as much otherwise. The construction of this line was a great benefit to the province of Ontario, and when I was a minister in the provincial Cabinet I helped them out all I could because I knew that the railway was in the interests of Ontario and in the interests of the country generally.


George Perry Graham: I am delighted to hear my hon. friend the Minister of Railways eulogize the pluck with which the Government of Ontario carried out the construction of this road. Without desiring to be egotistic 1 am inclined to feel that I am entitled to much more (credit than the hon. minister for the construction of that road.


Francis Cochrane: You were a member of the House at the time; I was not.


George Perry Graham: I was supporting the
Government and we got no support from my hon. friend's friend, we were laughed at for our temerity and it was called a political project.


Francis Cochrane: I think that Sir James Whitney made the statement that, if the Government of which my hon. friend was a member did not build the road, he would.


George Perry Graham: I was in the House, I know what took place. It went so far as the representative of Ottawa moving a resolution to wait until we had further in-Mr. COCHRANE.	[DOT]
vestigations, as my hon. friend is waiting in the case of the railroad from Country Harbour. But that is a matter of history and my hon. friend is convinced that the building of the road was a sign of courage and statesmanship. I might say that I am glad to have him with me in that respect. This road was built, as he says, as a colonization road, and the building of the road discovered to the world perhaps the richest area of silver deposit in the world, to say nothing of the deposits of other material. I would point out the fallacy of the hon. gentleman's argument in reference to this Country Harbour road. As his predecessor I did iet two contracts, one for the road from Dartmouth and the other from Country Harbour; but the fact that the contract was not let for the entire distance to the Intercolonial railway does not form a fair excuse for not continuing the contract. A contract was let for a portion of the road and the balance would have been let a little later, perhaps after some further surveys.


Francis Cochrane: Would the hon. member let me know where he intended to build from, because I believe the hon. member would have built where he had the best information?


George Perry Graham: We had let a contract for a portion. Then there was a question as to the distance, which we would have had to decide in a few months, but the road would have been under construction by this time, without doubt.


William Thomas White: The hon. member for South Renfrew has paid himself a compliment, and let us consider it a wtell-deservied compliment, for the pluck which he says he and his colleagues exhibited in projecting this road. I am going to ask him, as an influential member of this House from Ontario, whether he is going to show a like degree of pluck in dealing with this question, in so far as Ontario is concerned, in giving to Ontario this subsidy to which that province is justly entitled?	-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not a subsidy; it is a grant.


William Thomas White: I take exception to what
my hon. friend says, but I shall deal with his arguments in a moment. This is a subsidy to the Ontario Government in respect of building two hundred and fifty-nine miles of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not to assist in its building at all.


William Thomas White: If ever a subsidy was deserved in respect of the building of a line, it is in this case of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, if

regard be had either to the enterprising spirit which prompted the construction of the road or to the results which have flowed from its building; results that are not only provincial in character, 'but national. This House is no doubt aware that this road has opened up one of the richest mineral areas in the world. I think that Cobalt produces one-sixth of the world's supply of silver. Then, in addition to Cobalt, we have Porcupine, and in that northern section we have a wonderful clay belt capable of vast development under colonization. A great part of Ontario, some say the greatest part of Ontario, is at the north. If the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern railway had built this line instead of the Government of Ontario, we would not have had the hon. member for Pictou on his feet tonight criticising the giving of a subsidy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let me tell my hon. friend that subsidies are given in order to induce the construction of railways:	I
would oppose giving to any company an amount of money after the public got the accommodation which was furnished by the railway.


William Thomas White: I do not see why, if an injustice was done on the inception of this enterprise, we should not remedy it now that we have the power to remedy it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is not an
answer.


William Thomas White: I think it is an absolute and entire answer, and I think the people of Ontario will regard it as an answer to the hon. member for Pictou. When the hon. member for Pictou makes the criticism he does to-night, he does not appreciate the condition of public opinion of Ontario in regard to this matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why do you not call the Bill by the right name ?


William Thomas White: The people feel that the action of the Senate in throwing out this measure last year was wholly unjustifiable, that the Government of Ontario is abundantly justified in making application for this subsidy, and that this parliament will only be doing an act of clear justice in granting it. Let us take some other cases by way of analogy. The Minister of Railways has pointed out that a line has been projected from Montreal north to meet the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway, ahd parliament gave $6,400 a mile last year to that line, a precisely parallel case, opening up a new territory; and under the administration of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, at a time when I believe the hon. member for Pictou was a member of the House, was not a subsidy
granted to the Canadian Northern railway in respect of a line from Toronto north to Sudbury ? The whole principle of granting subsidies has been in connection with lines opening up territory such as this is opening up. My hon. friend talks about the title of this Bill being a matter of false pretences. We all know that the road is built and that this subsidy , should have been granted years _ ago but Parliament, when my right hon. friend was leader of the Government, did not see fit to grant this aid. It makes no difference that the province of Ontario built the line, if it is proper to grant a subsidy from the Dominion treasury in respect of the building of a line into new territory, the opening up of which will benefit not only the province but the whole Dominion, it makes no difference whether a railway company or a province builds the lines, they are equally entitled to a subsidy and I say it is an invidious distinction and an absolutely unjust criticism to make of this legislation that the province of Ontario happens to be putting forward the claim. If a railway company had put forward this claim no question would have been raised about it by any hon. member opposite. But because the public money of Ontario has been spent, and because it has been a public enterprise of Ontario, the province of Ontario is to be discriminated against, a discrimination that would not exist if the line had been built by a private railway promoter, the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern railway. If one of these had built it, not a word would have come from hon. gentlemen opposite. I repeat that it is a mere act of justice to the great province of Ontario that this line, built from public money as a great public enterprise to open up a great territory, the opening up of which has inured to the benefit of the province and of the whole Dominion, should be granted this aid.


Wilfrid Laurier: I submit to
the House, and I invite serious attention to what I am about to say, that my hon. friend who has just addressed the House (Mr. White, Minister of Finance), has not at all placed this matter upon the basis on which it should rest. I grant at once to my hon. friend that if this railway had been built by a private company, and that company had come here, it would have received assistance; but I claim that a distinction is to be made between the treatment to be given to a company and the treatment to be given to a provincial government. What is the reason for this? The reason is that if you do what we are now asked to do, you do exactly what my hon. friend has complained about-you discriminate against the other provinces. We give



subsidies to the provinces already. The province of Ontario this year, last year and next year, will have received from the federal treasury something like two and a half million dollars, one dollar a head of its population. Every year the province of Ontario receives that subsidy. In this the province of Ontario is not alone; all the other provinces receive .equal subsidies in proportion to their population. The Act provides that a part of the revenue which is collected by the Dominion treasury shall be apportioned among the provinces, according to the population. Some of the provinces employ the money in erecting public buildings, others in constructing railways. But, Sir, if one province employs it in constructing railways, why should there 'be given to that province any advantage from the Dominion treasury? It is quite within the right of a province to employ the subsidy it receives as it pleases, but it will be obvious to everybody that if, in addition to the subsidy which you give to the province of Ontario or to the province of Quebec or to any other province, you give further aid from the Dominion treasury, you discriminate against the other provinces. The province of Ontario is a wealthy province. It thought well to go into railway construction. We have no fault to find with that; it employed its own money. But there are provinces which are not so well situated as the province of Ontario, and which cannot undertake, the construction of railways. Therefore these provinces will not do so, and if you give a subsidy to the province of Ontario, they have a right to complain that they have been discriminated against. It seems to me that if you open this door to-day and give out of the Dominion treasury a subsidy to the province of Ontario for railway construction, you encourage the other provinces perhaps to become extravagant, to spend more than they should, and then to come to the Dominion treasury. Railway construction should be the work of the Dominion; but if the provinces choose to undertake it, well and good; I have nothing more to say. I observe that this year again my right hon. friend says there is a precedent for this, because the province of Quebec in 1884 constructed a branch line which is now part of the Canadian Pacific railway from Quebec to Ottawa. The province of Quebec had gone into railway construction, and it had undertaken more than it could carry. The line had to be disposed of, and it was sold to the Canadian Pacific company at a certain figure. Then the Quebec Government came to this Government to be recouped, but upon what ground? Upon the national ground that it Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
had built a railway which was part of a transcontinental railway, a Dominion railway. But, even so, at that time, under the guidance of Mr. Blake, who was then leader of the Opposition, we took the ground that it was not fair to give that grant to the province of Quebec, unless a similar advantage was given to the other provinces?	Was that not right?
Was that	not	absolutely fair? Ifyou are going to give money out of the Dominion treasury to one province-I do not care for what object it may be, whether for railway construction, or for anything else-it is an injustice to the other provinces. You must give them an equal advantage, and, unless you do that, you will always invite criticism, and legitimate criticism. That is the reason why the late administration did not think it ' advisable to give any subsidy for railway construction to any province. The province of Ontario applied to us, but we did not think it advisable to grant a subsidy. We received a similar demand from the province of British Columbia, and we did not think it advisable to give a subsidy to that province. In our judgment, the provinces should be content with the subsidies we pay them every year under Die	disposition of	the British
North America Act. The Dominion Government should not do more than what is provided by the terms of that Act. It may be that at the present time we can do so because we have an ample revenue. But the revenue is not always ample, and, as surely at the sun will rise tomorrow, we shall create a precedent which must recoil upon the Dominion Government at some time or other. That is the criticism which I have to make of the present gift to the province of Ontario. If the province of Ontario were coming to us in the stress of hard times or of difficulties in finance, perhaps we might have looked at the matter from a different point of view. But the province of Ontario is in a good financial condition, and therefore there is no possible excuse for its application.
There is something more. If the view which I have presented does not appeal to the majoritv, there is another point which will perhaps appeal to them. If the province of Ontario, or the province of Quebec, or any other province, chooses to go into railway construction and to build a railway of its own, it is within its rights; I have nothing to say provided it does not come to us for a subsidy. But if it comes here for a subsidy, the least we can expect from it is that it will accept the conditions which are imposed upon a company. If a company were to come here and ask for this federal assistance, we would say: Well and good, but you have a provincial charter, and so

you cannot get this federal bounty unless you accept the law of the Dominion, and make your railway subject to the laws of the Dominion. Is that not perfectly fair and right? If the great province of Ontario asks for a subsidy for a railway out of the federal treasury, it should agree to make that railway subject to the laws of the Dominion, and its tolls subject to the control of the Railway Commission. The matter came up last year, and at that time my right hon. friend objected to that argument, because he said there was already provision in the Railway Act which guaranteed the jurisdiction of the Dominion in respect to the tolls upon a railway of that kind. He referred to section 8 of the Railway Act, which says:
Every railway, steam or electric street railway or tramway, the construction or operation of which is authorized by special Act of the legislature of any province, and which connects with or crosses or may hereafter connect with or cross any railway within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, shall, although not declared by Parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, be subject to the provisions of this Act relating to-
(a)	the connection or crossing of one rail-*way or tramway with or by another, so far as concerns the aforesaid connection or crossing;
(b)	the through traffic upon a railway or tramway and all matters appertaining thereto;
(c)	criminal matters, including offences and
penalties; and,
(d)	navigable waters:
Provided that, in the case of railways owned by any provincial government, the provisions of this Act with respect to through/ traffic shall not apply without the consent of such government.
This provision of the Railway Act shall not apply to the tariff of this railway except with the consent of the Ontario Government. That is the present law; that is the condition of things to-day. So far as through traffic is concerned, our law cannot apply to the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway except with the consent of the Ontario Government. So far, so good. If the conditions remain as they are, the Government of Ontario must give its consent before this law applies. But, Sir, when the Government of Ontario itself comes here and asks for federal assistance, for what is sometimes asked for by a company, is it not right and just that the same conditions which apply to a company should also apply to that Government? The only argument which has been urged in favour of this subsidy is that if it were ask-ed for bv a company we would give it. Undoubtedly we would; hut this is not a company; it is the Government of Ontario, which is acting precisely as a company would ac-t; and
therefore the Government of Ontario should consent or be forced to accept the conditions which we would impose upon any company. So my criticism of this measure is that it is not in the proper spirit of the British North America Act, and that if the subsidy be granted, it should he granted under the usual condition that the laws of the Dominion shall apply to this railway.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford). I wish to offer a few observations in regard to the Bill now before the committee. It is quite evident that a serious offence has been committed by the province of Ontario, in the eyes of some hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this Bill, in undertaking to build a railway and then to operate it. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has stated that when this road was about to be constructed the proposition was received very coolly by the Opposition in the legislature of Ontario. He endeavours to make it appear that very little assistance was rendered by the Opposition at that time. I happened to be in the legislature then and I have a distinct recollection of what took place there. I have something to say in regard to the applications that were made at that time, and at later dates for the usual subsidy that is granted by the federal Government for the construction of railways. The attitude of the then Opposition in the legislature was that they did not have sufficient information in regard to the route that it was proposed to follow when the road was first undertaken. I believe that the hon. member for South Renfrew referred to the representative from Ottawa as taking that stand and urging upon the Government the necessity of obtaining further information. As a matter of fact, during the past two or three years, the commission having this road in charge have been endeavouring to overcome one of the chief obstacles to the carrying of heavy traffic over the road. Thirty-five miles north of North Bay there is a very high elevation and I believe that the grade on this thirty-five miles is between six hundred and fifty and seven hundred feet. New surveys have been made and it is the intention of the commission immediately, not only to reconstruct that road, but to build a new road entirely to take the place of this thirty-five miles to which I have just referred where the elevation will be one hundred and thirty feet less. I have the estimates that have been made as to what will be the cost of this road, from which I will quote:
The cost of this diversion between M. P. No. 2 and 35, $1,482,500. Cost of diversion between Dougherty and Temagami is estimated at $367,675, and cost of diversion between! Johnston and Latchford is estimated at $220,000, with additional expenses between M. P. No. 40 and 112 for train filling of $192,935; a total expenditure of $2,263,110.


