[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Mary Arabella Young.-Mr. Schaffner.

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

Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	What was the amount expended in the construction of public buildings in Canada under the Department of Public Works during each of the years 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912?
2.	What was the cost of the architect's branch of the Public Works Department during each of said years?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	1908, $2,920,893.73; 1909, $4,339,454.55; 1910, $1,955,166.62; 1911, $1,581,541.10; 1912, $2,447,010.72.
The above shows cost of construction only; repairs and maintenance work, which probably occupies fully one-half of the attention of the chief architect's staff, would increase these figures by about fifty per cent.
2.	1908, $60,576.07; 1909, $85,361.21; 1910, $91,681.21; 1911, $97,009.18; 1912, $107,416.05.


WINNIPEG RIVER WATER POWER LEASES.
Mr. MARTIN (Regina):: 1.	What are the names of all persons holding leases of water powers on the Winnipeg river P
2.	What are the respective dates of all such
leases ?	.
3.	Have any of said leases expired? If so, have such expired leases been renewed?
4.	What leaseholders have complied with the conditions of development laid down by the department?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Winnipeg Electric Railway Company, Limited, Pinawa channel; city of Winnipeg, Pointe du Bois falls; R. R. Muir, Winnipeg, Grand du Bonnet falls.
2.	Winnipeg Electric Railway Company's development authorized by Order in Council dated January 22, 1906; city of Winnipeg's development authorized by Order in Council dated May 27, 1908; R. R. Muir's development authorized by agreement dated November 15, 1910, under the water power regulations pursuant to the Dominion Lands Act 1908.
Mr. ROGERS.
3.	(a) Yes, the R. R. Muir agreement; (b) No.
4.	The Winnipeg Electric Railway Company, Limited, and the city of Winnipeg.


NAVAL ENLISTMENT
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: 1.	Is the Department of Naval Service endeavouring to secure further enlistments of men for H.M.C.S. Niobe and Rainbow? If so, with what result?
2.	What is the present total of officers and men enlisted on H.M.C.S. Niobe?
3.	Where has H.M.C.S. Niobe been stationed since her release from dry-dock at Halifax?	,	.
4.	Has any programme of service or training been arranged for H.M.C.S. Niobe and her men for the season of 1913?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No recruiting has been carried out since November 10, 1912.
2.	On April 15, 1913:	Officers, 29; men,32.	.	.3.	On the Canadian Atlantic station.4.	The regulations provide a regular programme of training and exercises for the season.


HOMESTEADERS' PRE-EMPTION FEE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: Has the Government decided to release homesteaders from the payment of the regular fee of $3 per acre for pre-emptions?


Mr. CROTHERS:: This matter has not
been considered by the Government.


DREDGING AT LOWER MONTAGUE.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: Is it the intention of. the Government to collect from Messrs. George A. Poole & Co., Lower Montague, Prince Edward Island, costs of the dredging done for them some few years ago? If not, why not?


Mr. ROGERS:: Yes.


THREE RIVERS PUBLIC BUILDING
*Mr. BUREAU:: 1	Did the chief architect of the Department of Public Works make any report and recommendation on the tenders received for the public building at Three Rivers, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the report?
3.	If not, what are the reasons for his not reporting?


Robert Rogers: I.	Yes.	,
2	and 3. The contractors being satisfactory, the chief architect reported that the amount of the lowest tender was, in his opinion, a fair and reasonable one for the building that was advertised and, therefore, recommended that the lowest tender be accepted.

SPEECH OF THE MINISTER OF MILITIA. Mr. BUREAU:
Did the Minister of Militia and Defence make use of the following language on the 7th May instant, at the Hintonburg Orange Hall dedication:-
' He was delighted to be present, and warmly congratulated L. O. L. No. 126 for the splendid structure they had built, and he hoped that this would not be his last visit to it. He went on to recount the history of fhle Orange Order in Canada and the British Empire. Since the Orange Order had been founded it was to be seen how the country has prospered, while before the people had been hewers of wood and drawers of water, but he was glad to say that that period was only a sad memory of the past, because the saying, Britons will not be slaves, stands out too prominently to-day/
' Confederation was founded on the principles of the Orange Order, and he was of the opinion that the Orangemen of the time had a lot to do with it in dividing the country into counties and districts and provinces. Before William of Orange's time the hierarchy ruled, but since his coming the people have ruled, and will continue to rule. The people of to-day lived, as it were, -too much in the past in recounting the deeds of their forefathers. What will the children of to-day have to say about their forefathers unless they get out and make a name for themselves? '
' He laughed to scorn the idea that the rebels of 1837 were patriots and were fighting for a just cause, and vividly portrayed the march of L. O. L. to fight against them. They waited not for the call to arms, but rose as a man to crush the rebels -who were nothing but cranks and crooks who were driven out of their own country and tried to take Canada for the United States/


James Joseph Hughes: The report does not profess to be verbatim. The subject matters reported are correct; expressed in the reporter's form.


MONTREAL HARBOUR MASTER.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Have any changes been made in the harbour mastership of Montreal?
2.	Has the harbour been divided into two sections, the east and the west?
3.	If so, who are respectively in charge of each section?
4.	Who recommended above change?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	In order that the long waterfront of the harbour be more thoroughly looked after, the harbour has been divided into two parts, east and west.
3.	The harbour master is in special charge of the west and the deputy is in special charge of the eastern part.
4.	No person.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has Captain T. Bourassa been promoted by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal?
2.	Has his salary been increased lately?
3.	If so, what is the amount of the increase ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	An increase of salary of $850 per annum from 1st April, 1913.
1LE PERROT SOUTH WHARF.


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What is the amount that should have appeared in the estimates of 1911-1912 respecting the building of a wharf at the village of lie Perrot South?
2.	Who are the persons who requested and suggested to the Government the striking out of that item ?
3.	What are the reasons alleged?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	There is a report, on record in the department, that the approximate cost of a new wharf at lie Perrot South would be $5,000, but no provision had been made therefor in the estimates.
2	and 3. No information in the department.


NEW HARBOUR BREAKWATER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What appropriation was proposed to be made by the late Government for the extension of the new harbour breakwater in the estimates of 1911?
2.	Were tenders called for? If so, when?
3.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
4.	Was any tender accepted? If not, why not?
5.	If this proposed expenditure has been abandoned, what are the reasons for abandoning it?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$27,000.
2.	Yes; to be received on 17th October, 1911.
3	and 4. No tender received.
5.	Provision made for more important works.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	For what reason was J. B. MacKenzie, district fire inspector for district No. 1, in the railway belt of British Columbia, with residence at Revelstoke, dismissed?
2.	When was he dismissed?
3.	What was his salary at the time of his dismissal?
4.	Who was appointed in his place?

5.	What was the occupation of the person so appointed before his appointment?
6.	What is his salary?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: This question was
answered last week.


Mr. OLIVER:: I think my hon. friend is mistaken.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was not ready to
hand in the written answer at the time, but I said I would hand it in later, which I did.


Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Has a fishery overser at Seven Islands named Migneault been dismissed?
2.	If so, has an investigation been held?
3.	What was the reason for his dismissal?
4.	By whom was he replaced, and on whose recommendation?
5.	Has any correspondence been exchanged in connection with this case between the Honourable P, Landry, Speaker of the Senate, and any member of the Government?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, on November 28, 1910.
2.	No.
3.	Unsatisfactory service.
4.	Elzear Levesque, on the recommendation of Joseph Girard, M.P.
5.	Yes.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Eor a copy of all correspondence, complaints, petitions, notes of evidence, reports, memoranda, and of all other documents in the possession of the Department of Marine and Fisheries relating to the dismissal of William Boudreau, lightkeeper at Port Felix, N.S., and if there was an investigation, a detailed statement of the expenses of the said investigation, together with a copy of all papers connected with the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all reports, correspondence and other documents on file in the Department of Railways and Canals, relating in any way to a suggested survey and construction of a line of railways from Country Harbour, Guysborough county, N.S., to Cape George, N.S., or any other point in Anti-gonish county.-Mr. Chisholm (Antignoish).
For a return showing the date and terms of the contract passed by the Post Office Department in 1911, for the use of Btamp vending machine and by whom it wras signed.- Mr. Lemieux.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hori. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General) it was ordered that the
House 'go into Committee, to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to establish a parcel post system and to provide for the appointment of two officers and supervisors at salaries of $2,800 on appointment, with an annual increase to a maximum of $3,500.
Mr. OLIVER.

Mr. LEMIEUX:: I saw in the. press the
other day that the British Government had provided for the family of Captain Scott. I understand that the right hon. the Prime Minister, during the course of this session, intimated that something would be done for his family. May I ask him if he has thought the matter over and may we expect that when the supplementary estimates are tabled we will find that something has been placed in them for the widow and orphan of Captain Scott?


Mr. BORDEN:: The supplementary estimates are being delayed a little through the absence of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who has the final supervision, as my hon. friend knows. When they are brought down, I think my hon. friend will find that some provision will have been made.


ACCESS FOR TRANSLATORS TO READING ROOM.
Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, while addressing the House in French, some hon. members quote extracts from English papers which are on file in the reading room. They translate these extracts and Quote them in French. When the speeches of these hon. members are being translated into English, the translators desire to have access to the reading room in order to be able 'to translate in luec verbae-in the same words-as they are in the newspapers. I am told that an order of the Speaker has been issued that they are not to have access to the reading room. Therefore, they have to make their own translations, which do not agree exactly with the words as contained in the newspaper. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give such orders as will allow these translators, when necessary, to have access to the reading room.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am not aware that
any such order was made, certainly not by my direction in so far as my memory enables me to speak. I would say in reference to the question, that it is customary for the individual who uses extracts to provide them for the use of ' Hansard.' However, as far as I can remember, I did not give any such order.


Mr. BELAND:: There is a power behind the throne.


THE GHENT WORLD'S FAIR.
Henri Sévérin Béland: In view of the increased importance of the world's fair to be held in Ghent in Belgium this year, I would like to know if it is the intention of the Government that 'Canada shall be represented there, and if so, who has been appointed representative?	.


Mr. BURRELL:: We are always represented at world's fairs, because we have our full staff under the chief commissioner. It may be desirable to send one or two extra assistants to Ghent, but we shall be iully represented.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do you refer to Mr. Hutchinson?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


CUSTOMS AND FISHERIES PROTECTION.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 35, to amend the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act.
Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask my hon.
friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) if the steamer for the customs service which was ordered last year has been, delivered, or is on the point of being delivered?


Mr. REID:: There was a contract given
in England for a new steamer but the steamer will not be completed for six months yet.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General) Bill No. 196, to amend the Government Annuities Act, was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-annuity increased from $600 to $1,000:	;	,
Rodolphe Lemieux: Several questions were
put to my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) when he introduced the resolution the other day; can he give the House the information which was asked for?


Mr. PELLETIER:: In the first place, Mr. Bastedo has brought over a copy of the advertisement, which is going to be placed in the post offices. That was one of the suggestions made by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux).


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where is the poster
printed, to whom is the contract given and for what quantity?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The contract is given to the E. L. Ruddy Company of Toronto.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the amount of the contract?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Bastedo tells me
that this company will post these advertisements for about $15,000 a year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Large posters?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Large posters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Like these that we see on the street?	.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the smaller ones?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the cost of the large posters and what is the cost per thousand of the small posters?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The cost of the small poster is included in the price of the large one. I was mistaken in stating that the number of large posters contracted for is
6,000.	Mr. Bastedo informs me that the total number of bill-boards on which the posters will go is 1,068.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the department does not only use the fences of private owners but that it will also use the bill-boards which we see along the railway tracks in the fields.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not think these people have any of those bill-boards which we see in the fields along the railway. These people have bill-boards of their own
in a great many cities of Canada and they take contracts from a great many peonle for advertising. They attend to these matters in -many parts of the country. These bill-boards are permanent. They are selected by themselves and they own them. The posters are placed on stands which have been approved by the local postmasters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the total amount of the contract for posters?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: $15,000 per year for
two years. Mr. Bastedo informs me the department succeeded in getting a reduction of $1,500 on the prices usually charged to their regular customers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Were tenders called for.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: These people are specially equipped for the work and Mr. Bastedo after making inquiries found that he could get the work better done by this firm than elsewhere.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not doubt the
ability of this company to produce excellent posters, and I have congratulated the department on their very striking character, but there is a statute which says that any contract over $5,000 requires to be let after calling for public tenders. How did the Postmaster General evade that statute?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We tried advertising
in the newspapers and found it costly and not very productive of good results. These people came to Mr. Bastedo and suggested this system of posters, and after going

fully into tlie matter and making inquiries from their former patrons as to the success of the poster system, he came to the conclusion that it was worth trying. The lecturers cost $27,000 per annum for salaries and expenses, and the poster system will only cost $15,000 per annum and we hope will give better results.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no question
but that the posters are a very excellent means of advertising, but my question is how did the minister evade the statute which provides that in such a case as this tenders should be called.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) will not find any statute binding the post office in a case like this. There is a statute referring to contracts, but this is special work and we have to go to the men who can do the work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How does the annuity business.stand now?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The total receipts for this year have been $415,628.58 and for the previous year $441,600.60 or a decrease of about $25,000. There are 3,163 annuitants.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the average age?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The appendix to the
last Postmaster General's report contains all the information in detail. The greatest number of persons purchasing immediate annuities are between the ages of sixty and sixty-four and for the deferred annuities, between the ages of twenty and forty.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What does the minister mean by ' deferred annuities ' ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: An annuity which
may be taken at any age after five years and continued until fifty-five or even beyond fifty-five, as compared with what we call an immediate annuity which any person can purchase at fifty-five years of age or over.


Mr. NESBITT:: Were efforts made before this contract for lithographing was made to get prices from others?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There are, I am told, other firms, but the head of the Annuities Branch was satisfied that this was the best concern to do the work.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We, who are in business, have propositions for advertising constantly coming before us. I do not blame . the man who got Mr. Bastedo to adopt his plan; I think he was a pretty good agent. But a business firm solicited for advertising by one of those engaged in this business would not accept the suggestion submitted without hearing from others who carry on advertising business. I do not mean, as suggested by the hon. mem-15 PELLETIER.
ber for Rouville, that tenders should be called for; but Mr. Bastedo could easily have found by writing to other firms what was the beat offer that could be had. Merely because the agent was certain that his people were the only people in the country who could do the work, we should not conclude that that was necessarily the case. There are many firms in this country quite as responsible as those with whom the department has been working, and it is only a reasonable business precaution to consult those who could offer a basis of competition.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Bastedo tells me, and I agree with him, that these were the best people for the special work to be done-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Stone people are not the best; they may be very excellent people, but not the best.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What I started to say was that Mr. Bastedo in this matter did what he thought was in the public interest, just as he would do in his own business.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would not like 'to engage him for such work.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have found him a .most efficient officer, one who takes great pains and is succeeding very well in his vork, and I place the greatest confidence-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have not a word to say against his ability.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon- gentleman
must remember that we succeeded in having a reduction on the current price of $1,500.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I suppose the hon. minister has heard of the Morgan catalogues, piano catalogues, and he knows the catalogue prices of these things.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am informed, moreover, that, the newspapers advertising having been discontinued as not giving us a fair return, the head of the branch thought it necessary to go into this new kind of advertising at once.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It would not be orthodox for me to forsake the newspaper advertising. But it all depends on how you do it. An inch or two is no good. To reach the-public you have to take space, a good big contract, and continue it for some time. And the advertising has to be written professionally ; I believe it is an art in itself.
I have handled a gool deal of lithographic work in past years, and I admit that you cannot very well advertise for tenders for such work, there is so much difference in the qualify. The method I pursued was to communicate with certain well-known firms and tell them: We want to put on so-and-so; let me hr/e your designs and prices. I
- MAY 14, 1913
never dealt with any but the very best firms. If my hon. friend the Postmaster General would consult the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) as an election manager, he would find the same thing. That lion, gentleman would say to such firms:	We want to show ourselves in this
light and to show the other fellows in the other light; let us see what your artists can do and give us prices. In that way you have competition both in prices and in design. The Postmaster General and Mr. Bastedo also, will find that there is nothing in the world in which there is such diversity of prices as in lithograph work. You will have two designs placed before you from two good firms, one design for all practical purposes as good as the other to reach the end designed, and yet there will be a difference of perhaps 50 per cent in the prices. If one has ideas of his own, probably he works it out in a different way. He gets a foundation for his design, it may be a photograph, it may be a painting,-something that strikes him as affording a central idea. This he takes to three or four of the lithograph people, and asks them to use this as a main feature and to furnish the necessary embellishment. These are hints I throw out from practical experience of years in this business. Within the next couple of years the department itself may come across some idea in the pictorial line that would be exactly what is needed in its work, something very effective. The patent medicine firms, for instance, do not accept indiscriminately the designs for the covers of their books and pamphlets as offered by the printing company; they select their own designs and let the lithographic company put on the embellishments. To my mind the only businesslike way of doing this is to place before five or six of the best firms the object you have in view and the matter you desire to place before the public, and you thereby have the selection of your own designs and prices.
My hon. friend the Postmaster General said the other day that the postmasters were being supplied with pamphlets or booklets. That is a good idea, so far as it goes, but it struck me that the department might go further by mailing to each elector of Canada a little booklet containing information on the subject. Nothing appeals to a man more readily than something which is mailed direct to him; if the postmasters hand it to him, it is less likely to have the desired effect. The PostmasteT General, in order to reach the electorate on a political matter, would not send the literature to the postmaster and ask him to deliver it; he would mail the matter to the elector direct. I think, therefore, that there is no better way of reaching the electors than by mailing direct to them a booklet
setting forth the benefits and advantages of the annuities system. It is a good Act, and, properly worked out, I think it will bring much benefit to the people. The system has one advantage over all other institutions of its kind in that it gives absolute security with practically no cost to the participants for administration. If it is properly placed before the people-and even this will take time-in a few years a vast amount of business will be done by the department in that regard, not for the benefit of the Government, but for the benefit of the people of the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Am I right when I say that there is a statute which compels the minister at the head of any department to call for tenders whenever the contract is over $5,000? My hon. friend the Postmaster General has given to the Stone Company, Limited, a two-years' contract for the printing of large posters involving the sum of about $28,000. Would the Prime Minister tell me how the department can avoid calling for tenders, in the face of the statute? Does the statute affect only the Public Works Department; or does it apply to other departments?


Robert Laird Borden: The statute, as I recollect it, applies only to public works, but in practice it is followed out in all the departments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the present instance I think my hon. friend the Postmaster General should have called for tenders. As my hon. friend the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) says, the Stone Company is not the only company that can print these posters. I quite admit that the posters are a credit to the department, but we are discussing the principle. When I was in journalistic work, the Montreal Gazette used to execute contracts for the printing of large posters, theatre advertisements, and so on. Why is it that the Post Office Department went to the firm of Stone, Limited-against whom, of course, I have no prejudice whatsoever-and ignored the other lithographing firms in Canada? There are printing and lithographing firms in all the large cities of this Dominion, and the Government, at least in a case of this kind, ought to try to encourage competition. If these booklets are issued in large quantities, will they be printed by the Printing Bureau?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For the future I would advise my hon. friend to call for tenders in regard to these large contracts.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When the advertising in the newspapers was dropped because it did not produce the results that were expected, these people came to us with this suggestion-and	hon. gentlemen have

agreed that the poster is a very striking and creditable one. It was the idea of the company; they came to us and offered to do it at the regular price charged to all their customers. Mr. Bastedo did not think that we should take these designs as suggested to us by one company and go with them to another.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is quite right; there was no necessity for doing that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think it is only fair, if a man comes to you with something that suits you, and offers it to you at a reasonable price, that you should get the benefit of it. As I said a moment ago, the information which Mr. Bastedo got with regard to these people, from some of their patrons, was that the work they were doing for them was productive of the most satisfactory results. We got a reduction of $1,500 in the ordinary price, and I think this is as well as anyone could do. There is no law obliging us to ask for tenders in the Post Office Department except for the carrying of mails. It is general to ask for tenders when the general public can compete, but here was a suggestion made by one company and, if the price is fair-and it has not been contended that it is not fair, because we are paying $1,500 less than the regular customers of these people-I think we are doing pretty well.


George Perry Graham: One would have to know what the customers were paying.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Bastedo said that it was after considerable pressure by him upon the company that he succeeded in obtaining this reduction, and we considered that we were making a very good bargain indeed. In addition we got these small posters thrown in, which cost us nothing. So that, on the whole, as I have said, hon. gentlemen will see that we have made a very good bargain.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN (translation) (St. Mary's, Montreal):: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to tell us how much the pamplets cost a thousand.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Those pamphlets are printed at the Printing Bureau. As to* those notices or posters, I have stated a moment ago what they cost. Those notices of small size, as my hon. friend has got a few before him, with the large size posters which can be seen in the streets, will cost $15,000 a year instead of $28,000 which the lecturers used to cost us.
I have given those figures a while ago, and my hon. friend shall find them in ' Hansard.'


Edward Walter Nesbitt: When business men require any work of this kind, it is customary for them to give the companies an idea of' Mr. PELLETIER.
what they want, and let them make up the designs, to be afterwards submitted or approval. In that way there are four or five designs to choose from; you do not steal one man's design and give it to another. The fact that these small posters were thrown in shows that the company made enough out of the others to be enabled to do so. These people are not doing business for charity. There are many firms who give fifty per cent or sixty per cent discount off their catalogue prices to all their wholesale customers. I am finding fault not with the price, but with the system that is being employed. It is the principle that is wrong, in my judgment. I think also that you should not make a contract for two years; this is nothing more nor less than an experiment. The hon. minister has said that the newspaper advertising was not a success. As a matter of fact the largest advertisers in this country are those who stick to the principle of advertising in newspapers and magazines. There is nothing so wasteful as these billboards; everybody destroys them. They are destroyed by every boy who goes along the road.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: These people have employees at the different points; the posters are regularly inspected, and if destroyed are at once replaced.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I admit that the hon.
minister's intentions are good but these people who are employed to look after the posters will not do the work properly and the bill-boards will in many eases be destroyed. This is a very expensive experiment, and I think the hon. minister should not have entered into a contract for two years without first trying it out for a shorter period.


Mr. STANFIELD:: I would remind the hon. gentleman that some of the largest advertisers use bill-boards very extensively -Penman's, for instance.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know of any firm, other than the hon. gentleman's and Penman's that has had more success with bill-boards than with any newspapers, but I may tell the hon. gentleman that there are just as many people, just as large and larger advertisers as the hon; gentleman and who do a greater business, who advertise only in magazines and newspapers. Of course, it is largely a matter of opinion, but so far as I am personally concerned,
I would not give a straw for the bill-board advertising; I use magazine and newspaper advertising exclusively.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have a great deal of respect for the opinions of my hon. friend, but the head of the Annuities Branch informs me that, as a result of the billboard

advertising the number of inquiries have increased by sixty-six per cent.


