Mr. J. A. BEST (Dufferin).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House to a paragraph that appeared in the ' Toronto Globe ' yesterday, a part of which reads as follows:
For instance, in the Agricultural Committee on Wednesday last Mr. Sexsmith, the chairman, was formally told by Mr. John A. Best, of Dufferin, and Mr. H. B. Morphy, of North Perth, both of them stalwart Conservatives, that he must warn the Premier to ' keep that man Hughes in check ' or there would be trouble.
I wish to say here that I never mentioned Colonel Hughes' namt, nor aid I mention that of the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Borden). But I believe that the statement I have just read is on a par with many others that appear in the same paper. There is not a word of truth in it. I never criticised the Minister of Militia's (Mr. Hughes) estimates, nor the estimates of any other department, nor did I hear any other member of that com-Mr. BORDEN.
mittee criticise those estimates. I think it most unfair' that such statements should be made concerning the meetings of the committee. A stop should be put to it. I wish to say to the Minister of Militi. . and the. other ministers, that no-fault was found in the committee with the estimates so far as I know. The paragraph I have quoted is quite untrue.


Mr. PROULX.: Did the hon. gentleman, (Mr. Best), say that too much money was being spent on the militia?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. MORPHY (North Perth).: I also desire to say a word in regard to the same matter. The paragraph quoted by my hon. friend from Dufferin, so far as the mention of my name is concerned, is absolutely unwarranted. I did not, either directly or indirectly, refer to the estimates of the Militia Department, nor did I refer to the minister (Mr. Hughes) by name. Nor did I refer, either directly or indirectly, or use words which could have any. reference to the estimates of the Militia Department. I do not feel much concerned myself about a report of that kind, but I think that in fairness to the minister (Mr. Hughes), I should make an absolute and unqualified denial of this statement made in the ' Globe.'



PAYMENT OF CENSUS AND ELECTION OFFICIALS.

Mr. NEELY.: 
Mr. BORDEN.: 
Mr. EMMERSON.: I desire to call the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roche) to an inquiry made on Friday evening with respect to the mon

payment of the election expenses in the county of Albert for the last election.


Mr. ROCHE.: I have brought this to the attention of the Attorney General, in whose department it is; and as yet he has not furnished me with a reply.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION.

Mr. MACDONALD.: Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), in the absence of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane), for a statement as to the newspaper report of the appointment of certain commissioners to investigate matters in connection with the Transcontinental railway. The' Minister of Railways is in. his place, and perhaps he would be good enough to let us know what foundation there is for this report.


Mr. COCHRANE.: A commission has been appointed by order in council to investigate the affairs of the Transcontinental railway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who are the commissioners?


Francis Cochrane: Mr. Lynch-Staunton and Mr. Gutelius, of the Canadian Pacific railway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister lay on the table the order in council and other papers in connection with the appointment?


Francis Cochrane: I will, be very glad to do so.



TARIFF COMMISSION.

Hon.  W. T.@: WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting the appointment of a Tariff Commission. (See ' Hansard/ January 24). He said:	These resolutions	relate to the creation of a
tariff	commission. It will suffice at
this stage to say that the commission is to consist of three members to be appointed by the Governor in Council, for a period of five years. The salary of the chairman is to be $7,500, and the salary of each of the other members to be $7,000. Each commissioner gives his entire time to the work of the commission. The duties of the commission are set forth in the resolutions. Authority is given to the commission to engage such expert and other assistance as may be necessary for carrying on their work.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: What classes of the community are to be represented?


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: The .question of the personnel of the commission has not yet been decided. I have no hesitation, however, in saying that I think it would be a mistake, either to exclude or appoint any member of the commission on account of his calling. My present idea is that the commission should consist of able, earnest and high-minded men, commanding the confidence of the entire
community, men who are broad enough to be in sympathy with all the classes and interests of the community. I would not exclude any mail by reason of his being a farmer, or an artisan, or a manufacturer; and I would not appoint any man for the same reason. I am not able to give a more definite answer at the present time, except to say that my idea is that this commission should be composed of men capable of representing not only the farming community but all other interests in Canada.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The resolution which we now have under consideration creates a new departure in our national legislation. Everything depends upon the character of the commission. It would, not, therefore, be advisable, to offer any criticism, either of approval or condemnation, at present, but to reserve for a future time suggestions on this matter.


Mr. MACLEAN (South York).: Does the hon. the Finance Minister propose to fix a day for moving the second reading?


William Thomas White: The second reading will come in due course. So far as I am concerned, I would be quite willing to fix a day that might suit the convenience of hon. members. But I expect it will come on in a week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on the resolution.
On section 4,
William Findlay Maclean: Has the commission any initiation of its own in any matter?


William Thomas White: The commission is empowered to act under direction of the Finance Minister.


William Findlay Maclean: In everything?


William Thomas White: In everything.
It will only have independent initiation in the manner of carrying on an inquiry into any matter on which it may be requested to obtain information.


William Findlay Maclean: Then it will differ from the Railway Commission, which has powers of initiation of its own, and has a wide .iurisdiction. The jurisdiction of this commission is limited absolutely to questions referred to it by the minister.


William Thomas White: Yes. It is part of the machinery of government, for the purpose of obtaining information upon which the government may act.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Have there been any representations made to the government asking for this commission, either from

the farmers, or from the manufacturers, or from other people?


William Thomas White: I am not aware of any representations having been made such as the hon. gentleman refers to, none, so far as I know, since our taking office. But the matter of a tariff commission, as my friend knows, has been a subject of discussion for a considerable time in this country.
The creation of a tariff commission was a prominent plank in the platform of the right hon. leader of the government during the last election, and I believe that as long ago as 1908 the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) expressed himself, in general terms at least, as favourable to the creation of a tariff commission. Apart from that I know of no direct representation that has been made, but from the comments of the press since the matter has been announced, I have reason to believe that the proposal to appoint a tariff commission has been well received by the people generally throughout the country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is it intended to create a body with any power to negotiate with other countries in regard to questions of tariff arrangements?


William Thomas White: My conception of the commission is not that it would have any function that belongs to the government of fixing tariff rates, or negotiating; its purpose is to furnish information to the government on which the government may act in framing its tariff law or in negotiating. There is one clause in the resolution that they may:
Inquire into any other matter or thing fin relation to the trade or commerce of Canada which the Governor in Council sees fit to refer to the commission for inquiry and report.
Of course that is very wide in its terms. It is not in my mind that the commission is intended to negotiate, it is to obtain information on which the government may negotiate or frame its tariff law. I look on the commission as a part of the machinery of government for the purpose of obtaining accurate information.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is of record that the Manufacturers' Association has again and again asked for a tariff commission but, as I understand, what was in their minds was a tariff commission with much larger powers than those contained in these resolutions, and which, for my part, I never thought could be granted. As I understand, the government could not see its way to give the wide powers to the commission which were asked for by the Manufacturers' Association, I always was of opinion that we might have a board to collect information. I do not know that Mr. KNOWLES.
this commission entirely corresponds with what I have had in my own mind but, as I said, this is not the time to discuss this matter, this is the occasion to elicit information upon what is proposed by my hon. friend.


Mr. CASH.: Will the report of this commission be made public, or is it to be a report to the government alone?


William Thomas White: There is a provision in the Bill which I propose to introduce to this effect:
Should evidence or information in its nature confidential, relating to the business or affairs of any person, firm or corporation be given or elicited in the course of any inquiry, the evidence or information shall not be made public by the commission in such a manner as to be available for the use of any business competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation, respectively, but this subsection shall not apply to any inquiry under sub-section 3 of section 4 of this Act.
This particular subsection relates to an inquiry as to whether there is a combination to unduly enchance prices. Subject to what I have read, the report -will be made through the Minister of Finance, and would be available to the government in framing its tariff law and, i should imagine, would be available for the information of the House, subject to the right of the government to withhold any information in the public interest. My idea would be that these reports would be made to the minister, and to the government. The information would be obtained by the commission, and would be of use for the purpose I have indicated. I should imagine the information would be available to the public, subject to these clauses.


Mr. OLIVER.: My hon. friend does not seem to have made up his mind as to the publicity that will be given to the information gathered by the commission. I would respectfully suggest that when the Bill is brought down it should make specific provision for opportunity to be given to the public, who are interested, to have the benefit of that information. If the country is paying for its collection the country is .entitled to the advantage of it in making up its mind as to whether the recommendations of the government should be followed or not, that is, the country is paying for the information and the country should have the benefit of that information except in such cases as amy hon. friend has mentioned.


Robert Laird Borden: The qualification to which the minister has alluded is one that has been the practice of all governments in connection with the customs and other departments of the government. There has been no departure from the ordinary practice.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the Minister of Customs be, ipso facto, a member of the board?


William Thomas White: No, he is not to be a member of the board. The board is to consist of three members from outside of the department. It is a commission for the purpose of 'obtaining miormation for the use of the minister and of the government.


William Findlay Maclean: As to the negotiation of treaties, we ought to have before us, when we discuss me Bill in the House, the Bill creating the Tariff Commission in the United States. That is an important body although it has very small powers as defined in the Act.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: There is no Tariff Commission in the United States.


William Findlay Maclean: No, but there is a board of experts at the disposal of the government and their reports and investigations, especially in connection with the recent negotiations with Canada, were immediately placed at the disposal of the House and printed as documents and it would be very essential that all the information collected by them of a public character should be at the immediate disposal of this House and of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution read the first and second time, and agreed to.
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 88) to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Commission.
The motion was agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Hon. GEO. E.: FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 32) respecting Grain. He said: I am not going to impose on the House an explanation of all the different sections of this very voluminous Bill, but I am going to say a few words by way of introduction, more with the idea of giving to the House, if indeed it is at all necessary, a connected idea of the operations of the grain trade, and consequently of the Bill which I am introducing. It derives its great importance, of course, from the immensity and from the wideness of the particular product with which it deals, and if important at any one particular time its importance is increasing as the years go by inasmuch as the commodity with which it deals is constantly growing in volume. Not to go back very far in the history of legislation on this subject I may say that the substance of the recent enactments, and of this Bin, are based largely upon investigations which commenced in the year 1906. In 69



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
that year a commission was appointed consisting of three gentlemen, Messrs. Miller, McNair, and Goldie. That commission looked into all matters in connection with the grain trade of Canada and with reference to all the legislation which was at that time upon the statute-books, namely, the Inspection and Sales Act and the Manitoba Grain Act. These gentlemen took up the matter of investigation in July, 1906, and pursued it to a finish and reported on October 11, 1907. They went to the source of production of the grain in the west, and traced the operation from the farmer throughout the different stages of storage and carriage and inspection and marketing, going as far as Victoria and Vancouver on the western coast and as far as the Atlantic ports and Europe in the east, and they made, as I consider, a very thorough investigation, and produced a report of forty pages which for compactness and directness of recom-medation has not, I think, Ibeen often surpassed by the report of any commission.
The conclusions they came to were: that the grade system was the most suitable system upon which to base the grain trade of Canada. They reported against the sample market as being expensive and cumbrous, and not in excellence to be compared with the grade system. They reported in favour of a better system of supervision for terminal elevators under present ownership. They reported against government ownership and against prohibiting private interests in the terminals and also for supervision and control over eastern elevators with the object-
Frank Oliver: What is that last remark of the hon. gentleman?