'11887 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
__ Which justifies the attitude of the Opposi-sSoxi at that time. But later on the Opposi-ifiron urged upon the Government of that day that they should not only build this road, but operate it as well. That was the stand which the Opposition took and it was not a stand in opposition to the building of the road. I have here the record of a question which I placed upon the Order Paper in the Ontario legislature on Febru-mry 3, 1904, and which is as follows:
Has the Government made application to 'the Government of Canada for the usual subsidy given towards the building of railways, to be applied towards the construction of the .Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway?
:2. If so, what reply has been received?
' 3. If no application made, is it the inten-' tion of the Government to make application?
To which the Premier replied as follows:
The Government has applied to the Government of Canada for the usual railway subsidy for the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario' railway, without receiving any definite answer.
They did not get even anything definite from them. Further on he says:
It is the intention of the Government tq -renew the application.
"This was at the time when the Hon. ^George W. Boss was premier of Ontario. He did not receive any definite answer from the Government of Canada when he -made application to them. Applications of that nature have been repeatedly made since that time. I was somewhat amused to hear the right bon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) state a few minutes ago that if Ontario was not a wealthy province, if it was in financial straights, or something to that effect, possibly assistance would have been rendered. We have heard so much about Ontario being a wealthy province and that they -should contribute towards a generous ex-,;penditure in the, other provinces and be derailed similar treatment, forcing the province to do work that should be done by the federal parliament, but when we * come here and ask that even-handed justice shall be meted out to Ontario we are taunted, as we were by the iaon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) who threw out the insinuation-an insinuation which never should have been permitted in this House-that this Bill had been brought in under false pretences and an attempt made to deceive the House. The province of Ontario is not asking for favours from the other provinces or from the federal Government. We are simply asking that justice shall be done to that province and that no penalty shall be imposed on the province for undertaking "to build and operate a railway. I know *that is contrary to the policy of hon. gen-Mr. SUTHEEIiAMD.	I
tlemen opposite. We know in years gone by when the proposition was made to extend the Intercolonial railway westward to the great lakes that it did not meet with their approval. Instead of that they duplicated the Intercolonial, they endeavoured by every means in their power to put that road out of business and to allow the company-controlled roads to put the Government-owned roads in such a position that they would not be popular in the country.
Just a word or two about another matter; that is, the attitude of the Opposition in the Ontario legislature in regard to the Bill that was put through this House last session. We know that it carried by a large majority and we know that it went to the Senate and was rejected by that body. We found that the matter was taken up in the legislature and from the votes and proceedings of the legislature we ascertain that a motion was made by the Opposition there. I am going to read part of the resolution and it is rather amusing. They even assumed that the Senate of Canada did not really understand the question and that the Government of Canada were to blame for not conveying the information to the Senate that this road was constructed. I will read part of the resolution:
And this House regrets that when the question of a subsidy for the said railway came before the Senate of Canada just closed, it does not appear to have been drawn to the attention of the .Senate that a subsidy was applied for by the Government of this province when the construction of the 6aid railway wras undertaken and before the first section thereof had been completed and the matter appears to have been considered in the Senate simply on the basis of an application for a subsidy for a railway, the construction of which had already been completed and which was now being operated at a profit.
They even go so far as to say that it is being operated at a profit. Anyone who takes the trouble to look into the cost of the construction of the road will find that it is not being operated at a profit. This road has cost the province of Ontario upwards of $17,500,000 and we find that during the past year the expenses of operation have increased over $200,000, while the earnings have decreased by $70,000 compared with the previous year. Everything indicates that the expenses in connection with operation will increase. There will have to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000 expended in rebuilding the road, or in building the road from North Bay northwards for thirty-five miles. Extensions are being continually made. The province of Ontario has met the expense so far .and all they ask is a simple matter of justice. I want it to be distinctly understood that it is justice only

that we are asking for and that the usual subsidy shall be paid to that province. The road will be extended further until eventually it reaches James bay and we will have in Ontario a road which will be a credit to the province and to Canada as a -whole, and which will be one capable of being successfully operated. I rather resent the tone of the hon. member for Pictou in dealing with this question. I do not think it is becoming in any member of this House to assume the attitude that he assumed when referring to the manner in which this Bill was introduced. If he had taken the trouble to read the preamble, he would see that it was not misleading. It says:
Whereas the Government of the province of Ontario has constructed a line of railway known as the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, from North Bay on the Canadian Pacific railway, and at a junction with the Toronto line, so called, of the Grand Trunk railway, to Cochrane on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and several branches thereof, and has them under operation; and whereas the line of railway from North Bay to Cochrane makes a through connection for the Transcontinental railway with Toronto, and also with Montreal and Quebec, and being, as such, a work of national and nob merely provincial utility:	Therefore Hisi
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
I do not see anything ambiguous or misleading about that. It is perfectly clear what it is for. It is to remedy an injustice that has been done to the province for a great many years. I think it ought to pass this House without a dissenting voice, and we should at least recognize that any province which undertakes anything of that nature is deserving of encouragement and should not be penalized in this way.
Edmond Proulx: Does the hon. member object that the rates of this railway should be under the control of the Dominion Railway Board?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I presume the hon. gentleman understands that this railway is owned and controlled by the Crown, and that consequently it could not very well be planed under the jurisdiction of that board.


Edmond Proulx: not altogether completed, and it was decided to let the contract in two sections. A contract was let for the section from Country Harbour to Guysborough, and the Sunnybrae branch was purchased. Therefore my hon. friend cannot justify himseli in abandoning the Guysborough branch by saying that less progress had been made in regard to it than in regard to the branch in Halifax. I do not think my hon. friend is sincere when he says that, if the survey had been completed between Sunnybrae and Country Harbour, he would not have abandoned the construction of the Guysborough branch. It is clear to everyone who understands the matter that that was not the reason why he abandoned it. A million dollars was voted to build a road from Sunnybrae to Country Harbour and to the town of Guysborough. There was no question as to survey not being completed. The million dollars in the other case was voted to build a branch in the county of Halifax. There can be no distinction of that kind honestly drawn between them. In the discussion in the House, when authority was given to the late Government to build these branch lines, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was in favour of building both of them. He did not at that time make any inquiry or ask any explanation from anyone as to what the traffic would be. No man knows better than the Prime Minister himself-and he is the man who must be held responsible for the action of the Government in this matter-that the traffic on the Guysborough branch is much more likely to be profitable than that on the Halifax branch. There is one reason that will suggest itself to the Prime Minister if he will look at the matter squarely, and it is this, that the branch which he is constructing in the county of Halifax runs into the forest and stops there; whereas the proposal in regard to the branch from Sunnybrae to Country Harbour is to bring a branch line to a great ocean port which would tap the great fishing industry of the Atlantic coast. There was a probability of shipping coal to Country Harbour from the coal mines of the county of Pictou. There is timber along the line. It strikes an ocean port where a fish traffic could be collected, whereas none of these things apply to the branch which he is constructing in the county of Halifax. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways is very fertile in finding excuses to justify himself in regard to his conduct in this matter. It is quite true that last year, when pressed with regard to this matter, he did make the statement that it would be necessary to show him that the branch would be profitable if it was to be built in the county of Guysborough. It is true also that he did not ask any such assurance in regard to the branch in the constituency of the Prime Mr. SINCLAIR.
Minister. Why is that? Why is the Minister of Railways willing to embark on the construction of a branch in the constituency of my right hon. friend without getting assurance from any person that there is traffic enough to pay interest or even to nay running expenses, whereas in the other case he insists that some one shall give him assurance that if the road is constructed there will be what seems to him sufficient traffic. As was remarked by the hon. member for Pictou, who is to give this assurance to the minister. The minister is the man to find out. He informed us last year that he would make an investigation during the summer and that he would be prepared at this session of Parliament to give some definite statement in regard to the matter. When Parliament met and he was questioned on the subject, what was his reply? He said he had consulted his engineers and had found that it was not necessary for him to make further surveys, but that it would be necessary to send a traffic man over the line to ascertain whether there would be sufficient traffic to pay interest and running expenses. I have already submitted to the Minister of Railways and Canals that if he exacts conditions of that kind in regard to a small branch line connected with the Intercolonial railway in Nova Scotia or anywhere else, he will not be able to get such assurance from any source whatever. It would not be expected that one of these short lines intended as feeders to The Intercolonial railway would pay interest and rrmning expenses at the commencement; it would take some time to work up the traffic. All the minister wants to assure himself is that there is a possible traffic in the vicinity, so that if he builds the line in the course of years the business will be built up. What has been the history of this road in the province of Ontario which is under discussion? Has it not been improving? Is not its revenue larger this year than it was last?


Donald Sutherland: No; less.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member for South Oxford in regard to that road. It was currently reported in the province of Ontario that that road was under such good management that it was paying, that it was a profitable line. And comparisons were drawn between the management of this Ontario line and the management of the Intercolonial railway by my hon. friend from South Renfrew, then Minister of Railways and Canals. What has happened in the province of Ontario? Is the road going to the dogs under the present Government of that province? After all, is it not a fact that this railway in Ontario was paying running expenses and a certain amount of interest and with a prospect ahead of it of

paying even better in the end? and is not that sufficient for the province of Ontario? Railway subsidies are not given for the purpose of helping any particular province, but for the purpose of improving transportation facilities in Canada. If a province is fortunate enough to have sufficient traffic to be able to support a line of railway without obtaining a subsidy from the Dominion, and if that road is built and paying running expenses and a considerable sum towards the interest on the capital, with excellent prospects of still better returns in the future, I submit that they have no strong claim upon this House for a subsidy. If they were constructing a new road, we should feel more inclined to pay out public money to assist them. But, especially when they refuse to bring the road under the control of the Railway Commission, I think this assistance should not be given. All the roads subsidized by this Parliament come under the Railway Commission in the matter of rates. That is the principle which hon. members on both sides all agree to. If the Government of Ontario declines to allow the road in question to come under the control of the Railway Board, I submit that that justifies the Senate in the action they took last session.
I should like to have some statement by the Minister of Railways as to what his future policy is to be in relation to branches in Nova Scotia. My hon. friend from Pictou asked him from whom he expected to get assurance that the proposed branch line running throught the counties of Pictou and Guysborough would pay. And why does he. draw a distinction between the constituency of the Prime Minister and the county of Guysborough in regard to the matter? When the Prime Minister, very shortly after he obtained power, sent a telegram to Prince Edward Island a few days before the election, assuring them of the construction of the ferry, and when branch lines were promised to the people of Prince Edward Island was there any investigation as to what the profits of the road would be.


Francis Cochrane: There was a pledge
that had to be carried out.


John Howard Sinclair: What?


Francis Cochrane: There was a pledge
made when they came into confederation that something would be done in that respect.


John Howard Sinclair: There was no pledge
that there should be a certain number of branch lines built. A number of branch lines are being constructed by the minister in the province of Prince Edward Island. Is he laying down the same principle there v as in Nova Scotia? Is he sending a traffic man to Prince Edward Island to investigate this matter to learn whether these branch lines are likely to pay. I am not objecting to the branches in Prince Edward Island, and do not wish to be understood in that way. But I point out that a distinction is made between the branches in Prince Edward Island and in the constituency of my right hon. friend on one side, and the branch line in the county of Guysborough on the other; and it is up to the minister to show why he is making that distinction.


William Findlay Maclean: I argued, earlier in the present sitting, that there should be equality of treatment as regards different sections of the country; and I argue for that equality of treatment in this matter. The province of Ontario has undertaken a work that a railway company usually undertakes for other places; and because that province has built a substantial road opening up a new country- opening up as much country as the hon. member for Edmonton said was opened by the Grand Trunk western section-why should we not have equality of treatment? The whole of that road west of Edmonton was financed by the Dominion; but the province of Ontario built this road, and now* only asks the ordinary subsidy. But, because it is a -publicly-owned road, it is proposed to be discriminated against. Because there is no watered stock, because all the money raised by the sale of bonds was put into the road and the road well built, public ownership is now to be discouraged. There is more territory to the north to be opened up by the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. We hope that they will build a line to James bay and by opening James bay provide a direct way for opening up the navigable waters running into Hudson bay. Yet a Toad of this kind, because it happens to be publicly-owned, is to be discriminated against. What I contend for is the same equality of treatment that I contended for this afternoon in regard to freight rates. There is no reason for the discrimination, no reason if the people build a railway that they should not be as well treated as a company would be. Surely, a province is entitled to equal treatment with a private company. I resent the idea that a road, because it is publicly-owned, should not be treated in the same way as other roads. This road has enabled the great Transcontinental railway for which hon. gentlemen opposite take such credit, to come into operation within a few weeks. The Quebec end is not ready, and the Ontario gate is provided by this very road, and it will enable the Transcontinental to do its work at a much earlier day than it could have done it otherwise. Yet a road that has done this and that opens up a great section of new country is to be discriminated against simply because it is owned by the province-owned by an enterprising people who put their own money into the build-

ing of it. And it is to be discriminated against because Ontario happens to be well off. Ontario is well off. It contributes the largest to the revenues of the whole Dominion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is a railway subsidy for?


William Findlay Maclean: To help in the construction of a road.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No help is needed for the construction of this railway, for it is constructed already.


William Findlay Maclean: I leave it to the people of Ontario to say.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Leave it to the people of Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: They are simply asking the same assistance that is given to other roads all over the country.