George Perry Graham: That is probably the result of the newspaper advertising, whicli is just now making itself manifest.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not think so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With regard to what the hon. member for Colchester said, I may say that Stanfield's Unshrinkable does not need any advertising. But, coming back to the statute with regard to contract for more than five years, hon. gentlemen will find in the Revised Statutes, volume 1, page 39, section 36, the following:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the Government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases:
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or
(b)	in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or,
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
2. Whenever in case of any work tenders are required to be invited, the minister having charge of the department concerned shall submit all tenders received therefor to the Governor in Council and the contract for the work shall be awarded under the direction of the Governor in Council.
I am sorry that in the present instance my hon friend has clearly violated the law. This statute does not apply only to public works; it applies to all departments, and the cases in which tenders are not to be invited are clearly set forth. Under the circumstances, I think my hon. friend should cancel the contract and call for tenders.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has evidently misconstrued the statute, a portion of which reads:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any deparment of the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is a work,


Robert Laird Borden: This is not a 'work' in the sense in which it is evidently used in this statute, and this is the statute with regard to public works.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but it is a general clause.


Robert Laird Borden: I know it is, and it uses this language:	..
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the Government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases:
(a)	of pressing emergency, in which delay would be injurious to the public interest;
That is to say in the case of a work which has to be executed very quickly to avoid destruction or damage to some public property.
(b)	in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or,
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
Obviously it does not apply to cases of this kind, but as I have already said, even in cases to which it does not apply, the usual practice has been to observe that rule, that is, to call for tenders. In some cases, in fact in all cases where the rule is departed from, so far as the Public Works Department is concerned, it must be departed from under the terms of an Order in Council as provided by the statute.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was there an Order in Council in the present instance?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware of that, but I do not thipk that advertising is to be regarded as a public work within the meaning of the statute.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Surely we have come down to a somewhat narrow margin if the principle, which my hon. friend from Rou-ville urges, is to obtain. We want to advertise in the newspapers, and this was an advertisement, nothing more or less. Who has ever thought of asking for tenders for advertisements? We advertise for tenders in the different newspapers, and we pay thousands and thousands of dollars for advertising, but who ever thought of asking for tenders for that advertising. We have ascertained that advertising in this way is productive of the best results. The head of the branch was satisfied that it was in the best interests of the people to advertise in that way, and now we are told it is a 'work' within the meaning of the statute. For a public work plans and specifications are prepared, and the tenders are based on these plans and specifications. That is not the case here. Our object is to try and make known to the public at large that this statute exists, that it is a law in their interests, and we take this means of letting them know. Surely it cannot be called a 'work' in the sense of the statute.
9S55


Rodolphe Lemieux: You cannot popularize the annuities system in Canada without advertisement any more than you can send letters through the post office without affixing a stamp to them. - You have to print the stamps. How did we proceed in 1897 in connection with the contract with a firm in Montreal for the printing of Dominion bank notes and post office stamps? We advertised, and, by advertising, we obtained a very large reduction by the competitive system. Surely my hon. friend is too much ot a business man to dispute this point, that whether or not the department has to advertise to popularize the annuities system, the posters are a work auxiliary to the system, and is part of the equipment of the system.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Is it a contract?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly it is a contract. To get the work done in the cheapest way possible, he must call for competition, he must ask the various lithographic 'firms in the country to state their prices. Has he invited any such tenders? He says he has not. He has confined himself to the Stone Company Limited, in Toronto, when I dare say there are in Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver, at least twenty lithographic firms. I do not say that the price is excessive-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The contract is not
with the Stone Company; it is with the E. L. Ruddy Company, Toronto.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You have the bill
boards, and the posters which cover the bill boards. You have the picture which was exhibited to the House a few moments ago, ahd you have large bills on the street. Surely my hon. friend will not contend that if he had asked for tenders from fifteen or sixteen firms in Canada he would not have been in a better position to get a cheaper price. -But he has confined himself to one firm. I would like to know the prices of other firms. My hon. friend has not given me the other data which was asked for the other day in regard to the increase or decrease in the business, and the number of annuities taken by postmasters since they were instructed to take them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be interesting to have the opinion of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). He was an authority on this subject at one time. I would like to know just what he thinks about awarding contracts without tenders. Even in regard to advertising in newspapers, he went to very great lengths.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This question of the
construction of the statute is somewhat interesting. I have looked at this statute
Mr. PELLETIER.
several times, and it seems to me it is very wide in its application and that it covers a case of this kind. Clearly, it is applicable to every department of the Government. The meaning that ' works * would have in the Department of Railways would be different of course from the construction you would put on ' works ' in regard to the Department of Public Works, and so on. There are different departments. When the word ' work * is interpreted in connection with the Post Office Department, it certainly means such" works as are necessary in that department . Therefore, the word 1 works ' must receive the construction which would naturally be put upon it in the particular department to which it refers. In this case the Postmaster General, through his officer, gets an idea. The carrying out of that idea requires the making of a map. It is called an advertisement, but it is really a map. It requires the same kind of paper as a map, and has to be designed and engraved in the same way. It also requires a certain board on which that map shall be posted. He wants tens of thousands of those maps and boards made. There is no other word in the English language which covers that much work. It is work to be done for the department, it is not advertising. The Post Office Department are undertaking to do their own advertising in a certain way for which they require a certain outfit and that outfit consists of these posters and boards. They want that work done. It is not play, it is not philosophy, it is work that requires the putting together of certain material in a certain way and those who are engaged in that sort of business, I suppose, have a right to be given an opportunity to do that work if they want to do it and to be given an opportunity for putting in a bid for it. The statute says that they shall be given an opportunity except under certain conditions. This work does not come within any of the exceptions. I submit that the law has not been complied with in this case and that the Prime Minister does not fully explain it by saying that this kind of work, or the supplying of this equipment, is not covered by the word ' work.' I would like to ascertain from the hon. Postmaster General the maximum and minimum annuity that can be granted?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The maximum now is $600 and we propose to raise it to $1,000. The minimum annuity is $50.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: .What classes of persons are eligible to be annuitants as to age and health conditions?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Any person over the
age of five years. There is no medical examination whatever.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At what age or ages
does the payment of the annuity begin, and what is the amount of the premium payable on the maximum and minimum annuities?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Five years is the
earliest age at which the payment on account of an annuity can begin. The amount depends on the plan on which the annuity has been purchased as to whether it is deferred or immediate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Take one case: What
would a man fifty years of age pay for the maximum annuity as we will have it when this Bill becomes law?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Fifty-five years of age is the earliest at which the annuity can begin.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If a man began to pay at, say, forty or fifty, what would the amount of the premium be?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A man at the age of
forty, making an annual payment of $57.56 until he is fifty-five, will secure an annuity of $100. Each additional $100 would cost him at the same rate. He may pay his premium quarterly, monthly, or weekly without any additional cost. This is done to facilitate payments by the labouring classes. I would be glad to send the hon. gentleman one of our little booklets which will give him all the information on the subject.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am asking the questions here not so much for my own information as to give the matter publicity. I understand that the Act is to be changed so .as to make the maximum annuity $1,000. How is that to be paid?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If this Bill passes, instead of getting $600 as the maximum amount, the annuitant will get $1,000 a year, or he will get $250 quarterly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does* he pay at
the age of forty in order to secure to himself an annual payment of $1,000?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It depends on the
system that he adopts. If he wants to have the annuity payment begin at fifty-five, it will cost him a certain amount, and if he wants it to begin at sixty it will cost him a different amount. It is based absolutely on the insurance plan except that there is no medical examination and there is no expense to the public for the administration of the fund. It is supported by the Government, and that is an enormous advantage for the man who buys an annuity knows that he has the Government of the country to pay the annuity each year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How long would a man commencing payments at the age of forty
have to continue these payments before he would get his annuity?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He may have the annuity begin at any age he likes after fifty-five.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then do the premiums cease?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, immediately the annuity becomes payable the payment ceases.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the prospective annuitant dies during the time the payments are being made is the money that has been paid in returned to his heirs?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is entirely a matter of contract between the department and the annuitant.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If he pays an extra premium the amount that he has paid in is repaid?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He can get repayment if he makes a larger payment.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister state how the rates compare with the rates charged by insurance companies? I have heard that there is not much advantage in getting an annuity from the Government. Of course, we all know that there is an advantage in the security, but is there any advantage in regard to the rates charged?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If you compare the insurance system with our plan for immediate annuities, the insurance companies can compete with us as far as rates are concerned, although none are giving any better rates and most of them are charging more. Mr. Bastedo informs me that he knows of only one company that charges the same rates as we do. For the deferred, our rates are preferable to the rates of all the insurance companies, a fact which can be easily understood, as there is no loading for the expenses, which are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.


John Howard Sinclair: The rates should be
less.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They are less. When this system is well understood the public will appreciate its enormous advantage and will avail themselves of it.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Suppose a man aged
forty contracts for the maximum annuity which he would draw beginning at the age of sixty, and suppose that man would die when he is fifty-eight years old, would his heirs get anything?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is entirely a matter of contract between the man purchasing the annuity and the department. Under plan A the estate of the deceased who bought the annuity would get all the money back with compound interest at the rate of

three per cent. There are different plans which meet all the possible necessities of the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the interpretation clause of the statute concerning public works:
Public work or public works mean and include any works or property under the control of the minister.
This section of the statute has general application to the various departments and therefore this poster work comes under the statute, and there is a clear violation of the law in not calling for public tenders.


Robert Laird Borden: Not only do I not agree with my hon. friend, but I do not think his contention is even arguable. Advertising in a newspaper or by posters such as this is not a contract within the meaning of the statute. My hon. friend takes it for granted it is, and of course he can make a fine argument based on that false premise.


Mr. WILSON (Laval):: I do not agree
with the interpretation of the law given by the Prime Minister. Suppose it is not a work in the sense referred to, is it good policy to give such a contract without tenders? The Postmaster General advertises for tenders for carrying the mails and I do not see any distinction between these two services as to there being a contract. Are these posters printed by contract?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The thing is done in exactly the same way as if we would go to a newspaper and ask it to insert an advertisement for us. These billboards do not belong to the Government and are not under the King's Printer, but are the property of the company which does the work. Instead of having this advertisement in the columns of a newspaper they publish it on their own billboards and just the same order is given for this advertisement as we would give for an advertisement in a newspaper. Every agreement for the publication of an advertisement in a newspaper is a contract, if you wish to call it so, but it is known as an order for an advertisement.


Charles Avila Wilson: There is hq written contract, then, between the Ruddy Company and the department; but the hon. gentleman knows that if an order is given in writing or even verbally it is a contract. For example, when the minister sends an order for advertising to La Patrie in Montreal or L'Evenement, it is a contract.


Robert Laird Borden: The contention of my
hon. friends would prevent us advertising at all, because when you advertise for tenders that advertisement would be a contract and you could not do that advertising without tender, and so on ad infinitum.
Mr. PELLETIER.


Charles Avila Wilson: But the object of this advertising is not the same. The first is an advertisement to get the tenders, and when the contract is given for posters by the Postmaster General, that contract is given for a work; the poster is certainly a work of art if nothing else.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Much as I respect the legal acumen of the Prime Minister, I still insist on my interpretation of the statute. This Act, entitled an Act respecting the Public Works of Canada, is divided into two parts. Part I is confined exclusively to the Department of Public Works and the property and under the control of that department. Part II is not limited in its application; and it contains the general clause to which I referred a moment ago:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the directions of any department of the Government tenders shall be invited.
The Postmaster General knows that the Post Office Department could not build a wall, could not even repair a desk; that is the work of the Department of Public Works. When the Postmaster General undertakes to purchase for the annuities branch posters to be put up all over the country to induce people to take out annuities, that is a ' work ' within the meaning of the Act.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I did not purchase
these. I purchased nothing, but simply paid so much to this company to post notices on the billboards, just as I have paid newspapers for space in their advertising columns.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Formerly, we had
agents, and their salaries were voted by Parliament. Now, the Postmaster General has dispensed with the services of agents, and, seeing the need of advertising in the large centres he buys posters for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose that instead of doing it that way, the department had employed sandwich men, used very often in England, would these men be ' public works ' under the meaning of the Act ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The men would not,
but the posters which constitute the ' sandwich ' would be a ' work ' performed under the direction and authority of the Government. And if the ' work ' exceeds the sum of $5,000, under this statute the Government is bound to call for tenders, Now, my right hon. friend has forgotten the immediate past. I remember when he was sitting on this side witn his band of gallant 'followers, and I remember especially the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) how he pounded his desk and thundered against the Liberal Government because of very small things of this kind

that were allowed to be done. I think I can find in the Halifax platform a resolution against any such work as this on the part of the minister. I would like the hon. gentleman to read over again that section. I do not impugn the good faith of anyone, but I say that there has been a violation of the law according to my interpretation of it. The second part, as 1 have shown, is general and is applicable to any department and the works connected with that department.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, provided it is
' work.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman say that buying stamps is not a ' work ' of the department ? And does not he call for tenders for that ' work '? Does not he call for tenders for the equipment of post offices and for the mail bags ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We never call for
tenders for advertisements.


Charles Avila Wilson: I desire to ask
a question with regard to the sandwich men. Take for example: suppose the Government were sending out men with the Nationalist bill carried in front and a Conservative bill at the back, what kind of ' work ' would that be ?


Sir EDMUND OSLER:: To what extent
are the public taking advantage of this annuities system ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am glad the hon.
member has put the question. I have here the complete information, and I am sure it will interesting to the House and to the public.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think there was a
series of questions to be asked, and the minister might give the committee information in the form of answers to those questions.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I was going to do
that. Applications for annuities have been received from the following classes:
School teachers, married women, minors, clerks, spinsters, civil servants, farmers, trained 'nurses, students, stenographers, merchants, physicians, book-keepers, photographers, accountants, carpenters, shipping clerks, bank clerks, barristers, civil engineers, dress-makers, postmasters, insurance agents, geologists, shoe-makers, domestics, mariners, travellers, dentists, gardeners, music teachers, barbers, tailors, reporters; freight agents, draughtsmen, drug Clerks, excise officers, lithographers, property agents, harness makers, ferrymen, trackmen, chemical1 engineers, librarians, printers, telegraph operators, lumbermen, peddlers, deaconesses, freight checkers, cable operators, port stewards, business managers, station agents, locomotive engineers, electricians, factory
bands, picture framers, florists, miners, North West mounted police, labourers and shantymen.
It will be a good advertisement for the annuities that it should be known that a minister of the Crown has taken annuities. Without giving names, I think members will understand what I mean, and it will be a very good example for the public. I have here information to give in answer to the questions that were to be asked. The first is a question by the leader of the Opposition:
How many persons have purchased annuities to date?-A. 3,163.
And the hon. member for Rouville asks:
What proportion of new annuities have been taken through the agency of the various postmasters?
A. About forty-five per cent of those purchasing during the past year have remitted through the post offices.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is not bad.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We expect it to be
better when the postmasters understand it better. Other questions from the hon. member for Rouville, with their answers, are as follows:
What are the expectations of those in charge of the work as to the future expansion of the system?
A. As soon as the people appreciate the enormous benefits tto be obtained from an investment in an annuity, it is believed they will take advantage of the system in large numbers.
What means are taken to induce the public to go to the post office for that purpose?
A. In the more important places the billboard posters already referred to instruct the public to inquire at the post office for information. A miniature of this poster, such as I hold in my hand, will be sent to the post offices. The distribution had been commenced but has been delayed in consequence of its having been found that the covering or carton in which the poster was enclosed was not sufficiently strong to stand the pressure of the heavy mail matter going out from the Ottawa post office. The matter is receiving attention, and the distribution will be made at the earliest possible moment. It is believed that this will supply in the smaller places, where nearly every one goes to the post office, the purpose to be supplied in cities and towns by the larger poster, and that it will readily attract attention.
What number of posters have been placed in Canada?
A. 1,068.	.	.
Is the distribution confined to cities? or is it extended to villages and country districts?
A. The distribution covers 132 cities, towns and villages which have an aggregate population of 2,671,840.
The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) asks the following questions, to which replies are given:

Q. Has there been an increase in the amount of the premium or payments to be made for annuities?-A. No, the rates remain the same as originally established.
Q. Has there been an increase in the instalments corresponding with the total amount of annuity itself?-A. No, the cost is relatively the same whether the purchase is of the minimum annuity or of the maximum, and purchasers are not tied down to any definite plan of payment, but the greatest freedom is afforded them. They will only receive the amount of annuity that they actually pay for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Postmaster
General arranged that these posters shall be printed in the French language?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend will see posters printed in both languages along the streets right here in Ottawa.
Bill reported.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock. ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES.
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Agriculture), Bill No. 198. to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-compensation for animals destroyed:


Frank Oliver: Would the minister give a statement of the difference between this clause and the Act as it stands?


Martin Burrell: The difference, as I explained to the House the other day, is that we have raised the maximum value oh grade horses from $150 to $200 and raised the maximum valuation on pure breds to $500, two-thirds of which will be paid as compensation.


Mr. WARNOCK:: I see that it is provided that compensation shall be paid on valuations of $60 per head of cattle and $15 for sheep. Is that in the existing Act?


Martin Burrell: Except for the alterations in the valuation of horses there is no change in existing compensation.


Frank Oliver: What are the diseases for which cattle and sheep may be slaughtered?


Martin Burrell: Practically we are not slaughtering any now. The main diseases we are concerned about in sheep is scab and in cattle, anthrax. We are fighting anthrax by immunizing, the injection of a vaccine, and we supply the vaccine.


Mr. HENDERSON:: It does seem to me that the valuation for a hog of $15, of which two-thirds is paid in case an animal Mr. PELLETIER.
is slaughtered, is very low. Ten dollars is no valuation for a hog at the present time. Has the minister considered the value of the hog relatively to other animals?


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is speaking of grade animals. All these points have been considered very carefully by the live stock branch and they concluded that the valuation inserted in the Bill will probably meet the case.


William Cameron Edwards: I agree with my hon.
friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). 1 happened to be on the market last Saturday and I saw sucking pigs sold for twelve dollars a pair. You have got to take off your hat now to anything that walks on four legs.


Frank Oliver: In regard to he valuation of horses has the minister considered the point of making a different provision for stallions in service. Such horses of course are usually of a much higher value than the valuation that is placed here.
Mr, BURRELL:	We hafve considered
that and have raised it from $300 to $500. Very few stallions have been killed, only four last year out of eight hundred. The fact that we pay $500 would be some alleviation and, as a stallion affected with glanders or dourine is of no value to the owner, the present provision probably meets the case.


David Warnock: The reason I urged that the compensation in the case of a stallion affected with dourine should be increased is that the stallion may be used for a year or two after infection. In some cases the disease develops very slowly. An owner perhaps knows that tTiere is something wrong with the animal, but keeps him in service, and in the meantime the disease is disseminated over a very large area of country. My suggestion to the minister that he should increase the compensation on dourine stallions was with the object of encouraging the owners to Teport such animals.


Martin Burrell: I quite appreciate the
view put forward by my hon. friend from McLeod (Mr. Warnock), but, as I pointed out the other day, we are going very fully into this question of dourine. I think I gave him the figures, and, on the whole, considering the small number of stallions that have been affected, and the fact that we are adopting a test which I hope will be very satisfactory, I think it would be well to leave it, at all events now, and if it should be found advisable to put in an amendment next year, perhaps it could be done.


Frank Oliver: Without desiring to criticise the minister or the department, this

may be a favourable opportunity of putting on record my own personal view. I would support the minister in making a distinction owing to the extra value of stallions in service. In regard to these valuations for cattle, I did not understand him clearly. Is- compensation for anthrax now paid under the Act?


Martin Burrell: No, we have not been
paying compensation for anthrax. As a matter of fact, anthrax is practically nonexistent in Canada now. Compensation used to be paid for it, but lately it has been found that, by the injection of a certain vaccine, you can practically immunize the animal. We have been adopting that method lately, and supplying the vaccine if any case of anthrax occurred.


Frank Oliver: No cattle disease is
scheduled for compensation at the present time?


Martin Burrell: No.


