REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Railway Statistics of Canada for 1911.- Mr. Cochrane.

Mr. SPEAKER.: Having .been called upon yesterday suddenly to consider a motion upon the order paper re telephones in rural post offices, I gave a ruling that, upon more careful and. mature consideration, I am quite sure, would not be held to be well founded. I based my ruling of yesterday upon a motion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Btain) regarding tire placing of telephones in rural post offices mainly on the general principle that this resolution .appeared to involve a charge upon the revenue and must be considered in 'Committee of the Whole. A careful examination of cases, 'both in England and in this House, shows that where the ex-Mr. BORDEN.
penditure of public money is not directly involved, and the resolution merely expresses .an abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant, it may be introduced directly by a private member.
In looking at the authorities I find, in Canadian Commons Journals, 1892, page 133, on a motion moved by Mr. Denison relating to the .deepening of canals, which was of a very similar character and was afterwards withdrawn, no ruling was given. In Canadian Commons Journals, 1897, page 59, .a motion is. presented advocating a bonus on creameries. In that case it was a somewhat similar motion, but would tend more strongly towards a violation of the rule, as it proposed that 'a cent a pound at least should be given upon all butter manufactured in creameries. After that motion had been considered the debate was adjourned and no objection was taken to it. In Canadian Commons Journals, 1899, page 85, we have a motion with reference to indebtedness for seed grain. Mr. Davin, I believe, proposed the motion which, after being debated, was withdrawn and no point of order was raised. These, with a number of other precedents that I have looked up, justify me in. saying that my ruling of yesterday was not exactly sound, but while saying that I would like to quote Bourinot's remarks on the point, because it is a matter that I think the House should take cognizance of in the future. He says:
A practice has grown up in the House allowing the introduction of resolutions by private members, when they do not directly involve the expenditure of public money, but simply express an abstract opinion on a matter vThich may necessitate a future grant.
Then he gives the cases I have quoted here and proceeds:
As this is a question not always understood it may be explained that such resolutions, being framed in general terms, do not bind the House to future legislation on the subject, and are merely intended to point out to the government the importance and necessity of such expenditure.
Referring to this right of members to move such abstract resolutions, all authorities agree that it is one ' which the House exercises, and should always exercise, with very great reserve, and only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances.' Such resolutions are considered virtually ' an evasion of the rules of the House, and are on that account objectionable, and should he discouraged as much as possible.' Nevertheless neither the English nor Canadian House of Commons has ever agreed to the adoption of a rule to fetter their discretion in regard to the entertaining of such propositions.
Therefore, I presume the custom has grown up in that way. It would be in order for the hon. member who had that

motion in charge to move to have it reinstated on the order paper, as otherwise it would be dropped.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would move that the resolution be restored to the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

[Stage Direction]
* Air. IvYTE:
1.	Did the right hon. R. L. Borden, during the late federal election send a telegram to [DOT]T. A. Gillis, Conservative candidate in the electoral district of Richmond county, N.S., to the effect that if the Conservative party should be returned to power fish reduction works would be established at Arichat?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to establish such works?
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: No telegram was sent in the terms set forth in this question. A reduction plant necessary to prevent the destruction of or the serious injury to the fishing industry by depredations of dog-fish would be established.	[DOT]


AIR. HENRY COFFIN.
Air. GUILBAULT:: 1.	AVas Mr. Henry Coffin a messenger of the House of Commons in 1896, and was he dismissed?
2.	If so, at whose request, by whom was he replaced, and who recommended the appointment of his successor?
3.	What were the reasons alleged to justify Air. Coffin's dismissal?
4.	AVas there an inquiry, and was the employee placed in a position to defend himself?


Air. BORDEN:: 1.	Air. Henry Coffin was a sessional messenger in the service -of the House of Commons up to July, 1896, when he was discharged.
2.	There is no record as to who recommended his discharge, or by whom he was replaced.
3.	No. reasons were given.
4.	There was no inquiry, and consequently no defence.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-BRANCH BETWEEN SUNNYBRAE AND GUYSBOROTJGH.
Air. SINCLAIR:: 1.	AA'hat appropriation was made by parliament at the last session for the construction of a branch of the Intercolonial railway in Nova Scotia between Sunnybrae and Gnysborough and Country Harbour?
73	*
2.	Were tenders asked for by the late government for the construction of the said branch railway?
3.	What are the names of the firms or persons who tendered for the construction of the said branch line?
4.	What was the amount of each tender and the cash deposit on each?
5.	AVas any tender accepted? If so,, which one ?
6.	Was notice of acceptance sent to the successful tenderer?
7.	AVas the successful tenderer instructed not to proceed with the work of construction? If so, why?
8.	Did the government purchase a branch railway known as the Sunnybrae branch from the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company? If so, what price was paid for said branch railway?
9.	With reference to the following language used by the hon. Alinister of Railways and Canals in his speech in the House on January 18, 1912, in reference to the construction of this branch railway, namely:-'I believe that before committing the country to any expenditure, we should be able to give the people a just reason for our action, and we should see that the taxpayers of Canada get a fair return for the money expended, or at least sufficient to pay the interest on the capital,' does the minister apply the same condition to the expenditure involved in the purposed line between Dartmouth and Deans Settlement in the same province?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$1,090,000.
2.	Yes; by newspaper advertisement.
3.	Nova Scotia Construction Company, Limited, Sydney, Nova Scotia; M. J. O'Brien, Renfrew, Ontario; James H. Cor^ bett, Moncton, New Brunswick; Kennedy & MacDonald, Antigonish, Nova Scotia;
S.	Pearson & Son, Incorporated, New York, New York; M. P. & J. T. Davis, Ottawa; MacArthur Brothers, Company, Halifax, Nova Scotia; John W. McManus, Company, Limited, Alemramcook, New Brunswick.
4.	Nova Scotia Construction Company, $1,057,122.19, cash deposit $100,000; M. J. O'Brien, $1,165,189.17, cash deposit $100,000; James H. Corbett, $1,145,326.10, cash deposit $100,000; Kennedy & McDonald, $1,085,470.86, cash deposit $100,000; S. Pearson & Son, Incorporated, $1,446,020.98, cash deposit $100,000; M. P. & J. T. Davis, $1,066,695.40, cash deposit $100,000; McArthur Bros. Company, $1,272,614.76, cash deposit, $100,000; John W. MacAlanus, Company, $1,300,947.61, cash deposit $100,-
000.
5.	Yes; the tender of the Nova Scotia Construction Company.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes. Surveys of the whole of the railway had not been completed before tenders were called. The first location of the line was from Sunnybrae easterly along the east branch of the St. Mary's river through the county of Pictou, thence southeasterly to Melrose in Guysborough county.



Another location which was urged was one from Sunnybrae southerly following Barren Brook to the west branch of St. Mary's river, thence easterly through Guysborough county to Melrose, a common point to both locations. The last mentioned location was examined only in a preliminary way. The question as to which of these routes should be adopted had not been settled. No reliable estimate of the cost of the work had been made. There not being at hand sufficient information to show that there was justification for the building of the line, and the incurring of the outlay, it was thought well to cancel the contract and abandon the proceedings until complete and reliable data and information could be obtained, and the minister satisfied that, before committing the country to .the expenditure, the same is justified.
8.	Yes. $100,000.
9.	Yes. Practically.


POSTAGE ON NEWSPAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. ARMSTRONG (Laanbtom):
1.	Did the then member for East Lambton on July 21 last ask the then Postmaster General to say whether it was his intention to enforce clause 60 of the departmental regulations, so as to collect special postal charges of one cent per four ounces to each separate address on all newspapers sent to new subscribers during the election contest?
2.	Did the then Postmaster General reply in the following words:-'Clause 60 shall be enforced. Any complaints that may be made to the department will be thoroughly inquired into and any infringement will be stopped. There is no reason why this clause should be violated by any of the newspapers. The clause shall remain as it is, and it shall be enforced ' ?
3.	During the last general election contest, did the postmaster at Toronto refer a question of excess postal charges against the Toronto 'Globe' to the department at Ottawa? If so, what reply did the department make?
4.	Did the Toronto post office make a similar request for a ruling regarding excess postal charges against the Toronto ' News ' or other newspapers? If so, what was the departmental ruling?
5.	Is it true, as claimed by the Toronto ' Globe,' in its issue of January 9, 1912, that the ' Globe ' had a binding agreement on the part of the Post Office Department to carry these papers at the regular rate of postage, viz., one-quarter of a cent per pound?
6.	If so, is it true that as a result of this special mailing privilege certain newspapers were enabled to circulate thousands of copies daily at the ordinary postal rate, and without paying the excess postage rate, while other newspapers were compelled from time to time during the election campaign to meet the department's bills for excess postage?
Mr. PELLETIER:: .
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. The then Postmaster General said that and more.


Mr. COCHRANE.: 3.	There was no reply sent nor was there one necessary because the rules are well known.
4.	The same answer as preceding.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
CORRESPONDENTS OF ' LABOUR GAZETTE:'


Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is A. P. Yanasse appointed as correspondent of the ' Labour Gazette ' for Sorel, the defeated candidate at the last federal ejection in the county of Richelieu?
2.	Has L. Cousineau, lately appointed correspondent of the ' Labour Gazette,' any other occupation or other appointment from the government?
3.	How many ' Labour Gazette ' correspondents have been or are appointed for the city of Toronto?	_
4.	What are their names, occupations, and their salaries in each case?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. He is employed by the Public AVorks Department as watchman of the Ottawa River timber slides at Hull, Que. Although the Department of Labour was not aware of the fact when he was appointed correspondent of the ' Labour Gazette '.
3.	Two.
4.	Phillips Thompson, newspaper writer, $125; T. W. Banton, newspaper writer, $125.


SOULANGES CANAL.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Is there a claim before the Department of Railways and Canals, made by Mr. Denis Martin and others residing in the neighbourhood of the Soulanges canal, for damages incurred? If so, what year was that claim dated?
2.	Does the government intend to reply, one way or the other, in the near future to that claim ?
3.	What has been the cause, up to the present, that delayed the settlement of that affair?
4.	The government, having already been said to have answered one of the parties interested that it could do nothing before having a report from the engineers in charge of the hydraulic or topographic plans, is that work done ?
5.	Since when has it been commenced and when will it be completed?
6.	Could not the department get a partial report of the plans regarding the persons who-claim damages, in order that quicker action may be taken one way or the other?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes. Date of claim July 14, 1905.
2.	Yes.
3.	Complete surveys of the Soulanges-eanal property and tributary drainage areas-were found necessary as a basis for consideration of these claims.

4.	Yes, sufficiently advanced to deal with these claims.
5.	Commenced in 1909 and carried on in 1910 and 1911.
6.	Yes.


CARILLON CANAL.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Who now holds the lease of the hydraulic power at Carillon and Pointe Fortune?
2.	At what date did such lease take effect?
3.	Was the lessee obliged to fulfil certain obligations before the end of the first year?
4.	Did he fulfil his obligations at the close of the lease? If not, is the lease cancelled by that fact?
5.	If the government has not annulled the lease, such facts being established, does it propose to annul it soon?
6.	What is the price of the lease?
7.	How much has the government received on this account since the leasing to the last person ?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The National Hydro-Electric Company, Limited, of the city of Montreal.
2.	March 31, 1911.
3.	Yes. To commence construction and erection of necessary works and buildings.
4.	Yes. No; the lease is still in force.
5.	Answered by number four.
6.	Annual rental: Land, $100; water, $2 per horse-power.
7.	$100 to date.


HULL CITY HALL SQUARE.
Mr. KIDD:: 1.	Was the work of grading and sodding, laying granolithic walks, and tree planting, on the City Hall Square, Hull, P.Q., undertaken by the Ottawa Improvement Commission? If so, upon whose request or recommendation ?
2.	What was the cost respectively of the different classes of work?
3.	When was the work commenced and when was it finished?
4.	Is the Hull City Hall Square to be maintained permanently by the Ottawa Improvement Commission?
5.	Were the electric lamp posts and fixtures in said square erected by the Ottawa Improvement Commission?
6.	Is the commission defraying the costs of maintaining the lights? If so, what is the cost per month?


Mr. WHITE (Leeds):: 1.	Yes. The corporation of the city of

2. Grading and sodding	$ 156 22
Laying walks	
379	57Tree planting	
54	10Lamps, posts,	&c	
719	49Fence.. [DOT]	
608	38Labour on all	works	
2,070	55

3.	Commenced July 22, 1911; completed
December, 1911.	_
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.


ST. PASCAL MAIL CONTRACT.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: 1.	Has the contract for the carrying of mails between Kamouraska and the railway station at St. Pascal been cancelled since the 21st September, and for what reasons? _
2.	Who does the carrying of_ the said mails at present and on what conditions?
3.	Who recommended the change?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1,	2 and 3. The mail service between Kamouraska and railway station was performed under a temporary agreement by Thomas Deschenes terminable at the Postmaster General's pleasure. This temporary arrangement is terminated and a new one made with George Langlais at the rate as paid to Deschenes viz:-$300 per annum.


RIGAUD POSTMASTER.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has one or more applications been made for the position of postmaster of -the town of Rigaud, to replace the present postmaster?
2.	If so, what are the names of the applicants, and on the other hand, the names of the persons through whom such applications could have been made?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


VICTORIA MEMORIAL MUSEUM.
Mr. BELLEMARE:: 1.	What is the number of the workmen and of the employees generally who were engaged, since the 15th April, 1911, on the works at Victoria Memorial Museum, the new museum
on Metcalfe Street?
2.	Were these men temporary employees?
3.	Did the works necessitate the employment of such a large number of men?
4.	When and why were they discharged?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	Workmen employed on grading, sidewalks, roads, &c., the greatest number on any one paylist is 237, the average number for this work is 131.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Owing to the season of the year, the work had to be discontinued.


L'ACHIGAN ICE-BREAKER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SEGUIN':
1. Did the Department of Public Works during the year nineteen hundred and eleven call for tenders for the construction of I an ice-breaker for the river l'Achigan, in.
2295
[Stage Direction]
the county of L'Assomption ? If bo, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
2.	Was the contract for the construction v>f Hie ice-hreaker awarded? If so, to whom and for what reason?
3.	If the contract has not yet been awarded, does the department intend to soon proceed with those works and use for that purpose the sums voted in the estimates of 1911-12?
-1. If the department does not intend to :	the money voted for that icebreaker
and have the construction of it done, what are the reasons given for the abandoning of those works, and at whose request were they abandoned?
Mr. MONK:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) G. A. Grunninger, $4,150. Jos. Renaud, $4,498. Jas. Bourque, $8,250.
2.	No.
_ 3. Not until the question of necessity is investigated.
4.	(a) That this icebreaker would be useless; (b) by Mr. Joseph Morin.


DISMISSALS OF EMPLOYEES.
Mr. BOYER:: Will the lion. Minister, the Postmaster General, equally dismiss from office a Conservative postmaster .who has taken part in politics against a Liberal candidate, during the last federal election, provided always, that facts supported by indisputable evidence he brought to his knowledge?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Postmaster General decides concrete cases. Each case is decided on its merits.
MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMIS-.	SIGNERS.
Mr. HAZEN moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution :
1. Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Counoil may, from time to time, advance and pay to the Harbour *Commissioners of Montreal, hereinafter called the corporation, in addition to the moneys, if any, heretofore authorized to be advanced to the corporation by the Governor in Council by any Act, and which have not at the date of the passing of any Act founded upon these resolutions been so advanced, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of six million dollars, as are required:-
(a)	to pay off and retire debentures of the corporation of the par value of six hundred thousand dollars, maturing at the rate of two hundred dollars per annum in each of the years 1913, 1914 and 1915, and,
(b)	to enable the corporation to complete the construction of the terminal facilities of the nort of Montreal, for which the plans, specifications and estimates have been approved by the Governor in Council, and to construct such additional terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the said port, and in respect of which plans, specifications and estimates have, previous to ad-


Mr. SEGUIN.: vances being made, been .approved by the Governor in Council;
2.	That during the period of construction of the terminal facilities mentioned in these resolutions, the interest payable on the debentures receivable by the Minister of Finance in exchange for such advances, shall he deemed to be money required to complete and to he part of the cost of construction thereof, and such interest may be paid out of the said sum of six million dollars.
3.	That the corporation shall upon any advances being made deposit with the Minister
if Finance debentures of the corporation -qual in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date* of issue, and bearing interest payable half yearly, at the rate of three and one half per centum per annum.
4.	That the pricipal and interest of any sums advanced under any Act founded on these resolutions shall he payable, subject to the second of these resolutions, out of the revenue of the corporation mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896, (first session), and shall be a charge thereon as if the sums so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under said chapter 10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of such sums as may he sufficient to discharge the obligations of His Majesty the King, acting in respect of the Dominion of Canada, under the provisions of paragraph 5 of the schedule to chanter 24 of the statutes of 1904, in accordance with the interpretation of these provisions by the judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on the appeal of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company vs. The King, from the Supreme Court of Canada, delivered November second, 1911.
He said: His Royal Highness the Governor General having been made aware of the subject matter of this resolution has assented to it.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The Minister of Finance has very properly placed on the table the decision of the Privy Council in this case, and I would ask him to also place before the House, the claim of the Grand Trunk, the correspondence, and the arguments of counsel.


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: If I can obtain that record I shall be glad to do so. But the matter is very urgent and it is not desirable there should be any delay in submitting it to the House. I have already furnished to hon. members the judgment of the Privy Council and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada and I shall furnish figures showing the liability of the government to the Grand Trunk Pacific

229S


Wilfrid Laurier: The argument of counsel before the Privy Council may not be immediately available and I would forego that, but the minister has in his department all the correspondence from the original claim of the Grand Trunk to the present day.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be possible to procure what is known as ' the case ' in the Privy Council, which gives a statement of the contention of each party, and that can be brought down. If the stenographic notes of the argument before the Privy Council have not been extended it will entail some delay to get them, but if they have been extended and are available we will of course submit them to the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will not insist upon the stenographic report of the argument if it is not immediately available, but we should have the claim filed by the Grand Trunk, the answer and the reference to the court.


William Thomas White: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. KNOWLES (Moosejaw).: I rise to a question of privilege Mr. Speaker. I wish to call your attention and the attention of the House to a dodger which was put in every member's post-office box yesterday under somewhat strange circumstances. It is headed:	The	Canadian government the
tool of combines; $20,000 challenge; By A. E. Watts, of Wattsburgh, B.C. I do. not wish to encourage this dodger to the extent of reading any part of it, further than to say that so far as it is possible and as effectually as it is possible, to call a member of this House, a liar without using that term, he does so. The writer of this is known to me and to several members of this House. He is known to the British Columbia members; he is known to the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) amongst whose constituents he is to be found and I think the hon. member (Mr. Goodeve) will agree with me, that the writer of this dodger is known as what is generally called half-witted. I say this, not for the purpose of speaking lightly of Mr.' A. E. Watts, of Wattsburg, British Columbia, but because it has come to our knowledge officially that during the sittings of the committee, which made an investigation in connection with the lumber combine, the then chairman of that committee, the late Hon. Thos. Greenway had on different occasions to suppress this same Mr. Watts, and on some occasions to do so on my own suggestion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. member state his question of privilege and then confine himself as closely as possible to it?


William Erskine Knowles: I am getting there, Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege is this: This paper which has been put in every member's box, the postoffice of the House-of Commons has been prostituted in that way, states that I was guilty of a falsehood when I said that the lumber manufacturers* of British Columbia had been guilty of a combine. It also says that I stated what I knew to be an untruth when I said that such a combine, in my belief, existed yet. This has been put in cold print and I therefore am going to do what I am loath to do, pay enough attention to it to prove that my statements were correct in each instance and it will take only a moment to do so. When I spoke on this subject the other day, I read from the official records of the House of Commons Appendix to the Journals, Vol. 42, 1906-07, the report of the committee on this subject, of which I was a member. I shall repeat what I then read:
The British Columbia Lumber and Shingle Manufacturers' Association, and the Mountain Lumber Manufacturers' Association, which, in the opinion of the committee, amount to a combination

They were found, in the opinion of the committee which was made the opinion of the House, to be a combine, which justifies the statement I made that a combine had been proved.
With regard to the other statement, that such a combine existed, I went no further than to say that the reports in the public press made statements and representations that such a combine existed as late as October 9 last, and I read from the ' Winnipeg Telegram ' a despatch of October 10 last, saying that if that report was correct such a combine did exist. I mention these things to put myself right with regard to the dodger which has been anonymously distributed to the members of the House, and I protest, as emphatically as I am able, against our post office being used for such a purpose. In this instance it does not hurt my feelings to be called what is there written about me, but if it is known as a principle that any member of this House who is enough of a cad to. send anonymous communications to every other member with regard to a certain member can do so with impunity, no member will be safe from being embarrassed and harassed by such actions. One can readily understand that if such things are allowed to pass without protest the day will come when a member may say that he has the right to distribute any scurrilous misrepresentation referring to any man's-morals or his family relations and I protest against the post office being so used.
This letter was not addressed, it was distributed and no such use of our post I office should be permitted without the

articles being addressed to the members. I have inquired into the source from which this dodger comes, and I hope the hon. member whom I am about to name wall correct me if I am misinformed, I am informed although I could scarcely credit it, that this sheet of misrepresentations this false dodger, this scandalous article was handed in by the secretary of my hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) with instructions to place one of these slanderous and malicious articles in the box of -every other of the 220 members of this House.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: As the hon. member has referred to me, I would ask the privilege Of answering some remarks he has made. With regard to the author of this circular. I need only say he is one of the very prominent lumbermen in British Columbia, a man who has made a very great success of his business and who has large vested interests there.


William Erskine Knowles: Is he not generally recognized as half crazy at least?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Not at all.


Mr. NESBITT.: I rise to a point of order. I believe that on a question of privilege no discussion is allowed.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I was directly appealed to by the hon. member who has arisen to the question of privilege, who certainly was out of order in referring to a past debate and reading extracts already answered, so I am privileged to reply to a question directly asked.


William Erskine Knowles: Hear, hear.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I have already stated
that the article is not anonymous, it is openly signed by the author who issued a. certain specific challenge, and he forwarded this to me as the member representing that district, as he had a perfect right to do, and asked that copies be placed in the hands of each member of the House. Under the^ postal Act that is perfectly legal and legitimate. Any member can receive communications from any outsider without payment of postage under the Act, so that complaint also falls to the ground.
In regard to the names the hon. gentleman has undertaken to call myself I have *nothing to say, because from the source from which they come they will have no effect on me. I only make my statement with reference to the gentleman who is one of my constituents and who has openly signed the article which he has written in What he considers to be a fair defence *of an unfair attack made on the lumbering interests of the province of British Columbia.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have only to add regarding this publication to which my at-Mr. KNOWLES.
tention was called, that I made inquiry as to the custom in regard to the use of the post office in such a case. I was informed that such distribution as occurred in this instance is a common practice, that sometimes newspapers or perhaps letters regarding Bills that are coming before the House, or papers of various kinds that are signed, not anonymous, are handed to the postmaster with the request that he place one in each member's box as he would be obliged to do if the communications were addressed to each member, so that the communications may reach the members sooner than they otherwise would. Communications with reference to Bills coming up in committees in a short time are usually distributed in that way and for that purpose. This was done exactly on the same principle and without any knowledge on the part of the postmaster as to the contents of the communication.
I may say as an old member of the House that I know from personal experience that this has been the usual custom and therefore I feel that the postmaster was not blameable in any way for permitting the distribution of this document.


DISTRIBUTION OF SEED GRAIN.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: I desire to call the attention of the government to the apparent necessity which exists in some parts of Saskatchewan at least for the supply of seed grain during the present winter for the crop to be sown next spring. I regret that I am not in a position to give any definite information as to how widespread the necessity may be, but from some parts of my district, I have had representations that it may be necessary to distribute seed grain to some men residing on homesteads or unpatented lands. I have a communication which I received this morning which surprised me, that even on the Soo line, that prosperous country south and east of Moosejaw, which we think is one of the wealthiest parts of Saskatchewan, there is special need for this seed grain. With the permission of the House, I will read a short resolution of the Board of Trade of the town of Wilcox, 40 miles south east of Moosejaw.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it is for the purpose of asking a question of the government the hon. member would have the right to read the letter, but if there might be a debate on it, it would be out of order.


William Melville Martin: I wished to read it as it will place before the government better than I can do the necessity of the case. With the permission of the House I shall read it.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection.


William Melville Martin: Reading:-

We the members of The Wilcox Board of Trade, taking into consideration the wide spread hardship occasioned by the failnre of the crop, crave that assistance be given by th government to those deserving parties who are without seed for the season 1912; under the usual grain Aot. This Board of Trade will be pleased to forward to the government a list of such deserving parties in the Wilcox district.
A speedy consideration of the matter is urgently requested.
I have no doubt that similar communications have been brought to the attention of the government but I respectfully submit that the distribution of seed grain is a matter that should receive the immediate attention of the present government.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say, in the absence of the Minister of the Interior, that I know this matter has already been brought to his attention, and that he is giving his earnest consideration to it. I think some resolutions passed elsewhere have already been brought to the attention of the government, and I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that.the conditions to which he alludes are such as to demand not only careful, but immediate attention.


Mr. TURRIFF.: In this connection I would like to say one word, that is that the government should take steps to make it thoroughly known that wheat which has been standing out in the stack, or in the stook all winter, and which may have become damp through the inclemency of the weather, and then frozen, will not germinate; although a large proportion of it may look perfectly good.
When I first went to the western country, I put in my first crop in the spring of 1819. Unfortunately I was not able to get a threshing machine, so my stacks stayed out until the April following. My wheat was as fine looking as you could see. I sold most of it for seed, and sowed some of it myself, but unfortunately not over one-third of it germinated. The same thing will take place in many instances this year; a good many of the farmers having no idea that the weather may kill the germinating power of the wheat.


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: How did you get on with the farmers when they found it would not germinate?


John Gillanders Turriff: They knew that I was perfectly innocent in the matter, and we suffered together.
I would like to obviate, as far as possible, anything of that kind occurring this spring, and, therefore, I believe it would be advisable for th,e Minister of Agriculture to take whatever steps he may see fit to spread the information.


Mr. BURRELL.: I think we are out of order in entering upon this question now,
but I would simply say that the Seed Branch of the Department of Agriculture has been, and is at the present time looking into these matters.


THE GRAIN ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting grain.
On section 16,
George Eulas Foster: The committee will remember that when we had this Bill up before we passed section 16, and, then coming to section 29 we found an inconsistency, which might lead to confusion, so section 29 was allowed to stand.
I have since looked the matter up, and I think it can best be cured by amending section 16, which now reads:	' Any oath,
the taking of which is hereinafter authorized or prescribed by this Act, may be administered by a commissioner, or by the secretary According to section 29 an oath may be taken before a commissioner or notary public. I propose to change section 16 to read;
Any oath the taking of which is hereinafter authorized or prescribed by this Act may be administered by one of the commissioners appointed hereunder, by the secretary of the commission, by a notary public, a justice of the peace or any public officer autk-orized by law to administer oaths.
That will make a general provision, and it may be left out of section 29, because 16, covers the officers who have authority.
Amendment as moved, carried.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved that section 29 be amended as follows:
Every chief inspector, inspector or deputy inspector shall, before acting as such, take and subscribe to an oath of office in the form or to the effect following: 'I, A. B. do solemnly swear that I will faithfully, truly and impartially, to the best of my judgment, skill and understanding, execute and perform the office of chief inspector of grain (or inspector or deputy inspector of grain) and that while I continue to be such chief inspector (o;r inspector, or deputy inspector) I will not directly of or indirectly by myself or by any other person or persons, deal or trade in any grain on .my account, or upon the account of any other persons or persons. So help me God/ _
Amendment as moved, carried.
On section 33,
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved that section 33 be amended to read as follows;
The chief inspector and the inspectors for the division shall, not later than the seventh day of October in each year select samples of the different grades of grain, which shall be known as official standards.
2. Any sneb inspector shall upon request therefor, furnish a sample of any such made

of grain, accompanied by a specific statement that it is the official standard for that grade.
3. For all samples so furnished the inspector shall make such charge as is approved by the board.
Section as amended, agreed to.


Mr. OLIVER.: I wish, to put this last subsection in the same list as the one we dealt with in regard to fees. It seems to me that the collection of fees, at this stage in the amendment that would be proper is merely vexatious and will not give sufficient revenue to warrant the vexatiousness of the proceeding.


George Eulas Foster: We will take these all up together. And this section will pass
Reconsideration of section 35,


George Eulas Foster: This section provides:
That no inspecting officer shall inspect grain being laden or about to be laden on vessels or cars after dark or in wet weather, except on receipt personally, or through the office of the chief inspector, of an application from the owner or possessor of the grain or his authorized agent, written upon one of the printed forms furnished by the board and signed by such owner or his authorized agent, relieving him, the inspecting officer, from responsibility for damage which may be caused by such wet weather.
The word * or ' should be inserted there, and then it goes on:

darkness or for loss arising from errors
liable to occur in an inspection under such circumstances.
2.	In every case of such inspection the inspecting officer shall be personally present when the grain is actually delivered on board.
Inspections to be proper must be made in proper light-I understand that to be necessary. This provides that inspections may be made under, so to speak, improper conditions, at the convenience and at the risk of the owner. But the grade is yet to be established, and the grade should be established under proper conditions. So, I propose to add the following subsection:
3.	In such case, no certificate shall be issued until the inspector's sample of suoh lot is examined under proper conditions.
The inspector watches that grain as it goes out under conditions which are not suitable to proper grading. He takes his samples all along and has his whole sample. And he waits until daylight before he issues his certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 41-oath of office,
George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: I move that that section be amended by omitting the words ' before a commissioner or notary public,' the point being already provided for.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 46-fees for examination,


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).: I think it would be more satisfactory to have the amount of fees, within the limits prescribed by the Act, fixed by the board of commissioners, instead of leaving it to the board of examiners in every particular case. There would probably be a good deal of variation. The board would lay down a certain plan. There might possibly be some difference in the fees under different circumstances which might arise, but the board would decide how these fees should be divided.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think the matter is important. I made inquiry as to the custom that had hitherto been followed under the law, also whether any dissatisfaction had arisen, or any volcanic action had taken place, and I found that up to the present time there has been perfect harmony and no ill effects have been observed. I think in this matter we might give full liberty to the board to do as they please. They might take it into their h-eads, under certain circumstances, not to charge any fee at all. As vre limit the charge in the maximum, probably no great harm would be done if we allowed the board of examiners full liberty to arrange this.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Have these examinations been going on?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Did they ever charge less than $20?


George Eulas Foster: I could not say.
Mr, OLIVER. I do not think it is a good principle to leave to the men who are to get the benefit of the fee, the privilege of saying what the fee shall be. If the maximum is fixed at $20, you can depend upon it that the examiners will put the fee at $20, when the matter is left to them, and they have the money to divide amongst themselves. There are many cases where a fee of $20 is not extreme, but there may be eases where it would be regarded as unnecessary.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Could the hon. gentleman suggest a case where $20 would not be exorbitant?


Frank Oliver: I would not care to go into that detail. It may be that there are

many cases where $20 would not be too much. I think the principle is wrong, and it might be well to amend the section. I would ask the minister to let the clause stand.


George Eulas Foster: It must be remembered that these examiners get no other remuneration, they are not under salary. However, we will let that stand. It is not regulated according to fixed principle, no doubt. I took it because it has been the custom, and sometimes that makes the best law.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It would not appear to me to be too high a fee if every man, or every applicant who was examined, received a position. But no doubt many men will be examined who will not receive the position, and I believe $20 is excessive.


Levi Thomson: I do not think a fee of $20 would be excessive in certain cases where only one man came up to be examined. But in cases where there were half a dozen to be examined, that fee would be excessive.


George Eulas Foster: We will let that stand.
On Section 48-standards established by Grain Standards Board.


George Eulas Foster: It has been suggested that there ought to be added these words as another sub-clause:
All standards shall be subject to the approval of the board.
The board, under this, appoints gentlemen fit and skilled for the purpose of establishing grades and choosing samples. Then the board knows no more about it, and the idea which has been suggested is that such standard samples, when chosen, should be subject to the approval of the board. I do not really know whether that is necessary or not. If it establishes an additional security without subjecting the thing to any delay that would be injurious it would seem that every safeguard you can throw about a thing of that kind should be thrown about it. The commissioners might not be experienced samplers, but they would always have at hand the chief in spector or some other person who would be thoroughly capable of advising_ them. I have no objection to that going in if it meets with the approval of the committee.


Frank Oliver: It strikes me that perhaps there would be an advantage in it. I would be quite willing to agree to insert it and pass the clause with it in. In case future consideration might lead to its being viewed in another light, I suppose there would be no serious objection to reconsidering the clause?


George Eulas Foster: If we find we have made a mistake we ought to rectify it.


Frank Oliver: Has it any reference to sample standards or standard samples?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Would it not be better to use the word ' samples '?


George Eulas Foster: We might make it:
All standard samples shall be subject to the approval of the board.


Levi Thomson: Would there be any question about this referring to the standards arranged for under section 105?


George Eulas Foster: No, that is entirely confined to commercial grades.


Levi Thomson: But you are not putting the usual qualifications into that third clause-standards fixed under this section.


George Eulas Foster: Is that necessary?


Levi Thomson: It is usually done in such eases.


George Eulas Foster: Well, the words cost us nothing:
All standard samples established under this section shall be subject to the approval of the board.


Levi Thomson: Yes.


