[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I wish to call attention to two Private Bills, No. 68 and 69, relating to Queen's University, Kingston. These are both 'educational Bills and I think properly belong to the province of Ontario. It would be well to refer them to the Minister of Justice before proceeding with them.



NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

Mr.  E. M.@: MACDONALD (Pictou) moved the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the rules of the National Rifle Association and their effect on the status of Canadian riflemen competing at Blsley.
He said: The matter to which I wish to call the attention of the House is one.

I want to say that the statement there attributed to Lord Cheylesmore, that they were giving the Dominion Rifle Association an opportunity of altering the Sutherland sight is absolutely incorrect. There is nothing in connection with any sight involved in these regulations. It is not a matter of sight in any manner whatever. The Sutherland rifle sight is a sight which has been made in Canada, it has been adopted by the Militia Department, and it has turned out to be a great success. But, when I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no possible provision in these regulations that in any way interfere with the use of the Sutherland sight, you will see that I was warranted in my language when I spoke of the Chairman of the National Rifle Association being entirely wrong. The same objection which is urged to the attachment of the Sutherland rifle sight applies to what is known as the B.S.A. No. '9 sight, or No. 7 Martin sight, or Parker sight, or any sight whatever that may be used in England or which has been prescribed by the National Rifle Association rules. The impression has gone abroad in Canada among those who have not looked into this question, that it was something in connection with the Sutherland rifle sight that caused the National Rifle Association to interfere to prevent its use at Bisley. That is not so. They have adopted a resolution which provides a method under which a rifle sight can be attached to the rifle. This is the method which they have adopted at home. They say that unless you attach the rifle sight to the rifle in that way you cannot use the sight. That is the whole proposition, and that is the cause of the quibbling and pinpricking on the part of the National Rifle Association. This rule was framed especially to bar out the Ross Mark 2 xx, the reason being because the sight when it lies over in a forward position covers in some part the loading part.
If you were to take the B.S.A. sight, the No. 9, the No. 7 Martin, or the Parker, and attach it to the rifle in the same way as the Sutherland rifle sight is attached to the Ross rifle it would clearly cover the loading part in exactly the same way. Any of these sights under the rule are attached to the War Office rifle in the most unserviceable manner, and hung down over the left side. The question is whether the rifle sight would be attached by some contrivance which is peculiar to the purpose on the left side of the rifle or whether it would be where it is now on the Ross rifle. They say that if you attach it as it is now in Canada you cannot shoot with that rifle, that you must attach it the way they attach it to the other rifle which is the most unserviceable Mr. MACDONALD.
way ever dreamed of, and which would expose the sight to the liability of destruction at any time. That is the ground they take, and the Dominion Rifle Association, through its secretary, in calling the attention of the National Rifle Association to this fact pointed out to them that the Ross rifle was the service arm of Canada, that the rule with regard to the sight was especially provided for the purpose of barring the Ross rifle, that there is no question of sight involved at all, that under these circumstances it is most unfair and that, in so far as the Dominion Rifle Association is concerned, it is questionable whether it would send a team to Bisley this year unless this difficulty is removed. Therefore, I submit that this proposition is a very serious one and one that is worthy of the attention of the House, the government, and the country as well. This last quibble, this last pretence, absolutely without any foundation, puts a bar and a ban upon a certain rifle sight, which is acknowledged everywhere to be a first-class rifle sight, in order to debar this rifle from use.
The facts are exactly as I have stated them. Let us see, however, how this new rifle which it is proposed shall be the one and only thing to be used at Bisley is regarded at home. Take the London ' Gazette,' of January 18, 1912; speaking about this very rifle that is prescribed, with the attachment which is said to be essential before you can use the rifle sight, the ' Gazette ' says:
The new rifle that is shortly to he issued to the infantry of the line is summed up as [DOT] a failure from the start' bythose who have had an opportunity of examining it or witnessing the tests that have been carried out with it at the School of Musketry at Hythe and elsewhere.


Hon. S. HUGHES (Minister of Militia and Defence).: That is not the Ross Tifle that is referred to there; that is the new British rifle.


Mr. MACDONALD.: I know that. I am speaking now of the British rifle, and this is a statement published in regard to it in the ' Pall Mall Gazette.' It is the new English rifle and the attachment is made obligatory under this new rule:
It is, admittedly, an improvement upon the short rifle now in use by the troops, with its terribly weak bolt-action, but it lags far behind the rifles in use by almost every continental army, and this despite the time that has been devoted to its consideration. _	_
The one great thing that can be said in favour of the new rifle is that it will be comparatively cheap to produce, and that much of the machinery laid down for the construction of the present pattern rifle can easily be adapted for its manufacture. Against this has to be set the sportsman's old maxim that