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: They reported in favour of a system of more strict supervision of the terminal elevators under private or corporate ownership, and were rather against prohibiting private interests from participating in their operation, and therefore they were against government ownership of the terminals. They also reported for a strict supervision and control over the eastern elevators so as to keep- which was the object all the way through- the identity of the grade which had been established as the standard of sale. In the end, they reported a series of amendments to the Act then in force. What took place directly after that was a study I suppose by the government of the substance of this commission's report and after that there was a conference in 1908 where the grain growers and farmers' associations of the western provinces and the representatives of the carrying interests, the bankers, the grain and produce exchanges, the people who owned private and corporate elevators all met together, and before the minister



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
in conference threshed out all these questions taking up particularly all the amendments which had been recommended by the commission of 1906. The result of this was a volume of one hundred and sixty pages of evidence and ot argument which was brought out in that conference and upon which the Grain Act and the Inspection and Sales Act were remodelled and strengthened. But, so far as I can judge, these acts very largely embodied the principle which had been laid down by the commission of 1906. Last year there supervened that immense deputation from the west which besieged the then Prime Minister and the members of both Houses and presented their views in extenso. Then after that came the formation of the Act which was introduced into the Senate and was accompanied by a select committee's investigation and report. All these different interests again met and canvassed all the questions of interest, gave their views very fully and very extensively, and after all this had been done the Bill was passed through the Senate. With some exceptions, but not many in number, it may be said that all -parties agreed pretty well upon the substance of the Act. There are two or three points which are still in sharp controversy and which it will be for this House to take into consideration and ultimately to pass upon. Bill (No. 32) is a replica to a large extent of the Bill which was passed by the Senate in 1911, with a number of amendments and betterments which have been introduced and which are now comprised in the Bill which I place before the House. So much with reference to the course of conference and examination and legislation after examination, with regard to this matter within the last five or six years.
As one looks over that and examines the Bill before the House, he will be struck with several things. In the first place he will be struck with the idea, which I believe is entirely correct, that probably no country in the world possesses a system for the inspection, grading and sale of grain that at all compares in complexity and in thoroughness with that embodied in the Acts at present on our statute-books and in the provisions in the Bill before the House. Indeed no other busin-es-s in Canada is wrapped around with so many restrictions and safeguards as that dealt with in this measure. Whether all these restrictions are conducive in the end to the best is a matter on which there may be difference of opinion; but, at present, at least, there is a large body of opinion which wants a little more law. Seemingly, every possible safeguard and facility that could be thrown around the producer and the primary seller of the grain has been sought to be embodied in the legislation which is either Mr. FOSTER (Toronto).
now on the statute-book or is contained in this Bill. Your farmer in the far west for instance has numerous avenues open to him, in most cases hedged around by every precaution which the law can use to make it easy for him to sell his grain and to give him security for the price agreed upon. He can -have his own method of disposing of his grain unrestricted by anything; he sells it to anybody he likes at whatever price he likes and pockets his pay without any interference from the law or the government. If he is not satisfied to sell in that way, he can command his own car, by an arrangement made legal, by application in turn, and the railway company has to furnish him with a car a* the siding or loading platform at his. own station into which he can load his grain either from the platform or from the siding. He can have that car consigned to any elevator or consignee he wishes, and is protected by law as regards the grade upon which h-e shall be paid and also as regards the security and the like which attaches from that time until he has made final disposition of his grain. He can sell that -car to the track buyer if he pleas-es, but the track buyer is hedged around by license and by legal provisions to the end that he cannot defraud the seller on the price he has agreed to pay. He h-as an elevator ito which he can -sell at the price agreed upon between himself and the elevator -man, and if he and the elevator man cannot agree upon the price, the grade, the dockage, he can yet make a sale to the elevator man and the grain, its- identity being preserved by means of sample, is to be inspected in Winnipeg, and the grade fixed by government inspection, entailing upon the elevator man the necessity of settling wi-tlh his -customer according to the inspection, the grade and the dockage which is given by the inspector at Winnipeg. If he does not wish to -sell his grain -at once, he has the privilege of storing it at the flat warehouse, or, under certain conditions, he can store it in the elevator and wait for a better market if he chooses to tempt the future. One of the primary objects of the legislation -seems to have been to give as many facilities as possible for the easy sale of the farmers grain and to hedge around that grain with all possible security which shall -ensure to the farmer the whole price of the sale he has made. So much with reference to that.
The system of grading as everybody in the House knows is simply an attempt by law to fix certain standards and make them uniform and permanent by which the seller sells -his grain and by which the purchaser buys it from the ti-m-e it leaves the wagon of the farmer, until it finally reaches its destination. These grades being fixed,

the farmer at his station sells out his wheat according to grade and gets the price according to that grade, and the ultimate buyer and every buyer between has to pay according to that grade. One of the primal objects of the legislation is to preserve, not the identity of the grain, but the identity of the grade from the starting point to the finish. Indeed there is provision in the Act which makes it possible if a man wishes to preserve the absolute identity of his grain from the starting point until it arrives in Europe, for him to do so. Although some of the members of this House who know these things may think that I am taking time without much warrant in making these standards, yet probably a good many members of the House and the public do not know the system. We carry this on a step further. All this grain carried from the west, when it comes within the purview of the city of Winnipeg, is there met by the samplers and inspectors who do the work of sampling and inspection and thereby fix the grades.
Next all mis grain passes through Winnipeg until it is met with that sampling and grading, that fixing of the standard, by the employees of the government provided for that purpose. After it has been sampled and graded it is sent on to the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fhrt William. There again government officials open the door of the car, supervise the unloading of the grain from the car into the elevator, supervise the weighing of the grain, and supervise the placing of the grain in its own proper bin, so that again the identity of the grade by government supervision and control is maintained within the elevator. Receipts are given at one end of the elevator, and receipts are surrendered at the other end when the _ grain conies out for shipment. There again the government official supervises the whole process of shipment out so as to preserve the identity of the grade, inspects it as it passes on its way to the car or the vessel, to see that the grade of grain which has been entered at the other side of the elevator comes out at the shipping side, and that there is no deterioration between the two processes. After that the grain takes its flight by car or vessel and iwends iits way towards the market, in Ontario or in Europe. If it is for the latter, it is under supervision more or less constant and thorough until it reaches the Atlantic seaboard. This is the system which under past and present legislation has been provided, a system which in its theory is, I think, a very excellent one, which may have weaknesses, as every system will have, but these weaknesses, so far as it can be done, we aim to remove by the present legislation 69}
so as to make the whole system as strong and as thorough as it can possibly be made. I have stated that if we look over every other grain-growing country in the world we shall find no other system to compare at all with this. Conditions and circumstances differ in different countries, and that may explain in part the difference of systems. There are, however, many countries in the world which to-day are studying the Canadian system, and which are gravitating towards some features of the Canadian system and are designing to place them in their own legislation. Now, one would think that with all this there should be no dissatisfaction in the west, no troubles to be met, no grievances to remedy. But the experience of western men and of some eastern men will show that all is not calmness and peace in the far western region or the near western region, and that there are yet voices raised here and there, not a few, which demand something more and are giving voice to the troubles with which they are plagued and of which they wish to be rid.
Now, while I venture an opinion with a great deal of modesty, never having been a grain raiser, a grain shipper or an elevator owner, I think that some of these troubles are well voiced and some of them are due to circumstances which as reasonable men, we are all bound to take into consideration, and which it requires time and patience and co-operation to overcome. One of the main troubles in the west to-day is the problem of transportation. There is more grain there to-day than can be got out of the country. From the base of the Rockies down to Fort William grain is lying in the fields, in the elevators, in the cars and on the tracks. It is not moving fast enough, any of it that is moving, and a great deal of it is not moving at all, but the people who own it are very anxious that it should be moving. The problem, as I have stated, is one largely of circumstances. The grain-producing area has extended rapidly, the carrying facilities have also been extended rapidly, but production has not only overtaken but has far outstripped the capacity for transport, and that is one of the reasons which is causing the difficulty to-day.. The three great railway systems in the west spread out to a width of 600 or 800 miles just this side of the Rockies. gathering in from every section of the country, then narrow down to a very narrow strip south of Lake Winnipeg, and after they reach Port Arthur and Fort William have no Canadian means of rail exit at this time, except the one single track of the Canadian Pacific. .Up to the end of navigation, about the middle of December, the lake marine furnishes an easy and capacious method of taking away the grain
[Stage Direction]
that comes to the elevators at those terminal points; 'but when frost closes that means of exit, then for from three to five months no grain can go out by a Canadian route with the exception of that which is carried on the single rail of the Canadian Pacific railway. Now, how can we remedy that state of things? I have gone into this matter pretty thoroughly. The Railway Commission lias gone into it much more thoroughly than I have; they have the means of doing it. My opinion, which I believe is coincided in fully by the Railway Commission, is that the three railways have done all this year that they could do to facilitate the movement of grain in the northwest. But it is absolutely impossible for it all to be moved under the circumstances as they exist to-day. Now, how are we going to remedy that state of things? Presently it cannot be remedied. No man can in five minutes, five weeks ot five months' time devise any method which will remedy that condition of things. It has to be remedied by time, patience and cooperation of effort. But remedies are opening up. In another year-and it is too bad that we have to wait for another year-or two at the farthest, there will be another line of railway which will give an exit from the west through Cochrane and the railway systems of eastern Ontario and eastern Canada. That will double the facilities. At some time or other, I do not know when, the Canadian Northern may have its independent line of communication from the west to the east, and that will give still another each.
In the course of time these railways may double their tracks, and that will more than double their capacity. But that will take time. The Hudson Bay railway, which has been getting along in an easy and listless way for the last ten years, is now in a position where it gives promise of speedy opening of another route. It will take time also to bring this about. But in the course of two or three years that route ought to be available as well. Then, I think, one of the greatest factors to relieve the situation in the future will be the opening up of a drainage of wheat from as far east as Moosejaw by western channels with a view to being carried by way of the Pacific ocean. I have no doubt that when the Panama canal is opened, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Canadian Northern railway will be favoured lines for the exit of the wheat by way of the Pacific. This wi) furnish transportation for a share of the increased product and will to that extent prevent congestion. So the farmers who are working in the west and others equally interested-though they may not be working at farming in the east-for this is a common interest-may look forward with Mr. POSTER (Toronto).
confidence to the future and to an adequate transport for the mighty productions of the northwest. The subject is a most interesting one, and I would advise every member of the House to get liis studying cap on and consider carefully the situation. It will be very interesting to note just what changes are to be made, even affecting the middle of the prairie regions of the northwest, and all other parts of Canada, by the stupendous undertaking now being carried on across Panama which may be expected to see its completion in a year and a half or two years from this time. It will have an immense effect on transportation and on the distribution of materials in Canada in future years.
Mr. DEVLIN.: But what about the Georgian Bay canal?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend (Mr. Devlin), coming from greater things to smaller things-but not infinites-simal-is again anxious about the Georgian Bay canal. Let us stick to our muttons, and deal with this Bill. The Georgian Bay canal will come up in due time.


Wilfrid Laurier: But what has this Bill to do with all these questions of transportation?


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will see in a moment. I have been speaking of the difficulties met in the northwest, and named transportation as one of them. I think I have given a plain statement of the situation


Wilfrid Laurier: Ana very interesting.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto)-and I thought it was not at all out of place to lighten up that question with the hope for the future.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: It is only by hope in the future that we better our present.


Wilfrid Laurier: And that is why my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) is anxious about the Georgian Bay canal. That is one of the hopes of the future.


George Eulas Foster: Quite so. But, unfortunately, the Georgian Bay canal will not be a very capacious winter method of taking out the grain, and that is the subject to which I have been specially calling attention. But we never know what the possibilities are, and it may be that the Georgian Bay canal will even be used as a winter route some day.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: I desire to ask the minister (Mr. Foster), if the hope of

transportation for the future is the best solution he has to offer for the western grain blockade of to-day?


George Eulas Foster: If the hon. member (Mr. Martin, Regina) will possess his soul in patience, he will hear what I have to offer. There is another thing intimately connected with transportation, and that is the question of storage. I think that the difficulty in the northwest, now and in the future, is to be met in part by increase of storage facilities as well as increase of transportation facilities-the two, indeed, go together. One of the factors of the situation in the northwest is that the farmers there, as a rule, do not think that it is a part of their work to furnish what the farmer of eastern and middle Canada furnishes- store houses, granaries, barns, in which to place the crops he raises in order to keep them until it pleases him to sell them. Whether it arises from inability or from whatever cause, the fact is that not more than one in a hundred of the farmers or grain growers of the northwest ever attempts individually to meet the problem of storage. It is much easier for him to put his grain on his wagon and take it to the elevator than to first put it in a granary and then re-handle it to take it to the elevator or station.
There are difficulties in the way of erecting granaries. Few farmers are able to erect granaries in the early times of their farming operations. Lumber is scarce; it costs money; and money is by no means a superfluity with the man who takes up a homestead and goes to work with only his hands and his hopes for the development of his farm and the making of a livelihood from it. However, the difficulty arises, it is the fact that storage is not provided by the farmers individually of the northwest as a rule. But that there is large storage capacity in the west we all know. There are farmers' elevators at various points on the several railways as well as the great terminal elevators. I have a statement showing the storage capacity
as follows:
Bushels.
Country elevators	 57,500,000
Ontario terminals	 25,700.000
Ontario milling terminals.. 1,700,000 Eastern transfers	 20,500,000
Total	 105,400,000
Yet we have the fact that these storage facilities are inadequate to take all the grain that offers, so that there are millions of bushels of grain to-day, threshed or unthreshed, in the fields not stored in any way. The storage capacity is increased by the capacity fff the vessels wintering
at the terminals, which is about 5,000,000 bushels to 7,000,000 bushels.
The total storage capacity at that terminal point during the winter season, therefore, comes closely to 30,000,000 or 32,000,000 bushels. It is also to be remembered that when you talk of capacity you are not altogether close up to the actual storage they can make; owing to difference of grades some space is left vacant. Then there is a trouble in the west which intensifies this condition, namely, that the whole transfer of grain, so far as the west is concerned, compresses itself within a period of three months at most, and a period of probably nearer two months on the occasion of a season .such as we have just had. So that the immense reapings from the farms of the west are garnered and ready for market in tile brief period of two or two and-a-half months. That complicates the situation. It =eems to be economically impossible for railway transport systems to have sufficient transporting cars to fill that great demand in two or three months, and at all proceed upon business or economical principles. A storage system must in some way or other come in to assist the .present transport facilities, and the problem in the west will be solved by the increase of storage, and the increase, as soon as it can possibly be dione, of transport facilities out from the west.