John Howard Sinclair: Suppose I agreed with
the proposition of my hon. friend, that the province of Ontario is entitled to the same privileges as a company, then will he admit that the province of Ontario should be subjected to the same conditions as a company? The hon. gentleman has been a great advocate of control of rates; on that question I have listened to him make many speeches. He has been dinning that into our ears for years. Will he say that the province of Ontario should submit to the control of rates by the Railway Commission if they get a subsidy?


William Findlay Maclean: I will not object to that. Speaking for myself, I say I will not object to that; I am going to try to keep a straight line.


John Howard Sinclair: Then, how does the
hon. gentleman justify the party he is supporting in refusing to pass the Bill on account of that condition being made?


William Findlay Maclean: I say I want Ontario
to be treated in the same way, as far as this subsidy is concerned, as a private company is treated; and if it is in the interest of the public that the rates of the province of Ontario's road shall be under the control of the Railway Commission, I havei no objection to such a proposition.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) will not mind,_ I am sure, if I do not follow him in his delving into ancient provincial history. Reference has been made to applications made by the Ontario Government for subsidies in years gone by. It is true that such applications have been made, and I plead guilty to having been a supporter of the then Prime Minister who asked for the subsidies. At the time of the construction of this road it was problematical what would be the result;
Mr. MACLEAN (S. York).
it was being constructed merely to open up a portion of the country and there was very strong ground for asking for a subsidy. Conditions are somewhat different to-day, but I go so far as to say now that I am not going to oppose the granting of a subsidy to this railway. I want to point out, however, that no political consideration can be charged against the present leader of the Opposition, because it was a friend of his who was then at the head of the Ontario Government and who asked for the subsidy. The present leader of the Opposition has always taken the ground as outlined by him to-night; he declined the request of the Hon. George W. Ross, now Sir George W. Ross, when he was Prime Minister of Ontario, for a subsidy for this road, so that whatever his attitude in that respect was, it certainly was not political.


Donald Sutherland: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken; he did not decline; he rather did not give a definite answer.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend asked me for five dollars and I walked away without giving it to him, he could very well say that I declined to give it to him. I am not glad that the Ontario railway is not making a profit, but I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that all through Ontario I was met with the statement that if I would run the Intercolonial railway on the same basis upon which the Ontario Government railway was being run, I would have a surplus, as they were having a surplus, while as a matter of fact the two roads were in the same condition: each had a surplus over operating expenses, but did not pay the interest. The Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway is a well conducted road, but the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) brought up a matter which has been called to my attention very strongly. I have communications in my possession from gentlemen along the line of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway urging most emphatically that we should in some way get the Ontario Government railway under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners with regard to rates. If the Minister of Railways will compare the rates on that line with those of the Intercolonial, he will see that, unless a change has been made within the last few months, the Intercolonial rates are much lower. I admit, as I did last year, that there is naturally a certain amount of provincial pride in a local government-owned road; they are a government as we are a government, and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway is a government railway as the Intercolonial is a govern-

ment railway. But when it places itself in the position of a company railway there is some reason why it should accept some of the disabilities as well as some of the advantages of a company railway. As I said, there is some pride in a provincial Government as well as in this Government managing its own affairs, although it does come for a subsidy; but I make this suggestion to the Prime Minister, and I think he will see the reasonableness of it, repeating what I said last year, that the Ontario Government, in asking for this subsidy now, should at least agree, before the subsidy is granted, that the through Tates on its line should be under the Board of Railw'ay Commissioners.


Francis Cochrane: That will be under
the agreement which has been made with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and which has been ratified by this Government and placed before this Parliament.


George Perry Graham: It might or it might
not. I have read that agreement carefully. The point I wish to make is that the Ontario Government has leased running rights over this line to a company. That company operates a transcontinental line. Unless the Ontario Government agrees that the through rates shall be subject absolutely to the Board of Railway Commissioners, then we have a link in a through line not under .the control of the Board. When I mentioned this last year, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister added the section in the Act, clause 4, which provides:
This Act shall come into force on a day
to be fixed by proclamation by the Governor in Council published in the Canada Gazette.
I think he assured me that before this Act would come into force he would endeavour to make an agreement with the Ontario Government along the lines I had suggested, and he saw the reasonableness of it. That is what I wish to urge on the Government more than anything else, that they make sure that the through traffic by the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other company operating on this line, shall be under the Board of Railway Commissioners, so that we shall have no link in the transcontinental system over which we shall not have control as to rates.


William Chisholm: I wish to take advantage of the
spirit of justice that seems to animate the Minister of Railways, who has made an appeal on behalf of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway and on behalf of the Ontario Government, and has based his appeal on strict justice. I invite his attention to a portion of the
Intercolonial traversing the counties of Pictou, Antigonish and Guysborough, and I ask that that same justice which he speaks of be accorded to those counties. The Minister of Railways may not be aware that that portion of the Intercolonial formerly known as the Halifax and Cape Breton railway, was built by a company, and that the municipalities granted a free right of way through the counties of Pictou, Antigonish and Guysborough. Subsequently the Dominion Government acquired that portion of the road, and it is today a portion of the Intercolonial. That portion of the Intercolonial that runs between the Strait of Canso and Sydney was built by the Dominion Government, and the right of way through the municipalities was paid for by the Dominion Government. I say that, as a matter of justice, the counties of Pictou, Antigonish and Guysborough should be recouped the amount they paid out for the right of way through those counties which is now used by. the Intercolonial. Last year a commission was appointed by the Nova Scotia Government to investigate the right of the municipalities to recover from the provincial Government. It was held that the provincial Government was not required to recoup the municipalities the money that was paid for that right of way. The' fact stands out, that the municipalities of the three counties of Pictou, Antigonish and Guysborough paid $200,000 or a little better for the right of way of that portion of the road which the Intercolonial now owns and I say it is not fair that that portion of the road should be owned by the Intercolonial without their having paid back the subsidies paid by the municipalities for the rights of way, just as has been done in the island of Cape Breton. The Minister of Railways says that in this case he has been proposing to give justice to the province of Ontario, as far as the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway is concerned, Canada as a whole does hot own any portion of it; but as far as the Intercolonial goes, Canada and the country as a whole own it. It is only right that as the Intercolonial is owned by the people of Canada the people of Canada should pay for the road and the subsidy orthe costof the right of way which was borne by the municipalities is as much a part of the cost of the Intercolonial as anything else that goes into it, and I say that it is only right that the Minister of Railways should take into consideration the claim that is being made in this respect. A few years ago the province of Nova Scotia made a claim for the subsidies that were paid by the province to the company that owned the portion of the road now constituting the eastern end of the Intercolonial, and this Government,

under an award by a commission appointed for the purpose, was obliged to repay those subsidies to the province. The claim of the municipalities is just as strong, in fact it is stronger against the Intercolonial than was the claim of the province of Nova Scotia for the subsidies that went into that portion of the road, and I would ask the Minister of Railways to give the matter his attention and see if justice cannot be done. When you invoke justice in aid of the Trmiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, the justice of their claim is very faint indeed alongside the justice that is in the claims of the counties of Antigonish, Guys-borough and Pictou in this regard.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to say a word in answer to some observations made in criticism of the Minister of Railways with regard to his treatment of the provinces through which the Intercolonial railway runs. I venture to say that at no time in the history of this country has more generous treatment been given in respect of the development of the Intercolonial than that which has been accorded by the gentleman who now holds the portfolio of Railways and Canals. The construction of a railway that is now proceeding in the county of Halifax which I have the honour to represent, the terminals which are being developed at Halifax, not for the benefit of that port alone but for the benefit of the whole province and of the whole Intercolonial system, the betterments that are being effected upon the permanent way of the Intercolonial, the provision which the Minister of Railways is making for a ferry from Nova Scotia to Prince Edward Island-in these and in many other respects which could be enumerated if it were necessary, the Minister of Railways and Canals has shown his determination not only to put the Intercolonial urwn a thoroughly efficient basis in everv respect, but also to give the advantages of railway extension in the province of Nova Scotia so far as may be reasonably possible and desirable in the public interest. I do not think that any advantage is to be derived in a discussion of this kind from an endeavour to arouse the jealousy of one province by reason of some proposals in Tespect of another. I shall not dwell further on that, but there are some matters which have been mentioned by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and by my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has taken the ground that a provision of this kind, by way of a subsidy to the state-owned railway of the province of Ontario, is a discrimination against the other provinces. Well, I fail to see the cogency of the reasoning of the hon. gentleman. If this road had been built by an ordinary railway Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
corporation in the province of Ontario, and the subsidy had been granted to that railway corporation, it is perfectly apparent that the argument of the right hon. gentleman would be wanting in any force whatever. If the province of Ontario, instead of subsidizing a corporation to build a railway, sees fit to employ its own funds, or, it may be, to incur a debt for that purpose, is it any less in the public interest that the Parliament of Canada should encourage and assist the building of that railway than it would be if the road had been built by a private corporation. I do not think that the right hon. gentleman has always been true to the principles which he enunciated to-night, because the observations of the hon. member for Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) recall to my mind the fact that on an occasion not many years ago the course which he took was not consistent with that which he now urges. The province of Nova Scotia granted subsidies to the amount of $670,000 to a railway known as the Eastern Extension railway in that province. There was a provision attached ito the provincial subsidy, if I remember correctly, by which the province could take over that line. Subsequently, the province did take over that line, and operated it, only for a short time, and then it was taken over by the federal Government, and became part of the Intercolonial railway. Afterwards the claim was made by the province of Nova Scotia that the sum of $670,000 which it had granted should be refunded by the Dominion. It was refunded by the Dominion, and with interest, although there had been a perfectly plain bargain between the federal Government .and the provincial Government at the time it was taken over which excluded the payment of any such subsidy.


William Chisholm: After the award had been made.


Robert Laird Borden: What was done was this: The federal Government left it to certain arbitrators for the purpose of determining whether or not the subsidy should be paid, knowing perfectly well what the arbitrators were going to determine. That is the substance of it, so far as I remember the transaction.


John Howard Sinclair: How could they know
what decision the arbitrators were going to give?


Robert Laird Borden: Because the terms under which they put it before 'the arbitrators pointed distinctly to the conclusion that the subsidy should he paid back. It was not submitted on the basis of a legal claim at all. The matter was to be determined upon purely equitable considerations, and I do not know that the Minister of Railways would earn any more support on the other side of the House if he left the question of granting this subsidy to the equit-

able consideration of certain arbitrators whom he should select.


Mr. McKENZIE:: If the Prime Minister
will pay some attention to the decision which was given in that arbitration, he will find that the ex-Chief Justice of Ontario based his decision entirely on the fact that the Government of Canada committed a breach of contract, it was for that reason that the money should be paid back.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not examined the documents for some time, but my recollection does not quite accord with that of my hon. friend. My recollection is that there was some claim of duress. It was claimed that the Government of Nova Scotia, having taken over the line, and being unable to undertake its operation, were faced with an alternative which they were in effect obliged to accept, and for that reason they must be regarded as having been controlled by duress, when they did agree that this road should be taken over by the federal Government on certain terms. I speak with all deference to the recollection of my hon. friend; I am speaking purely from recollection, for I have not looked at the documents for some time.
There is another point which was mentioned both by my right hon. friend the [DOT] leader of the Opposition, and by the hon member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), and it is a point of some importance. My hon. friend from South Renfrew said that, I pointed out last year that we proposed not to bring the Act into operation at once. That was not in the Bill as originally proposed in this House. We brought it in by way of amendment and we certainly brought it in for the purpose of entering into negotiation with the Government of Ontario on that point. In introducing the Bill this year, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has placed in it that clause which we adopted by way of an amendment last year, and it stands in that way before the House. It is of importance that through rates should be under the control of one body, but my hon. friend from South Renfrew is perfectly well aware that the provisions of the Railway Act would prevent us from bringing that about without the consent of the Government of Ontario. I do not know what the result of negotiations may be, but we shall have that consideration in mind. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways is impressed with the desirability of it, but he is also impressed with the consideration that in the practical result there will undoubtedly be some such control as that.


Wilfrid Laurier: When the
Government of Ontario comes here for a subsidy of this kind, does my right hon. friend not think that it should be granted on condition that it agrees to the control of rates over that railway.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend is departing from his own maxim of relying on sunny ways. What we are proposing here is not to hold a pistol at the head of the Government of Ontario, but to insert a provision which will enable us to negotiate with the Government of that province, and to endeavour to arrive at a conclusion by the sunny ways which my right hon. friend was wont to practice.


Wilfrid Laurier: Sunny ways
are always good, but sometimes they are not sufficient.


Robert Laird Borden: We trust that under the circumstances, they will be sufficient. Having regard to these considerations, it seems to me that the Bill is a perfectly reasonable provision. I will not go over the arguments which I used at some length last year; probably I shall earn the gratitude of every hon. member in the House by simply referring to what I said last year, without taking up time.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think that the Minister of Railways should altogether ignore the question put by my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm). The cases are very similar. We have not time here tonight to argue out the claim of those municipalities for the return of the money that they were forced to pay to the railway that my hon. friend now manages. But I think my hon. friend should have some consideration given to his request when he puts it before the minister. He has pointed out that those three municipalities were compelled by a local Act to pay a large sum of money for the right of way of the Intercolonial railway through those municipalities. The people were not willing to pay. There is that distinction between that case and the case of the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario embarked in the construction of a railway, and did so wilingly, and they own the road; in the case of those three municipalities an Act of Parliament was passed by which they were taxed. They resisted the tax in the courts, they were beaten and the money was collected. Subsequently the railway was turned over to the Dominion of Canada and it is one of the most profitable sections of the Intercolonial to-day. But the municipalities have not been paid back their money. If the province of Ontario is to be recouped for the subsidy which my hon. friend says it ought to have received a number of years ago, surely the municipalities of Antigonish, Pictou and Guys-borough ought to be recouped for the money they were compelled to put into the Intercolonial railway now owned by my hon. friend, the profits of which are being taken by him to put into the treasury of this country. I do not want to discuss this question at any length, but

I think the Minister of Railways ought to recognize the position of my hon. friend from Antigonish and give him some reply.