Frank Oliver: There would be no question about it then.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 56,	[DOT]


George Eulas Foster: Under this section the chief inspector may be a member of any Board of Grain Examiners and a member of the Grain Standards Board as well, and it is also provided that he may be a member of the Grain Survey Board -within his division; thus, in the latter case he is made a member od a board which adjudicates on his own decisions, and objection has been taken to that. I think the clause should be amended in that respect.


Frank Oliver: That is right.
Section amended accordingly.
On section 57,


Mr. NEELY.: While a clause similar to this has existed in previous legislation of this parliament, that clause has always been inoperative, and under present conditions will probably remain so. There is no doubt that one of the great Sources of loss to the grain grower of the west is the


George Eulas Foster: That is for the lack of a sample market?


David Bradley Neely: Yes. The spreading of price between the grades of wheat, especially the lower grades, amounts to five or six cents per bushel, and often more. The farmer who grows grain that is not quite good enough to grade as No. 1 but is very high class No. 2, is oompelled under the present system to accept the same price as the farmer whose wheat is barely able to come into No. 2, and so on down the line with the other grades. Another source of loss from not having a sample market at Winnipeg comes from the fact that according to the rigid requirements of_ our legislation to bring grain into certain high standards (so far as the colour and appearance and condition of the shell of the grain is concerned) wheat which judged by its intrinsic milling value would be high class is often put into a lower class.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Are the leaders of the grain growers in the -west in favour of a sample market? I ask that for information.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend ought to be quite as well versed on the views of the grain growers as I am.
Mr. iSCHAFFNER. I did think so at one time, and I thought they were all in favour of a sample market, but I was surprised to hear within the last few days that the representatives of the grain growers at present in Ottawa are opposed to a sample market.


David Bradley Neely: 
George Eulas Foster: That is ! to mix it.


David Bradley Neely: Exactly. I have discussed 1 this matter with grain growers but not with f Mr. NEELY.
a representatives of the Grain Growers' Ast sociation or any one who could speak s authoritatively on the matter, but I know
-	there has been a great deal of discussion among the grain growers on this question
, of a sample market.
I think the grain growers generally realize the futility of a sample market under f present conditions. They would be afraid
-	to have any legislation passed that would i permit of mixing at the terminal elevators * under present conditions of private owner-I' ship and operation; but if those terminals " were operated by the government, who " would have no object in manipulating the ; grain to the advantage of anybody, and ' who would be expected to handle the grain 1 in a proper manner in those terminals, I ' imagine that the very first thing the grain
' growers would establish or assist in estab-fishing, would be a sample market in the ; city of Winnipeg. I would like to know ; if these conditions which the grain growers desire in connection with the terminals are likely to be brought about by the government in the near future, so that this disadvantage of not having a sample .market 'because of present conditions at .the terminals, may he removed.


George Eulas Foster: The section with which we are dealing is section 57, which says:
Nothing in this Act shall prerent any person from selling or buying grain by sample regardless of its grades.
Does my hon. friend wish to delete this or to put in its place a section which shall forbid any one buying or selling by sample? That is the question which is before us now. My hon. friend said that this clause had been, and was now, inoperative. My information, and I have some good sources of information, is that millions of bushels of grain are sold every year by sample without reference to grade certificates. The farmer comes into 'tire station with his load of grain, -and the buyer, and he agree upon the value of the grain as shown by the sample, and there is no question of grading, and no disability, he has a perfect right to sell the grain on sample, and does sell on sample. After the grain has gone through all the processes into the terminal warehouse, the person who owns the grain when he takes that grain out, may tear up his certificate of grade if he pleases, and (sell his grain utterly regardless of its grade, and by sample alone. I am told that this is a common practice, and that millions of bushels of grain are sold in that way. I do not suppose my hon. friend would wish to prohibit -such a right of sale which every man now enjoys.
My hon. friend wants more information, he wishes to know what the government are going to do about the terminal eleva-

tors. Section 13, was allowed to -stand, and I informed the committee that before the Bill was through the government would be prepared to state what they propose to do as to taking over, leasing or otherwise dealing with the terminal elevators.
With reference to the sample market, my information is that at present the representatives of the grain growers who are here are not in favour of a sample market. They think that the time may come when a sample market should be established, but they want certain things changed before that is done.


David Bradley Neely: Will the minister tell us what they are?


George Eulas Foster: Quite frankly, they want the terminal elevators owned and operated by the government, they want that first. They are in conscience, and in principle totally opposed to mixing grains, but they know, ,of course, that a sample market is of no use to anybody unless there is power to mix, and it is on the mixing part of it that they are not yet quite converted.
There is a good deal in what my hon. friend says with reference to the advantages of a sample market; I do not need much argument to convince me of the feasibility, and also of the desirability of a sample market. It may be that it would be well to keep, with the sample market, the grade market as well, and have a choice of the conveniences that come from both. I want, in the first place, to find out what the desires of the farming community are in this respect.
I find the millers sitting down alongside of the representatives of the grain growers on that matter of a sample market. I do not think they are in favour of a sample market. They have their reasons therefor, and are able to give them. Thus, at pres-sent, as far as representations are made to me, neither from the farmers nor from the millers is there a very great pressure for a sample market. On both sides there, is pressure for the terminal elevators.


Mr. STAPLES.: The question of a sample market has been before this House many times, and while the minister has just stated that the representatives of the farmers who are here at the present time, are not in favour of a sample market under existing conditions, they by no means represent the opinions of all the farmers of the west. They have an organization, the Grain Growers' Association, which has been doing some good work in collecting the opinions of some of the farmers of- the west, but by no means all of them. I. am here particularly to speak of the opinions of my farmers in the constituency I represent.	[DOT]
I know that one of the representatives here to-day is a constituent of mine, and I give him credit for all the information he has been able to collect, hut at the same time I venture to say that if you will take the expression of the farmers of Macdonald you will find they are anxious to have a sample market. How that sample market can best be worked out is, of course, another question. It is set out very clearly and very fully in an article which I read not long ago in the ' Grain Grower's Guide.' If it is possible to adopt a sample market and work it on the same principle and with the same machinery as the sample market of Minneapolis there is no doubt to my mind but that it would mean dollars and cents to the farmers of the west. Of course, I believe in preserving the identity of our wheat, so far as possible, so long as it does not mean a financial loss to the producer. If we can preserve the identity of our wheat until it reaches the British market, unquestionably it would be a great thing for us, but, apparently we have not been able to preserve it, owing to the manipulators. If we cannot overcome the manipulators, and if they are to make the profit, I think we had better start a little earlier in the game, and do the manipulation where the farmers will get the benefit of it. I think that can be done by establishing a sample market. To go into the details of a sample market would be a somewhat lengthy process, but, at the same time I do not think it is impracticable or impossible, even at the present time. When the question was before the House some time ago the serious objection was the lack of railway facilities. We have railway facilities at the present time, and, it will not be long until we have greater railway facilities and greater accommodation as regards rolling stock. It is my opinion that the railway companies of this country ought to be obliged to furnish all the rolling stock necessary to handle the grain, and not cause a congestion, even if you do establish a sample market. The sample market begins from the time the farmer goes to the elevator in his town. He drives up with his load, and, as the minister has told you, his grain is bought on sample; or, at least, on the judgment of the buyer, who takes the grain in his hands, looks it over and says: 'In my opinion that is No. 1 Northern, or No. 2 Northern.'


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he say that that is not a sample market?


William D. Staples: I say grain is bought and sold on sample, and I say the sample begins right there.

After the grain is loaded into the car the sample can be extracted and forwarded to the terminals. The article that I read showed very clearly that all cars were sampled at the divisional points. The government samplers went in, took a sample and forwarded it to the board, and the board then put their graders to work to grade the grain. After this it was put in a pan and laid before the buyers in the Grain Exchange, or at the terminals, or wherever the buyers are, and they bought that grain on sample.
Notwithstanding the fact that the representatives who are here to-day say that the farmers of the west do not desire to have a sample market, I want to say that in my opinion (and I have given the matter some thought, and taken some precaution to get an expression of opinion from the farmers whom I represent) they are anxious to have a sample market, and I believe that a sample market will mean a great deal to the producer. For these reasons I look to the government to work out a sample market and put it in operation.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If that is a sample market, then I hjpve been under a wrong impression, and I think I have been under the same impression as the hon. minister when he said that a million bushels of grain were sold. I do not believe that is what the hon. member from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) had in mind when he spoke of a sample market. My contention is that there is very little wheat sold in the west on a sample market.


George Eulas Foster: I said grain was sold on a sample market.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Sold on sample. I say there is very little wheat sold in the west on sample, and I think I can prove what I say. _ I bring my wheat to the elevator at Boissevain, and the grain buyer comes along and takes a sample, as you say. What is the result? He has to grade it. He has to take a sample which, when it comes to Winnipeg, will stand the test of a certain grade. Is not that correct? Most decidedly it is. But, that is not selling on a sample at all. It is quite true that when the grain gets to Winnipeg a sample may be taken, but what I understand by a sample market is that when I bring in wheat that will hardly go No. 1 northern, but is a splendid No. 2, that wheat will get just what it is worth as No. 2, and does not have to go to Winnipeg and be graded as No. 3.
If 1 am wrong in my understanding, I wish to be corrected. I do not desire to detain the House on this question, but I claim there is a misapprehension, and I think the remarks of the hon. member from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) might perhaps leave a misunderstanding in the minds of Mr. STAPLES.
the people when he says that we are now selling wheat by sample, as I understand a sample market.


William D. Staples: It is just a matter as to whether the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has presented his views more clearly than I have presented mine. I say that a man who sells his wheat to a street buyer, if the street buyer does not get his sample graded at all, to that extent the farmer sells on sample.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: But, it must come to grade.
. Mr. STAPLES. Not necessarily, if a ticket is issued what does the farmer care about the grain?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He buys it on grade.


William D. Staples: No, he does not. He buys it on _ sample. He does not get it graded till it reaches Winnipeg, therefore he buys on sample. As the minister has told you, when the grain is shipped out of the spout into the boat it is sold on sample, and there are millions of bushels sold on sample.


David Bradley Neely: I think the hon. minister understood me perfectly when I spoke on the question of a sample market. I was referring to a sample market in the city of Winnipeg, something which we have not at the present time. There is not a question that this clause has reference to the purchase on sample without inspection. If this clause is to become operative it involves the creation of a sample market at the city of Winnipeg.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: The grain buyer receives his standard samples from Winnipeg. The farmer comes with his grain and the grain buyer buys that grain after comparing it with the sample he has received from Winnipeg. That is how the grade is struck; and that is how the grain buyer reaches his conclusion as to what the grain is worth and how it will grade.
Mr. NEELY". I do not think that has any reference to this clause at all. As a matter of fact, the farmer who brings his load of wheat to the country elevator, though you may say he sells on sample, he does not do anything of the kind.


An hon. MEMBER.: On grade.


David Bradley Neely: On grade; on judgment; on an unofficial inspection. On the farmers' ticket is named the grade which that grain reaches in the opinion of the buyer at the country elevator. But I was going to say that I was not in the House when the first few clauses of the Bill were taken up. Referring especially to clause 13, which deals with warehouse receipts, I did not know that the minister had made some

disclosures of the government's intentions before the Bill should be brought to a conclusion. I am quite content to await the minister's pleasure, so long as we are to have the information as to whether or not the government are going to take the steps to make this operative as far as the constitution of the sample market is concerned.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to delay progress, but it may not be out of place on this section to say a word in continuation of what has been said on buying by grade and by sample and on the mixing of grain, as the matter arranges itself in my mind. When I spoke on the second reading of the Bill, I said that the great reason for the complicated provisions of this Bill in regard to grade was in the changes in carriage that the grain had to pass through in going from the producer to the consumer. The farmer sells his grain on the merits of the actual grain itself, or, as you may say, by sample; and the miller in England buys by sample. That is, the farmer gets what the actual -grain, there bodily present, is worth, and the miller at the other end of the chain, pays on the basis of what the actual grain is expected actually to produce. The provision that is made for preserving the identity of the grade-as distinct from the preservation of the identity of grain-is for the convenience of trade, in the long chain of exchanges between producer and consumer. Where the sample market is effective as it is in Minneapolis, the grain comes in in a caT, is bought on sample and is forwarded t-o the point of consumption without change; so that the actual, identical grain that the farmer has loaded into the car and that the buyer in Minneapolis has bought by sample is delivered at the point of consumption in the same package so to call it, as that in which it was made up at the station nearest the farm. In that case there is no necessity for the complicated provision of grading; for the seller sells on quality and the consumer buys on quality, the grain being wholly unchanged.	_
Now, as to mixing:	First we have the
.practical impossibility of preserving the identity of the grain in the many changes of methods of transportation between the wheat fields and the mill beyond Liverpool, which makes it also difficult to preserve even the identity of grade. And it is on this difficulty of preserving the identity of grade that the enterprising and ingenious mixer sees his opportunity. In regard to the mixing of grain, my view is that the .man who buys a dozen different kinds of grain has a perfect right k>
mix that grain, and nobody has any right to find fault with him for doing it


George Eulas Foster: If it is his own grain?


Frank Oliver: Yes, providing the mixing is done before the grain has passed the inspection of the government officer and been given a name and a grade by that officer.


George Eulas Foster: Let me understand. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) says that he has no objection to mixing provided the mixing is done before the grade certificate is given.


Frank Oliver: Certainly, that is what I am trying to say. In the first place,^ there is no possibility of preventing, and in the next place, there is no reason why it should be prevented, so far as I am aware. But the great profit of the mixer is in the fact that after the grain has been certified as being of a certain standard he degrades the standard by mixing, while getting the benefit of the standard in the transactions through the line of communication.


Mr. LANCASTER.: That is practically a fraud.


Frank Oliver: Yes, actually a fraud as I understand it. There would be no advantage-to use a slang phrase there_ would be nothing to it-theTe would be neither a profit nor a loss, in mixing if it were not for the government certificate. It is the government certificate that fixes the commercial value of that grain. If it is number 1, it is worth so much, and if number 2, it is worth so much less. If I buy grain on a certificate showing that that grain is number 2, and then, by a process of manipulation secure a certificate that that grain is number 1, I am absolutely committing a fraud, in my judgment.


George Eulas Foster: You being the owner of the grain?


Frank Oliver: Yes. I am improperly trading on the certificate that gives that grain its value as a matter of trade along the line of communication.
Now, in the process whereby grain that is covered by the certificate given by the government is degraded, either by being improperly raised or lowered-and it can be done either way-any means whereby that is done is practically a fraud upon the good faith of the people of Canada who are responsible for that inspection. That is something that every government should try to prevent. But it has nothing whatever to do with the right of the individual owner of a dozen different kinds to mix that grain on his own responsibility, for his own use, or for sale to anybody else. But the wrong comes in when he uses the certificate that has been granted foT a certain quality of grain, and changes the quality after the issue of the certificate. That is the whole story.


George Eulas Foster: I would ask a further question. Supposing he has

an elevator, and he buys grain of different grades 1, 2 and 3, pays for it, it is his own grain, he puts it into his own elevator and mixes it as he pleases. He has not committed any wrong.


Frank Oliver: If he has done it before inspection, he has committed no wrong.


George Eulas Foster: Take the other case. Suppose he has bought, after inspection, grain of 1, 2 or 3 quality, paid for it, taken it into his own elevator, it is his own grain. Then he mixes No. 1 and 2, or 2 and 3, as he pleases, and puts it-to his own use.


Frank Oliver: If he is the ultimate consumer, he has a perfect right to mix it, undoubtedly.


George Eulas Foster: Then thus far we can agree. Then for instance, he owns a mill alongside, and puts it into the mill; or suppose another case exactly similar to that, and instead of putting it into his own mill, he has mixed the grades, and a friend of his comes along and says, let me see what your grain is like. He looks at it and says, I will give you so much a bushel for that grain, and you sell it to him. Has he done any wrong?


Frank Oliver: Not if he is not selling it on the certificate; but if he is selling it on the certificate, he is doing wrong.


George Eulas Foster: But he is not selling it on the certificate, because the buyer knows that it has been mixed. Now go a step further. Suppose after you have done that mixing you call in the inspector and the inspector grades that grain, we will say, as No. 2. Are you rignt or wrong in selling that grain as certificated No. 2?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is suggesting an entirely suppositious case, and a case that can not possibly occur.


George Eulas Foster: I want to carry it one step further. Supposing that after the grain has been bought, we will take two grades, Nos. 1 and 2, a flush article of No. 1, and a nearly No. 1 in No. 2, just those two grades. You put them into your own elevator, and you mix the two, and you get a mixed grade which, when it is inspected, will grade as No. 1, not a fat No. 1, but a lean No. 1. Are you doing your duty to your country in sending that grain to the foreign market as a certificated grain?


Frank Oliver: As the law has always been, and I hope always will be, my hon. friend would not get an inspection for that mixed grain. One certificate is all that is given, and is all that ought to be given.
I think the hon. gentleman is mixing up the moral wrong in the individual, and the wrong against the country and grain Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
production generally. I have no hesitation in saying thait if what lie suggests is permitted to be done, it is .a most decided wrong against the grain production of the country.


George Eulas Foster: In what does that wrong consist? What is the essence of it?


Frank Oliver: It is a matter that has been threshed out so often, and is so very technical, that perhaps I am not well fitted to give an explanation. When the grain
is bought through the channels or course of trade, it is 'bought on its reputation. That is, in the course of trade, it is bought on its reputation, but by tire ultimate con sumer it must be bought on its actual condition. It is the price that is paid by the ultimate consumer that fixes the price in a measure, that is the main factor in fixing the price, that the initial producer receives. Now the whole tendency of good farming is to improve the quality of the product in the interest of tlhe farming industry. It is in the interest of the whole country that every farmer should oroduce the highest quality of grain that can be produced. That will be admitted. Then if he is going to produce that grain of the highest quality, ir. is presumed that he will exercise forethought and industry, and go to expense, and it is in the nature of things that he must get a higher price for that higher quality of grain, or he loses rather than gains by the process. When the grain that is of high quality and that has cost the producer more than the grain of a lower quality reaches the ultimate market by the process of mixing it has been degraded, it is naturally worth a lower price than it otherwise would be. The farmer at the producing end of the arrangement does not get the fair v-alue of his better grain. As a matter of fact he suffers a depreciation in the price, and the whole country suffers accordingly, while the man who mixed the grain has certainly made a profit. My position is that the interest of the country at large must be protected against the act of the man who is for the moment handling the grain, and who sees perhaps, no moral wrong in it; and there may be no moral wrong, in degrading the grain that has come into his hands.


George Eulas Foster: Although this is a technical question, it is very interesting, and I want to get from my "hon. friend one more idea. Suppose that man buys his grain, not by grade, puts it into his private elevator and mixes it as he pleases, but after that is not given any certificate. Has the country been damaged?


Frank Oliver: I think the country has been damaged to some extent, but I do not think that it is a case that can be followed up. I do not think that legisla-

tion can be framed to cover such a case, to prevent it and still to keep within the bounds of the rights of property. I think we cannot prevent it although it is a pity that it occurs.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is one phase of wrong-doing in connection with the selling of wheat that came under my observation last November. I found, when I was in the city of Winnipeg, that a practice had grown up about on the following lines:	We will say that a large commission house was getting in a hundred carloads of wheat a day, shipped by individual farmers, to be sold on their account. This commission house keeps an inspector of its own who goes around with the government inspector and takes a sample from each of these hundred cars. I found that two or three of the large milling concerns keep an inspector at Winnipeg who also goes around with the government inspector and the inspector of the commission house and also takes samples. They would find in the hundred oars a number of cars that graded, say, only number 3 Northern, but as everybody knows a certain number of those number 3 Northern cars would average up well to No. 2 Northern and there would be a difference of two or three cents a bushel between their value and that of the ordinary No. 3 Northern. Here is where the wrongdoing came in. I find that although this commission house sent these cars of No. 3 Northern to their order at Fort William or Port Arthur for storage puposes, the large milling concerns, without the knowledge of the farmers who grew the grain, or the knowledge of the commission house that shipped the grain, and with the connivance and by the authority of the railways diverted the wheat that was shipped to Fort William or Port Arthur to their private mills and there unloaded it. They said:	We will deliver an equal number
of bushels at the same grade. The result was that they would buy an equal number of carloads of the same grade, but a lean No. 3 Northern, a sample that barely squeezed through as No. 3, and they would ship that down to Fort William, without any reference to the farmer who sold the grain or to the commission house which handled it for him. This enabled the milling company to secure a car of grain that was worth from two to five cents a bushel more than the car that was shipped down for storage at Fort William.


Mr. MACLEAN (South York).: That is grand larceny.
it to the minister in order that his department may take cognizance of the fact and see about some way of putting a stop to a practice that looks to me, as my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) says, like grand larceny. These are the facts; at all events they were given to me by the commission house that shipped the grain absolutely as I have explained them. I hope that the department will take some means-I do not know how it can be done-of putting a stop to that practice.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Will the hon. gentleman explain in what way the railway aided that?


John Gillanders Turriff: It could not be done without the help of the railway.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Just explain it.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not know; I was just told that it is done, but I do not know how.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a breach of faith on the railway's part against the man who owned the grain.


John Gillanders Turriff: The commission house said:	It really does not affect us at all,
nor does it affect tire farmer who shipped the wheat to us as we got the price for him at which that grade of wheat was selling on the market. But, the man who loses in the end is the farmer, because that wheat is sent, say, to Fort William or Port Arthur, and the Ontario miller, or the exporter to the old country, buys No. 3 Northern but gets a leaner No. 3 Northern than he would have got if all the wheat that was graded No. 3 Northern had been shipped direct to Fort William and had gone into storage.


William Findlay Maclean: And the country's reputation at large suffers.


John Gillanders Turriff: There would be a higher average grade whi/ch would enable the': farmer in the end to get more for his wheat.


Mr. AIKINS.: Would the substituted wheat be shipped out in the same car?


John Gillanders Turriff: No.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Then that would be easily detected because the shipping bill would show the number of the car in which the grain had been originally shipped?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The shipper and the transferee, from the shipping bill, would know that it was not the same car.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is done in hundreds and hundreds of cases and it is going on to-day. I am just mentioning


John Gillanders Turriff: It is done on the same principle as that which has taken place time and again at Fort William and Port

Arthur. Supposing they had received in the elevators 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 bushels of wheat to be held in storage for farmers waiting for a rise in price; cases have come to our knowledge in which the big elevator men have sold every bushel of such wheat and it has been shipped to the old country while the farmers were still paying storage on it. I only draw this to the attention of the minister in order that he may make some inquiry and ascertain to what extent it is being done. There should be no difficulty in putting an absolute stop to it. When a commission house ships a carload of wheat to Fort William to go into storage that car should go to Fort William and go into storage and no milling company or anybody else should be allowed to divert that wheat to the use of any other persons without the knowledge of the farmer or the commission house and substitute therefor a oar of inferior wheat.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the public ownership of elevators affect that situation at all?


John Gillanders Turriff: Not that I can see. I think this is one of the easiest matters to remedy now that the attention of the department has been called to it. It was not generally known; at least, I had never heard of such a thing being done. I do not think that the ownership of the elevators at Fort William or Port Arthur would affect that particular phase of the evil.


George Eulas Foster: I -would like my hon. Mend (Mr. Turriff) to make his ease a little more definite. It is like hunting for a needle in a hay stack with the information he has given to me. A commission house did a certain thing and gave certain information. What is the commission house and what is the information? If my hon. friend will put me into communication with the commission house and_ let me know the exact transaction I will carry it a little farther.


John Gillanders Turriff: I will give my hon. friend the names of the commission house and milling company that were mentioned to me.


George Eulas Foster: I would be very glad to have them. Under the best laws you can have, frauds may be committed, but I do not know whether it is I who should look after such *a fraud or the courts of law.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a fraud on the part of the railway company; that is quite clear. The railway company has undertaken to deliver certain, identical goods at a certain place and if the railways have this to their discredit also that they cannot be trusted to deliver goods


John Gillanders Turriff: given to them then it is time we knew it and took steps to put an end to that practice.


Mr. COCHRANE.: The commission man is at fault there.


William Findlay Maclean: No, they are both at fault. A railway that allows a thing like that is not to be trusted in any case.


George Eulas Foster: That might be done either by neglect or by malpractice on the part of an under official of the railway.


William Findlay Maclean: But they are responsible.


George Eulas Foster: And the railway management might not know anything about it at all. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) in the conduct of his own business cannot have his eye on every transaction and some of his officials may slip a cog and he is responsible, but he might be in blissful ignorance of it until it was brought to his attention. I remember seeing in the correspondence that a car was sent to 4 wrong destination presumably for the benefit -of the milling company, and on being traced it was found to be due to the neglect or worse of an under -official, but the railway company righted the matter the moment it knew of it. I do not think a railway company could exist long if it were guilty -of practices of that kind.


William Findlay Maclean: If it does exist it should be stopped at once.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly-


William Findlay Maclean: Nothing will tend so much to lower the reputation of Canadian wheat as practices of this kind. There has been too much interlocking _ of directors between the milling companies and the elevator companies and the railway companies, and that generally results to the detriment of somebody. The railways will have to be put on their honour to stop this practice or else told that they will be up against the law.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The law on the matter is perfectly clear. When the railway company receives grain for carriage and issues the bill of lading it is responsible for the identical goods until these goods are delivered to the consignee or the consignee's assignee at destination. If, in the interim, any person takes away from the company grain which belongs to the owner of the bill of lading he is liable under the Criminal Code for taking that which does not belong to him. The law is perfectly clear.
[DOT]3321

It only requires, as I should judge, to be applied to the particular case mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Frank Oliver: Assuming that everything was as has been stated the commission house lost nothing, the farmer lost nothing. the railway company lost nothing, so that they were not interested in enforcing the law, and the milling company gained and the credit of the country's wheat lost and ultimately the farmers' price would be depressed.


William Findlay Maclean: And wrong-doing was encouraged.


Frank Oliver: It is because of the conditions that surround the carriage of grain in bulk, which conditions lend themselves to things of that kind, that this complicated' machinery becomes necessary, and that we establish a Board of Commissioners. It is unquestionably probably the most important part of the adminis-' tration of the Grain Act to see that the credit of the country's wheat is not degraded. The country's interest in the preservation of the standard of the country's wheat is far more important than the question of the private rights of the different parties.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: We have indeed spent a most profitable hour in discussing this question of mixing. I had a fair idea of the question before, but after the discussion it is much clearer to me and I compliment the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) for the plain way hq has etated the case. I *understand his argument to be that the identity of the grain is a public asset, and if the purchaser mixes before the inspection certificate was given and has it sent over without any inspection, he is reaping an advantage at the expense of the country by appropriating; to himself profit at the expense of the identity of that wheat. The law puts in a concrete form that public asset and demands that it should have an inspection certificate. Under that inspection certificate the producer of the grain may own the grain absolutely, but he does not own the asset known as the inspection certificate, it being an asset in which all are interested, and particularly the producer. If a fraud is perpetrated upon that, he who perpetrates the fraud is guilty of appropriating to himself what does not belong to him in any sense and he gains an advantage at the country's expense.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: That is the kernel of the whole cause of mixing, and if we grasp it we will he able to cure the evil much more quickly.


REVISED
James Albert Manning Aikins: After a certificate is issued giving the grade of the grain, how will the mixing thereafter be prevented?


Frank Oliver: The whole machinery of this legislation is for the purpose of preventing such mixing.


James Albert Manning Aikins: But mixing has occurred.


Frank Oliver: It is said to have occurred contrary to law, and it is with a view still further to prevent its occurring that we are trying to improve the law.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Would government ownership of the elevators prevent that practice to any greater extent than if the elevators were owned by a elevator company or the carrying the company?


Frank Oliver: I am not so sure on that point. JSo long as the carrying company keeps its hands off the grain trade it seems to me that would fulfil all requirements.


John Gillanders Turriff: So long as the Canadian Pacific railway owned and operated their terminal elevators at Fort William I never heard of any complaint about mixing in the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators. Their only interest was in carrying the wheat, storing it, and sending it forward. But during the last few years, the difficulty has cropped up in the case of the American grain companies who have leased from the Canadian Northern and others some of these terminal elevators, and also control by subsidiary companies- a line of elevators in the interior out on the prairie.
That is a very different thing from the elevators being owned and -operated by the railway companies, simply as a convenience for the handling of grain and also . to make, perhaps, a small profit, but there was no object in the railway companies degrading a grade or trying to turn out No.
2 Northern, where they took in No. 3. It is the ownership of the terminal elevators by the same interests that own and control the interior elevators that has largely brought about the whole trouble that the farmers have had 'to complain of during the last few years.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: There is more than that.


John Gillanders Turriff: There may be more than that.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I have always held that the only way we can remedy that is by the government operation of terminal elevators. I understand that most of the mixing has been done at the terminal elevators. We have had instances. The same thing occurred at Duluth. One hundred thousand bushels of No. 1 Northern, 100,000 bushels of No. 2, and 100,000 bushels of No. 3 went info the elevator at the ter-


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
minal. But what did they send out? They sent out about 150,000 bushels of No. 1 Northern. They got that by mixing in these terminal elevators and raising a No. 2 Northern to a No. 1. I stated last year and I repeat that we want the men who operate these terminal elevators to absolutely have no commercial interest in the grain. If I talked an hour I could not make that any plainer.
John Gillanders Turriff: That covers the whole thing.
On section 58, weight of bushel.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not making this as a suggestion, but might there not be an advantage if the weight of our bushel of oats was made the same as the American? At present the American standard bushel is 32 pounds, while ours is 34 pounds.


George Eulas Foster: What
does my hon. friend think about it?


John Gillanders Turriff: I think it would be, but I have not given the question * enough consideration to express an opinion that would be worth very much.


George Eulas Foster: I am
something like my hon. friend in that, and so 1 : ok the weights as they were generally agreed upon.


Levi Thomson: The present weight is really below the average.


George Eulas Foster: That is a good thing, to keep the quality well up.
On section 59, fees.


Frank Oliver: I wish to enter the same objection to this section as to two others that we have discussed. In my judgment these fees are vexatious without being remunerative and should not be imposed. I would again reserve the right of discussing this on the third reading.


George Eulas Foster: I have some very interesting figures on fees, but I shall withhold them until the occasion tc which my hon. friend refers when we might have the whole matter up at once.
On section 62, appointment of weighmas-ters.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to amend this section by adding after the word ' minister ' and before the words ' may appoint,' the words ' on the recommendation of the board.' The amendment explains itself.
Section as amended agreed to.	*


George Eulas Foster: After the word ' cargo ' I propose to add ' but no certificate shall be issued if scales appear to be defective.' As the clause actually reads it would almost mean that every weighmaster, or assistant was in fact bound to give a certificate. I think it is a fair safeguard to Mr. SCHAFFNER.
put at the end of the clause that no certificate shall- be issued if the scales appear to be defective.


Mr. CURRIE.: What is the necessity of the words 'upon demand'?


George Eulas Foster: It means that every weighmaster or assistant shall give a certificate when asked to do so.


John Allister Currie: I want to point out to the minister that under the law some of the weighmasters appointed at the terminal elevators throughout the country now, do weigh the grain, but, if the owner does not demand a certificate he is not obliged to pay any fees. The present clause states that the weighmaster shall give a. certificate upon demand. I think if the weighmasters have complete control, and have to give certificates they ought to be obliged to give certificates whether the owner demands them or not. I also think the fees should be paid whether a certificate is demanded or not.


George Eulas Foster: The fees are always paid, or, if they are not, the weighmaster is not getting his dues.


John Allister Currie: The weighmaster attends to the weighing, but when it comes to collect the fees the owner of the grain simply says he did not demand a certificate, and in that way gets out of paying the fees. That is an abuse which is actually existing at some of the terminal elevators.


George Eulas Foster: There have been cases of that kind, I am informed; but they have been followed up and the weighmasters eventually collected the fees.


John Allister Currie: I think the idea of this Act is to provide the fees necessary for the carrying out of it. Now, a shipper from the west sends his grain down through these elevators. It comes through the terminal elevator at Port Arthur and is weighed there, but the shipper does not demand any certificate, consequently the weighmaster does not collect any fees. That is something which is actually going on, and, to avoid it in future I think the words ' upon demand ' should be cut out altogether, making the clause read:
Every such weighmaster or assistant shall give to' any person having weighing done by him a certificate under his hand showing the amount of each weighing, the amount No. of each car or cargo weighed, the initial of the car, the place where weighed, the date of weighing and the contents of the car or cargo.
Then, the weighmaster could collect his fees.


George Eulas Foster: Subsection 2 of section 62 provides that the weigh-

masters and assistants shall receive such compensation, by fees or otherwise, as is determined by the Governor in Council, upon recommendation of the board. That fixes the principle that they shall be paid. Once the principle has been established that there are to be weighmasters, and that there are to be fees for the weighing, as I understand it, the object of section 66 is to make it impossible for a weighmaster or assistant to refuse a certificate.


John Allister Currie: Under the old Act the, shippers evaded paying the fees altogether by simply not demanding a certificate.


George Eulas Foster: I do not see that there would be anything wrong in I'.aving it read in this way:
Every such weighmaster or assistant shall give to any person having weighing done by him a certificate, etc.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Assuming the principle is thus made obligatory do not the words now proposed to be added take away from the obligation, because the weighmaster may say ' these scales appear to be out of order, therefore I will not give you a certificate
Mr, FOSTER (North Toronto). These words are simply for the protection of the man buying or selling.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Instead of giving any one an opportunity for not issuing their certificate, would it not be better to have a certificate obligatory, and, if the scales appear to be out of order have that fact stated on the face of the certificate.


George Eulas Foster: The idea is to get perfect and correct weighing.


John Allister Currie: I think the Weights and Measures Act provides that all scales must be tested at certain intervals, and if anyone uses a defective scale he is liable to a heavy fine. That comes under the Inland Revenue Department, which assumes responsibility for the correctness of the scale.