Frank Oliver: Because, at the_ present
crisis in connection with cattle, it would seem to me that the valuation in the Bill is perhaps a little low. But of course if it is not in operation, it makes no difference.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-proof of orders and regulations.
Mr. BURRELL[DOT] This clause is the old clause of the Act with the addition of the w ords:
And any report, declaration, license, certificate or other document made by an inspector or other officer under this Act or under any order for regulation made under this Act.
It was thought that the provisions were not quite full enough, because in cases which come before the courts, it is very necessary to have the evidence of the inspector, and some lawyers took exception that it could not be used under the old Act. This is simply to strengthen it.
Section agreed to.
Mr, BURRELL:	Before you report the
Bill, Mr. Chairman, I wish to add an amendment, as section 3:
This Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by a proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the Canada Gazette.
This is with the view that our officers may know the specific time within which they shall commence valuations.
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. George H. Perley (acting Minister of Trade and Commerce") Bill No. 192, to amend the Canada Grain Act, was read the second time, and House went into Committee of the Whole thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. PERLEY:: Before we take up consideration of this Bill, I would like to say a few words on the subject of interior terminal elevators. This question has been under very careful consideration for a long time by the Board of Grain Commissioners, by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and by the ministers and members from the western provinces. We all agree that everything possible ought to be done to assist the quick and profitable marketing of our immense grain crop in the Northwest. With the ever-increasing number of immigrants who are coming to this country, and who are chiefly locating in the Northwest, our grain fields are being rapidly enlarged in area, and are extending to the north and west. The consequence is that the total amount of grain produced is increasing from year to year, and it is difficult for us to take care of it promptly and efficiently. Our railway companies have been making every effort to increase their mileage, to provide larger railway yards and terminal facilities, both in the interior and at terminal points, and also to provide an adequate supply of cars and engines. I believe it is sometimes said that little has been done by way of extending our transportation facilities and storage facilities, but I think that if hon. gentlemen will look at the figures of our railway mileage, and elevator capacity, they will find that great efforts have been made to keep up with the production. The elevator capacity at Fort William and Port Arthur last fall was between 27,000,000 and 28,000,000 bushels, and further elevators are now being built there which will increase the capacity by about 12,000,000 bushels. This will go a long way to relieve the difficulties at that point. The Government is thoroughly alive to the urgent necessity of doing everything possible to assist the farmers of the Northwest to market as large a portion of their crop as possible between the time of harvest and the close of the navigation season on the great lakes. Under the Board of Grain 'Commissioners, a contract was let last year for a large elevator at Port Arthur, having a capacity of three and one quarter million bushels, and this will be ready for use next September in time to assist in marketing this year's crojn Last year there was a larger proportion than usual of wet and damaged grain, more than the drying elevators were able to take care



of. At the request of the Board of Gram Commissioners, and after careful consideration, the Government permitted a United States floating drying elevator to come into Port Arthur and Fort William for the purpose of relieving the situation with the result that a very large quantity of this wet and damaged grain was saved to the great 'benefit of Canadian farmers and owners of grain. To provide further storage facilities during the past winter, the Government, last fall, made arrangements by which a large number of American vessels wintered at Fort William and Port Arthur in order that they might be used for the purpose of storing grain and in that way augment the ordinary elevator capacity. The result has been very beneficial. In another way we have endeavoured to relieve the difficulties there. Last fall, by special efforts, we were able to keep the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William open much longer than usual. This spring the Department of Marine and Fisheries took special steps to break up the ice above Sault Ste-Marie and in that way they started navigation a week or ten days earlier than would have happened otherwise.
In order to give still further relief, especially in the fall of the year when there is great congestion, there is a strong demand for interior terminal elevators. I regret very much that my hon. colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) is not here himself to place this matter before the House. At the request of the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of the Government, the Grain Commissioners devoted a great deal of time and attention to this subject. Some of their conclusions are embodied in their report which was made last January, and which was printed by order of Parliament. I expect that we shall soon have further details and suggestions from the Board of Grain Commissioners because they have lately been making a trip through Alberta and Saskatchewan for the purpose of gathering more information. I expect that the Chairman of the board will be here this afternoon. He is due here now and I have asked him to come to the House as soon as he arrives in order that I may be able, with his assistance, to answer questions which hon. gentlemen may wish to ask. The Government realize that everything possible should be done to assist in marketing the Northwest grain crop and have decided to build as soon as possible a few interior terminal elevators in order that it may be possible to know definitely to what extent they will be used and how great a benefit they will be. These elevators will be built and controlled by the Government through the Board of Grain Commissioners and, as they will be declared terminal points under the Act, there will have to be a regular staff of inspectors at them and all grain will be weighed and inspected in the same way as is done at Port Mr. PERLEY.
Arthur and Fort William. The grain can then be sold on its inspection and, as the owner will get a warehouse receipt for it; this will become immediately negotiable and the owner will be in a position to sell his grain or borrow money on the warehouse receipt. I need hardly say that it is quite evident that this will be of immense advantage to the farmers of the Northwest and especially in the autumn when everything is so congested.
A transfer elevator will have to be built on the Pacific coast so that it will be ready for use by the time that the. Panama canal is. open and also one at the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway in order that we may get the full benefit of the building of that railway and the facilities for transport which it wall afford. This will enable the holders of grain in these interior terminal elevators to ship it by whichever route gives the most satisfaction and the most remunerative results. These interior terminal elevators will have to be equipped with cleaning and drying apparatus, which will no doubt lead to the erection of hospital elevators and, in the case of damaged grain, -will enable a large proportion of the grain to be saved and put into a marketable condition. Besides that, these elevators will provide a further reserve storage capacity which is so much needed in t'he West and will at the same time bring the inspection of grain into closer relation with its production which, I am sure, will .be a great advantage.
I do not think it is necessary that T should go further into the details of this matter. The Government is anxious and ready to assist in every feasible way the marketing of the products of the Northwest so that our people may receive the greatest possible returns for their labours. We believe that the building of these interior elevators will help very much in this direction. Our policy is to provide for a few of them at the present time in order that we may know definitely the effect that they will produce in the hope and expectation that the results will warrant the building of more later on.


Frank Oliver: I
presume that this important announcement by the hon. acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Perley) is made with the view, not only of placing before the House and the country the policy of the Government, but also of eliciting the views of the members who are present and who have heard the announcement. I do not immediately represent a great wheatgrowing part of the country, yet, as a western representative and one who has some knowledge of western matters, I will say that the proposal to establish interior

elevators with the advantages which the hon. minister expects will, at any rate, be accepted by the people as an evidence of the desire of the Government to assist in the marketing of the principal product of the western country. As to how far the establishment of these interior terminal elevators will have the effect of assisting that country is a matter that must remain to be worked out by experience. My own impression is that, while there are advantages which may follow the establishment of these interior terminal elevators, these will be rather aside from the expressed intent of the policy which the Government have announced in this regard. There aTe incidental advantages that, in my judgment are likely to arise from the establishment of these elevators, but I am rather doubtful of the great general advantage which is expected to result being achieved. The carrying of the grain to the interior terminal point, the storing of it there and the rehandling of it in order to send it forward necessarily involve some expense.


Mr. BENNETT (Calgary):: They get a
through rate.


Frank Oliver: No doubt they will get a through rate, but the re-handling involves some expense which will have to be carried by the producer. It is desirable that the expense shall be reduced to the lowest possible point. It was with that in view that I criticised section 61 of the amending Act believing it was intended to apply to these proposed interior terminals. In the last resort however there must be an increased expense upon the grain that is handled through the interior terminal as compared with the grain that is handled directly through the terminal at lake Superior. The producer must carry that cost and of course the producer will naturally object to carrying it; he will carry it no longer and no oftener than he has to. Under fav'ouTalble conditions of marketing the crop, [DOT] I fancv that the interior terminals when availed of the ultimate cost will of will not be very much availed of, and course rest upon the producer. I do not wish to take this opportunity of adversely criticising the proposal of the Government which on its face shows a reasonable probability of being for the benefit of the people, greater or less, directly or indirectly, but still tending in the direction of benefiting the people of the prairie provinces.
I have only to point out that the establishment of these interior terminal elevators is not a response to the demand that was placed before the late and present governments, nor is it an implementing of the promise made definitely by the head of the present Government as to the action that 312}
his Government would take towards relieving the recent and existing situation. The demand of the grain-growers was for Government operation of lake Superior terminals. It was not for partial Govern

ment operation of lake Superior terminals.


George Halsey Perley: Control and operation-


Frank Oliver: Well, operation, on the' responsibility of the Government. It does not matter who owns the elevator, the demand was that the operation should be on the responsibility of the Government.


George Halsey Perley: I am sure my hon. friend wants to be fair. As I understand it, it was that there should be control 'and operation of the terminal elevators. We are building an elevator to control the rates and at the same time all the other elevators are under the authority of the Board of Grain Commissioners and if they are properly administered I fancy it will carry out the expectation and wishes of our friends in the West.


Frank Oliver: That is the point I wish to bring out; not offensively, I hope, but still it is desirable we should have a thorough understanding of what the position is. My hon. friend has hardly grasped the situation. It was the belief of those who made representations to the late and to the present Government desiring that there should be government operation of terminal elevators at lake Superior; it was their belief that there could not be satisfactory and fair operation of these elevators by any private interest. That is to say, that allowing the Government to have the best intentions possible, Government control, so long as there was private operation, was not adequate. These parties may not have been warranted in the view they took, but that was their view and I do not wish there should be any misunderstanding of the situation. That was the view that was accepted specifically by the present Prime Minister when directly addressing the people who were making these proposals. The construction of the elevator at Fort William by the Government, to be operated by the Government, does not, I might almost say even measurably, meet, the demand that was made nor does it, except in a very limited measure, fulfil the specific promise made by the Government,
I am not going to make an argument upon, that point; I merely want to have the matter plainly and simply understood as it actually is. It may be that the judgment of the Government in building a single elevator and exercising control over elevators generally; it may be that the Government in usingits judgment in that way was wiser than it would have been if it had acceded to the demandsmadebythepeopleof the West.
I am not arguing that at the moment; but

what I want to establish beyond peradven-ture is that the action taken ny the Government is not a fulfilment either of the demands made or of the promise given. And if the construction and operation by the Government of interior terminals and of terminal elevators at Hudson bay and at Vancouver is put forward as a fulfilment of the promise made in regard to government operation of elevators, I can only say it is not a fulfilment of that promise and does not, to my mind, even measurably meet the demand that was made. To sum up, giving the Government every credit for good intentions in their proposal to establish interior terminals and to establish government operation of elevators at Hudson bay and at Vancouver; allowing them credit for the building of the terminal elevator to be operated by the Government at Fort William, they are not meeting the demand that was made or fulfilling the promise that was given.
The other branch of the question is this: that no matter whether there are interior terminals or not, no matter whether there is a government-owned elevator at Hudson bay or Vancouver, so far as present indications point, the great bulk of the trade will still be done though the terminals at lake Superior. It may be that the operations of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company will have the effect of sending trade elsewhere than by the lakes, but assuming that that beneficent company does not get into the position of exercising that control over rates that it hopes to, and that we have the same freedom of navigation on the lakes in future as we have had in the past, the great bulk of our grain, in the ordinary course of events, will go to these terminals at the head of lake Superior. Therefore it is most important that the handling of the grain that goes through these terminals should be on a principle that will secure to the producer the fullest advantage in the handling of the grain. In an ordinary year, when there is damaged grain or when there is a grain blockade, no doubt the interior terminals wall come into play at the expense of the producer; but in the ordinary year, the year of ordinary production and conditions of marketing, it is safe to say that the terminals at the head of lake Superior will still handle the great bulk of the grain directly as they do to-day. And therefore, while I give the Government credit for what it proposes to do, I am pointing out that it is not thereby relieved in any degree from the responsibility of insuring that the terminals at the head of lake Superior shall be conducted so as to preserve the inspected grade of the grain to insure that there are honest weights, and that there is honest dealing at the head of the lakes, let the expense be what it may. I am going Mr. OLIVER.
to venture a suggestion. For my part, when I was with the Government and since, on the evidence which was urought before me and the Government, I have been convinced-I may have been wrong-that the only way, and ultimately the cheapest way, to insure the proper handling of the grain at the head of the lakes was by elevators operated by the Government.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Why did not you do
something?


Frank Oliver: There are many things in the world that aTe to be done to-morrow that might have been done yesterday, but that were not done yesterday. That has been the condition since the world was created, and will remain until the world ends. We are not to be condemned because we did not do everything during the time we were in office.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend will
acknowledge that this Government has done a good deal more than his Government did in this matter, I presume?
Mr. OLIVER [DOT] I do not wish to enter into a purely political controversy, but my hon. friend has raised the question, and I may point out to him that the late Government was the first authority in the Dominion of Canada to protect the producer by provisions such as are contained in the Grain Act-in other words the late Government established the Grain Act, carried it forward year after year, and improved it according to their judgment year after year. Also, they broaght in a Bill to provide for the Government operation of elevators at the head of lake Superior, and my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) and some of his colleagues who still are in the House, took the opportunity to hold up that Bill and prevent it from going through. That Bill would have been law in 1911 if it had not been for my hon. friend and some of his colleagues. That is -a matter of regret-


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Was that the Bill to build terminal elevators?


Frank Oliver: It was to provide for government control and operation of elevators. Yes, and my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) assisted in killing the Bill.


Mr. BRADBURY:: That is right; it was against the farmer.


Frank Oliver: Now, my hon. friends
opposite took office in October of 1911. The Bill was killed in July of that year. But these hon. gentlemen took up and brought in the identically same Bill, with the same provision for the control and operation of terminal elevators. I think I can say they were met in a fair spirit by the members of the Opposition. The Bill was discussed at great length in the House. But

the Government sought to introduce amendments into that Bill which compelled the Opposition to refuse the Bill altogether -compelled us to move the six months' hoist. When the Bill got to the Senate these amendments, or some of them, were stricken out by that House, and the Government accepted the Senate's amendments. I do not think my h,n. friend, the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, is well advised in comparing the record of the late Government in connection with the Grain Act with that of his own Government. I only hope the record under his administration will improve, but I am taking the opportunity to point out to. him in as plain words as I can that up to date the circumstantial evidence is decidedly avi-'n t t!'p Gr vprnrnent.


George Halsey Perley: I should expect my hon. friend to state that publicly, but I hardly think he believes it in his heart.


Frank Oliver: When the members of the Opposition at the last session of Parliament were compelled to move the six months hoist to the Grain Bill containing a number of improvements but containing injurious clauses, my hon. friend can understand how veT.y real the feelings of the Opposition were against the provisions introduced by the Government. However, that is a little aside from the question; I did not intend to introduce that feature into the argument. I was almost at the conclusion of my remarks in any case. The obligation rests upon the Government to see that the grain passes from the inspection at Winnipeg, at any rate to the vessels at Montreal preserving identity of grade. That is the responsibility that rests upon them; they discharge that responsibility by their conduct not only of the elevators at Fort William but of the transfer elevators between Fort William and Montreal. Let it be thoroughly understood, while we are willing to give them credit for everything that is their due, the producers of the West and the people will still hold them
est and most important responsibility in that connection.


Mr. J. A. M. AIKINS (Brandon):: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has .said that the- Government has not completely carried out the promises made concerning the ownership and operation of terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. This implies they are being carried out but not completed. The hon. gentleman has also laid emphasis upon the good intentions of the last Government in respect of some things which he said were to have been performed 'to-morrow.' They did not, however, put those intentions into practical operation, but gave the country
reason to suppose that their to-morrow would be like the to-morrows of their past -very far distant and never to arrive. The hon. gentleman has said-and very properly so-that- from time to time the Grain Act was amended for the purpose of creating an improvement in it and that in respect of terminal elevators, it is very desirable to move slowly; I say the same in respect of the Government terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. The change is largely an experimental one, and it was inadvisable for the Government to move too rapidly or in such a direction as to prevent altogether an improvement in regard to the ownership and operation of railway elevators by railway companies or of elevators by the farmers themselves. I understand from the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that it is the idea that the Government should purchase all the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William.


Frank Oliver: It was a matter of indifference whether they purchased them or not; the idea was that they should operate them on their own responsibility-not inspect the. operation, but actually operate them.


James Albert Manning Aikins: And that no other person should?


Frank Oliver: That is the idea.


James Albert Manning Aikins: It seems to me that if
that were done it would not be agreeable to the people of the West, as I understand it, it would prevent railway companies from operating their own elevators, moreover, the Grain Growers' Grain Company is at present occupying and operating a terminal elevator at Fort William, having leased it, I understand, from the Canadian Pacific railway. The grain growers of western Canada have the option of shipping to railway elevators, to privately-owned elevators, or to the Grain Growers Grain Company's elevator. When the Government elevator now commenced is constructed and put in operation, they will then, if they think it best to have their grain put through an elevator owned and operated by the Government alone, have an opportunity of doing so without interfering with the operation of other elevators, and if the Government finds that there is a great demand for Government elevators, I venture to say that the Government will not be slow to construct and operate additional elevators at those points. Therefore, I think the Government is acting wisely in giving to the grain growers and the grain shippers an opportunity of selecting the class of terminal elevators to which they desire to ship, so that there may not be even a governmental monopoly in terminal elevators.

I am pleased to note that the Government has decided to place terminal elevators at Port Nelson, or whatever may be the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway, and at Vancouver. I presume those elevators will be constructed and operated in practically the same way as the government-owned and government-operated elevator will be at Fort William. That will give other alternatives to the grain growers of the West. It seems to me that the policy now suggested by the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Perley) concerning interior elevators is eminently desirable, but that we should not move in too great a hurry in that direction, but cautiously. Those elevators will give to the farmer the advantage of a shorter haul for cars; in other words, the cars will be released much more quickly and he promptly sent back to the grain field. Further, they will induce the construction of flour milling industries at places where they will be located, because the millers will always have at hand a large supply of grain and of such a quality that they will have all the necessary raw material out of which properly to make their flour. A further advantage will be that the farmers will get the benefit of the offal and small seeds, bran and the like from those elevators and mills, for the purpose of aiding the stock industry on their farms; that is no inconsiderable advantage. It is well known that large quantities of grain are often a little out of condition when shipped, and it is also well known that during the long journey to Port Arthur or Fort William much of this grain gets into even worse condition, and if there are hospital elevators established in connection with these interior terminal elevators, the grain would quickly get to those places where it could be treated. Therefore, I think it is highly desirable that there should be interior terminal elevators. One can very readily see that in connection with the establishment of such interior elevators there would have to be some little alteration concerning freight rates, and some alteration in the distribution of cars. If, for instance, a farmer is given a car to load, if the grain is in good condition and there is ample time to get it down to the terminals at the lake front, for shipping by water he will naturally load it for those terminals. But if the cars are so distributed- that some will be for the interior terminals, that difficulty may be very readily adjusted. With regard to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) concerning a through rate, and in answer to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that there will be an additional expense. It is true that there may be an additional expense, as there is in the case of grain consigned to Winnipeg for orders in which Mr. ATKINS.
case the farmer or shipper, I understand, pays $3 a car, but there is no reason to assume that a greater expenditure will be put upon the farmer or shipper to interior terminals than is now put upon the shipper of grain in cars consigned for orders at Winnipeg. Therefore, as it seems to me that there should be no trouble anticipated in respect of the farmer or the shipper of grain getting the balance of the through rate, where there is a direct route of shipment, and no large transhipping expense, I can see that great advantage will arise to the people of the West by having a system of interior terminal elevators. We know that very often the farmers do not have granaries upon their farms, but they do desire to get money rapidly to pay the expenses of harvesting and other work connected with their farms throughout the year. By reason of these interior elevators they can consign the grain to a place not far distant where it will be inspected and a certificate granted, and they can, on that certificate raise the necessary funds without delay to pay all such expenses; in addition the facilitv in getting the grain out will enable farmers to do more of their fall ploughing and other work in connection with the farm, in order to prepare it for the next year.


Frank Oliver: Will my hon. friend
guarantee that the farmer is going to be able to pay all his debts by reason of this certificate?


James Albert Manning Aikins: I see no reason why he
should not. The farmers of Brandon constituency are enterprising and thrifty and are able to pay their harvest expenses out of one-half of the value of the crops they raise upon their farms in ordinary years, and I have no doubt that the prosperity of other places is similar to the success and thrift of the farmers in Brandon constituency.


Frank Oliver: There was a very expensive election in Brandon not long ago-that no doubt helped the farmers somewhat.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I do not quite understand what the hon. gentleman means unless it is that the hon. gentleman has been in communication with the unsuccessful candidate and knows what the election cost him and speaks feelingly.


Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: In regard to what the hon. member for Brandon has said I shall not delay the Bill. I think the matter is of too much importance for us to allow it to be beclouded by a lo+ of statements in reference to internal storage elevators. Let us face the facts that the Prime Minister came West and promised explicitly and frequently that if he came into power he would put into operation his solution of the grain problem, the

Government operation and control, without delay, of terminal elevators.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar):: Is that what the Prime Minister promised in the Bill?


William Erskine Knowles: It is not; if it were, it would be all right. The trouble with our friends opposite is that the promises they made before the election are not in their Bills. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie, the hon. member for Brandon and others sit to-day in this House, partly at least, if not entirely, because of the influence of the promises made with respect to this question. I make that statement without fear of contradiction. This was one of the most important questions that came before the yeomen of the prairies, the promise of the Prime Minister. That promise so made has not been fulfilled. There is no legislation asked of this House and we would be recreant to our duty if we did not ask the Government to give some reason for not having fulfilled that promise. The acting Minister of Trade and Commerce is only joking when he says that the present Government have anything to be proud of in their administration of the Grain Act. They practically laughed at the farmers' deputation when they came here in the first session of the present regime asking for Government control of elevators. We and the people and the press started a movement to call on the Government to fulfil that promise, to do something along the lines they had set themselves, as a result of that agitation, and they changed their minds; the Government did not intend to do even this much. The Minister of Public Works saw that the feeling of Manitoba was that the Government should at least make some show in keeping their promise, but they could not too flagrantly break their promise, so the Minister of Public Works, came to Regina and addressed a great many faithful people there. He had a great fling at the Liberals and raised the greatest acclaim when he turned around to that great audience and said: We have bought 37.2 acres in Fort William and if the present prospects hold out I' am quite sure that we are going to take your crop, this year, 1912, through the Borden Government elevators. Now the best they can say is that the thing has frittered along so that they think that, perhaps, not four months after the minister was spelling, but sixteen months after, in November, 1913, there is a possibility that	they can	take out some ofthe	grain	from the West.	The
Government is just whistling through a graveyard when they talk about their good record on this question. The present Government did not frame the legislation under which thev are proceeding to-day. It was
the member for Edmonton who brought down this very Act, it was he who introduced the legislation which makes it possible for the Government to do even the little they are doing towards having government control and operation of one elevator in Fort William. The Bill had passed the Senate, it had been discussed in the committee of the Senate and in the Senate itself and carried there. It was not a mere election promise, it came to this House and the Government intended to put it through if possible. We pleaded with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to allow the Bill to go through so that it could take effect for the season then current and Mr. Staples, then member for Macdonald, among others, opposed that Bill, the very Bill which he is now helping to administer. As far as there has been progress made in the policy of government control and operation of elevators at Fort William, that progress is due to the legislation framed and introduced by the Liberal Government and not to anything done by hon. gentlemen opposite; and it is still up to the Government to give some explanation of the way in which they have flagrantly failed to fulfil the promises that they would put into effect their policy of government control and operation of elevators at the terminals.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: It
seems to me that when the acting minister is bringing down amendments to such an important measure as the Grain Act and one that took up so much time of the House last year as well as the preceding year there is a certain amount of general information with which the minister might have provided this committee. In the first place, we all know that under the provisions of this Bill there has been appointed a Board of Grain Commissioners to deal with the grain situation, who have practical oversight of the terminals and of the general situation so far as the grain trade of the West is concerned. I think that the minister might have told us something about the operations of this board during the past year, what changes they have brought about in the condition of affairs at the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, what improvements have been made, what constructive work has been done by the commission, what changes in the rules and regulations, what increases have been made in the Government staff under this board and a great many other incidentals that the committee would like to know about. The acting minister seems to be a little bit vainglorious in the attitude he assumes as to what the Government are proposing to do in the establishment of interior storage elevators in the West. I am not here to criticise this proposition of the Government which I believe they have power to

carry out under the provisions of the present Grain Act. This is not the question. The member for Brandon has been trying to instruct us with regard to the taking over and the operation by the Government of the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur. He says that is not a question that should be stepped into in haste, that we should move slowly. I notice in the press that the Board of Grain Commissioners have oeen exercising a sort of roaming commission through the West visiting certain points, among others the town in which I have the pleasure to live. While this grain Bill and the question of terminals have been pretty thoroughly discussed on former occasions in this House and in the committee, and before the Committee of the Senate, where the grain Bill was first introduced two years ago, the question of interior storage elevators has not been given the same kind of consideration. Apparently, the Government are going to accept certain conclusions at which, it is supposed, the Board of Grain Commissioners are going to arrive on this question. I submit that before the Government take any such responsibility, and before they ask Parliament to vote the money necessary for the establishment of these internal storage elevators, the Board of Grain Commissioners should take expert advice, not only from the farmers, but from all parties interested in the handling and storage of grain. It is only fair to this House and to this committee that we should have that information before being called upon to discuss the more or less important amendments that are proposed under the present Bill.