a ' poor gun is dear at any price/ It has admittedly a flatter trajectory than the present service rifle, especially when used with the new pointed weapon. Its ranging qualities, however, leave a good deal to be desired, and it is asserted by those who have handled the rifle that the old, long Lee-Enfield had a longer range. At the present time the sighting would likewise appear to be defective, but no doubt this is a matter that can be rectified.
There is a general feeling among the musketry experts of the army that the manufacture of the new rifle should be ' hung up ' until it has been further tested, especially in comparison with the Ross rifle of Canada. This is regarded by many well qualified to judge as the very finest all-round small-arms weapon that has ever been evolved, and surprise is expressed upon all hands that the military authorities should seek further for a rifle for our troops, or, with such a rifle already in existence, should proceed to manufacture an admittedly inferior weapon.
One well-known soldier, interviewed upon the subject of the new weapon, summed up the situation rather neatly. ' The rifle is obsolete before it is issued/ he remarked,
' and so soon as the entire army at home and abroad has been armed with it, the fact will be officially recognized.
That is the opinion of a leading organ of public opinion in London of this new English rifle.
We are, therefore, in this position that an absolutely unserviceable method of attaching the rifle-sight to the rifle is made obligatory upon Canadians who go to Bis-ley to shpot. Under a pretext they attempt to lead the public to believe that there is-something the matter with our rifle-sight, and that unless you can attach their rifle-sight to the rifle in the way they prescribe our men cannot shoot at Bisley at all Now, it is impossible on account of the construction of the Ross rifle to attach the Sutherland rifle-sight or any of these other sights in the method prescribed by the National Rifle Association regulations. The evidence to my mind is conclusive that-there is another attempt for what reason we may infer one way or the other, on the part of the people of England, and whether they, are interested in English small arm factories or not to attempt to exclude Canadians from using the service arm of Canada when shooting at Bisley. They tell the Canadian militiamen that unless they find some scheme of performing the impossible feat of attaching in the manner prescribed the Sutherland rifle sight to the Ross rifle before the first day of April next, the Canadians cannot shoot at Bisley. This is another evidence that the National Rifle Association is not in good faith in the reasons given for its action. I feel sure that the Minister of Militia is very much interested in this question and I hope he will take the matter up. If financial conditions are at the base of the action of the National Rifle Association, it is a question for the
War Office to consider in their contributions to that association, and for all the other militia departments of the' empire to consider whether or not a trifling matter of finance is going to interfere with the cultivation of rifle shooting amongst the militiamen of the empire. That is a question that ought to be settled very readily. It seems to me that it is very unsportsmanlike for Englishmen to say that because Canadians have won and are winning year after year more and more money at Bisley, that they should take some way to prevent them from so doing. Unless Canadian militiamen are allowed to shoot with the Canadian service arm, the supremacy of which is recognized everywhere, it seems to me the Dominion Rifle Association should take some drastic action to bring the matter to a head. But, this is not the only difficulty in connection with the Bisley rifle shooting that deserves the attention of the Minister of Militia. Every one will remember how proud Canadians were to hear last summer that Canada had won the King's prize. There were at the same time mut-terings here and there of the ill-treatment of the Canadians by the officials of the ranges at Bisley, but perhaps in the excitement of the elections these complaints were overlooked. It is, however, a very serious thing for the riflemen of Canada, and I have here a declaration made by Private Clifford who won the King's prize last year at Bisley, and which I shall Tead for the purpose of explaining to the House and the country the difficulties with which our riflemen were surrounded. This declaration reads:
Dominion of Canada,
Province of Ontario.
To Wit;
In the matter of the -treatment of the Canadian rifle team at Bisley at the National Rifle Association meeting in the year 1911.
I,	William J. Clifford of the city of Toronto, in the county of York, do solemnly declare;-
1.	I attended and competed at the meeting of the National Rifle Association at Bisley in the month of July 1911 as a member of the Canadian Rifle Team.
2.	That during the first week of the competition in shooting in a sweepstake competition at two hundred yards, I had five shots on score when I was interrupted and stopped by the range officer who claimed that my position with the butt of the rifle resting on the ground was against the rules. I asked to be allowed to finish my score under protest hut the range officer refused and stopped me while he consulted with another range officer and looked up the rules, and after considerable delay and discussion found that my position was quite correct when they allowed me to complete my score. I und-retand that this was immediately brought to the attention of the executive of the N.R.A. and my position upheld, as it is cleai'ly defined and allowed by the rules

and the executive promised that such interference would not be allowed again.
3.	That notwithstanding the above I was afterwards several times interfered with and stopped and delayed in my shooting during the meeting on account of the position of my rifle, which was clearly allowed by the rules and upheld by the executive.
4.	That during the second week of the competition ait the six hundred yards Tange of the King's match my register keeper in the middle of my score and while I was aiming pulled my arm and stopped me from shooting, claiming that my position was not allowed by the rules. I hod been interfered with so much previous to this on that account that I had the exact number of the rule in my mind ready for the occasion, so I referred him to the exact number and as ordered by him waited, he looked it up, when he had looked it up and found that I was right he gave me instructions to carry on which T then did without further delay and fired well within the time limit allowed from the time I was told to shoot. Upon my firing and making the bull's eyes the register keeper scored it in the usual way on the block board but one Major Silverthorne, a range or executive officer who had been standing by took the chalk and scored out the bull's eye on the blackboard saying that he would not allow that bull's eye as it was not fired within the time limit. He had counted the time which I had been prevented by the register keeper from shooting while looking up the rules which I explained to him could not be counted and also that the register keeper had no right to pull my sleeve or interfere with me in the act of aiming which the register keeper denied hut which my two competitors in their statements to Major Silverthorne bore out and for their pains were told to mind their own business. The bull's eye was not at that time allowed to me and Major Silverthorne said that I was on his butt all day and threatened that he would watch and catch me yet. Under the circumstances I finished my score with an outer and the hull's eye that had been scratched off was afterwards allowed me.
5.	When I shot the next range of the King's 500 yards this Major Silverthorne was waiting behind my target for me to come up. When I was shooting my score he sat behind me with his watch out and timed every shot I fired.
6.	At the next range 200 yards he was right after me and repeated his actions of previous ranges.
7.	I understand that the adjutant of the Canadian team put in a protest against the treatment I had received at the 600 yard butt and the executive of the N.R.A. said that they would look into the matter again.
8.	During the second stage of the King's match this same Major Silverthorne hovered as closely behind me at each range during the whole shoot, although he was without his official badge ou his arm, and I and the Canadian competitors were of the opinion that he was there officiously and not officially but had been relieved from duty.
9.	During the whole of my shooting in the first and second stages of the King's, Major Silverthorne watched and timed me and ap-