William Chisholm: The
leader of the Opposition in the Nova Scotia legislature has taken the ground that the claim of the municipalities is stronger than the claim of the province. The claim of the province has been upheld by a commission headed by a former chief justice of Ontario, and the claim of the municipalities against the Government, if presented, ought to be equally successful.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think I
should be expected to express an opinion upon this question because personally I did not know anything about it until I heard it discussed here to-night, but I shall be glad to go into the question during the vacation so as to be able to discuss it with my hon. friend at a future time. I am sorry that the hon. members from the province of Nova Scotia could not support us upon this Bill because we are only granting a subsidy to a province that builds a railway. I said before that I would be glad to recommend a subsidy to the province of Nova Scotia if the Government would only build a railway.


John Howard Sinclair: If my hon. friend would turn over the Intercolonial railway in Nova Scotia to the province they might be able to do something with the little branches which are feeders to the main line. But without that it is idle for my hon. friend to say that he is willing to subsidize the province.


William Chisholm: Has the hon. gentleman any application for a subsidy for a short line of railway between Antigonish and Country Harbour from the Antigonish Coal and Iron Company?


Francis Cochrane: I do not remember
having received one.


William Chisholm: You had one last year, but I was asking with reference to this year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think I should allow the observations of the right hon. Prime Minister to pass without making a slight explanation. The Prime Minister says that it is only right that the province of Ontario should receive this money because of the large amount it has expended in the building of the Timiskam-ing and Northern Ontario railway, that there is a precedent for paying the money by reason of the treatment which Nova Scotia received at the hands of the Government of my right hon. leader, and that because of the position the leader of the Opposition took on that occasion he is not justified in taking a different position with regard to this case. There is no Mr. SINCLAIR.	.	. i
analogy between the two cases. The Prime Minister will find it difficult to get any precedent for the line of action that is taken by his Government now. There may be cases in the Dominion of Canada where a province has received a subsidy for the building of a railway within its own limits, but I am not aware of any. I would be glad if the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) would tell us of any precedent there is for this line of action. I am sure there was no such treatment handed out to the province of Nova Scotia. I am not aware that any other province in Canada ever received any subsidy from the Dominion for the building of a railway. As far back as 1877 an arrangement was entered into between the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government at Ottawa that when a road was built from New Glasgow to the Straits of Canso the Government at Ottawa would hand over to the Government of Nova Scotia the line known as the Pictou branch which had been owned by the Dominion ever since Confederation. As I understand, the Pictou branch is now the section of road from Truro to Pictou Landing, a very valuable piece of railway, and it was to be handed over to the Government of Nova Scotia as soon as the railway was completed from New Glasgow to the Straits of Canso. The Eastern Extension Company completed their road by some arrangement with the Government of the province of Nova Scotia, the details of which would not be pertinent to this discussion, and when the company completed the road it was taken over by the Government of Nova Scotia. The Government of Nova Scotia came to the Government of Sir John Macdonald and asked for a fulfilment of the contract to pass over to them the Pictou branch and there was an Act of Parliament passed to confirm that arrangement. But Sir Charles Tupper who was then Minister of Railways and Canals refused to consummate the bargain and tlje Government of Nova Scotia was forced to pass over to the Government of Canada this Eastern Extension, because without the aid of the Pictou branch, they could not run it at all. A bargain was forced on the Government of Nova Scotia which was absolutely unfair, but by reason of the Dominion Government's failure to carry out their part of the arrangement' the Government of Nova Scotia were obliged to forfeit this Eastern Extension railway. They were always claiming that they should be paid back the money that was forced from them and, failing to secure a recognition of that claim, they succeeded in having the matter referred to arbitration. Sir George Burton, exchief justice of the province of Ontario, was the gentleman who tried the case and who handed down the decision. His decision is
1X905

a matter of record and my hon. friend will see that he based it entirely upon the ground that the Government of Canada had committed a breach of contract in having failed to carry out the bargain and that they were bound to make good the moneys which we lost in Nova Scotia by reason of that failure. That is briefly what took place and my right hon. friend and his Government will not find any precedent in that transaction to carry ofit the proposition that is before the House to-night.
On section 3-how subsidies shall be paid:


George Perry Graham: I see there is no varia tion from the usual inspection of a road. Will these branch lines be built up to our standard?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, every branch will cost at least $30,000 a mile.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAY CLAIMS.
Robert Laird Borden: Some time ago the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) brought to the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and of myself a Bill which stands as No. 35 of Public Bills and Orders. The object of this Bill is to provide more effectively for the adjudication of small claims on the Intercolonial. A very slight amendment to the law increases the jurisdiction of the county courts from $200 to $500. If my hon. friends on the *other side of the House have no objection, I would move that No. 35 of Public Bills and Orders be now called.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Macdonald, Bill No.95, to amend chapter 26 of the Acts 9-10 Edward VII, entitled, 'An Act to provide for the adjudication of small claims arising in respect of the operation of the Government railways,' was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-claims under $500:
Robert Laird Borden: The Bill merely provides that the word ' five ' shall be substituted for the word ' two ' in the Act which is to be amended. I think the better course would be to re-enact the section, as that is perhaps a more desirable form of drafting. I therefore move to that effect.
Mr . McKENZIE:	The county court
originally had jurisdiction of only $400; that jurisdiction was raised some years ago to $800. I think we could very well put this Bill within the limits of the jurisdiction of the county courts.


Robert Laird Borden: I would prefer to leave it as suggested by the hon. member for Pictou. The suggestion of my hon. friend might be taken into consideration at some other time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General), Bill No. 248, to amend the Post Office Act, was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-mailable matter:
Rodolphe Lemieux: How does section 1 differ from section 9 of the Post Office Act?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am re-enacting the whole section, for the reason that in 'the French version there are five lines omitted. I am also making certain additions in lines 16 and 17. In line 16 we have the words 'thereof any words or devices.' The words ' devices which ' are new. The words ' in the opinion of the Postmaster General' are also new. The clause now reads:
Any words tending to injuriously affect.
We are making it read:
Words or devices which, in the opinion of the Postmaster General, tend to injuriously affect.	*
The reason is this: My hon. friend knows that the Post Office Department has always tried to stop the circulation through the mails of immoral literature and advertising literature of all kinds of spurious schemes. Now, the Department of Justice have informed us that this practice of ours in relation to fraud orders, which we have followed for years, has been carried on illegally, and they have advised us to have these words, together with the words that are to be found at the end of the clause:
And for the return of such letters, circulars or other mail matter to the senders.
This will permit us to continue legally whait has been the practice of the department for years. We are making the amendment because the Justice Department say we should have that clause, but they suggested the amendment so that we may continue to co-operate under the arrangement we have with Washington to prevent fraud. The hon. gentleman knows that people at the head of lotteries and that kind of thing have changed their fields of operation from the United States,

119ud
where they have been detected, and have come over to this side of the border and continue to use the post office to carry on their depredations. They have questioned our right to hold their letters and to return them, and we consulted the Justice Department with the result that that department said it would be better to get Parliament to make the matter clear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I certainly do not find
fault with the object of the clause explained by my hon. friend. At present there is much matter passing through the post office that is intended for purposes of fraud. I regret that my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is not in his place to-night, for he was consulting me some time ago about a	certain French lottery	whose
literature is being circulated in Bonaventure, and I saw the other day an article in the Montreal Witness calling attention to- a German lottery of	which
the same thing is said. Of course, lotteries have a legal existence in Germany and in France, but in Canada, as my hon. friend knows, legislation was passed years ago against all lotteries. The Post Office Department would do well to exercise more vigilance to prevent the letters and circulars of such concerns going through the mails. I do not object to giving to the Postmaster General the widest latitude in this matter, because I know that the power is always used in a very moderate way, and also because of the tendency in certain quarters to use the mails to disseminate immoral literature. It is only right that there should be someone in authority to prevent the mails being used for such purposes. Do I understand correctly that the words 'any words or device which in the opinion of the Postmaster General tend to injuriously affect the commercial or social standing of the persons to whom they are addressed' are to be read in connection with the earlier words in the section concerning immoral publications and illegal enterprises?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, they go together.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly an immoral
post card or circular sent to A or B is apt to affect his commercial or social standing. I see that point. And what was the other point?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Allowing us to return these letters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. I will give to the Postmaster General privately the names of two lotteries-I do not care to mention them publicly-one operating from France and the other from Germany, sending circulars throughout Canada-


William Manley German: You cannot control that.
Mr. PELLETIER.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think we can. We
have a law prohibiting lotteries from operating in our country, and lotteries in France or Germany sending circulars into Canada are even more injurious than lotteries whose principal seat of business would be in this country. My hon. friend from Bonaventure showed me circulars into the adjoining county of Gaspe, which I formerly represented, and told me that many poor fishermen have been d frauded by this means. If an authorative statement were issued by the Postmaster Genard stating that lotteries are illegal and that such circulars are liable to be seized, people would be put upon their guard. Also, with regard to immoral post cards, it is simply scandalous to see some of the post cards which are circulated. Many of these, of course are circulated without going through the post office and the Postmaster General is not clothed with authority, nor is the responsibility put upon him, to act in these suppressions of this literature; it is for the provincial authorities to act. But we cannot emphasize too much by our legislation our sense r't the evil caused by such immoral and licentious prints.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I shall be glad if my hon. friend will give me privately such information as will lead to the detection of these irregularities,_ and he can rest assured that we will do all we can to prevent their occurrence. Of course, we have no right to open letters, but in such cases we send our trusted officers to the parties to whom the letters are addressed, and they are requested to open them in the presence of the officers, by whom they are then inspected. We, endeavour to put a stop to anything that is objectionable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The same is to be said with regard to advertisements for immoral purposes. Many of such advertisements are circulated, and the hon. gentleman can take ample power to override such any gratuitous immorality.


Mr. LAW:: Is it not within the power of the Postmaster General to prevent the circulation of immoral literature ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Bowman Brown Law: I have often wondered why the Postmaster General does not put a ban upon the disseminating and sending through the mails by the Senate of the immoral literature they send out from time to time with reference to the divorce cases which come before them. I think we should commence to clean up our own doorsteps first, and if the Postmaster General wants to take the matter in hand and stop the circulation of. immoral literature through the mails, I would advise him to start with the Senate and prohibit

them from circulating the immoral literature which is contained in the records of the proceedings of the divorce cases heard before them.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a matter certainly worthy of consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hold, as my hon. friend knows, no brief for the Postmaster General, but I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Law) that when a divorce is granted by the Senate, the only copies of the evidence sent out are two copies of the proceedings which are furnished to each member of the House of Commons. For my part, I have applied for an additional copy when I have lost my own, and my request has been refused by the Senate authorities. So far as the Senate are concerned, therefore, their morals are well preserved.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-increase of certain salaries:
Rodolphe Lemieux: How much is involved in this ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under this section it is provided that no one will receive less than two dollars a day after a certain date ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is it. I am deducting from the $219,000 the $44,000 which we now pay out as bonuses, so that the net increase is $175,000.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-yearly leave of absence with pay:
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is this change ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In the law as it now stands there is a provision that letter carriers, instead of getting three weeks' leave of absence as other members of the staff do, get only two weeks, and they may be granted another ten days with pay on account of satisfactory service. They have the option of waiving the ten days' additional leave, in which case they are paid two dollars a day for the work they do during that period. Under this provision we are putting them on the same footing as the other members of the staff, and abolishing the ten day period.
'Section agreed to.
On section 8-money for payment of salaries:


Mr. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the hon. minister in connection with registered letters. Would it not be necessary to amend the postal law so as to prevent the sending of money in letters which are not registered? It is really a matter of deep regret to see
what is taking place every day in our criminal courts. , Under the present law anybody has a right to put money in a letter without being obliged to have it registered. The consequence of this mode of proceeding is that letters are frequently stolen in all the provinces of the Dominion. Children and very young people belonging to good families have been known to so far forget themselves as to steal one, two or three dollars from a letter.
The postal law is very severe, and rightly so, and such employees are punished with great rigour. The minimum is three years, without any option whatever, and the magistrate has not the power to reduce the penalty. Since I am a Crown prosecutor I have noticed that, unfortunately a large number of young men are sent to the penitentiary for the theft of a dollar, and even less.
Would it not be time to'do what is being done in other countries more experienced than we are? Could not the public be utterly prevented from sending money in letters unless that letter is registered? That is being done in several countries.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What countries?


David Arthur Lafortune: In the United States and in France. I am not positive as to the United States, but in France you are not allowed to send a letter containing money without registering your letter. And furthermore, the person who puts money into a letter and sends it without having it registered is liable to a penalty. Why not adopt that system? I am not prepared to give you the names of the countries where it is in vogue, but I am sure there are several of them where it is absolutely prohibited to put even a cent into a letter and send it without having it registered.
Registered letters are hardly ever stolen, because greater care is taken of them and they can be traced to where the theft was committed; while the stolen letters are almost always letters that were not registered.
As far as my experience goes, it is very seldom that a person is brought before the courts for stealing a registered letter, because thieves do not dare to touch such letters.
I therefore suggest to the hon. minister that he should give this matter his careful consideration, and make a special study of it, and he will find that such a legislation is absolutely needed.
In days gone by it might have been more difficult, because communications were not as easy as they are now. But to-day there are communications with all organized territories, and there is no inconvenience in amending the law in that direction, that is to say that everybody should be forbidden under the penalty of a fine to put even a cent in a letter whioh is to be mailed without being duly registered.