George Eulas Foster: I think it might he as well to let the section stand altered as suggested, and I will make a note of it. We can deal with it later on.
Section allowed to stand as amended.
On section 67-record of weight,
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved the adoption of section 67, as follows:
All weighmasters and their assistants shall make true weights, and keep a correct record of all weighing done by them at the places for which they are appointed, in which record shall be entered an accurate account of all grain weighed, or the weighing of which was supervised by them or their assistants, giving the amount of each weight, the number of 744
each car weighed, the initial letter of each ear or the name of each vessel, the place where weighed, the date of weighing, and the contents of the car or cargo; if the car is leaking or in bad order the record shall state the fact.
2. An extract from the record kept by any weighmaster or assistant in pursuance of this section, certified by the chief inspector or the chief weighmaster of the division, or by any officer iin the office of either of them, shall be prime, facie evidence of the facts set forth in such extract.
Section 67 carried without discussion.
On section 68-fees,
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved the adoption of section 68 as follows:
The fees for the weighing -of grain shall he such as are determined by the board which, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may increase or reduce them.	-


Frank Oliver: I would not take the same objection to this section as I have taken to previous sections relating to fees, but I would direct the attention of the hon. minister to subsection 2 of section 62, which provides for the payment of weighmasters in such a way as is determined by the Governor in Council, suggesting the idea that they may be paid by fees.
I would like to say I think it is objectionable that permanent officials holding such responsible positions as those of weighmasters should have to depend upon fees for their remuneration. I do not think they are paid by fees at the present time. I believe they are paid a salary. I think it is not desirable to have a suggestion in the Act that they should be paid otherwise than by fees. If the hon. minister agrees with me, I would like to be strong on that point.


George Eulas Foster: I find that at the present time, so far as the Georgian Bay ports are concerned? they are all paid, by fees. Peterborough is paid by salary. I note the objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), and I will look into the matter. As a rule payment by fee is not the best way. I wish to make a little change in this section No. 68. I propose to take out ' which,' making it read * determined by the board, with the approval of the Governor in Council.


Frank Oliver: Is that necessary? Drop out ' which ' and let the sentence end at * council.'


George Eulas Foster: Yes, that would cover it.


John Allister Currie: Before we leave section 67, I hope the minister will take a little suggestion from me. There is always a difference between the amount of grain weighed into the vessel at the terminals

at Port Arthur and Fort William, and the amount taken out at the foot'of the lakes. A year ago these differences made a total of 180,000 bushels. Some vessels are a thousand or fifteen hundred or even two thousand bushels short. Now, the vessel men say that that grain cannot take wings as it comes from the lakes, and they account for the difference in this way:	The grain is weighed by the
government weighmaster as it goes into the shipping bin, in which bin there is a spout going into the vessel. They say that the company that owns the elevator shuts off the spout before all the grain is out of the bin, and they come out at the end of the season ten or twenty thousand bushels ahead of the game.


Frank Oliver: Impossible!


John Allister Currie: Well, as I have said, the vessels coming down the lake had an aggregate shortage of 180,000 bushels. I would like to see a subsection added to section 67 to the effect that in -weighing grain into the vessel, the weighmaster shall be responsible for seeing to it that the shipping bin is empty before it is closed off. The minister could have a subsection drafted to meet this very troublesome situation which now gives [DOT]rise to differences and lawsuits among shippers, ship owners and the elevator men. The minister will remember that there was a great scandal about it a year or more ago. It was said that the elevators were full of grain that nobody owned.


George Eulas Foster: These difficulties have occurred and do occur. But could not the question be disposed of under section 69 which, provides that the board may make rules and regulations for the weighing of grain.


John Allister Currie: And the minister will see to it that the board does that?


George Eulas Foster: I will see to that.


John Allister Currie: All right,


Frank Oliver: I think this all bears out my suggestion that the weighmasters, above all others connected with the service should be paid a salary and should have no interest whatever in a fee. They should be men of the highest and of most assured reliability; and in order to secure that class of men permanent salaries must be provided.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose that the present system has arisen out of the variations in the work the weighmasters have to do; some weighmasters have a great deal to do, and in such cases a. salary could Be paid, but others have Mr. CURRIE.
very little to do, and it would be difficult to represent by a salary their real earnings.


John Allister Currie: The records of the elevators year by year would show what passes through the eievator, and would to a certain extent, be a guide as to what each officer should be paid. I quite agree that these officers should be independent. And I really think the minister ought to provide a corps of Northwest Mounted _ Police to see that these things are carried out. If that were done, I do not think we should have all these grain growers coming down here asking the government to take over the terminal elevators.


Frank Oliver: The shippers want that as well as the grain growers.


John Allister Currie: Everybody in the business gets robbed.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Chairman, we have made very good progress, I am sorry that I cannot go on with this Bill to-night, but I hope to take it up to-morrow.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Reress.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.-PASSES ON THE INTERCOLONIAL.

[Stage Direction]
Air. MONK, moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['And American companies.\nMr. PELLETIER-and American companies. I think it is the bounden duty of this government to do something in this respect. I have been asked, as the head of the Post Office Department, to give my views on this matter to a certain number of important newspapers in London, England. I have put it over my signature that we are not satisfied with the present system, and rates although they have been reduced to a great extent, and that we expect better for this country .in future, and that we must and are bound to get a cheaper means of cable communication. My words may appear strong, blit they are not any stronger than I think they ought to be.\nOn all these important questions I am happy to see that both sides of the House agree in believing that the government will endeavour to, and will succeed in doing its full duty.\nAmendment, Mr. Maclean (South York), agreed to.\nMr. MONK moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.']
Mr. EMMERSON.: I am sorry the Minister of Railways is not in his seat, as I wished to invite his attention to a matter of considerable importance to eastern Canada, I presume that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works will bring the matter to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Railways. Recently, instructions were sent from the Railway Department at Ottawa to Moncton to the effect that no family passes or trip passes for employees were hereafter to be issued without referring the matter to Ottawa. This was at variance with the long established custom that has obtained on the railway. There were certain rules defined by the department whereby the employees could get, for certain members of their families, at stated intervals, trip passes. A protest was sent to the minister, with the result that the instructions were recalled, and it is now left to the departmental officials tat Moncton and along the line to issue these trip passes. Accompanying the instructions relating to passes to employees and their families was an order to the effect that no passes could be issued to newspaper editors or reporters along the line, as had been the custom in
I

the past, without first referring the matter to the minister at Ottawa. The newspaper men naturally complain, and say that this is practicality withdrawing from them the transportation privileges which have been hitherto accorded to them without exception, for many years, aid along the line of the Intercolonial. ' These trip passes are given to reporters at times, on application of the *editorial management, to attend gatherings, inquests, and all occasions when newspaper men are expected to be hi attendance. They also say that under the new order tile occasion when transportation is required has in some instances long passed before they can get any word back from Ottawa. I think their complaint is well-founded. The government railways should be operated on the same principle as a corporation railway, subject to certain well-defined rules, giving the general manager and the officials of his office discretion to administer the rules which have been made by the department at Ottawa. I wished to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to this matter on behalf of the newspapers of the maritime provinces.


Mr. MONK.: I regret that the Minister of Railways is absent at this moment. I suppose my hon. friend had not notified him that he would bring this matter up, otherwise I am sure lie would have been here. I understand my hon. friend's complaint to be that, under the old usage, the families of employees -were entitled to free transportation without interference from the head of the department, and that now the rule is that to secure such transportation there must be a reference to the head of the department.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has been recalled by the minister within the last few days.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: With some modification, I understand. With regard to newspaper representatives, transportation could be obtained without reference to the head of the department. I understand my hon. friend to say that that rule has been changed, and he would like to seq it restored, so that representatives of newspapers may obtain free transportation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In accordance with the general rules which have been clearly defined.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will see that the remarks of the hon. gentleman are communicated to the Minister of Railways.



William Findlay Maclean: I desire to direct the attention of the House to the need of improving the parcel post
system we now have in this country. This question has been up a great many times in the House, and I believe the late government had a policy for the expansion of our parcel post system in order to give the people a much better system, and what w'ould be practically an improvement of the express system. We have accepted the principle of parcel post service in Canada already. We have had for years a parcel post which gives fairly good service. The trouble with it has been that it was limited in the weight of the parcels carried, and perhaps the tolls charged were not as moderate as they should be. But for years raid years now we have had a parcel post system, and session after session there has been an attempt made in the House to extend that system; it has been discussed also., in connection with the excessive rates now charged by the express companies on parcels. My idea in substance is this, that if we expanded our parcel post system at the persent time, the effect would be that the express rates would be cut in two tomorrow, and the public of Canada would have relief to that extent. The people of the Canadian west, who to-day have enormous railway grievances of one kind and another, at a time when they feel the condition of affairs to be onerous, would have a reduced express service. That service would be cut in two, practically, to-morrow, if we expanded our parcel post system on the very lines that I believe had been arranged by the late government, reference to which was made the other night, and reference to which I intend to make later on.
Now, if any one has any doubt of the efficacy of the parcel post to-day, I would like to hear the argument presented. I think the parcel post has been absolutely successful wherever it has been tried. Every-nation that has adopted it, with the exception of Canada, has expanded it and extended it by increasing the weight of the parcels to be carried, and they have done it with great and lasting service to the public. Great Britain has been one of the most successful countries in administrating a parcel post system, she has led the world in the matter of postal progress. At one time, I believe, a letter cost a shilling in Great Britain, but now, owing to her almost free postal system, the price of letter postage was reduced from time to time, until it has attained its present very low figure. We have had the same experience, so has the United States, namely, that in proportion as you improve the postal system, and as you reduce the cost of postage you increase the service rendered to the public, and in that way, you help along the progress of the country. Now, I wish to find out either from the present Postmaster General or the late Postmaster General what was the proposal that was before the

late government for two or three years, and which, according to a statement made here the other night, was blocked in the last session, and could not therefore be put into effect. As I understand the matter, it requires no further legislation to extend the parcel post system, all it requires is an order in council. There is a provision in the law now to do so, it is all a matter of policy, and to my mind it is largely a matter of the opinion of this House whether we shall have a parcel post system to-morrow, greatly extended, or not. Seven or eight years ago I brought into this House a motion to regulate the charges of express companies in connection with the Eailwa.y Act. Session after sesion I brought motions forward in that direction. But after several defeats, and after a good deal of hard fighting, those of us who favoured the proposal at last induced the government to put the express companies under the regulations of the Railway Act; so that we have already made some progress. But they are not very extensive. The fruit growers have complained time after time about the exorbitant express rates, and, do what we like and argue what we like, there is very little hope of relief from the express companies or the railway corporations until this country goes into active competition with the exprelss companies through the medium of the parcel post. Public competition is the one thing which will bring the express companies to a sense of their duty to the people and compel them to reduce their charges.
I want to refer for a moment to this principle of public competition. I spoke of it in the House the other day and I return to it to-night, It is the only available weapon in the hands of parliament, the legislatures and the municipalities, to bring private corporations exercising public franchises to a sense of their duty and to a realization of the service which they ought to give and especially the rates which they ought to charge. We have in the province of Ontario embarked in what are called municipal enterprises and we have begun in many of our towns and cities to run our own street railway systems and to generate and distribute our own electric power. We have gone a step further and now we have formed a great combination of municipalities to buy electric power at Niagara Falls and distribute it throughout the province of Ontario. The greatest and the most successful experiment in regard to public ownership, the public control and distribution of a great utility, is in the province of Ontario in connection with the Hydro-Electric Commission, the men who administer it and the associated municipalities. The result of public competition Mr. MACLEAN (South Tork).
in Ontario in connection with electrical energy has been that prices have been cut in two and further reductions are promised. If there is one thing that the people of Ontario believe in-and the people of Ontario are as progressive as those of any other section of the country- it is in the efficiency of public competition in connection with a public service, to improve the service and to cut the rates in two, or even to reduce them more than half. Every municipality in Ontario that has tried public competition in this respect, either in connection with the HydroElectric Commission or of its own motion, has succeeded not only in cheapening the price but in doubling and trebling the use of the utility by the people. When you reduce the cost you increase the use of the utility in a greater proportion. So, the people of Ontario know the efficacy of public competition. They know what public competition can do to increase a service and to reduce its cost.
My argument here to-night is that if we were to put our parcel post system in operation on . an extended scale, if we were to increase the weight of parcels and improve the service, and if we made the delivery of parcels a part of the service, it would have the effect of improving the service and reducing the rates of the parcel post, and not only reducing the rates of the parcel post, but compelling express companies to follow in the same way, that is improve their service and reduce their rates. It does not require any more legislation. The legislation is on the statute-book. All it requires is an order in council. If we establish this principle in connection with parcel post, and if we compel the railway companies to reduce their express charges it follows, as night follows day or day follows night, that all we have to do is to intimate to the telegraph companies that unless they cut their rates in two or reduce them greatly the government will be compelled to go into the telegraph business. We have legislation now on the statute-books which will allow us to go into the telegraph business. If we once make the railway companies understand that government competition will come against them if they do not treat the public fairly, reduce their rates and give a better service, they will be very quick to give a better service and to cut their rates. If we wish to help the people of the northwest with regard to the conditions which prevail there, and railway grievances form the great bulk of their troubles, the time is now and the method to adopt at the outset is an extension of the parcel post system.

The people of the United States are today agitated over a parcel post system. They have never had it. As I have said in this House time after time, the reason they have not had a parcel post system in the United States up to date is that- the railway lobby has been so strong that they have been enabled to defeat every proposal for a parcel post system that came up in Congress. But the day of the supremacy of the railways is at an end. A committee in the recent session collected a great deal of information on the matter, a Bill has been introduced, or is now about to be introduced into Congress, and both parties are committed to put it through. In a very few days you will see the Americans with a first-class parcel system. They see now what can be done in this connection. Only a year ago or less they introduced for the first time, the postal savings bank system against the opposition of the National banks, and all the other banking institutions of the United States. But the savings bank in connection with the post office now has got more business than it can do, and yet the proposition was at the outset that the Postmaster General should try only a limited number of offices. But, day by day, he has extended that system of post office savings banks, and to-day one of the things that the American people are most interested in in the way of recent legislation is the measure which inaugurated the post office savings bank, and the result is that they are determined to have a parcel post system. The American post office to-day is carrying parcels for the British parcel post, and delivering them through the United States. It has to do it because of the International Postal Treaty. It is carrying those parcels for people in Great Britain who wish to send them to the United States, and it is delivering them all through the United States for one-quarter what the express companies charge. The people are finding out that they could send a parcel to England, mail it there and have it delivered, but for the duty, at a cheaper rate than the express companies would charge at any point in the United States.
There is a great argument against the expansion of the parcel post system in this country. I have tried to find out what it was, and I have heard it stated in this House at times. When I came to follow it up, the argument, outside of that of the railway companies who wish to maintain the monopoly that they at present have, Is that it would be hard on the country storekeepers. I have heard men say in this House, it has been written in the press, and I have heard on the platform, that if the parcel post system were extended it would hurt the country storekeeper, and
would be for the advantage of the large departmental stores in the cities, and those stores which carry on what is known as a mail order business. That may be; but there never was an improvement introduced that did not hurt somebody. The steam railways put the stage coaches, horses, country inns and blacksmiths along the roads, out of business, and in that way there was a grievance against the railways. But look at the advantage which came to the general public from the improvement in the speed and comfort of travel.
The world will progress and the old order must give place to the new, and even if it be a disadvantage to the country storekeeper, it is the good which it will do to the general community that must prevail. Think of what an immense advantage it would be to the settler away out on the prairie to be in touch not only with the country store, but also with the base of supplies. I know any number, of instances where when a part of an agricultural implement was needed in a hurry and it had to be sent by express, the express charge was greater than the original cost of the article. That should not be. We have one railway 'in Ontario under public ownership, but I am sorry to say that the express charges on that railway are about as high as they are on the corporation roads. It is not right that the settler in that portion of Ontario should be handicapped by these unnecessarily high rates on the government road. If the people in other countries have the advantage of this enlarged parcel post system why cannot the people of Canada have it? So far as I can find out the block has been caused by the express companies who use the country storekeeper as a buffer between them and an extended parcel post; the voice may be the voice of Jacob, but the hand is the hand of Esau. When John Wanamaker was Postmaster General of the United States he announced in public that he would like to give the people the advantage of an enlarged parcel post, but there were four great reasons blocking the way and these were the four express companies which were allied with the railway interests. Amt these reasons exist in Canada to-day, and they will block the proposal as long as the people allow them to do so. We have fourteen thousand postmasters in Canada every one of whom could become a parcel post agent with a trifling addition to his salary, while to-day the railway and express companies have only their agents at the different railway stations. See what an advantage it would be if every postmaster could handle parcels. And then, consider what a centre of life it would be if we had in every village a post office where parcels could be handled, a telephone office and perhaps telegraph office which with the growing

business could give the community a day and night service throughout the year. That is the present position in many European countries and it has proved to be a great blessing to the people who live at a distance from the centres of population. The Winnipeg ' Free Press ' is making a strong campaign now to improve railway conditions particularly in the west, and it has been able to prove that the people of the west are paying more in freight charges than are the people of the United States, and far more than the people of eastern Canada. The ' Free Press ' shows that if we had an improved parcel post system we would immediately get reduced freight charges all over the Northwest. I give the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' credit for its campaign in that direction. It has made out a case against the railways and express companies and a good way to bring those corporations to time is to extend the parcel post system in this country. The Postmaster General and the ex-Postmaster General are here to-night and I hope they will give us some information on the subject, and I hope that the result of this debate will be that the government will accept the principle I advocated and declare themselves in favour of an extended parcel post. To show what the feeling of the west is I read the following from a speech made in this House by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) a few days ago:
Some time ago the hon, member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux), then Postmaster General, proposed that the parcel post system should be greatly extended. At that time I felt that it was going to he of more use to the departmental stores in our country than to the public in general and I was one of those who told him I would not support that proposition. I must say that I have changed my mind. I think I made a mistake, and those of us, and there were enough of us to stop his good efforts, who voted in that way, did in my opinion make a mistake. T hope the Postmaster General will, unless we get better treatment from the express companies, extend the parcel post system. If the Postmaster General introduces an extended parcel post system I will support him now because we have not had fair treatment from the express companies, and if the express companies want to head off an extended parcel post they will substantially and quickly reduce their rates.
There is no use waiting, or threatening an investigation before tfie Railway Commission, let us declare for an extended parcel post system now, and relief will come at once.
As I have said, I wish to see adopted in this country that new and great principle in connection with private owned public franchises, public competition wherever it can be put in force. Of course I would prefer to see a public monopoly in this matter and not the competition that I propose Mr. MACLEAN (South York).
in this case. But perhaps we are not ready to come to that. I am ready for public ownership of all these monopolies now and completely. I would put the express companies completely out of business, I would take over the whole monopoly. I would put the telegraph companies out of business and make that a government monopoly. But if we cannot have that let us have public competition so as bring down the rates and improve the service.
What is the essential advantage of public ownership over private ownership in the matter of great public utilities? It is this: Public ownership seeks to improve the service and cheapen the price, while private ownership tries to reduce the service and increase the profits of the owners. The difference is as wide as that between daylight and dark, the difference between a corporation, an organization of men trying to improve and widen the service ana cheapen the cost, and an organization of men trying to make the most money possible out of it. Wherever there has been public ownership of these great utilities the result has been to extend the service to a great many people. There is always a line in public ownership where the service does not pay, but year after year such a service is extended to the smaller and outlying communities, thereby increasing its usefulness. But the first thing a private company controlling a public monopoly says is: Is there a big profit in it for us, if not we shall not extend it until you can show us that there is money in it. The whole tendency of the world to-day is to extend the parcel post system. They are coming to it in the United States, they have every faith in it in Great Britain and Europe; they have worked it out in Australia and New Zealand until it is a great-success and why should Canada further delay? Why should somebody be able to come into this House, the railway and express companies, I imagine, and under the guise of protecting the country storekeepers, prevent the people of this country having so useful and necessary a thing as cheap parcel post? The railways should not have that influence and I hope they will not have it any longer. I hope that the members here to-night, irrespective of party, will declare in favour of the extension of a parcel post system and let the word go to the people of the Canadian west to-morrow, in their trials and difficulties and the trouble that has come to them by reason of the late crops, the bad weather and the inability of the railways to give them caTe, and of the elevators to store their grain.


John Gillanders Turriff: And the lack of markets.


William Findlay Maclean: And the lack of markets, if the hon. gentleman wishes to say so, and bring the political

idea into it. If we can do something for them, let us do it now, let us do something for the people of the west to-day. We are giving them a Grain Act, an important advantage, let us give them something else, let us give them, a cheaper parcel post and cheaper express to-morrow. If we give them cheaper express by parcels post to-morrow, then next week they will have cheaper telegraphs, the railways will see that if they do not reduce their telegraph rates there will be public competition there as well. If we could give them reduced passenger rates, that would be a great relief to them. Our railways are earning enormous profits, and the people in the west should have a cheaper passenger rate. I tried the other night to get an equalization of freight charges in this country. That is something to which they are entitled. [DOT]
I hope the House will unite in support of this motion, and that we will be able to give to the people of the Canadian west an immediate relief in the way of express charges not only in their country, but throughout the whole of Canada.
I therefore beg to move, seconded by Mr. McCraney:
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This House is of the opinion that the expansion and extension of the parcels post system would be in the public interest.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville).: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the principle of this motion, and after having heard the last remarks of the hon. member for South York, I am even more strongly in favour of it because the hon. gentleman by his remarks has gone a little further than the words of his motion. He is not only in favour of an extension of the parcel post system, but also in favor of larger markets for the Canadian farmer.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And when I hear such a doughty supporter of protection as he was during the last general election advocating larger markets for the Canadian farmer, surely I cannot be false to the motion which he has so ably presented to the House.
My hon. friend has .appealed to me as a former Postmaster General, and has been kind enough to quote some remarks which I made last year on the subject when I had the^ honour of being Postmaster General. It is true that last year, speaking on this very question, I expressed the opinion very frankly and speaking for myself alone, that the day was not far distant when the Post Office Department of Canada should take upon itself the duty of establishing a parcel post system. At the present the parcel post service is chiefly carried on by the railway companies, or by the express companies, the Canadian Express Company, and the Dominion Express Company, which are part and parcel of the two great railway systems, the Canadian Pacific railway, and the Grand Trunk railway. In every European country the express business is carried on by the Post Office Department.
Allow me to express here the opinion which I expressed the other day before the Canadian Club of Montreal, and which was re-echoed by the press, that the day has practically come in Canada when the Postmaster General should be not only the letter carrier of His Majesty the King, but should also be (as he is in foreign countries) the minister of communication. In England, in France, in Germany, in Japan, and very soon to be in the United States the Postmaster General is the superintendent not only of the post office, but also of the telegraph and telephone rates and parcel post system.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we have in our post office regulations a parcel post system in the embryonic stage. It is hidden in the Canadian Official Postal Guide. My hon. friend the Postmaster General, in whose ability and alertness and businesslike methods I have the utmost confidence, will see himself that we are only at the embryonic stage-that for many reasons, which he knows as well as I do, the express companies were allowed to hold in their hands the parcel post system of this country. However, notwithstanding the regulations of his department, the time has come when a bold policy should be adopted and when the Post Office Department-should establish a popular and cheap parcel post such as they have in other countries of the old world, even in japan.
I might remind my hon. friend that some years ago when I took office there was a movement on foot, especially in the province of Ontario, and in some of the provinces of the west, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, strongly in favour of the establishment of a cheap parcel post system in Canada. I received many petitions praying for the establishment of such a system, but, concurrently or concomitantly I was deluged with petitions signed by farmers who were deluded into signing'them by the railway companies. It was easy to see" that these petitions were engineered by the railway companies, or rather by the express companies. My hon. friend the Postmaster General may see these petitions in the Post Office Department. They are in the archives of the department, if they have not been eaten by the rats. He will see that whether these petitions were signed in the province of Ontario or in the constituencies of the west they were all worded in about


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Not ours.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, but my hon. friend remembers when we had to pay 3 cents on a letter.


William Findlay Maclean: Five cents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Until 1893 our cheapest rate was 3 cents. The- penny system was then adopted as between Canada and the
rest of the empire. There were people who predicted a huge deficit in the Post Office Department. On the contrary, I make bold to say, the surplus of the post office is due directly to the reduction of the postal rates. Some years ago, I myself as Postmaster General, introduced a reduction in the rates on what are called ' drop letters/ letters to addresses in the city within which they are posted. This was a reduction from two cents to one cent on a letter and applied to all the large cities of the country. I was told by the officers of the department that we might perhaps suffer a check for some years in the revenue of the department. On the contrary, within a few months after the rate of 1 cent for drop, letters had been adopted, we had a surplus, a surplus which must be attributed to the fact that we reduced the rates. And the same result will follow if my hon. friend will adopt cheap parcel post for this country. In postal matters the United States has been a follower of Canada, having followed us in the adoption of many improvements which we ourselves had borrowed from Great Britain. For instance, there was the postal savings bank system, which, copied from Canada by the United States, has been a great success. But as regards the parcel post, the United States has stolen a march on Canada. I have here a report, the latest issue that they have in the library. That report shows that Postmaster General Hitchcock has proposed to establish a cheap parcel post, using in that connection, the agency of the rural mail system.
I read from page 10 of the Post Office Department Annual Reports of the United States:
The recommendation made in the last annual report of the department for the introduction of a limited parcel post service on rural routes is earnestly renewed. It is believed that as soon as the postal savings system is thoroughly organized the Post Office Department should be prepared to establish throughout the country a general parcel post. As the preliminary step in the development of such a -service it is hoped, that Congress will authorize the delivery on rural routes of parcels weighing as much as 11 pounds-
Our limit is 5 pounds.
-which is the weight limit for the international parcel post. This form of service can be conducted with little, if any, additional expense to the government. It will not require the appointment of more carriers, for those already employed have the necessary equipment in the way of horses and wagons to distribute the parcels as welt -as the ordinary mail, which is rarely of sufficient volume to take up more -than a small portion of the mail space in the carrier's wagon. A rural parcel post of the kind proposed, if successfully conducted, would probably lead to a. more general system. Before the parcel ser-

vice is extended to the whole country, however, definite information should be obtained as to the nature and volume of the business (o be handled. It is accordingly urged that in conjunction with the experiment on rural routes a further inquiry be authorized by Congress in order that the department may be in a better position to develop the system on conservative lines and that a special appropriation for the inquiry be promptly granted.
This was in 1910, and since then the United States Post Office Department have put in force a limited parcel post system in connection with the rural mail system. Now I would not be so radical as to say that throughout the whole length and breadth of Canada there should be a general parcel post system, at very low rates. The machinery for such a system would be very costly to . begin with, and I do not know whether it would work very well. You can require the rural mail carrier to carry a parcel, because he has the machinery for it; but the ordinary mail carrier, where there is no rural mail delivery, is not in the same position. Of course, the hon. gentleman would have to invite new tenders, and to revise many of his contracts. I am aware that he is revising some of them without establishing a parcel post. However, that is only en passant. The hon. gentleman will see at once that by extending his rural mail system, although limited in its extent, which he has at present, he can start in with a cheap parcel post. I know that my hon. friend will be opposed at the start, but opposed by whom? Not by the people of this country, not by the honest merchants, butj he will W opposed by the express companies. But the express companies have taken out of our hands the business which we ought to ehrry ourselves. The parcel post is one of the public utilities which by its nature pertain to the Postmaster General.


Mr. LALOB.: Did the hon. gentleman find any opposition to the parcel post system by the country merchants?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I explained a moment ago that when I took office there was for a time a strong agitation in the press of the country generally in favour of a cheap parcel post. When petitions began to pour in to the department, I was surprised to find that all those petitions were worded in the same way, the same reasons were invoked against the system, in fact the same printed forms were used all over Canada. _ From what I gathered from the officers in the department, I concluded in my own mind that the agitation originated from the express companies; in fact I have no doubt of it whatever. That is easy to understand. The moment the Postmaster General of Canada starts a Mr. LEMIEUX.
cheap parcel post system, having already under his hand a complete machinery to carry it out, it is easy to understand that his rivals will be the express companies. But I say again, the express companies ought not. to be allowed to take away from the Postmaster General a business which by its nature pertains to his department. At all events, the establishment of a cheap parcel post system would bring the express companies to reason and to terms. Let me read from a pamphlet published by Mr. Kindel, ' Relation of a Parcel Post to Businessmen and Farmers'; this was read, before the Trans-Mississippi Congress in November, 1911. Here is a paragraph which applies exactly to our own conditions in Canada; in fact, you might change the names of the cities of New York and Boston to Montreal and Toronto, and you will find that it exactly describes our conditions:
How the United States government discriminates against its own citizens in favour of those of foreign countries.
Well, my hon. friend and myself, unwillingly, when I was in office, did discriminate against our own citizens in favour of those of foreign countries.
To illustrate the inconsistency in connection with the parcel post service attention is drawn to the following conditions: An individual entering any post office in the United States with two parcels weighing four pounds each will be obliged to pay 64 cents on the one to New York, for example, while for the one destined to a foreign country, although it usually passes through New York city, the charge is 48 cents. Should the weight be 4 pounds 6 ounces, a package addressed to the resident of New York will be denied admission to the mail by the postmaster, while the package intended for a resident of a foreign land wilt be accepted and forwarded, probably via New York, at the rate of 12 cents per pound. The parcels for the foreign country will be received in most instances up to 11 pounds. In other words, our own people must pay 4 cents per pound more for the privilege of dispatching packages to each other than when destined to residents of foreign countries.
I have already said that when I was Postmaster General-I make no bones about it, my hon. friend and myself are equally guilty in that respect-we have been too kind to the express companies, and we have not been bold enough in regard to a parcel post in former years. We should have been as bold in this direction as we have been in the reduction of postal rates on letters and drop letters. Let me read to the House a paragraph from ' La Follette's Weekly ':
At present, the transportation of parcels, except for very small ones, is in the grip of the express monopoly. Every person who sends a Christmas package must pay tribute to the few individuals who control the express

business-must help to create those enormous 24 million dollar ' lemons/ Service that is rightly part of the people's Post Office Department is now performed not as a public function but as a means of building up col-lossal private fortunes.
If the Christmas package were our only small parcels transportation problem, it would not be serious. But, as a nation, the shipment of parcels enters in an important degree into the economy of our daily life. Now to send small shipments quickly, cheaply, and securely is a thing which America has apparently been unable to learn from the enlightened countries of Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa and South America. It is not that the people of the country do not understand the condition, nor that they do not Understand the remedy. It i9 only that congress is deaf to the public demands for a national parcels post.
Here is a good occasion for my hon. friend to make a name for himself. I will give him all the credit he will deserve if he starts, in the not too far distant future, a cheap parcel post system.
Representative agencies of public thought, neswspap-ers and public speakers have for years voiced this demand. Labour organizations in their national conventions and through their accredited representatives, have emphasised it. The farmers of the country plead for it.
But for some mysterious reason the demand, not only of the farmers but of labouring men and public spirited oitizens generally, when they have touched the subject of parcels post have been persistently ignored by congress.
A parcel post is no mysterious thing. It means simply that congress shall authorize and that the Post Office Department shall put into operation rules and machinery for the transportation of packages in the domestic mails of the United States reasonable rates, subject only to reasonable, not arbitrary limitation as to size and weight.
As I stated a moment ago, you can 'substitute the words ' parliament of Canada,' for ' Congress,' and the name ' Ottawa ' for ' New York,' and you have exactly a picture of our parcel post system as it at present exists in Canada. If my hon.friend wishes seriously and conscientiously to deal with this subject, I warn him at once that he will meet with some obstacles in his path.	I mentioned a
moment ago the express companies. He may also meet with some red tape in the department. I do not wish to blame the officials of the department, but I only wish to say that after a system has been in existence for years and after certain rates have been established, strange to say, when a demand is made for a reduction or a change immediately objections are made, not by the public, not by legislators, but by the officials of the department. In the Post, Office Department I can say that my hon. friend has most, intelligent officers who are quite in
accord with the public on his question. I would remind him of one thing.. If it is not shelved, he will find a report in the department on this very question prepared by my good friend, Mr. Geo. Ross, of Toronto, chief Postoffice Superintendent of Canada, one of the ablest men in the world as regards postal matters generally. I would not be afraid to put Mr. Geo. Ross of Toronto on a par with the postoffice officials of any country in the world. He has been trained in the postoffice system for forty years. He is a very able man, full of ideas and always ready to accept a reform when a reform suggests itself to the public. My hon. friend will find in the del partment a very lengthy report prepared by Mr. Ross about three months ago. I was under the charm of that report when I left office, unfortunately. That report simply confirms what my hon. friend has stated this evening and very largely what the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) stated yesterday. If my hon. friend will read the remarks made by my hon. friend for East Lambton yesterday-I am sorry I cannot refer to a past debate- he will find concrete facts which are corroborated by Mr. Ross in his lengthy and able report which conclusively proves the necessity of starting afresh on this question of the parcel post in Canada. Now, I have said all I have to say on this question.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I desire to profit by the experience which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux), has had while occupying the high position of Postmaster General for several years, and perhaps he will be prepared to give some suggestions as to how this parcels post system might be put into effect as far as rates and weights are concerned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will find all that in Mr. Ross' report.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I want to know if my hon. friend agrees with those figures, because I have seen the report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend has seen the report I am very glad because he is more conversant with the subject than I thought he was. I agree completely with Mr. Ross' conclusions, and I say that the hon. member for East Lambton yesterday propounded a scheme which could be arranged. By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I might be allowed to quote a few of the remarks of the hon. member for East Lambton. .