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: peared to entirely neglect the other competitors in the neighbourhood, although some of them took more time to shoot each shot than double that taken by me.	_
10.	It appeared to me that this Major Silverthorne and a- number of the range officers were watching the Canadians much more closely than the other competitors (in fact almost entirely) and interfering with our shooting unduly from time to time.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to he true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me at the city of Toronto in the county of Tork this 23rd day of
February, A.D. 1912. J. p. White.



W. J. CLIFFORD.

[Stage Direction]
I have no less than five other affidavits corroborative of this story. I do not want to take up the time of the House further than to make clear that these complaints are not made in any captions way, but are made under oath. Here is a declaration made under oath by Mr. Charles D. Spittal, of the city of Ottawa:
I, Charles D. Spittal, of the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carieton, do solemnly declare :-
1.	I am a commissioned officer in the Canadian Army Service Corps, was a member of the Canadian Rifle Team of 1911, which attended and competed at the annual meeting of The National Rifle Association at Bisley in the month of July, 1911.
2.	As I had had previous experience in the way of unnecessary interference by officious [DOT] range officers, I went to the adjutant of the team, before the commencement of the meeting, and asked him to go to the National Rifle Association officials and have a perfect understanding in regard to the matter of the shooting position assumed by some of the Canadians and undue interference on the part of their range oificers; I also asked him to make sure that said range officers were made perfectly acquainted with the rules and regulations.
I understand he went to the National Rifle Association people; however he came to me later and said bi had settled the matter and that there would be no trouble this time. I informed the other members of the team, and we were all delighted to know that it would he plain sailing.
3.	The meeting had only commenced when different members of the team began to complain about interference, and I did my utmost to adjust matters by informing the adjutant and requesting him to see to it further. Nevertheless, the interference occurred right along at intervals, and the most glaring offence happened when Private Clifford was shooting at the 600 yards range in His Majesty the King's match. He was making a good score when the register keeper interrupted him, and by using physical force prevented him from firing his next shot. Clifford thereupon told him to look up rule 40 and he would see that his position was legitimate. This argument took up more than 45 seconds (the time allowed a competitor to fire each

shot) and when the register keeper was satisfied that Clifford was right, he allowed him to proceed, hut a certain Major Silverthorne, the executive officer of the Century Ranges, came up to the score board and crossed out the bull's eye which Clifford had made, claiming that he had exceeded the time limit. Clifford very politely informed him that he could not shoot and argue at the same time, but Silverthorne would not listen to reason, and partly lost control of his temper with other competitors who endeavoured to explain. He afterwards allowed the bull's eye but, looking at Clifford's ticket said ' Never mind young man, you will be on this range all day, and I will look after you.'
4.	After the above occurrence I again requested the adjutant to make another complaint, which 1 understand he did. During the day I paid particular attention to what was going on while Clifford was shooting, and again at the 500 yards range Major Silverthorne appeared, brought a chair and seated himself directly behind Clifford with his watch in his hand, evidently timing his shots. Clifford had four bull's eyes on score when several members of the National Rifle Association council came along. I could hear Major Silverthorne telling them of the trouble with Clifford at the 600 yards range, and he drew their attention to his shooting position, whereupon they all gathered about him on both sides while he was actually shooting. For this shot he scored a magpie. I thought this was really persecution, and when Clifford arose I shouted to him ' Hail, hail, the gang's all here '. Silverthorne looked at me with a scowl, and came over my way to give some orders to some soldiers who were beside me, but the sergeant in charge informed him that they were not under his charge; he turned, then some one laughed audibly, and then he came back towards me with a wild look in his face and asked me to tell him what remark he heard. X politely told him that I did not have his ears on my head and could not say what he might have heard. We had quite a set-to, and for this he followed me up until it came to my turn to shoot. When I took my position he brought a chair, seated himself and took out his watch and stayed there until I had finished.
4.	That, during the Kolapore Cup match, I was a coach; upon the commencement of firing Major Silverthorne brought his chair and took up a position immediately to the left of Corporal Mortimer. Another range officer was with him. Mortimer called me and complained about these range officers talking and commenting upon his position, and asked me to have- them removed. I then went to Silverthorne and told him that their conversation was bothering the competitors and requested them to move a little farther away. He replied that I should not trouble myself, that he was alright there. Later on Mortimer again complained and the adjutant requested him to move.
5.	That, when the final stage of the King's match was reached, Major Burland and I proceeded to the 1,000 yards range and took up a position behind private Clifford, actually prepared to fight any one who interfered or attempted to interfere with him, as the situation has become so desperate, and unsatisfactory from a Canadian point of view. It was quite apparent that there was a dead-set against the Canadians, and I did not see, nor did not hear of, a British competitor being interfered with.
I hav-e declarations of a similar character made by Mr. H. R. Roberts, of the city of Toronto, Mr. Bayies, of the city of Toronto, and Mr. George Mortimer, of Quebec, all well-known rifle shots, who were at Bisley last year. When the facts were called to my attention, I could hardly believe the conditions to be as they are; but the evidence is overwhelming that for some reason the officials of the National Rifle Association have made a dead-set against Canadians in this matter of rifle shooting. The statements under oath showing the unfair treatment accorded to the Canadian who had the distinction of winning the King's prize must have caused a feeling of resentment on the part of every one in Canada interested in this matter. When we realize that year after year, by petty quibbles and pin-pricks which have no merit whatever, the association has been attempting to prevent the use at the Bisley meet of the Canadian service arm, which is conceded by public opinion, expressed by the leading newspapers in England, to be the best arm of its kind extant, it does seem incredible that that kind of treatment should be meted out to the greatest colony of the empire. The last treatment accorded to the Sutherland rifle-sight, by which the impression has been attempted to be created that there is something the matter with that sight, was based on actual mis-statements, a method of attachment having been prescribed which the men who made it knew would prevent the sight being attached to the Ross rifle at all. These are conditions which I think warrant me in calling the attention of the House to this matter. I know the interest which the minister takes in rifle shooting. I recall the occasion two years ago when, dealing with a similar rule, which had no foundation in merit, and which was afterwards removed, he addressed the House on the matter; and I would ask him to look into the facts which I have brought to the attention of the House, and to take such steps as are within his power or the power of the Canadian government to see that the rights of Canada in this matter and the rights of the men who go to England to shoot are safeguarded in future. If not, let ns have a clear understanding on the matter, and let the Canadian boys not go home, and let it be well understood all over the empire why they do not go.
Hon. SAMUEL HUGHES (Minister of Militia).: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter

of the discourse of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is not new to the House. For a number of years, ever since the long Eoss rifle has attained the high standard of perfection which it has now reached, our riflemen have been subjected at the Bisley and National rifle ranges to such obstruction and annoyance as the hon. member has referred to. In the first place their declaration was that the Eoss rifle as shot at Bisley was not the arm with which the Canadian troops were universally armed. Well, Sir, it was pointed out on that occasion that the rifle which the British riflemen used at Bisley was not the arm which was furnished to the British army. The British army is supplied with the short Lee Enfield rifle, and not one weapon of that kind has been fired through the matches at Bisley. We had the short Eoss rifle for Canada, many of which were in the hands of our troops, and the disadvantages arising from the use of any short rifle-disadvantages which I shall not enter upon here to-day-were patent, and so our government decided to use the long rifle. When the Canadian riflemen appeared at Bisley with this rifle objection was taken to it. However they fired with it through the matches and came out winners-three years ago. Then the National Eifle Association passed the rule which my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to, that no rifle other than the recognized arm of Britain- either the long Enfield rifle or the short Enfield rifle-could be used at Bisley unless it had first been submitted to, and had received the approval of, their committee. The object then was patent. After the success of the long Ross rifle three years ago, thousands of these rifles were ordered by the British rifleman as well as riflemen from other colonies. Therefore, something had to be done to stop this sale of Eoss rifles to the riflemen of the empire. Accordingly the National Eifle Association issued this order which threw a doubt upon the fact as to whether the Ross rifle would be permitted to be used the following year or not. However, Sir, the Eoss rifle was used the following year subject to more or less restrictions on their part. Then came the rule for the next year that none but Canadians could use the Ross rifle; and then, following the great success that has attended the use of the Eoss rifle for three years, came the very objectionable treatment of our men at Bisley last year. I shall not go into details of the treatment which our men with the Eoss rifle received on the ranges at Bisley during the last three or four years. Let-me point out the injustice with which our men on those ranges -who adopted what they called the Clifford position were treated. Yet Lord Kitchener himself highly com-Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
mended the Clifford position inasmuch as it keeps a man's head much closer to the ground in firing than does the ordinary prone position. Lord Roberts, I understand also commended the position, and I know that Lord Grey also sent for Clifford, had him show the position and commended it most highly. Then, Sir, while in the very act of shooting our men have been subjected to all sorts of annoyances, not only over the Clifford position; but again and again remarks have been made by register keepers after a man had made a bull's eye, such as, ' Were you shooting with British or Canadian ammunition?' evidently designed to annoy the rifleman, for any one who is familiar with rifle shooting knows what annoyance it is to have any one whispering and murmuring behind his back, much less interfering with him. The climax has now come in the action of the National Rifle Association. They now propose, Sir, the rule that:
Except in competitions restricted to ' sights as issued ' an additional or substituted backsight may be used provided it complies with all the conditions set out in subsection (e) and that, whether in use or not in use, it does not interfere with the charging of the magazine or the working of the holt when loading and unloading and that, when not in use, it does not interfere with the use of the leaf backsight, as issued, no part of which may be removed from the rifle.
Now, Sir, the British rifle has a special place where an attachment is made and held by a screw to the side of the barrel but the Canadian has not. Thus you will see that unless this special fixture which is on the British rifle is also on the Canadian rifle, the Canadian rifleman is ruled out. The National Rifle Association therefore, take advantage . of that technicality and the Canadian rifle is not to be used. Then section 3 says:
An additional backsight may be attached io any part of the rifle provided that this be done without alteration of or damage to any part of the rifle.
Now lest we should be able to overcome these technicalities they go on and provide :	*
A substituted backsight must be attached to the rifle solely by the removal and re-in-seition of the method of attachment of the long range aperture backsight used on government rifle, and must be so attached when used in any competition.
Now, I maintain, Sir, that in so far as the National Rifle Association is concerned their needs would have been equally met by one of two rules; by saying no Eoss rifle should be used in the competitions, or that only Lee Enfield rifles should be used in these rifle competitions at Bisley. I am not 'speaking here on behalf of the Dominion Eifle Association, which has the