George Halsey Perley: Is my hon. friend opposed to this policy of establishing a few terminal elevators in order to test their usefulness?


David Bradley Neely: That is a question which I submit is absolutely unfair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend from Brandon laughs. If he wants to laugh he had better not do so at the statement I have made, but at the humiliating position in which his own leader in this House finds himself to-day as the result of having made a promise before he had the necessary information on which to come to a correct conclusion. There is no doubt, and the hon. member for Brandon knows it as well as I do, that the Prime Minister, when leader of the Opposition, absolutely pledged himself without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation of any sort, to a certain policy. He pledged himself, if he came into office, to evolve a policy of government operation and control of terminal elevators at FoTt William and Port Arthur.
Mr. NEFJjY.
Why should we go slowly? Why did the Prime Minister, while leader of the Opposition, take that position if he had not the information? I submit that in matters involving serious changes that will affect one of the greatest industries of the country, the grain industry, it is quite proper as the hon. member for Brandon says, that we should move slowly. The Prime Minister, when he was leader of the Opposition, would have been well advised if he had had the hon. member for Brandon at his side to advise him at that time to go slowly, because to-day he finds himself in the humiliating position of having made from every platform in the West a public pledge as to what he would do if he came into office, and as to how quickly he would do it, and of not being able to carry out that pledge given to the farmers in the West. So far as my position is concerned, I was always in favour of this Government, or of any government, investigating the situation from every standpoint before moving along lines such as are under discussion at the present time. So far as the interior storage elevators are concerned, there is no doubt that there are two sides to the question.
I am not expert enough to know the conditions of the grain trade, and f do not pretend to be; I do not pretend to say offhand that the establishing of a system of interior storage elevators will ultimately be a good thing for the grain producers of the West.


George Henry Bradbury: What do the graingrowers say along that line?


David Bradley Neely: leading. He will find that the records of his department show that some two years ago there were certain elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur charged with mixing grain and with acting contrary, on several different counts, to the provisions of the Grain Act and the Inspection and Sale Act. I find from the record that the Empire elevator was one of the two against which convictions were registered. The other one was the Port Arthur elevator, against which no less than five charges were laid. This elevator was fined $500 for each offence, or a total of $2,500. In the case of the Empire elevator there were six charges of a similar character	laid	and	the fine was
$500 on each count or a total of $3,000 in all. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the information which I have, and which I think is authentic, is that some two years ago this gentleman who has been appointed in place of Mr. Gibbs was manager of the Empire elevator at Fort William, that charges were laid against that elevator, of which he was manager and of which he was in control that they were breaking the law and on these different counts they were compelled to pay a fine of $500 on each, or a total of $3,000 in all. I have no doubt that Mr. Jones knows a great deal about the grain trade, having been the manager of that terminal elevator for some considerable time, and probably having spent many years of his life in the grain trade. I have no doubt that Mr. Jones probably possesses a very expert knowledge of the conditions that affect the grain trade. But it seems to me very strange that this appointment should be made in view of these convictions that were registered two years ago against the elevator of which Mr. Jones was manager. While these convictions were registered against the elevator and the owners of the elevator, the manager is, after all, whether under instructions or not, responsible for these infractions of the law. Under the new Grain Act the manager will be held personally responsible and guilty along with the owners. But, at least, if the law at the time these convictions were registered, did not touch Mr. Jones personally, he was none the less responsible for these infractions of the law which called for a penalty of $3,000. This is a very strange situation. The one reason for the existence of this board and the one great reason for any change in our grain laws was the necessity of protecting the farmers of the West from these operations that they contended and apparently from these convictions rightly contended, were being carried on in the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. It does seem strange that, two years after these convictions had been registered against the elevator company of which he was acting manager this individual, Mr. Jones, should have been appointed Mr. NEELY.
a member of the Grain Commission. It does seem to me to be a strange thing that the Government, who were apparently so anxious, by the creation of this board to protect the farmers from the results of the mixing of grain at the terminal elevators, should have chosen this identical Mr. Jones to succeed Mr. Gibbs when he resigned his position on the board.
The farmers of the West were very much aggrieved at another occurrence that has transpired in connection with the officials of the grain service. They were all very much disappointed to hear that a couple of months ago, a gentleman who has been in the grain service there for a great many years and who has been recognized throughout the West as one of the most expert officials who has ever been in the service of the department saw fit to resign his position. I refer now to the late warehouse commissioner, Mr. C. C. Castle. In the Manitoba Free Press of March 20, last, I find a' statement made bjs- Mr. Castle which is of some interest and I would ask the minister to tell us what he knows of the resignation of Mr. Castle, which resignation, I may tell the minister, is very seriously deplored by the farmers throughout the West who have known Mr. Castle very favourably for a great many years as a faithful and competent official. Mr. Castle gives an interview to a reporter of the Free Press, and being asked as to why he was resigning, he said:
I shall be glad to make a statement, as I have always felt that some explanation was due to my friends who have been kind enough to take an interest in the matter
When Dr. Robert Magill, the Chairman of the new Dominion Grain Commission, arrived in Winnipeg last April, immediately after his formal appointment, he rang me up on the phone and said he wished to see me. As it was in the evening after office hours, I said if he cared to come to my house in Norwood I could see him there. He took a taxi and came right up. During the conversation which followed, he urged me strongly to remain on the board, stating that all the commissioners desired me to do so as they all wished to have the benefit of my many years of experience. While I thanked him for this flattering opinion of my past services and ability, I still held to my intention of resigning, until Dr. Magill went further and intimated that changes m the personnel of the hoard were sure to come and that when such changes did occur I would be in the direct line for promotion and would have his endorsation. Under these circumstances, as I liked the work and had for fourteen years been keenly interested in developing methods whereby the western farmer could ship his grain under the most favourable conditions, I decided to remain.
As the public is aware, a short time ago Frank E. Gibbs resigned his position as a member of the commission, and in his place ,T. P. Jones, general manager of the Thunder Bay and Empire terminal elevators, was appointed. On February 14 Mr. Jones handed

to the press of Fort William a notice of his appointment, and on the same day I mailed my resignation to Ottawa. This is all I have to say in the matter.
As will be noticed, Mr. Castle does not go into any heroics in connection with his resignation; he simply makes the frank statement that he had it in his mind when the present Grain Commission was appointed to resign as warehouse commissioner, but that as the result of an interview with the Chairman of the Grain Commission Board, in which certain intimations were made to him as to the probabilities of the future, he decided not to hand in his resignation at that time and continued in the service. That is of course just an interview with Mr. Castle in a newspaper but I presume some member of the Government will have full information to give in regard to it. I repeat that so far as Mr. Castle is concerned the farmers of the West were very sorry indeed to lose this very capable officer. I think there is not a member on either side of the House from the West who will not endorse what I say in this respect. We are very sorry that anything should have occurred to lose the very efficient services of Mr. Castle to the country. I am only discussing this point in order to secure some information from the minister which I think would be very useful to the committee in the further consideration of the Bill.


Robert Rogers: I have little
to complain of in respect to the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite; in fact, it is very pleasing to find those hon. gentlemen compliment the Government upon the progress they are making in connection with the development of the grain trade of western Canada. My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) took up a considerable portion of the time of the committee in complaining that information about various matters was lacking. The hon. gentleman seemed to feel that he and those associated with him on the other side of the House were somewhat in the dark as to the work of the Grain Commission and the conduct of the grain business in the West. My hon. friend himself will no doubt be disappointed, and his constituents will certainly be disappointed, when they realize the lack of interest the hon. gentleman apparently takes in the welfare of the farmers of western Canada. As evidenced by his complaining that the Government is not giving this House and this country full and complete information in respect to terminal elevators and other matters concerning the grain trade of the West, when the fact is that months ago the information he complains he has not obtained was placed before this House and the people of the country in the form of a blue-book. The report of the grain commission in a most complete form has been published, and I have
it here and will be glad to send it to the hon. member for Humboldt in order that he may have an opportunity to read it now


David Bradley Neely: I have seen it.
Mr. ROGERS-and in order that he may apologize to his constituents for his neglect to give any study to a question which so greatly interests them. The report of the Grain Commission is contained in this blue-book, which was laid on the table of the House some time ago, and it contains all the information the hon. gentleman complains of not having been furnished with.
I have not much to say with respect to the resignation of Mr. Castle. I have known him for a great many years, and I have regarded him as a very good man in the position he occupied as warehouse commissioner in Winnipeg. The reasons which prompted Mr. Castle to send in his resignation are his own. I have no knowledge of what the facts are, and I had not heard them reported upon until I heard the statement read by the hon. member for Humboldt. 1 may say that Mr. Jones, who was appointed by Mr. Foster previous to his leaving for Australia, is, I understand, a first-class man for the position. He has had vast experience in terminal elevators. Such a man was required by the commission, and he was selected by Mr. Foster as a capable and worthy appointee for that work. While, I believe, he was connected with an elevator at Fort William, which was fined for mixing grain, yet, as I understand the facts which will be explained by my hon. friend the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, he was in no way responsible for it, nor had he anything to do with the matter in connection with which the elevator paid the fine for violation of the law.
My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has alleged that the interior terminal elevators proposed to be erected will entail an extra cost to the farmer in the transportation of his grain. This may be true and it may not be true. As the western members at all events will know, the great difficulty with which the farmers in the province of Saskatchewan, and in a portion of the province of Alberta especially, have to contend is that of finding storage for their grain at the present time, because of the large quantity which they grow. It is in view of this congested condition that the Government are taking the action they are taking in connection with the erection of interior terminal elevators in these provinces. And, even if it should turn out that it may entail a small extra cost, at all events it will result in giving the farmers of these two provinces the advantage of being able to find places to store their grain, and thereby save it in some form, and it will

enable them to get it to the market at as early a date as possible. In addition to this, these farmers will have the advantage of getting the cleanings and small grain, which will enable them to feed their stock at a lower cost and to greater advantage, which, in turn, will tend to the development and encouragement of mixed farming and the growing of more stock than we have at present in western Canada. This will more than meet the additional cost, if any, that may be entailed.
While I am on my feet, I may say that in my judgment, the interior terminal elevators should be constructed at points where they will be met by the erection of large flour mills that will be of service to the country, and will probably take advantage of having storage facilities erected by the Government, so that they will be able to operate their mills for the whole year if they see fit and are able to do so. I think that, if it can be brought about, it would be of great advantage to the people of western Canada to have their grain milled in the prairie provinces and shipped from these points to the markets of the world.
A complaint made by certain hon. gentlemen opposite is that the Prime Minister is not fulfilling the pledge which he made to the people of western Canada with respect to the control and operation of terminal elevators. As a representative of western Canada with a very considerable knowledge of the statements and pledges made by the Prime Minister, I stand here to say that the policy we present to this House fulfils in every respect the pledges which the Prime Minister gave to the people. We have under the commission which was appointed by the Government, absolute control of the terminal elevators at Fort William.


David Bradley Neely: Do you operate them too?


Robert Rogers: We have that management, control and operation full and complete, as much as if we had the operation of them. And the Government are building a terminal elevator themselves to be operated by that commission, in order, in this practical way, to arrive at a knowledge of how to operate terminal elevators with advantage to the farmers.
It has been suggested by my hon. friend the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce that he has gone further and suggested the prospect of building an elevator at Vancouver and another on Hudson bay. In this way with the interior terminal elevators in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the farmer of either of those provinces will be in a position to ship his grain to terminal elevators in his own province and then take his own time to find out which would be Mr. ROGERS.
the best route and market for him

whether his grain should go to Victoria and out by the Panama canal, or by Hudson bay, or through Fort William by the route which is already in use. I claim that the terminal elevators will be the safeguard of western Canada. I think that in the proposal made by the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce that these terminal elevators be built, we are acting in the interests of the farmers of western Canada and of all who are interested in the development of the prairie provinces.


William Erskine Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) on what ground he gave the people of Saskatchewan, in June iast, to understand that the Government hoped to have this large terminal elevator completed in time for the 1912 crop? So much time has passed since, that I would like to know on what ground the statement was made.


Robert Rogers: The hon. member is
placing an interpretation upon the words used by me that is entirely incorrect. I made no definite statement that an elevator would be built last fall. I stated the actual facts as they were at that time, nothing more and nothing less.


William Erskine Knowles: Am I wrongly informed
in believing.that the hon. gentleman stated at a banquet in Regina in June last that, the Government then hoped to have this large terminal elevator completed in time for the crop of 1912?


Robert Rogers: I do not remember that I went that far-


William Erskine Knowles: How far did the hon. gentleman go?


Robert Rogers: I simply stated the facts as I knew them to be at that time.


William Erskine Knowles: I am not going to
answer the hon. minister, except to read from a Regina newspaper the statement which he did make. I suppose the hon. gentleman remembers being in Regina. In case he does not, I might refresh his memory by telling him that he was there shortly after the legislature was dissolved, and that the provincial election took place immediately afterwards. The speech delivered by "the hon. gentleman was one of the most important speeches he ever delivered, and one to which the people of Saskatchewan and of the West generally looked forward with a great deal of interest. I quote from a report published in the Repina Daily Province, of Tuesday, June 11, 1912:
One of the pledges I have in mind was that made by Right Hon. R,. L. Borden, that if returned to power he would undertake to relieve the grievances of farmers and grain producers in respect to terminal elevators at
[DOT]9889

Fort William and Port Arthur. Now, I want "to tell you a commission has been appointed in which has been placed full and complete [DOT]control of terminal elevators already built and in existence at those two points, and, more than that, X want to tell you that notwithstanding the statements, that have been sent broadcast up and down this country during the past two weeks by the press of the Liberal party, notwithstanding the villainous misrepresentations that have been made that thePremier wasuntrueto his pledges, and that they were not going to have government owned elevators at the late terminals, I want to tell this great assembly in this city of .Regina to-night that the Government to-day has secured 47 acres of water front at Fort William, that already plans and specifications -are in preparation, and that the Government hopes to have completed a large terminal elevator for the farmers of western Canada before the close of navigation this year. ,
Will the minister say whether or not that is a correct report?


Robert Rogers: If it appeared in the
Regina Daily Province, I fancy that it is correct.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not question the accuracy of the report, but now that the hon. minister accepts the statement as being true, perhaps he will tell us upon what grounds he considered himself to be in a position to make the statement that the Government hoped to have that large terminal elevator completed before the close of navigation. Was it only because of the elections that were to follow? How is it that the completion of the elevator will probably be twelve months later than was expected?


Robert Rogers: I hope it will not be
twelve months later, and that the elevator will be ready for the grain season. My hon. friend knows that difficulties often arise in the erection of large buildings, and I understand that very considerable difficulty was experienced in connection with the foundation of this elevator, causing a delay of several months. That has been overcome, however, and the building is being constructed and will be completed as rapidly as possible.


William Erskine Knowles: When was thq contract let?


George Halsey Perley: The contract was let, I
think, in July. The first site upon which we hoped to build this elevator was found not to be desirable. After a further investigation, the engineer reported that the ground under the water would not make a proper foundation. There was found to be about eighty feet of mud at that particular place, and consequently we had to look about for another location, thus delaying the matter considerably. Afterwards the Department of Trade and Commerce purchased a piece of land from the Canadian
Northern Railway Company at Port Arthur, and the contract was let just as soon as we knew that we had obtained a proper piece of land.


William Erskine Knowles: I think the minister's information does not make the matter sufficiently clear, and I am of the opinion that the promise was made simply because an election was cominig on. The circumstances are such that I feel justified in saying that then, as before the general election of 1911, the matter was made a political football. These promises made in 1911 and 1912 synchronized so plainly with the elections that I am of the opinion that the Government has been fooling the farmers in regard to this matter. My hon. friend spoke about control of operation as if that were the same as control and operation. Surely the minister does not think that by juggling the words-I do not use the expression offensively-he can make the people believe that the Prime Minister promised control of operation and not control and operation. And now the minister is going to build one elevator. Is that control and operation of terminal elevators? If the Government had attained power under a policy of control and operation of Canadian railways, and afterwards undertook to build one railway, would that be control and operation of the railways of Canada? It is unnecessary to dwell upon that point. The course of the Government is so manifest that I think it would be better for them to frankly acknowledge that they have changed their minds and are not truly carrying out their promise of establishing government control and operation of elevators, at Fort William and Port Arthur.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: I
think it is hardly fair for the Minister of Public Works to make any pretence, if I may use the term, that the present course of the Government is a carrying out of a certain pledge of the Prime Minister. I presume the hon. minister is perfectly well aware of the fact that this is not the carrying out of a pledge. The minister is familiar with the discussion which has been taking place for some time in the West as to the best way of doing away with certain difficulties that exist in western Canada. It was claimed by a great many that all that was required was what he is advocating now, the control of operation, or, I would rather say, the indirect control of elevators. I do not know of anyone who is not ready to go as "far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has gone now, to go to the extent of the action which he claims is a carrying out of that pledge. The question before the farmers of the West at that time and still before them is whether or not it is necessary that the Government shall take absolute control of those elevators and of all of them or whether it would be sufficient

9S92
or better to control them indirectly. The feeling of the farmers of the West, [DOT]whether right or wrong, is that the Government must take over the absolute control, whether they own them or not, that no one else should have anything to do with them at all. That was the feeling. As I did not hear the present Prime Minister make any pledges, I will not say that he made any pledges, but I am going to say that I lost many votes in my constituency 'because the Prime Minister was said to have made those pledges. I know that my majority would have been considerably larger, but for the fact that the farmers in my constituency believed that he had made such a pledge, that he had pledged himself not' only to have indirect control, but to have direct control. Whether they are right in that supposition or not I do not know, I know what the consequences were, that is all. With regard to the question of interior storage elevators I want to be perfectly fair. My hon. friend from Selkirk I think indirectly rather suggests that the grain growers were unanimously in favour of the same policy. Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows more about the grain growers than I do. I have never attended a meeting of the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association; I have attended most of the meetings of late years of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, and I cannot remember any case where a majority of those grain growers came out in favour of that policy. Wherever I have heard it discussed and heard it voted on, so far as I can remember, the majority voted against it.


George Henry Bradbury: Would the hon. gentleman consider that the officers of the Grain Growers' Association speak for the grain growers?


Levi Thomson: I presume they are
authorized to a certain extent to do so, but sometimes they do not as they may find out at the next succeeding election. Sometimes members of Parliament do not altogether voice the sentiments of their people. I am not saying that a majority of the farmers of the West are not in favour of this policy, but 1 may say that, so far as I have met with the grain growers, I have found a very great number of those Who have taken a leading part in the affairs of the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan taking the same view that I have always taken, that is they were very doubtful as to the expediency of this plan. I may say that-whenever the question came to a vote in the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan I always voted against it and I still have some very grave doubts as to its being a really good plan. I am going to commend the Government for the action they have taken, assuming, as I do, that the commission appointed are in favour of this policy and I am go-M r. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).
ing to commend the Government for taking the action they have. I say further that I propose to vote, if a vote is taken in this House, in favour of their plan of organizing interior storage elevators for this reason; I think it is fair to give the Government a fair chance to carry out any scheme of which there is a reasonable chance that it may be for the benefit of the grain growers of the West. I am sorry, notwithstanding what my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has said and the blue-book that he has handed out, that we have not some more information on this question than that blue-book contains. I say further that I am assuming that the commission are favourable to this plan, that it is on their recommendation that the action of the Government has been taken. In view of that fact and in view of the fact that although I, myself, have strong doubts as to whether this would be a good policy, as to whether the injuries which would be sustained by the farmers of the West because of that policy being adopted might not be greater than the advantages, still I have felt, as the other farmers in the West have felt, that while the benefits are questionable, the injuries are also questionable and that, taking everything together, it might very well be worth the while of the present Government to adopt this policy, to carry it out, especially if they have the recommendation, as I assume they have, of the commission who certainly should be in a better position than anybody else to decide whether or not it is a good policy. I am very much pleased to support that provided it comes to a vote.
Mr. GEO. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk): I cannot say I am very much surprised at the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to this question because I remember when the question was up before in this House under the late Administration they took a very similar attitude when the Opposition then were trying to do something to better the position of the farmers along this line. The grain growers had come to Ottawa, as you all remember, in very strong force and had presented resolutions, amongst others, one asking for the control and ownership of terminal elevators. When a resolution was brought in this House to implement that desire or request of the grain growers, the hon. gentlemen who are now opposing this Bill took much the same attitude that they now take.