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is part of the subject introduced by the hon. member for East Lambton, and discussed yesterday. While great latitude is allowed in moving an amendment to go into Committee of Supply, there is a limitation to it which I think it is well to keep in mind.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is no objection whatever on this side of the House to the hon. gentleman going into this subject fully. It is a matter of very great public interest.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) illustrated yesterday the way in which the system, as propounded by Mr. Ross, could be worked out in Canada, and how it vyould be possible to do away with the objection raised wfith respect to departmental stores. It is a scheme which would establish the parcels post system within the limits of rural mail routes, and would not deprive the country merchants of their clientele. My hon. friend will, I am sure, read over the report of Mr. Ross. I fully agree with that report. I have nothing more to add on this subject. I am in accord with the motion made by the hon. member for South York, In this matter, as in all matters, it requires a little boldness and some courage. We have been experimenting in the Post Office Department for the last ten or fifteen years with this result, as the logical conclusion of these experiments, that whenever we have * established cheap rates we have had larger revenues. The same thing is true with respect to cables. Some years ago when there was but one cable between America and Europe the rate for one word was fl, and the cable service was, therefore, inaccessible to the people.
The moment a second company was started there was a reduction in the rates, in 1887 and 1888 the cable rates, because of competition went dow'n so low as twelve cents a word. So long as the express companies are not interfered with there will be a monopoly and high express rates, but if the Postmaster General follows the suggestions made by Mr. Ross in his very able report, he will render a great service not only to the residents of the cities, but to the farmers of the country as well. In Germany and France the farmers make tremendous use of the parcel post system by sending their staples such as eggs, butter and cheese to the market, and the parcel post is one of the paying agencies of the postal service in European countries. Great Britain is in the van of progress amongst all civilized nations in her postal service. From Great Britain we got the penny post, and let us copy her in the parcel post system. Later on we can have a cheap telegraphic communication by establishing a state-owned cable between Canada and the mother country. If the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) does all that he will make a great name for himself.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) will be able to show us, as he has said, that the introduction of this parcel post system will Mr. SPEAKER:.
not unduly advantage the departmental stores of the cities, and unduly disadvantage the country merchants.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I trust the Postmaster General will place before the House the report of Mr. Ross which shows that a local parcel post system such as they have in the United States can be established without injuring the country merchant, but rather that it will be an advantage to him. I know that a great objection comes from the country merchant, but the country merchant is stirred up insidiously by the express companies, and the objection is in reality only fictitious. We all know the methods of the monopolies for years and years in this country. On this important question which is now so widely discussed, my hon. friend will find that the report of Mr. Ross demonstrates that a local parcel post system will work to the advantage of the country merchant.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton).: I rise to a point of order. I have a motion on the order paper in connection with this very question which we were discussing last night at six o'clock when the House adjourned, and which will come up on Monday next when I shall be glad to have the support of the hon. gentlemen for it; but I wish to know if it is in order in this way to anticipate a motion which is already on the order paper.


William Findlay Maclean: This is a new proposal which has been presented. There is a great grievance in Canada in connection with the parcel post system and express charges, and the constitutional rule is to move for the redress of grievances before going into Supply. I have said that the parcel post system is one way of getting at the express companies


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In speaking to a point of order it is not permissible to wander off into a general debate.


William Findlay Maclean: I respect your ruling, Sir, but I wish to point out that if by putting a notice on the order paper you could block an amendment to Supply on the subject dealt with in that motion then there would be no possibility of bringing up grievances in this manner.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I cannot be here next Monday, and this debate has gone on for a long time, and if it should be stopped now I do not want the people of the country to think that I have any objection to its proceeding. I would rather have the question ventilated and the debate continued if it be within the rules of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is great latitude given on the discussion of amendments to the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the

Cliair for the House to go into Committee of Supply. Bourinot says:
The ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances is to he considered before the granting of supplies, is now represented by the practice of permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question for the Speaker leaving the chair before going into the Committee of Supply or Ways and Means.
Bourinot continues to point out certain limitations to this rule one of which is that you cannot discuss a matter which is already dealt with in a notice on the order paper, but the notice of the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) asks for a committee to gather information with respect to the nationalization of telegraphs and telephones, and the extension of parcel post, &c., while the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) is simply that the parcel post system be extended. In my judgment the amendment does not deal exactly with the same matter as the notice on the order paper, and it is therefore quite in order.


Mr. G. E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon).: I wish to second the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) and to give a few reasons why I wish to see the extension of the parcel post service. Those who have followed the discussion in the public press know that there is discrimination against the west in the matter of express rates. A rate which in the eastern provinces would be say $1, would be about $1.66 in the west. An extension of the parcel post system which would to a great extent do the business of the express companies would do away with that discrimination against the west.
Another grievance which our people in the west have is the paying of double express rates. The recipient of a parcel by express from Ontario who resides on the line of the Canadian Northern railway must pay an express rate to each of the two companies-The Dominion Express Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Express Company-during the winter season. There is no more reason for charging two express rates on an express parcel than for charging double postage on a letter going into any part of the west. An extension of the parcel post system would remove that double charge. Another reason for supporting this motion is that the express rates are too high and that the business if taken over by the government could be administered more economically than it is by the express companies and the exorbitant charges would be wiped out.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) with regard to the country storekeeper. I have not yet got away from the idea that
the country storekeeper is the mainstay of the settler. In the west many of our people who are poor, have no money and have no means of getting out their wheat and so must get credit. They do not get credit from T. Eaton & Company or from Robert Simpson & Company. It is the country storekeeper who must keep these people alive until they are able to get cash. If some arrangement can be worked out which will produce a system of parcel post which will not be to the disadvantage of the country storekeeper, then we will have a very perfect system indeed and when my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) with all his experience, assures us that that can be done, I am very glad indeed to support the proposal which is before the House.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am heartily in favour of the motion before the House. My principal reason is that the express companies are so exorbitant in their charges on goods going to the west. For instance I have in my office a bill for a four pound box of candy that was sent from Ottawa to Edmonton a year ago last Christmas. The box cost $2.40, and the Canadian Pacific railway express company charged $2.50 to take it from here to Edmonton. That has been the whole trouble, and I do not know of any better way to bring the express companies to time than to extend the parcel post. I would not like to interfere with the country merchants but I believe, as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), has said that a system can be devised that will be fair to the country merchants and to the settlers as well. We must always bear in mind that for one country merchant there are 50 farmers or more, so that their interests, I think, have to be kept well to the fore. The express charges are simply ruinous and this is the best way to deal with them.


Richard Blain: Is the charge to which my hon. friend refers the regular, ordinary charge?


John Gillanders Turriff: It was the regular charge and the party who sent the four pound box objected strongly and held off paying for a week or so but they insisted that that was the ordinary charge and compelled him to pay the $2.50 from here to Edmonton.
M.r. BLAIN. Was it carried by one express company or two?


John Gillanders Turriff: By one express company only, because the Canadian Pacific railway have a continuous line between here and Edmonton.


Mr. HENDERSON.: 1 was very much interested in the speech of the ex-Postmaster General, more especially with reference to the effect produced by the reduction of rates

of postage, particularly on drop letters. It may be in the recollection of the ex-Postmaster General that on several occasion* in past years I drew his attention to the fact that whilst he had reduced the rate of postage on drop letters in the cities, he had not given to the people in the country any corresponding reduction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am for that now.


David Henderson: His argument then was that he could not make up his mind to give the people in the small towns and villages and in the townships a reduction to one-half cent on drop letters in rural districts until he had discovered what would be the result of the drop from two cents to one cent in the cities. My argument was that if that was good in one instance it ought to be good in the other and the exPostmaster General put me off from time to time until he should discover what the result would be in the cities.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear, the time has come now.


David Henderson: The time has come and the ex-minister has become a convert to my contention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are justified.


David Henderson: I purpose to-night making use of the arguments of the exPostmaster General to impress on the present Postmaster General that in consideration of the cities having received a reduced rate of postage from two cents to one cent on drop letters, the present Postmaster General should now render to the people in the rural districts which I represent more particularly that justice which my hon. friend the ex-Post:master General (Mr. Lemieux) could not see his way clear to granting in the past. I trust the Postmaster General will find in what I have said and in.what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) justification for making the reduction which I then asked and which I am very glad to ask for now.
To this extent, at least, I am in sympathy with the motion of the hon. member for South York. I think that whatever extension is made to the postal system should be to the material benefit of the country merchant, who has occasion to use the post office a gireat deal for the purpose of advertising hie wares. Whether the object of the hon, gentleman from South York (Mr. Maclean), is carried out or not, I am sure my hon. friend the Postmaster General, particularly having heard the admission of his predecessor in office, will make an amendment to the postal law that will give the effect to the proposition for which I contended on several occasions.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the proposed
motion resulted in the lessening of Mr. HENDERSON.
the express rates I think it would be a very desirable course to take. We often hear complaints about the east and the west, but there are never any mur-murings as regards the east. Nevertheless,' the express rates in eastern Canada are abnormally high, and unconscionably excessive. A charge, for instance, from New Brunswick to the city of Ottawa of $1.80 per hundred pounds for articles like vegetables, which cost less than $1 per hundred pounds, would seem to be by comparison outrageously excessive. Yet, particularly during the present season, these commodities can only be brought to Ottawa by express. You cannot trust to way freights, so the express companies are used. That is only one illustration. Many others could be cited to indicate that there is something wrong with the express charges in eastern Canada as well as in the west. I have not looked into the subject of parcel post, and how far it would.discriminate against the retail 'merchants throughout the country, but I rather suspect that those who have been complaining in this regard have not been the retail merchants, but the transportation companies who are interested. I can say this however, that of aitl the revenue of the Intercolonial railway the largest precentage, without a corresponding expense charge is that derived from the Canadian Express Company and the Dominion Express Company. That business is done on a percentage basis, and if you will turn to the records of the Intercolonial railway you will see the very large sum which goes into the treasury of the railway -as its proportion of the express charges. You would be' amazed at it when you realize that special trains are not run, and that there are not even express cars on every train. Now, that amount is only a small proportion of the total express charge. The balance goes to the express companies. If you consult these figures you can form some idea of the burden which is placed on those who have to pay these charges. I speak of this because I think it is a matter with which the Railway Commission should deal at once, and if the action suggested by my hon. friend the Postmaster General would result in an awakening of the conscience's of the express companies (if they can be said to have such a thing) it would be doing a very great service to the people of Canada.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Without entering into any discussion I merely wish to place the two resolutions on ' Hansard.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think it is permissible to discuss a ruling of the Chair. It may be appealed against to the House, but that is the only way it can be touched.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not intend to discuss the ruling of the Chair,

Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to place the two resolutions on ' Hansard.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that is the purpose of bringing up the two resolutions again.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: There
seems to be a general opinion expressed on both sides of the House that the express rates in this country are excessive. This is a question which has been before the House a good many times. We have discussed it session after session, and we believed a few sessions ago that when we left the regulation of the express rates to the Railway Commission the people of the country would have some remedy, and that their grievances would receive redress. I think this question was brought up again at the last session of the House, and apparently the Railway Commission moved in the matter, making some slight reduction in the express rates.
We hear the Railway Commission praised; and I think they deserve great credit for what they have done in connection with railway traffic and arrangements. But I believe that in express rates, they have not done their duty. The reductions they have made were so small as to amount to little or nothing. I believe they should be urged to move in this matter of express rates and bring to an end such exorbitant charges as were referred to by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). There is no reason why we should not have lower rates, especially when we consider the capitalization of the express companies and the great profits they are making. While I am not opposed, and I am not going to _ express opposition, to the proposed extension of the parcel post system, at the same time I would remind the Postmaster General that 90 per cent-I think I .am safe in saying 90 per cent-of the merchants throughout the Dominion are opposed to this change. Large stores in the principal centres, such concerns as the T. Eaton company and the Simpson company of Toronto, are supplying people all over this country with merchandise which should be bought from their local country merchants, and the proposed reduction of the parcel post rates will increase to an enormous extent this form of business. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has told us that a system could be worked out which would give us an extension of parcel post service, yet not hurt the country merchant, The explanation did not satisfy me. I do not see how it could be done. Surely, if the rates are lowered the country merchant must be hurt. Some hon. members on the other side spoke as if they would oppose the extension of the system, if it were likely to hurt the country merchant. Though they hope under the advice of the hon. member for Rou-75
ville, that a system can be worked out that will allow an extension of the system without causing injury to the country dealers. As to the petitions that were sent in, the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) has suggested that they were initiated by the express companies. Unless the hon. member can give us some authority for that statement, I can only say that I think he is mistaken. I believe the petitions were initiated by the Retail Merchants Association. They were certainly circulated by country merchants, and many of those petitions, including some that I received from my constituency, were signed by farmers who were opposed to the big departmental stores supplying the farmers to the injury of the trade ol the country merchant. While, as I have said, I am not expressing opposition to the extension of this service, I hope the Postmaster General will consider it from all points of view before he decides. For I believe it is going to be a great injury to the country merchants. As has been said here to-night, the farmers depend pretty largely upon the country merchants, and I think we should keep that fact in view.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. Without expressing an opinion now upon any of the explanations which have been made, let me say at the outset that, with the general way in which the motion has been drafted, there is no objection to accepting it as it stands. I think the House will be very much indebted to hon. (members who have studied this question and have given us the benefit of their suggestions and advice. Without referring-as I am not allowed to refer under the rules-to the debate of yesterday, I may be permitted to say that we had from the hon. member from Bast Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) not only an elaborate, but a statesmanlike presentation of this 'and the other questions with which he dealt. He has evidently looked into these questions very carefully, and I not only thank him on my own behalf, but I am sure that I express the sentiment of all the members of this House on both sides when I say that we are indebted to the hon. member for having put on ' Hansard ' the result of what must have been a pretty long study of the subject. I was sorry that, because of the House adjourning at six o'clock, my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) had not an opportunity to say everything he wished to say. I hope I may be here when the debate is resumed. If it is gone on with on Monday, I regret to say, I cannot be present; but I hope to be able to arrange with my hon. friend to fix some other day when I can be here. For, having heard what was so ably said yesterday, I must say he has given me



such a mass of information on subjects within nny department that he 'has done for me a good deal of work which I should have otherwise have had to do -for myself. For that, I tender him my sincere thanks.
I now come to 'this question of parcel post which was included in a certain way in the motion of any hon. friend from East Lambton, and which has been dealt with to-night on the motion of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. MacLean). I have listened very attentively to the remarks of all the gentlemen who 'have spoken, and I was struck with several of the addresses, and amongst others, that of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who, in the course of his very able speech has ha'd the candour to tell this House-for it practi-calsy amounts to that-tnat his government might have done a great thing but failed to do it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We were just on the verge of doing it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It took them fifteen years to get to the verge. There were many things, apparently, that they were on -tiie verge -of doing, but the many bad things that they did must have kept them so busy they had not time to do tie good things. The time had indeed come for a Change of government, if these gentlemen, being imbued with such great and patriotic ideas, were not able to put them into effect. But now that they are in opposition, they say to us:	You are in power; do these
things now; we thought of it for fifteen year-s, yet we, this great government-they do not say ' great,' but everything points to that-did nothing; but you are in power; now do these things that we failed to do.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must say that in the position I occupy at present, I have something else to do than to present only one side of this question. Whilst I am in accord with the principle of the resolution before the House, I am bound to say that there are serious objections to putting it into effect, at least to any great extent. As we know, there are two sides to every question, and so there are to this one. There are objections and the objections exist not only from the point of view of the express companies. If this government, if the Post Office Department, comes to the conclusion that it is in the interest of the people at large to adopt a parcel post system, no express companies will prevent us from doing it. The question has many bearings, it is one of great importance. In view of the position taken in the past by the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), I have taken some pains to study this matter. I am bound to say that although the expansion Mr. PELLETIER,
of the parcel post system would undoubtedly be a great boon to the public, there are obstacles in the way, obstacles which my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has brushed aside with a wave of the hand, but which exist nevertheless. I think it necessary to lay before the House both aspects of this question. We are told that the mother country, England, is the pioneer in that direction. So she is, Mr. Speaker, as she has been the pioneer in many other respects. . In regard to postal organization, I entirely agree with the hon. member for Rouville that we have to go to England to learn. Let me call the atttention of the House to a very important fact, that while we find in England a' highly developed parcel post system, in another country to the south of us, the United States, the parcel post system is practically ignored. What is the reason for the difference between these two countries in that respect? In the British Isles they have a territory of 121,000 square miles, with a population of 45,000,000. Ontario alone has an area twice that of the British Isles; and if we take the Dominion at large, instead of an area of 120,000 square miles, which is that of the British Isles, we have an area of 1,832,854 square miles. What does that mean in relation to the parcel post system? It means that we have a very large area to supply, and a very sparse population to support the system. Hon. gentlemen will easily understand how these facts affect the question. A large population in a small territory will go very far to make a parcel post system successful; whereas if you have to cover an area of a million square miles with a small population to support the system, you will very likely make it a failure. The House will easily understand the bearings of these facts. Now, why have the United States not gone further in the development of a parcel post system? For the very reason I have pointed out, namely, that while the area of the United States is about the same as ours, they have a population of 90,000,000 people. The United States even has not proceeded as far as the hon. member for Rouville would wish us to proceed. My hon. friend has read from a report of the Postmaster General of the United States, and I was already acquainted with some of his remarks. But it is only during the session of Congress of this year that the Postmaster General of the United States has drawn attention to this question in a pointed way. Any one who reads the New York papers will see that one of the reasons for the United States being slow in this matter is the fact of the immense area of its territory. You must have a dense population in order to make the system a success. We must look these difficulties in the face. It is not sufficient


to say to the people: You must have this, and you must have that. We must treat the people frankly, and put all the facts before them, before promising to inaugurate this or that system. I think our parcel post system can be expanded, that it can be made much better than it is to-day. But I would not like the people to expect that with our seven or eight million inhabitants we are going to inaugurate a parcel post system such as they have in the British Isles with their forty-five millions. I admit there is room for amelioration, there is no doubt about that. Look at the position we occupy to-day-and I do not say this in order to criticise our hon. friends opposite. Under the operation of the parcel post system which we have now in force we actually play into the hands of the express companies; we give them all the profitable business, and we keep for ourselves the unprofitable business. That statement is as true as any statement that can be made in this House. The express companies take all the business on the short hauls because it pays them, and they leave us all the business on the long hauls. They do not undertake that, because it doesn't pay them. It is the Post Office Department that provides for the long hauls. Now we take a parcel from Vancouver and carry it to Halifax for a cent an ounce.
It is the same principle as that which we .should apply to ordinary mail matter. If we do not say that in a certain province, or in a certain zone, there shall be a certain rate according to the distance between these zones, we shall certainly put ourselves in the position that we will carry all over this continent what the express companies carry now and, if the cheap rates which are suggested and asked for to-night are adopted, we will put the Post Office Department out of commission. In England, where they do these things so well, they have a minimum rate. They will take a parcel and carry it for threepence per pound. But, if it weighs one pound one ounce it will cost sixpence instead of three. We charge one cent per ounce and we go up a cent for every ounce until we have reached the sixteen ounces in a pound and when we charge 16 cents. From there up to 25 cents it goes by ounces. The minimum rate of the express companies is 25 cents. They are very caieiul to leave all those little things which are so tiny and small that they might be lost to us. At the rate which exists now one of those little parcels, weighing two or three ounces, may be sent by the mail and it will only cost two or three cents. The express companies leave all that business to us. I do not think that is a state of things which should continue or which should be encouraged. I think that we should go into the question fully and try to find a remedy 75i
for the existing state of things. There are-various aspects of this question and I am only going over them in a very general wajr because I think the time has not come to go very fully into them. The public demands on the Post Office Department are immense. We are asked from all sides to extend and expand our system of rural mail delivery. I am not prepared to say, because comparisons are always odious, which is the better, speaking for the government, because the government has not yet considered this question, but in so far as I am concerned I am inclined to believe that if we are to go into any very extensive new policy in the Post Office Department, my preference for the moment, would be in favour of the rural mail delivery first. If we intend, as was suggested a moment ago, to come to the help of the farmers, I think they would prefer rural mail delivery to the fact that they might receive from the big shops like Eaton's in Toronto a parcel once a year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no doubt that the extension of rural mail delivery will help in getting cheap parcel post.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think that is true to .a certain extent, but that point is not as clear as some people would think. The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) submitted a plan yesterday in which I think there is a great deal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The plan of Mr. Ross.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes I was going to say that. It is what is called the limited parcel post plan, and it is the plan which Mr. Ross, who knows a great deal about this matter, has brought before the department. I do not want to criticise men who know more about this matter than I do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a technical question.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is more than a technical question. We are told by Mr. Ross and by the hon. member for East Lambton that we should limit the parcel post delivery to the point where the rural mail delivery man begins his work. How would we carry mail from the distributing point to this local point? We must provide for the distribution from, say, Toronto to Niagara, Brantford and those other places. We must provide for transportation to the point where the rural delivery man will take the mail. I do not see that any provision has been made for that and it must be looked into because it is a serious question. We are told that the United States have done something. Whereas, we have a five-pound limit for our parcel post, the United States have only a four-pound limit. In that great country, knowing as much as they do.

they have not yet gone beyond the four-pound limit. In England they have reached the eleven-pound limit, and I do not suppose that anybody will ever think of going beyond that for the parcel post delivery. I am sure that the hon. member for Rouville will side with me when I say that if you are going into this trade, because it is now a trade carried on by the express companies, you must provide for more than my hon. friend thinks. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson) has said something with regard to a point of very great importance and one to which it _ is necessary to give mature consideration. We have in this country the mail car. We also have the express car. I have seen it stated in books and articles that there was not much in the -objection which has been urged in this regard because it was said the mail and express cars were half empty. As a matter of fact the cars are crowded now as much as they can be and to-day it has become a great problem with the railway companies on account of the very heavy increase in the quantity of newspapers which are carried all over because the people read more than they used to


Rodolphe Lemieux: And at a cheaper rate than in any other country.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, my hon. friend is right. We have to face this question. As my hon. friend knows, the railway companies have been hammering at him


Rodolphe Lemieux: And at my predecessors.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And at his predecessors because they think they are not getting enough for the transportation of mails. It got to such an acute point that my hon. friend, not knowing how to deal with this question and being obliged to refuse these railway companies, thought of referring the whole question for decision to the Railway Board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought it was the proper plan.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was at all events a very good plan of taking it out of the way for the time being.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They were satisfied. What has my hon. friend done?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree with my hon. friend in that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have in our hands a strong card; we have the law in our favour, and the law says at what rates the mails shall be carried by the railway companies. Having that power in our own hands, why should we give it away to the Railway Board. If there is justice in the contention of the railway companies, let us render justice to them after we have ourselves considered the matter, and let us say to the railway companies: you will get what you are entitled to and no more. That is why I have taken this question from the Railway Board. The submission to the Railway Board would tie the hands of the government because I presume no government would dare to refuse to accept the suggestion of that board. And, that decision of the board might not only wipe out our post-office surplus of $1,250,000, but leave us a deficit instead. I was new in the department, but I went very carefully into the matter and when I saw that we might possibly be condemned to pay such a big amount in a lump sum, I thought I would recommend to my colleagues that since the law gave us the power to decide the question we should decide it for ourselves. We will then be sure that we will not pay more than we should.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Postmaster General agrees with me that the railways have made a prima facie case, and if he now proposes lower rates and Ihrger weights for the parcel post, he will be in a better position to make arrangements with the railway companies for the future.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When we are making a deal with the railway companies for the carriage of the mails it will be a good business transaction in the interests of the people of Canada for us to try and get a reduction and a considerable one at that-in the express rates. It will be a matter of give and take. To deny that the railway companies have made out a prima facie case would be to deny a clearly evident fact.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The railway companies it is agreed, have a prima facie case against the department, and the question had been hanging in the department for the last fifteen or twenty years as to what should be done in. view of the heavy increase in the mail service. The companies were pressing me very hard and I thought the best way was to refer the whole question to the Railway Commission which had been asked to decide cognate questions. I do not say I would have been bound by the

decision of the Railway Commissioners, and I always had a view that we might consider the question in our negotiations with the railway companies towards the end of extending the parcel post system at lower rates.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If the railway companies had a decision of the Railway Board in their favour they would have a big stick in their hands over the government, but having the law in my favour I will keep that big stick in my own hands. I do not mean that I shall dictate anything unjust to the railway companies, but the railway companies will not dictate to me. If they had a judgment of the Railway Board which would amount to an award by arbitrators, they would have the better end of it, but I shall always try to keep the better end for the public so long as I am at the head of the department. Coming Iback to the parcel post question, I say there are other things to be taken into account. The whole system at present for handling the mails, the size of the bags, among other things, would not be sufficient for the larger parcels, rural delivery boxes would be too email and I believe we have already one hundred thousand. Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) has admitted that we will practically have to change a'll the mail carrying contracts if the new system is adopted. A minister in charge of a department has to consider all these things before he announces to the people that this reform will be inaugurated and put into effect by a wave of the hand. If under this, new system we are to become common carriers of the parcels of this country, we shall probably have to have another mail car on the trains, and generous as the railway companies may be, it is not to be assumed that they will give two cars for the price of one. I believe that the business is done to-day on a profitable basis for the railway companies and the express companies. We all know that the express companies are subsidiary companies of the railway companies and that the directors go from one room to another, and the resolutions they carry in one room they can have adopted in the other because they are nearly always the same men.
With all that the express company is making a very good profit. Although I must confess they are not giving out the secrets of their business to everybody I understand that they now have an arrangement in virtue of which the railway companies carry the parcels the express company receiving 45 per cent of the revenue and the railway companies retaining 55 per cent, it is no wonder the express companies are making a great deal of money and are able to pay large dividends.
If the government should enter this field
and should charge the same rates as are now charged by these express companies, it would Be no advantage to the people of Canada. So it results necessarily that we must think and work out another system altogether from the present one. I do not want the country merchant to think that we are going to do anything that will be harmful to him. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) has said tonight that in the different parishes, townships and hamlets of this country the country merchant is badly needed and this government should take care that this man is not injured i'n his business. Big firms like Eaton's in Toronto will never be stopped from sending their goods throughout the country and to a certain extent injuring the country merchants. They are sending their goods at the existing rates and they are even sending special trains with goods in certain parts of this country. They are paying for these trains which shows what splendid organizations and what immense outputs these big firms must have. But where they do not run special trains, they will send goods anyway. There is not a country place in Canada, however small, where Eaton's are not sending goods. You cannot expect to stop them, and the country merchant knows that this has to be done. Great care will have to be taken, however, not to injure the business of the country merchants. They are worthy people, they earn their living and the living of their families in this way and their rights should be respected. Probably some of my friends will say that whilst I am accepting this motion I have said everything that may be said against it. I do not want my friends to so interpret my remarks. The advantages of the system have been so well put before the House by the gentlemen who have spoken before me that I felt I did not need to repeat them. I had some pencil notes from which I intended to speak, but no one hopes to speak as eloquently as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has spoken in favour of this system. So it is perhaps better to allow him to set forth the advantages of the system and I have been obliged to take the other side in order that the case may be fully presented. I at once agree that something must be done. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) is in a position to assure the people that this parcel _ post system will be a good thing, but with the responsibilities of office I have to look on the other side of the question.
On the other question which has been incidentally discussed, the state-owned cable, I shall say one word. I entirely agree with the opinion that the reduction we have obtained in the rates for the transmission of news from the mother country

to Canada, and vice versa, are absolutely inadequate, and that we should not be content with them and sit quiet and wait.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The cable companies must understand and I have weighed my 'words-that this country intends trading with the mother country. Canada has said so, in a solemn manner, lately. One means of facilitating trade between the two coun

tries is to have an inexpensive means o*f transmitting not only postal matter, but cable matter, and this is most important to the business man of this country. We are a self-governing colony, but we are part and parcel of the British Empire, and it is essential that this premier colony, Canada, [DOT]should have cheap means of cable communication. The cable companies are a monopoly


Rodolphe Lemieux: And American companies.
Mr. PELLETIER-and American companies. I think it is the bounden duty of this government to do something in this respect. I have been asked, as the head of the Post Office Department, to give my views on this matter to a certain number of important newspapers in London, England. I have put it over my signature that we are not satisfied with the present system, and rates although they have been reduced to a great extent, and that we expect better for this country .in future, and that we must and are bound to get a cheaper means of cable communication. My words may appear strong, blit they are not any stronger than I think they ought to be.
On all these important questions I am happy to see that both sides of the House agree in believing that the government will endeavour to, and will succeed in doing its full duty.
Amendment, Mr. Maclean (South York), agreed to.
Mr. MONK moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers New Brunswick, $288,925.
["As 'the matter is allowed to stand, it can be brought up again in regular form.\nMotion allowed to stand."]
Mr. PUGSLEY.: I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that an item which was in the main estimates of the past year for Bathurst harbour improvements has been omitted. I would say to the hon. gentleman that Bathurst harbour is one of very great importance, and T would like to ask whether it has been struck out advisedly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It was not taken out with the idea of discontinuing the work, but Mr. PELLETIER.
there were a great many demands for improvements, and I believe I suggested^ its taking out myself. It may be taken into consideration for the supplementary estimates. There is no idea of abandoning it completely.


William Pugsley: Bathurst harbour is the centre of a very large lumber manufacturing district. I think there are five rivers emptying into it, and each one of these rivers is a source of lumber supply, there being large forest areas on each of them. There are quite a number of mills at Bathurst, in fact, I believe one of the most modern mills in the eastern provinces, if not in the whole of Canada, has been built there recently. At the present time there is very great expense attendant upon the shipment of lumber. The sawn lumber has to be lightered out of the harbour to some distance outside on the roadstead. I believe the cost is something like 75 cents per thousand, which could be saved if the harbour were dredged out so that vessels could come in close to the mills and the lumber be conveniently placed on board.
There is also another very important consideration and that is that within about 18 miles of Bathurst there is a very valuable iron deposit which is being operated by a company formed by the Drummonds. They are shipping their ore at the present time from Newcastle, some 40 or 50 miles away. It has been represented by the company that if Bathurst harour were improved a very considerable portion of the ore would be shipped from there, as it could be done with considerable less expense. I do not think [DOT] the idea is to abandon the shipments from Newcastle altogether, but rather to ship ore from both places. For two years we have been doing dredging in Bathurst. During the past season a government dredge was continuously employed, a special vote being put in for Bathurst harbour. I am glad to hear my hon. friend state that it is not the intention to discontinue the work, but that it will be considered with the supplementary estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not intended to abandon the work, because the harbour is an important one, but we have large demands for harbour improvements in New Brunswick, particularly at St, John, consequently we have been obliged to cut off some of them for the present.


Mr. TURGEON.: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) to an item in the estimates of last year for a new wharf at Beaumont. I do not know whether tenders for this work have been called for or not. I had some assurance from. the department that, as soon as the plans could be completed they proposed to ask for tenders. Beaumont is in Westmorland county, and the proposed wharf is to be constructed on a site on the Peticodiac river near a very important
building-stone industry, that was in operation at one time, but is not in operation now. In addition to the desirability of having a w'harf there for that industry when it should be revived, there are many other reasons why the people of that locality feel the need of a wharf. The money was voted last year, and I do not recall that it is dropped out of the estimates now before us. The hon. minister knows that timber can be provided for construction more economically in winter than in summer, and therefore it is desirable that tenders should be called for soon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I can only repeat the fact that an item that appeared in the estimates last year is not in the estimates this year, does not necessarily mean that the government has abandoned the work. We hope, in most cases, even if we do not provide for these works in the supplementary estimates, to take them up as soon as possible. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmer-son) knows that it is impossible for successive governments to coincide _ exactly with regard to the urgency of a given list of works. In the case of New Brunswick especially, we have had very large demands, and we are obliged to make considerable provision for the main port, that of St. John. The remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) will not be forgotten, and the work will be taken up as soon as possible.