matter under consideration, but there is a great deal to be said in favour of the contention of my hon. friend, that when the Canadian Government send their men out armed with a certain rifle it does not rest with the National Rifle Association to pretend to define for this country any form of rifle its riflemen shall use so long as they comply with the general requirements of the military sight. We know what is at the bottom of this matter: this is an agitation on the part of the English rifle manufacturers. A few years ago five thousand Ross rifles were ordered in less than two days on the ranges and the English manufacturers stood aghast. Later the order came out cancelling the use of any rifle excepting under the conditions I have referred to, and then the story went abroad that the Ross rifle could not be used at all. Accordingly all these orders were cancelled, because between the 1st of April and the time of shooting one could not possibly manufacture such a number of rifles in time for the competitions; the thing is an absolute impossibility. In other words it is practically prohibitive for the Ross rifle. But that rifle has attained the proud position of being recognized not only in Canada but the world over, as the best military rifle to be found anywhere today, has caused the British government tc take action, and for a number of years they have been perfecting the rifle which my hon. friend referred to in the extract which he read from the ' Pall Mall Gazette ' of London, the extract which I also have before me, where they demand that the Ross rifle shall be used by British troops. T mieht say incidentally, in passing, that the colonies, so far as I can learn, have not been consulted directlv or indirectly in regard to the issue of this new British rifle. For years not only Canadians, but riflemen the British Empire over have demanded that the calibre of the Ross rifle shall be reduced down from' -303 to -280, or even less. The British government, we understand, although we have no official author^" vet, are reducing it down to -276 and are changing the weapon in many wavs. As this article quoted says:
The rifle in advance is condemned.
As the article which has been quoted says the rifle is condemned in advance. While in Washington last winter to my surprise I learned all the details of the new British rifle. In Germany this summer, in conversation with German officers, I learned the details of the mew British rifle. I visited Great Britain and consulted the authorities there, but could learn nothing whatever of the new British rifle, it was an absolute secret in England six months after the United States officers could tell me all about it. That is a strange way to treat those of us in the colonies who are interested in military affairs.
In order to get over the difficulties in the way of young British soldiers or soldiers from other colonies who naturally felt handicapped in using their obsolete Lee-Enfields as compared with the long Ross rifle, the Canadian, government have offered, to loan to the British National Rifle Association without charge any number of rifles they may wish, up to 10,000 if they desire them, for this competition. So far there has been no acceptance of the offer.
It is unnecessary to go further into the rifle-sight, 'that matter is being considered by the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association. It has only recently been brought to my attention.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Does the minister agree in my statement that there can be no possible imputation against the Sutherland rifle-sight ?


Samuel Hughes: It is not the Sutherland rifle-eight that is concerned; it is any sight. I may explain the matter. The British rear aperture sight is attached on the side of the rifle, the Ross rear aperture sight is attached to a bridge which is used also as a clip loader, attached across the bridge of the rifle. All you have to do with the Ross rifle is to remove a pin holding the back sight in the middle position, take off the back-sight and move it hack to the rear. The one sight does. With the British rifle they must have two sights, when they use the rear 'aperture sight they must use a second sight which is attached to the screw-hole on the sight; a very 'awkward thing, much more awkward than if it were attached. to the bridge as we attach it. I maintain that of the two the Ross rifle position is much better. It is true that when the Sutherland rifle-sight is turned down the end projects over the end of the receiver, but tbat is a mere detail, and the point is taken advantage of in order to bar out our rifle. This was recognized by British riflemen who have pointed out to me again and again that the whole question is a financial one on the part of these rifle companies and the riflemen of the old country feel 'handicapped in having to use their obsolete British rifles as 'against the Ross, and I do trust that the offer of the Canadian people to loan them 10,000 of onr long Ross rifles, which will place them on a par with our boys, will be accepted, because there is no doubt that men shooting with the Ross rifle have a great advantage over men shooting with the Lee-Enfleld.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: After listening carefully to the remarks of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) I must confess that I was unable to hear one word that would show any justification for holding up the House during this discussion unless it be the urgent need of advertisement for the