Mr. CURRIE.: Has the hon. gentleman any figures to show the storage capacity of the granaries of the farmers in the west as compared with the granary system in eastern Canada?


George Eulas Foster: I think I read the figures of the company elevators.


John Allister Currie: I mean the farms themselves. In Ontario the former stores his own grain.


George Eulas Foster: I think, in comparison with the other figures, it is almost a negligible quantity.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: That may be true as regards Saskatchewan, of which I cannot speak, but it is not true so far as Manitoba is concerned.


George Eulas Foster: Manitoba being an older province, is coming more and more towards the point of preparing and arranging for its own storage, and in that respect Manitoba occupies a less troublesome position than either Saskatchewan or Alberta, which have not made the same progress in preparing storage facilities.


William Melville Martin: I think in Saskatchewan itself there are more .storage facilities on the farms than there are in Manitoba. I know I am safe in saying

that in the older districts of Saskatchewan the great majority of the fanhers have storage facilities up to date, not only in the shape of lumber granaries, but in the shape of granaries made out of some kind of galvanized material.


William Findlay Maclean: Is this-kind of granary increasing?


William Melville Martin: Yes, as the country develops.


George Eulas Foster: 
William Findlay Maclean: Have the farmers of the west now a grievance in connection with Obtaining advances against grain on their places? Can a farmer get an advance on the grain in his granary or is there trouble in that respect?


Mr. TURRIFF.: He could not get it.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether that is a grievance which is put forward or not. It would be a difficult matter of finance for a man to get an advance upon the grain as h stands in the

field. He can get an advance on it when he gets it on a railway track, into a car or into an elevator, he then has something which he can deliver and which the_ man who makes the advance is assured will be security for his loan; but n the grain is on his field, or is threshed but still on his place, it would seem to me he would not have much chance of getting an advance especially under the present condition of things when there is no certainty as to when he will get it out. That makes it all the more difficult.
Coming down to the present Act, I have only a few words to say as I think it would be better for us to take this matter up in committee. The object of the present Act is to remedy these grievances' and to alleviate these troubles in as far as an enactment of parliament can alleviate and help. The whole Act, which is a long one, is not new; it is a consolidation of the Inspection and Sales Act and the Manitoba Grain Act with some amendments and additions. The object is to perfect the governmental system of supervision and of control so as to meet some of the difficulties which have arisen and do away with some of the grievances which have been stated. A commission is to be formed which, in the first place, will have control of what has so far been controlled not by a commission but by officers appointed by the government. This commission will consist of three members. It will be the aim of the government to get three men who are in the first place honest, in the second place capable and efficient and in the third place, men with executive and organizing ability which, I think, is not the least qualification necessary for the work. In the hands of that commission, made as independent as a commission can be made, will be placed the whole control, supervision and work which is now entrusted to the different officers of the government.
The government also takes power in this Act to expropriate, to construct and to lease terminal elevators to the end that the selfish interest which it has heretofore been declared has worked against the interests of the farmer shall be eliminated as far as poS'-sible and such terminal elevators when constructed or built or leased will he managed by the commission, it will be their business to operate these elevators in addition to discharging the duties which are now placed upon the officers who are carrying out the Act as it has been on the statute-book.


William Findlay Maclean: Would you take away the existing rights of railways to maintain their own elevators?


George Eulas Foster: One of the most vexed and important questions that we will have to deal with in this
House is what shall be done to eliminate the evil which is acknowledged to exist, the selfish interest. I am not prepared, at this moment, to say how far the government propose to go, that is a matter upon which I hope we shall be able to enlighten the House before this Bill is through; what we are getting by this Bill is the power to act and to operate through a commission.
This is not my Bill particularly, nor the Bill of any party; it is, as nearly as possible, a non-partisan Bill, I am its foster-father, at the present moment, but the child is much the same as when it came from its original parents; a little better dressed up tit may be hut still it is intrinsically the same child, and I take it that the parent of that child was not a Liberal government or a Liberal Conservative government, but it was the product of the conferences of all the interests in the matter after successive years of examination and discussion. This result was placed in concrete shape in the Bill which came down from the 'Senate. I do not know of any Bill that has come before parliament of recent years which comes upon a basis which more commends it to a careful, earnest, honest application of the best efforts of all of us on both sides of the House, to produce a piece of legislation which shall be acceptable to all concerned and which shall be beneficial to the country. The government are bound, by the introduction of the Bill, to steer it through the House but the government are not bigoted in this matter and for my own part I welcome the co-operation and the knowledge which so many members in this House have of this matter, I welcome and invite it in order that we may perfect the measure and make it, as I said, as good a measure as we can possibly have.
I do not think it necessary to keep you longer, I ought to apologize for having kept you so long. When I began to study this matter I found that I knew very little about it and that is what has prompted me to make a rather more extended exposition of the subject than I otherwise would have done for the benefit of members who had not paid attention to it so as to make us all more capable for the subsequent work of legislating in this matter.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the minister saying that he desires the co-operation of the House at large in perfecting this Bill. We private members on this side of the House are quite prepared to take full responsibility for any suggestions that we have to make in regard to its improvement, and I hope that any such suggestions will be accepted in a fair spirit by the government so that they may be properly discussed. At the same time, I hope that my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) does not wish it to be understood in any

way that the government as a government and himself as minister are not absolutely behind this Bill and responsible for it to the House and to the country.


George Eulas Foster: I stated (hat.


Frank Oliver: I repeat that so that there shall be no mistake about that part of it. When my hon. friend introduced the Bill he mentioned something about possible amendments which would be introduced in committee. If there are such amendments and they are of importance the House should have due notice of them.
I do not think any apology is due to the House from the minister for taking up considerable time in placing before the House and the country the conditions surrounding this piece of, what I might call, special legislation. I think perhaps he phrased the case a little too strongly, when he said there was no such legislation anywhere else, because there is somewhat parallel legislation on the other side of the line where the conditions are almost identical with the conditions here. There is, however, a very great difference between the conditions surrounding the grain trade in the Canadian west and the adjoining portions of the United States, from the conditions which obtain in the greater part of the wheat producing areas of the world, and it is out of that difference in conditions that this legislation becomes necessary. If the grain were placed in sacks and transported in these sacks from the place of production to the place of consumption there would not be any need for this Bill. But, as I understand it, the grain from India, the grain from the Pacific coast of North America, and the grain from Australia is carried in sacks, and,therefore, such legislation as this is not necessary.


John Allister Currie: Does the United States federal government exact a standard of grain similar to that exacted in this legislation?


Frank Oliver: I do not think it does, but the state of Minnesota which produces similar grain to ours, under similar conditions provides a standard.


John Allister Currie: What percentage of the wheat of the United States is grown in Minnesota?


Frank Oliver: I cannot tell, but I do know that a very large percentage of the wheat that stands on the same level as ours as to quality is grown in Minnesota. Such special legislation as this is in order that the grain may be carried from the point of production to the point of consumption without being put up in separate packages, and still preserve its identity as to quality.


Frank Oliver: It is out of that situation that the whole of this legislation arises. The man who buys the grain from the farmer buys it on sample and the miller in Great Britain buys it also on sample, but in the carrying from the farmer in Canada to the miller in England it must be either carried in sacks or carried in bulk, and it being carried ip bulk a great deal of this legislation becomes necessary in order that the rights, not particularly of the farmer, but' of all the parties concerned in the transaction shall be preserved.


John Allister Currie: May I ask a question?


Frank Oliver: I shall be glad to answer my. hon. friend (Mr. Currie), when I have finished, but I am now trying to present a somewhat intricate position to the House, and I would prefer to continue my remarks. It may be said: Why is not the grain transported in sacks and what difference would it make in the cost? Well, there would not only be the difierence in the cost of the sacks, but there would he the difierence in the cost of handling at each transfer en route. It is a fact that the grain can be handled from the railway car to the vessel and again from the vessel to the railway car more cheaply in bulk than if it were in separate parcels. As wheat is the great necessity of life, it is in the interests of producer and consumer that every item of cost that stands between the producer and the consumer shall be cut out, and that when conditions permit, the grain shall be carried in bulk. Then, legislation such as this is absolutely necessary if justice is to be done all the parties to the transfer.


George Eulas Foster: You
mean every item of unnecessary cost?


Frank Oliver: Yes, of course. I lay some stress upon this point because I think the minister seemed to lay the burden of the whole of this legislation upon the necessities of the farmer. The farmer is, of course, a very much interested party in the legislation, but he is not by any means the only party interested. The other parties who are concerned in the transportation and financing of this grain are proportionately as deeply interested in the provisions of the Grain Act, as the. farmer is. It is legislation which is rendered necessary in the interests of the business of the country; the farmer, the merchant, the dealer, and the consumer. Then my hon. friend speaks of the difficulties that arise as soon as winter sets in, in connection with the transportation of grain to the ultimate market, and of the congestion that naturally results because of the freezing of the winter route. We have at present through Canada only one line of railway connecting the wheat fields

with the eastern seaboard. There are under construction two other lines ol railway, and, therefore, within a few years there will be three railways between the wheat fields and the eastern seaboard. I will take the liberty of recalling to the attention of the House-although perhaps I s'hould not do so-that when the proposition for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, especially its eastern division, was placed before the country it received a great deal of opposition as not being of urgent necessity. I do not wish to refer now to the arguments used at that time, but I want to emphasize the point that the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the construction of the Canadian Northern now in progress, connecting the wheat fields and the seaboard, are of the utmost necessity and urgency for the welfare of Canada in every line that my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has laid so clearly before the House to-day.
Let me go further, and I speak of it, not because my hon. friend mentioned it tout because two of my hon. friends from the west on the other side have on one or two occasions drawn attention to this condition, that the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific, in its eastern section to Moncton, has been abnormal, and they seemed to argue that that was an injury and an offence to the west. They seemed to consider that it was an injury to the west that this enormous expenditure was being incurred on that section of the Transcontinental. But if that expenditure be enormous, it is due to the fact that the road is being so constructed as to carry the grain of the western prairies to the seaboard at absolutely the lowest rate which the most competent engineering ability can bring it down to. That being the case, the very vastness of the expenditure upon that section is most directly and unquestionably in the interest of the west on the very line of the argument which my hon. friend submitted to the House to-day.
As regards the advice given to the farmers of the prairie west to provide granaries and go into mixed farming, I do not know that any one, who has ever spoken about the west, has not tendered that advice. That advice I admit, is good, but there is a great deal of advice that is very good in itself, but which it is not always practicable to put into effect. I was struck particularly by the suggestion that because the farmer of eastern Canada provides storage for his grain crop, therefore the farmer of western Canada ought to do likewise. But there is some difference between a grain crotp produced on a. field of 20, 30 or 40 acres, and one produced on a field of 160 to 640 acres. Those who .speak so freely of the shortcomings of the western farmer in not providing proper housing for his grain would perhaps do well to remember that
the rapidity of the progress of the west is due to the fact that it has been possible, with a minimum of capital and a maximum of energy to bring under cultivation and into production tJhe maximum area of productive soil. If it had been necessary for the man who went into the western prairie to provide eastern barns before starting to farm, instead of the wheat production of the prairie being 175,000,000 bushels this year, it probably would not be 50,000,000 or even 25,000,000. Conditions in the west are favourable to the production -and the handling of grain wuh the minimum of expenditure, and it is because of that fact many thousands of the people there ito-iday cannot possibly put up barns, if barns toe necessary until they have arrived at a condition which is yet in the far future. A great proportion of the settlers in that country have only come in within the last few years and are not yet in such a position as would enable them to put up these buildings; and besides, owing to the climatic conditions the housing of the grain on a large scale is not necessary. It is therefore very doubtful if it would be sound business [policy for them to spend their money in the housing of the grain on the same scale as that is done in the eastern provinces. The natural conditions in the west being different, we cannot reasonably expect that the people there should act as though the conditions there were the same as in the east, in order to relieve a situation which has occurred this year and which may not occur again for many years to come. In the eastern country we have a wet fall and in the western country a dry fall. Consequently settlers in the west can farm successfully on an expenditure much less than the farmers are obliged to incur in the eastern country.	'
As to the mixed farming question, if the people who went into these prairies had gone there with the intention of going into mixed farming, they would have required much more capital to start with than they did bring in, the results which have been achieved would not have been accomplished in anything like the same time, and the country would have been standing still these last few years instead of going ahead as rapidly as it has been.
When hon. gentlemen criticise the farmers of the west for their shortcomings, i would noint out to them that according to Sir Byron Walker, the head of the Bank of Commerce, Mr. Flavelle, the head of the National Trust Company, and every head of every great financial institution in eastern Canada, the prosperity and progress of Canada depend upon what the western farmer has done and is doing and in particular on what he is going to do. It is always possible to criticise. There are individuals who even find fault with the plan

21S0
of creation, but I think that the record of what has^ been achieved in our western country, in the way of development and progress, in the way of laying the foundation of a great Canada, should make the western farmer as little subject to criticism as any man in the Dominion. And further, whatever may be necessary to improve the conditions in that country by means of legislation, should in all fairness be given heartily and thoroughly.