This new system, instead of being a source of expense, will -on the contrary be a source of revenue, and the public will certainly be better protected.
When a letter is stolen, there is no recourse against the Government. You cannot sue the Government and say:	I have
lost money by mail; give it back to me.
I believe public opinion would be favourable to this idea. The losses incurred through such offences against the law are often very small to the individual losers, but the consequences are very rigorous. Now, employees should be protected against themselves; we should diminish for their sake whatever temptations may beset them to take money which does not belong *'o them.
I hope the hon. minister will give his earnest consideration to this suggestion, and, if he does not do so now, that next session he will see that the law is amended in'the sense I have just indicated.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, the
remarks of the hon. member certainly deserve consideration, and we shall examine the French law on that point.


David Arthur Lafortune: I have discussed the matter with a gentleman who is well informed on the subject. The gentleman is Mr. Gaboury, the inspector in Montreal. He strongly approved the idea. He said: You are perfectly right, and he is the man who gave me the information. He said: The thing exists in several countries, and that remark from him was not made recklessly.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We will look into this [DOT]thing. The remarks made by the hon. member will do good if our newspapers endeavour to impress upon the public the imprudence of putting money into unregistered letters, in order to save a few cents or the price of register stamps. The public ought to understand that there are three methods of transmission which afford perfect security; in the first place there are the postal notes, then the money orders and finally the register stamps. As a rule registered letters do not get lost; they are entered in a book or on a detached sheet and their course is followed. Therefore, failing to use one of these three methods of sending money in order to save a few cents is utter carlessness. The money lost by putting it in a letter which is mailed without registration cannot be recovered by the loser , who has no claim against the Government.
I thank the hon. member for having called my attention to this point. I hope the newspapers will not fail to deal with the question and tell the people that they should avoid mailing letters containing money without having them registered.
There is something sacred in the fact that a letter is mailed, but I do not see how we Mr. LAFORTUNE.
are to prevent people from putting money in an unregistered letter. Nothing short of French genius was necessary to discover that means. At all events the matter deserves consideration.
As to the three years in penitentiary for that offence, I must say that the law is very severe; but the * tickets of leave ' abound, and the Post Office Department always insists to have the culprit kept in for one year at least; after that they are allowed to go on a ticket of leave.


David Arthur Lafortune: It was on the occasion of the investigation I held as a Royal Commissioner at St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary that the ticket of leave was invented. A young man belonging to one of the best families had forgotten himself. For having stolen one dollar he had been given three years in the penitentiary. I felt very sorry to find such a case, and that was one of the reasons why we adopted the ticket of leave. The thing was recommended to the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Mowat. Until that investigation took place the ticket of leave did not exist, and it has been used in order to attenuate such extreme cases as these. I know that after a year or two such convicts are released under certain conditions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I fully concur with the wise and humane remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Montcalm. As has been said by the Postmaster General, I know that a letter is a sacred trust, which for no consideration should be violated by the postman, letter carrier or anybody else.
Unfortunately, the young men who have to content themselves with the paltry salary of a letter carrier, are often tempted, principally during the holidays-and the Postmaster General will notice that .the thefts of money letters are most numerous during the holiday season-when the mails are much more voluminous than at any other time during the year. Instinctively the letter carrier knows that more money is then going by mail, the young letter carrier whose cupidity is then aroused at New Year's time, when feeling the letters is tempted to chisel out the contents.
I know the law must be severe, but when we come to consider, as the hon. member for Montcalm has said, the amount of the theft, the gravity of the offence and the penalty to which the culprit is liable, it is hard to say how justice should proceed. Here is a young man, aged eighteen or twenty years, who steals out of an envelope a sum of twenty-five dollars or even twenty-five cents-I say twenty-five cents because, right here in Ottawa, a religious corporation who were receiving by mail small sums of five and ten cents had been robbed for a long time before the unfortunate letter carrier had been arrested.

But when such a young man is brought before the magistrate and is sentenced to three years in the penitentiary many bitter tears are shed because the offence, grave as it is, has drawn upon that young man a punishment out of proportion with the offence itself.
I only wish to suggest this point to the minister, but it seems to me that the age of the culprit should be taken into consideration, and that a scale of punishment should be established. It seems to me that a minor should not meet the same degree of punishment as a man of more mature years.
The penalty of three years in the penitentiary is a stigma which hangs on through life. When that young man, after one year, gets that ticket of leave which is given so liberally by the Minister of Justice, the stigma hangs on. He has been convicted, he has entered the doors of the penitentiary, that is sufficient to exclude him thereafter from social circles and to disgrace him forever.
It is useless to insist. The hon. Postmaster General, who has for a long time practised law in the criminal courts, knows that as well as I do. The best means seems to have been suggested by the hon. member for Montcalm. This question deserves consideration, without, however, admitting that the postal service is any worse than it has been in the past. Considering the increase of population in the larger centres, it is a wonder that the thefts are not more numerous, when it is known that millions upon millions are carried through Canada from ocean to ocean. But in the large cities, where the population is getting more and more heterogeneous, the number has increased with the population.
We see every day in the papers that young men eighteen or twenty years old have been sentenced to three years in the penitentiary for that offence. I repeat that three years in the penitentiary is a very hard punishment for a theft which is often very small. That penalty, as I said, is out of proportion with the offence and my hon. friend the Postmaster General should consider concurrently with the Minister of Justice whether that penalty should not be investigated.


David Arthur Lafortune: The cost of registering the letters might be decreased as a further inducement to the public for using this safer method of transmission of money. Such a decrease would involve no loss to the revenue of the department, for I feel sure that, in such a case more people would avail themselves of registration. That decrease would thus be compensated by an increase in the number of registered letters.
We must also bear in mind the fact that each theft is aggravated by a violation of the secrecy of correspondence. It is found that not only do the thieves take the money I 376
contained in the letters but also read the letters which are often of a very confidential nature. Of course, the letters are not opened with the intention of reading them; they are opened to take what money they contain, but having opened .them the thief takes occasion to read tnem.
I would therefore advise the Postmaster General to reduce the cost of registration so as to induce the people to register the letters containing money, and thus protect at the same time the secrecy of correspondence.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The suggestion of the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) is an excellent one. The time seems to have arrived when the charge for registering a letter should be reduced. It seems absurd that you should be called upon to pay two cents postage and then be obliged to affix the five cent registry stamp. With the enormous revenues of the Post Office Department, in comparison with those of former years, it would seem almost to be obligatory upon the department or upon Parliament to take into consideration a reduction of the registration charge.


Mr. CARROLL:: How long does a railway clerk serve before reaching the maximum of his salary at the present time?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The railway mail
clerk starts at $500 and goes up by yearly increments of $100 until he reaches $800; and then, from $800, the annual increase is $50 a year up to $1,400, which is his maximum.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then the mileage brings it up sometimes to $1,800 a year.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, yes, the railway mail clerks on the long routes make a good bit of money.


William F. Carroll: I have a telegram from the railway mail clerk at Sydney, who seems 'to think that the present Bill makes some changes with reference to the time when a railway mail clerk will reach his maximum. He seems to indicate that, previous to the present Bill, it took twenty years to reach the maximum salary and that after the passing of this Bill he will reach the maximum salary in fifteen years.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This Bill does not
change anything so far as that is concerned, Its only effect on the railway mail clerk is to give an increase of $100 a year to the railway mail clerks who, on the 1st of April, 1913, had been fifteen years in the service.


William F. Carroll: Have the railway mail
clerks asked for legislation to make the law such that in fifteen years they will reach the maximum?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is the law now. This clause is introduced to meet in partthe



demands of the railway mail clerks who came to see us. We may not be able to grant them this year all they ask, but we are taking care of the old employees. This will in certain cases put them up to the maximum of their class. We also take care of the letter carriers for whom we are spending $175,000 more than last year. Last year we provided for the salaries of post office clerks. This year we are taking care of the old railway mail clerks and of the letter carriers in whom my hon. friend from Cape Breton takes so much interest. I expect we will be able to do something for the postmasters and little by little meet all the demands, most of which are legitimate, that are made on us.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps the minister will give some expression of opinion as to the possibility of a reduction in the registration charge.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is the first time that it has been suggested and of course there is part of the suggestion which is worthy of consideration. The hon. member for Montcalm has put it in very good form, that perhaps it might induce a great many more people to register letters if they had less to pay. But this is a question that I would have to take up with my officers to see what the result would be from a financial point of view. My hon. friend speaks of the large revenue of the Department. Everybody is jumping after it and if we had not a Chinese -wall around it it would be gone.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was speaking on behalf of the so-called consumer. I am not approaching his revenue from the standpoint of getting any portion of it, but from the standpoint of somewhat reducing that revenue in the interest of the people at large and not of any particular class.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend can always take it for granted that the cheaper the rate the greater will be the revenue. That was my experience when I was in his place. When Sir William Mulock reduced the postal rate from 3 cents to 2 cents, it was predicted from this seat by the late Sir Adolphe Caron that there would be a huge deficit in the department. The same prediction was made by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. For one or two years the prediction held good but if the surplus .has been so abundant during the last ten or twelve years it is due largely to this postal reduction of Sir William Mulock. Then, when I was Postmaster General, I made a further reduction in the drop letter rate, that is to say the letter dropped in the city to be delivered within the limits of the same city. Previously the rate was 2 cents, it has been reduced to 1
Mr. PELLETIER
cent. My hon. friend will know .from his officers that commercial firms in cities heretofore had letters distributed by special messengers at 1 cent per letter, which was contrary to law by the way, but was done on such a large scale that you could not pretend to prevent it. Those large firms ceased employing messenger .service for this delivery of circulars or advertisements and became the patrons of the Post Office Department and from that source the Post Office Department has been able to reap quite a large amount of money. I should say that with the large number of money exchanges that are now being made between the various sections of the country by letter, if there were a reduction in the registration charge-and of course in this I am subject to correction by the officers of the department-I am inclined to believe that after a while my hon. friend would derive an increased revenue from this source.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We will look into it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Particularly would
that be so if the transmission of money not registered were prohibited. If that were prohibited as has been well suggested, and the charge for registration were reduced, I think the revenues of the department would be sustained, and the evils incident to the present practice would be very largely avoided.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The two things will
be considered together.


William F. Carroll: Under the Bill a person who has been fifteen years in the service gets an increase of $100 a year, beginning cn the first of April, 1913.
But such increase shall not exceed the difference between his present salary and the maximum salary of a railway mail clerk.
That seems to me to put a premium on the mail clerk who has fifteen years' service as against the clerk who has had twenty or twenty-five years' service.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is to arrange
matters so that the salary will not go beyond the maximum of $1,400. My officers inform me that none of the mail clerks has yet reached the maximum of $1,400.


William F. Carroll: Has F. N. McMillan not yet reached the maximum?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am informed that no man has reached the maximum of $1,400. The maximum used to be $1,200, and a year ago we increased it to $1,400, to be reached by increases of $50 a year.


William F. Carroll: I understand that, but
still it does not seem fair to the man who has 'been twenty years in the service, and who may have reached the maximum, or

who reached the maximum last year, we will say, before the $200 was added.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No man has reached it.


William F. Carroll: He might have reached it before the increase of $200.


John Douglas Hazen: He could have reached the maximum of $1,200, but a year ago the maximum was increased to $1,400, to be reached by annual increases of $50, so that at present no clerk can be getting more than $1,250, or if you add $100 to that, more than $1,350 which is within the maximum.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Under this all the old employees benefit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must take advantage of this Bill to bring a certain matter to the attention of the Postmaster General. It has nothing to do with the Bill, but I shall have no other opportunity of directing the attention of th6 minister to it. I wrote a couple of letters to him about it, and on each occasion I received a reply stating that the subject matter of my letter was under 'consideration. Now that wo are near the close of the session I would like to ask the minister, when he has the advantage of the presence of his officers, what he proposes to do about a certain contract in the county of Inverness?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: How does that come up under this Bill?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What pertains to the .Bill and what does not, is a question in regard to which I do not require any direction from the hon. the Postmaster General.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend
surely understands that we are discussing this Bill, and if he says that what he is about to refer to is in no way connected with the Bill, he will admit that he is not in order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I simply asked the
right to bring the matter to the notice of the minister, as we are near the close of the session and possibly we will have no further opportunity of bringing up a matter pertaining to the affairs of the post office.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There will be the
supplementary estimates.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A contractor in the county of Inverness was dismissed by the Postmaster General, in the usual courteous and kindly way, before his time had expired, and the Postmaster General kept back the man's salary for the last quarter. He had a postmaster who tried to make political charges against that contractor, and they went to the courts with him. Officers were sent from Ottawa to take him 376i
into the criminal court, and he was exhaustively tried and honourably acquitted. Still, they kept his money from him. I wrote two letters to the Postmaster General to find out why this poor man had not been paid. It was bad enough for the Postmaster General to dismiss him, but surely he should have been paid the money which he had earned. I could get no reason why the man was not paid, and possibly the Postmaster General does not know of his own knowledge, but he is surrounded by his officers, and I trust they will see to it that the little money earned by that contractor will be paid.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. gentleman, who has persisted in speaking on a matter not cmnected with this Bill, tout I may tell him that the honourable acquittal of the man to whom he refers has been reported to me as a gross miscarriage of justice.