Sutherland sight or the Ross rifle. I would join my hon. friend in one respect and ask the Minister of Militia when making his appeal to the Home authorities to do one further thing, to take steps not merely to protect the rights of our marksmen in the old country but also-and I make this request in all sincerity-to take the necessary and proper steps to protect the reputation of Canada, which, rightly or wrongly, has suffered very much in the old country owing to the conduct of some people in connection with the use of the Ross rifle at the Bisley ranges. I am not here to make charges, I am here to state facts and I state that not only in England but in Canada there are a great many people who very gravely doubt the truth of a certificate given by the late Minister of Militia at a time when a question was raised on the Bisley range as to the use of the Ross rifle, and I venture to think if some of the marksmen from Canada who have been interfered with, as apparently they have been from the declarations read, could investigate to the bottom of their troubles, they would find in all probability that the reason they were interfered with was the want of confidence on the part of people in the old country in the honesty of Canadians in using the particular Ross rifle they were then using and representing it as the service rifle in use in Canada. The Minister of Militia says that the Ross rifle, is the noblest arm this world has ever seen, and I am not ready at this moment to contradict him-but he must remember that he used almost the same language in describing the primitive Ross rifle which was so hopelessly stupidly conceived that the Militia Council declined to receive it until five or six changes had been made, and although it was foisted on the country at an enormous expense, some $600,000 before 30 of them were delivered to the militia, 90 changes had to be made before it could be accepted. The Ross rifle that is being used at Bisley is a long barrelled rifle. There is one rifle called the Ross rifle with a long barrel and another with a short barrel. It was stated in England and I believe in Canada that there were practically no Ross rifles in use in Canada of the style then used on the Bisley ranges. There were Ross rifles with short barrels but the great advantage of the Ross rifle, as has always been alleged in this House and in the investigations was its lightness, whereas the rifle for target practice was too heavy to be an effective service rifle, and I am informed that it was not the service rifle in Canada, that our troops were not armed with it, that it was not known in Canada unless possibly a favoured individual here or there had been pre-fsented with one. Under those circumstances a question arose at Bisley as to whether Canada would be allowed to shoot Mr. NORTHRTTP.
with a rifle that might not comply with the requirement that it should be a service rifle. A certificate was given by Sir Frederick Borden, then Minister of Militia for Canada over his own signature that the rifle used there, the long-barrelled Ross rifle, was the service rifle used in Canada. I am appealing to the Minister of Militia to take the trouble to ascertain and give the House a statement showing how many rifles of that character were purchased and how many had been distributed to the militia of Canada at that date. That information might go a long way towards removing a very serious suspicion both in England and Canada that the so-called Ross rifle used at Bisley, while certainly manufactured by the Ross Rifle Company, and while no doubt an excellent rifle as proved by its shooting, was not a rifle that should be used there by honest competitors because it was not a service rifle. I have not a word to say against this rifle which has been so well advertised, but I would like for the reputation of Canada that these grievances of militiamen in Canada should be thoroughly investigated, and the suspicions cleared away by seeing whether or not the long barrelled rifle manufactured by the Ross Rifle Company was then or is now in the hands of the militia of Canada.


Mr. HUGH CLARK (North Bruce).: My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to the mutterings that were wafted across the water some time ago, with respect to undue interference on the part of range officers with Canadian riflemen. He has quoted affidavits and declarations made by Canadian riflemen which prove that there was such interference. The Minister of Militia I think has corroborated this. The member for Pictou is privileged to read these affidavits in this House. The Ottawa ' Journal on the other hand, not long ago published an article in which it gave voice to these mutterings of the annoyances and penalties that were imposed >v these range officers on Canadian riflemen. As a result of that, a libel action has been entered against the Ottawa ' Journal ' which must be brought in England, and which is bound to be an exceedingly expensive piece of litigation for the Ottawa ' Journal ', whether it wins or loses. That article was written in good faith, and was written on behalf of Canadian riflemen. It was merely giving voice to the charges that have been made to-day by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). If the Minister of Militia believes that these charges are well founded, then I think that the Department of Militia ought to come to Jhe assistance and defence of the Ottawa 'Journal; ' at any rate, if the Militia Department is not able to do that, I believe the Ottawa * Journal ' should receive tangi-

ble and substantial sympathy and support from the Dominion Rifle Association.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know to what my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) refers in his remarks when he repeats a statement that the rifle was rejected, after I gave my certificate in its favour. There is not a tittle of fact in the statement to which the hon. gentleman refers. I was not present at the time the committee first adopted the rifle. At that time I was investigating the conditions of the rifle at my own expense, in every arsenal in the United States of America, and getting information, -and I have defended the rifle as an old and straight' arm through all these years; until we find almost every gentleman in almost every country, who formerly opposed the principle and the use of the Ross rifle, has been forced by the sheer success of that rifle, to bow to the inevitable, and to acknowledge that the rifle has proven itself the best weapon in the world. As to the question of the honesty of the Canadian government, I have nothing to say. But I do know, that whether the certificate was given or was not given, by my predecessor in office, at that very moment, there were 1,000 of these rifles ordered, and they were nearly all in the hands of volunteers in Canada. I want to point out that that number is fifty per cent higher proportion in the hands of volunteers in Canada, considering the number of troops we have, and the number of volunteers, than 10,000 would be in the hands of British soldiers, and 1,000 is the usual number put into the hands of British soldiers to test a new rifle. The libel suit against the * Ottawa Journal ' is a matter with which I have nothing to do, either in my personal capacity, or as Minister of Militia, or as president of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association. I may point out that the libel suit is brought by reason of one statement in the 'Ottawa Journal' that Major Silver-thorne was suspended. Now I know as a matter of fact, it was current rumour all over the range that he was suspended for his conduct in interfering, and I have no hesitation in saying here, as I would tell Major Silverthorne to his face, that if he was not suspended he should have been, for his action towards our riflemen on that occasion in Bisley. The British riflemen do not wish to use-their own rifle, and I do not blame them a particle for not wishing to use the Lee-Enfield rifle. It is true that there was a public offer made to these people of the loan of 10,000 rifles, if they wanted 20,000 I could furnish them, of these long Ross rifles, so that the British riflemen may have an opportunity of competing in the coming matches, and in order that Canadian boys in future may be armed with the Ross rifle, and that there may be
no more friction in the matter. For unless this is done, in the first place, I doubt if the association will send them over again, and in the second place, I doubt if the riflemen will go.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Notwithstanding the doubts from my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup), as to the wisdom of my bringing this matter before the House this afternoon, I have no apology to make for my remarks or for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. My hon. friend from Hastings seems to be in bad humour this afternoon, and some choleric movement has induced him to take a curious position in this matter. He suggests a doubt as to the accuracy of the statement when the Minister of Militia, in 1910, sent the certificate home to England in regard to the rifle that was being used by the men who shot at Bisley. But as a matter of fact, as the present Minister of Militia has pointed out, not only was this arm used at that time in great numbers among the militiamen of this country, but the Militia Orders and Minutes of those dates will show conclusively that at a period long anterior to the rising of this issue by the National Rifle Association, that particular arm had been prescribed as the service arm of the Canadian militia. My hon. friend tells us that Private Clifford, the winner of the King's prize, an act which won him great distinction, has no ground of complaint, because Major Silverthorne or some other gentleman had a right to interfere with him when he was shooting, and suspected he was using a rifle that was not of the prescribed pattern. Complaint was made by Private Clifford in 1911, of his treatment by the authorities in England, a period long after the time when. Major Silverthorne or any other gentleman had expressed any doubts whether these gentlemen were using th* prescribed Canadian rifle in the old country. It does seem to me that this House and the country generally have every right to treat with absolute credence, and give full weight to, the statements made by the gentlemen whose affidavits I have read. They are men of standing in this country, who are engaged in rifle shooting as a part of their business as militiamen, men whose words can be accepted. When this evidence was first submitted to me I did not know that any issue had been raised in a libel suit. I do not know what the libel suit is about. But I say that when you have Canadians who have done honour and have brought credit upon this country as militiamen abroad, and when you find men making statements ais these men have made, this parliament would be recreant to its duty if it did not take notice of it. I hope the minister will take steps to see