William Pugsley: The practice has been in the past to put in the main estimates items for all works provided for previously and not yet proceeded with, and in the supplementary estimates, items for new works. In the estimates now before us there is n-ot a single new item for New Brunswick in the harbours and rivers vote chargeable to consolidated revenue. On the contrary, whereas during the current year the total vote was $868,390, the total vote for harbours and rivers for New Brunswick chargeable to consolidated revenue for the coming year is $286,925. So, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), by diligent and, perhaps I could say ingenious, use of the pen, has reduced the vote for New Brunswick in respect to this vote by nearly three-quarters. It is regrettable that these items should be omitted because they had already been provided for, and it would have been so easy for my hon. friend to have proceeded with these works. For instance, there was a vote for a breakwater at Oastalia. This is a very important place in Charlotte county, a thickly settled section which carries on a Large fishing business. A breakwater is needed there for the protection of the fishermen, and I am surprised my hon. friend should have struck out this item. It must have been done without his having his attention called to it; for, if he had

2367
considered tire matter, he would have concluded that among -the smaller works of the province, none is more important than a breakwater at this place. Then $100,000 had been voted for a wharf at Chatham. This is a very important work. Of course, my hon. friend may intend to have that work done by the Department of Railways and Canals, as the work is in connection with the extension of the Intercolonial railway to the waterfront. But the amount was provided for in >the estimates of the Public Works Department. Whichever department builds the wharf, the work is absolutely essential in order to reap the full benefits from the contemplated extension of the railway. The Miramichi river is a splendid river and a very large business in done in Chatham, which business no doubt, with proper accommodation, will greatly increase. Another important work is Gooseberry Cove breakwater. The amount for the dredging of the St. Croix river is struck out. That dredging is very important. It was intended to dredge from the Calais side of the river in the state of Maine across to St. Stephen, New Brunswick, to provide a channel for the steamers that frequent that river, and then to make the channel down the river, affording the necessary depth of water. The matter was taken up between the Department of Public Works and the representatives of the government of the United States.
. As the larger vessels, and I think the larger portion of the tonnage, belongs to the Americans, we came to an agreement under which they would contribute a much larger sum towards the dredging than this government. We put a small amount, I think $7,500, in the estimates last year, which my hon. friend has re-voted in the present year, but is omitted from the present estimates for next year. That work surely is not to be dropped. A binding agreement has been come to between the two governments, under which the United States is prepared to go ahead with the work, and we have agreed to contribute onr share. I would ask why the amount has been dropped in the estimates. Then there was an amount of $50,000 for the purchase and improvement of a property at St. John for buoys and for the accommodation of government vessels. That has also been dropped. That accommodation is very much required, both by the Marine Department and by the Public Works department. There is no suitable wharf accommodation there belonging to the government where the buoys of the Marine department may be repaired, where government vessels may lie and be repaired, and where dredges and scows belonging to the Public Works department may be repaired. St. John is wholly unequipped Mr. PUGSLEY.
in that particular, and that is why I had an amount placed in the estimates. On the whole, my hon. friend will see that he has reduced considerably the amounts for New Brnswick. There is another item of some importance which has been omitted. For a number of years past there has been an arrangement between the two governments under which certain wharfs were constructed by the provincial government, and this government has been paying half the cost of construction. There has been some criticism of that arrangement. I would like to know if my hon. friend has decided to put an end to it, and to make no further payments to the provincial government of New Brunswick with respect to the wharfs that are being constructed upon the tidal waters of the St. John river, and other rivers.	.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There has been no breaking' away from the arrangement made between the local government and our own as to the wharfs just alluded to.


William Pugsley: Why has the item been dropped?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think we were tied down as to the manner in which we would make that contribution. If the obligation has to be satisfied during the year, there will be provision made in the supplementary estimates. But I do not think there is anything of a rigid character in that arrangement which would oblige us to put a vote in the main estimates.


William Pugsley: Under the ruling of the Auditor General there will have to be a special vote for that purpose. The works are constructed by the provincial government, and some two years ago he refused to allow payment to the provincial government under an item for improvements, holding that there must be a special vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend naturally goes back to works which he, in his wisdom, thought at that time, to be urgent. I am better prepared to defend the works for which I ask estimates myself. But he is mistaken when he says that we have not generously provided for public works in that province.


William Pugsley: I did not say that, I said he had dropped important works that were provided for.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That has been done so often during the last 15 years that I have sat in this House, that there should be no surprise if it is done now. I have seen items appear in the estimates four or five years in succession, and then dropped altogether; I have seen items changed year after year under different ministers. It is not surprising, under these circumstances, that in the estimates of which



[Stage Direction]
we have only taken a part this session, these items should not appear. When this government is called upon to bring down its own estimates and to initiate all these works, it is not surprising that we should fail to see eye to eye with the preceding government. That happens whenever there is a change of government. The committee will note the large contribution we have had to make this year for St. John; we have provided a sum for St. John far greater than was ever provided before, and that has been due to the urgent necessities which have arisen st that port. I do not think it is fair, because an item has been left out of this year's estimates, to conclude that the work is dropped or that it will not be resumed, or that at another time the government will not make provision for carrying on that work. I may say that in no case where the work was under contract, and where an interruption would have been absolutely prejudicial, has that interruption taken place. We have taken the estimates under review in all the provinces, according to our best judgment, and have done the best we could for urgent works with the means at our disposal.
Mr. HAZEN.: My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) has referred to the fact that $50,000 in the estimates last year for the purpose of building a wharf for government steamers at St. John is not in the estimates this year. I would point out that there is no necessity for that vote being in the estimates this year. That wharf is no doubt required for the Marine and Fisheries Department, upon which the buoys and material belonging to the government might be stored, and at which vessels might lay up from time to time, vessels that are under the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department to supply lighthouses and to look after the buoys. Incidentally also it might serve as a wharf to which steamers under the control of the Public Works Department might resort. I may say to my hon. friend that it is not at haphazard that this vote is left out of the estimates. I am advised by the officials of my department that at any time we wish to acquire property in St. John for that purpose, we have the funds to do so; and I may say that negotiations are going on now, and I have instructed the engineer of my department to consider different places that have been suggested as available. If the minister should decide to buy a property of that sort we have ample funds at our disposal with which to do it, and which we are authorized by law to expend for that purpose. Under the vote that was made last session, a vote for general purposes
in connection with the Marine and Fisheries Department, I am advised by my deputy minister, and also by the engineer of the department, that we can use the money for this purpose. So that if we determine to buy that property, there are plenty of funds at our disposal.


William Pugsley: I am surprised to hear that statement, that under a general vote for fisheries, properly could be bought for the purpose of constructing a wharf upon which to store buoys, and at which vessels might lie. I think that is a new departure. I think this parliament ought to have placed before it the estimates to purchase a property of that character, and also a special amount for improvements.
I know that was the view taken both by the Marine and Fisheries Department, and by the Public Works Department when this matter first came up. There was a vote placed in the estimates by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, then, as it was thought that the property could be utilized by both departments, the vote was transferred to the Department of Public Works. Now my hon. friend says that without asking parliament for the money the department can acquire the property, which will cost a good deal of money, and build thereon a wharf for the purpose of repairing buoys, and at which vessels may lie. I doubt very much if the Auditor General, in the discharge of his duty, would pass an expenditure of that kind under a general vote.


John Douglas Hazen: From inquiry I have made I am afraid that $50,000 would not go very far in acquiring such a property as is needed for this purpose. It would take a much larger sum.


William Pugsley: I would think, from information that I have, that $50,000 would be
sufficient. Of course, it would depend on where the property was obtained. If some of the rumours I have heard are correct, that parties are getting options on properties which they thought might be suitable, it might be that the minister would have to pay more than it might otherwise cost. But, I have in my mind a property in St. John which, I think, could be obtained for about $50,000.


John Douglas Hazen: I hope the hon. gentleman will let me know where they are.


William Pugsley: My hon friend will find in the Public Works Department a report from the Superintendent of Dredging Captain Howden and Mr Scommell, the engineer of the department, on a property which is admirably suited for the purpose, comprising 45 or 50 acres.
Mr, MONK. Does not my hon. friend think that with the works we have pro-

vided for this year we will have ample room for any vessel of the government?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend says that these estimates contain more liberal appropriations for St. John harbour than we made. He is not correct in that. The amount for St. John harbour in the estimates this year is identical with the estimates last year. A million dollars is the amount I put in the estimates last year for the improvement of St. John harbour and my hon. friend has very handsomely come down with a million dollars for the coming year.


John Douglas Hazen: How much was spent last year?


William Pugsley: I kept $500,000 intact for improvements at Courtenay Bay.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the votes last year amounted to $950,000.


William Pugsley: Well, that is pretty close. I will give my hon. friend the benefit of the extra $50,000, but I am' bound to say that if my hon. friend goes on with improvements at Courtenay bay it may be desirable to have a further sum in the Supplementary estimates. I do not complain at all of my hon. friend's action in regard to St. John. I do not say that he is not treating us well. He is proposing to do a work which is of great national importance, but, at the same time, it is not new because parliament had appropriated last year an amount equal to the sum which my hon. friend is proposing to place in the estimates for this year. But, I do think it is a pity that these very important works should be neglected. These works at Castalia, Chatham, and other places are, as I have said, of very great importance. I must congratulate my hon. friend upon this, however, that notwith-. standing all the attention he has been giving to public works in New Brunswick, he has not found it necessary to put in a single new item. I find that all the items which he is asking parliament to vote are just those which we, had in the estimates last year.


John Douglas Hazen: You should have proceeded with the -works last year.


William Pugsley: Well we were proceeding as rapidly as we could.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As we arp doing now. ,


William Pugsley: They were all important and the minister has shown his wisdom in providing for them. But, it is unfortunate that he has left out a few works which, I think, are just as necessary as those which he is providing for.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sorry that in the process of elimination my hon. friend the Mr. MONK.
Minister of Public Works has found it necessary to eliminate the wharf at Beaumont. Members representing constituencies outside of St. John have always experienced difficulty in convincing St. John particularly that it was not the whole province. Apparently my hon. friend from St. John city (Air. Pugsley), and my hon. friend from St. John city and county (Mr. Hazen) have imbued the Minister of Public Works with the idea that St. John was the only place in New Brunswick that required particular attention, and that if there was any elimination to be entered upon the other constituencies would have to suffer. I do not wish my hon friend to be too much impressed with the importance of having St. John alone looked after. I do not wish that Westmorland should be overlooked even though the minister may be impressed with the importance of St. John. The wharf at Beaumont is only a small matter after all, but it affects a very large number of people. It is not a political wharf in any sense. The government will find that its friends are quite as much interested in this wharf as those who supported the former government. This wharf was brought to the notice of the department by myself because of a united people presenting strong and indisputable reasons why there should be a wharf at this point. I simply ask my hon. friend to look into it, and if he does he will see that there are special reasons why these people should be considered. In so far as the 'political standpoint is concerned I make no plea at all, because that is not of serious import, but it is a matter in the interests of the people who have suffered for many years for want of this convenience. They had a wharf in former years. That wharf was continued down to within a very recent period, but change and decay went on and m the course of time it became impossible for business purposes, and now it is required in the interest of the business of that section of the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We will consider it, Mr. Chairman. Of course, it is a pity that when there was a possibility during the whole year of beginning a work of this kind it was not begun.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That shows that it had nothing to do with the elections.


William Pugsley: Aly hon. friend will realize that these things cannot all be done at once. Engineers have to prepare plans and specifications.
Goose Creek harbour-breakwater, $2,000.


William Pugsley: What about Gooseberry cove breakwater? That lias been left out. Is it finished?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no information about Gooseberry cove.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend said that it was being done by day work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Probably it has been finished.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the late estimate there was a vote for $3,000 for a wharf at Shediac Island, and that vote is not repeated in the present estimates. The people living on that island are thrifty French Acadians, engaged in fishing and agriculture, and while in the winter they can cross on the ice, in the summer their supplies have all to be obtained from the mainland and there is neither wharf nor landing place, which, of course, imposes great inconvenience on the inhabitants.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why was not the wharf built last year?


William Pugsley: Because the vote was not obtained in time. The work could not be commenced without the money having been voted.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the late government were selfish in the matter, from a political standpoint, it would be desirable to do the work and the fact that the work was not undertaken proves that it was not a political venture at all.


William Pugsley: There was no such thing under the late government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If there is any lingering doubt, in the mind of the present Minister of Public Works on this point I wanted to remove it. The inhabitants of Shediac Island are sorely in need of this wharf.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will take the matter into consideration. I may remind my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) that I lived on an | island myself for many years, and I tried to get the late government to build a wharf but I met with failure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hope this government is not so hardhearted.
Some resolutions reported.


ADJOURNMENT-NAPIERVILLE POST OFFICE SITE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. R. LANOTOT (Lapraire-Napierville).: (Translation):
Mr. CHAIRMAN, before the adjournment I beg leave to put a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works, concerning the Naipierville post office site.
DEPUTY SPEAKER. (Mr. Blondin). I will remind the hon. member that he is not
allowed to enter into a discussion of anything else than the item now under discussion.


Roch Lanctôt: It is only a question that I want to ask the hon. member. On the 16th January last, on the item for a public building at Napier, I asked the hon. member if it was the intention of his department to erect the building on the site purchased by the late government. His answer was that effectually there was a vote of $15,000 for a public building in the city of Napier, on St. Luke street, that $1,000 had been paid for the site and that the work was to be proceeded with without delay.
That was on the 16th of January last. On the 22nd January I received a letter from Mr. Pierre Bourgeois in which letter I am asked to interest myself in this question and see that he is paid by the Department of Public Works. Therefore he had not been paid on the 22nd, in spite of what was said by the minister on the 16th. I wrote immediately to Mr. Bourgeois informing him that he must have received a cheque in settlement of his claim, since the minister had declared on the 16th that he had .paid for the site in question. On the 28th January I received another letter from Mr. Bourgeois stating that he had not yet been paid.	. .
I would like to know from the minister, how is it that the cheque has been sent to Napier more than three months ago and that Mr. Bourgeois has not yet been paid.
I do not know if my information is correct, but I am told that the Department of Public Works has written to the Department of Justice advising them to do nothing until further advice. The Department of Justice, in turn, has written to Mr. Barrette,'notary, not to make the payment until he receives further instructions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The information I gave to my hon. friend was furnished to me by the officials of my department. I think the matter was brought to the Interior Department. I will inquire about it and then give the information asked for by the hon. member.


Roch Lanctôt: The hon. minister must certainly know that a parcel of land has been bought last summer in order to satisfy his own department. Mr. Bourgeois was obliged to pay two hundred dollars for that," piece of land. That occurred six months ago, it is only fair to refund that amount to that gentleman.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Those delays occur in the Interior Department.


William Pugsley: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Some of the government bills on the order paper, and then Supply.


Frank Oliver: I wish to give notice that oil a convenient occasion, on going into Supply, I propose to move a resolution in regard to the grain blockade in the west.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose my hon. friend will let us see the wording of that resolution?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 2, 1912.
The SPEAKEE took the Chair at Three o'clock.

Mr. SEXSMITH moved:: That the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: As this report involves an expenditure of money, it seems to me very doubtful whether it is regular. The report is:
Your committee recommend that one hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) copies of the evidence of Dr. James W. Eobertson, Chairman, Committee on Lands, Commission of Conservation, given before the committee on Thursday, January 25, 1912, be printed forthwith in pamphlet form, in the usual numerical proportions of English and French, as advance sheets of the committee's final report, for distribution as follows140,000 copies to members of parliament, 6,000 copies to Department of Agriculture, 2,500 copies to witness, 1,500 copies for use of committee.	.
I am not aware that there is any authority for incurring the expenditure necessary for this purpose, rand I draw the attention of the House to the matter, so that it may be looked into


Robert Laird Borden: My attention was not directed to the character of the report, but I am under the impression that similar reports have been received in the past. I would suggest that the matter stand for a day until your honour has an opportunity of looking into it.
Mr. SPEAKEE, I know that this has been done in the pas-t, but I have always believed that it was wrong. We have a rule that provides that all proposals for printing should go before the Printing Committee. In this case the proposal would not go before the Printing Committee at all.


Mr. STEVENS.: This very point was before the Printing Committee this morning, Mr. MONK.
and a resolution was incorporated in the report of that committee asking that all proposals for printing be passed through that committee. It was pointed out that frequently a great deal of matter that is printed is left about the building, and the committee wished to have some oversight of the printing in order to see that everything printed was utilized and nothing wasted.


John Albert Sexsmith: The object of this report of the Committee on Agriculture is to prevent what the hon. member has just referred to. If this matter has to go before the Committee on Printing, the evidence will not be printed in time to go into the hands of the members this session. Then the great bulk of it will be sent to their homes, and will not reach the people for whom it is intended.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: As 'the matter is allowed to stand, it can be brought up again in regular form.
Motion allowed to stand.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: That on and after Monday next, the 5th of February, to the close of the session, government Orders will have precedence on Monday immediately after notices of motions for the production of papers.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Postmaster General is anxious to be present when the debate with reference to the resolution I have on the orcjer paper is continued. I understand that the Postmaster General will he unable to be here next Monday and he gave me to understand last night that he would arrange with the Prime Minister with reference to that debate.


Robert Laird Borden: The Postmaster General has not spoken to me on the subject; I presume the matter has escaped his attention. What was the exact nature of the
arrangement?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Last evening the Postmaster General told the House that he was compelled to be away on Monday next.
I interviewed him . and he told me that he was anxious to have as extended a debate as possible on my resolution and that he would arrange with me foT some other day when it could be taken up and disposed of.


Mr. LENNOX.: The Postmaster General expressed a very strong desire to be present when the debate was resumed, and said that he would like to have it not on Monday next but at some other time.


Robert Laird Borden: That would not really affect this motion because this is designed

to take Monday next as a government day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to the motion being adopted, but I would point out that if the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. xirmstrong) is not taken up next Monday it cannot be taken up this session, unless by a special leave of the government.


Robert Laird Borden: That is quite correct,


Mr. MACDONALD.: There are quite a number of motions not yet disposed of, some of -which would not involve much discussion. On Wednesday, the last day available, hon members were not aware that Monday would be taken by the government so soon. I think the usual course of giving one day before these motions are cut off altogether would be the fair thing.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no desire to deny a reasonable opportunity of disposing of these motions and so -1 would move to amend my motion with the permission of the House to read as follows:
That on and after Monday the 12th of February, to the close of the session, government orders will have precedence on Mon-davs immediately after notices of motion for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Wilfrid Laurier: Has the writ yet been issued for South Renfrew?


Robert Laird Borden: It was issued yesterday. The nomination day is the 15th of February and the polling day therefore will be the 22nd of February.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

William Pugsley: Would the right hon. the leader of the government (Mr. Borden) kindly see that returns which I moved for a considerable time ago, and to which I have referred once or twice already are brought down? One relates to the Harvey and Salisbury railway, which should take very little iime to prepare and the other relates to the appointment of commissioners under the Boundary Waters' treaty.


Robert Laird Borden: I was under the impression that the last- mentioned return lead been brought down. It may be that- it is in my office and that through my own inadvertence it has not been presented to the House.
The other relates to the Department- of Railways and Canals, and I shall bring it to the attention of the minister of that department.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE moved that the House go into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the payment out of 'the consolidated Revenue Fund of such sums as may be sufficient to discharge the obligations of His Majesty the King, acting in respect of the Dominion of Canada, under the provisions of paragraph 5 of the schedule to chapter 24 *of the statutes of 1904, in accordance with the interpretation ,of these provisions by the judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on the appeal of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company v. The King, from the Supreme Court of Canada, delivered November 2nd 1911.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in connection
with this resolution I have furnished to each member of the House a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I have also furnished to the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the papers for which he asked yesterday. In view of this it _ is probable that the House is acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, but, on account of the very large sum involved by way of obligation under the judgment, a brief explanation may not be out of order.
Under a contract dated the 29th day of July, 1903, between the government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, provision was made for the construction of the National Transcontinental line of railway from Moncton to the Pacific ocean. That railway was to consist of two divisions, the eastern division and the western division. The eastern division was to extend from Moncton to the city of Winnipeg, and the western division from the city, of Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. The government of Canada was to construct the eastern division and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company was to construct the western division. The eastern division was to be owned by the government and to be leased to the Grand. Trunk Pacific Railway Company under the terms and provisions of the agreement. The western division was to be owned by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and the entire line was to be maintained, equipped and operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The 28th and 30th paragraphs of the contract of July 29, 1903, to which I have referred, were as follows:
28. For tile purpose of aiding the company in the construction of the western division, the government shall guarantee payment of the principal and interest of an issue of bonds to he made by the company
[Stage Direction]
2.380
for a principal amount equal to seventy-five per centum of the coat of construction of the said division, as defined and ascertained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph eighteen hereof, but such principal amount shall not in any case exceed thirteen thousand dollars per mile of the mileage of the prairie section, nor thirty thousand dollars per mile of the mileage of the mountain section, although seventy-five per centum of such construction may have exceeded the said respective sums per mile.
30. The said bonds shall bear interest at the rate of three per centum per annum, payable half yearly, and shall have attached thereto coupons representing the instalments of interest thereon, and shall be in such form as the government shall determine.
The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada were to guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for an amount sufficient to raise the balance of the money required for the construction of the line.
At the time this agreement was entered into, the 3 per cent stock of the Dominion of Canada stood at about par. Shortly afterwards there was a fall in that stock in common with other high class low interest-bearing securities, and as a result it was seen that the 3 per cent Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's bonds guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada would not nearly realize par. In order to meet that situation a supplementary agreement was entered into in the following year. Among other things it removed the limit as to the $30,000 a mile upon the mountain section, but allowed the ,$13,000 per mile as a maximum of bonds to be issued by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company cn the prairie section to stand. And then comes the important section to which I direct your attention upon which litigation subsequently arose and these judgments were rendered.
5. Notwithstanding anything the said contract contained the government may and shall, preserving always the proportions in the said contract provided as between the ' Prairie ' and ' Mountain ' sections of the western division implement for the purposes and subject otherwise to the provisions of the said contract its guarantee of the bonds of the said company to he issued for the cost of construction of the said western division in such manner as may be agreed upon so as to make the proceeds, of the said bonds so to he guaranteed a sum equal to seventy-five per centum of the cost of construction of the western division ascertained as provided in the said contract, hut not exceeding in respect of the Prairie section thirteen thousand dollars per mile.
In 1905 a trust mortgage was executed over the entire western division, securing the bond issue of £14,000,000 to be guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada. Differences of opinion arose between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
Railway Company as to the construction of the clause I have just read. On the part of the government it was contended that implementing the guarantee meant that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should issue its bonds guaranteed by the government to an amount which would realize by sale A total amount equal to $13,000 per mile on the prairie section and par for the amount of bonds required on the mountain section.
The Grand Trunk Railway Company, on the other hand, contended that the true meaning of implementing the guarantee was that the government of Canada should pay the difference between the net selling price of the three per cent bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, issued from time to time, and par; in other words that the government should be directly liable to thq Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, for an amount sufficient to implement or make up the difference between the net selling price and par, and that there was no obligation on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to issrne its bonds further than to the amount of $13,000 a mile, no matter what they realized. The government, as I have said, contended that their liability on this was secondary or as guarantor.
So there was a clear issue between the government, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the difference being that tlhe government contended that it would have merely to guarantee bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company sufficient to make up the difference between the net selling price of the bonds and par, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on the other band contended, that the government must be directly liable and responsible to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for an amount sufficient to make up the difference in cash.
A case was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that Court held in favour of the contention of the government, nameily that its liability was to guarantee bonds issued by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to an amount sufficient for the purpose of implementing. An 'appeal was taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Judicial Committee reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada so that in the result the contention of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company prevailed, and the Dominion of Canada, under the terms of that judgment, have become responsible to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for a very large sum. I shall read the last portion of the head note of the judgment of the Privy Council.
Held, that the liability of the government under this agreement was not a secondary

liability as guarantors only, the primary liability falling oil tlie company, but that the government were liable to make the bonds of the first issue up to tlieir nominal value without recourse over against the company.
That is substantially the history of the transaction, and the effect of the judgment. As to the amount involved, which, as I have said, is very large, I have had a memorandum prepared, showing the position to date, and the estimated total lia-ability under the terms of this judgment. The memorandum is as follows:
Memorandum respecting Privy Council decision, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company v. The King.
Sales of Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's three per cents guaranteed by the government which have already taken place- In 1905 £ 3,200,000 were sold at 92J
and produced	$14,559,674 08
In 1909 £ 2,000,000 were sold at 80
and produced	 7,773,495 15
In 1910 £2,000.000 were sold at about £80 13s. 9d., and produced. 7 856,119 67 The amounts here stated as being produced from the respective sales include interim interest accretions in London before tlie transfer of the funds to this country, and to that extent the net proceeds as above stated are too great.
The sum to lie paid the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company by the government under the Privy Council judgment, in respect of these sales, will therefore be approximately $4,900,000.
On the basis of the estimated cost of construction of the mountain section made by the government chief engineer, there will yet have to be sold of these three per cent bonds approximately £5,515,220.
Assuming that when a sale of these bonds has to he made they bring the same price as the last lot, sold, viz.: £80 13s. 9d. for each hundred pounds, there will he required to he paid in cash by the government in respect of such sale, to make the proceeds of the sale equal to par, the sum of $5,183,617.40.
On these estimates this will make a total cash contribution by the government of approximately $10,080,000, dn order to make the proceeds of the government guaranteed bonds equal to par.
That is substantially the position as I understand it, and I, therefore, beg to move that the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution standing in my name.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. WHITE (Leeds), moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 95) respecting the National Transcontinental railway.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting grain-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
On section 80-re-inspection,
George Eulas Foster: Representations have been made for an amendment to subsection 2. It reads now:
Should any person interested in such grain have reason to believe that it has gone out of condition, or has deteriorated in quality since it was originally inspected, any inspector may, at his request, re-inspect such grain.
The representation is made that it sometime occurs that the grain is manifestly not of the grade which the certificate carries, and that there ought to toe provision for review in a case of that kind, just as strong a reason in a case of that kind as there would be in its going out of condition, or in its being deteriorated in quality. It is proposed to insert after ' originally inspected,' the words:
Or is manifestly not of the grade called for by the certificate.
Then it would read:
Has gone out of condition, or has become deteriorated in quality, or is manifestly not of the grade called for by the certificate, he shall endorse across the face of the original certificate a statement of the facts, with the date and place where the -re-inspection was made and shall attach his signature thereto; but under no circumstances shall such grain be mixed or re-graded.
Instances have been adduced where the grade of the grain, as it would be carried by the certificate, was found to be manifestly and afterwards proved to be altogether a different grade; and the contention is, and I think it is a fair one, that there ought to be a chance for re-inspection, and a statement of the facts; but no regrading.


Frank Oliver: What would be the consequences to the owner in such a case?


George Eulas Foster: Just the same as in either of the other two cases. Then I suppose the inspector would inspect it and write across the certificate the condition as he found it. What he would write in a case of that kind would be that this was not up to the grade carried in the certificate, that fact would be written across it Then I suppose that what would take place would probably be an appeal to the Grain Survey Board. Any way, there would be a chance of presenting the facts, and of subsequent restitution or re-arrangement, just the same as in the other two cases.


Frank Oliver: This is a very important amendment, perhaps more important than it seems on the face of it, because it rather
23a3

opens the door to the l'e-inspection of grain, and therefore a recognition of grain which has been mixed. I am willing to concede that when there has been an actual exchange of grade there should be a notice of that fact, but it will be necessary to word very carefully a provision intended to meet that case. First of all, I would like to have it distinctly stated upon whose say-so the grain was manifestly of a different grade; somebody would have to take that definite responsibility.


George Eulas Foster: In the first place, it would follow exactly the conditions of the section as it now stands in which two cases are made exceptions. Should any person interested in such grain, we will suppose it is the person to whom the grain has been consigned, or the person who owns, or thinks he owns it, if he finds that it is out of condition he has a recourse under these circumstances, if he finds it has deteriorated in quality since the original inspection, he has a recourse. Now if, in these cases, it was found to be of another grade than that represented in the certificate, there ought to be some space left in some way for a presentation of the facts in the case. If my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) would like to keep this over, we will let it stand for the time being.


Frank Oliver: I would like to see the wording of the amendment, because it is of the greatest importance that the provision should not go further than is necessary to meet the special case that is mentioned.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will find the wording of the amendment in *. Hansard ' to-morrow.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Would it not be somewhat of a check against mixing?


Frank Oliver: It depends a good deal on how it is worded.


George Eulas Foster: It would be a check on any under grading or wrong grading.
On section 82: grain of same grade to be kept together; certificate for mixed cargo.


Mr. CARRICK.: As a representative of the district in which the terminal elevators are situated, I would like to say a few words in connection with clause 82. The question of mixing grades has been a live issue both in the United States and Canada for the past twenty years.	The
United States have solved this question by allowing mixing in the terminal elevators. In Canada there seems to be an opinion that mixing is a crime. It is a misdemeanour, and a civil offence according to our law, but I want you to look at this, Mr. Chairman, as a simple business pro-Mr. OLIVER.
position, and it is from that standpoint that I purpose saying a few words with regard to it. The process of mixing, as I understand it, is simply raising up to a certain grade a class of wheat which, through climatic conditions, has suffered deterioration, by mixing with it another grade of wheat which has a superabundance over and above what the law requires of those qualities in which the first sample is deficient. I will give an illustration. We will take a car of Wheat which is No. I Northern in every way, except with respect to Red Fife wheat. The law requires that there shall be sixty per cent of Red Fife wheat. If that car had only 55 per cent of red fife wheat it is graded as No. 2. We will take another car which has all the qualifications of No. 2 Northern, but has only forty per cent instead of forty-five iper cent of Red Fife wheat, which, therefore, is graded No. 3. I will take these two cars and mix them. I fulfil the requirements of No. 2 grade; that is I raise up a No. 3 car to No. 2. The average spread in the price between the two grades is 5 cents per bushel. On 1,000 bushels I would make $50. At the present time there is a difference of about 7 cents between No. 2 and No. 3 Northern, so that in that case I would make a little more. But, take another instance. Take a car that is all Red Fife wheat, but has been frosted. It will not be graded as No. 1, but as No. 2. Then I can take seven other cars that are No. 2 in every respect, but have only got 40 per cent of Red Fife instead of 45. I will take these eight cars, mix them, and I will have what will pass inspection as No. 2 grade. Thus, by using one car I can raise the whole seven cars to No. 2 grade. Otherwise, the whole seven cars would, under our law, be graded as No. 3. There is a profit of 5 cents a bushel on 7,000 bushels, or $350.
We had an instance at Port Arthur the other day where a car of flax was shipped to Mr. Irwin of the Consolidated Elevator. That flax was one pound short in weight per bushel. It was shipped as No. 1. The owner thought that he would get No. 1 grade, but when it was inspected it was graded. as rejected. There is a difference of 25 cents a bushel between No. 1 and rejected and he applied to the survey board in Winnipeg, but they maintained the inspection. He wired down to Mr. Irwin at the Consolidated Elevator to ship the flax to Duluth, because he could get practically the full! difference in price between the two grades there or about 25 cents a bushel more, for the car. But the car had been unloaded. I maintain that there is a great economic loss to the farmers of Canada, because mixing is not allowed. I believe that there is between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 a year lost to the

farmers of this country under the system which has hitherto prevailed, and will be lost under the proposal contained in the present Bill.


David Bradley Neely: Would my hon. friend not rather say that this is lost to the dealers and not to the farmers?


John James Carrick: No, the farmer is the man who will get it. 1 am glad that question was asked, because it brings up another point in connection with mixing which 1 shall take up in a moment. Now,
I would like to ask why was mixing prohibited? You will remember that under the old system the elevator man bought on his own account, and also stored the grain for tlie public. He took the fat grades of the public, mixed them with his own wheat and made for himself this extra profit. The farmers objected to it, and legislation was brought in, first, to prohibit the terminal elevator man from dealing in grain and, second, to prevent mixing. I wish to ask this question: Has this law been enforced or can it be enforced? I say that the law has not been enforced, and that it cannot be enforced. As the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), said yesterday in the House, under the system of interlocking directorates, the terminal elevator owmers at the present time are directors of country elevators, and they are buying grain. I will just quote from page 18 of the report of the Select Committee on Bill Q before the Senate, Mr. Searle's testimony. With regard to the elevator at Port Arthur the question was asked:
How many Canadian companies do tlie Pea-vey people control?-A. Do you mean line railways?
Q. Yes.-A. They control the Port Arthur Elevator Company, the British American Elevator Company, the National Elevator Company.
According to a statement with regard to licensed elevators and warehouses, as made out by this government, the British American Elevator Company control 93 elevators -Manitoba 17; Saskatchewan 69; and Alberta 7. These same directors can, and do, buy grain at the present time. Therefore, I maintain that the law has not been enforced. Then the examination proceeds with regard to mixing. We have proof that mixing is going on and I will again read to the committee from page 126 of the Select Committee report on Bill Q. This is evidence in connection with a couple of cases that came up in Port Arthur and Fort William last year in regard to mixing. I shall quote from the testimony of Mr. C. B. Watts, secretary of the Dominion Millers' Association:
At the close of navigation in 1910 we find that Inspector Gibbs at Port Arthur reports 76



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
to the warehouseman that he finds certain elevators there have shipped out large quantities of No. 1 Northern, and they are short quantities of No. 2 Northern. Now, I do not want to take up the time of the committee, but 1 must refer you to a short extract from Mr. Castle's report of this trial, which these gentlemen say was only a mistake, and it was immaterial, on the enormous quantity of grain handled. The fines imposed by the magistrates show it was not very trivial, as they were $2,500 in one case, and $3,000 in another. Mr. Castle, in his report, says: 'In the Port Arthur elevator the shipments exceeded the receipts of No. 2 Northern by 169,066 bushels. Of the Empire elevator he says the shipments of No. 1 Northern exceeded- the receipts by 137,881 bushels.
It may be said that this is an isolated case in connection with mixing, but I would point out that the government inspectors were on the spot and that they gave an inspection certificate when the grain went in and when it came out. These cases we know of, but I am quite sure there were a great many more where mixing was done and where fines were not imposed. What is the use of putting a law on the statue-books if we icannot enforce it. The purport -of this Bill should be to remove the incentive for wrongdoing and then the wrong will not be done. Under the present law 'the government allows mixing by compelling the elevator man to mix the fat and the lean shipments of any one grade. For instance, in No. 1 Northern you can mix anything that has got sixty per cent Red Fife wheat and up to seventy-five per cent Rred Fife and in No. 2 you can mix the different lean and fat grades of from forty-five to sixty per cent Red Fife. We therefore, allow mixing to-day with certain restrictions and I maintain it would be much better for the country if these restrictions were taken off. I do not wish to see the integrity of our grain destroyed. I do not wish to see our grades lowered and I do not believe they will be lowered by mixing because any shipment of grain that goes out will have to stand the government inspection. The men who get the benefit of the grades to-day are the millers and the European buyers. The miller does not want a sample market. He wants to buy on grades because he is getting a litlle more than he pays for and it is the same with the European buyer. Our samples of grades are sent over t-o the old country and the European buyer buys just on that sample, hoping no doubt that he is going to get a little more than he pays for. The purchaser in the European market buys on the minimum grade and on that point I cite the evidence given by Mr. E. R. Wyland, a large exporter, and which appears on page 160 of the report of the select committee:
The old country man does not buy your wheat on a 64 or 63 pounds to the bushel. He

[Stage Direction]
buys it as 60 pounds to the bushel. That is No. 1 Northern. He buys it on the standard that Mr. Horn and Mr. Gibbs send to the old country market to represent No. 1 Northern. If they get wheat higher than that standard, we get no benefit from that. That is an absolute fact, and any gentleman who has been in the export business knows that the old country buyer will not pay any more for No 1 Northern wheat. '
At page 168 of the same report we find this:
By hon. Mr. Louglieed:
Q. You have stated that the Liverpool price of wheat, or the Liverpool quotation is based on the minimum grade?-A. Yes.
Q. Not on the maximum?-A. Not on the maximum grade.
Let me ask why sliould the question of sentiment enter into the price. I do not know of any other business that is conducted on an economic basis where it is thought that sentiment must be taken into consideration in fixing the price of an article. The European buyer buys on the minimum of the grade and why should our farmers sell on the maximum of that grade? I believe in maintaining the integrity of the high stadards of our grain, but I find in the ' Weekly Report ' issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce for January 29 last year, that the shipment of Canadian wheat alone through United States channels amounted to 33,806,535 bushels last year. That wheat goes through with our government certificate, but when it goes into the American elevator we lose absolute control of it. A few weeks ago a shipment of No. 2 Northern was rejected in the old country because there was a great deal of corn mixed with it, and everyone knows we do not grow any corn in Manitoba. We have no control over that grain when it goes through the United States elevators and yet a most important thing for the farmer of the west is to maintain the identity and integrity of Canadian grain. I want to see that our gram shall always maintain its present high standing, but we certainly cannot keen control of it when it passes through United States channels. I think I have shown that the terminal elevator interests are violating the law and do buy grain.
William Erskine Knowles: Does the certificate have any existence when the wheat goes into a foreign country?