Mr. HENDERSON:: I desire for a moment or two to refer to a matter that was brought up by my hon. friend the exPostmaster General (Mr. Lemieux). He says he remembers well that year after year I persistently urged upon him the propriety of reducing the postage on drop letters in the country villages and towns. When he made the reduction in the cities by 50 per cent he should have given us a corresponding reduction in the country; that is, he should have given us a half-cent rate instead of a cent rate. I do not know how the rates aTe working out now under the rural mail delivery, but I am under the impression that we are not even getting the benefit of the cent rate on drop letters. I trust that the present Postmaster General will take up the matter, which I pressed so strongly upon his predecessor, and equalize matters in that regard, so that the people in the country may feel that when the people in the cities are treated so generously, the Postmaster General will be generous enough to give them a similar reduction.
I failed to make an impression upon the ex-Postmaster General, but I trust that the present Postmaster General will not be quite so hard, and that he will do something for us along that line.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If my hon. friend
will tell his people to try that drop letter we will see to it that they are all right.


David Henderson: We do it every day.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You have got it,
then?


David Henderson: No, we still pay the old rate. I do not think we get any half cent rate or a reduction of fifty per -cent similar to what they got in the city. *


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, I understood
that the hon. gentleman wants the rate to be half a cent?


David Henderson: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is asking a great deal.


Mr HENDERSON:: It is no more than
was given to cities like Toronto and Montreal.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They pay one cent.


David Henderson: They have to pay one cent, but they formerly paid two while we still have to pay one cent instead or getting a similar reduction. The people living in towns are entitled to a similar reduction to that which they received m the cities, as the hon. ex-Postmaster General knows.


Mr LEMIEUX:: It is quite vivid m my memory and I must congratulate my hon. friend on his pertinacity. I like his way of explaining by the law of average what the reduction should be for the country folk. It reminds me of the story ot the two Turks in the city of Manchester. Someone asked: 'How many Turks are left in the city?' and the answer was: kitty per cent have left.' There were only two. My hon. friend says you have given a reduction of fifty per cent to the city and you must give the same reduction to the country folks. At the time my hon. frienc was insisting upon the reduction we yore experimenting in the, cities and I said that if it was a success in the city surely the country people would be entitled to the same ' Now that I sit here, where my hon. friend used to sit in days gone by, I DOin with him and I say, give the reduction to the country folks, give the Halton .farmers the reduction which has been vainly demanded by their worthy representative tor so many years. The time has come now that you have a good surplus in the treasury.


Mr HENDERSON:: I appreciate what
my hon. friend says. If he had only spoken three years ago along the same line we would have had that boon at the present time. But he was always waiting to see how the one-cent rate in the cities would turn out. He waited too long._ Now that he is not in power he thinks his successor should do what he refused to do. I thank him for the suggestion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is every five
years a postal union congress. The last one took place in Rome, Mid the next one will take place in Madrid this year or next year.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Next year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend the
Postmaster General, if he attends the ses-Mt. HENiDERSON.
sions of that very important congress, will,
I hope, be the spokesman of the British people at large on the question of penny postage. He will remember that one of his predecessors, Sir William Mulock, at the Imperial conference of 1897, succeeded m winning to his cause, namely, penny postage within the British Empire, the Postmaster General of Great Britain and the postmasters of the various British dominions. My hon. friend will remember the famous stamp ' greater than has been ' issued in 1897 in commemoration of the jubilee of Her late Majesty and also . of the establishment of penny postage within the Empire. There is a movement on. foot to have penny postage extended all the world over, that is to say, between the countries which belong to the Postal Union. I believe that, with the exception of three or four barbarian states, all the civilized and semi-civilized peoples belong to the Postal Union. There is a strong movement to have penny postage extended between all the various countries of the world. It belongs to the Postmaster General of Canada to take the lead in this matter. I believe he will have with him the very progressive statesman who is now the Postmaster General of Great Britain, Mr. Samuel, the Postmaster General of Aus; tralia, the Postmaster General of New Zealand, and the Postmaster General of the United States of America. With that splendid team, if he does not succeed, his name is not the name he bears.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Postmaster Generals are all right, I believe, but it is their colleagues, the chancellors of the exchequer who are all wrong.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir William Mulock had to fight a battle against the British Postmaster General at the time, I think the Duke of Norfolk, but with his great pertinacity and firmness he carried the day. He found it more difficult to convince the British Postmasters General than to convince all the postmasters general upon the continent. He succeeded and it has been a huge success throughout the British Empire. My hon. friend should put that feather in his cap at the next congress and advocate penny postage throughout the world. If my hon. friend reads the various postal reviews that are published he will know that this is the question of the day. I sincerely hope that as Canada has led in the van of progress within the British Empire, so will Canada lead in the van of progress throughout the world.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: I want to ask the Postmaster General a couple of questions with regard to the effect of the increase in regard to rates of pay allowed to letter carriers. Just before I came East the letter carriers in my city interviewed me, and spoke about this increase in pay. I want to know

whether there is provision for an extra allowance to letter carriers from Winnipeg westward. The argument they placed before me was that in western Canada the cost of living was higher than in the East and that therefore they should be given an extra allowance. I would like to know if provision is made for that in the Bills?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They have it now.


William Ashbury Buchanan: They will get it in
addition to this increase?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It will not disappear; they will get this increase over and above.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


TECHNICAL EDUCATION COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour) laid on the table of the House the report of the Commission on Technical Education.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 195, to amend the Railway Belt Water Act.-Mr. Crothers. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
' On section 1-short title:
Frank Oliver: The hon. minister was good enough to give me a copy of the Bill with certain typewritten explanations attached to it. I do not wish to delay the committee. If the hon. minister would make a short explanation of the terms of the Bill, I would then give my views, and the Bill could go through Committee of the Whole without further delay.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Bill has been revised since I gave my hon. friend the proposed amendments. I understand the Bill as reprinted has been distributed amongst the members.


Frank Oliver: What will be the nature of the later amendments?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They were made for the purpose of more clearly defining the rights of private individuals. My hon. friend knows the conditions in the West.


Frank Oliver: That was the only feature of the Bill in which I was especially interested.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Counsel representing
these private interests, counsel for British Columbia, and a representative of the Justice Department had a conference and proposed certain changes. 'They agreed upon the Bill as now reprinted, so that it is satisfactory to those interested in these private rights, to the province of British Columbia and also to the Justice Department.


Frank Oliver: At this late date of the session, it would not be appropriate that any serious length of time should be taken in discussing this or any other measure that is introduced on the responsibility of the Government. The Government having decided to make certain changes in the law and to place them before the House, these measures must be accepted by the House and the Government must take the responsibility for them.
I merely wish to point out what appears to me to be a course of action in regard to this question that is, to say the least, remarkable. A certain area of land in British Columbia was the property of the Dominion Government. The province of British Columbia assumed to grant rights to water within that area, called the Railway Belt. The Dominion Government also granted rights to water within the same area. The respective jurisdictions of the province and of the Dominion in regard to water were in question. It was decided by the Privy Council that the jurisdiction over the water in the Railway Belt rested in the Dominion Government. That established that rights granted by the Dominion Government were valid rights and that rights granted by the province were not valid rights, in the Railway Belt. As I read the Bill, the Government has seen fit, in arriving at an adjustment of the rights in dispute, first of all to hand over to the provincial Government the responsibility of deciding as to private rights, whether granted by the Dominion or by the province. In the same Bill by which they do that, they specifically establish that right-s granted by the provincial Government shall have equal status with the rights granted by the Dominion Government. I can only say that such a proceeding is certainly contrary to every principle of justice. Rights granted by the Dominion, when the land and the water were the property of the Dominion, were legal rights. Rights purporting to be granted by the province at that time were not legal rights; and a certain provision of this Bill is for the express purpose of declaring that the rights purporting to be granted by the province, which had no legal status, shall have equal status with the rights granted by the Dominion, which were absolutely legal and within the right of the Dominion to grant. If it is the pleasure of the Government to become responsible for legislation of this character, it is not possible at this stage of the session to plead the case at any great length or to attempt to maintain the rights granted by the Dominion Government, and for the maintenance of which this Government is properly responsible; but I do not feel that it would be right to allow the Bill to go through containing such remarkable provisions, without attempting to call the atten-

tion of the House to it. When a Bill bearing this title was brought before the House last session, when the present Minister of Public Works was Minister of the Interior, he made the statement very definitely that the Dominion Government would stand behind the water rights that had been granted by the Dominion Government and, that although the jurisdiction was to be handed over to the province, still the Dominion would protect the rights which the Dominion had granted. This Bill is absolutely the reverse of that declaration of policy.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I readily understand
that my hon. friend has not had an opportunity to read this Bill, although it was distributed yesterday or the day before. The object of the Bill is not at all what the hon. gentleman seems to think, nor does it contain the provisions that toe believes are there. I think he is not quite accurate as to the substance of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That case arose in this way: The commissioners appointed by the Government of British Columbia issued a license to the Burrard Power Company to divert a certain quantity from the Lillooet lakes and river, and holders of timber berths lower down the river complained of the diversion of this portion of the water as injurious to their timber limits and called upon the Dominion Government to protect them in their rights. Information was laid by the Dominion Government 'before the Exchequer court and that court gave judgment to the effect that the Government of British Columbia had not the right to divert the water as they had done. That judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and also by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The judgment held that the Dominion had jurisdiction in any unpatented lands, but on patented lands the provincial legislature had jurisdiction under the provisions of the British North America Act giving to the provincial legislatures jurisdiction over property and civil rights; and they held that as the Dominion had parted with these rights in the land it had also parted with its rights in the water and that the provincial legislature, therefore, would have jurisdiction. Hon. gentlemen all understand the position in British Columbia. The railway 'belt is simply a strip of land twenty miles on either side of the Canadian Pacific railway right of way, making a strip forty miles wide. Hon. gentlemen know also that the Canadian Pacific railway for the most part follows the windings of the river into which streams flow from both directions. Some of these streams arise outside the railway belt, flow into the railway belt and through it, while others rise in the railway belt and flow out beyond it. On many of these streams are private individuals who have received their patents from the Dominion Government and there-Mr. OLIVER.
fore, according to the judgment of the Privy Council come within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. There were on these streams patented lands and unpatented lands, so that you have a double jurisdiction unless some arrangement were made between the two governments whereby one would administer the water-power. It would be unfortunate and impracticable if there were two jurisdictions dealing with water in the railway belt. The convenience and necessity of some arrangement being made will be apparent to every hon. gentleman who has given the matter consideration. It was agreed upon between the two governments that the administration of the water-powers should be exercised by the legislature of British Columbia, they administering the water-powers and paying over to the Dominion Government the revenues derived therefrom over and above the costs of administration. With that object in view an Act was passed last year but it was found defective in several particulars making it unworkable. We are proposing to amend it in this Bill, making it workable. And if my hon. friend will examine the various sections in this Bill, I think he will find that as far as it is possible to protect these rights, they are protected. All grants and" licenses, and Orders in Council issued by this Government are to be given effect to under this Bill, and all private rights are preserved. My hon. friend will see at once the drift of the legislation; we have endeavoured to preserve as far as we could, the rights of private individuals and at the same time place in charge of the province the administration of the water. You will observe in this Bill that we except from its operations property in all the Dominion parks, so that these matters will be dealt with from Ottawa rather than from Victoria. If the hon. gentleman will read the sections, I think he will find that the rights of private individuals are protected under the Bill. We have consulted private individuals and have satisfied parties represented by counsel, one representing private rights and one the province of British Columbia, and the Minister of Justice representing the Dominion, that all the rights concerned were protected under this Bill.


Frank Oliver: 
Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
Frank Oliver: I read this, as plain as
print can make it, that all records, grants, licenses, Orders in Council, or contracts of, for, or affecting the use of water, which have been granted by the provincial government are given a legal status just as all applications granted by the Dominion Government under sub-section 3 are given a legal status. Both are made subject to adjustment by the board appointed under the Water Act.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think my hon. friend has overlooked what I have just endeavoured to call his attention to. That is all subject, under clause 2 of section 5, to the rights declared in clause 1 of section 5, which in very plain terms preserves the rights granted by the Dominion or the minister.


Frank Oliver: It preserves the rights
granted by the Dominion, but it specifically gives the same status to the rights purporting to have been granted by the province as are given to rights granted by the Dominion. The rights which have no legal status are given an equal position before the Water Board as the rights which have a legal status. It is that to which I object, and I do not think it would be right to allow the Bill to go through without calling attention to that view of the case.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 243, to amend the Judges Aot. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-Revised Statutes, chapter 138, section 8, amended:
George Perry Graham: I suppose what my hon. friend wants to do is to get in his resolution with regard to the Ontario judges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The resolution which I introduced this morning was referred to the committee to which this Bill was referred, so I suppose the resolution and the Bill should come before the committee now.


George Perry Graham: Where is the additional Ontario judges to be located; at Berlin?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill provides that there shall be salaries for seventy-four county court judges instead of seventy-three. The reason why provision is made for seventy-four is that Berlin has become entitled to a junior judge.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to repeat what has already been said with regard to the centralization of the judicial system in the province of Quebec. I share the views of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that the time has come when some of the districts surrounding the city of Montreal, also those adjoining the city of Quebec, should be annexed, so to speak, to those centres. In the present case the judge who is to have concurrent jurisdiction in Bpauharnois has been so very faithful and so very hard-working that he certainly deserves that promotion. Mr. Justice Mercier has been a very exemplary official, and has given great satisfaction to the bar and to the public generally. The same may be said in the case of the judge at Richelieu, Mr. Justice Bruneau, of the judge at St. Hyacinthe, Mr. Justice Martineau, and of the judge at St. Johns, Mr. Justice Monet. Of course this is a matter which has to be taken up by the Quebec legislature, and the sooner it is done the better for the interests of the people in that section of the country.
On section 7, judges sitting outside of district, exceptions.