William Erskine Knowles: Can the minister state briefly what the main amendments will be, or will he give full notice of them?


George Eulas Foster: The amendments which are to be introduced into the different clauses as we proceed are not of such importance as I think to need any extended notice. Of any important amendments, and there may be two or three, I will see that the House gets abundant notice before being called on to discuss them.


Mr. ROBB.: Has the minister given any consideration to the question of providing terminal elevators at Lake Superior Junction? Unless this is done the Grand Trunk Pacific, as a road for carrying grain east in the winter time, would be considerably handicapped over the roads going by Fort William.


George Eulas Foster: The clauses which bear on terminal elevators come in considerably later in the Bill. When we reach them I shall be able to give my hon. friend the information he asks for.


Mr. McCRANEY.: Will the minister lay on the table such forms as are at present in use under the Act?


George Eulas Foster: I will make a note of that.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the winter navigation of Lake Superior been considered as affording a possible relief to the transportation situation? There are big new ports now being built on the Georgian bay.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that this is the second reading of the Bill, on which it is hardly permissible to widen the discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 2-Interpretation,
George Eulas Foster: I wish to add the following paragraph to the Interpretation clause:
Mill elevator includes every elevator or warehouse used or operated as part of any Mr. OLIVER.
plant engaged in the milling of grain products in the western inspection division.
The necessity of this is for plainness. We are already licensing that kind of elevator, and there is a clause later in the Bill that has something to do with mill elevators and that renders this definition necessary.


Frank Oliver: I do not imagine that there is any objection to this amendment; but I would suggest that as the Bill progresses and he sees fit to hand in amendments, it would be fair and right that at the request of those of us who wish to consider them further, they should be held for further consideration.


George Eulas Foster: Any that are wanted to stand we will allow to stand over.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 2,
2. The remainder of thi9 Act is divided into three parts, as follows:-
Part I comprising sections 3 to 17 inclusive; Part II comprising sections 18 to 117 inclusive ;
Part III comprising sections 118 to 246 inclusive and the schedule of forms therein mentioned.
George Eulas Foster: I wish to make some amendments to that. The last sections of the Bill as printed are sections which have nothing to do with the main body of the Bill in either of the parts, but both of them are general. One of them, No. 246, provides for expenses of administration, and the other, No. 247, for the repeal of old Acts which it is necessary to repeal. I wish to change the subsection now under consideration so as to provide that part III shall comprise sections 118 to 245 inclusive, together with the schedules, and part IV shall comprise sections 246 and 247. I imagine there will be no objection to that; it is simply mechanical.


William Erskine Knowles: Then, will the schedules remain in part III, to be followed by part IV?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: The schedules are the last part of the Act and have to do with all the parts. They are no more associated with part III than with any other part.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, but they are not at all associated with part IV.


William Erskine Knowles: Of course, the division of the Act is largely mathematical. It is to contain four parts. The schedules

naturally come in at the end, as they relate to all the parts.


George Eulas Foster: It might make it more symmetrical if you transposed the two. But I do not see how that could be done either. However, the meaning is clear.


Frank Oliver: It will make a most peculiar looking Bill. But, of course, it is my hon. friend's (Mr. Foster) Bill, and if he likes the looks


George Eulas Foster: If the looks are too peculiar, we will fix it up.
On section III, subsection VI. Salaries of commissioners.


George Eulas Foster: The salaries are in blank. We will let the blanks in the subsection remain for the present time.
On section 8, appointments and salaries under the board.


George Eulas Foster: I want to amend that by adding after the word ' minister,' ' on the recommendation of the board.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: I think this section would bear careful consideration:
Provided that the Governor in Council may authorize the hoard to make appointments of a temporary character, and to fix the remuneration to be paid to temporary officers and employees.
That is to say, that in the first part of tlie section the authority is entirely with the minister, but in the latter part it is delegated to the board. I think there would be difficulty in drawing a distinction in administration.


George Eulas Foster: That only takes in temporary men, where you want to employ a man for a day or two. It would be unworkable to get a recommendation from the Governor in Council.


Frank Oliver: I would suggest that the remuneration for these temporary employees should he according to a scale laid down by the Governor in Council. As I read it here, the board might employ a man for a few days and pay him any price they liked. It is not difficult to lay down a scale of payment so that when the board employ a man he should be paid according to that scale.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Would it not be difficult to diraw up a scale that would cover iso many different employments?


George Eulas Foster: I think if they wanted to employ a carter for any purpose, or a man with a spade, it would be impracticable to fix a scale for that
kind of employment. In the first place, we suppose that the commissioners, if they are able to carry on a large business that is vital to themselves, will be quite able to fix a reasonable remuneration for a spade man or a carter.


John Allister Currie: I suggest ' provided the minister may authorize the board to make appointments of a temporary character.'
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) I don't think you can make it any better for practical working, presuming the commissioners will be three men of common sense.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: In the latter part of the clause I understand that the commissioners may desire to employ a temporary imam at once.


Frank Oliver: I know what the minister desires to convey, but it strikes me there is a difficulty in drawing a distinction between the provisions of the first part of the section and the second. There is liable to b'e friction.


George Eulas Foster: If there is friction we can fix it 'afterwards.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the minister propose to make any amendments in section 18?


George Eulas Foster: No.


William Erskine Knowles: Then I will call his attention at this stage to the fact that section 8 gives to the minister power to appoint all officers on the recommendation of the board. In clause (f) of the interpretation clause, an officer is defined as including chief inspector, inspector and deputy inspector, etc. In section 18 the board is given power to appoint inspectors. There appears to me to be a contradiction. We say in section 8 that every officer anid employee attached to or under the authority of the board should be appointed by the minister; and in section 18 it says that the board, with the approval of the Gove-nor in Council, may appoint inspectors'.


George Eulas Foster: I will make a note of that.
On subsection 3 of section 8. Salaries, &c., to he paid monthly.


James Alexander Robb: This clause may hamper the commission. During the busy season they will have their men working alongside people who are paid weekly. The minister might consider the payment of employees who are taken on from day to day, weekly.


George Eulas Foster: I shall make a note of that.
On section 9, subsection 1. Office accommodation to be provided.


Mr. CARRICK.: If it is the intention to have the offices of the commission estab-

lished at the head of the lakes I would like to see it incorporated in the Act.


John Allister Currie: Section 5 pro vines for the residence of the commissioners, and section 9 should repeat that the offices are to be there.


William Erskine Knowles: It may be necessary for the board to have offices in Winnipeg or other places.


Mr. GERMAN.: When it says that the commissioners shall reside either in Fort William or Port Arthur, I presume it is the intention that the head office shall be at either of these places. It seems rather a hardship to compel them xo live absolutely in one of these towns.


George Eulas Foster: In section 5, provision is made that the commissioners and secretary shall reside in Fort William or Port Arthur. Then it follows, practically as a matter of course, that their offices will be in Fort William or Port Arthur. I do not at present know any reason why they should not be there. I do not see why it is necessary to have >
compulsory clause in reference to the head office.


James Alexander Robb: The minister indicated that we might possibly be doing business via Vancouver, and for that business an office at Fort William would not be convenient.


John Allister Currie: A clause has been passed providing that the headquarters of the commissioners shall be at Fort William. Would it not make it a little clearer to include that in section 9?
On section 12. Warehouse receipts.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).: I move that section 12 be amended by striking out all the words after the word ' receipts ' in the third line.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why?


Levi Thomson: I do not think that any fees should be charged as a rule. Section 246 deals with the same matter, but this section is a departure from the present system. I do not think there will be any hardship by leaving this as it is in the present Act. I think it better, in the interest of all parties, that fees should not be charged. Trifling fees may be charged in certain cases, that would be rather a hindrance than anything else. The Act would be more workable and satisfactory without this change.


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon. member speak of the fees in this particular case, and for this particular purpose, or of fees generally?


Levi Thomson: Possibly
I should not have spoken of fees generality Mr. GARRICK.
in this case, but I make the suggestion that the same thing should be adopted throughout.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid that my hon. friend and myself will have to consider ourselves at the parting of the ways because the fundamental basis of that whole arrangement is that the grain business shall pay the expense of the deputy minister. That has been understood between the western men and the government for some time.


Frank Oliver: That is one thing, but the question of how the trade shall carry it is another thing. It would strike me that such a charge as this is vexatious rather than remunerative.


George Eulas Foster: It has not been found vexatious in the past.


Frank Oliver: I do not think there was any such provision in the former law, but whether or not it is a pity to charge a fee like this which really amounts to very little, especially in view of the accepted principle nowadays that we should cut out these fees that are vexatious without being revenue producers.


John Allister Currie: I doubt very much if the federal authority has power to interfere with these civil contracts or to collect fees. The warehouse receipt is a civil contract within the provincial law and I do not think we should interfere.


Frank Oliver: This is not a fee for the issuing of a warehouse receipt. It is a fee for the registration of a warehouse receipt, which is required not in the interest of the buyer or seller but in order to properly administer the Act.


George Eulas Foster: This is a new provision.


Frank Oliver: It is inserted under misapprehension of the purport of the section.


Mr. NESBITT.: If it is necessary to register these receipts who is to pay the cost?


Frank Oliver: It is so trivial as not to warrant the imposition of a fee which must be only nominal. If after the Act has gone in force the board on their experience would recommend that a fee should be charged in this case I would be quite willing, but at this stage it is safer not to impose a fee.


George Eulas Foster: As this is left within the discretion of the board it would not seem there would be much objection to it.


Frank Oliver: It would be wiser to leave the law as it was, pending a recom-

mendation -of the board after they have had experience. Anyway, I do not like the idea of any such body having authority to levy fees on the public.


George Eulas Foster: They could not do that without an order in council.


Frank Oliver: Oh, well, that would be all right.


John Allister Currie: 
James Alexander Robb: Does the hon. gentleman not know that there is a clearing house in existence where receipts are exchanged?


John Allister Currie: Where?


James Alexander Robb: At Fort William.


John Allister Currie: If there is a public clearing house at Fort William, it is only within the last three or four weeks.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: No.


John Allister Currie: I am personally interested and ought to know.


James Alexander Robb: The Act was amended in 1910 and provision was made for a clearing house, 'and a clearing house exists now and there 'are officers operating it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Mr. Fred Young is the manager.


John Allister Currie: But that is purely voluntary and private, 'and this provision is to make it compulsory to register warehouse receipts. You have to go to different elevators now just the same as before.


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. AIKINS.: Any doubt can be easily removed by adding the word ' fixing ' and inserting the word ' for,' which will make it read ' for fixing the fees therefor ianid for determiniing ' by Whom they shall be paid.


George Eulas Foster: I have no objection.
Amendment negatived.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 79,) respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill (No. 81,) to incorporate the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina)).
Bill (No. 83,) respecting the Saskatchewan Power Company.-Mr. McKay.
Bill (No. 84,) respecting certain Patents of Thomas D. Rambaut.-Mr. Ames.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 32,) respecting Grain.-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
On section 12-warehouse receipts.
George Eulas Foster: We had some discussion on the wording of this section before the House rose, and I have since been looking at it. I cannot see any reason why this section should not stand exactly as it is. I think the idea of the section is expressed as clearly and definitely as it can be expressed.


Frank Oliver: The minister is of course responsible for the wording of the Bill, and ii he is satisfied that this wording expres-

ses the ideas he desires to express, we do not wish to delay the Bill by discussing that part of it. I would, however, give notice to my hon. friend that on this question of fees we would reserve the right to move against the principle on the third reading.	.


George Eulas Foster: Quite so.
On section 15-free transportation of board and staff.


David Bradley Neely: The corresponding clause in the Bill introduced last year includes with the transportation of the members of the Board and the secretary, their baggage and equipment. I think it would be well to include these in this Bill.


George Eulas Foster: I thought about that, but it seemed to me that no railway or steamboat company would cavil at their taking their baggage with them. It seemed too trivial a provision to put into a Bill.


David Bradley Neely: The statute providing transportation for the members of the House of Commons and the Senate, mentions baggage specifically.


George Eulas Foster: Well, their baggage is very considerable.
On section 16-administration of oath.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I notice that in the interpretation clause there is no interpretation of the word ' commissioner/ A commissioner for taking affidavits is usually appointed by one of the courts. There may be a little ambiguity here, and I would suggest that the word be defined in the Interpretation clause.