Levi Thomson: I think
it is very unfair for the hon. gentleman to say that we are opposing the Bill, because no one has opposed it yet.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman
who has taken his seat, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, would be exempt from those

criticisms because he was not in the House at that time if I remember. I am speaking of what took place before, and I am glad to say that the bon. member for Qu'Appelle realizes that in the measure now before the House there iis a desire to benefit the farmers of the West and that he is willing to support the Government in trying to do that. The members for Edmonton, Humboldt and Moosejaw, I think would be studying the interests of their own constituents and of the farmers if they took much the same attitude. With regard to the attitude of the grain growers, if we are to judge by the officials of the Grain Growers' Association, by resolutions which the grain growers have presented to this House and the attitude of the Grain Growers' Guide, we can conclude in a moment that the grain growers want exactly what the Government are proposing in this Bill, that they are asking for the control and ownership of terminal elevators and for the establishing of interior elevators. We had a few days ago some of these gentlemen giving evidence before the Banking Committee among them, Mr. Green whom lion, gentlemen know very well. I will read part of what he said.
Bv the Chairman:
Q. Do you know if anything has been done by the provincial governments towards supplying terminal elevators?-A. I was a delegate here some six years ago, and the Minister of Agriculture, together with other ministers who associated with him, at that time said to us ' go back, Mr. Green, to the western provinces, and tell them to build their own interior elevators and we will look after the terminals.' We went hack as suggested, we fought for those elevators, and we have got them now in Saskatchewan. They have also got them now in Manitoba and are getting them in Alberta-interior elevators owned and managed by farmers, the men who produce the grain.
Q. Are they storage elevators?-A. They are the initial elevators, not terminals. JSTow we have asked the Government to supply the terminal elevators.
By the Chairman:
Q. Which government, the provincial government?-A. We do not want provincial government owned terminal elevators hut Dominion owned terminal elevators.
That is the statement made by Mr. Green. 1 have also the statement made by Mr. Fream.
By the Chairman:
Q. You are secretary of the United Farmers of Alberta?-A The honorary secretary.
Q. Do you hold any other position?-A. I am also secretary of the Canadian Council of Agriculture.
Then he gives this evidence:
Q. Just elaborate that a little.-A. Take, for example, Calgary to-day. Calgary is the logical ^spot for a terminal elevator, placing
it in the same position to Vancouver that Fort William is to Montreal.
Q. That is the idea I want you to speak on.-A. The position to-day is that Calgary is the one route to the West. There is an inspection division there, the Government grain inspectors are there. It is a grain route to the coast because from that point it so happens that a lot of grain reaching there-every man thinks his grain is considerably better than it is, and he will ship it westward-on arrival is found to be a kind of grain which is absolutely useless for the western trade at that present time. There being no storage either at the coast or at Calgary, no public storage, the result is that man has either to go to the expense of rebilling his grain East and paying the differential in the freight rate back over probably the same route that it came, especially to Fort William, or else possibly hold it there on track under demurrage charges until the grain is sacrificed to somebody that thinks he can buy it and make use of it in some other place.
Q. Supposing you had a terminal elevator such as you speak of when you have all the varieties of grain, would that be a natural adjunct for a milling industry?-A. Yes.
Q. By whom should the terminal elevator be owned?-A. By the Government.
Then he goes on:
Q. Would such an elevator be an advantage to the farmer in getting settlement for his grain more quickly?-A. It would be a decided advantage, not only that way but in placing responsibility for leakage afterwards upon the railway company.
Q. Was a commission appointed some years ago to report on the question of interior storage?-A. The Board of Grain Commissioners have already recommended the establishment of houses such as that. That board was appointed about a year ago.
Q. But go back to 1907. I understand a commission - reported against that. Why?- A. Simply, as I understand it that this matter of charges for the handling of grain, the extra handling charges going through the house, the extra freight charges, and the short hauls, and matters of that kind, and the fact that grain in the interior, when it had got really to the waterfront for purchase by the exporter, the cost would be too heavy upon the producer.
Q. I understand that either the conditions have so changed that a different view might now be reasonably taken, or don't you agree with that?-A. At that time I think they were right, but the conditions have materially changed since then. Take for instance when we at that time talked of the western shipment of grain to Vancouver to go via the Horn, through the Panama canal or to Japan they laughed at us, saying it was impossible.
Q. So that having regard to the changed conditions your view is that terminal elevators would be an additional advantage?- A. A most decided advantage.
I have taken this opportunity to place these statements in ' Hansard ' in answer to what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite to the effect that farmers were not a unit, or a body, in favour of internal ele-

vators. The attitude taken by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), and by some other hon. gentlemen, who were in the House two years ago, was that they did not believe in terminal elevators. They would not support a resolution that was moved in this House asking the Government to implement the requests made by the farmers. The motion was made by my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), and was supported by every Conservative member from the West, and, so far as I remember opposed by every Liberal member from the West.


William Erskine Knowles: What was the motion?


George Henry Bradbury: My hon. friend from
Humboldt made a statement two years ago from which I intend to read a paragraph or two:
Now, I am not prepared to advocate views simply because they are the views of somebody else; and while all my sympathy goes out to the farmer, not only the farmer of the West, but all the farmers who in the past have been subject to loss through manipulation of their grain, 1 must first be convinced that government ownership and operation is essentially and vitally necessary to remedy the evil. It is a very simple proposition, some hon. members would suggest, or may think, to take the step, to go into government ownership. Yes, but if it does not work well, it will be very hard to get out of it. Hon. members must remember that the grain trade of Canada is only in its infancy. We talk of the large quantities of grain that have been shipped from western Canada within the last couple of years. Why, we are only on the fringe of things in the great West. So, if we take such a step today, no matter how sincere we may be, no matter how much we may think it in the interests of the grain producer, if what we do militates in the end against the grain trade, the evil resulting will grow with the years. Therefore, I say, it behooves us to go carefully. Insistent, as I am aware, as are the demands of the farmers of the West for the speedy remedy, and loudly as some of them declaim that the only remedy is government ownership and operation, I am free to say that my advice to the Government on this occasion would he to consider with the greatest care every step that they take on this question. If they make a mistake now, if they start out on a certain line of policy and that proves not to be what they expected, the harmful results in years to come would be inestimable.
That was the position my hon. friend took when the friends of the farmers on this side of the House were sitting in opposition and endeavouring to carry out the requests made by the farmers. My hon. friend has not changed very much since then. Three years have nearly elapsed since he made that statement, and still he seems to be of opinion that we should go slowly in this matter, that the time has not arrived yet Mr. BRADBURY.
for the building of terminal elevators, or for taking over completely the control of the wheat that goes out of this country. I wish to emphasize the fact that when the hon. gentleman was sitting behind the Government, when the Governmeht of that day had the same opportunity as the present Government has, of doing something for the farmers, of carrying out their requests made when they came here, and by their officials in communications, they turned that opportunity down, and voted against the motion which was made by my hon. friend from Souris. Now we find the Government of the day trying to meet the wishes of the farmers. They are building a large terminal elevator at Fort William, which, if I understand the question at all, is only the beginning of what, I hope, will be a system of government owned and controlled elevators. The Government cannot do this at once. No hon. gentleman who knows the time it takes to build an elevator will say that there has been one hour lost since this Government came into power.


William Erskine Knowles: How long does it take ?


George Henry Bradbury: I would not like to
say, but from my experience of public construction, I would be well satisfied if the elevator should be ready to take care of wheat next fall, and I expect it will be. I expect, furthermore, that when that elevator is in operation the farmers of the West will be so well pleased that hon. gentlemen who are opposing this measure will be the first to rise in their places and congratulate the Government upon the move it is making in this regard-at least I hope they will. When I look at the attitude of 'horn, members coming from Saskatchewan and Alberta and who aim to represent the farmers of the West, I sometimes doubt whether these men are not more anxious to play the political game than they are to further measures in the interest of the men for whom they pretend to speak in this House.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I belong to that class which, I think, has a great many adherents on both sides of the House, which believes that it is high time that we got through with this session and go home where we could make a living My remarks will be brief, and I would not have had anything to say were it not for the fact that I had the honour of moving the first motion in this House that, in the interests of the grain growers in the West, we should have Government operation of terminal and transfer elevators. I have never changed my opinion on that question. I do not say but that I may have been wrong in that opinion, but my' judgment then, according to the best

thought that I could give to the subject, and understanding the conditions as well as I could, was that that was the proper policy to pursue in view of the .existing condition of affairs. It seems to me that there is not very much difference between what hon. members on the other side of the House think upon this subject and what we think ourselves. I am not going to refer to anything that was said by hon. gentlemen who were at that time. on this side of the House, in connection with this question of doing what we could to assist the farmers to adopt the best and most practical means of selling their grain. Whatever the conditions were three or four years ago, they are intensified to-day, because there is no doubt that the farmer is not getting the price lor his grain that he was getting three or four years ago when this question was attracting our attention in the House. It is up to us, on whichever side of the House we may be sitting, to do our utmost to bring about such a condition of affairs as will assist the farmer to dispose of his grain at a profitable price. I have stated before, and I repeat it here, that I stand for an eastern and a western Canada, but I say that if eastern Canada is to develop it will be because the western farmers are prosperous. Then, it is time that we should unite and do our utmost in their interest. It may be a bold statement for me to make but I think that I can say that anything for which I stood when I was in Opposition I stand for to-day as a supporter of the Government.
I took a strong stand on the great question of the Hudson Bay railway because I thought it was in the interests of western Canada, and I took strong ground on the question of Government operation of terminal and transfer elevators. I always claimed that it made no difference about the ownership, that it made no difference who owned these elevators, but that the important thing was as to who controlled the operation of them. I was in favour of a commission, and I find, in looking over ' Hansard,' that the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) seems to have been very much of the same opinion as I was myself, only I went further. My hon. friend's opinion at that time was that this board should be rather an investigating board and that, if this board found it necessary in the best interests of the farmer, that we should have government ownership and operation, then we should have it. But he did not go as far as I did on that point because I believed that we should have government control and operation of these terminal elevators. If I did not believe that the Government, which I have the honour of supporting to-day, were sincere, that they
were not making a fair and reasonable beginning in this important work, I could not justify myself in the great agricultural constituency which I have the honour to represent if I did not oppose them. But I believe that they have done their utmost and that, beginning with the board, they have tried to select the best men they could get to regulate and carry on this work. I am ready to give these men a trial. I believe the Government is sincere. They have already done considerable in putting up an elevator in Port Arthur which will, hold, I understand, about
4,000,000 bushels of grain. I am very much in sympathy with the idea of erecting interior terminal elevators. I have not the slightest idea that there will be one placed in my town although I believe the Board of Trade have taken steps in that direction, and, of course, it is a very important town. But let us have these elevators throughout this western country where they will do the most good to the greatest number of farmers. It should not be necessary to make an experiment. In so far as I am personally concerned, I still stand where I stood in the contention that government operation is the best thing for the farmers. I cannot tell you how much it will cost; it is not my place to find out. It is the duty of the Government to find out how much it will cost and to find the best way in which to conduct this work. I .am willing to believe that the Government is sincere, that they intend making an honest and true test of this matter, that they intend to go on with the building of terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William, and that they will look into the question of transfer elevators. These, with internal terminal elevators, will be, I think, of great service to the farmers of the West.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I desire to ask the hon. acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Perley) some questions in connection with his announcement; but before doing so, I would_ like to say that the particular policy which has been announced will be accepted by the farmers of the West as an attempt to relieve the conditions that exist there at the present time. I would also say that the farmers still feel that the promise of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), in favour of the government control and operation of terminal elevators at the head of the lakes should be carried out. During my political campaign I found quite a number of Conservatives who were very anxious that reciprocity should be brought into effect, but they were held to the Conservative party by the promise that if the right hon. gentleman came to power he would give them relief by the provision of these government owned and operated



elevators at the head of the lakes ? They felt that that would help them and the fact that it was promised to be speedily provided also held them in line. But I have talked to some farmers about government-owned and operated internal elevators and I have found them more or less in sympathy with it because they want relief." I ask the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce whether 'this relief will come this year, and whether some of these elevators will be built and provided for the farmers so that they will be of service in the handling of the crop of this year. I have heard it said we had no difficulty in the past year in the handling of the crop, and I believe the crop was handled better than in the previous year, due to the fact that the crop was in shape for harvesting earlier and the season was better for sending the grain out of the country. But at the same time there was congestion at many points in western Canada, possibly due to local difficulties. I know that in my own constituency farmers have driven from forty to fifty miles into a marketing centre and were not able to dispose of the grain at the elevators at these points because the elevators were filled. That is a great inconvenience. If these internal elevators help to relieve the congestion it will be of some assistance to the farmers, but they still expect further relief from government ownership and operation of the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur. I would ask the minister if at these points where storage elevators are to be located, there will be a fully equipped inspection similar to that at Calgary and Winnipeg, and whether there will also exist a survey board and provision for a sample market.


George Halsey Perley: There will be weighing and inspection in and out of these elevators exactly as the act provides for terminal elevators. There is no intention at present of supplying a survey board at all the places where we may put interior terminals; the survey board is provided for in the Act and we have not made any provision to change it. I have been asked whether the grain board has advised the building of these interior terminals and I am happy to say we are following the advice of the Board of Grain Commissioners in that matter as we will try to follow it in all important matters in connection with this great subject of handling our western grain. As to Mr. Castle, I wish to say that the department is exceedingly sorry that Mr. Castle saw fit to resign. A recommendation was made by the board in their report last January that an elevator superintendent should be appointed, who would be the executive officer of the hoard, having charge of licensing, bonding, insurance and so forth, and the intention of the minister and of the board was to place Mr. Castle in that position if he had not made up his mind to Mr. BUCHANAN.
resign from the service. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Jones as a member of the Board oft Grain Commissioners, a most careful investigation had been made regarding his history and qualifications. I will not take the time of the committee to go into the matter very fully, but I will read two extracts from letters which have been received in connection with Mr. Jones. The following is an extract from a letter pf C. B. Piper, secretary of the Empire Elevator Company, Limited:
The charge on which this conviction was obtained was for making false returns, and Mr. Jones had nothing whatever to do with these. They were made out at the office while Mr. Jones simply occupied a position with us as a salaried employee of the elevator. With regard to the alleged mixing of grain by our company at 'that time,*** Mr. Jones had no control over and was in no manner responsible for it. Allow me to add that in any case there is absolutely no ground for attaching any blame to Mr. Jones in connection with the old charges as he had nothing to do with them; he was never prosecuted and did not appear in the case in any way.
This is an extract from a letter written by Mr. T. A. Crerar, president of the Grain Growers' Grain Company:
From what knowledge I have, I think the appointment of Mr. Jones should be an ex* cellent one. As a result of his experience he should bring to the board a wide knowledge of the different phases of the grain business and should make a very valuable addition to your board.
Some hon. member has truly said that the board was appointed for the purpose of giving fair play to the owners and growers of grain and to protect them so that there would be no unfair manipulation as against the farmer. It seems to me that a man_of Mr. Jones' capacity and experience was very much needed on this board in order that the board might understand the methods and ways of the elevator men and: thereby be better able to see that the elevators were carried on fairly and honestly and that fair play was given to the owners of the grain. I have no apology whatever to make for the appointment of Mr. Jones to this position. A great deal of pains was taken to make sure that he was a fit and proper'man for the office and I believe he will give satisfaction to all who are interested in any way in the growing and handling of grain.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Is it the intention of the Government to construct some of these elevators this year?


George Halsey Perley: I would not like to make any promise that cannot be carried out. We have not yet got so far as to discuss that. The supplementary estimates have not yet been brought down but I may say I have recommended to my colleagues that

an item should be put in these estimates for this purpose. Until the estimates have passed and become law it would be impossible for us to take even preliminary steps. I can assure my hon. friend that it will be gone on with just as promptly as possible.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister make any provision for a sample market at Moose-jaw?


George Halsey Perley: I have not had time to
take that matter up with the Board of Grain Commissioners; Dr. Magill only arrived here this afternoon. I did, however, send a copy of ' Hansard ' to the board in order that they might know what was said on the subject and take the matter into consideration.


William Erskine Knowles: Failing that the minister will at least give Moosejaw one of the terminal elevators?


Frank Oliver: There are matters in connection with this whieh T think-should be discussed most fully. May I remind the minister that there is specific provision in the Bill for the creation of a survey board at two points and not at other points. If he contemplates establishing an interior terminal elevator at any point other than these two, I should think it would be necessaray to have a survey board at that point in order to have efficient operation; and provision would have to be made in the Act for that survey board.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend knows
that there is no survey board at Port Arthur and Fort William at present.


Frank Oliver: The grain is not inspected there, but at Winnipeg, where the board is situated. However, I do not wish to argue the point, but to bring out the facts. If it was contemplated to establish interior terminals and to have a survey board, provision would have to be made in the Bill. I understand the hon. minister to take the view that even if an -interior terminal should be established it would not be necessary to have a survey board for that particular locality.
I wish to draw the attention of the minister and the committee to the fact that, aside from the merits of the principle of interior terminals, a great deal of the benefit that is to result will depend on the regulations which govern. The reason I make these remarks is that some of the hon. members who have spoken, said-I think the Minister of Public Works has mentioned it-that the establishment of these interior terminals would have in view the settling of a milling industry at these points. Now if this is to be a policy for the benefit of the milling industry let it be so stated; if it is to be a policy for the benefit of the railroads by enabling them to use their
313i
rolling stock more economically, let it be so stated; but if it is to be for the benefit of the farmers, the Administration will have to have that object in view singly and solely. And while it is not necessary, I presume, to provide any legislation, yet it is in -the last degree important that the regulations which shall apply to these interior terminals shall be so framed that the benefits shall not accrue to others rather than the farmers, if this policy is to be for the farmers' benefit.	[DOT]


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why not for both?


Frank Oliver: If it is for the benefit of the farmer it is properly also for the benefit of the miller and railway company .and everybody else.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The mills being
there will help the farmer.


Frank Oliver: Precisely, if they come
there on fair terms. But the trouble is that in this wicked world each interest is endeavouring to get a little bit of advantage; so I am taking opportunity at this early stage of the proceedings to point out to the minister that, while this establishment of interior terminals, will, no doubt, give proper advantages to the milling industry at these points, it would be objectionable from my point of view if that should be made a consideration in framing the regulations governing the handling of the grain at these points. My principle is that the producer of the grain is the person who most needs the protection of this Parliament, and by protecting the producer you must benefit every other class of the community. Every class of the community is entitled to such benefit as may be reasonably secured by the improved conditions of the farmer, but it is not entitled to benefit at the expense of the farmer. So, I say, I can easily understand how these interior terminals may be made very much to the advantage of the milling industry, very much to the advantage of the railway companies; but these institutions and organizations will take care of their own interests; it is the business of the Government and of Parliament to see that the farmers get whatever benefit there is by reason of the regulations that are passed with regard to these elevators.
My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works laid some stress on the argument that by the establishment of interior terminals the farmer would be saved from the individual storage of his grain. My hon. friend does not appreciate the situation at all. The establishment of initial elevators will help the farmer in the storage of his own grain, but the establishment of interior terminals would not help the farmer in that particular. If it is desired to give direct help to the farmer in the matter of storage, the way is to increase initial

storage facilities; the interior terminal elevator is to help the transportation of grain, but not the storage so far as the individual farmer is concerned.
Now, if I am not trespassing too much on the time of the House Committee, I would say further to the minister that there is not only the responsibility of the Government in handling the grain at the head of the lakes-though that after all is the big thing in the handling of our grain- but it was contemplated by the Grain Act introduced by the late Government-and the provision still stands in that Act- that there should be quite as efficient supervision of the grain for the preservation of grade at the transfer elevators and through the whole process of transportation between Fort William and Montreal as at Fort William itself. Now, it strikes me as being as important a duty as the Grain Commission have to perform, to take care of the transfer points for the purpose of preventing the undue mixing of grain and thereby the deterioration of the sample as it reaches British markets. I urge upon the Government and upon the board that while their effort towards improving the transportation facilities from the initial elevator to the terminal at Fort William is quite in line with the welfare of the country; yet, as an experiment-and I do not wish to be understood as endorsing this proposition as being a remedy of itself for difficulties now existing-I am willing to see it pass and to give the Government credit for trying that experiment. But let not that lead them from the responsibility of taking care of the preservation of the grade at Fort William, and not only at Fort William but all along the line of shipment to the hold of the vessel in Montreal.


George Halsey Perley: I am sure the board
will give attention to the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton. I am glad he approves of the Government making the attempt to solve the problem in connection with the transport of grain in the West, particularly in the fall of the year. I understood him to put a question a short time ago as to whether this policy was put forward by the Government in . any way to assist the milling industry or the railroads. I can assure my hon. friend that the sole and primary object we had in view in suggesting the building of these elevators was to help the grower of grain to get his returns as quickly as posi-sible, and in the most satisfactory manner. It is very likely that milling industries will grow up near these terminal elevators, because the millers will always have an adequate supply of grain, but no condition whatever will be attached to the building of these elevators at any particu-Mr. OLIVER.
lar point. We hope that milling industries will spring up around them, but our main consideration is to assist the grain grower. Nor are we bringing in this policy for the purpose of helping the railroads. The hope we entertain is that the building of these elevators will primarily help the grower of grain, and sec- * ondarily assist the milling industry and the railroads, because the owner of grain will have a better chance to market bis produce in a satisfactory manner.
At six o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock, and again went into Committee.


Frank Oliver: There seems to be a conflict between .section 1 and section 2. Section 1 amends section 24 and provides that the chief inspector shall have an inspector's certificate, while section 2 refers to section 44 and provides that such chief inspector shall not require a certificate.


George Halsey Perley: The object of the change is this:	The chief inspector must have an
ordinary inspector's certificate, but when he is appointed to the office of chief inspector, which is a business appointment, requiring different qualifications, he is not required to go before the Board of Examiners again for a further certificate.


David Bradley Neely: Does not the minister
recognize that there might be cases where this change might prove very, harmful. For instance, I cannot see anything to prevent the board taking a man who had years before been an inspector but had since left the service of the department, had perhaps engaged in some other occupation so that he was no longer really qualified as an inspector and appointing him chief inspector. Ought not the chief inspector to be subject to a special examination in order that it may be ascertained that he is qualified for the particular work?


George Halsey Perley: The object of the certificate in the first instance is to be sure that the man knows how to grade grain properly. That examination is carried on by a board of examiners as provided in the Act. The chief inspector, when appointed, must have an ordinary inspector's certificate. He must have a great many other qualifications such as business ability and the capacity to manage men. For these qualifications it would seem that the best authority to examine him is the Board of Grain Commissioners, not the Board of Examiners. The Board of Examiners is made up of

gentlemen engaged in the trade in Winnipeg and it hardly seems reasonable that they should be called upon to judge the qualifications of a chief inspector, provided always that he has had an inspector's certificate.


Frank Oliver: I am still at a loss to see why the change is made.


George Halsey Perley: Under the amended Act, the inspector must still have received an inspector's certificate from the Board of Examiners but he is nit called on to pass an examination as chief inspector before the Board of Examiners. The clause as it reads in the present Act would look as if the Board of Examiners were the proper authority to say whether he was fit in other ways to be chief inspector, which we think should be left entirely to the recommendation of the Grain Commission.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will perhaps appreciate it more clearly if it is put in this way; the chief inspector must have an inspector's certificate, hut he need not have any other certificate.


Frank Oliver: That is the idea which
seems to be expressed by the section as it stands.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty arises in
this way. Section 4 provides that chief inspectors, inspectors and deputy inspectors shall be appointed only from among duly qualified persons certified as such by a board of examiners, as hereinafter provided. It was thought that a reasonable intention of that section might be that the person selected must have not only a certificate as inspector, but a certificate also as chief inspector. This merely provides that he need not have any other certificate than an inspector's certificate.


Frank Oliver: I think that is a very
strained construction to put on the section. When a gentleman is assuming the important duties of chief inspector, it is no, derogatory to his dignity or to the dignity of his office that at that time he should pass a technical examination before a board of examiners in respect to the grading of grain.


George Halsey Perley: As inspector?


Frank Oliver: That is all that I read in this section, that he must pass an examination as inspector, and I submit it is a strained construction to put upon it.


George Halsey Perley: Sections 44 and 24 have to be read together. Section 44 says:
No person shall be appointed as chief inspector, who has not been examined by and received a certificate of qualification to act as chief inspector.
It is not intended that he should have to get another certificate from the board of
examiners, but simply that he should have-a certificate as inspector.


Frank Oliver: I can understand thenecessity of amending section 44 as my hon. friend reads it, but I do not see the necessity of amending section 24.


Levi Thomson: I wouldsuggest that if the meaning is as was suggested by the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, the section should be put in a different form, so as to provide that each inspector shall receive a certificate as inspector. A lot of this wording could be cut out, I think, if tne minister would take the trouble to redraft the sections, as they are very confusing and will lead to confusion. I quite agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), that at the time an inspector is about to be appointed chief inspector he should pass an examination. If I read the section properly, though it is so confusing that I doubt whether anyone can read it properly, that would be unnecessary. I understood the acting minister to say that it should not bo necessary, but perhaps I was wrong.