that the rights of Canadians in this regard are vindicated.



CHANGING NAMES OF POST OFFICES.

Mr. CLARKE (Essex).: I desire to ask the Postmaster General with regard to a report appearing in the press that the name of the Post Office at Stony Point has been changed to Pointe a la Roche, and that the names of River Canard and Belle River, in my county, have been changed.


Mr. PELLETIER.: This is a matter of which I would like to have some notice.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I will let it stand.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I may tell my hon. friend that there is not a word of truth in what the ' Globe' said. Let him renew his question to-morrow.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Will the hon. Postmaster General answer to-morrow in regard to this matter ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly. I would have answered to-day if the hon. member for Algoma had been allowed to go on.



MANITOBA BOUNDARY EXTENSION.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: May I ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) if he will give me his attention for one moment ? I am thankful to him for the information which he has sent over to me with regard to the resolution on the Manitoba boundary. I would have expected that we should have also had a statement of the number of acres of swamp land which had been dedicated to Manitoba.


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: I shall have pleasure in bringing that down.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 112) for the relief of James Denny.-Mr. Aikins.

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

Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Was Laurence G. Powers, superintendent of the lobster hatchery at Ariohat, N.S., dismissed?
2.	If so, what were the charges alleged against him, and who made them ?
3.	Who was appointed in his place, and on whose recommendation ?
4.	What is the age, and what are the qualifications of his successor for the position?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Political partisanship. J. A. Gillies, K.C.


Mr. MACDONALD.: 3.	Captain Constat P. Terrio has been appointed as caretaker. J. A. Gillies, K.C.
4.	Seventy-one. Usual qualifications required of a caretaker.


Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Was Arthur Brymer, fishery officer at Lower L'Ardoise, N.S., dismissed? If so, when and for what reason?
2.	Who asked for his dismissal?
3.	Was there an investigation? If so, with what result? If not, will an investigation he granted?
4.	Who has been appointed as his successor, and on whose recommendation?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes. 5th February, 1912, for offensive political partisanship.
2.	J. A. Gillies.
3.	There was no investigation. Mr. Gillies having stated he had personal knowledge of such partisanship.
4.	Anthony Sampson, of L'Ardoise, has been employed for the present as a Special Fishery Guardian, on the recommendation of J. A. Gillies.


Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Who made complaint in order that an inquiry should be made with reference to Messrs. Leon Rivest, Jean Baptiste Lachapelle and Louis Dubois, lighthouse keepers at Repen tigny?
2.	What was the nature of the complaints brought against these persons?
3.	How much did the inquiry made in these cases cost?
4.	Who acted as inquiring commissioner?
5.	What was the result of this inquiry?
6.	Since what date was each of these lighthouse keepers in the government employment?


Mr. HAZEN.: 1.	Joseph Morin, C.R.
2.	Political partisanship.
3 Nothing has been paid up to date.
4.	J. G. H. Bergeron, B.CL.
5.	Reports not yet received.
6.	Leon Rivest, April, 1894. J. B. Lachapelle, February, 1861. Louis Dubois, April. 1903.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Was Mr. Joachim Godbout, of St. Laurent, He d'Orleans, in the employment of the government on 21st September last?
2.	Has he been dismissed? If so, why?
3.	Was this dismissal asked for hy any one? If so. by whom? .
4.	Was this dismissal requested verbally or in writing?
5.	If in writing, what is the date and the tenor of the writing?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b) Active political partisanship.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b) Sir R. Forget, M.P.

4.	Ia writing.
5.	(a) 6th December, 1911.
(b) The tenor of the letter is to the effect that Godbout was an active political partisan.


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Has Madame, the widow of A. S. Marlin, postmistress at St. Louis de Bonsecours, county of Richelieu, been dismissed?
2.	If so, at whose request, and who complained about her?
3.	Has there been an inquiry? If so, by whom was it held? .
4.	What is the name of the new postmaster?
5.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
6.	Has information been furnished as to the competence of the new postmaster ? If so, who furnished it?
7.	What annual remuneration does the postmaster at St. Louis de Bonsecours receive?
8.	What is the annual revenue of this post office ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1,	2, 3. The postmistress has been dismissed as a result of the investigation which took place before J. G. H. Bergeron.
4, 5, 6. Joseph Proulx. The Postmaster General appointed him because he thought he was qualified for the situation.
7.	$92.
8.	$147.55.