Edmond Proulx: Why is this needed? I know of only one case where a county court judge has power to sit in chambers outside of his district, that is the senior judge of Prescott and Russell. There was some legislation passed in 1907 by the Ontario Legislature permitting a county court judge to transaot business in chambers outside of his district, at a place to be named in the Order in Council. The Order in Council was passed at his solici-

tation to permit him to sit in chambers at Ottawa. It is a great injustice to the Bar of the district. He should come and sit in chambers in the county town, and the lawyers of the district should not have to run after the judge and should not have to come to Ottawa. I would ask the minister if there are other cases than this case-.	[DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section referred to has no bearing at all on the case referred to by the hon. member. That is a case, as I understand, in which, in virtue of legislation of the Ontario Legislature, the judge of Prescott is allowed to 'ive in Ottawa.


Edmond Proulx: He is not allowed to live in Ottawa, he is allowed to transact business in chambers in Ottawa that he should transact in his county town.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is done under legislation of the province of Ontario, and if I should put into this Bill an express prohibition of that, it would be waste paper.


Edmond Proulx: I did not ask the minister to put in a prohibition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The object of this section is that when a judge is unavoidably absent from his county, laid up ill for instance, he may ask a brother judge of another county to go and take his court, and in some cases it has been thought there were abuses of' that right, entailing expenditure on the country. The purpose of this section is to provide that in order to be paid under those circumstances, the judge earning the payment must make it appear to the satisfaction of the Minister of Justice that his attendance was duly authorized and necessary, that he did not ask to go and take the other judge's court, but was called on by the other judge, and that there was some reason for it being done.


Edmond Proulx: I know there was only one case in which a judge was allowed to transact business in chambers outside of his district.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


INSPECTION AND SALE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 199, to amend the Inspection and Sale Act. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-short title:
Mr. NEELY:: Before we make any
progress with this Bill, I would submit to the minister that in view of the protest made against the passing of tins Bill when it was in committee on a former occasion, the minister might very well have with-Mr. PROULX.
drawn it. It appears to me more than ever that the only people who are going to benefit by the passing of this Bill are the already privileged class of the fruit growers in British Columbia and possibly, to .some extent, the fruit growers of other provinces. I am confirmed in that opinion by a despatch which came to my notice some days ago, dated Winnipeg, May 15, in which a gentleman of that city, Mr. George Grisdale, president of the Winnipeg Wholesale Fruit Jobbers Association, expressed the following opinion with reference to this legislation:
Winnipeg, May 15.-Geo. Grisdale, speaking as president of the Winnipeg Wholesale Fruit Jobbers Association, stated that the change made by amendment to the Canadian Fruits Act was an attempt to cater to the fruit growers of British Columbia and Ontario by restricting importation from the United States to the West, but United States dealers do both their packing and grading so well that the public demands their goods.
'Before the fruit growers of British Columbia and Ontario,' said Mr. Grisdale. ' can stop the importation of fruit from the South they will have to cultivate their trees better and look more to their grading and packing than they have done in the past. Then, again, Canadian fruit and that from the Uniteld States is not ready for the market at the same time and it is necessary to get fruit from the South before Canadian fruit comes in.'
The substance of this Bill is contained in the second section which provides:
The Governor in Council, by regulation, mayfa) prescribe- the kinds of imported fruit the packages containing which must be branded or marked;
(b)	prescribe the brands or marks to be
used thereon;
(c)	prescribe the manner and places in and
at which such fruit is to be inspected and such packages branded or marked.
All packages of fruit not branded or marked in accordance with such regulations shall be forfeited to His Majesty, and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the minister may direct.
I do not know Mr. Grisdale personally, but he is a man in the fruit business who imports a great deal of fruit apparently from the United States, as do all fruit jobbers and wholesalers throughout the West and throughout the country. If the minister has a fear that fruit is coming in from the United States of an inferior quality, that it is not properly branded or graded and that the people are being defrauded by the methods of grading and branding of the fruit growers of the United States, Mr. Grisdale's opinion would be that the minister is mistaken in that because he says that the grading of fruit in the United States occupies a higher position than in Canada, and that the fruit imported from the United States is, apparently, on an average, better graded than

the fruit in Canada and is of better quality. That is to say they live up better to their regulation and he complains of the way in which the packing of fruit is done in Canada and in which Canadian fruit growers live up to the Fruit Marking Act and the regulations made under it. The minister did not say, on the former occasion, that there was any demand whatever on the part of the consumers throughout Canada for this legislation. After reading the opinion of one whose business is the fruit business, I am more than ever confirmed in my view that the only class who will be benefited by this legislation are the fruit growers of British Columbia and of	other	parts of	Canada.
I fancy that so far as other parts of Canada are concerned, they are a negligible quantity, and that the protest comes from the fruit growers of British Columbia. It is at the behest of the fruit growers of British Columbia, and for their benefit, that the minister has introduced this legislation. If he had shown us that the United States exporters of fruit were making it a practice to send into this country fruit improperly marked, branded or graded, there might be some show of justification for this legislation. The tariff protects the fruit growers of British Columbia, and that ought to be sufficient. But, in his legislation, the minister certainly takes to himself the power to practically prohibit the importation of fruit from the outside. Now, why should that be? Why should the Minister of Agriculture or any other person have that power? The Canadian exporter of apples or of other fruits would regard it as a very grievous hardship indeed if other countries to which he exports were to apply legislation of this kind. I think that this is class legislation, and that it is exceedingly objectionable from the point of view of the great consuming population of this country, and especially of the people on the plains, where we do not grow to any extent the larger fruits such as apples. There is no question of doubt that the more regulations of this kind that we have, the more expensive will fruit be for the consumer. Take for instance the case of the fruit grower in the State of Washington or in any of the States contiguous to western Canada. Under this legislation, the minister takes to himself the right to-

prescribe the kinds of imported fruits the packages containing which must be branded or marked, to prescribe the brands or marks1 to be used thereon.
We quite understand that under our regulations the Canadian fruit grower is compelled to grade his fruit according to the regulations and according to the terms of the Act. The brands used by the fruit
growers and packers in the United States aTe distinct from outs. They do not use the same names, and there is some slight variation in the grades. For instance, our No. 1 may approximate to a similar grade or brand in the United States, but there is a slight difference. Supposing that a wholesale merchant in the city of Winnipeg sends an order to a shipper in the State of Washington. That order is received, and what is the consequence? That particular exporter has his fruit packed and branded according to the legislation of the State of Washington. If the Minister of Agriculture compels that fruit grower or shipper to conform to regulations which he may lay down for fruits coming into Canada, that exporter in the city of Washington will be compelled to take the fruit out of the packages in which he had placed it, and re-select, and regrade, and re-mark it according to the regulations imposed by our legislation. What is the result going to be to the consumers? The only possible result from that sort of thing is that if the exporter in the State of Washington or in any other state to the south of us, is compelled to go to this trouble in filling an order from a Canadian importer, the price will necessarily be enhanced. That can be the only possible result. I repeat that the condition will be particularly onerous in view of the fact that, as Mr. Grisdale states, the seasons in the two countries vary. The fruit to the south matures before the fruit in the province of British Columbia, and I think that that in itself, along with the tariff ought to he quite sufficient protection for the fruit growers of that province. I would like to hear from the minister whether in view of these considerations he does not think it would be advisable to withdraw this Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before the minister replies, I wish to enter my protect against this Bill. I shall do so briefly, as I gave my views on the second reading. I look upon it as the most vicious legislation which has been introduced during this session, and that is saying a good deal. There is one point which perhaps my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) did not emphasize. I do not say that the minister will do all that is proposed to be done under this legislation, but this Parliament is not acting properly when it places in the hands of any minister such powers as the Minister of Agriculture is asking under this Bill. All he has to do is to prescribe by regulation that a certain brand shall be placed upon those goods, contrary to the law of the country in which it is produced, and he absolutely prohibits the importation of those goods into Canada.

In the United States, they have their Inspection and Sales Act just as we have in Canada. Their law provides that the fruit shall be inspected and branded in a certain way, and the moment my hon. friend prescribes regulations different from those, he prohibits the importation of those goods into Canada. To my mind that is the real difficulty in the matter, and I rather think it is the real object of this legislation. Look at the enormous powers he is asking.
The Governor in Council by regulation may prescribe the kinds of imported fruits, the packages containing which must be branded or marked.
In the first place he can say that every article of fruit that comes into Canada must be branded or marked. Next he can-
-prescribe the brands or marks to be used thereon.
Then he can-

prescribe the manner and places in and at which such fruit is to he inspected, and such packages branded or marked.
It may be interesting to some members of the committee to realize the enormous quantities of fruit which we bring into Canada from the United States every year. We have to bring it in because our fruit is not matured at the time the United States fruit is. I have 'here the trade and navigation returns for the first eleven months of the last fiscal year, and I find that during that period we imported from the United States $751,000 worth of green apples. We would not bring these apples into this country unless we needed them, and I think it is fair to assume that they would not be imported if we produced them for our own consumption at that particular time. They were brought in because we had to have them. Take blackberries, gooseberries, raspberries, and strawberries, $565,000 worth came in; cherries $102,000 worth and we know that these cherries are brought in here before our cherries are ripe for the market; grapes from the United States, $279,000 worth; peaches from the United States, $330,000; plums from the United States, $266,000 worth; quinces, apricots, pears and nectarines, $372,000 worth. There is nothing coming from any other country practically than the United States. Our total importations, with the exception of a mere bagatelle, come from the United States. All the minister has to do under this law is to prescribe a mark or brand different from that prescribed by the law of the United States and we prohibit the importation of these goods. Surely, if the protection which the tariff gives is not sufficient for the fruit-growers of Canada, they had better go out of business, the country had better pension them off and the land Mr. CARVELL.
which they occupy had better be devoted to some ether purpose. If the labouring men and consumers of this country have to pay any more for their fruit than they are paying now the country had better pension off the _ fruit-growers, keep them out of this business, and let them devote their energies to something else. This :is class legislation of the most vicious kind; legislation that is not justified, that is a direct attack on the labouring and consuming people of the country and entirely in the interests of the fruit-growers in two or three sections of the Dominion.


Mr. BURRELL:: I can only assure my hon, friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) that the purpose of this Bill is simply to establish uniformity in the grading, packing and branding of all fruits that are sold in Canada. A man who offers a case of apples in Canada shall offer it under certain markings and grades that are prescribed by this Act whether he is a foreign producer or a home producer. I will be frank with my hon. friend and say that there is not the faintest possibility of the Government dealing with the various foreign fruits that he has mentioned, or that he mentioned the other day, because it would be folly on the Government's part or on the department's part to antagonize people in Canada by dealing with those things that we do not grow at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do we not grow apples, pears, peaches, plums and cherries?


Martin Burrell: There is a great deal of foreign fruit that we do not grow here at all. I am only saying that this provision will only be applied to some of the deciduous fruits that we grow and the Act, as it stood, which is practically as the Act stands now except that the Justice Department thought that we should have it made clearer, has been applied to some extent, because there have been prosecutions against producers of or dealers in fruit that has been shipped in as violating the terms of the old Act. But when we came to apply the Act to the packers of the fruit it could not be applied in the same way as to the home packers, because the people who were the packers were on the other side of the line. This amendment will not necessarily restrict the sale of American fruit. The American producer who sends fruit to Canada, after this is published in the Canada Gazette, will know what the requirements are as to branding in this country and will conform to them. I cheerfully admit, what was stated by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), that an immense amount of American fruit comes packed in first-class style, is admirable in every respect, and that no person in British Columbia

can criticise it. But if that he true it is also the fact that occasionally fruit does come in that is misleading as to the brand and this proposed law will put it on the same basis as that occupied by Canadian fruit. All that is aimed at by this amendment is to put everybody on the same footing with respect to the Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If that is all my hon. friend wants, why does he not provide that the Governor in Council may take power to prescribe places at which this fruit may be branded? My hon. friend says that it is well packed and properly branded now. Why does he want to provide places? If he provides places he prohibits the importation of fruit except through those places.


Martin Burrell: It is quite evident that we could not provide that the fruit shall be branded in Washington or Oregon or New York because we have no jurisdiction there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Thas is what we object to.