George Halsey Perley: As proposed, the first subsection of section 24 will read as follows:
Chief inspectors, inspectors, and deputy inspectors shall hold office during pleasure, and shall be appointed only from among duly qualified persons certified as such by a board of examiners as hereinafter provided. Such certificate however, other than an inspector's certificate shall not be required in the case of a chief inspector.
Surely that makes it perfectly clear.


Levi Thomson: Will the acting minister undertake to say that a man who had received an inspector's certificate could not be appointed chief inspector without an examination ?


George Halsey Perley: Certainly he could. II
four men have been working for years as inspectors, the intention is that the board may pick out the business man of the four as chief inspector, and accept the certificate which he had received as inspector.


Levi Thomson: Suppose he had received that certificate ten years previously.


George Halsey Perley: If he had been working as inspector for the whole ten years, my hon. friend would not object.


Levi Thomson: He might have been,
and he might not. I can understand men engaged in law or in some other profession objecting to pass a professional examination in later years, but it seems to me that no person who is to act as chief inspector should have any objection to another examination before he is appointed. The


&quot;9907 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
examination he would have to undergo would be of a technical character to'test his capacity to properly inspect grain. That capacity is very apt to be reduced by age. The chief inspector should be as thorough an expert as any man under him.
David Bradley Neely: What has been the practice up to date when a chief inspector has been appointed? If he held an inspector s certificate, has it been the practice to insist that he undergo another examination before a board of examiners ?


George Halsey Perley: Chief inspectors have
been appointed without any special examination whatever, so I am informed.


Frank Oliver: Then it must have been
contrary to the Act.


George Halsey Perley: I am informed that was
the custom in my hon. friend's time. I am not saying this by way of criticism, because I see the practical difficulty of carrying out these sections, if construed strictly. We have no intention to alter the spirit of the Act at all; the intention is merely to make that particular point clear.


Frank Oliver: To my mind the amendment as proposed is merely confusing, and not clarifying. If the acting minister would leave section 24 as it stands, and in section 44 strike out the words ' chief inspector ' where they occur the second time in line 4,


Robert Laird Borden: That would not do.


Frank Oliver: That would leave the person appointed chief inspector subject to examination by a board of examiners as an inspector, not as a chief inspector, and that is all we ask for.


Robert Laird Borden: This amendment distinctly says that he must have an inspector's certificate.


Frank Oliver: Section 44 does not.
Amended as proposed, it distinctly says he does not require an inspector's certificate.


Levi Thomson: If clause 44 were
amended by striking out the words ' chief inspector' where they last occur, and also the words ' deputy inspector,' I think it would answer the purpose, because then you would merely call for an inspector's certificate. There is no reason why a deputy inspector should have a different examination from an inspector. I think there should be one examination, an inspector's examination.


George Halsey Perley: I cannot quite understand the difficulty that my hon. friend has regarding these changes. I do not think it is absolutely necessary that the qualifications of an inspector and a deputy inspector shall be the same. With reference to section 44, Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).
a man might be appointed a deputy inspector, but if he were going to be an inspector, hp would have to have an inspector's certificate. I do not think that necessarily the qualifications would be exactly the same. We do not want to alter that provision and we want to relieve the chief inspector from any special examination by a board of examiners except that which entitles him to the certificate of an inspector.


Frank Oliver: That is exactly what I
would wish but my contention is that by striking out the words ' chief inspector ' from section 44 of the Act you would relieve the chief inspector from passing the inspector's examination which is, I think, entirely objectionable.


James Albert Manning Aikins: A deputy inspector cannot be appointed chief inspector on the examination and certificate of a deputy inspector under the reading of the section as the hon. member for Edmonton suggests. The intention of the Bill is that there should be a certificate given to an inspector on examination and a certificate given to a deputy inspector on a different examination, the qualifications not being the same. The purpose of the amendment seems to be that a chief inspector should not require any other certificate, or be required to pass any other examination than that of an inspector and the amendment proposed would carry out that idea. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton would scarcely do it, unless, as has been suggested, he would strike out the words ' deputy inspector ' so as to make the inspector of certificate and examination the same for a chief inspector as for a deputy inspector. The amendment contained in this Bill will carry out the idea that the Government has.


Frank Oliver: Does the minister insist
on the amendment as it stands?


George Halsey Perley: I think that, having regard to section 24, it is perfectly plain. As far as section 44 is concerned I am still trying to understand the argument of my hon. friend.


Levi Thomson: Would
the minister have any objection to allowing both of these sections to stand over until he should reconsider them, or is it very important that they should pass tonight?


George Halsey Perley: This Bill has already
been passed through the Senate but we were unable to introduce it here for technical reasons; I have the chairman of the board here to-night and it would be impossible to bring the Bill up again before next week. I would like to have, it passed to-night but I would like to have it right all the same.


Frank Oliver: As long as we have the
assurance of the minister as to his understanding of the provision, and as he informs the committee that a chief inspector cannot be appointed except he holds a certificate as an inspector-


George Halsey Perley: Certainly.


Frank Oliver: That is his understanding, and, as he has the amendment of the Act, we will accept it.
On section 2-section 44 amended; inspector's certificates:


David Bradley Neely: Are the inspectors and
deputy inspectors' certificates just the same?


George Halsey Perley: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that possibly the difficulty will be removed if you adopt this amendment as it is and add to section 44 these words:
No person shall be appointed as chief inspector unless he holds an inspector's certificate.
That would make it plain beyond any possibility of doubt.


George Halsey Perley: That is to be added to the proposed amendment to section 44 of the Act.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister object to making it so that it would provide for a certificate being granted on examination when appointed?


George Halsey Perley: I do not think that would be fair.


Frank Oliver: Very well; I think it
would.


George Halsey Perley: I think that when a man has acted as inspector for twenty years it would be a very extraordinary thing to subject him to an examination before a board of examiners who would probably not know as much as he would himself.


Frank Oliver: The board of examiners is composed of men who are engaged in the trade, who have expert knowledge with respect to the transaction of their own business and are necessarily absolutely up to date with their information. I think it is only proper that whoever is appointed to this high and responsible position should be up to date.


George Halsey Perley: I would like, with the consent of the committee, to suggest that, in order to complete these changes, section 40 of the Act should have the words ' chief inspectors ' left out in the fifth line.


Frank Oliver: Agreed.


George Halsey Perley: I would move that clause 2 of the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following words:
No person shall be appointed as chief inspector unless he holds an inspector's certificate.


Levi Thomson: Would
not that be added to section 44 as a subclause?


George Halsey Perley: It does not need to be a sub-clause; simply put another sentence to section 44 of the Act.


Levi Thomson: Well, it should be added to section 44.


Robert Laird Borden: The clause will read as follows:
Section 44 of the said Act is amended by striking out the words ' chief inspector ' in the first and fourth lines thereof and by adding thereto the words ' no person shall be appointed as chief inspector unless he holds an inspector's certificate.'
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-section 47 amended; commercial grades:


Frank Oliver: Would the minister say what the purpose of this section is?


George Halsey Perley: By section 47 of the present Act provision is made for arranging commercial grades. From the reading of the section it would appear that this had to be done every year. This. amendment simply privides that if the changed conditions do not necessitate the commercial grades being altered every year, the grades made in 1912, for example, shall apply to 1913 without necessitating calling the board to re-enact and change the commercial grades.


Frank Oliver: Is this amendment recom. mended by the Grain Commission? My understanding is that the commercial grades are fixed because of the special conditions applying to the crop of a certain year. There is no possibility of identical climatic conditions occurring two years in succession. Therefore, it goes without saying that commercial grades fixed without regard to the results of special climatic conditions in a certain year cannot in actual fact be applicable to the results of climatic conditions in the fol'owing year. The proposed amendment, with all due deference to whoever suggested it. is, I think, a mistake.


George Halsey Perley: I am informed that there
have been years when the conditions did not alter sufficiently to make it necessary to provide for different commercial grades. In section 47 it seems to have been intended to make it imperative that this board should be cal'ed together every year to make commercial grades. This alteration

is suggested by the Board of Grain Commissioners, as have all other alterations proposed. It would still be within the discretion of the chief inspector and the members of the standards board to call it together every year if it should be considered necessary. The commercial grades will not be carried over from year to year unless it is proper to do so. There is no intention of enforcing commercial grades when they do not apply to the new crop, but if the conditions are the same as in the previous year, would the hon. gentleman think that the grain survey board should be called together to re enact the commercial grades of the year before?


Frank Oliver: Adequate statutory provision is made for the grades under ordinary climatic conditions!; the special provision for commercial grades is only made, so as to meet extraordinary climatic conditions. I will admit there is a possibility of the results of the climatic conditions of one year being the same as those of the previous year, but anybody who has lived in the West as long as I have will come to the conclusion that there never are two years exactly alike. It is well-known that a bad season there is exceptional, but the weight of evidence is that the contention that the grades may safely be continued from one year to another is not substantially founded. I speak from personal experience in this and I say theTe is nothing that requires to he so carefully guarded as the grade standard; there is nothing that lends itself to serious manipulation so readily, and the introduction of commercial grades, being an absolute necessity under special conditions, it is just as necessary that that requirement should be safeguarded as it is that the statutory grades should be safeguarded. The minister rests upon the judgment of the Board of Grain Commissioners. I do not want to suggest fr a moment anything derogatory to the good judgment of the board-


George Halsey Perley: I am afraid I have not
made myself plain. Section87 provides that this Grain Standards Board may be called together whenever the Chairman of the said board is notified by the chief inspector or five members of the said board that such a course is necessary. Unless it is conceded on all sides that the seasons are the same and that these commercial grades can consequently remain the same, it is within their power to call the board together every year. I am told there have been two years _ that were exactly the same, and this section simply removes the obligation that the members of the board shall be called together every year unless the grain inspector and five members of the board think it is necessary.
Mr. PERLEY.


Frank Oliver: I will not insist, but I want to be very emphatic on the point that in the grain business the man who produces and who has to sell cannot afford to trust the man who is going to 'buy, and wherever it is possible to give statutory protection it is desirable that that protection should be given. The commercial' grades fixed for a certain year should not be made applicable automatically tn the conditions of the following year.


Levi Thomson: I would
like to press the same matter as the hon. member for Edmonton has referred to- that it is not wise, on the contrary it is unsafe, to carry over an extraordinary grade from one bad year, or, if you like, one exceptional year, to another. This section is only intended to apply to exceptional and extraordinary years; and, as the hon. member for Edmonton has said, there are very seldom, if ever, two extraordinary years of the same character. The minister claimed that there were two in western experience.


George Halsey Perley: I did not say there were not more than two.


Levi Thomson: And I did not say the hon. minister did say so. But he said there were two, and if there were two I think that is about as far as we can go. In my experience-and while I am ready to pay all due respect to the commission, I do not believe that they know one bit more about, this subject than the farmer who has been farming for the last thirty years, and I doubt very much if they know as much- I have never found two extraordinary years, one after another for which the same samples should be used. How are we going to find out what these extraordinary grades should be? There is only one way to find that. You cannot find it by newspaper reports. The only way is to get the board together and have them examine samples from all over and find out what grades these should be. There is no use in -stating that in an extraordinary year it is safe to go on without a board meeting. It would be utterly unsafe and unwise. The effect of this section might be in the m'inds of officials that it would be safe to go on without a board meeting. But it is unsafe, and the minister would be well advised to drop this section.


George Halsey Perley: I do not want to insist
on the section if it is unwise. I suppose the hon. member himself knows what happened. The board was not called together one year, and section 87 was not put in force. Neither the chief inspector nor any five members of the board saw any necessity for calling the board together. But that year, as there had been no meeting, it was questionable whether the grades, which were being inspected the same way as the previous year, were legal-whether the

buyer in England could be forced to take them. All we want to do is to provide that under these circumstances the old grades shall be legal. Just as in the case of a board of directors, it may be provided that there shall be an election every year, but if there is no election the existing directors hold office until successors are appointed.


Levi Thomson: With all due respect to the board, who did not call themselves together, I think they were wrong and were taking too much upon themselves. I think the legislation should be in such shape that they must be called together.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I would suggest to the
acting minister that the word ' special ' should be inserted before the word ' grade.' Making it read:
3. The special grades selected under subsection 1 of this section shall be the commercial grades until changed.
Hon. members will see that section 47 provides:
If a considerable portion of the crop of wheat dr any other grain for any one year in any division has any marked characteristics which exclude it, to the prejudice of the producer, from the grade to which it otherwise belongs, special grades may be established, therefore in the manner hereinafter provided, and shall be called and known as commercial grades.
The grades under discussion are special grades, as covered by this section 47.


Frank Oliver: Our objection is the
same. If there are special grades we claim they should be provided each year on the conditions of that year. Just for the purpose of emphasizing the position- the minister will understand that the producing country is about eight hundred miles in length by some four hundred in width at one point; that the conditions vary greatly throughout that territory; and that the conditions which prevailed in a certain year in one part of the country do not prevail in that part of the country in another year but may prevail in some other part. It might be assumed on the opening of the market in the new season that the conditions were the same in a given part of the country because they were the same in some other part, whereas the conditions would be entirely different in the part first referred to. I maintain that the only safe way is to provide for a re-examination every year. That is the only protection the producer has, and the year in which the provisions of section 47 are called into play is the year when the unfortunate producer wants all the protection the law can give him.


George Halsey Perley: There is no intention by this clause to prevent the board from meeting every year.


Levi Thomson: We want to make
them meet.


George Halsey Perley: This part of the Act is
as it has been for years, and as it was administered by hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not criticising it, but only saying that this is nothing new. In one of the years some time ago during the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, no board was called together. There are thirty-five or forty members of this Grain Standards Board, but in that year there were not even five who thought it necessary to call the board together. But when they failed to have a meeting there was a question as to whether these grades were good legal grades to tender to the buyer. We only want to do -away with any uncertainty. Any five members of the board can call it together, and it is after samples of the crop come in that they decide about getting together to make commercial grades. I think the horn, member will find that it will work out all right. The hon. member for Brandon suggests the insertion of the word ' special ' before the word " grades ' in the second line of subsection 3. I think that would make it plainer. I merely wish to assure hon. gentlemen that there is no intention of suggesting to the board that they shall not get together, but only to make provision in case for some reason they do not meet.


Frank Oliver: The fact that the board
failed to do its duty some years ago under the late Administration has no bearing upon the present case. Since that time, I presume because of the fact that under that system there were occasions when everything was not done as it should have been, it has been the mind of Parliament, and of the late Government, to appoint a board of grain commissioners and confer upon them extraordinary power and authority. If there is not in any enactment in regard to this matter a provision that the board shall meet when it is required to meet, certainly the Act should be amended so that this provision shall be included.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend is wrong; they did not fail to do their duty.


Frank Oliver: I understood my hon.
friend to say they did.


George Halsey Perley: They did not meet, but
the Act simply states that they shall meet only when the chief inspector or five members of the board consider that such a course is necessary. We simply want to provide that if they do not meet, the old grades shall be legal until they are changed.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


George Halsey Perley: I beg to move that the
Bill be amended by adding thereto the following section as section 1 (a):
Section 40 of the said Act is amended^ by striking out the words ' chief inspectors ' m the fifth line thereof.
That is mereljt to cover the point which has already been discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 4-inspection and weighing elsewhere than at terminal and regular inspection points:
David Bradley Neely: In the sixth or seventh line of the new section it is stated:
The board, if satisfied that such an appointment should be made and that the applicant is a responsible person, may order such arrangement as it deems proper.
There might be some shipping point at which the board might not deem it necessary to provide the services of an inspector and weighmaster, but the people of that community might consider that it was necessary; there might be a difference of opinion in regard to the matter. If the board of trade or any responsible body at that point undertook to meet the expenses of an inspector and weighmaster, I think it should follow that an inspector and weighmaster should be provided. In the case of smaller points, where two officials would not be necessary, I can see no objection to one individual's occupying the two positions. At some smaller points where it might be felt that the services of an inspector were necessary, and where the expenses were guaranteed, I do not think it would be necessary to have two officials, as one person might very well act as both inspector and weighmaster.


George Halsey Perley: Of course, there would
be no objection to the inspector's doing the weighing also if he were willing to do it, but I understand that there has been an objection on their part to doing the work of both officials. This legislation, however, would not prevent the making of an arrangement by which one man could do the work of both officials if he were willing to do so. As far as the other point raised by my hon. friend is concerned, I am told that the intention of the board in suggesting this amendment was that they should have the power to grant the application of every responsible person for the appointment of a special inspector or weighmaster, if all the conditions in connection with the matter were complied with.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I would suggest to the
hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) that the word ' may ' is the ordinary and proper word in such legislation. The purpose of the section is enabling; in other Mr. PERLEY.
words, to give them the power-it throws on them a public duty. The word ' may ' is the proper statutory word to use under the circumstances.


David Bradley Neely: I am glad to have that
explanation, and, as long as it is understood that the word ' may ' is intended to he imperative, I take no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-commercial grades:
Frank Oliver: This is subject to the same objection as the amendment to section 47 of the Act. Does the minister stand by this , section also?


George Halsey Perley: I really think my hon.
friend's objection is unnecessary. There is no intention of taking away the power to meet every year and no suggestion to the board that they should not meet regularly; it is simply to rectify any legal difficulty that might arise in connection with the grades if the board, for any reason, were not to meet.


Mr OLIVER:: That is to say, we are
putting on the' face of the statute a suggestion to these people that they need not meet. The statute should provide that, whenever commercial grades are needed, they should be provided, and that this board should meet as required, rather than convey the suggestion that it is not necessary for them to meet.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-section 109 of the Act repealed :
George Halsey Perley: Section 109 of the Act refers to corn shipped from the United States through Canada for export, and section 108 and following sections refer to United States grain. It is provided in section 110:
That standard samples for grain of United States production may be established yearly by the grain survey board of any division or district, and shall be known as the standards for United States grain of that division or district.
This under the law has regard to ail kinds of grain except corn. Section 109 establishes for corn from the United States the same standards that are provided in section 105 for Canadian corn and provides for a moisture test. It has been found that during parts of the year the American corn has more moisture in it than the test provided for under section 105 of our Act would permit and this moisture test is not enforced in any port of the United States except Philadelphia. Complaints have been made to us and I have letters from several shippers to the effect that they cannot ship American corn

through Canadian ports at this time of the year because there is more moisture in it than our tests permit. Repealing 109 alters in no way the Canadian grades, but simply permits the grain survey board to establish standard samples for United States corn in exactly the same way that it does for United States barley or wheat passing through Canada. By doing this we will make it possible to ship American corn through our poTts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-license fees:
George Halsey Perley: The increase in inspection fees was due, as I explained on the resolution, to the fact that the present fees do not yield enough to cover the cost of administration.


David Bradley Neely: It seems strange that
with the rapidly increasing volume of business we should have a condition of affairs when there is not a sufficient revenue to meet the expenses of administration. In the case of terminal elevators, for which I have no sympathy whatever, the fee is to be raised from $5 to $25 and in the case of country elevators and track buyers the fee is to be raised from $2 to $5. That is not the only increase, I understand that the Grain Commission has raised the fee for the registration of warehouse receipts from two and one-half cents to four cents and the same for outgoing certificates to the same amounts. We quite appreciate that all these charges ultimately come out of the farmers. It may be with the greatly increased business this is absolutely necessary, and I suppose we cannot take any serious objection to the increase. I have heard it stated that the deficit is in the administration of the eastern inspection division while the western inspection division yields a surplus. Can the minister give the information for which I asked at an earlier stage as to the increase in the number of officials since the appointment of the present Board of Grain Commissioners?


George Halsey Perley: I am informed that the board has one clerk and three stenographers and four travelling inspectors. I have not the information dividing the eastern and western division expenses, but that will be found in the report of the Board of Grain Commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-weighing out of terminal elevators :
George Halsey Perley: This provides that no
grain shall leave a terminal elevator without being officially weighed. The object is to keep the records in proper shape in order that the amount of grain on hand at the end of the year may be ascertained.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 200, to amend the Railway Act was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
On section 1-salary of Chief Commissioner :
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM: There is one thing in reference to this first clause to which I would like to call attention. I am not objecting to the increase of salary to the Chief Commissioner. I belong to the class who think that, if we are to get the proper men to do work of this magnitude, we have to pay them a good salary. My own opinion concerning the present Chairman is that he is a first-class man. I do not think that he was appointed for any political reasons, for I have known him for years, and I do not know if he is a Grit or a Tory. I know he is a man of ability who will do his work well. The point to which I desire to call attention is one wnich also came under my notice when 1 was Minister of Railways. We occasionally find that when a decision is given by this Board the press come out with a claim that it is a party victory, or something of that kind. Now, the poorest service that can be done, either to the members of the Board, or to the country, is for the party press, on either side of politics, to deal with the decisions of the board along that line. I speak advisedly, because, during my regime, I talked to one or two newspaper men who were inclined to do that sort of thing, and pointed out that they had no more right to claim that a finding given by the Board of Railway Commissioners was a party triumph, than to say that a judgment of the Supreme Court was. I want to urge upon the press that they are not doing the Government, or the people, or the Chairman of the board any good service in dealing with the board's findings in that way. This board is a court in a way. It is a court which has to give speedy findings and speedy justice with the minimum of red tape, to all classes of the community, and we should endeavour to keep it as such. I say this because there is an inclination in certain quarters to introduce red tape. I think that at the present time the board is doing good work, and I desire to say a word in favour of the present Chairman, because I think he is filling his position well. My object is to call the attention, not so much of the House, as of the press, to the undesir-
[Stage Direction]
ability of assuming that this board is doing party service, no matter which Government is in power. This board is as high above party as the judge on the Bench, and ought to be so considered if the people are to continue to have confidence in it. One can see at a glance how the board might feel a little timid in giving their judgments if a different idea were to prevail. I have observed that the press has adopted this attitude on one or two occasions during the present Government's regime just as it did when the late Government were in power. It is an injustice to the board, and it is not calculated to do service to the public.
Robert Rogers: I entirely
appreciate the statement which my hon. friend has been good enough to make, and, might I add, that we give full credit to hon. gentlemen opposite for the formation of the Railway Commission of Canada. In addition to that, I want to say that, on this side of the House, we have always appreciated, as the country has, the men who have been selected since the creation of the Railway Commission to fill the important position of chairman of that body. When it was our misfortune, and the misfortune of the Canadian people to lose the valuable services of Mr. Judge Mabee, who had won in the hearts and affections of the Canadian people a place seldom occupied by any public man in the public service, and the responsibility rested upon the present Government to select a successor to Judge Mabee, I can assure my hon. friends opposite that, since we came into power, we have had few tasks that were more difficult to fulfil than that of finding some individual to fill the place made vacant by the death of Judge Mabee. I appreciate the statement of my hon. friend, for I can assure him that the question of politics, or of anything connected with it, was not considered in regard to the selection of a successor to J udge Mabee. I do not know, nor have I ever heard, what the politics of the present Chairman of the Railway Board are, but I did know, from what I had learned of his ability and qualifications before he was selected, that he was a likely man for the position, and I am glad to know now that, during the time he has filled that position, he has done so with credit to himself, and,
I believe, to the eminent satisfaction of the people of this country. I certainly endorse every word that has been said by my hon. friend f'om South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) that it is a most unfortunate condition that any section of the nress, on either side of politics, should undertake to question the judgments of the Railway Commission, because I think the members of that board, one and all, from the first day thev were appointed, have invariable
' Mr. GRAHAM.
been above any question or consideration of political influence, on one side or the other. For my part, and I am sure I voice the sentiments of members on this side of the House, as well as that of members on the other side, I hope the day is far distant when that board will lose its weight and influence in this country by reason of any attacks that may be made upon its members by the press on either side of politics. They are doing a noble work and a great service for the people of Canada, and it is due to them that the members of this House should have a thorough knowledge of their work and of the difficulties they have to contend with, and they should uphold their hands and give them a fair opportunity of discharging to the people of Canada the duties which, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of every hon. gentleman in this House, they are now performing to the entire satisfaction of the people, and with credit to themselves.