Levi Thomson: I would call the Minister's attention to the fact that this section conflicts with sections 29 and 41. This section allows the oath to be administered by a commissioner or by the secretary, while sections 29 and 41 make it obligatory that the oath shall be taken before a commissioner or notary public. I also noted the point raised by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins). There may possibly be some confusion as to what commissioner means.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I would suggest that the words ' appointed hereunder ' be inserted after the word * commissioner.'
Section, amended as suggested, agreed to.
On section 20, regulations.


David Bradley Neely: Here the committee will notice that the board's powers are restricted by the clause ' with the consent of the Governor in Council.' Now that clause had already appeared in sections 12 and 13, and here it appears for the third, time. This


Frank Oliver: section does not even permit the latitude of the corresponding section in the Bill that was introduced last year, for it commenced ' The board may make rules and regulations, either with or without the approval of the Governor in Council, as hereinafter provided.' I think the minister must be aware of the fact that the men who are most interested in the passing of this Bill are exceedingly anxious about the constitution and the powers to be given to this board of commissioners. Hon. gentlemen who were here in the last parliament will remember that we had not an opportunity to discuss in committee the different clauses of the Bill that was then introduced. This is the first opportunity we have had for discussing the principle of this Bill, or the one that preceded it last year. It may have come to the notice of the minister and of other members of the committee that the Manitoba Grain Growers, in session, some time last week, passed a very strong resolution regarding the control, not only of the interior elevators but also of the terminals. They passed a resolution first of all condemning the commission system in Manitoba, and calling upon the government of Manitoba to place that commission on an absolutely independent, non-partisan basis. They also passed a resolution asking that when the board of commissioners which was to control the situation of the terminals was constituted by Act of this parliament, the same constitution and the same powers, should be given to that board as they asked for the board in the province of Manitoba. Now it appears to me, from the frequency with which these words occur in these various sections, that we are restricting the powers of this board unnecessarily, and we are not meeting the demands of the farmers who asked for a commission that shall have the same control over the terminal situation and the grain situation generally as, for instance, the Board of Railway Commissioners have in dealing with questions of transportation. I do not see why the Governor in Council should, interest themselves in the matter of the rules and regulations that shall be laid down by the board of commissioners for the operation of the terminal elevators. This board we trust and expect will be selected from men who have an intimate knowledge of the grain situation; and it appears to me that if the board is to be of any value, it should, by intimate knowledge of the situation, be better fitted to make proper and necessary rules and regulations than the Governor in Council I am stronglv of the opinion that by the repetition of this clause, by its repeated insertion, by the restriction we are thus placing on the board of commissioners, we are not meeting the desires and wishes of the men at whose demands the

Bill is introduced, and -whom we trust it will satisfy.
For there is no doubt, I am sure, in the mind of any one, that this Bill is being introduced at the urgent request of the grain growers of the west. They are the men who have been complaining about the conditions at the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, and they are the ones at whose instigation this movement for better legislation has been brought about. And it appears to me that in the construction of this commission there should be no question of interference in the matter of their administration of the situation at the terminals. I think that is one of the most vital and important points of this measure. If we have a board of commissioners who have to write a letter to Ottawa every time they wish to change a rule, if they have to communicate with the minister, who, in turn, will communicate with his colleagues and discuss the matter in council, it appears to me we are going to have a situation much worse than the present situation. If you are going to tie the hands of the board, if you are going to deny them liberty and compel them to refer everything to the Governor in Council, then I say we are better without this Bill and without the appointment of the board. For, as a result of this repeated necessary reference to the Governor in Council the board will be seriously hampered in their work and the situation at the terminals in any time of stress will be such as will not commend itself to the men for whom this Bill is being passed.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) say that the Grain Growers' Association have objected to this feature of the Bill?


David Bradley Neely: The members of the Grain Growers' Association, in convention in Manitoba last Thursday-I think it was Thursday-laid down the principle that the board of commissioners to be constituted under the Bill ought to be an absolutely independent body.	i


Arthur Meighen: It is somewhat difficult to understand what my hon. friend means by ' an absolutely independent body.' If the terms


David Bradley Neely: I will explain that, if my hon. friend will allow me. I mean independent of direction or influence from the government.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman mean independent of the people?


David Bradley Neely: They would always be responsible, I should judge, to this parliament.
Mr. MEIGHENi I understand, then, the hon. gentleman means that the board of commissioners, while they should not be responsible to the government, should be responsible to this parliament?
Mr. NEELY That is a fair meaning.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. gentleman is about as indefinite in his idea of how the responsibility should be fixed as the association to which he refers. He complains at this stage of section 20 of the present Bill, in that it provides that the rules and regulations made by the board shall be with the consent of the Governor in Council-that is, with the consent of this government. Now, it is- only elementary to say that, unless the rules and regulations have the approval of the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council can in no sense be responsible for these rules nor for the administration of the Act under these rules. So, if we make the approval of the Governor in Council unnecessary, we remove the board from responsibility to the Governor in Council. If the hon. gentleman wishes to take that position, well and good; we know where he is. But on the 19th of May, 1911, we had Bill (Q) of the Senate referred to this House, which Bill contained clause 20, which was exactly the same in this regard as clause 20 of the present Bill. This is not a detail, it is a concrete principle, and we are either going to approve or disapprove of that principle. The hon. gentleman says that unless we take his view of the principle, to pass the Bill would land us in a worse position than before. But when this same principle was introduced by the government that he supported on the 19th of May last, he approved the Bill and the principle and urged parliament not to delay a minute not -even to -consider it further but to swallow, the Bill and the principle. But now that he finds it in legislation that w-e have time to consider, he tells us it would be better to refuse the Bill altogether because it will put the western farmer in a worse position than he was in before. I -say frankly I would not approve of anything that would place the commission in a position where they would be independent of the government. Nor would I approve of such a thing in provincial legislation; the principle is t-ou sacred and too vital. The -commission must be responsible to the government and the government must be responsible for this work of administration. The hon. gentleman has said that, while this is the second time this Bill has been before us, we never had time before to consider it in detail. But, though we had no time to consider it, the hon. gentleman was one of the foremost of those who asked that we pass it without any consideration. He said that while, perhaps, there were some details of the Bill that he

could not agree with, in principle it was right. Now, this is an essential feature and principle of the Bill. So, I fear the hon. gentleman's opinion is on a par with that of many of those he quoted to-night as his authority, and their principal desire is to embarrass the government that is now endeavouring to effect reform.


David Bradley Neely: I think my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) is casting a very serious reflection upon many of the men who, probablj m their lack of knowledge, voted to send him here. He undertakes to question the knowledge of the man in the west, who, for years has given consideration to this question. Probably my hon. friend has in his own constituency many men, tillers of the soil, who,know a great deal more about the grain situation than he does. He tells us that this commission must be responsible to the government. Undoubtedly so. We all quite understand that feature of the case. The board of commissioners must act within the law; the statute that we pass is the thing that shall govern them. But my hon. friend has not answered my argument on the question of the rules and regulations of the board requiring the consent of the Governor in Council. The hon. gentleman did not look into the case as well as he might have dona when he rose to correct me. He says that the clause in Bill (Q) is identical with the clause in the present Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I safd it was the same in this respect.


David Bradley Neely: Section 21 of Bill ' Q ' reads:
The board may make rules and regulations, either with or without the approval of the Governor in Council, as hereinafter provided.
Soane hon. MEMBERS.. Go on.


David Bradley Neely: That is enough. If theTe is any ambiguity in the whole section I still maintain the position that last year this Bill was held up before a Committee of the Senate for many months; it was not brought down to this House until the dying days of the session. Hon. gentlemen opposite who were then sitting on this side of the House are very well aware of the fact that owing to the many other subjects which they introduced in this House for discussion, we found ourselves, in the dying days of the session, without having reached this very important measure and for that reason, because we had not the opportunity to discuss it in detail, there were numbers of us who were anxious to see the Bill passed even with some defects, because it went some distance at least towards satisfying the demands of those at whose instigation the Bill was introduced.
I say that, whatever may have been the Mr. MEIGHEN.
meaning of section 20 of Bill ' Q,' at least the first sentence would indicate that the board were to be given considerable latitude in making rules and regulations under Bill ' Q.' But under the present Bill they have no discretion; they must simply refer every rule and regulation for the government of the situation at the terminals and elsewhere to the Governor in Council. That is an intolerable situation which will not be any remedy oif the present conditions, but will rather place us in the position where we will have a board of commissioners who have no authority to make any simple rule or regulation without referring to the Governor in Council, and who, because of tlhat stumbling block in the way, may, in many oases, be seriously embarrassed in a rush season in carrying out their undertakings simply because they have to refer everything to the government at Ottawa.


Frank Oliver: In the discussion of this Bill we must keep before us the important question of the measure of independence of the board from the government. There is no doubt that the people who are looking for the passage of this legislation have in their minds .an ideal condition whereby ia board absolutely independent of political influence shall have full authority to deal with the grain question. I shall not say that that ideal can be carried out in the provisions of the Bill and have the Bill work satisfactorily, but it is tan ideal which is held very strongly. Therefore, it is desirable in discussing the provisions of this Bill in detail that we 'Should conform to that ideal so far as practicable while preserving the efficiency of the Bill. So, while I agree to this section passing, it would again be with the same reservation as I made in reference to a previous section that we would retain the right of consideration of this principle in the Bill with a view to 'Securing as close conformity to the ideal held by the farmers of an absolutely independent board as possible, and failing in the other means, of course we might have an opportunity of expressing our views on the third reading.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend approaches the subject a little differently from the previous speaker, likely from the standpoint of a little more experience in the matter of governmental work. My hon. friend who spoke first simply catches at that ideal which has just been alluded to and presses it to a conclusion which, to my mind, might end in anarchy. It is possible to give too much power and make a commission too independent. After all there must be somebody whom you can bring to account and the body or the entity to be brought to account in the end is the government.

The only control that a parliament has over this matter is in the control they have over the government.
It is the intention of this Bill and of the government to give that commission even a greater degree of independence and freedom than was proposed by Bill ' Q '. Several things have taken place to-day which show the intention of the present government in this respect. Bill ' Q. ' left all appointments to the minister absolutely without recommendation or other restriction. As amended by myself, the ultimate appointing power is placed in the hands of the minister or the Governor in Council but that was hedged and restricted by the fact that the recommendation would come from the board itself. That to my mind is about as far as you can go and keep the proper governmental control and at the same time keep the proper position between the public outside and the entity to be called in question if things do not go right. The government appoints the board in the first place and are responsible for the quality of the board. If the board turn out to be an all-wiSe board, without any imperfections or any weaknesses, the best thing to do would be to allow them to go ahead and be absolutely independent. But three men on a board are just as apt to develop weaknesses as 15 men at a Council Board or 224 men who review the Acts of the men at the Council Board. It seems to me that the only proper thing to do, whilst giving every range of independence that is possible to that commission, and making them wholly responsible for their work, is to keep the connection between that board and the government, and it is with that in view that this legislation has been undertaken and that I have endeavoured to direct it so far in its passage through the House.


William Erskine Knowles: I agree with the principle advocated by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely). I did not detect in his remarks anything of that partisan spirit which the hon. member for Portage la Prairie saw. I do not understand where that was visible. It is true that the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), in fact all of us who were supporters of the then government, were ready to support Bill ' Q ' as it was brought from . the Senate. We believed that Bill ' Q. ' would be better than the then existing circumstances, although not ideal. The time was limited, it was desirable to have it enacted into law in order that it might be before the people and might bring such benefit or profit as it could for the harvest and market season of 1911, and as the then Minister of the Interior said on May 19, when he introduced the measure, he did not regard it as perfect but he desired the opportunity *of testing it during the season just passed 70
to see in what respects it could be improved upon.
My hon. friend (Mr. Neely) is right in the principle he advocates.- We have two great interests and there has been the bitterest feeling between them. There has been the greatest suspicion on the part of the grain growers-perhaps not always well founded-and this Bill is for tile purpose of removing that as far as it is possible to do so. I submit to the minister that he will succeed in re-establishing confidence in the mind of the grain growers if he makes his board as independent of the government, and as free in its action as it is possible to make it. In the working out of clause 20, if the board has to communicate with the minister, and the minister in turn has to bring the matter before council and have an order in-council passed there will be a most vexatious delay before the most trivial matter can be amended. Orders in council take time; it is not possible to get even a minister's approval of a suggested regulation right off the bat. There is a strong analogy between the Grain Board and the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. The Railway Board stands between the customers of the railways on the one hand ana tnese great corporations on the other, their duty being to protect each against the other. I turn to the Railway Act and I find the Railway Board has power to make regulations without any reference to the Governor in Council whatever, and if the Railway Board which is only a block away from the Minister's ear do not have to get their orders approved, what justification is there for asking that a board sitting in Port William or Port Arthur, must, perhaps in the rush season, send down to Ottawa to have their regulations endorsed by the Governor in Council. Can we not by analogy between the Grain Board and the Kanway Board leave the Grain Commissioners to use their discretion and good judgment, as we leave the Railway Commissioners to do so. If you wish to guard yourseil Dy providing an appeal to the Governor in oouncil as is done under the Railway Act, very well, but at all events do not impede business by making it a hard and fast provision of the law that every little regulation will have to be approved by the cumbersome system of an order in council passed in Ottawa.