Mr CARRICK.: If it is shipped through in bond the Canadian certificate will remain with that wheat and it is sold in the old country on that certificate.


William Erskine Knowles: No.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member (Mr. Carrick) is right.


John James Carrick: 


John James Carrick: 
George Eulas Foster: I did not say that. We were talking of selling on a sample and selling on a sample market. What I said was that millions of bushels were sold on sample and not on certificate; that when certificates were granted they could be thrown away and the farmer could sell on the sample. But we have no sample market, of course.


John James Carrick: I stand corrected, but I understood the attitude of some hon. gentlemen opposite to be that the farmer sold his grain on sampie and not on grade I believe the farmer does not sell anything on sample. The track buyer, who is an expert, has his samples of all grades before him when he buys. A car of grain may be No. 1 in everything except perhaps colour, hardness, size or Red Fife, and may fall down a little in one of these qualifications. It is graded No. 2 by the buyer and the farmer is paid only for No. 2. He does not get any benefit whatever from the spreads, and we all know that there is a great difference in the value of the different grades. I have here a few quotations from the 'Grain Growers' Guide' of November 8, 1911, which show that No. 1 Northern wheat on a sample market sold on one day as low as $1.02 and as high as $1,061, other

cars selling at $1.04, $1.05$ and $1.05}. On the same day No. 2 sold at as low as 99 cents and as high as $1.04. I have also the quotations of the Minneapolis sample market of November 4, as printed in the ' Grain Growers' Guide ' of November 8 showing that barley No. 4, sold as follows; one car, at $1.03, three at $1.13, one at $1.11 and one at $1.14. There was a difference of 11 cents for tlie same grade on the same day. I maintain that the only man who loses the value of these spreads is the farmer. Now who gets the benefit of the spreads? The millers and the European buyers. We allow the millers to blend wheat; why do we not allow the farmers and the elevator men to mix it? The miller can blend the different grades and sell the different brands of flour in the open market; but there is a restriction placed upon all other owners in regard to the mixing of grain I eontnd to the detriment of the farmer. Now, the farmers have asked for a sample market, but a sample market is not workable unless mixing prevails. On this point I would like to quote from the ' Grain Growers' Guide,' of January 3, page 16. I understand that this is the great farmers' paper in the western country. This is an article by F. W. Eva, who is the chief grain inspector for the state of Minnesota, in which he says:
Should the Winnipeg market decide to make a sample market they certainly will have to permit the mixing of grain in elevators; the two go together. The intermingling or mixing of grain of different grades, resulting in improving of low grades to a higher grade, is considered by all grain men and handlers as legitimate a business as the improving or mixing of any article in any other line of business. The mixing of wheat does not injure the producer, but as a matter of fact, is a benefit, as is well known by all conversant with the grain business. It increases the number of buyers, creates competition and results in a premium above the price of the regular grade for the choice lots of cars in each grade. No prominent market in the United States is without these facilities.
If a sample market is to be established, there is only one place for it, that is, at the head of Canadian navigation. The modus onerandi of the sample market at Minneapolis is this:	About one hundred miles
from that city samples are taken from the car and are sent by express to Minneapolis, and by the time the car arrives the grain is sold on these samnles. We can do the samp thing jn flip handling of our western grain. We can establish a sample market either at Port Arthur or Fort William.


David Bradley Neely: Which would the hon. member prefer?


John James Carrick: I would rather not ai s-wer that question, as 1 represent both citie* Samples could be forwarded to the 76$
sample market by express, and the grain would arrive three or four days later. There would thus be an opportunity of disposing' of the grain before its arrival, so that there would be no delay in its transportation. The solution I offer, then, for the situation is: first, that we should have a sample market at the head of navigation; second, that mixing be allowed; third, that we should have two systems of terminal elevators-public elevators operated by railways, with mixing prohibited, and private elevators to handle only their own grain, but to be allowed to mix. If the farmer wants to send his grain to the old country, he can store it in the public elevator, where there is no mixing, so that the grain keeps its integrity; while if he bqjieves he will get a little more for it if it is mixed, he -can send it or sell it to the private elevator.


George Eulas Foster: Would you allow the grain which goes to the mixing elevator to be inspected and graded out?


John James Carrick: Yes, that is my whole argument. The government have their inspectors there, and after the grain is mixed it must come up to the high standard demanded by this government. It is claimed now that the Manitoba grain brings more money than the American, and why should it not? What qualifications are required on the other side for No. 1 N'vr*v,prT'p Take the requirements for the American No. 1 Northern. That grade requires only 50 per cent of hard wheat and a weight of 57 pounds to the bushel. What is our No
Li^0rthern? Si*ty per ceilt of Eed Fife White and that it shall weigh 60 pounds to the bushel. We are entitled to receive a greater price because we have a higher grade of wheat.


William Erskine Knowles: How about the grain we wish to send west via Vancouver and the Panama canal to Europe or via Vancouver to the Orient? Where will it be inspected?


John James Carrick: I presume that by the time our grain is shipped west there will be a system of large elevators at the coast and I would advocate the same system at the coast as at Fort William and Port Arthur.
In regard to storage facilities, we all know that the elevator capacity of the Dominion of Canada to-day is inadequate, that we have congestion in all that western country. I have just received a letter from home stating that all of our Port Arthur elevators are filled, that the boats in the harbours are all filled except the ' Plummer ' and the ' Pellatt,' and these hold about 50,000 each. My informant also advises me that 3.500 cars are already shipped and billed to Port Arthur for the ele-

*valors there. Fort William is in practically the same condition. I maintain that if we have a sample market and you allow mixing, this great difficulty will be obviated and that in the course of the next year or two $10,000,000 will be invested in Port Arthur and Fort William in elevator capacity and storage. During the last year I have been in negotiation with some elevator men to have them increase their capacity at the head of the lake but they have been nervous in connection with the regulations and laws that were before the government. Now we require that storage.
I maintain that the farmer is going to get the benefit in the advance in price because the question of. competition enters into the calculation. While the farmer wall get the greater part of the advantage to be derived from the sample market and Mixing the elevator man also gets a part of it. A man must get a return on his money in order to make an investment. The great question before the House and before the country to-day is to relieve and alleviate the present situation in the west and I believe that if such a provision is inserted in this Bill it will do more to alleviate the present congested situation than anything else we can do. If I understand the question properly, and I have lived at Port Arthur for a number of years and have been around the elevators a great deal, I do not believe there is any grain shipping port in the world at all to be compared with Port Arthur and Fort William where there is not a sample market and where mixing is not allowed. The Americans have adopted legislation giving a .sample market and allowing mixing.	,
I predict that it will be only a few years until this question is solved along the lines 1 have suggested. There is no other solution. It is a vital question to all western Canada, and the farmer is just awakening to the realization of it now. A short time ago they were strongly opposed to mixing and Mr. Kennedy, the vice president of the Grain Growers' Association in the 'Grain Growers' Guide' of December 27, says:
If we ever get a sample market, it will only come through accommodation given to purchasers of grain on a sample market. That will induce men to come to our sample market where all get a square deal and special privilege to none. In order to make a sample market a success, the purchasers must have special binning privileges, and mixing privileges under proper _ supervision. Without such, a sample market is practically impossible.
This question has been given some consideration at the head of Canadian navigation, where the people are largely interested in the grain trade. I have no brief for any of our people up there, the only question in which I am interested is to Mr. CARRICK.
keep the transportation of our grain in Canadian channels. Our people have not now the storage for grain they require, and there was a movement on foot before I left home, whereby they expect that five or ten million bushels of our grain might be shipped to Duluth. The great, interest I have in this Bill is to keep the shipments of our grain in Canada, and I am sorry to say that the figures brought down by the Trade and Commerce department show that this year 33,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain went to the old country through American channels.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. CaTrick), says he is not endeavouring to present a brief but he is undoubtedly presenting a brief that appears to be not so much in the interest of those whom he quoted so frequently, the farmers of the w'est, as of the dealer in grain, who operates elevators throughout the different parts of the west and at. the head of the lakes, at Fort William and Port Arthur. I think my hon. friend's arguments were rather contradictory if they are analysed closely. I recognize that mixing would have to be permitted if a sample market were to be successfully established, but under present conditions I do not see where the farmers would get any benefit from the establishment of a sample market, if the mixing is to be done in elevators that are owned and operated by men who control the interior elevator systems throughout the west.
Mr hon. friend quoted from the Teport of the Select Committee of the Senate on Bill Q from 'the evidence of Mr. Whalen, a member of the Fort William Board of Trade and a grain exporter, that so far as the present conditions in the European markets are concerned the producer of grain in the west, no matter what the quality of his grain may be, is paid only according to the minimum of the grade. My hon. friend himself gave the reason for this. He told us that the practice of mixing has been carried on notwithstanding the law that exists on our statute books against it. Consequently the European buyer, because of what has been done at Fort William and Port Arthur, finds it necessary to pay _ a price which does not depend on the quality of the samples that our inspector sends yearly to the European market, but on the quality of grain which the European buyer has been in the habit of getting from the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William.
So, if they do not pay anything above what the minimum of the grade calls for, it must be because of the practices _ which my hon. friend says have been going on all these years at the terminals. The buyer cannot depend on getting the same quality of grain as the inspector sends him from year to year, and consequently, he has to* pay the price of the minimum of the

grade. That being so, I do not see where the farmer comes in. I do not see what would, be the benefit under present conditions, of permitting wholesale mixing to gentlemen in the terminal. My hon. friend said that the farmer would get the benefit. I do not think he would. To-day the farmer in selling his grain, sells it to the Canadian dealer on the minimum of the grade. If he sold on a, sample market under present conditions, with the monopoly which exists in the grain trade by the combine amongst the dealers, he would still sell his grain as it would be judged by his standard in case it were inspected. The dealer would benefit, and does benefit, by this mixing operation. If we had an ideal condition, if we had a sample market and mixing were done under proper supervision, and grain so mixed had to be sold, not under inspection, but on sample, I could conceive where the farmer would get some benefit. But my hon.*friend contends that, after these gentlemen have been permitted the privilege of mixing in their mixing elevators at the terminals, then they should have the privilege of having that outgoing grain inspected by a government officer, and that low grade grain-' lean ' grade, as my hon. friend called it-would be sold in the olcl country. Such a practice would still prevent the farmer from getting in the European market anything but the price paid for the minimum of the grade. But, if the sample market is established and mixing is permitted, my view is that that giain so mixed should not be inspected; it should be sold on the European mai^et purely on sample, as it was bought. My hon. friend undertook to show that some of the farmers of the west, leaders of the grain growers, are in favour of a sample market. I touched upon that point -yesterday in the discussion on another section. I have no doubt, many of our farmers are in favour of it. But, as to the gentleman my bon. friend named, and who has been quoted two or three times, Mr. Kennedy, if my information is correct, he is not vice-president of the Grain Growers' Association, of Manitoba, which is purely a farmers' organization, but holds the same office in the Grain Growers' company which is altogether a different proposition.


George Eulas Foster: Do they not grow grain?


David Bradley Neely: They are very largely interested in the buying and selling of grain and are dealers the same as any other dealers. Their views on this question, 1 think, w'ould hardly carry very much weight w'ith the great body of the men who simply grow the grain and sell it at home.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Do you mean to say that they resort to the same devices as other dealers?


David Bradley Neely: I am afraid business,-r-well

Mr. OLIVER, Is business.


David Bradley Neely: Yes, I'm afraid that business is business with the Grain Growers' Grain Company as well as with any other business concern. My hon. friend (Mr, Carrick) tells us that the one reason he is anxious to have this privilege permitted of mixing under present conditions is to prevent our grain from going by any other than the Canadian route. Well, if we are going to allow this damage to be done to the standard of our grain, as is done at Fort William and Port Arthur, I do not think it would make very much difference to the farmer whether it goes by the American or the Canadian route. I do not take back a word of what I said yesterday of the necessity and the advisability of a sample market and mixing under proper conditions; but my hon. friend must understand what these conditions are. If evil practices have been carried on in years gone by at the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, the hon. gentleman ought to' know-as, apparently, he reads the 'Grain Growers' Guide,' so carefully and assiduously

that the farmers have suggested a condition of things, which, if brought about, would make the sample market and the mixing of grain a possibility. That is if the mixing were done under government supervision in elevators operated by officials of the government, then the farmers feel that that would be a safeguard for them


George Eulas Foster: Mixed and afterwards graded?


David Bradley Neely: No, the grain passes inspection at the initial point of inspection. If it is mixed in the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, it has no right to inspection after that.


George Eulas Foster: I am not quite clear why the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) wants the mixing done under government supervision if it is not to be graded afterwards.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend (Mr. Carrick) lias pointed out that we can still have the same system of inspection even supposing mixing is allowed in certain elevators at the terminals, and that the grain so inspected would be kept by itself, shipped as a separate entity and would go with our grade certificate to the markets of the world.


John James Carrick: What certificate?


David Bradley Neely: The certificate furnished by the government's inspector. Now, if

you have a sample market and if you permit mixing to be done at Fort William and Port Arthur, and then grade the grain out of the terminals, you are still going to have a vaet amount of our grain going to the eastern and European markets at a low grade. The condition which my hon. friend says exists on the European markets to-day would continue to exist, notwithstanding that many of our farmers might still adhere to the old system and send to these markets a class of grain much higher than would come out of these mixing elevators. The grain that would come out of the mixing elevators, being sold on inspection certificate in the European markets, would degrade the reputation of every bushel of grain coming out of the railroad elevators to which my hon. friend refers, when that was sold on inspection certificate.


George Eulas Foster: The question I asked was this: There is your mixing elevator alongside the government elevator, or the terminal which is under government supervision. If you are going to let them mix, and take the results of it without giving any grading, why do you need government supervision over them while they are mixing?


David Bradley Neely: As far as that is concerned, if the mixing were permitted by that method as long as the grain was not, inspected out, I do not see that there would be any necessity for government supervision of those elevators. Now the hon. gentleman who preceded me has quoted the interest of the farmers. If he takes the position, that the farmers of the west take, as to the method of proof, I can see no objection to his argument. But I say that under present conditions it is not the farmer who would get any benefit from throwing open the door to the mixer, it is purely and solely the man who deals in grain.


John James Carrick: My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely), seems to think that if there is mixing we are going to deteriorate the standard of our grain. I understand that the grade is set by our government inspectors, and they mix up to that grade, or else the grade does not grade in that class. The standard is established by our government inspector and they mix up to that standard. Our standard now is much higher than it is on the American side. The hon. gentleman says he does not see how the farmer is going to get any benefit from the sample market. Why, the whole advantage in this matter, as in any other business, is competition.


David Bradley Neely: Does my hon. friend mean to say that if no mixing had been carried on hi the past, or were permitted, and if our grain coing to the European market Mr. NEELY.	,	;
had always been above the minimum, that we would not get a premium'on that grain?


John James Carrick: I have answered the hon. gentleman by the evidence taken before the Select Committee by a man who has made a life study of the situation, and he claims that the grain bought on the European market is all bought on the minimum grade. Yet my hob. friend claims there has been some mixing in the Port Arthur elevators.


David Bradley Neely: I take the hon. gentleman's authority.


John James Carrick: The authority I took was Mr. E. R. Weyland, the exporter, and I gave previously the page of the Select Committe's report. I maintain that if there is mixing the farmer gets the benefit of the competitive price. Look at the different prices in the same grade on the Minneapolis market, and on the same day, where there is a difference of 4 or 5 cents, and as high as 11 cents a bushel. We would have the same competition on our own side of the line. Then referring to the damage which it is claimed has been caused to wheat shipped to the old country, I have said that there were about 437,000 bushels of one grade that was raised, and about 200,000 bushels of another grade. Now, last year we shipped out of Port Arthur and out of Fort William 100,000,000 bushels of grain altogether; and even if those few hundred thousand bushels were mixed, it would not affect the price in the European market to more than an infinitessimal de-glSe. I repeat that the great solution of this question will be the sample market, and inspection afterwards.


George Eulas Foster: I ain glad to hear the lucid remarks of my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Carrick), I have not the least doubt that the question of a sample market will again come up in the course of the discussion over this Bill. Meanwhile, would it not be well to get on with the Bill?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I am a little mixed on this question myself. I do not quite understand this selling wheat by a sample market that was not afterwards graded. It is one thing to sell wheat by grade, and another thing to sell it on the sample market. I understand that what the farmers want is a sample market in Winnipeg or elsewhere, so that they can get out of their wheat all there is in it for milling purposes, and not take the minimum grade; that is, if it is a poor Northern, to get a No. 3. I want to repeat what I said yesterday; on that point the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I do not agree. I claim that there is very little wheat sold from the west by sample, and I challenge anybody to deny it. 95 per cent, of it is sold by grade, at least. The only way they

sell grain, by sample, is when the miller comes up there and buys the grade of wheat by sample, and that wheat goes through to his mill. That is the only wheat sold in the northwest on the sample market.
On section 89: inspectors to establish standards not later than first day of October in each year,


David Bradley Neely: Has the minister taken note of the objection I raised to section 33 with regard to the dates?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, in clause 33 it reads the 7th of October and in this clause it reads the 1st of October. This is for the western inspection division and the other is not. I do not think it makes a pin's difference whether it is tire first or tne seventh, but it might be just as well to make this the same as the other -the 7th of October-so that there would be no apparent inconsistency.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think it should he the first in every case.


George Eulas Foster: It is not later than the 7th of October, so that it could not be done after that in any year.


Levi Thomson: Section
33 does not apply to any special district.


George Eulas Foster: No.


Levi Thomson: Section
33 is a general section, it will cover everything provided for by section 89 and this is only a duplicate. I fail to see that subsection 3 means anything, because if they are bound to provide samples they will provide samples of cargoes as well as anything else. It looks to nre as if it were a duplication by some error. Otherwise it is something that has crept in and has no right to be there at all, because section 33 is certainly general enough to cover everything.


George Eulas Foster: 1 propose to strike out the words in section 89 ' establish standards for' and substitute the words ' select samples of.' As to the first day of October, I do not know that it .makes any particular difference whether it is the 1st or the 7 th.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) raises the question as to the necessity for this section at all.


George Eulas Foster: There are some parts which are necessary end it will not do any barm.
Mr-THOMSON (Qu'Appelle). Would it not be exactly the same as the other, and if so, why have the two?


Mr.   POSTER@North Toronto: You will find certain things in the western division the same as in the eastern.


Frank Oliver: I would suggest that the time be made October 1 in section 33.


George Eulas Foster: Very well, I move the reconsideration of section 33.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: I move that the word ' seven ' be deleted and the word ' first ' be put in its place.
Section 33 as amended, agreed to.


Frank Oliver: With regard to subsection 3 of section 89, I would ask the minister if he sees any particular purpose in it?


George Eulas Foster: I do not. see any purpose in it or otherwise. It is exactly the same ias the old Act:
Inspectors shall also supply cargo samples when required.
There must have been some reason why it was put there. I would not like to strike it out unless I knew. It will not hurt anything, but I will make a note of it, and if afterwards we want to make an Act which is clear of all surplusage and it is not necessary, we will strike it out.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Subsection 4 of section 89 reads:
For all samples so furnished the inspector shall make such charge as is approved by the board.
What does that mean?


George Eulas Foster: They will have to pay for their samples.


Frank Oliver: I will take the opportunity of making the same objection to this subsection as to some of the others, that the fees are insignificant and burdensome without being valuable.


George Eulas Foster: I will take it as a general notice that my hon. friend objects to all those with fees in?


Frank Oliver: No, I make an exception in the case of weighing fees; but fees that are collected simply for the issue of a certificate or some other clerical transaction, are vexatious without being valuable.


George Eulas Foster: That is a fair objection.
Section 89 ias amended, agreed to.
On sections 90 and 91,


George Eulas Foster: There have been some far reaching amendments suggested to sections 90 and 91 about which

I wish to consult my officers before making up my mind. I would ask that the sections stand.
On section 96,


David Bradley Neely: What action is the board to take when at these annual weighouts it is found there is an overage or a shortage. The practice is, that the inspecting officer gives direction that the grain shall be cleaned, say three per cent for dirt, but if the cleaners take out two and a half per cent then at the annual weighout there will be an overage. Under present conditions, the elevator man might sell the fifty or sixty thousand bushels that are over. There is no provision for that, but we will assume it is possible to do it. There is a provision in the_ Bill which gives the Governor in Council, when the necessary money has been voted by parliament, power to take over these elevators and operate them, and there being clauses in the Act which prevent the board, from buying or selling or handling grain, how in such a case would the overage be disposed of?
Mr. f OSIER (North Toronto). Provision is made that the stock shall be taken in August each year. Heretofore I suppose the benefit of the overage has gone to the elevators. The stock taking provision makes it possible for the government to know what grain is over and it therefore lays the foundation for whatever action may be taken. What action will bo taken requires more consideration than we have been able to give it so far. If the government owns all the terminal elevators and operates them, if , there are overages the government would be that much in.


David Bradley Neely: Then you would have to change the terms of the Bill because there is no provision in it by which the government or the board could buy or sell grain.
,, ^r- SCIIAFFNER. Before we get through tins Bill finally I expect to find that the government is going to operate these terminal elevators. If they are not I would like to know what penalty there is attached to clause 3 which says that no grain shai] be transferred from one bin to another in a terminal elevator without the supervision, of the inspecting officer, and we know that that practice has been going oil. The only thing that will prevent that and make that clause operative will be for the government to operate these terminal elevators. A man interested in the grain should have no advantage in changing it from one bin to another."


Mr. CASH.: Is it a fact that in stocktaking the grain is' not weighed, but is merely estimated?


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: No, it is not a matter of estimating. The grain is weighed.


Frank Oliver: The matter of overages is one that calls for some solution. The fact that there are large overages has been demonstrated, and a Bill will be very lame in an important principle if it fails to deal with that question.


George Eulas Foster: The Bill, I suppose, is strong enough in two ways- definiteness of the clauses which forbid certain things being done or order certain things to be done; also possibly in the penalties. But there is broad ground and long ground between the Act and the penalty where evidence is necessary to prove a case before action can be taken. Some people say that the Angel Gabriel himself would not be able to detect mixing in an elevator. I do not know how true that is, but the department has found difficulty in proving the actual commission of these offences. But some solution must be found for that, and before the Bill is put into the shape of an Act we shall have some solution to offer.


Frank Oliver: What the hon. member for Humboldt referred to was not overages in grades but actual overages in quantities, which is a simpler matter.
On section 97-certificate to accompany grain,


David Bradley Neely: This clause, I think, should be given some consideration. The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Car-rick) to-day gave us some statistics of the quantities of our western grain carried via American routes, and I think he is correct in saying that once that grain crosses the American border we have absolutely no supervision over it and no means for maintaining the identity of the grain. Evidence was given before the Select Committee of the Senate on Bill (Q) by a gentleman connected with one of the leading elevator interests operating the terminals at Fort William, to the effect that all that the American government do is to bond the wheat by quantity and not by grade. They give no guarantee to preserve the indentity of the grain. I would like to know what remedy the minister proposes in this Bill for that. I do not think there is any doubt mat the reputation of our grain standards has been lowered very greatly in days gone by in the European markets owing to the grain that has reached those markets by the American routes. Samples of our grain have been on exhibition in the Liverpool markets containing corn and other things that we do not grow. There is absolutely no method under present conditions by which we can prevent this. I understand that the

practice has been to sell this wheat on the Canadian certificate, and it has no doubt tended to damage the reputation of our western wheat in the European markets.


George Eulas Foster: Under the old Act a certificate is to accompany the grain to its destination; but when the grain gets outside of Canada, there may be an arrangement by which the certificate follows the grain or goes to the ultimate buyer, possibly in the old country. But we have no power over the handling of the grain, except by mere courtesy, from the time it leaves our country and while it passes through a foreign country on its way to the ultimate port of shipment. The suggestion has been made that the Canadian certificate should be confined to Canadian jurisdiction, and not carry any force outside of that so that the shipper of Canadian grain through foreign territory, would get no benefit from the certificate, because it would be void when it left our territory so far as carrying the guarantee of the Canadian government control and supervision vras concerned. The foreign buyer would then know that if his grain came with government inspection through Canadian channels he would be getting the actual grain of the grade shown by the certificate, and he would also know that if the grain went through a foreign country, he would have to take the risk himself from the time it left Canadian territory, and the Canadian certificate would suffer no damage.


Edward L. Cash: This is a serious question, and one that we should decide now. I applied to the office of the minister in regard to this very matter and received a reply that we have no jurisdiction. The letter says in part:
As soon as the grain reaches Buffalo, or any other port in the United States, we have no supervision over it whatever. The customs simply require that the shipper export tire same number of bushels that he put in.
The customs are expected to keep it under seal while passing through the elevators and through the cars in New York, and again there until it reaches the vessel.
However, you rfow have some idea of what elevator men can do, and if they are working in conjunction with a crooked shipper, there is no doubt mixing could be done either at Buffalo or New York.
officers, and by these transferred to vessels or cars for export.	.	.
In other words, the identical grain received is exported as Canadian grain.
There is no Canadian grain ground flour at this port.
Respectfully.
N. A. LINDENBERG, Special deputy collector.
into
This is a very serious matter. The minister and his officers tell'me that we have no jurisdiction over the matter, this official at Duluth tells me that these bins are taken care of by both American and Canadian officials. I understand that a great deal of wheat bonded in the United States is milled in Minneapolis and passed through to England as Canadian flour ground in the United States. I think it is necessary that Canadians should be informed as to whether our grain is exported, made into flour, and so exported in bond. If we cannot have an officer to look after the grain passing from this country through the United States in bond we are doing a very wrong thing to allow it to go in bond at all. If we are going to sell wheat to the United States let us sell it, but if it is not taken care of in passing through that country in bond let us not ship in bond.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the shipping matter is entirely in the hands of the shipper. If he wants to ship in bond you cannot prevent him.
Mr. CASH, It should not go through as 'Canadian grain; if our grain is to be mixed there in bond or mixed in milling it should not have a Canadian certificate with it. On the question of the certificate, when the Canadian government places its seal on any thing, its fiat, whether on a piece of paper or -of gold and says this is so and so, it is very jealous that that certificate should be preserved in its entirety, and in its integrity. When it puts its seal on a bushel of wheat and says this is No. 1, it should be just as careful about that seal. The government's word is behind it and the government should protect it whether it goes through the United States, or anywhere else. If you are going to send it through the United States, then take up your certificate. If it can be handled at certain ports, where we have Canadian officers to assist the American officers, that is very different.
I wrote to the Collector of Customs at Duluth and received this reply:
In answer to your letter of the 27th instant relative to the handling of Canadian grain in bond for exportation to Great Britain, you are informed that the grain arrives at this port under Canadian and United States customs seals. The grain is transferred under the supervision of Canadian and United' States officers to bonded bins, which are sealed by the Canadian and United States


George Eulas Foster: We have an officer at Duluth and I imagine that under the arrangement of the Customs the identical wheat which goes out of Fort William or the Canadian west to Duluth, is shipped out from Duluth, but after it leaves Duluth, it may go to Portland, Boston or New York and we do not follow it there. It may be possible to make an arrangement with the United States Cus-

toms officials by which our officers at the different transfer ports, should, in connection with the Customs officers of the United States at these same ports, effect the carriage of the identical lot as far as the _ place of shipment on the Atlantic vessel. If we can do that at Dmuth, it might be carried out still farther.


David Bradley Neely: It would appear to be very difficult to do anything with respect to the grain that goes by the American route, except to cancel the certificate when the grain crosses the border. This clause applies to grain going by any route. Canadian as well as American. Would the minister tell us what method and what supervision is employed to enforce this provision with respect to grain going^ by the Canadian route? As an illustration: Supposing a shipper is sending out from Fort William we will say 10,000 bushels or ten cars of No. 1 and 10 cars of No. 2. He gets his certificate for 10,000 bushels of No. 1, and 10,000 bushels of No. 2. The certificate may be for 1,000 bushels each. What is to prevent that shipper from shipping we will say 8,000 bushels of his No. 1 down tc Quebec or west St. John, or any Canadian port, and a couple of thousand bushels of No. 2, so that the wheat, if mixed, will still grade up to No. 1, putting that into the hold of a vessel, mixing it at west St. John, or wherever he loads it and sending along his 10,000 bushels No. 1 certificates? Then he can take the balance of his No. 2, the 8,000 bushels, send it along as No. 2, and the remaining 2,000 bushels of No. 1 he can sell on a sample market. This is an important point. It appears to me, that while there may be something in the statements that in the past mixing has been done to some extent in the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, ever since I have given any consideration to this question I have been of the opinion that a great deal of the mixing has been done after the grain has left the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur. I would take a case in point, and this is a condition of affairs that our law ought to provide for under the system of inspection and supervision. I met on the train a wholesale baker who buys flour in large quantities and who does business in Ontario as well as in Winnipeg. He told me that a certain miller in this province, under contract to supply him with so many thousand pounds of flour to be made from No. 2 Northern wheat, supplied a flour away below what flour from a No. 2 wheat should be.^ So he undertook to make an investigation. He went to the miller who was still working on his order, and when he looked at the sample of wheat being used to fill his order, he said it was not better than a No. 4. He said: What do you mean' by grinding' that wheat to fill my order?


George Eulas Foster: The miller went to a drawer and produced a No. 2 certificate saying: There is the certificate for that wheat and this is the wheat I got out of terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, as a No. 2 wheat, Those terminals were blamed for that situation. I am satisfied that the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur were not to blame in that instance or in many others. That miller had probably some time previously had a shipment of No. 2 Northern, he had retained the certificate and he simply used that certificate to mislead this purchaser of his flour.
What is there in this legislation to meet a situation of that kind? I do not see that we have any protection. If we have any protection, I would like to know what it is, because I think that in many cases it is not applied.


John James Carrick: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) is not familiar with the working of the elevators at the head of the lakes, or he would not have spoken of small shipments of eight or ten thousand bushels going out.


David Bradley Neely: I was using that for illustration.


John James Carrick: [DOT] The grain when it comes into the elevator is put into large tanks, each grade by itself. It is sent out in large shipments. And this Bill specifically provides that if there is a cargo shipped out containing different grades, that fact shall be specified in that cargo.


David Bradley Neely: But you ship a lot by rail, in car lots, and that is what I am speaking about.


John James Carrick: The government inspector is there, and he gives a certificate, not only when it comes in but when it goes out, so that there can be no chance of doing what the hon. gentleman says.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. gentleman confirms what I say-that the grain is inspected out and the shipper is given a certificate


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman is speaking of car shipments.


David Bradley Neely: Yes. It is shipped by rail to St. John or any other Atlantic port. And I do not'know of anything in our present legislation or in the proposed Bill to prevent these certificates being used for an illegitimate purpose in the manner I have suggested.


Mr. BENNETT (Simcoe).: What time elapses between the date of the sale of the grain and the date of the issue of the certificate? One could not use a certificate two years old.


David Bradley Neely: No, hut he could use one a couple of months old, and, in the case
[DOT]2405

of a shipment to the European market, the shipment would be of recent date. If the shipper were shipping so much No. 1 and so much No. 2, the date ot the certificate would not have any effect upon the case; all would be of recent dare. So far as I know we have not been following our Canadian shipments and we have not seen to it hitherto that the certificate and the wheat that go together to the old country market belong to each other.


George Eulas Foster: I should like to continue the discussion, but I am going to ask the committee to let it go over to another day. I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Neely) will find his fears are a little ahead of the facts of the case, and that there is much more efficient supervision and check than he has led us to suppose. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again for the purpose of introducing an amendment to the present Grain Act of which I have [DOT]already spoken, with the hope that the House will allow me without objection to put the amendment through without delay.
Progress reported.



MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.