George Perry Graham: I forget the state of the statute with reference to a retiring allowance. I remember distinctly that when Judge Mabee accepted the position the Act was altered to make the clause applicable to him as though he had remained on the bench.


Mr. COCHRANE:: That was done with
reference to Judge Killam arid afterwards in regard to Judge Mabee, but it is not provided for in regard to any of the others, nor, so far, in reference to the present chairman.


George Perry Graham: They do not last long at that work.


Francis Cochrane: No, that is right. _ I
think there should be something done with reference to it another year.
On section 2-section 168 amended; alteration of railway, or change of divisional points, &c.; compensation to employees:


Mr. WEBSTER:: Mr. Chairman, I am
quite free to admit that I am in most hearty accord with the proposal that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) has seen fit to bring before the House as regards compensation for railway employees whom the companies may see fit to move from a divisional point on their line to another location. I was pleased indeed the other day to see the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) bring this matter forward and to hear him intimate that we would have his support for any measure of this nature. All I regret is that the hon. gentleman did not experience that change of heart some little time ago, for if he had done so possibly the town which I have the honour to represent now would

not be placed in the unfortunate predicament in which it finds itself in consequence of the fact that the Grand Trunk Eailway Company are threatening to move their divisional point from Brockville to Prescott. Brockville has been a divisional point of the Grand Trunk railway for fifty-seven and a half years, but in the wisdom of some of the higher officials of the company, they now purpose moving it twelve miles east to Prescott, which is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction among the employees of the company ans also on the part of The merchants and business men of Brockville. It is no wonder that it is causing great dissatisfaction. Some of these men, by industry and economy, have managed to secure for themselves and families, comfortable little homes. In that town which I have the honour to represent, there is $100,000 worth of assessable property owned by Grand Trunk railway employees. You can quite readily understand what will be the result if the proposed change takes place, which change is solely in the interest of the company.
The town of Prescott has seen fit to offer some very large concessions to this company to change their divisional point. These railway employees, to hold their positions, will be compelled to move. Many of them have been residents of our town for thirty years. They have helped to make the town what it is to-day, namely, one of the finest little towns that there is in the Dominion of Canada. We are very loath indeed, to lose these railway employees, because amongst them are some of our very best citizens. They have been foremost in every endeavour that has been put forth to make Brockville the fine town it is and to enable it to hold the high position which it holds to-day. These people are most comfortably situated there, they have every possible advantage that they have in a city like Ottawa or Toronto, outside of a street car system. We have the very best schools that can be provided, an excellent collegiate institute, a fine separate school, very beautiful churches, and two of the best managed hospitals in Canada, good cement sidewalks and pavements, a first-class, up-to-date theatre, a first-class system of sewerage, water-works, gas plant, light plant, parks and all the other advantages which are found in the larger cities; not to mention the fact that Brockville is situated on the beautiful St. Lawrence and at the foot of the Thousand Islands. When you take into consideration that these people must give up all those comforts and advantages, it is a most serious question for them, and I must congratulate the minister upon his introduction of this change in the Eailway Act providing that these men shall receive
some compensation for being compelled to deny themselves all the privileges which they now enjoy. My hon. friend the Minister of Eailways and Canals lhas only held the position which he now occupies for eighteen months, but he has had time to . give this matter his serious consideration and I am quite prepared to agree with the President of the Board of Trade of the city of Halifax in stating that in the person of the present . Minister of Eailways and Canals the railway interests of the country will be most judiciously handled. I extend to him my most hearty congratulations upon his action in proposing to Parliament that some compensation should be afforded to railway employees under circumstances such as I have described. The experience of the railway men at York has been very unsatisfactory. What do we find at Carleton Place, where men have struggled for many years to obtain a home? To-day you can buy out their properties at a discount of from thirty to forty per cent on first cost. That is the unfortunate predicament in which these men are placed. If this divisional point is removed from Brockville it means that the railway employees who are compelled to sell their homes will suffer severe loss.
I referred a moment ago to concessions offered by the town of Prescott to the Grand Trunk railway to remove their shops. I would ask you to consider for a moment who is going to pay the cost of the concessions? It is not only the people who are residing there at the present time but the people who go to make their homes there in the future. These men who move from Brockville have already contributed their share, they enjoy all the facilities which they have helped to provide and it is a great injustice to them to ask them, contrary to their will, to pick up their possessions and move to a town which does not offer them nearly the same advantages as they have in their own town at the present time.
These big corporations that we have in this country should not receive all the consideration that we have to bestow. I think the railway employees who have served the corporations for a long period of time should most certainly receive some of the consideration that the Government is prepared to offer to the labour interests of the country. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what calling in life is there to-day like the railway service in which a man can work so long and lose the results of his industry and devotion to duty in a moment, and by one mistake may prove fatal to his future prospects. I have known men who worked for twenty-five or thirty-five years and who, through one little mistake, just one slight error of judgment, have lost their situations, have lost their reputations and

have been thrown out upon the world at a time of life when they were little able to adapt themselves to new conditions. The life of a railway employee or a trainman is none too good at any time. Let us look back and see what has occurred on the main line of the Grand Trunk railway between Montreal and Toronto during the last year. How many of those good, noble fellows have gone out into the darkness of the night from their wives and families and have never returned? I have heard people say that railway men are the best paid in the world, but I have had some experience in working upon railways myself and I can say that they earn every dollar that they are paid, and some dollars that they are never paid. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Railways is taking these matters into his consideration. I most heartily support this clause of the Bill which offers to these railway men some consideration for the loss they may experience. In my constituency there are possibly one hundred men who are deeply interested in the removal of the Grand Trunk terminal and they are much dissatisfied at the thought of leaving their present homes. If it is thought fit by the company to remove these men for the benefit of the company and for the benefit of the company alone, then in justice the men should be compensated. A railway employee who has a grown up family will possibly have four of his children working in some of the many hives of industry in Brockville, and he must either take his children out of employment when the terminal is changed or leave them behind. That is hardly fair play to a man who has been among the best and most respected citizens of Brockville, and if the company is going to receive concessions from the town it is to move its terminal to, it is only fair play that in turn the men should receive some compensation from the company. I most heartily support the Bill.


George Perry Graham: I will not follow my hon. friend (Mr. Webster) in his criticism of my action or my inaction as he no doubt meant to call it. The situation at Brockville is the growth of the last few months; it was not in contemplation when I was Minister of Railways; it had never been dreamt of and no suggestion of the kind had been made then.


John Webster: I have heard of it for
the last five years.


George Perry Graham: I have not heard of it
and I was in close touch with railway affairs when I was minister. I might perhaps retaliate and say that if conditions had not changed in Brockville it would never have been heard of, but I do not wish to retaliate.
Mr. WEBSTER,


John Webster: You could have exercised your authority.


George Perry Graham: It was not needed that I
should exercise any authority at that time. However, this is too big a question to bring it down to a local issue, and it is immaterial to the railway men who does it so long as it is done. If we can get a scheme worked out under which the railway men who are placed at a disadvantage when terminals are moved, shall be compensated by the railway companies, then no matter who brings about that desirable condition and no matter who claims credit for it or wants to claim credit for it, I suppose the railway men are not very much concerned so long as they are treated justly. I pointed out some weeks ago here, it is not only the town of Brockville that is affected, but there are Carleton Place and one or two other places on the Canadian Pacific railway as well as some points in the West at which similar conditions prevail. As the country grows and trade expands, there may be reasons why railway companies should move their terminals, but if these reasons are good the companies ought be able to maintain their case before the Board of Railway Commissioners, and they should then be obliged to pay the cost including any loss that may be incurred by the men. I agree with my hon. friend from Brockville (Mr. Webster) as to the losses in many ways, not to speak of the deprivation of old time surroundings which railway employees experience when terminals are changed. I have been criticised by the press of Prescott for introducing my amendment, but I can assure the Minister of Customs I was not trying to get a drive at Prescott; I was trying to do justice to the railway men at the various points at which such a change is or may hereafter be contemplated. The fact that this Bill becomes law will not stop a railway company from moving its terminal if it can make out a good case for doing so, and ;if it does it should bear the expenses, whatever they are, including the loss to the men. I would suggest to the Government that the same rule should be followed on the Government railways wherever men a change is made, and I have no doubt the Government will do so, following the principle laid down in this Bill. I approve of the Bill now introduced by the Minister of Railways, but I would not like to admit that it is as good as my own Bill and I will point out why. The Bill introduced by the minister makes it arbitrary that the board shall say what the loss is to the men, whereas my Bill introduced leaves it optional for the men and the company to come to an agreement without going to the board, and the intervention of the board would only be invoked in case of difference.


Francis Cochrane: This Bill does not prevent that.


George Perry Graham: If the company should prove a little stiff it -would prevent it. The Bill I introduced said that in case of disagreement between the men and the company the board should fix compensation, but this Bill says that in case of the removal of a divisional point the company shall compensate its employees as the board thinks proper.


Mr. IOWLER:: Under this Bill the board would have to be asked to interfere1.


George Perry Graham: No, the company goes
to the board and asks, not only permission to move the terminal but to fix the amount of loss to the employees. Under my Bill the employees could go to the company privately and perhaps they could make a better arrangement with the company than they could obtain from the board.


George William Fowler: There is nothing to prevent that in this Bill.


George Perry Graham: Except that the company would make an application direct to the board and the employees would have no redress.


George William Fowler: But if they agree there
would be no appeal to the board.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend does
not appreciate my point. Under my Bill it was left open to the company and the employees to agree and the board could say they would not interfere in the case until the parties failed to agree, but in the Bill submitted the company can go at once to the board and ask for its decision.


Francis Cochrane: That helps the
weaker side.


George Perry Graham: Pardon me, I think it
helps the stronger side. These men want to remain in the employment of the company and they may be old employees who might get better treatment for special causes. Under my Bill, the company could privately make an arrangement with its employees, and the board would not interfere, but under this Bill the company is in a position to appeal to the board to give a decision without trying to come to an agreement with the men. If I were a railway employee, I would prefer to be free to discuss the matter with the company and try to come to an agreement before being obliged to appeal to the board.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Suppose a railway
company makes application for a change of terminal and they state they have agreed with their men, then, under this Bill, the Railway Board could say: that is all right; we are glad you have relieved
us of the responsibility of deciding that question.


George Perry Graham: Yes, but the company
is not likely to do that when the law states it is part of the duty of the Railway Board to determine the amount of the loss. For example, in fixing the price of light or electrical energy the statute says that in case there is a disagreement between the purchaser of the electrical energy and the producer, then only shall the board be asked to settle it. It is left open for
an	agreement to	be arrived	at	before	the	board	is appealed	to	atall.	That	would	have the effect,	it
seems to me, of putting it in the statute that they are supposed to come to an *agreement, and if they cannot, then they come to the board. It leaves the final court open, but, with the suggestion that they are expected to come to an arrangement. If I were an employee, I would prefer that; I think the employee would fare a good deal better with a settlement, as a rule, than with the matter taken to the board direct and made subject to order in the first place.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman does not give credit to the company for the intelligence which is possessed by most companies that manage railways. The company would naturally try to arrange the amount of compensation with the men themselves, so that there might not be an arbitrary decision but a chance to get together and argue the question back and forth. If they could get an arrangement, it would be more satisfactory than to have the matter settled arbitrarily by the Board of Railway Commissioners. There can be no question but the company would try to come to an agreement. Why? Because, in the very nature of things they would prejudice their case with the Railway Commissioners if they had made no effort in the first place to make a satisfactory arrangement with their men. So, it seems to me to be better to leave it as it stands rather than to change it as proposed by the hon. member.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend agrees
with me exactly. But it is under the amendment I propose that the company would prejudice their case before the board if they had not tried to make an arrangement.


George William Fowler: They would, in any
case.


George Perry Graham: Under the Bill as proposed, they would be merely standing on their rights, for the Bill does not suggest that they should come to an agreement. But I think it will be in the best interests not only of the men but of the company

that they should first try to come to an agreement.


George William Fowler: I understand the hon.
gentleman proposes to strike out the section and substitute his own.


George Perry Graham: No.


Francis Cochrane: Only making a suggestion.


George Perry Graham: I think two or three
words would fix it. My suggestion is that it shall read:
It shall be made a term of every such order that the railway company obtaining the same shall pay all losses sustained by its employees who may be obliged to change their place of residence from one municipality to another by reason of the change of any such terminal or divisional points.
Then, I add this other clause:
In ease the company and its employees do not agree upon the amount of such loss, the hoard will determine the amount thereof.
The only difference between the two practically is that I make it part of the statute that in case they do not agree the board shall decide. The Bill of the Government provides that the board shall decide without any other proviso. It might [DOT]work out as my hon. friend says, but I submit as a practical matter that mine suggests to the company and the employees that they should endeavour to come to an agreement before referring to the hoard, and that this will promote and facilitate an arrangement. Practically it is a direction of the statute that they shall come to an agreement before they appeal to the hoard. The Government Bill provides that the hoard shall make the order, giving consent to the removal, and at the same time stating the amount of the loss. That would be a quicker way for the company, I suppose, but I think the employees in that case would not have as good an opportunity as through a private negotiation with the company. There is practically no difference except the direction that I propose in the statute to the parties to endeavour to agree.


Mr. LANCASTER:: I would point out to the hon. member for South Renfrew what I think is a misapprehension on his part as to the effect of the Bill introduced by the Government. It has a merit which, I think, he does not quite see. In my advocacy of this matter I seek the same thing that the hon. gentleman seeks. But I would like to point out wherein the Bill introduced by th: minister is best for the men concerned. The Bill as introduced does not say that the board shall only fix the amount of loss. It is a wiser provision than that. It says that compensation shall be as directed by Mr. GRAHAM.
the board which is a much better and wiser legislation than the board undertaking to go to Brockville, or Winnipeg or anywhere else, and acting as land valuators to fix the price of each house affected and the amount of loss upon it through the removal.


George Perry Graham: Read that section.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister's Bill
reads:
-and where a change is made in the location of a terminal or divisional point the company shall compensate its employees as the board deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence necessitated thereby.
That is not limited to fixing the amount. It also gives the 'board power to direct the manner in which the compensation to be paid shall be ascertained. The board could say: Go to the county judge, or to some other arbitrator, to settle the damages and then they would make an order, just as in the case of extraordinary expropriations.


George Perry Graham: Does the hon. member
think that that proves exactly what I say -the employee would not be in as good a position if the county judge could be appointed-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman is -I do not say wilfully-interfering with my argument; I will come to that. I am talking of the proposition of the minister's Bill, and it strikes me as better than the hon. gentleman's. His proposal would require those men and the company to agree as to each individual's damages before any application could be made to the board to change the terminal which might be absolutely necessary in the interests of transportation in the country. Under the hon. gentleman's Bill the board would have to settle the damages of each individual man. That would be cumbersome and I think it would not work out properly. But the provision in the minister's Bill is practically the same as in the case of ordinary expropriation, as, for instance, in additional station facilities. The company is not allowed to expropriate as a matter of course, but must get the permission of the board, but the board will say how the damages shall be settled. The board is to say that the company shall compensate the owners of the land that is expropriated, and the manner in which compensation shall be made. This board does not settle what the damages are; they simply direct the manner in which the damages shall be assessed or ascertained. This, as I understand it, is the object of the Bill of the minister that the board shall settle the manner in which all damages resulting from the order allowing the terminals to be moved from one place to another, shall be ascertained. There is no interference with the . trans-

portation facilities or the business of the railway company requiring the removal of the terminal, and the individual having an order from the board as to the manner in which he is to prove his damages, goes to the tribunal named by the board and proves his damages in a much cheaper and less troublesome way than he could by having the board determine each individual case before they make the order. I am in favour of the Bill if for that reason only; I think it will work out to the benefit of the men, and provide that they shall get their compensation in a cheap and satisfactory manner.


Mr. W. A. CLARKE (North Wellington):: I only rise to express myself as being in accord with the views presented to the committee by the previous speakers. With reference to what has been said in regard to the men, I quite agree with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr Lancaster) that the company shall not abandon any divisional point without compensating its employees for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence. I think it is good legislation, and that the carrying into effect of this Bill will at least place a restriction upon the company in this regard. Living as I do in a town where possibly three-quarters of the inhabitants are in some way connected with railway employment, apart from what might be considered to be wholly in the interests of the men, I am deeply interested in this matter for the reason that, as our town is a divisional point, we supply the Grand Trunk Railway Company with water and electric power. The water and electric	power	of	that town	areowned by the municipality, and if they should	happen to	move the	terminal away	from	our town at	anytime in the near future, it would be a great loss to	the	revenue of	the
municipality. On the other hand, the company has always had a certain weapon to hold over the heads of the men in the municipal council. Whenever it was proposed to make an agreement for the supply of water or electricity, the railway would say that if the municipality did not concede to their suggestions, as made by their officials, they would move the divisional point at once to one of the neighbouring towns. I myself have been at council meetings during the course of which such suggestions have been made. I think the clause inserted in this Bill will have the tendency of restraining the company from being so anxious to remove their terminals as readily as if it were not a distinct loss to the company, and thus avoid a serious injustice to all employees.


Francis Cochrane: With reference to what the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), has said as to the company being more favoured than the men, I must say that I cannot agree with him.


George Perry Graham: I did not desire to convey that impression.
Mr. . COCHRANE:	Suppose you had a
company that was wholly unfair, and took absolutely no interest in the men, it is quite reasonable to assume that they might bring a good deal of pressure to bear on the men, and might say you shall do so and so; you shall take so much. I thought it would be fair to both parties to provide that the railway company should be the one to settle. I have sufficient confidence in tne Railway Board to believe that both parties shall receive fair treatment at their hands, and I think this legislation will be in the interests of the men as well as of the railway company.


George Perry Graham: I did not mean to reflect on the companies at all. If this provision were not in the Act, the general practice would be for the men and the company to get together; the men would agree with the company as well as the company with the men. The men can always go to the board if they cannot agree, the board is there to protect them. I have had some conversation with railway men with regard to the matter of leaving it quite open to the men to suggest to the company that a settlement might be effected without going to the board. They seemed to be rather inclined to think that they would prefer to have it suggested by the statute that the matter might be settled without going to the trouble of applying to the board. As to the remarks of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) I do not think the Minister of Railways has his idea in mind at all; the object is to get rid of all this red tape in connection with the payment of compensation. I think the idea of the minister was to hand the matter to the board to settle. If he had thought for a moment of providing under his Act that the matter should be handed to a judge to settle, I do not think the minister would have introduced his Bill, because that would still involve all the roundabout methods which the employees are certainly so desirous of avoiding. It might as well be subject to the ordinary arbitration Act as to be done in that way. It has been thought advisable to extend the authority of the board to say that the terminals shall not be moved without their approval. That being the case, everything incident to that removal should come under authority and control of the board, and one of the things incident to that is the loss sustained by the employees. If anything, I would be inclined to stand by the idea of the minister rather than that of the hon. member for



Lincoln, in order to avoid getting the employees into trouble.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think the
hon. member for South Renfrew yet understands either the minister's Bill or what I tried to say. inis Bill of the minister says that the company shall not remove these terminals unless the company compensates the men in the manner directed by the Board. The matter does not require any arbitration; it requires simply that the board shall stipulate in what manner the men shall be compensated. That does not stop the board from saying they shall send their officials down there to look into the matter as they would look into the question of level crossings. The hon. member for South Renfrew is continually talking about his great faith in this board, but I believe he is afraid of them.


George Perry Graham: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He should show his faith in this board; I am showing mine by saying I will trust them to see that the men get their compensation in the cheapest and most satisfactory way. We all have faith that the board will do this. The minister's Bill says that, but the Bill of the hon. member for South Renfrew does not. It says that these men must go through the form of agreeing with the companies, and only when they fail to agree shall the board be allowed to intervene. The poor man-I use the word not in a disrespectful way

the poor man has got to try to agree with the company, and is obliged to enter into an argument and controversy with them about land values and everything else before the authority of the board can be invoked at all. I want to avoid that, and I think the minister's Bill will avoid it. Whether or not the minister's Bill was intended to avoid it, I am satisfied if it has that effect. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) wants to have it done in an easy and cheap way for the men. He has the same faith in the board that I have. The minister's Bill does not require them to go through the form of dickering with the company, wondering whether they are going to be promoted or interfered with in their run or anything of that kind according to how they deal with this matter. He leaves everybody free and the board decides the manner in which the compensation will be made, always provided that the men and the company do not ajgree. As the hon. member for Kings-Albert (Mr. Fowler) says, there is nothing here to prevent the men and the company agreeing. The minister's Bill requires that the order allowing the removal of the terminal shall prescribe some way in which the men shall be compensated. It does not say that the board shall only fix the amount of compensation to be given. Does the hon.
Mr. GRAHAM.
member for South Renfrew think that the board will value every man's property who may be affected by the moving of the terminal? He knows that the board would not do that, that they would appoint someone to do this or direct a certain way in which it should be done. I said incidentally that if there were many concerned a county judge could be called on, perhaps, as he would be called on to fix damages for loss of property. But that is not necessarily done and the board is simply to prescribe the way in which it shall be settled. If we all trust the board as we say we do we can leave it to them to devise the cheapest and best way to compensate the men for any loss they may have sustained.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member has
confirmed my argument in every detail and he has proved my case better than I could on account of my lack of legal knowledge. What I objected to and what he ran away from is the fact that the board would select a county judge.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I did not say that.