George Eulas Foster: It does not work out quite as my hon. friend (Mr. Knowles) pictures it: that there is a rush hour and a rush day, and that some regulation has to be put in effect, and delay is caused by an appeal to the minister, and delay in obtaining an order in council. The Grain Board will draw up what rules and regulations it, in its judgment, deems best,



and in every case, or almost every case these regulations presented by three capable men would be passed by the Governor in Council. But you must always consider the possibility of sometnmg creeping in which, in the judgment of the government, ana of the country may be, would not be in the public interest. This provision will cause the board to feel that their rules and regulations will have to be carefully considered, because they are to be reviewed, and in the second place, if a vicious rule should creep in through inadvertence or otherwise, it is possible to have that reviewed by the government and for the aggrieved parties to have their recourse. I would not like to place the Grain Board on exactly the same plane as the Board of Bailway Commissioners, because, for power and scope of jurisdiction, the latter board does not find its equal in the world.


Frank Oliver: When my hon. friend (Mr. Foster), is making that comparison I would remind him that the Act says this board is to ' control ' the grain trade of Canada, and on the authority of Sir Byron Walker, the grain trade of Canada amounts to two hundred millions this year, which is a financial responsibility far exceeding that which rests upon the Railway Commissioners. Then, the judgments of the Railway Commission affect a corporation, and one or more individuals doing business over certain lines of railway, but the Grain Board has to do with a commodity that makes the business of Canada in a largeT degree than any other one thing. _
The commission that is charged with the responsibility of controlling that trade has a responsibility which, I think, is not equalled by any authority within the limits M the Dominion short of the government itself.
I would like to say a word with regard to Bill (Q) which has been alluded to as imperfect and not tending towards the independence of the board to a greater degree than the present Bill. But in this particular section there are words which are contrary to that idea and exactly in line with the vstand taken by my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) and my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) as to the necessity of the present regulations or as to the necessity of providing regulations for the very excellent kind of control by the board without reference to the Governor in Council. If my hon. friend will refer to section 30 of the Bill (Q) he will see that while the wording is I admit not ideal, the intention was-and may I be permitted to speak on that point-to exactly meet a condition which has been suggested by my hon. friend, namely, that while the regulations of the board should generally speaking be approved by the Governor in Council, the board still should have the power upon Mir. FOSTER,
their own initiative, in order to meet a pressing case, to pass valid regulations without that reference. The clause probably was not perfectly drafted but it was intended to meet such a -uiicution and to that extent it differs materially from a section of the present Bill. Furthermore it carries out the idea of an independent board to a greater degree than does .section 20 and goes further towards meeting the actual conditions which must necessarily from time to time arise in the grain trade when quick action by the board is necessary in order to meet such conditions and _ save thousands of dollars to the people interested. But aside from the Bill altogether I would respectfully suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he should consider the desirability of empowering the board, as it was intended to empower it in section 20 of Bill (Q) so that it would have authority to take action in conditions of stress without reference to Ottawa.


James Albert Manning Aikins: My hon. friend from Moosejaw has cited as a parallel case the Board of Railway Commissioners, who may make rules and regulations. But those rules and regulations are subject to revision by the Governor in Council. The difference between the two is that before the rules and regulations can come into force in the one case they must be approved by the Governor in Council whereas in the other case they are subject to supervision and review by that body.


William Erskine Knowles: No difference.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Not in some respects because both are subject to the Governor in Council, and the Governor in Council takes the responsibility for the action of the Railway Commission to that extent. But there is another point to be borne in mind. The Board of Railway Commissioners is largely a judicial body; and if the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) will consider that point, he will find that in all the legislation dealing with judicial bodies they are empowered to make rules and regulations, so far as they are not judicial which they are not always, but sometimes are subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. The great principle which underlies democratic legislation is that the executive, as well as the legislative bodies are subject to the will of the people. Therefore, I submit that in the administration of the Grain Act, which is so intimately related to the business of a large section of the community, the people should have some control over the board through the Governor in Council, and the board should not be free to do what it likes 'between sessions of parliament. It was suggested that the 'board should be independent of the Governor in Council. That suggestion is

hardly feasible in practical politics. When the government of the day appoints commissioners, in some way perhaps occult-we may not exactly know how- the government of the day has control over the appointees, and it is far better that the government should be held responsible for all the actions of these appointees to the people by providing that their control must meet with the approval of the Governor in Council. Were these commissioners to be appointed from the party in opposition we might have an independent board to some extent; but until we shall have arrived at the millennium when those whom we appoint to office shall act without any consideration to the influences that may be exercised on them, we ought to follow the principle established by Democratic government and provide that these bodies which administer such important affairs must be held responsible to the government which has to account to the people.


William Erskine Knowles: I think that the remarks of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) only emphasize the point I have made. The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that in 'the clause as it now stands, the Board of Commissioners will act very carefully because they know that everything they propose has to pass in review before the Governor in Council. But that same caution would be imposed, if we had a clause such as is found in the Railway Act, by which the regulations the Railway Commissioners may impose are subject to be disapproved by the Governor in Council. If this Act incorporated a similar provision, there would still be the fear on the part of these commissioners of their being checked by the Governor in Council, but they would be in a better position to deal more rapidly with urgent circumstances that might arise. If the hon. minister would draft his clause so as to keep that power of revision in the hands of the Governor in Council, he would still keep before the commissioners the fear of being overruled and in that way there would -be a safeguard. My hon. friend from Brandon said that this board is altogether different from that of the Railway Commissioners. I think not. I trust that you wiil find just as careful a selection of the men on this new board by the new government as was made by the old government in the case of the railway commissioners. I can see no reason why the business entrusted to these grain commissioners should not be as carefully and efficiently administered as is the transportation business which is handled by the Railway Commission.
7U	-II?
The Board of Railway Commissioners is not a judicial body in any large sense. As far as I remember only two of its members are legal men, one an ex-judge and the other a barrister. In the large majority of the cases their duties are not judicial, but executive. This will be a judicial body just as much as the Railway Commission is, with Tespect to their using their best judgment in the interests of the public; and if they be men carefully selected, able, impartial and above suspicion, which I do not question, I can see no reason why the interests intrusted to them under this Act may not be left to them, with just as large a discretion and as free a hand as the Board of Railway Commissioners have.


Arthur Meighen: There is a distinct line of cleaveage between responsibility and irresponsibility, and the method of responsibility will be fixed as fully by the method outlined by the hon. member for Moosejaw as by that proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I challenge the hon. member for Edmonton or any other of the hon. gentlemen opposite to suggest a regulation that could possibly be made without the approval of the Governor in Council under Bill Q, which was introduced by the hon. member for Edmonton last year, that cannot be made under this Bill. The Board under clause 101 of Bill Q could make certain regulations for its own procedure, but under clause 102 of this Bill it can make the same regulations. There is no difference of principle between them, and I protest against any attempt on the part of the hon. member for Humboldt to suggest that he or his party stands in the matter of responsibility for anything different from what is embodied in this Bill.


George Eulas Foster: I take it that a great deal is to be learned by the study of Bill Q, as it came to us last year. There was a lot of trouble taken in the consideration of that Bill, and the different interests seem to have been shaken together over and over again, and while everything was fresh in their minds the Bill came out. Those who flamed this Bill thought it was proper and right to follow the lines of section 156 of that Bill with regard to regulations. I do not want to impart any party considerations to this Bill at all, but I do think it is fair to learn from the reasoned effort that was put into the consideration of Bill Q, and therefore to take those provisions that were embodied in it as the result of the examination then made.


Frank Oliver: Section 156 applies only to the administration of country elevators.


George Eulas Foster: It is a most important part.


Frank Oliver: It certainly is a most important part of the Bill, and there is no part of that section which permits the action of the Board outside of the control of the Governor in Council. But as to section 20, the hon. member for PoTtage la Prairie declares that there is no provision in that section in Bill Q which in any way relieves the Board from the necessity of approval by the Governor in Council. 1 am going to accept his statement, but 1 will ask him to accept mine, that it was the belief of the late, government that there were such words contained in that section, and it was the intent of the late government that those words should have an effect to the extent that I have stated, that is to say, that under circumstances of stress and urgency the Board should have authority to act without reference to the Governor in Council.


George Eulas Foster: So it is under this Act.


Frank Oliver: I did not read section 20 in that way.


Arthur Meighen: I quite accept the statement of the hon. member for Edmonton as to what was or what is his own belief. I would not like to be understood as accepting it as to what was the belief of the late government, much less what was the intent of the late government.


Frank Oliver: I must thank my hon. friend for his courtesy, I am sure.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not propose to go into the discussion as between the two Bills, but I have some interest in the progress of the idea of government by commission. Both in the United States and here the object ought to be to give the fullest power to the commission while keeping some string on it. If we gave the commission power to deal with this matter and had a clause to the effect that some acts of theirs should be subject to review, I believe the commission would be stronger and better. As we are going into government by commission, and as ministers complain of the extent of detail in their departments, we ought to put upon the commissioners we create and upon the officials as much responsibility as possible, subject to review of some kind. In the United States the power is often conferred altogether upon the president of the United States to name the commission, and while the commission makes all the regulations the President can bring them under review.
If there was a clause in this Bill providing that at any time the minister of the government could review and recall any act of the commission, I think it would relieve the department of a great deal of unnecessary trouble, and would give the Mr. FOSTER.
commissioners greater confidence in themselves, and, while putting the responsibility on them would still hold them responsible to the government for everything they did. If the Act could be made more efficient in that way, I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that he have it drafted on these lines. Why should the Governor in Council be half the time occupied in putting a rubber stamp on the acts of a commission appointed to do something? Far better, far quicker administration would be got, and twice as much satisfaction would be given by taking the line suggested. I would not like to see a great commission of this kind checked, and all they did or proposed to do, sent to Ottawa for approval. Put the responsibility on these men. If they do not do their work satisfactorily, recall their decrees, and, if necessary, appoint better men. In this way we should be doing much as we have done in the case of the railway commission. We have increased the responsibilities of the railway commission from year to year, and have never had reason to regret it. The tendency is to increase their powers, while holding them to responsibility for the exercise of those powers.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister (Mr. Foster) take into consideration the redrafting of that section to cover the point of the possibility of action by the board independent of the Governor in Council in case of urgency?
* Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto). I should be glad to take into account whatever work of the commission is necessary in that part of their duties arising from day to day, and which is, to a certain extent, the accident of the occasion. They must have latitude in that respect, and in that respect, I do not wish to hamper them. But in making the rules and regulations for the bonding, the licensing and the control of terminal and other elevators, they are dealing with something which is not the accident of the occasion, but is the very plan and system for the governance of these elevators. While one can ingeniously conjure up something that might occur requiring action which would not be allowable under these regulations, I do not think that that difficulty would arise in practice. We are conjuring up difficulties that do not exist, it seems to me.


Frank Oliver: The difficulties do exist and are liable to exist, and will require action. In dealing with the question generally, it has been found necessary, as will be seen in different places in the Bill, to allow for extraordinary acts of administration by the Warehouse Commission. And the same principle applies to this. I would like to see that provision placed right in

the Act, so that the board would be able to take urgent action on urgent occasions.


George Eulas Foster: I should be very glad to consider that-


Frank Oliver: That is, to hold the section for consideration with' that in view?


George Eulas Foster: We could pass the section and I would keep the matter under consideration; and hon. gentlemen will have plenty of chance to-


Frank Oliver: And the Minister wishes the section to pass as it is?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I would like to have the section passed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On ..: section 28,-present officers.


Levi Thomson: Does not the minister think these words; ' Wheat and other ' are redundant? Grain includes wheat. It would include flax, and flax is usually treated in the Customs Act as a seed.


George Eulas Foster: The Interpretation Act seems to cover the whole thing. Drop out ' wheat and other '.
On section 29, -oath of Inspector.


Levi Thomson: An officer is defined by the Act to mean and include inspector. If the Bill is left in that way, in one place it says that the officer may take oath before a certain person; in another place it says he should take oath before certain other officers, one section contradicts the other section.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Section 29 makes it obligatory that the inspector should take an oath; the other is simply an enabling clause.