Martin Burrell: We have only jurisdiction to deal with it in this country, it has to be inspected at a custom point and the intention of the act is that it shall be put on the same footing as any other fruit. That is the whole purpose of the enactment. We cannot say that a man shall brand his fruit in some obscure place in Oregon, Washington, New York or Florida. We can only deal with it after it comes into this country and then we say that it shall conform to our law. My hon. friend asked the reason for establishing these regulations. If he were to ship any commodity to the United States he would have to conform to their regulations. If he were to ship the finest carcass of beef to the United States it would only be admitted under certain conditions. In regard to a great many things you must conform to the regulations of the country to which you ship them and they will not ibe admitted unless you comply with these conditions. I assure my hon. friend that there is absolutely no desire under the provisions of this bill on the part of my department to do anything but apply to some deciduous fruits the same grades that are establised by this act and there is no desire to work any hardship. We are simply providing for the possibility of some one undertaking to sell fruit purporting to be of a certain brand when as a matter of fact it does not conform to that standard. If we say to our own Canadian citizen: You must mark your fruit as being of a certain grade and you shall not put any other brand upon your fruit, surely my hon. friend would not expect that we would ask for anything less from the man who undertakes to sell the same kind of foreign fruit in our markets.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must take my hon.
friend's word when he says that he is not trying to prevent the importation of fruit from foreign countries but my hon. friend has admitted all that we have been trying to argue. He has told us that branding will not take place in the United States but has to take place at certain designated points in Canada. That is the very thing we are objecting to. I just want to give him a concrete illustration of what will be done. The law provides that strawberries must be branded in a certain way and that they must be branded when they get into Canada. The strawberries will be held at Vanceboro or Macadam Junction on the New Brunswick frontier until they are rotten and the Canadian consumer will be prevented from getting them. It will be the same with peaches. They are stopped at the boundary line and they will be rotten before they can get to their destination. My hon. friend says: Trust me. Yes, I will trust my hon. friend, but he will not always be the minister of Agriculture. That may be possible, and we have to' guard against all these possibilities. We are objecting to my hon. friend making legislation by which a man, who has not his ideas of fair-play and uprightness between man and man, would have the right to injure the public. My hon. friend has confessed all we are claiming, namely: that this legislation is giving him rights which no government should have. It is interfering with the liberty of the subject and the very living of the people.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has made the plea that the present Act is not sufficient. In my humble judgment the present Act is sufficient if protection to the consumer is all that is wanted. Section 320 provides for the marking of fruit; that is to say, it lays down a certain law which governs the Canadian producer of fruit for market. Section 321 lays down the rules which shall govern the condition of foreign fruit offered for sale in Canada. I maintain that the provisions of section 321 are entirely adequate to give all necessary protection to the consumer. The provisions are naturally of a general character; but their result is that fruit must be sound, honestly packed and honestly branded. My hon. friend needs no more authority to protect the Canadian consumer of foreign fruit than is contained in that section. When he asks for legislation to place in his hands authority whereby, as has certainly been proved by my hon. friends who have already spoken, not only can he prevent the importation of foreign fruit into Canada, or hamper the importation to such a degree as to minimize the advantage of its importation; but, if he puts this law on the statute-book, he will be required to take action under it, either that or the law should not be on the

statute-book. The plea of fair-dealing that my hon. friend makes in his own behalf does not hold good. He is asking for legislation that is not necessary, that, if it is enforced, will be seriously detrimental to the country; and that, if it is put on the statute-book, it will be his responsibility to enforce. In the face of that condition, I certainly wish to enter my strongest protest against the passage of this legislation. This Bill has been before the House for a considerable time; and it does not indicate fair-play that a Bill of such effect as this should be brought forward for second reading and committee after twelve o'clock on the last day but one of the session. The Bill is objectionable for the reasons that I have stated, and the time and manner of its being brought forward for passage is not an indication of good faith.


Mr. LANCASTER:: Does the hon. member not remember that all this was said two or three weeks ago, and that the matter was thoroughly discussed on the resolution. .


David Bradley Neely: Perhaps most of what has been said was said on a former occasion. Then the minister saw fit to leave this Bill on the Order Paper until, as the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) says, we have come to the closing hours of the session. It is now an early hour of the morning, with a small membership in the House. Many other members, had they been in the House, would add their protest to those already made.
After _ listening to the remarks of the hon. minister, I am more than ever convinced of the vicious character of this legislation. The hon. minister admitted that this Bill was intended to mean exactly what I thought it meant; that is to say, he proposes to make the exporter from the United States conform, so far as branding and marking is concerned, with the fruit grower in Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not?


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend's own judgment ought to show him that that makes practically an insurmountable obstacle, so far as importing fruit from the United States is concerned. The fruit grower and packer in each state is com- pelled to pack and brand his fruit according to the laws and regulations of his state. He is primarily supposed to be catering to the trade of his own country, and therefore he considers its regulations. Suppose he was allowed by the laws of his state to adopt two systems of packing and branding for a particular grade of fruit, which is no more than the Canadian fruit grower is permitted to do. His chief customers are in his own country, but we in Canada are compelled to import fruit from the United States. By this legislation we are giving to the hon. minister or to the Mr. OLIVER
Governor in Council the power to say to the fruit exporter from the United States that, when his fruit crosses the international boundary, he must conform with the laws and regulations of the Dominion of Canada as to grading and branding. I think my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), who comes from a fruit district, ought to see the effect of such legislation. The grades, brands and markings used in the United States are different from ours. The hon. minister has admitted, from a practical standpoint, that this legislation is not necessary; that the bulk of the fruit coming from the United States comes in good packing, well packed and well graded. While the grades are not uniform with ours in that they are marked or named differently, nevertheless every Canadian importer of fruit from the United States knows exactly what quality of fruit to expect when he orders a certain brand.


John Hampden Burnham: Has the Canadian
exporter to conform with American laws?


David Bradley Neely: Not by any means. I am sure of that, excepting that his fruit has to conform with the Canadian brands. The minister undertook to say that so far as the export of our beef is concerned it must conform to the legislation of the United States. Of course it must, so far as inspection is concerned. If it is bad meat, it is diseased, it cannot cross the international boundary, and be distributed in the United States. If we export our fruit, that fruit must conform to what the importer in another country knows to be the grade according to the Canadian brand. So, it is proper to see to it that fruit that comes from the United States marked according to American legislation, shall conform to the brand as fixed by that legislation. But that is a very different thing from what this Bill proposes which dictates what the brands shall be. What will be the effect of this legislation? A shipment of apples, for instance comes across the boundary graded according to the regulations on the American side where it was grown. The minister takes power under this Bill to compel the unpacking and regrading of these apples according to the grades fixed in Canada. The minister knows-he must know-that that is vicious legislation.
Mr. LANCASTER. But if the packer knew that is the law in Canada, would not he pack the fruit in the first place to conform to the law of the country in which he expected to sell? He would if he is not a fool, and if you want legislation for fools in the United States, it is no wonder you do not accept this Bill.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. member must
know that fruit packed in Canada and fruit packed in the United States must _ conform to the laws of the country in which it is packed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, but if the packer is going to sell it in Canada he must conform to the laws of Canada.


David Bradley Neely: Where is the fruit grower in the United States going to do his packing? He packs it in the United States and must pack it according to the laws of his own country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As the hon. gentleman asks the question, the answer is that if the American packer seeks the Canadian market, he knows, what the hon. gentleman says everybody knows, that there is a law in Canada with regard to the packing of fruit, and he will pack it in accordance with that law, just as the Canadian packer will do.


David Bradley Neely: The minister who sits beside the hon. member for Lincoln I am sure could enlighten him that in Canada as well as in the United States the fruit packer is not allowed to pack according to the laws of any country but his own.


Martin Burrell: There is no federal law on this subject similar to our own. This is done in the several states by associations or individuals very largely.


David Bradley Neely: If I am correctly informed, the several * states regulate these matters. But the minister knows perfectly well the effect of state legislation there is the same as that of federal legislation in this country. The packer on either side must conform to the law under which he lives.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would not that apply to the different states ? So, a packer in the United States could not sell outside of his own state according to the hon. gentleman's argument.


David Bradley Neely: There is no legislation as between state and state such as we are proposing putting into effect, as between Canada and the United States. They certainly can ship their fruit from one state to another as they do from the United States to Canada, but if we adopt this legislation they will not be able to ship into, Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman is talking a lot of law about which he knows nothing.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. member for
Lincoln may know a great deal of law, but instances have come under my own observation in which his knowledge has not been exactly plain to the ordinary layman.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Give us a little common sense, then, seeing your law is no good.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. gentleman speaks of law, and may know something on that subject, but when it comes to common sense, so far as my observation goes, that
is rather beyond him. It is common sense and not legal technicalities that I am discussing. The hon. gentleman is versed in legal technicalities, perhaps, but not in practical affairs. I said that the Canadian fruit grower must conform to the law of his own country and cannot pack and grade his fruit differently even if he wants to meet the regulations as to grading and branding of any other state to which he is going to ship. The minister should take the member for Lincoln aside and enlighten him on these practical questions.


Mr. THORNTON:: Does not the hon. gentleman know that Canadian apples shipped to New York state must conform in regard to inspection and marking with the laws of that state ?


David Bradley Neely: They must conform to the grade that is required in this country.


Charles Jonas Thornton: No, I ask if he does not know that they must conform to the laws of the State of New York ?


David Bradley Neely: So far as inspection is concerned, that is quite possible. But if there is a state of the Union that enacts legislation of the sort the hon. gentleman speaks of, it is outside my knowledge. I would like to see it before I would believe that such legislation exists in any state of the Union.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman had lived in the fruit-growing district as I have, he would know absolutely that this has been so for years. That is the fallacy of his whole argument.


David Bradley Neely: I will take the hon. gentleman's word when he produces the proof.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is your size.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. gentleman says
he knows this; he ought to be able to submit the proofs.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have lived there for thirty years, and that has been the law for twenty years.


Frank Oliver: Just the same as the law of Canada is to-day, and it does not require any change such as is proposed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are wrong again.


David Bradley Neely: I think probably my hon. friend, with all his years of experience, may be mistaken as to legislation of New York state. 1 shall be glad to look into the matter if my hon. friend can furnish evidence that so far as marking is concerned we must employ the same marks as the fruit packers of the state of New York. Does my hon. friend say that?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, if you are shipping to packers in New York state that is so, and has been so for years. The hon.
11961)

gentleman ought to have acquainted himself with the facts before taking up the time of the House in discussing this matter on false premises.


David Bradley Neely: So far as taking up the time of the House is concerned, I have no apology to make to my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman takes up his own share of the time of the House, and I do not require any advice from him as to the time I shall take up in the discussion of any particular matter. My hon. friend gives his word as to a certain condition of affairs existing in New York 3tate; if he has information on the subject he ought to be able to prove his assertions. Whether or not that legislation does exist in New York state-does not affect this question one particle. Even if that legislation does exist in New York state, taking my hon. friend's word without proof, I say that this would be vicious legislation if the people of New York state were large importers of fruit, because we are, as is demonstrated by the blue books, very heavy exporters to the United States, and these regulations without the shadow of a doubt, would be a very great injury to that trade and a very great hindrance so far as obtaining fruit from the United States is concerned.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


THE PUBLIC ARCHIVES.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Louis Coderre (Secretary of State), Bill No. 240, to amend the Public Archives Act, was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
Mr. CODERRE:: Under the law placing the public archives under the Department of the Secretary of State, the Dominion archivist was accorded the rank and status of a deputy minister. Up to the present time certain duties in respect of the archives have been fulfilled by the Undersecretary of State, and it has been thought desirable that the Dominion archivist should assume the duties, as well as responsibility for and control over the finances of the archives. The Dominion -archivist is himself desirous that this change shall be effected, and the purpose of the amendment is to fulfil this common desire. Under this amendment all these duties will now be assumed by the Dominion archivist. Since I have been in charge of the Department of the Secretary of State, the desire has been very emphatically expressed by both Mr. Mulvey, the under Secretary of Sstate, and Dr. Doughty, Dominion archivist, that this amendment should be passed. Dr. Doughty would like to have control of his own finances, and Mr. Mulvey does not care to interfere in the finances of tie Do-Mr. LANCASTER.
minion archivist. That is the whole purpose of this amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does this create another deputy minister?


Robert Laird Borden: This does not create a
new deputy minister.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year Dr. Doughty, whose services as Dominion archivist we have been very fortunate to have, was given the rank and salary of a deputy minister, and this amendment has regard to the -administration of that branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. Dr. Doughty, I understand sends to the United States, England, France and other countries young men who are authorized to copy very interesting documents, and it is in order to avoid red tape that this -power is given him to administer the affairs of his branch under the department. I can assure my hon. friend the member for Carleton, knowing Dr. Doughty as I do know him, that no department of the Government is better administered than that branch of the Secretary of State known as the public archives.
Mr. -CARVELL: Does this mean the appointment of extra clerks? Certain duties now being performed by the under-Secretary of State are being handed over to the Dominion archivist, and I presume that) means the appointment of a staff of clerks.-


Louis Coderre: There may be an accountant. Whether the Government pays the present accountant of the Secretary of State for the work that he is now doing for the Archives branch, or pays another accountant, seems to me a matter of indifference.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If an accountant be
appointed for the Archives, will there be a reduction of the salary to that extent in the Secretary of State's office?


Louis Coderre: There is to-day before
the department a request by Mr. Coulson, the accountant of the department, for relief, as he contends he has been overworked because he has been obliged to do the accounting of the public archives; for that he has been paid no more than he would -be entitled to as accountant of the Department of State. Whether we pay him an additional amount or whether we pay a separate accountant for the Archives seems to me to be a matter of indifference.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose it is no use objecting, but it seems to me as if it was a case of the tail wagging the dog. The Civil Service is growing to such an extent in Ottawa that I do not know where the end will be. I have no fault to find with Dr. Doughty, who is a good man; but there is no doubt every move made means

more officials. The minister -will not say that it will reduce the cost in his own department; his own officials will receive as much as now, but a new set of officials will be created in the Archives branch. It seems to me that this Parliament is acting almost like a lot of children; all that is necessary is for someone to say: I am not getting enough salary, I ought to have promotion, and they devise some means by which a new office is created, a new deputy minister is provided for, and $15,000 or $20,000 expended,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister made choice of a successor to Mr. Roy, the very able assistant archivist who died the other day, and whose death is an irreparable loss to the country?


Louis Coderre: No action has been taken. Many applications have been made and I believe the best man will be chosen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Roy, who was appointed by the late Government, was, of course, a well known Conservative. He was appointed because of his special ability as an archivist, he had made a special study of the archives and was known not only in Canada but in other countries. I hope my hon. friend in choosing his successor will make a similar choice, that is to say that he will have regard to the ability only of the person appointed and not to his political leanings.


Louis Coderre: There are no politics
in that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I trust he will make
the best choice in the interest of the country.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
On motion of Mr. Borden, House adjourned at 1.20 a.m., Thursday.

Thursday, June 5, 1913.