George Perry Graham: I am glad he took that back, it makes it better. That is the objection I took to his remarks. The board are the tribunal who can arrive at a solution of this matter in the quickest and most inexpensive manner. What I did object to was if he was going to send it to the county court judge. Then you would hardly know where it might end and expense entailed in that kind of proceeding would be altogether beyond what the minister deems proper. I am glad that my hon. friend has made my argument so clear.


John Dowsley Reid: The town of Prescott has been mentioned. The hon. member for South Renfrew stated that he had not heard of the change from Brockville to Prescott of the Grand Trunk shops prior to the notice having been made by the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the town of Prescott. I think it has been discussed for some years. There have been rumours that there might likely be a change of that kind. I rose more particularly to say that I think the papers in Brockville and probably the people in Brockville blamed me for having had something to do in connection with getting this change made.


George Perry Graham: They suspect you, I
suppose, I would not like to say that they blame you.


John Dowsley Reid: I want to tell the hon. member for South Renfrew and the people of Brockville that I never heard a word about the change until I saw the agreement published in the papers in Prescott and Broek-ville; I had nothing to do with it, I never

interviewed any of the Grand Trunk people and I was surprised when I saw the notice in the newspapers.


George Perry Graham: Agreeably so.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course I am sorry for
the men who have to leave their nice homes in Brockville. Brockville, as was stated by the hon. member for Brockville, is a nice town, with good schools, theatres' &c.; there is no doubt that Brockville is one of the nicest towns on the St. Lawrence, but still I think Prescott is an even nicer town than Brockville.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid you are
prejudiced.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a nice town opposite where the people can go across backwards and forwards and we have good schools and everything I think about good as Brockville.


George William Fowler: Any moving picture
shows?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, we have moving picture shows. And when it is necessary for those railway employees to move we are glad to have them in Prescott. The change, as I understand, is an act of the Grand Trunk simply for their own benefit and advantage. So far as this Bill is concerned, I am glad the Minister of Railways has introduced it and I hope it will go through. When the men are compelled to move from Brockville to Prescott or any other divisional point on any railway where changes are being made I think it only fair that they should be treated justly. I consider the Bill as submitted meets the case fairly well. If not we can amend it at some future session. I think it should be given a trial as it is now.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: Did it
not appeal to the Minister of Railways when the hon. member for Brockville was making his very able and eloquent argument on behalf of the employees of the Grand Trunk that the employees whom he had under him and who were deprived of their situations were equally entitled to consideration? I thought as I listened to the hon. member for Brockville making his very eloquent appeal that the Minister of Railways was touched to some extent; knowing him as a man of warmth of heart and sympathy, full of the milk of human kindness, I could see that he was impressed with the picture painted by the hon. member for Brockville of these men who had struggled so many years to make homes for themselves, being thrown out of their homes, and their property rendered of comparatively little value and the great hardship that would result to them. Hence the introduction of this Bill which is a very good step, but did it occur to him that along the Intercolonial
314J
those men he has dismissed have had their property depreciated in value

,	What have dismissals
to do with this Bill?


William Chisholm: The principle is the same. You are compensating these


The CHAIRMAN:: I suppose the hon.
member is not going into a long discussion.


William Chisholm: No, I am just trying to draw an analogy between the case of these men and the men dismissed on the Intercolonial. The principle is the same, these men wno have built up homes and are compelled to abandon them, suffer in consequence of the change and in the case ot the railway men compensation is to be made. Now, what about the people along the line of the Intercolonial railway who n,ot,oal{ *lave had their property depreciated but have been thrown out of employment altogether? I submit that there ought to be some way for the Government to compensate these unfortunate people just as well as there is a way to compel the Grand Trunk Railway Company to compensate employees who are not dismissed but are merely obliged to move from one place to another. I know that the minister will see some way of affording relief.


George Henry Bradbury: There seems to be another phase of this question besides the case of the railway men. In my own constituency a railway came into a district and the fact that the railway divisional point was there, built up a town, business men came in there and invested money, they in-stahed an electric plant, and had a prosperous little town. They had a theatre and three or four churches. While the Bill protects the rariway men, which I am quite satisfied is right, at the same time if a railway company can move its terminals away from a town of that kind it is not only the railway employee who is injured but all the business men who had come into that town and invested money there. The question arises in my mind how far a railway company should be allowed to move its terminals from point to point and whether the permission of the Railway Commission is sufficient to protect the public in general I think there should be .some provision by which a man who goes into that town grows up with it, invests his money in it! perhaps employs a few hundred men, per-naps builds homes for the railway employees, should be safeguarded. If the railway terminal is removed and the railway employees have to leave the town, his business and property are depreciated, and his electric plant is not worth two cents on the dollar. To my mind this is a very big question and there ought to be some safeguard in the interests of the
9'J'J5

men who have their money invested in such towns.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: I wish to emphasize
what my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) has said. I am entirely in accord with the principle of the Bill which I think is along proper lines. To my mind it is very moderate in its terms, and not more than just. There is no doubt that railway companies sometimes find it necessary to move their terminals. Perhaps in large centres, like Toronto or London, the railway men would not have the same serious objection to move, because the property they hold might not depreciate in value to any great extent. It is in the small towns or villages which have been practically created by railways that the removal of the terminal is felt, and, as the hon. member for Selkirk has said, the public in general suffer. I have in mind a town which was created by the railway, and many other businesses have been built up there. Men have invested their all in the town and if the railway company were to move their terminal, they would practically move the town, as there is nothing else to keep business gp-ing on. The Bill as it stands provides that permission must be obtained by the railway company from the Railway Board to move their terminal, and I do not think there is any danger of the Railway Commission allowing a railway company to do so where it would destroy the whole town apart from the effect it would have on the railway men themselves. As I have already said, I am entirely in accord with the Bill.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for Brock-ville, who declared that he had been employed on a railway, I may say that I have been all my life mixed up with that class of population. I must at first congratulate the Minister of Railways for having introduced the present Bill, with respect to clause 2. The county Which I have the honour to represent has also a section of railway, which employs from 250 to 300 men. It is true that it belongs to the Government, but I hope that the principle on the eve of being adopted by the companies be applied to all the Government system.
There is, however, one theory I cannot approve, and that is the increase of the salary of the chairman of the Railway Board. It appears to me that, since a few years, there is something like a race after higher salaries, especially among those who are already very well paid.
In 1906, the law had fixed the salary of the president of that Board to $10,000, and that of the other members of the same Board-because, then, there were only three Mr. BRADBURY.
-at $8,000 a year. That was already a very reasonable and very snug salary. However, two years later, in 1908, the law was amended, and, without considering the salary of the president, that of the vicepresident was raised to $9,000, and the number of commissioners was increased by the nomination of three others with a salary of $8,000 each. To-day, by a new clause, the salary of the president of the Board is raised to $12,500.
Well, I do not think that those gentlemen can show the amount of work that could justify such salaries. I have worked myself during ten years for $400 a year, and I am sure that I then worked a good deal harder than those gentlemen.
It is true that these gentlemen are recruited among the legal profession, and as the great majority in this House belongs to that profession they take good care of themselves; but, among the working classes, where life is so hard and so besought with difficulties, I am sure that protestations are heard on all sides against that constant increase of salaries in favour of a few privileged who are already too well paid.
I stand ready to support an amendment cancelling that clause.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must remind the hon. member that he is discussing the first clause of the Bill which is adopted.


Herménégilde Boulay: Very true, but they have made too short work of it. Those who are seated like me on the back benches-I make no reproach to any one-cannot always follow what is going on, because we find it hard to hear What is said. It has sometimes occurred to me that I tried to have the floor, and did not always succeed to have my turn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member can make his observations on the third reading of the Bill.


Herménégilde Boulay: Very well, I will then see to it.
Bill reported.
On motion of Mr. Cochrane that the Bill be read the third time.


Herménégilde Boulay: As I was saying a moment ago, the seat I occupy in the rear presents this disadvantage that it is not easy to foLlow what is going on in this House. That was why I did not hear the Chairman calling for a vote on the first clause. Was it because he did not speak loud enough, or because my seat is so far that I cannot hear very well, I am at a loss to know.
As regards the salary of the President of the Board and of the Railway Commissioners, I was saying that I think those salaries are already too high, and I cannot

see the necessity of giving another increase of $2,500 to the President of the Board.
It is certain that those gentlemen are not giving, for every day, an hour of steady work.
I heard last night the member for Montcalm call attention to the fact that the members of this House are not paid as they should be. He was certainly right, because those among us -Who can work are -working ten times as much as each of those Commissioners. And, still; we only get $2,500. It is true that our salary is dignified by being called an indemnity; but, still, we are spending here our time, our energy, and even our money, all for that pitance of $2,500.
I cannot see why the members of that Board should not be satisfied with the salary they get to-day.
There is another thing I notice in the composition of that Board. There are actually six Commissioners, and only one of them is a Ffench-'Canadien, and I am not aware that the five others understand French. I do not even know if the secretary of the Board speaks French.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I beg pardon to my hon. friend, but I must inform him that there are two secretaries, one of whom is Mr. Primeau, of Montreal, whose language is French. He has been appointed at the time that the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Graham) was Minister of Railways.


Herménégilde Boulay: Another commissioner
was lately appointed, and there could not have been a better occasion to render justice to our compatriots. I hope that, at the next opportunity, justice will be given to our French-Canadian compatriots.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have the greatest
esteem for the hon. member for Rimouski, but I believe my duty is not to let pass the affirmation he has made that the members of the Railway Board were scarcely working an hour a day. It would certainly be unfortunate to let our people remain under such an erroneous impression. I may say to the hon. member that, in my quality of jurist, I have often had to plead before that Board, and I can assure him that the Board works a good deal longer than an hour a day.
There is not a member of this House who will believe what he says. He is speaking of something which he does not know. The Commissioners are working as hard as they can. JTiere is an enormous business to handle, and their responsibility is considerable. The congratulations tendered to the preceding Government, for having created that Board, were certainly well deserved. The Board has to decide questions of public interest which present an extraordinary importance. For instance, the Board regulates the rates which are being imposed on the public by great corporations. It is then extremely important that there should be there men eminently qualified. This House has had the occasion to hear both leaders on the two sides express themselves as being perfectly satisfied, not only with the present Board, but with the Board constituted by the preceding administration.
If we consider that those Commissioners are giving all their time to their work, and that they were earning formerly from $20,000 to $25,000 a year at the time they were practising their profession, it would be unfair not to pay reasonably the enormous services they are rendering to the country. I desire to make my attitude perfectly clear on that question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For the first time, I
entirely agree with the hon. Postmaster General. However, the opinion I desire to* express on that measure is entirely of a personal nature, and does not bind any one-but myself.
If the hon. member for Rimouski was following the discussions of the Railway Board, he would realize that we have there the most important tribunal to be found in Canada. The constitution of that Board has been by far the most important act of which the preceding Government has the responsibility.
Formerly, the contests which arose between the citizen of several provinces, living in cities, villages and parishes crossed by our system of railways, were relevant of a committee of the Privy Council composed of three members, who were the Minister of Railways and two of his colleagues. That committee would sit when it had time.
As my hon. friend of Rimouski is aware, ministers are very busy. It is not possible, for the ministers, to manage the affairs of a country like Canada, without giving all their time to their official functions. The costs incurred by those litigations and the claims submitted to the committee were exorbitant.
Numerous complaints could be heard on all sides. It was then that the preceding Government saw fit-following here the example of the United States government, that had created the Interstate Commission-to create our Railway Board. In all parts of the country, the creation of that Board was hailed with joy, not only by the great companies, but especially, and above all, by the farmers, because the most humble among them, be they from the county of Rouville or that of Rimouski, may bring their claims before that Board, not at Ottawa, where the old committee of the Privy Council was sitting exclusively, but in the very localities where the Board goes . to hold its inquiries and where it renders its decisions almost " ins tan ter," reducing thus to a considerable extent the costs of litigation.
The present Board is now composed of

six commissioners, and the hon. member for Rimouski is surprised at seeing only one of French language. There are two secretaries, of whom one is French, Mr. Eugene Primeau, a young and distinguished lawyer, who was formerly in copartnership with the Secretary of State (Mr. Co-derre). Mr. Primeau was appointed by the preceding administration at the time that my bon. friend for Renfrew was Minister of Railways.
The hon. member for Rimouski can go to Mr. Primeau, and he will receive entire satisfaction; all documents and proceedings are printed in French, and I do mot know that anybody in the Province of Quebec has had so far cause for complaint as regards the French language.
Then, the hon. member takes issue about there being only one commissioner whosa language is French. It is Mr. Bernier, an ex-minister, who is vice-president of the Board. If my hom. friend takes into account, the fact that Canada is composed of nine provinces, and that the development of the railways goes on especially in the new provinces of the West, he will realize that, after all, we have our due proportion in the composition of that tribunal. At all events-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is getting some distance from the Bill. He is talking about the salaries of the commissioners rather than about the proposed amendment to the Railway Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am talking about the importance of the commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Bill refers to the business the commission may do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The first clause provides for increasing the salary of the chairman and my hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. Bouiay), was complaining that the salary proposed was too high and that the members of the commission were not justified in getting such large salaries for their services. I am agreeing for once with what my hon. friend Postmaster General has said.
. At all events, the chairman of the Board, in askjng the hon. member for Rimouski to believe that my observations have 'been made in good faith, and not with the object of quarrelling with him. All I wanted was to inform him. It is well that he should know from an official source-and in the same time from a Liberal source-that the Railway Board has met the views and the unanimous approval of the public.	*
I do not know wdiat may have occured in Rimouski, but what I do know is that in the region of Montreal the Board gives the greatest satisfaction.
As to the knowledge of the French language by the other colleagues of Mr. Ber-Mr. LEMIEUX.
nier, I may say that those men are among the most eminent we have, and that Mr. Scott speaks and understands French very well. Mr. Drayton, I think, also understands French, although he does not speak it fluently.
At all events, the chairman of the Board, as was Judge Mabee, now deceased, to the great loss of this country, is a man of the most eminent order, who has occupied the highest position in the Bar of Ontario. As the legal adviser of the city of Toronto, he was receiving $14,000 a year. He has accepted, through public spirit, the chairmanship of this Board, and at a salary inferior to the one he was receiving before.
I cannot too much extol the merits of that Board, and I approve everything which may tend to the improvement of its mechanism. At all events, I know that the farmers of the Province of Quebec, in the name of whom the hon. member for Rimouski pretends to speak, have no better friends than the members of that Board. But, let me say again, all that I have just said is merely my personal opinion.


Mr. PROULX:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any necessity for increasing the salary of the chairman to $12,500. There will be a large difference between his salary and the salary of the other commissioners. The vice chairman gets a salary of $9,000 and in that case there will be a difference of $3,500. The other commissioners receive $8,000 and the difference there will'be $4,500. In the Supreme Court the Chief Justice receives $1,000 more than the other judges and in the provincial courts the chief justices receive only $1,000 more than the other judges. It will create discontent among the other commissioners if the chairman receives a salary so largely in excess of what they receive. I do not agree with what my hon. friend from Rou-ville (M. Lemieux), has said. I do not think there is any necessity for such a large increase. .


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question P
If the hon. Minister of Railways should see fit to grant him the dismissal of Mr. Brady, he might perhaps withdraw his opposition to the increase of salary of the chairman of the Board.


Edmond Proulx: Are the chairman's travelling expenses paid?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, the travelling expenses of all the commissioners are paid.


Edmond Proulx: Is there any living allowance when he goes outside of Ottawa?


Francis Cochrane: They travel on a car.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, I would desire, as the hon. member for Rouville to give

my approbation to the measure now under discussion, and say to the member for Ri-mouski, as the hon. Postmaster General has already told him, that he spoke of something which he does not know, when he went so far as to say that the Railway Board had nothing to do. He ought to know that the Railway Board hears numerous complaints which oome from all parts of the country. When farmers are suffering from some grievances, the Board has to attend to them. We must not forget that the duties of the members of that Board are the discussion and examination of technical questions of the greatest importance, questions of tariff, questions of transport, etc., and very often those discussions last during whole days. The members of that Board have then a great responsibility, and we can never give them too much in return, because it is necessary to have there the best men we can find. That Board was created for the protection of the great mass of the people, and especially the farmers, in the name of whom the member for Rimouski has pretended to speak.


Herménégilde Boulay: I am happy to have given, for once, to the hon. members fox Rouville and Three Rivers, the occasion to sympathize with the hon. Postmaster General-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The honorable member is out of order because he has already spoken.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 186 to amend the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1912.- Mr. Crothers.
On section 3-time extended:
Mr. MACDONALD:: Would the minister
explain the effect of this Bill?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: This Bill provides for
extending the time for exercising the right granted by the original Act of 1908 to persons domiciled in Canada who served with the British forces in South Africa in 18991902. The original Act gave until the 31st December, 1910, for locating scrip. The time was extended in that year until the 31st December, 1911. An Act was passed last year extending the time again until the 31st December, 1912. This Act proposes to extend the" time ^till further until the 31st October this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why do you say October and not December?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I might re.pl iy by asking why should I make it December instead of October?


Rodolphe Lemieux: December is the end of the year


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We want to get to the end of this thing, if we can. This Bill places the original grantees and their substitutes in the same position in every respect; the Act of last year limited the right to substitutes to locale the scrip up to the 1st of January, 1912. The Bill of last year provided that anyone having scrip might surrender it and receive in cash $500, and several have done so. But this Bill opens it up to them to locate the two adjoining quarter sections if they so chose, notwithstanding the surrender. I think they will take advantage of that rather than surrender for $500, because the right is worth a good deal more than that. So, this Bill proposes to put them all on the same footing-the original grantee, the substitute and any who may have surrendered scrip. All wiil have the right to locate the two adjoining quarter sections.


Frank Oliver: How many of these rights are still outstanding?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Somewhere between
200 and 300. About 53, I think, have surrendered. But these will be in^ a position to make their location if they chose to do so.


Frank Oliver: Have any difficulties
arisen in the case of those rights that are scheduled under the two previous extensions? In certain cases scrip was lost and there was a schedule attached. Has any complication arisen in such cases?


Mr CROTHERS:: None that I have heard of. My hon. friend from Edmonton will know why they were specially reserved.


Frank Oliver: Yes, there was a possibility of difficulty arising, and I wondered whether the provision made was sufficient to cover the case or whether complications had arisen.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No.


Frank Oliver: When the Bill was up for consideration, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) was good enough to say that he would advise there should be no further extension. Of course, the Minister of Public Works is not directly in charge of the Bill; and it would be very gratifying to the House, I am sure, if the minister in charge of the Bill, if that is his view also, would state that view to the House.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think that is the
view generally entertained-that this extension should be the last; and I am prepared to promise, that, so far as I am concerned, there shall be no further extension.


Frank Oliver: I had occasion to remark before that there has been a very unfortunate opportunity for speculation arising out of the several extensions. Allowing bygones to be bygones, I would certainly urge that now that this extension is being made and such declaration has been made by the minister in charge of the Bill and by the Minister of Public Works-I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, but the purpose will be served-that a public declaration be made that will be ample notice to everybody, and then, after the 31st of October next, no person will have ground for complaint and anybody who has been speculating in this scrip, either by depressing the price unduly or by waiting to dispose of it at a profit, will stand to lose. I think the provision put in the Bill last year that the scrip might be redeemed in cash was a very proper provision. If the amount offered to be paid is not considered adequate, now is the time to change it. For my own part, I think it is a fair amount under the circumstances and might well be allowed to stand. But let the word go out on the part of the Government that thip matter is absolutely closed.


Robert Rogers: I entirely agree with
what has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I now repeat what I said the other evening-that I for one, and as far as I can influence the Government, am prepared to state that there will be no further extension of time in any respect in regard to this scrip. I think we have already had too many extensions and that it must not be expected by those holding the scrip that they will be given any further extension whatever after the 31st of October next.


Frank Oliver: In order that there might be no excuse for further extension the suggestion made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) might be considered. A man may be holding his scrip in the hope of locating it, but at the last moment he may not be able to locate, and he will be debarred from getting the cash. If an amendment were made to allow, say thirty days after the expiration of the right to locate the land within which the person might apply for the cash, it would relieve the situation so that there could he no complaint after.


Robert Rogers: In view of the public
notice we are giving now in passing this Bill, I think that any person who is a holder of scrip, after all the time allowed and the various extensions that have been given, who does not take advantage of the opportunity afforded and have the scrip placed before the 31st of October, certainly deserves to lose; and I would not be pre-
Mr. CROTHERS.
pared to grant further extension of any kind or description.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.


INTER-IMPERIAL TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of the Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General) House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient, in connection with Bill No. 188, now before this House, intituled : f an Act to provide for more advantageous telegraph communication between Canada, the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire, to authorize the Government of Canada, if it deems it to be in the public interest, and under the circumstances and conditions set forth in the agreement in the schedule to the said Bill, to purchase the stations, apparatus, equipment and licenses mentioned in the said agreement.-Mir.' Pelletier.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
William John Macdonald: In view of the fact that the Marconi system has been in successful operation in Canada, why does the Postmaster General discard it and inaugurate this Poulsen system? Has the science of wireless telegraphy reached such a stage that where two systems are used there is no danger of one system intercepting the messages of another.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Nothing in this Bill
prevents the Marconi from doing business and being a competitor with this company. The only thing this Bill does is to provide for a new competitor and that competitor receives no privilege, no subsidy, and no monopoly. It is simply a question of having a competitor who will bring down the prices of transmission.


William John Macdonald: The minister has
not answered my question as to whether the science of wireless telegraphy has reached such a condition that there is no danger of one system breaking into the other and thus preventing secrecy. If there is any danger, why does the minister encourage this new system?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Clause 15 of the
schedule to the Bill reads:
The syndicate declares that it has no objection to the proximity of other wireless stations and guarantees that no other stations or systems will interfere with its continuous night and day operation.


William John Macdonald: That is what the
promoters of every new proposition would claim whether it worked out in that way or not. Has my hon. friend made the independent inquiry, and if so, with what results?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am informed that
probably some wireless companies would be interfered with if another wireless company had a station within a radius of ten or twelve miles of its station, and that is one of the reasons why this Ocean Telegraph Board is created, as one of his duties to say where these stations shall be located in order to protect the public and existing companies against possible interference. Under the existing law any company can operate in Canada, and until this Bill is passed there is no law to prevent any cable or wireless company establishing its business in Canada after getting incorporation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That this resolution be referred to the Committee of the Whole which w considers Bill No. 188.	*


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Robert Rogers (Minister of Public Works), Bill No. 204, to amend the Conservation Act-Mr. Borden -was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. W. Crothers, Bill No. 195, to amend the Railway Belt Water Act, was read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 15, 1913.