George Eulas Foster: I mentioned the other day the case to which I wish to refer, and ask members on both sides to keep it in mind. The present Grain Act, section 99b. says:
The commissioner shall have power in his discretion to order cars to be supplied, contrary to the provisions of the Act, to elevators that are in danger of collapse, or in cases where the operator of any country elevator reports in writing under oath that some portion of the grain in his elevator or warehouse is heated, and that in order to preserve the same it is necessary to ship such heated grain to the terminal elevator for treatment: provided, however, that no relief shall be granted in such last mentioned cases as long as the warehouseman has plenty of room in his building for the rehandling of such grain.
The condition of things at the present time, as I stated is very onerous and may be productive of great loss unless the conditions be met as rapidly and effectively as possible. I am going to ask the House, if no one objects, to allow me to introduce an amendment to that section of the Act and to put it through its different stages, to this effect: That after the word 'collapse ' in the third line, there be inserted ' all places where grain is damp and liable to become damp, or for the purpose of distributing seed grain to any point in the western division.' In these cases the ware-, houseman shall have the same option and discretion as is given him in the other two eases. All the representatives of the different interests, including the railways, are
favourable to this being done. And I might say that the Board of Railway Commissioners have also recommended it. I move that the rules relating to this matter be suspended and that leave be given to introduce this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 96) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and
*second times, and House went into committee thereon.
Frank Oliver: As I heard the provision read, it seems to be quite satisfactory. But it is a very important deviation from the main principle of the Bill, and unless there is special urgency for seeing it through today, I would ask the minister to give us until Monday to consider it.


George Eulas Foster: Monday is private members day. But we might report the Bill, it will be printed, and hon. gentlemen will have an opportunity to discuss it at a later stage.
Bill reported.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HAZEN moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
1.	Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, hereinafter called the corporation, in addition to the
-t-neys, if any, heretofore authorized to be* advanced to the corporation by the Governor in Council by any Act, and which have not at the date of the passing of any Act founded upon these resolutions been so advanced, such snras of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of six million dollars, as are required :-
(a)	to pay off and retire debentures of the corporation of the par value of six hundred thousand dollars, maturing at the rate [DOT]if two hundred dollars per annum in each of the years, 1913, 1914 and 1915, and,
(b)	to enable the corporation to complete the construction of the terminal facilities of t lie port of Montreal, for which the plans, specifications and estimates have been approved by the Governor in Council, and to con-
[DOT]i-urt such additional terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the said port, and in respect of which plans, specifications and estimates have, previous to advances * made, been approved by the Governor in Council;
2.	That during the period of construction of the terminal facilities mentioned in these resolutions, the interest payable on the debentures receivable by the Minister of Financn in exchange for such advances, shall be deemed to be money required to complete and
[Stage Direction]
to be part of the cost of construction thereof. ancl such interest may be paid out of the said sum of six million dollars.
3.	That the corporation shall upon any advances being made deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable half yearly, at the rate of three and one half per centum per annum.
4.	That the principal and interest of any sums advanced under any Act founded on these resolutions shall be payable, subject to tli© second of these resolutions, out of the revenue of the corporation mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896, (first session), and shall be a charge thereon as if the sums so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under said chapter 10.
He said: I may inform tlie House that this resolution lias been submitted to His Royal Highness the Governor General and he has been pleased to give his assent. In the copy of the resolution that appears on the orders of the day it is clear that there is an omission in clause (a). The resolution will be found, however, on page 317 of the Votes and Proceedings. But even there I find there is one word omitted. In subsection (a) the word ' thousand ' is omitted, because it reads: ' at the rate of two hundred dollars per annum ', where it should read: ' at the rate of two hundred thousand dollars per annum '. The object of the Bill to be founded on this resolution is to enable the government to advance a further sum of $6,000,000 to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners for the purpose of developing that port. Hon. gentlemen will recollect that in 1910 plans were prepared by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal or under their direction, after they had consulted with harbour experts, not only in Canada, but in other parts of the world, and the plans prepared were approved by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for work on that harbour which contemplated a total expenditure of $18,000,000. That work was to be performed in 12 years and provided for:
1.	New high level quays, (having an aggregate frontage of 16,800,000 feet) so arranged as to give 24 new ocean berths for vessels of from 600 to 800 feet.
2.	The creation of a new level quay for the accommodation of the rapidly growing river business, 5,800 feet.
3.	Will afford a combined area of new high and low level wharf space and extension equal to 74 acres.
4.	Will provide new permanent shed accommodation with a floor area of 1,386,000 square feet.
5.	Will create new grain storage capacity of 4,000,000 bushels and increase grain handling capacity of the port five-fold.
Mr. HAZEN.: 6.	Will add additional railway accommodation on the quays equal to 22 miles of track.
By Act of Parliament 9-10 Edward VII, chapter 40, the first section of $6,000,000 was voted, and has been employed in the development scheme, go as to make the harbour fit for the great work which it has to do in connection with the export and import business of Canada. It will be necessary, if that work is to be continued according to the [DOT] original scheme, for this parliament to vote a further sum of money to be used by the commissioners, under exactly the same terms as the money that is voted under the old Act, and subject, as provided by the old Act, to orders in council being passed from time to time placing the funds at the disposal of the Harbour Commissioners, and approving the plans which the Harbour Commissioners have for the development of the port. The first $6,000,000 has been very largely expended. As a matter of fact, the'whole of it, with the exception I think of about $286,000, has been authorized to be spent by order in council. A portion of it has not yet been expended, but before the season terminates the whole amount will have been, and unless a further1 isum is placed	at the	disposal of	thegovernment to	enable	it o	advancefrom time to time to the Harbour Commissioners further moneys, the work cannot proceed as	it was intended	by	theoriginal scheme that it should proceed until the work of development according to the original	plan is completed.	No
doubt by the time that plan is completed, if the country continues to develop and trade continues to grow as it is doing now, a further expenditure will have to be made in order to keep the port of Montreal up to the requirements of the trade of the country. I may say for the information of the House that "these sums that are advanced from time to time to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners are not by way of subsidy, not by -way of gift, but by way of loan, and the Harbour Commissioners will pay from time to time, as they have done in the past, interest on the sums that have been so advanced, so that there is no loss to the country whatever; the country has been and will be paid back by the Harbour Commissioners ihc amount of interest which Canada has lo pay on the sums which are so advanced. The Harbour Commissioners firmly believe that with the increased growth and development of business which is likely to take place, they will be able to continue to pay back to the government, as they have done in the past, the interest on the larger sums that will be advanced under this Bill, and under the provisions of future Bills which
[DOT]2409

may have to be brought before the House in years to come. Now with the $6,000,000 that it is proposed to authorize the government to advance by this Bill it is contemplated to make the following expenditures:
1.	During the next three years they intend to pay off $600,000 of debentures, that is to say $200,000 this year, $200,000 in 1913 and $200,000 in 1914.
2.	They propose a further extension of elevator No. 2, adding 1,500,000 bushels capacity, at a cost of $550,000.
3.	Rebuilding Victoria pier and Market basin, for river business, $640,000.
4.	Sheds and equipment Victoria pier,

5.	Construction of high level wharfs, eastward of Market basin to section 30, $350,000.
6.	The diversion and alteration of the
lower end of the Mackay pier and works required to lessen the St. Mary's current, $400,000.	.
7.	The lengthening of the present pier, $500,000.
8.	Provision for the permanent paving of the wharfs and railway extension, $500,000.
9.	General improvement and plant, $500,000.
10.	Tarte pier, permanent sheds, $250,000.
11.	New wharfs, $300,000.
12.	Commencement of construction of new pier No. 1, up above Alexandra pier, extension of Biclterdike pier, with lift bridge connections, $710,000.
These moneys are to be advanced from time to time by the government to the commissioners. The commissioners, from time to time, may request the government for an advance, their plans and specifications will be carefully examined by the engineers of the department, and after an order in council is passed approving of the plans and work the commission may be doing, and of their proposed expenditure, the moneys will be advanced for the purpose of carrying on this work. The development of the port of Montreal has gone on very rapidly indeed, during the last few years, as is shown by the income and expenditure in that time, and it may not, perhaps, in this connection, be altogether a waste of time if I should give some of the figures regarding that to the House. I may say in the first place that the port of Montreal to-day has debentures outstanding, but held by the government, to the amount of $14,060,000. As the government from time to time make advances to the Harbour Commissioners they give to the government a debenture for the amount so advanced payable with interest, and these debentures held by the government to-day amount to $14,060,000. In addition to that there are harbour debentures held by other parties amounting to $1,872,000.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: What is the rate of interest to be paid on the new debentures that are now proposed to be issued? I think the rate of interest paid on the $9,000,000 of the present- loan is 3 per cent. The average rate of interest that the government is paying for money is 34 per cent; so that we are contributing _ something to the harbour of Montreal in the way of interest. My question is: What rate of interest is now proposed to be charged by the government for the loan that is being made?
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 36), respecting Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' Barcelona Tramway, Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Macdonell.
On section 1,
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: Why is this clause stricken out?


Arthur Meighen: I understand that simply affects the change in the name and that should be done on motion after the third reading .


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think this parliament should, without very good cause, amend or extend the powers of a company which secures its charter under the Companies Act, or from a provincial legislature. I know such legislation as this has been granted in the past, but there seems to be very little good reason for it. Such powers as these may be given by means of aipending the Companies Act.


Arthur Meighen: I understand the company is incorporated under the Dominion Companies Act, and as they want to build railways, they cannot get that power under the Companies Act, and so they come for this legislation, in the country where they intend to operate they are hampered in their efforts to get a charter by reason of what is called a cloud on the title of the original charter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They should come to parliament and get a new charter including in itt the power to build railways in other countries. It is a very awkward thing to have the powers of a company separated. One naturally would look to find their powers under the Companies Act, and would never think of looking in the Statutes of Canada to find an extension

of their powers there and a change of name.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The object here is to change the name of the company by special legislation and therefore it -should be incorporated in -the Bill. If the motion were to change the name of the Bill that would come up by motion -after the third reading.


John Allister Currie: The Railway Committee discussed this Bill for ov-er two hours and I did not see either of these gentlemen present.


Arthur Meighen: I should have said that the company di-d set out to change its title, but the Railway Committee has not agreed, and that is w-hy the first clause was struct out, so th-at -my horn, friend (Mr. Macdonald) is right in saying that the motion would be to c-hange the title of the Bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is another thing.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax), I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Cunrie) if there is anything in the Bill that says members of the Railway Committee must -attend the meetings of th-at committee.


John Allister Currie: No, but it is rather a hardship after -a Bill has been discussed i-n the Railway Committee to waste time discussing it here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We will reserve our right to anything we want here.
On -section 8,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I took exception to this clause in the Railway Committee. The directors and not the company are allowed to v-ary the conditions of th-e share warrant and I wanted to have that authority in ifie company. I submit my objection now so that the company may deal with it as they see fit.


John Allister Currie: I understood they were to change that in the committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think that is a matter more for the -directors than for the shareholders, because the only purpose in giving the company power to issue warrants is to make it easy to -circulate and -dispose of the securities of the company in foreign markets, and I think it would be very awkard for the company if that were left to the shareholders.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: While the directors might vary the warrants in accordance with the interests of the shareholders, they might vary them in accordance with their own interests. That was the exception taken in the Railway Committee.


John Allister Currie: I think the promoters of the Bill agreed to accept an amendment Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
providing that the company could, by bylaw, vary the warrants. A holder of a share warrant is a stockholder but not a voter, and a contingency might arise in connection with the business of the company requiring some important matter to by put through at a special meeting at which it would be necessary for him to be present and vote. If his share warrant could be transferred into stock, he could be present and vote at that meeting. If you give the directors power to make regulations as to how that transfer shall be made, they -might make -a regulation whereby nobody could have his share warrant transferred till five or six months after the meeting took ptla-c-e, like -closing the books of the company and preventing the stock being transferred. For that reason when a nerson bu^'s the stock he should know what the provisions of the by-laws are in regard to the-se share warrants. Therefore, I -supported the amendment of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), providing that that matter should be under the control of the shareholders.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As the promoter of the Bill is not here, I would not care to move the amendment in the absence of the Minister of Railways.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Under rule 112 an important amendment cannot be moved unless one day's notice of the same has been given.


Arthur Meighen: I do not feel like consenting to the Bill standing unless the hon. gentlemen feel that this is a matter of serious importance.


John Allister Currie: As this company is applying for a renewal of its charter, the fees for the Bill are based on the amount of its cajaital stock, and I would like to ask, if the amount of the capital stock is not-shewn on the face of the Bill, can the company get off with paying,the ordinary fees. Might it not be necessary to mention the total capital stock of the company in the Bill in order that it should be liable for the proper fee F


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to see the Bill stand. It is rather unsatisfactory as it is.


John Allister Currie: I understand this company is chartered for $40,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the Minister of Railways should be there to give his opinion on these matters, and the Bill should remain in committee until he is here.


John Allister Currie: I would suggest that we let the Bill pass the committee with the understanding that the statement shall be made on the third reading that the fees are paid on the total capital stock.
Bill reported.

Mr. MEIGHEN moved the Third Reading of the Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is not this the Bill that was not to be read the third time?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting ot the House?


Arthur Meighen: So far as I know, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why this Bill should be treated differently from the others. The title is supposed to be changed on the third reading. And, as I understand, the statement is to be made when the Bill is read the third time, that the fees are lj be paid on the total capital stock of the company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my judgment, that could not he done here. The Clerk of the Committee sees to the fees before it goes to the Committee.


Arthur Meighen: I understood that the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) simply wished to have it stated, so that it should be before the clerk. I do not know that it has any effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.
Mr. MEIGHEN moved that the Bill do now pass and that the title be changed to: ' An Act respecting the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.'
Motion agreed to and Bill passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 50) respecting the Ontario and Ottawa Railway Company-Mr. Currie.
On the preamble,
John Allister Currie: Notice was given in the Rakway Committee of an amendment to this Bill. It seems that the Canadian Northern Railway Company are desirous of purchasing the Broekville, Westport and Northwestern Railway Company. Both rahway companies had power to sell or amalgamate one with the other. They proceeded with the purchase, but after proceeding a certain length they found that eight bonds for small amounts could not be located, and so the Broekville and Westport had to be placed in the hands of a receiver and a judicial sale made so as to make a perfect sale. They therefore ask to nave the following clause added to this Bill as they *have not sufficient time to go on with a new Bill. It is urgent that the railway should be taken over by the Canadian N rthern at once, in order to make improvements to the road this summer. The amendment of which notice has been given is as follows:
Subject to the provisions of sections 361, 362 and 363 of the Railway Act the company, and the purchaser under judicial sale of the Broekville, Westport and Northwestern railway, may respectively enter into an agreement with each other for the selling to and the purchase by the company of the whole of the railway and undertaking of the Brock-ville, Westport and Northwestern Railway Company as included in such judicial sale.
Notice of that amendment has been given and I would ask the committee to be kind enough to insert it in the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I am instructed that the requisite notice has not 'been given, that is to say it came this morning, and l would suggest to the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie), that the Bill, at this stage, be allowed to stand, and the notice stand to come up at the next meeting of * the committee.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman means that the ordinary notice did not arrive by mail this morning?


Arthur Meighen: It did arrive this morning; hut a day's notice is necessary.


John Allister Currie: The notice was given in the Railway Committee and the amendment was read there. I understand that, under the rule, that is a sufficient notice.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Notice has to be given here so that it may appear on the order paper in the usual way.


John Allister Currie: I may be absent wlfen the Bill comes up on Monday. I do not know that the committee can bind its members, but if any objection is to be taken, I should like to have personal notice of it so that I may be here.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Notice should be handed to.the clerk.


John Allister Currie: The notice came to my house. I have been ill and could not attend to the matter.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As I understand the amendment, it provides that the railway company and the purchaser may enter into an agreement for purchase and sale. But what right have we to say that the purchaser may enter into tins bargain. We have the right to say that the company which is under our jurisdiction may buy, but, as I understand it, we have not right to say that the other party shall sell.
On the Order for the third reading:-


Arthur Meighen: There is one amendment in this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was reported without any amendment.


Arthur Meighen: It was read in tho committee with the amendment. The,

words ' authorized by ' in the third line oi section 2, are changed to ' mentioned in That was read by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole House. I heard him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that amended in the Railway Committee?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it was not amended here?
Order allowed to .stand.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 47) respecting the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company. -Mr. Barker.
Bill (No. 48) respecting the Kootenay and Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Co-derre.
Bill (No. 40) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Currie.	.
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company-Mr. Guilbault.	.	,	.	.
Bill (No. 49) respecting the Montreal Central Terminal Company.-Mr. Ames.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Northern Territorial Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-
1 Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the Bank of Saskatchewan.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, Company.-Mr. Clements.
Bill (No. 91) respecting the Kootenay Central Railway Company.-Mr. Clements.
Bill (No. 92) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 93) respecting the United Gold Fields of British Columbia, Limited.-Mr. Buchanan.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of proposed resolution for a loan to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners.
John Douglas Hazen: When you were about to leave the Chair at six o'clock the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair! asked what rate of interest would be paid on 'advances to the Harbour Commissioners. I would call attention to section 6 of the printed Bill, Which provides that:
The corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General debentures of Mr. MEIGHEN.
the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, which debentures the corporation is hereby authorized to issue; and such debentures so issued shall be of such amounts as the Minister of Finance and Receiver General may determine, and shall bear date from the day when such advance is made, and shall be repayable in 25 years from the date of their issue, and in the meantime shall bear interest at the rate of three and a half per cent per annum, such interest to be payable half yearly on the 1st day of July and on the 1st day of January each year.
I might further say to my hon. friend that there was u 'similar provision in the Act that was passed,ia few years ago under which, during these few years, the Harbour Commission of Montreal have been carrying on the work of development.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister inform the Hous-e as to how much _ interest is overdue by the Harbour Commission?


John Douglas Hazen: My information is that there is no interest overdue, that the interest of the debentures of the Montreal harbour are promptly paid.


John Howard Sinclair: The reason I asked the *question was that a few days ago the following (question was placed on the order paper and put to the government:
Is there any accrued interest overdue? If so, how much?
The answer was:
Interest due the Dominion on the 1st Jaxillary, 1912, not yet paid, $218,430 99. The cam-mission stated that all interest due the public up to the 5th January instant has been paid.
That is the reason I asked this question, because it appeared that there was over $200,000 overdue and unpaid.


John Douglas Hazen: I think that says accrued and not paid, and of course there might be interest accrued and yet not be overdue. If I understand the matter, the interest is paid; there was practically a settlement of accounts as between the government and the harbour commissioners 'and there is no interest due.


John Howard Sinclair: But the question was:
How much interest is accrued and overdue?
While the answer gave this amount it did not specify that it was accrued at all. There seems to have been an error in the answer and I would be glad to have it put right.


John Douglas Hazen: I will take much pleasure in looking into the matter and getting any further information I can, but I am advised that there is no interest due at the present'time and that the statement may be due to the fact that there is to be an adjustment of accounts which will probably wipe out any balance of interest apparently due.
[DOT]2417

I have a statement here showing the receipts and disbursements on revenue account for the last twenty years in connection with the harbour of Montreal. It i3 as follows:
Statement of Receipts and Disbursements on Revenue Account.
\rear.	Receipts. Disbursements.
1891	$203,865	95	$202,737	351892	
291,430	24	231,925	741893	
318,936	98	232,300	921894	
274,556	56	251,328	401895	
275,453	75	227,912	571896	
261,840	13	232,351	621897	
257,654	70	294,518	361898	
302,511	06	247,922	121899	
296,774	41	243,997	361900	
287,069	18	250,249	191901	
270,411	17	305,207	321902	
327,236	07	308.103	551903	
416,032	68	399,702	811901	
330,659	22	408,100	241905	
377,492	4 1	415,821	771908	
388,183	53	454.689	351907	
498,661	12	497,837	861908	
530,062	29	651,093	131909	
687,772	16	686,710	731910	
836,115	17	756,352	56

It will be seen that in 1910 the receipts of the harbour -were nearly four times a*s much as they were twenty years ago, and that there has been a very substantial increase during the last four or five years, the increase from 1909 to 1910 being nearly $150,000. The disbursements, of course, on revenue account have increased in almost equal degree. In respect to this large increase in the disbursements the commissioners have been able to go on carrying out the work that has been entrusted to them for the development of the port, to pay the interest to the country on the sums of money that have been advanced not only during the past few years, but in previous years, amounting to nearly $15,000,000, and in addition to that to pay the interest on over a million dollars of debentures which are held by the public outside of and apart from the debentures which are held to-day in the treasury of the Dominion.
The interest charges, of course, have largely increased as the work has been proceeded with. I have here the following statement:-
1900.	interest paid..	
$164,134	181901	
176,030	531902	**	
191.116	391903	
221,950	711901	
255,012	581905	294,764	121906	"	
283,721	141907	"	
336,277	861908	
386,131	161909	
411,538	781910	"	.. .. 445,813	631911,	estimated.. ..	
505,000	00$3,671,491	08
It is the belief of the commissioners, a belief in which the government shares, that as the port is developed and with the tremendous increase in the business that is going on, the revenues of the harbour will be sufficient in the future, as they have been in the past, to pay the interest on these sums of money that the country is advancing for the development of this great national port. The policy of the commissioners and the policy of the government is that the dues of the port shall be as light as possible and what the commissioners are striving at, and aiming to do is to collect only enough money in the port for the purpose of paying the cost of its maintenance and interest on the sums of money that are being 'advanced from time to time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there a sinking fund?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think there is a sinking fund. It is claimed by the_ commissioners that the charges upon shipping at .the port of Montreal are light in comparison with what they are at many other ports. No tonnage dues are exacted from the steamers that come to that port. Practically the only dues which the steamers pay are the sick mariners and pilotage dues such as would be paid by steamers at any other ports. There is no tonnage tax for the use of the port or the wharfs further than the revenues from the rental of sheds or the wharfage on goods that pass over the wharfs or through the sheds or the revenues from the grain elevators and the railway alongside of the dock. It is claimed by the commissioners that in the course of time the facilities provided at the port of Montreal will be equal to the facilities that are provided at any shipping port in the world and that they are now far in advance of what they were a few years ago, while at the same time the dues are being so arranged as not to be an undue exaction upon the shipping of the port or upon the trade of the country that is done through that port. As far as I can gather from conversations with people from Montreal with whom I come in contact, from the reports which are submitted to the department over which I preside and from other sources of information, I believe that the work is proceeding along lines which are approved of by the people of Montreal and would be approved of, were they generally known, by the general business community of this country, who are just as much interested as the people of Montreal in the development of a great national harbour there. I do not think for a moment that the money which is being spent on the harbour of Montreal can fairly be regarded as a local expenditure. It is true it is of very great advantage to the harbour and it is naturally of great advantage to the community, but at


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on the resolution.
John Douglas Hazen: I beg to move to add the word ' thousand ' after the w7ord ' hundred ' in the second line, so as to correct a clerical error. It reads now ' two hundred dollars a year and it should read * two hundred thousand dollars.'
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. HAZEN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 97) to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK moved that the House go into-Committee of Supply.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on this motion I desire to direct

the attention of the government, and of the House generally to a matter which I think is of the very greatest importance, and to which I had occasion to refer at an earlier period in the session, when I had the honour of moving for all the papers in regard to imperial naturalization, and the communications that passed between the home government and this government with reference to the passing of a measure which would enable persons who are naturalized in Canada to become in truth and verity citizens of the British Empire, as under the existing laws they are not. As a result of the motion I then made, a return has been brought down, which I have before me, and which shows that following upon the proceedings of the Imperial Conference, which were discussed on the occasion of that motion, the imperial authorities prepared, to be sent to each of the self-governing colonies, a draft Bill dealing with this question; and they desire to receive from each of these colonies its approval of the measure in order that it may be passed by the imperial parliament, and that legislation of a subsidiary character may also be passed, in the various colonies in order to remove the difficulty. That Bill was sent to this government during the past summer. The home government apparently acted very promptly after the action of the Imperial Conference in proceeding with the draft measure. In brief, that measure provides for a complete change in the naturalization laws of the empire. It purports in its first clause to define natural-born British subjects. The language used in the [DOT]beginning of that section is as follows:
The following persons shall he deemed to he naturalized British subjects.
It then goes on to define those born within His Majesty's allegiance, and certain other classes of persons who are said to be naturalized British subjects. I think this must be a mistake in the Bill for natural-horn British subjects. The second section provides for the Secretary of State granting a certificate of naturalization to an alien who makes an application for the purpose, and satisfies the Secretary of State that he has resided for a period of five years in His Majesty's dominions, or has been in the service of the Crown for not less than five years within the last eight years before the application. The use of the phrase ' His Majesty's dominions ' makes this a wider provision than that of the present law, which requires that residence must have been within the United Kingdom. The second requirement is that the applicant is of good character and has adequate knowledge of the English language. There are certain other provisions in that section which are not particularly apropos to this discussion. Then, the 77*
certificate of naturalization is not to take effect until the applicant has taken the oath of allegiance. This is an outline of the principles on which it is proposed that the naturalization may be granted-five years residence in any of His Majesty's dominions or five years in the service of the Crown, not necessarily within those dominions; that the applicant should, be of good character and have an adequate knowledge of the English language, . and that the oath of allegiance should be taken. If that section were passed by the imperial parliament-though it seems to me there might be some improvement in the drafting-it would be open to any person who had resided in Canada for that period to make application to the British Secretary of State for imperial naturalization. There is a provision later on which enables each one of the colonial governments to grant a certificate. But before coming to that I would take the sections in their order. A most material one, which applies to the certificate granted by any of the governments, is worthy of consideration. It provides:
A person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted by a Secretary of State, shall, subject to tlie provisions of this Act, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural-born British subject is entitled and, as from the date of his naturalization, have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject.
That section is a new one and is very wide in its effect. It practically creates the Imperial naturalization of aliens. There are other provisions with reference to peculiar cases, such as the Secretary of State granting a certificate in the case of doubt as to naturalization, or where a person has previously obtained a certificate of naturalization, power is given to the Secretary of State to grant a new one having a wider effect. Then, section 7 gives power to the Colonies as follows:
The government of any British possession shall have the same power to grant a certificate of naturalization as the Secretary of State has under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to the grant and revocation of such a certificate shall apply accordingly, with the substitution of the government of the possession for the Secretary of .State, and the possession for the United Kingdom, and also, in a possession where any language is recognized as on an equality with the English language, with the substitution of that language for the English language.
I hope that the government, in looking into this Act, will give special attention to this clause, which is a vital one so far as this colony is concerned, and there ought to be no doubt about the colony's right which is intended to be created. The
m:

sight which is supposed to be conferred upon each one of the colonial governments is one which cannot be exercised until certain things are done:
This section shall not take effect in any of *the dominions specified in the first schedule to this Act unless the legislature of that dominion adopt the section.
'Then there is this general clause which also makes wide and clear the power of the colonial governments:
Any certificate of naturalization granted under this section shall have the same effect as a certificate of naturalization granted by the 'Secretary of State under this Act in all parts [DOT]of His Majesty's dominions other than a dominion as defined by this Act, the legislature of which has not adopted this section.
The right of the colonial legislatures or parliaments to deal with the question of the exclusion of aliens or British subjects is preserved under this proposed Act in the following clause:
Nothing in this Act shall take away or -abridge any power vested in or exerciseable by the legislature or government of any British possession or prevent any such legislature or government from treating differently different classes of British subjects.
That would, of course, reserve the Tight to Canada to discriminate against Hindus or any other class of British subjects if this colonial parliament desire to *do so. Then there is the validity of statutes that may be passed by the parliaments-I notice the word * legislature ' is used by the drafter at home which is not the apt word either here or in Australia, although I suppose the word may be used in some other colonies. This section says:
All laws, statutes and ordinances made by irbe legislature of a British possession for imparting to any person any of the privileges [DOT]of naturalization to be enjoyed by him with-:in the limits of that possession shall within 'those limits have the authority of law, but -subject to be confirmed or disallowed by His Majesty.
That preserves to the parliament of 'Canada, of which we are speaking more particularly now, the right to continue the naturalization of aliens by the granting of a limited certificate which would not be of as full effect as those which were granted under the Imperial laws. We grant certificates of naturalization in Canada on three years residence; the right to continue to do that would be preserved by this Act, but two years more of residence *would be necessary as supplementary in order to entitle them to the wider certificate.
This Act, which was drafted by home authorities, was the product of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference and Mr. MACDONALD.
the understanding arrived at in a general way by representatives of the selfgoverning dominions there with the Colonial Secretary who made an attempt to prepare a Bili that would be satisfactory to all the self-governing colonies as well as to the home authorities. This Bill has been submitted to all the colonies and has been approved of by the government of South Africa, as appears by letter of Mr. Harcourt, dated November 18, 1911, in which he communicates to the Governor General the fact that, he had received a telegram from the Governor General of the Union of South Africa, on the subject of the Draft Imperial British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill, and asking that the Canadian ministers should forward their views on the Draft Bill at an early date. The telegram from South Africa is as follows:
November 2, 1911.
Tour despatch 14th July, naturalization Bill, ministers state that objections raised by government of union South Africa in this matter are fairly met by the new draft and they have no alterations to propose.- Gladstone.
The result is that the matter is now before the government for consideration here and it is desirable that at as early a date as possible the government should take steps to deal with the question and be prepared to advise the home authorities as to whether the provisions of this Bill are satisfactory or not or what alterations or amendments they would suggest.
Time, I think, is an object in regard to this matter. The discussion upon this question has gone on in an academic way for something like the last ten years. I do not pretend to say that there is a very strong public opinion upon the question in Canada for the reason that I do not believe that very many people in Canada appreciate just the status which is occupied by a naturalized alien in this country. The tremendous immigration of the last 16 years, the influx of Americans to the west and the number of men who have come from all parts of the globe has been so great that here and there you see that the attention of people who think about these matters has been directed to the situation and the demand for a remedy. I have noticed, as many other members have, the communication which has been placed upon our desks, entitled:	' The
Man Without a Country,' in which a magazine article written by Mr. Roden Kings-mill in the ' Busy Man's Magazine ' portrays the ridiculous position in which the naturalized Canadian citizen stands to-day. For instance, the Berlin ' News-Record ', quoting from Mr. Kingsmill, tells us the difference between the passports that are given to naturalized aliens in Canada who

go abroad and to those who are British subjects by birth. I do not know whether the passport is in the language stated by this newspaper, but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. The statement is that:
When a naturalized citizen applies for a passport his papers read as follows:-
This certificate is granted with the qualification that the said John Smith is only entitled, beyond the limits of the Dominion of Canada, as a matter of courtesy, to the general good offices and assistance of His Majesty's representatives abroad.
This, of course, is no protection at all, and does not enable any one who has come under the advantages of citizenship in this country if he gets in difficulties in travelling anywhere to obtain relief from the representatives of the empire in the slightest degree. I may say that this article in the ' Busy Man's Magazine,' on which this newspaper review is based, tells of a ease in which application was made for some relief in Paris, and where the greatest difficulty was experienced in obtaining recognition on account of the fact that the person applying was only a naturalized British citizen under our Canadian laws. On the other hand the passport issued to a native-born citizen is as follows:
It is requested in the name of His Britannic Majesty, of all those whom it may concern to allow John Smith, a British subject travelling in foreign parts, to (pass freely, and to afford every assistance and protection of which he may stand in need.
The situation that exists in this matter is one that demands a remedy. I am sure that if all the hon. gentlemen in the House fully realized the anomalous position of our law in regard to this matter they would be anxious that the most prompt action should be taken in regard to it and that the anomaly should be removed. I would commend to hon. gentlemen who have not read this little statement entitled, ' The Man without a country,' the facts that are contained in it because in a very illuminative way the situation that exists in regard to citizens coming into this country and obtaining the benefit of naturalization under our laws, is set forth.
To-day the man who comes to Canada and resides for three years goes before a justice of the peace, makes an affidavit to this effect and takes the oath of allegiance. He gets a certificate ultimately from a judge of a court that he has become a British citizen. No doubt hundreds of men who do become naturalized think they become British citizens, I have seen lots of them who thought so. AH that we do as the result of that naturalization is to give these men the right to vote and to a certain extent they are citizens of Canada. . The statement is made that there are in this
parliament hon. gentlemen who are not British subjects in the imperial sense byreason of the fact that they have only become naturalized in the limited Canadian way. Certainly in the western legislatures there are numbers of men who are in that position. It may be that it is only a difference in name, but I apprehend that this is, not the important consideration. We talk, a great deal in this country, and very rightly too it seems to me, about the desirability of drawing closer the ties that bind the empire together, and it is a case-which demands and receives the sympathy and support of every lover of Canada and of the empire. But, if in this the greatese-Dominion of all, with people who come, from _ other lands occupying all the positions that are open to them here, we-continue a situation under which such men, after a residence here of five or six or even ten years cannot call themselves British subjects, and are not entitled to-the protection of the flag or of the empire abroad, we will have a very great departure from that true and proper imperialism which ought to be the very basis of the tie which would bind the whole empire together. I need not elaborate on that..


Mr. BRODER.: Would the hon. member allow them to get all these rights on residence of three years in Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The proposal is not to give them these rights on account of three years', but five years' residence in Canada, and after taking the oath of allegiance. That has been the difficulty in the past-that men could go to England, and, after five years' residence, could be naturalized and become citizens of the empire, but if they came to Canada, no matter how long they might live here, could never become citizens of the empire. It is to remove that anomaly that this legislation is proposed. My idea was to impress upon the government the importance and necessity of dealing with the question at an early date to submit to the home authorities as speedily as possible their views with regard to the Bill, so, that if possible we might have legislation from the Imperial parliament before its session is brought to a close. I have no doubt that every other self-governing colony is moving in the matter, and the communications will be made-to the home authorities. I trust the government will deal with it early, so that there may be no delay in the settlement of what seems to me a very important question.