Levi Thomson: If the minister wishes to have a notary public and a commissioner to be allowed to take oaths, and also to allow the secretary and the commissioner under Act to take oaths, why not use the term ' may ' in each case? It leaves a question as to what is meant by commissioner.


John Allister Currie: In the province of Ontario we have commissioners for taking affidavits
and we have notaries public, justices of the peace aiid commissioners for that purpose.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I would suggest that we refer back to section 16, and that there should be added ' where not authorized to be taken by another person and adding after the word ' commissioner ' in section 29, ' for taking affidavits in the provincial courts


William Erskine Knowles: A man will have to go to Fort William and interview there a
member of the board or a secretary to take his oath. Why not permit any oath required to be taken before any commissioner for the administering of oaths?


John Allister Currie: Might I suggest that section 16 be amended to read:
Any oath the taking of which is hereinafter authorized or prescribed by this Act, may be administered by one of the commissioners, by the secretary of the commission, by a notary public, a justice of the peace or any officer authorized by statute to administer oaths.
Then you do away with the greater part of section 29, which would read:
Every chief 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.
And leave out all reference to the commissioners because you have already provided that.


Levi Thomson: I think that would be all right if it meets with the approval of the minister.


George Eulas Foster: The oath is the thing that counts. We might allow that section to stand.
Section 29 allowed to stand.
On section 30-inspectors to give security.


George Ewan McCraney: Does this mean that a bond must he given by some security company?


George Eulas Foster: That would seem to be it.


George Ewan McCraney: Who would bear the expense of that bond?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know. I suppose it would come under the working of the whole Act.


William Erskine Knowles: If the law calls for the giving of a bond, the man would have to pay it.


George Ewan McCraney: Unless there is some reference to the matter, the man would probably have to pay for his own bond.


George Eulas Foster: Unless it is arranged.


Arthur Meighen: I certainly think he would have to pay for the bond under the ordinary reading of the Act. I am not sure but what he ought to pay for it.


George Eulas Foster: Anyway this requires that he shall give the security.


William Erskine Knowles: No doubt the government will get such competent men that the bond will not amount to very much.


George Eulas Foster: Very probably.
On section 33-establishment of standards.


Levi Thomson: I would move to amend this section by striking out the words ' establish standards for' in the third line and substituting ' select samples of.1 The Act provides for the establishing of standards in sections 105 and 107 and section 48 provides that the Grain Standards Board shall establish standards for the commercial grades. Subsection 2 of section 48 uses the express terms ' establish standards.' These sections are contradictory, and my amendment would cover what I think is the intention.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that there is any doubt that this section was intended to provide for the samples that will conform to the standards. Apparently the wording in Bill 'Q' was not clear, and it has been transferred into the present Bill in a form even less clear.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does it not mean that they shall meet to establish certain standards for the different grades?


Levi Thomson: That is provided for by sections 105 and 107, for the ordinary grades and in section 48 we make provision for the establishment of commercial grades by the Grain Standards Board.


George Eulas Foster: We will let that stand.


David Bradley Neely: I would point out an apparent contradiction between this section and section 89. This section provides that the inspectors for the division shall establish standards not later than the 7th day of October. Why should there be any difference in the date? Our (grain does not mature any faster in the west than it does sn the east, and why should the sample of standard be selected a week earlier in the west?


George Eulas Foster: I suppose there must be some good reason given for it.


Levi Thomson: It must be a mistake.


George Eulas Foster: With the consent of the committee we will now adjourn consideration of the Bill, as some deputations have seen me to-day, and are to see me again in respect to it. I would like to make this intimation for the consideration of the House. At present in the west there are more or less large quantities of grain which, because of late threshing, or because it is not threshed yet, is damp and mixed with snow and ice, and that


William Erskine Knowles: sort of grain is estimated at some millions of bushels. I am informed it must be removed to where it can be treated before the warm weather. Under the present law there is an elaborate " and rigid system of furnishing the cars on the order principle, but there is ifo provision for doing the same in this case as is allowed in the case of grain which becomes heated in the elevator where relief can be given at once as the warehouse commissioner has authority to use his discretion to send cars sufficient to relieve the difficulty. I have strong representations asking that the same discretion be given to the warehouse commissioner under the existing special circumstances with regard to Mie grain I have mentioned. The representatives of the Grain Growers Association, who are here, were unanimously of the opinion that such discretionary power should be given as soon as possible, and if, on consideration, it seems to be the best thing to do, I shall ask the House to amend the Act so as to give that discretion at once to the warehouse commissioner. It seems to be a humanitarian way of dealing with the situation, and I don't see there can he any objection to it.


Frank Oliver: When will the amendment be brought down?


George Eulas Foster: I will consider the matter, and if I find it necessary I shall probably submit it next Thursday.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee of supply.
Battleford public building, $10,000.
["If my hon. friend's statement were carried over the past four or five years, I think he would find that things are pretty fairly equalized.\nSome resolutions reported."]
Frank Oliver: Would the hon. minister give us information as to the progress of that building?


Mr. MONK.: This is to cover the heating apparatus. The building is completed.
Battleford North public building, $10,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is a revote to make provisions for the purchase of a site for a public building for post office and customs purposes. We intend going on with this building without delay as there is a very active demand for it.
Calgary-customs examining warehouse,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is a very large item but the values of property have gone up very fast in the west. There seams to toe great demand for increased accommodation [for these offices, and sites are very expensive in Calgary and .all the western cities. This vote of $200,000 is towards .the purchase of a site and

the erection of a customs examining warehouse.


Frank Oliver: The present building in Calgary is occupied partly by the post office and partly for customs purposes. Is it the intention to use that building for customs purposes entirely and to erect a post office building somewhere else?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is the intention.


Frank Oliver: Is there anything definite as to the location of the new post office?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, nothing definite.


Frank Oliver: The item as it stands in the estimates, is rather misleading if the information given to me is correct. If a new site is to be bought for the post office and a new building erected, it will surely cost a good deal more than $75,000, while if the old building is to be .changed into a customs building, $200,000 will not be required for that. It looks to me as if the amounts have become displaced.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think so. It is intended. to purchase a .site for the examining warehouse.


Frank Oliver: As far as I can judge, it will cost $100,000 to get the site for a post office. If the vote of $75,000 is intended to meet the requirements of the post office, it will be absolutely inadequate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Frank Oliver: As far as I can judge, it would cost $100,000 to get the site, and you would be left with an inadequate sum for the erection of the post office.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This, I think, merely provides for the purchase of the site of the examining warehouse and to start the building.


Frank Oliver: In the former estimates there was an item for the erection of an immigration building in Calgary which is apparently left out of these estimates. The immigration building at present used in Calgary is entirely inadequate and is not creditable to the Dominion government. There is a very urgent need for a new building, and I would strongly urge the minister to make even a larger appropriation than was in the former estimates for that purpose.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will make a note of my hon. friend's statement.
Calgary-new post office, $75,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is a revote, nothing having been spent of the vote of last year.


William Erskine Knowles: If $200,000 is required to purchase a site for an examining warehouse and to start the building, certainly
more than $75,000 is required for a post office site, whi-ch must necessarily be in a more central position. It seems to me the respective amounts are out of proportion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It may be there is some mistake; if so, we will try to correct it. _ I fancy that the reason is that the old site of the post office may be used for the erec tion of a new one.


William Erskine Knowles: There is a building on
ithe site now-a tour story building, I think; certainly not less than three stories.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is absolutely inadequate for the service.


William Erskine Knowles: Is it intended to tear it down and use the site again?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Either tear it down or remodel it completely.


Frank Oliver: The only thing I desire is that the minister deal with the matter promptly and liberally because the necessities of the case are very urgent.
Edmonton-new drill hall, $50,000.


Frank Oliver: In what position does this matter stand? I understand the city has made the offer of a site, and I am rather anxious to know that this money, voted and re-voted, is to be expended.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is intended to expend this sum without delay. The city of Edmonton as my hon. friend knows, purchased the site on the Hudson's Bay Company's reserve. We have a considerable number of regiments in Edmonton. I can only say that it is intended to use this money. The city having purchased the site, it would foe, no doubt, a part of our contract to proceed with the erection of the building without delay.


William Erskine Knowles: I desire to bring before the minister the question of the Moosejaw armoury and drill hall. For three or four years past an item has been in the estimates for the commencement of an armoury in that city. The reason that the work was not proceeded with is that the city was to donate the site and there were conveyancing difficulties in the way of securing the place. Last year, the site was secured and the way was opened for the work of construction. Much to my surprise, in these estimates, the first since it was possible to make the vote efficacious, I find that the item is dropped. As I have said, it appeared for three or four years, beginning at $15,000 and going up to $30,000 as the needs of the city grew greater. I have here the Moosejaw ' Morning News ' of January 23, 1912. This is a paper which supports the present government. A deputation was sent from the Board of Trade of Moosejaw to interview the government. I do not know that they interview-

ed the Minister of Public Works, but they certainly saw the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes). The following is from the account of the interview with the chief spokesman of the delegation of four who came to Ottawa:-


Mr.  W. B.@: Willoughby, who went to Ottawa as a member of the Board of Trade deputation, returned to the city yesterday afternoon. Interviewed by the ' News,' he declined to make a general statement of the result of his visit, as it is his intention to report to-the Board of Trade.
He intimated, however, that as a result of the deputation's interview with the Minister of Militia, Moose jaw was promised a $75,000 armoury and drill shed.
Is it the intention,, therefore, to provide in the supplementary estimates for such an armoury and drill .stood as is alleged in this paper to have been promised?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not have the advantage of meeting that deputation. Of course, if the site has been furnished to us after negotiation by the civic authorities, I should imagine the government's duty would be to erect the armoury as soon as possible. There wild be supplementary estimates; and I am anxious to satisfy, as far as possible, the Claims of the country. But I am not the sole arbiter of either the [DOT]main or the supplementary estimates. I tell the hon, gentleman only what he, no doubt, already knows when I say that there are very great demands this year for the equipment o,f harbours and other matters in connection with transportation; and although it is necessary to put our militia on a proper footing and provide armouries as .far as possible, it might be argued that the necessities to which I have referred *are more pressing. I will make a note of what the hon. gentleman says. I am not in a position to say what the supplementary .estimates will contain.


William Erskine Knowles: Could not the minister give some reason why the item is dropped after hawing been recognized by the government and the House for so many years?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is done under the pressure of the urgent needs of which I have spoken. The opening of the Panama canal, it is supposed, will create a demand for much additional shipping on the Pacific, and we have been urged very strongly to improve our western ports which are now inadequate. On toe great lakes the demand is the same, and so it is for the ports on the Atlantic. That is the only reason I can think of.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the hon. minister consult with the Minister of Militia .and Defence with regard to this alleged promise, and inform me, on some later occasion, whether such a promise was made, and if it will be duly implemented?


William Erskine Knowles: 


Mr. PAKDEE.: In the estimates for 191112, there was an item of $17,500 for the Sarnia armoury. That is omitted from the estimates before the House. The .minister (Mr. Monk) say.s that a good many of these items for armouries have been left out because of the needs .for expenditures on the aids to navigation. I .may point out that the appropriation for Sarnia harbour has also been cut out of these estimates. I should be glad, at the proper time, to hear an explanation of this.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As to the armoury .and the harbour improvement, that is under .consideration, and I hope provision will be made iin the supplementary estimates.


George Ewan McCraney: In connection with the armoury at Moosejaw, I would ask the government what its policy is with reference to acquiring free sites for armoury and drill hall purposes.
I understand from the discussion that has taken place that the city of Moosejaw is making a free grant to the government for such a purpose. I would like to know whether it is the policy of the government to erect drill halls in all places which give free grants to the government, and if that is the policy, is it also the policy of^ the government to decline to erect drill halls in other places until free grants are made to the government?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The policy of the government on that point has not come up for consideration or discussion; the government has not yet had occasion to go fully into the matter and adopt a policy upon that point. But I may inform my hon. friend that my own opinion, so far as I have been able to form an opinion upon the subject, is that we should- be prepared to supply armouries where the city goes to the trouble and expense of providing the grant of a site. I would even go further, and say that where public buildings are wanted, and the city is in a position to offer us the grant of a site, we should be prepared to respond by providing the building, where conditions suitable for the erection of such a building exist. We are continually having a great deal of difficulty in those matters, very often prices are put up for the site. I favour the idea that where the municipality offers a site for a public building or an armoury, we ought to be prepared to meet the city authorities half way.


George Ewan McCraney: I agree with my hon. friend that it is desirable if cities or towns can make free grants of sites that those grants should be accepted by the government, and that the government should do what it can towards the erection of drill halls or armouries. There are some cities which are better circum-

stanced than others in possessing lands *which can be used as sites for armouries and drill halls; and the case of the city of Moosejaw is one in point. Last session I asked a question in the House, at page 3,281 of ' Hansard,' whether any free grant had been made by the Dominion government to the city of Moosejaw; and the answer which I received from the then Minister of the Interior was that 2,152 lots had peen patented to the city of Moosejaw as a free grant by the Dominion government, under an order in council dated 6th April, 1903. What I want to point out is that such a city as Moosejaw, which received a grant from the Dominion government of 2,152 town lots, is in a position to make a free grant for such a purpose, and may well toe expected to do so. I might also mention the city of Regina, although it is not before us in this item. I understand that Regina has also made a free grant to the Dominion government for such a purpose. In the same question which I asked last session, I got an answer from the Minister of the Interior that the Dominion government had patented to the city of Regina 4,863 town lots; and in addition to these lots, 285.55 acres of the unsubdivided portion of the townsite of Regina were revested in the Crown and subsequently patented to the city of Regina. I want to point out to the minister that if the city of Moosejaw and the city of Regina are in a position to make free grants to the government, and may be properly expected to do so, there are other cities in the Northwest which have not received grants from this government, and which cannot be expected to make free grants for such purposes. I appreciate what the minister has said that there is danger of the government being held up. But I am sure that the municipal authorities in each case may be relied upon to assist the government in the purchase of sites. In my own city of Saskatoon a site was purchased, composing about an acre of land, and having on it one of the best houses in the city, which could be used for temporary purposes. The price paid by this government was $47,500, a large sum. I have no doubt that if the government wished to part with that property to-day, they could sell it for a sum in excess of that amount. But I would much prefer, instead of^ this being sold, that an additional quantity of land adjoining the present site be purchased, and I did recommend to the late Minister of Public Works that an additional property, which I think is available there, be purchased. I must say that in hay own experience with the ex-Minister of Public Works, no request was made to the city of Saskatoon for a grant of land for drill hall purposes; and I assume that
he had in mind the fact that the case of Saskatoon was different from that of Moosejaw and Regina in the respects I have mentioned.


Mr. BUCHANAN.: I would like to point out that the city of Lethbridge donated some lots to the government for the purpose of erecting an armoury, and there has been a vote for the last couple of years for that purpose, but it has been dropped this year. Now Lethbridge is anxious to have an armoury , its city council appropriated certain lots for that purpose, and there is a good deal of disappointment on account of the vote not being in the estimates this year.
I may say in connection with the recent militia conference held here, -that the view was expressed that the only way in which we can stimulate interest in the volunteer militia in western Canada is to provide these buildings, so as to bring about social surroundings for the men who go into volunteer service in the different battalions of the militia. In the city of Lethbridge they have established a battery of field artillery, but they are practically without a place for their drill and for their equipment, and have been expecting from the government an armoury by reason of the special vote -recently passed. I would urge the Minister of Public Works to consider the matter of drill halls in western Canada from this standpoint, as I _ think it will stimulate interest in the militia, and encourage the officers who are taking part in the work of the field battery and infantry corps, in their efforts to build up a good strong force there. My city is in very much the same position as pointed out by the hon. member for Moosejaw, only we have gone so far as to make a grant of land to the Dominion government, and are waiting for an armoury to be constructed. It is a very valuable property that has been granted to the government for this purpose, and I hope the Minister of Public Works will consider this matter when the supplementary estimates are being prepared.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I listened with attention to what has been said by the two last speakers and certainly will give heed to their observations. We intend to satisfy the population of the northwest as soon as possible. with regard to armouries. There is no doubt that we want our militia properly organized and that we must proceed in the way indicated. But my hon. friends must remember that a great many are called and few chosen in the matter of estimates. We try to provide in every part of' the country as far as the present resources of the Dominion admit. I must say that the demands for improvements in connection with transportation are the main

cause that this year many of these items are left out.
Humboldt public building, $25,000.


William Erskine Knowles: I would ask the minister's attention to the matter of a small public building provided for in the estimates of the late government and renewed in his own estimates for this year but not included in these estimates. This is for the construction of a telegraph office, postoffice and North-west Mounted Police station at a place called Gravel, 75 miles south of Moosejaw. The money was voted, the late government committed themselves to this work and the new government did so by renewing the estimates for the present year, but there is no provision for the coming year. As a matter of fact the contract has been let and signed and up to a few weeks ago there was no thought of recalling that contract. That contract will, of course, hold good in law. The vote will lapse in the spring and there is no provision for going on with the work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the contract is let, the government is committed and will have to provide in some way for the payment of the contractor.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister give me the information in regard to this pa,-ticular vote in the near future?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will.


David Bradley Neely: The vote for this public building at Humboldt was in the' estimates last year. During the summer the lands agent at Humboldt pointed out to me that proper provision was not made in the plans prepared by the Public Works Department for the Dominion Lands service in that new public building. Three services were to be housed by this building, the postoffice, the Dominion Lands office and the port of entry. The agent at Humboldt who, although he is a good Tory, was appointed by the late Minister of the Interior and who is a good servant as well, called my attention to this omission. I asked the Interior Department to take the matter up with the Public Works Department and have the defect in the plans remedied, but I have had no information 4s to whether or not such a change has been made. Would the minister ascertain whether the necessary representations have been made to his department?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall do so. This building is being erected not only for the postoffice and customs, but for a public lands office, and I think therefore provision must have been made as my hon. friend suggests.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I
Lethbridge public building, mew, $100,000.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I have no objection to offer to this public building but I would impress on the minister that we have been looking for this post office for some time, and are in absolute need of it. The floor space in the post office in the city of Lethbridge, with a population of 10,000, is about half the size of Room 16.
Lethbridge is a growing city, and the post office accommodation there is at the present time a disgrace to the country. A site has already been purchased and I would ask the minister if he will proceed with the erection of the new post office at once.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Buchanan) is very fortunate in what has been provided for his constituency, there are others not so well served.


William Ashbury Buchanan: What is the total estimated cost of the Lethbridge post office?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: About $200,000.


Mr. WARNOCK.: Does the government intend to erect a new post office at Macleod this year? The post office accommodation in _ that growing city which is becoming quite a large railway centre is utterly inadequate. The late government purchased a site and I would ask what the present government intends to do?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As soon as our resources win admit of it we will provide for the want mentioned by the hon. member.
K'egina-armoury and drill hall, $50,000.


William Melville Martin: Have the plans been prepared for this building?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think so, but I cannot say positively now.


William Melville Martin: What is the total estimated cost of this armoury?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot say at the present moment, but these armouries generally cost between $50,000 and $100,000.


William Melville Martin: I know the late government had plans prepared in the department for an armoury estimated to cost $130,000, and the other day the Minister of Militia told me in the House that it was not the intention of the present government to carry out these specifications because such a building would not be sufficient to meet the needs of an important city like Regina.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That must have encouraged my hon. friend.


William Melville Martin: It did, and I am anxious now to know how much more than $130,000 is to be spent by the present government on that armoury and drill hall. I hope the minister will get me that information soon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall endeavour to.
Sbrathcona public building, $30,000.


Mir. DOUGLAS.: This building is now almost completed and it was the intention of the late government to put a. clock in the tower. Will the present Minister of Public Works carry out that intention?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Are these clocks not manufactured in Canada?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are not. They 'are made only in England and in the United States, and I think the 'cheapest can be got in England.
Weyburn public building, $15,000.


William Erskine Knowles: The contractor for this building was at one time ordered to stop work, and I would ask the minister if he lias since given the contractor instructions to proceed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am under the impression that the work on that building is at present proceeding.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister ascertain and miaike sure of that?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall.


James McCrie Douglas: [DOT] The late government purchased a site for a building in the town of Camrose and an 'appropriation appeared in the former estimates to erect a building there, but that vote has been withdrawn from these estimates. What is the intention of the government with respect to the Camrose public building?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the site has been purchased we will keep it and endeavour to utilize it.


Frank Oliver: The late government provided $25,000 in the estimates for an immigration building at Calgary, which showed that it was impressed with the necessity of a substantial building for that purpose in Calgairy. I urge upon the Minister of Public Works the desirability of providing for the erection of that building in the .supplementary estimates. I 'also wish to know if it is his intention to proceed with the public building at Athabasca.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall make a note and
give my hon. friend the information later.


William Thomas White: I would ask the hon. minister to give me some further information regarding the votes for public buildings in Vegreville and Lloydminister. Last year there were sums voted for public buildings at these points, but these items have been dropped from the estimates of this year. I put a question on the order paper asking what were the intentions of the government regarding these buildings and why they did not appear in the estimates for i912-13. The answer given to me was that the government would proceed with them as soon as circumstances would permit. Would the hon. gentleman Ibe kind enough to explain what he meant? Vegreville is a central distributing point for the mails for miles on either side. It was expected last year that this building would be erected. A site was purchased and the late Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) promised that the work would begin last year. I was, therefore, much surprised to find no provision for it in the estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All I can say is that we have a great many places which require public buildings, and it is impossible to supply them all. We are only to-day beginning to provide for public buildings in seme of the older provinces where there has been necessity for them since the last 25 years. In my own constituency, a public building there has not yet been finished, and I am asking for a vote to finish it. It was unfinished in 1896 inside and outside. It has not yet been furnished with a clock, although there is a place specially prepared for one. As soon as possible I will provide for the two places mentioned. But I can only provide for a certain amount of works.


William Thomas White: Might we hope that the minister will place an item in the supplementary estimates of this year to go on with this work?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hope springs eternal in the human breast.


William Thomas White: Of course the town of Vegreville has only a population of about 1,000, but a great deal of valuable mail matter passes through the post office there. That post office is now in the centre of a frame building, and the people and the postmaster are very much afraid lest great damage might be caused to a large amount of postal matter there through fire or other cause.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall make a note of my hon friend's 'suggestions.


Frank Oliver: I would like to emphasize what my hon. friend has said. He has hardly enlarged sufficiently, on the importance of this particular point. It is a railway junction. A branch of the Canadian North-

ern leads to Calgary from the main line, and it is a distributing point for the 'mail to a large territory to the north extending not less than a hundred miles through a settled country. Its importance therefore, as a mail distributing centre, is altogether out of proportion to its population.
Public buildings, British Columbia, $724,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I notice that British Columbia is the only province in which in 1912-13 there is a vote in excess of 1911-12. Is this a tribute to the victory of the hon. minister's friends there in September last, or is there any real necessity for these buildings?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am surprised that my hon. friend should ask such a question. The prospective opening of the Panama canal, it is expected, will increase business immensely in Victoria and Vancouver.
katchewan and Alberta. I would not like to _ attribute the large vote this year for British Columbia to the fact that it is represented in this House by a solid phalanx of Tories, but I think the public generally in our prairie provinces may come to the conclusion that they are being penalized because they sent so few supporters of the present government to this House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend's statement were carried over the past four or five years, I think he would find that things are pretty fairly equalized.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN, moved the adjournment of the House.
Frank Oliver: If the increase of vote goes by the increase of population, my hon. friend has not looked over the records carefully, because I find that whereas the increase in population in Alberta has been a larger percentage than anywhere else in the Dominion, the appropriation for public buildings has gone down considerably, while that of British Columbia has gone up. I think we might have another explanation from my hon. friend.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The only other explanation is the law of compensation. My hon. friend knows that British Columbia has not been very generously dealt with in the past few years. This is a government of retribution and of justice.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend would amend that statement by striking out the word ' justice,' he would be more accurate.


David Bradley Neely: I would like to emphasize the statement expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton with regard to the treatment of the prairie provinces in these estimates. In the estimates for 1912-13 the total for public buildings for the two provinces of: Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are represented in this House by 17 members, is $746,000, while the amount for British Columbia alone is $724,000, almost an equal amount to that for these two provinces. I do not think there is anything in the argument that the province of British Columbia has not been justly dealt with hitherto, because I find that in the estimates for 1911-12 the amount for British Columbia was $538,000, while the amount for Saskatchewan and Alberta together was $813,000. In other words, British Columbia was given a great deal more than half of the total for Sas-Mr. OLIVER.


Mr. BROWN.: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making a personal explanation on a question privilege re the case of smuggling referred to in the ' Montreal Star ' of the 12th and 19th iinstant. In its issue of the 29th instant appears the following:
Ottawa, January 29.-In the House this afternoon, the Hon. J. D. Reid, Minister of Customs, will give an affirmative answer to the following question put by Mr. G. H. Baker, of Brome
(1) Has the Minister of Customs taken cognizance of an article which appeared in the Montreal 'Star' of January 12, under the caption ' M.P.'s name is mentioned in a smuggling case'?
(2) Are the statements, as communicated to the Department of Customs, substantially as alleged in the said newspaper article?
To both queries the answer will be ' Yes.'
Mr. Speaker, I would say that I know nothing about the purchasing of those goods, nor the sending for them until the day following the seizure; and I am in no way responsible for this transaction. I was not aware of the bringing of those goods into Canada, and had ho connection with the transaction directly or indirectly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 31, 1912.