George Eulas Foster: The-question is a very important question as my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) has stated. It has been, agitated now for about twelve years and has not yet been brought to a conclusion sat-

isfactory to us or to any part of the empire. All the time the discussion has been going on, there has been a very strong desire, not only in Great Britain but in the dominions across the seas, for the advantages of imperial citizenship. The very fact that, under these circumstances the matter has been so long under, discussion, without a satisfactory conclusion being reached, indicates the existence of important difficulties in the matter. My hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) says there are important difficulties.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They are (pretty well cleared now.	.


George Eulas Foster: We are very diverse not only in our geographical distribution but in the conditions which underlie nationalities in different parts of the world belonging to the British Empire. But the matter is in a more forward position than it has ever been before. There is a deeper sense of the necessity for some arrangement being come to that shall be adequate to the status of the empire as it at present exists and to the great component parts of the empire outside of the home country. The despatches from which my hon friend has quoted are before the government, and I may tell my hon. friend that a Committee of the Privy Council is now studying die question with a view to sending an answer to the home authorities at the very earliest possible moment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I should like to say, in reference to the pronouncement by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald)- which I had not expected this evening-that according to my recollection of the discussion that took place in the conference of 1910, the contention of the colonies was in favour a very short time pending the naturalization which would give the party the benefits of the measure now submitted to us by the British government. I think the contention of the dependencies that it was absolutely necessary to make the time short, based upon the fact that persons came to settle definitely in the colonies was well founded. I think that what we have now before us is an evidence of the desire of the British government to meet the great want that' has been discussed during all these years, the necessity for a naturalization which should be recognized throughout the whole British Empire. But it requires to be carefully examined; for I am afraid that people who have been naturalized under the colonial laws will not readily take the additional proceedings which, I understand from my hon. friend's explanation, would be necessary to give the larger rights of citizenship of the empire. A man who has settled in Canada is eager to see Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
the three years expire that he may get his certificate. But once he gets it, it would be very difficult to move him to take the other proceedings necessary to the wider citizenship. He will not do it unless obliged to. That is why, at the conference of 1910, it was so strongly contended that we should all agree upon a fixed time for adoption everywhere, so that one proceeding only should be necessary. Take the case of Canadians who go to the "United States and take out papers there. They very often come back' to Canada; and, though there are. proceedings by which they may resume the quality of British subjects, unless absolutely obliged, they neglect to do so. So, in this new proposal, I think you will find that not readily will the man who has become naturalized take the necessary proceedings to obtain British citizenship throughout the empire. I think that, is worth considering, and also to consider whether, in view of the discussion at that conference, it would not be possible to further urge the British government to recognize a shorter term than five years. In the meantime, we can certainly avail ourselves of this step in the right direction.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With the permission of the House, I will say a word with regard to the points raised by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk). The time stipulated by the colonies varied from nothing at all in New Zealand, up to five years in the mother country. And the New Zealand people were very strong in their desire to obtain that right to give a status as a citizen of the empire to the person coming into their colony, though they required no term of residence, but only some certificate as to character. While there is some force in what the minister (Mr. Monk) says about people taking new proceedings for a second certificate, that does not affect the proposal made here, that you create the machinery under which those who desire to get the rights may obtain them. No machinery exists to-day; and unless you have the machinery provided in some such way as is set forth in this Bill, there is no way by which a newcomer to a colony can acquire status as a citizen of the British Empire.


Frank Oliver: While it is very desirable from our point of view that we should have, under all circumstances, the fuL privileges of British citizenship, there is a difficulty in putting into a form of words that which will give a right to every person to secure the same privileges, and at the same time preserve- to us within the Dominion of Canada the right to control of our own citizenship within our own borders. In this draft Bill section 8 makes provision, first, that every legislature or government shall have the right to treat
[DOT]2429

different classes of British subjects differently, and that all statutes and ordinances passed by the legislature in regard to citizenship shall have effect of law unless disallowed by His Majesty. These two provisions cover the point that I have in my mind. But I would suggest to the government, in considering this matter, that the points involved in the two parts of that section should be kept very clearly in mind, and considered to be quite as essential as the securing of the full privileges of British citizenship to people who have become naturalized Canadians.


Mr. CARVELL.: I fully realize the objection pointed out by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk). Perhaps he has forgotten the fact that the naturanzatjon which we are granting at the present time satisfies all the necessities of perhaps ninety-five per cent of the people who come to this country, and become naturalized. It is only in rare instances that a foreigner coming to this country and getting naturalized wishes to leave Canada, and it seems to me that if the provisions found in this draft Bill were carried out we would have machinery by which the one man who wishes to travel abroad can do so under the full rights of a British subject. I had an illustration within the last three months where a gentleman came to me who originally belonged to Armenia. He wanted to get home and he wanted a certificate of -some kind, he called it a passport, and I had to advise him that his naturalization in Canada was of no value whatever excepting as a matter of courtesy. There is a case where, if the law as proposed in the draft Bill were the law of Canada as well as of the empire, that man could have taken advantage of the machinery, and could have qualified himself to receive a certificate. In Canada we have many hundreds of thousands of foreigners coming in and they want to get naturalized as soon as they can under the law and obtain the right of citizenship. Therefore, it seems to me rather a hardship to these people, as well as a disadvantage to the country, if the time is extended to five years instead of three as at present. But if this law were passed they could become citizens of Canada within three years, and if it became necessary, or to their advantage later on, to take advantage of the rest of the machinery, they could do so and thus become citizens of the empire, which really is the obi-ect_ of this legislation. I think if the Minister of Public Work will consider that phase of it he will see that there is not as much difficulty in working it out as he thought at the beginning.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: I am pleased indeed that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has brought up this question.
I have taken considerable interest in it for a number of years. As far back as 1900 when representing the Toronto Board of Trade before the Chambers of Commerce of the empire, I presented a resolution asking for the unification of the naturalization laws of the empire. That resolution was endorsed by all the representatives assembled. Theie is no doubt that a great anomaly exists in Canada at the present time with regard to the naturalization of aliens. We are taking away to-day a complete citizenship from all those who come to our country, and we are handing out to them an incomplete citizenship. They lose their naturalization, at least the advantage of their naturalization, the moment they are three miles off our coast, and their naturalization is of no avail in any foreign country except by courtesy of the mother country. What is wanted, in my judgment, is a common system of naturalization for tile whole empire, and whether those conditions exist in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or Great Britain, they ought to have the same effect throughout ihe British Empire. For instance, a German may come to Canada and be naturalized under our laws, and live here 15 or 20 years, become a member of'this House and have all the rights of citizenship in the empire; but when he goes to Great Britain, to Australia or New Zealand, he is a German, or a Frenchman, or whatever he was when he first came here; he does not belong to the British Empire under the present arrangement. That is a serious anomaly, and it is a great reflection I think upon the empire that this has not been prtt right long years ago. The hon. member for Pictou I think has shown us the necessity of it, and I believe that if this draft Act that he has submitted is adopted throughout the empire, it will be a great advantage to many of our citizens. I quite disagree with the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) when he says that this only affects probably one per cent of our population; I think it will affect at least ten per cent. Many American citizens know that we are taking away from them at the present time complete citizenship in the United States, and are handing them a citizenship that is no good beyond our own Dominion. Only recently I saw a gentleman from Toronto who pointed this out to me. He said he had been in Russia, and he found his passport was little or no good; and he said, to use his own words: This is an outrage upon aliens who are coming to our country. They believe they are really naturalized citizens, and when they go abroad they find that they have no status at all as citizens of the empire. A naturalization law, whatever it may be, should be uniform throughout the empire, and whether the term is three

or five years, once those terms are complied with in any part of the empire, the citizenship that he receives should be just as good in one part of the empire as another. That can only be accomplished by adopting some uniform naturalization law that is good throughout the empire. I think there will be some trouble in some of the words that the member for Pictou drew our attention to, that is, ' an adequate knowledge of English Now we know that ' adequate ' is used quite frequently, and an adequate knowledge of English might mean in the minds of some a very different thing from what it means in the minds of others. There might be difficulty there, but that is a matter of little moment as compared with the difference between a good and real citizenship and a sham citizenship. as we are at present handing out. In the city from which I come we have about 2,000 of a population to whom this is an important and necessary requisite. Many of them are Armenians; we have about 12 or 15 nationalities in the city of Brantford, many of whom want ' to visit their homeland from time to time. Only recently I had two or three cases before me in which I had a great deal of difficulty to get them the necessary passports to travel with safety to their own native shores.
It is well known that some countries of Europe to-day do not acknowledge this passport that we give them and the protection that is afforded to those citizens, and which they believe to be something valid, is of no use when they get there. They are liable to be held by those countries and their wives have been known to have been held there for years after their husbands have become citizens of Canada. They cannot get their families tqgether mi-til they can go over to Europe" and prove to the satisfaction of the country in which their families, are residing that they are now British subjects and entitled to the full rights of British citizenship. I trust that this matter will be pushed, and pushed rapidly, because I foeleive it is one that is becoming an important factor in Canadian national life and it is one of serious consideration for the whole British Empire. Although we boast of the great privilege it is to be a citizen of the British Empire, really all those who are coming to our shores and who have fulfilled the conditions in Canada, find, when they go abroad, on the high seas, or visit any country in Europe, or the United States, or wherever it may be, that their British citizenship is of no avail. I trust that the draft Bill which is presented will be locked into and. if necessary, amended in such a way that the trouble which I have mentioned, will disappear and that a person who becomes a naturalized citizen of Canada will be able to make the proud boast that he is a citi-Mr. COCKSHUTT.
zen of the British Empire, and that he will be able to say that wherever the British flag flies he has a perfect right to citizenship.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to trespass upon the time of the House to any considerable extent, but merely to make a few observations in respect to this matter. I remember that when Mr. Geoffrey Drage and Sir Frederick Pollock visited western Canada some few years ago to interest public opinion on this subject, their efforts were crowned with very considerable success. It seems to me that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), as well as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr. Cockshutt), have indicated exactly the difficulties that have been experienced in connection with this matter. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) also dealt with exactly the same sort of difficulty that had to be considered by the Imperial authorities. I think we all agree that it is essential that the autonomous rights of the dependencies of the Empire should be preserved. That is of the utmost importance. Every one of the King's dominions claims the right to pass a statute providing for the naturalization of aliens on such terms as to the legislature of each dependency seems best. That is a sine qua non. They insist upon that right. As the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has just said, the Dominion of New Zealand claims the right to confer citizenship upon a person the next day after he lands and takes the oath of allegiance. Some of the old provinces in Australia exacted live years' residence while we exact only three years, residence.. It is therefore perfectly clear that if there are to be different terms of residence exacted before the domestic tribunals confer rights of citizenship that citizenship should be limited in its application to the boundaries of the country that grants it. Then comes a further question and the difficulty which was experienced is the very difficulty that the hon. member for Edmonton has just referred to, namely, whether or not there might be a uniform arrangement throughout the British Empire as to the terms of citizenship, whether or not a man should have to reside in New Zealand, Australia, Canada or any other British colony or dependency a given number of years absolutely regardless of other considerations and then have conferred upon him, by some domestic tribunal, a citizenship that would be accepted in every portion of the Empire, or whether we should attempt-to deal with it in the way that the draft Bill does, namely, by preserving the right of each colony and of each Dominion to legislate as they please in regard to the requirements which may be exacted from

those who came within her boundaries and who seek the rights of citizenship, and then to adopt one general provision, that in addition to the residence or other qualifications necessary to attain the status of a citizen within the boundaries of the country that conferred the citizenship, the individual should have to live a longer period still in that Dominion before he could obtain Empire citizenship. The Minister of Public Works has pointed out that in the Imperial Conference of 1911 the matter was discussed at length and two schools of thought there found expression. On. the one hand it was strongly urged that there should be a uniform term of residence in the empire and that then the domestic tribunal might confer empire -citizenship. On the other hand there was a suggestion made which is now given force and effect , in the draft Bill before us. It is proposed that while preserving the right that every self-governing colony or dependency may have to make such laws and regulations as to it seems best for granting citizenship to those who come within its boundaries, nevertheless, a residence of five years within that colony or dependency by any person shall entitle him to apply for a certificate of naturalization that- will give him empire citizenship. That is the -purpose of this draft Bill, and I may point out to the hon. m-ember for Edmonton that it preserves to us all our autonomous rights, all our rights to make Such rules and regulations as we may desire in so far as regards the domestic citizenship, while the larger or empire citizenship is to be conferred only when there has been a residence for five years, when the oath of allegiance has been taken to the sovereign and when there has been a certificate given as to the good character of the person in question. With Tegard to the pamphlet that was referred to by the hon. member for Pictou, I happen to know of a case that came under my own observation in which a passport had been issued that did not, make the reservation or provision that is now inserted in a passport issued to naturalized citizens, and it was found in Russia that the person to whom the passport had been issued was wanted for a criminal offence under the laws of that country. He produced hi-s passport, and the passport having been issued upon a form that it should not have been issued upon, international complications arose -by reason of it and it gave a great deal of trouble. They came to the conclusion that a man has no right to have a full passport based only on domestic citizenship and that if he desires to have a pas-sport which will give him the protection of his Britannic Majesty throughout the empire he must have empire citizenship. I entirely approve
of this Bill and I trust that the government, in the words of the despatch to Earl Grey, will give it its earliest possible attention.	_
With regard to early action being taken, South Africa has acted and I am informed that Australia has also acted. Am I correct in that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is no advice since November.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am informed that Australia has acted, or, if it has not acted, has come to a conclusion with regard to it. I trust that Canada will also take immediate action because this is one of the first steps towards a practical realization of the desire that most of us have for some consolidation of imperial interests, for the unity of the empire and the finding of -our proper position in it, so that we may, as the hon. gentleman has just said, be citizens in fact of the Britsh Empire and not of any particular section of it. I welcome legislation along that line and if it will bring about that much desired purpose I trust that the government will early arrive at a conclusion and that they may be able to accept this measure because we realize how difficult it would be to induce New Zealand to change its present domestic law of one -day of residence for the man who takes the oath of allegiance, how difficult it might be to induce the people of Canada to change the standard from 'three years, and I think we should be content to accept this secondary test that has been imposed, namely, residence for five years within the King's dominions and the obtaining of a certificate which gives a man that quality of citizenship that will ensure to him in future empire citizenship. That is a practical kind of imperialism. There are other questions of the same character that might be dealt with in this way in reference to copyrights, patents and the whole series of questions which have been agitating the public mind for -some time. I trust that the government may be able to arrive at an early decision and that they may take advantage of this Bill because it is a Bill that does not work any great hardships and it will provide a remedy for the difficulties that have arisen and will enable persons coming into this country and who have attained to citizenship to be able to say, with ,a little expense and trouble, that they have secured a citizenship that is the highest and best that can be conferred upon any people under any flag under the sun.
But there is -a difficulty in connection with the treaty matter. A German does not lose his citizenship because he becomes naturalized in Canada; a Japanese never loses his citizenship. A Japanese may take the oath of allegiance to our sovereign and I become naturalized, but the moment he

gets back to Japan he is the same Japanese, so far as nationality is concerned, as he, was when he left, Japan. One hon! gentleman who spoke was in error in saying that in England the citizenship was better than here. The Naturalization Act that confers rights on aliens in England is in the same terms as the Act here, our Act being changed only to meet the conditions of our being a Colonial parliament and the other being the Imperial parliament. The Japanese or German who becomes a British subject in England gets no higher right beyond the three mile limit around the British isles than does the man who gets his citizenship here beyond the three mile limit of the Dominion. In both instances what they obtain is subject to treaty rights that exist between the two countries if there be a treaty, and the position he occupies is regulated by the treaty between the land from whence he came and the land to which he comes. On a casual reading of the Bill, I assume that treaty rights are preserved by the saving section which my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to. I think the House is indebted to the hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) for bringing this matter to our attention, and I trust the government will take speedy action because I observe from the deipatohes that the imperial parliament may deal with the question at its coming session, and then legislation will be necessary on the part of the great selfgoverning colonies to manifest their approval of the action taken by the imperial parliament.


William Foster Cockshutt: I understand that the naturalization of an alien naturalized m Great Britain after having spent five years there, is recognized when he comes to Canada, but the naturalization of an alien naturalized in Canada, does not hold good in Great Britain, where he has to live five years again; the three years he has lived in Canada count for nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My present appreciation of the fact is that we do give^ effect m Canada to the naturalization certificate that comes from any part of the King's dominions. Whether we do that lawfully or not is another matter but I believe that is the practice. I think we will even respect a New Zealand certificate although probably we should not because there a man can take the oath of allegiance and become a citizen the next morning.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A certificate issued in England is recognized throughout the empire, but I do not think we recognize a certificate issued in any of the dependencies, for the same reason that the law has .not force and effect beyond the confines of these dependencies themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

William Pugsley: I wish to correct a mistake I made last evening in respect to the amount of the 'appropriation for New Brunswick. I stated that for the current year the total amount of the appropriation which was submitted to parliament by the late government, and which was voted, amounted to $506,860.71, but that was only seven-twelfths of the vote, and T should have stated that the total amount for the current year, chargeable to consolidated revenue, is $868,390, whereas the estimate for the coming year chargeable to consolidated revenue for harbours and rivers in the province of New Brunswick, amounts to only $286,925, or less than one-third ot what was provided for in the current year in the estimates submitted by the late government. Then, if you take the total appropriation for New Brunswick in the present estimates, adding the amount charged to capital, including the harbour of St. John, $1,286,925 for the coming year, as against $1,818,390, which the late government submitted for the current year and which was actually voted by parliament. In other words, there is pretty nearly $600,000 less for the harbours and rivers in the province of New Brunswick, so far as these estimates are concerned, than was provided by the late government for the current year. I trust my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) will consider that when he _ comes to make up his supplementary estimates, and that he will open his heart to the province of New Brunswick.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I fear I cannot claim all the credit my hon. friend atributes to me. The $868,000 was comprised in the main and supplementary estimates combined, and as you have not our supplementary estimates yet you cannot establish a comparison.


William Pugsley: I am looking forward with hope.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps when he sees the the supplem-entaries the ihon. gentleman will be inclined to modify liis opinion.


John Howard Sinclair: A good deal of discussion has been caused over the fact that a good many items which were voted in the last estimates have been stricken from the *estimates now before the House. If the horn, gentleman intends to replace them in the supplementary estimates., then the procedure is hardly businesslike. I drew attention to New Harbour m any own constituency, for which $10,000 was voted in the estimates of the late government and where the work is absolutely necessary, but that vote is not included in the estimates now before tire House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) hinted that I might find

it in the supplementary estimates; but why it is left out of the present estimates puzzles me. I might draw attention to the fact that Nova Scotia has been treated even worse than New Brunswick, if we iare to draw a conclusion from the present estimates. In the former estimates Nova Scotia had for harbours and rivers $1,309,166, and in the present estimates only $445,075 is provided'. Therefore, the large sum of $824,066 has disappeared from the estimates of the province of Nova Scotia.
I understand from my hon. friend that a large amount of that money is to be replaced in the supplementary estimates; but why he should go through the form of striking them out of the estimates and putting them back a few weeks later has puzzled me in all this discussion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is evident that I have not been able to make my argument clear to my hon. friend. What I stated was that we could not make a comparison between the general appropriation of last year and the appropriation contained in the main estimates for this year, because in the figures which my hon. friend has given for the last year he has included both the main estimates and the supple-mentaries. The main estimates of last year were about $17,000,000, but the supplemen-taries brought that figure up to $25,000,000. Therefore, I stated that to establish a true comparison, my hon. friends would have to wait until they had the whole appropriation of the year; but I did not say that it was intended to restore in the supplementary estimates certain items that were omitted from the main estimates. What I tried to explain was that the government had made its own esti-. mates this year irrespective of what may have appeared in last year's estimates, and if certain items were left out of last year's estimates, that was due to the change of government and the appreciation of what expenditures could be made throughout the country. The same thing was done when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. You would find items in the estimates of one year which disappeared in the following year and after a certain period were restored.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the minister to say that unexpended items voted in. last year's estimates and not appearing in these estimates he intends to drop, and not put them in the supplementary estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Some may appear and some may not.


William Erskine Knowles: If a contract has been entered into between the government and a contractor for a public work, are we to
understand that the work will be gone on with even if the item is dropped in the new estimates? On Tuesday last I called the minister's attention to the fact that a contract has been let for a small building, to cost $4,200, at a place called Gravel, although it had appeared in the previous estimates. I want to ask if that work is to be gone on with?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is my intention to restore that small item, because the work is under contract.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: In the estimates for 1912, there were appropriations for various works in the county which I have the honour to represent, amounting to $32,400. In the estimates for 1913, ' I find that this government is generous to the extent of only $500 for the whole county of Antigonish, which has a sea-coast of nearly 100 miles. In these estimates there are.two items-one Arisaig, $1,500 and Livingston's Cove, $2,000, a total of $3,500, of which $3,000 is a revote. In the estimates for 1912, there were the following items: Arisaig, $1,500; Bayfield, $15,000; Cribbin's Point, $1,000; Livingston's Cove, $1,500; McNair's Cove, $5,400; Malignant Cove, $2,300; McAra's Brook, $1,700; and South Lake, $4,000; a total of $32,400. All these have been dropped except the two I have mentioned, wnich appears to be an injustice to the county of Antigonish. The hon. Minister of Public Works assured us a few evenings ago that he was not actuated at all by political considerations in dropping these items. We have to take his assurance, but I cannot understand why these items are not in the estimates for 1913. They aie very important to the people ot these districts, and were recognized by the minister's own engineers as proper to be in the estimates. They were not for works undertaken for election purposes, because nobody expected that there would be an election when there was one. The works must have been regarded by the engineers as necessary. I would ask the minister if it is his intention to make provision for these items in the supplementary estimates, and, if not, on what ground, and on whose recommendation have they been dropped?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think there must be certain latitude granted hon. members who find themselves in the position of my hon. friend; but when the House gets into committee at this hour, I think the discussion ought to be limited largely to the item before the committee.
I can only repeat to my hon. friend that, the government have not prosecuted those works because they have judged fit to make expenditures elsewhere, which in their opinion are more necessary and more ur-

gent. I cannot explain why works provided for and not begun have not been persisted in by this government. I am here to justify the different items which the government lays before the House, and it must occur to my hon. friend that a long discussion as to the reasons why the government has not brought down other items on other works is not pertinent.


William Chisholm: These are not new items, they are only repairs to works already in existence. The minister's argument would be readily understood if it were a ease of new works such as the establishment of a new wharf or breakwater or a new harbour.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I beg to remind the hon. member that subsection 5 of Rule 13 says that speeches must be strictly relevant to the time or clause under consideration.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not prepared to accept any such interpretation as you, Sir, put on that rule. It would be grossly unfair. No such rule has ever been recognized in this House as that the discussion should be confined to a particular breakwater.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that this is a new rule which has not been strictly followed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When was it made?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think last year.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) I have to catch a train in a few moments, and as I wish to obtain information with reference to several Prince Edward Island items, I would ask to have one item stand in order that I may ask these questions on another occasion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We can keep the general item for ' Harbours and Rivers, Prince Edward Island '.


William Erskine Knowles: As the minister will remember, on Tuesday last we got into Supply unexpectedly, and passed some items from Saskatchewan and Alberta about which the minister was not then able to give full information as his deputy was not here. A dekgation representing the Board of Trade of Mooseyaw recently visited Ottawa the most notable members being Mr. Willoughby and Dr. Wheeler. They interviewed a number of ministers, and I accompanied them on some of these visits, but I was not able to see the Minister of Public Works with them as I had a previous appointment. Those delegates could properly represent to him the views which they conveyed from Moosejaw with regard to the new building under contract in that city Mr. MONK.
and I understand they made representations to him on a point on which they quite honestly thought they represented the views of that city. I would ask the minister if he _ would advise me as to their representation as to the change of site for that public building, as to what site they wished to have the new public building m Moosejaw moved to. If the minister cannot give the information now I would ask him to obtain it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very sorry, indeed, but my hon. friend must accept my confession that I have not the slightest recollection of what these gentlemen represented. I have been receiving ten or twelve delegations each day for a month past.


William Erskine Knowles: The tail end of my remarks constituted a request that the minister would ascertain and advise me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not take anything in writing, I do not remember what they told me at all.	[DOT]


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister ascertain if there is anything official?
Maritime provinces generally-to purchase creosoled timber for works in the maritime provinces generally, $20,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Is that to be purchased by tender?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, except where only small quantities are required. Anything of over $5,000 will be bought by tender.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness).: There is a good deal of creosoted timber in the harbour at Inverness. What is the intention of the government in regard to it?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It will be used in repairing the works that we have in that vicinity.


Alexander William Chisholm: I do not think it can be much used in repairing; the only work there is what was done last year, all the old works having been carried away. There was a vote of over $5,000 for works at Inverness, and I would like to know if the government intends to use this timber for construction by day work or to call for tenders?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is an item of $5,300 for harbour improvements at Inverness, and if the timber is there it will be used for the purpose of those repairs.


William Chisholm: In purchasing this timber, are tenders called for?
If so, to whom is the call for tenders addressed?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think we have purchased much creosoted timber; when a sufficiently large quantity is purchased it is done by tender 'and contract.


William Chisholm: How many companies in Canada are in the creosoted timber business?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not many, but we ask for tenders from those whose names we learn. At one time, this timber was bought from one man only, but there are several now.


William Chisholm: Will a copy of the specifications be sent to the representatives of all these concerns?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Any representative who applies for permission to tender, is certainly asked to tender.


William Chisholm: Are tenders actually called for through the public press?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not through the press.


William Chisholm: Or do you send out to agents who are in the business of selling creosoted timber?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is the way it has been done in the past. If this can be improved, I will try to improve it.


William Chisholm: Then am I right in assuming that tenders will be invited from all who are in the business?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


William Pugsley: I would ask whether there has been $30,000 already expended, and is this an additional item, or is it a
revote?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is intended to expend $30,000. The total cost will be about $60,000.
Rivifere-s des Prairies-Improvements of navigation, $25,000.


William Pugsley: Is that to carry out the work which was inaugurated on the recommendation of my hon. friend the member for Laval (Mr. Wilson)?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I had already asked that these works be carried out. The hon. member for Laval came in, and in a short time he seemed to be more potent in the House than I was.
Three Rivers harbour-Completion of deep water wharf at west end of harbour, $118,-
000.
(Mr. MONK. I move to add the words ' and for other improvements '.


William Pugsley: The hon. .member for Three Rivers is not here. I wished to ask him if it was intended to carry on these works according to the plan which was prepared when I was minister.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes. Most of these works are begun, there will be no change.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm).: (Translation.) Before these items for the province of Quebec are all passed, I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works the reason why we do not find in the estimates the amount of $15,000 already voted for the construction of a post office in St. Jacques de l'Achigan, in the county of Montcalm. I have asked for this vote after the property had been purchased, when Mr. Justice Dugas was the member for Montcalm. The site having been purchased, I got this vote for the construction of a post office. When I came in this House in 1909, that amount was put in the estimates, but was not expended because it was too late to begin the works, and as the Department of Public Works did not wish to have the works performed during the winter, I was given the assurance that they would be started in the spring. At the next session I asked once more for that vote of $15,000, which was again granted.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: (Translation.) As the item under consideration has no relation whatever to this question, I would ask the hon. member to comply with the rule I have mentioned a few minutes ago.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I am simply asking the hon. minister what has become of this vote of $15,000. It has been answered to a question asked by myself that the plans had been submitted for examination, and that there had been delays due to some complications in connection with the limits of the property. I would like to know from the minister if it is his intention to have that post office erected this year?	.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) I may answer the hon. member that it is not the intention of the department to erect that building this year; otherwise we would have asked a vote for that purpose. I do not know whether there was such an item in last year's estimates or not; if there was, the hon. member should have availed himself of it.	.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I can tell the hon. minister the reason why the item was of no avail after being voted; it is because the estimates were blocked through obstructive discussions by the then members of the opposition.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Why did not you make use of it?


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Am 1 to understand that this item of $15,000 for that construction will be put in the supplementary estimates?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) For the present we are net asking the committee

to vote that item. As regards the supplementary estimates, they are being prespared and I cannot now say anything about them.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) 1 can assure the hon. minister that this post office is absolutely needed.


Mr. E. FORTIER (Lotbiniere).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. minister how it happens that we do not find this year in the estimates several items concerning my own riding that were in last year's estimates?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: (Translation.* I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, but I must urge that he should confine himself to the item under consideration. It is a new rule that is rather frequently violated, but I must tell the hon. member that I am compelled to have it observed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the point of order?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The point of order, as it has been stated before, is that speeches should be strictly relevant to the item under consideration.


Edmond Fortier: (Translation..) Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask the minister some information relating to the item under consideration. My intention is not to raise any discussion, but I wish to remind him that there were in the estimates for 1912 certain items for works in my county that are omitted this year. I would like to know why they have been omitted and if there will be provision made for those works in the supplementary estimates?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: (Translation.) The item under consideration relates to Three Rivers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) I may tell the hon. member (Mr. Fortier) that our finances did not allow us to put that item in the estimates for next year. We have considered it more prudent and necessary to have some other works performed. As to whether such items will be put in the supplementary estimates, I cannot say this evening as these estimates are still under consideration.


William Pugsley: I think we ought not to be too closely bound by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, because it would hamper discussion if we were to adhere to the view which you have presented. I take it that discussion is absolutely relevant to any item in these estimates when a member seeks to compare the utility of a work that is provided for by an item in the estimates with other works of equal, or greater importance, which have been omitted. That is what my hon. friend from Anti-Mr. MONK.
gonish (Mr. Chisholm), was proposing to ao, and what my hon. friend on my night (Mr. Lafortune), was proposing to do. We have the right to say that this committee ought not to be asked to vote an item of $40,000, say, for a work, because, in the same county or province, there are works which are more urgently needed than the item that is asked, and to urge upon the minister that he ought to drop the item that is in the estimates provided he cannot take care of both works and make provision for the other work. Does not my hon. friend remember how, in previous years, he condemned me for putting in items similar to this for wharfs and the improvement of harbours throughout the country? Does not my hon. friend remember the eloquent speeches he made in Committee of Supply urging that the government ought to make provision for starting such works as the Georgian Bay canal, pay more attention to the harbour of Montreal, spend money in nationalizing the harbours, and that it ought not, to use his language, to waste money in the construction of these useless, small wharfs and other works throughout the country? This is the same thing. My hon. friend from Antigonish was seeking to impress upon the committee that works of a more urgent character than those for which he had asked a vote of money had been omitted. It seems to me that this is entirely relevant to the item under discussion. I do not think it should be carried too far or the argument extended too widely, but, it seems to me that it is entirely relevant, and that a member is not discharging his duty unless he calls attention to an injustice to the portion of the province from which he comes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend, I am sure, will appreciate the desire of the Chairman, by his ruling, to keep the discussion down to the item under consideration. I perfectly understand that an hon. member might argue against the adoption of an item, and contend that other works are more urgent and necessary, but my hon. friend, I think, will do me the justice to admit that we have expended several hours on this point as to why the government had omitted from these estimates this year, items which had appeared in last year's estimates for works that were not begun or under contract. That was explained several times, and I think we cannot enter into a full discussion of that point without going beyond the limits which ordinarily should apply under the circumstances.


William Pugsley: We have got along very rapidly. We have pa'ssed $600,000 in half an hour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was going to suggest to the Minister oi Public Works
*2445

that this rule should be leniently enforced even if the Chairman puts the correct interpretation upon it. Of course, the ruling could be avoided by moving an amendment to the motion in each case covering each item. I would like to suggest to the minister that we have allowed him to get along pretty rapidly with his estimates during the session. All the items for harbours and rivers in Quebec have gone through and nearly $1,000,000 have been voted in less than ten minutes. He should allow members from the province of Quebec to discuss any one item in a general way.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, yes.


William Pugsley: I take it that when we agree to pass all the items for Quebec it is understood that if any member from Quebec wishes to speak on any item at some other time he will be allowed to do so?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly. Now, we will take up harbours and rivers in Ontario.


John Howard Sinclair: Some of the Ontario members who desired to discuss these items are not here.


William Pugsley: Suppose my hon. friend goes on with Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia?
Air. AlONK. We have not the information for those provinces, but we have it for Ontario.


William Pugsley: We might take Ontario and leave a general item.
Air. AlONK. Yes.
Harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $50,000.


William Pugsley: The general item will stand.
Air. AlONK. Yes, stands.
Toronto harbour improvements, $195,000.


William Pugsley: I understand the minister has recently had' an opportunity of inspecting the work at the western channel of Toronto harbour, which is about completed. Will he state in what condition he found the work?
Air. AlONK. I visited the work and I found it in excellent condition. There is a very fine breakwater there and the improvements generally seem of the very best quality. There is still very considerable to be done. If we continue that breakwater and the other improvements as they have been going on so far we will be satisfied.


William Pugsley: The late government made provision for improvements at Sarnia and entered into an agreement with the Grand Trunk railway with respect to some
necessary property there and it was contemplated to afford facilities urgently required for shipping at that place. The item has been dropped from these estimates and my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) who represents the constituency, feels very strongly about that, and as to the necessity for this work going on. I would like the minister to bring down the papers before these items are concluded, and to be prepared to tell my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) why the item has been dropped, and as to what may be hoped in the near future, as to the prosecution of that work.
Mr. AlONK. I will get the information. I believe there was a tender for that work but it was altogether too high.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Monk, House adjourned at 11.17 p.m.

Monday, February 5, 1918.