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Has Doctor Dupre, postmaster of St. Robert, county of Richelieu, been dismissed ? If so, at whose request?
2.	What is the name of the new postmaster?
3.	On whose recommendation was he appointed ?
4.	Has information as to his competence been obtained? If so, who furpished it?
5.	What is the remuneration of the postmaster of this parish and what is the annual
* revenue of this post office?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1,	2, 3, 4. Mr. Dupre has been dismissed and Joachim Cournoyer appointed in his place by the Postmaster General.
5. Remuneration, $116; revenue, $170.26.


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	At whose request was Mr. Francis P61o-quin, postmaster of St. Joseph de Sorel, county of Richelieu, dismissed?
2.	Who complained against Mr. Peloquin?
3.	What is the new postmaster's name, and by whom was he recommended?
4.	Has information as to the competence of the new postmaster been obtained? If so, who furnished it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1,	2, 3, and 4. Mr. Peloquin has been dismissed and Elphege Champagne appointed by the Postmaster General, because he thought he was a fit and proper person.


POST OFFICE OF DOUGLAS ROAD.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. DAVIDSON:
1.	At what date was the post office at Douglas Road, Annapolis, county, N.S., opened to the public, and upon whose advice was it established?
2.	What distance is the said office from the nearest post office previously established?
3.	Was a report of the post office inspector for the district asked for in this connection ? If so, was it favourable to the opening of the office?
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	(a) Opened 19th September, 1911.
(b) On the recommendation of Mr. S. W. W. Pickup.
2.	Two miles.	-
3.	(a) Yes.
(b) The report contained no specific recommendation.


MR. R. S. LOWE.
Mr. DAVIDSON:: 1.	At what date was Robert S. Lowe appointed to the office of pavement expert, and does he now hold the position?
2.	If so, what remuneration does he receive, and what are his duties?
3.	Did the said Robert S. Lowe procure leave of absence in the month of August or September, 1911? If so, upon what grounds was said leave of absence granted?
4.	How was the said Robert S. Lowe employed from September 1, 1911, to September 22, 1911?
5.	Did the government grant him free transportation from Ottawa to Pictou, Nova Scotia, during the month of August and September?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	There is no such position as pavement expert in the Department of Public Works. Mr. R. S. Lowe has been employed, in this department, in varying capacities, since May 15, 1911.
2.	(a) $150 per month; (b) at present, in charge of repairs to roof of Royal Mint.
3 and 4. Mr. Lowe applied for leave, without pay, from September 2, 1911, to return to his former home, Sydney, Cape Breton, to settle up his affairs preparatory to making his residence permanent in Ottawa.
5.	No.


POST OFFICE AT SEAMAN STREET.
Mr. DAVIDSON:: 1.	At what date was the post office at Seaman street, Annapolis county, Nova Scotia, opened to the public and upon whose advice was it established?
2.	What distance is the said office from the nearest post office previously established?
3.	Was a report of the post office inspector for the district asked for in this connection? If so. was it favourable to the opening of the office?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	(a) September 15, 1911;	(b) on the
recommendation of Mr. S. W. W. Pickup.
2.	II miles.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) the report practically recommended that a rural mail delivery service should be inaugurated and no post office opened.


POSTMASTER OF ST. ANGELE DE LAVAL, QUEBEC.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Have any complaints been made against the postmaster of St. Angele de Laval, county of Nicolet?
2.	If so, has an inquiry been ordered in his
case?


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


MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT-REFERENCE TO PRIVY COUNCIL.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Are the provinces to be represented by counsel in the case to be submitted to the Privy Council on the marriage question?
2.	Has the province of Quebec been notified as regards the wording of the reference now submitted to the Supreme Court.


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	The provinces have been invited to appoint counsel to represent them if they 'deem it advisable to do so.
2.	The questions referred have been forwarded to the Prime Minister of Quebec.


MANITOBA BOUNDARY EXTENSION.
Mr. OLIVER.: May I ask if there will be an answer to question No. 15, relating to the Manitoba boundary, some time during the day? It is important, in view of the discussion which will come up to-morrow.


Mr. FOSTER.: I will bring the attention of the Minister of the Interior to it when he comes in. The Prime Minister will not be here to-day.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all papers and correspondence relating to the incorporation and operations of the Provident Trust Company, of Montreal.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all papers, correspondence and documents in connection with the case of D. Raymond, petitioner, the Queen's Hotel Company, Limited, respondent, and Guillaume Narcisse Ducharme and others, party defendants.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all reports, petitions and correspondence in the possession of the Depart-
Mr. DAVIDSON.: ment of Public Works, relating to the improvement of Port Dover harbour in Norfolk county, Ontario; together with all papers or documents relating to the connection of the Grand Trunk Railway Company therewith. -Mr. Charlton.
For a copy of all documents, letters, requests, reports and recommendations relating to the dismissal of Louis Deschesne, an employee of the Marine Department, on the river Ouelle wharf, county of Kamouraska.- Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska).
For a copy of all documents, letters, requests, reports and recommendations relating to the dismissal of Luc Lizotte as postmaster at St. Pacome, county of Kamouraska.-Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska).
For a copy of all documents, letters, requests, reports and recommendations relating to the dismissal of Auguste Hebert as Postmaster at St. Pascal, county of Kamouraska. .-Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska).
For a copy of all documents, letters, requests, reports and recommendations relating to the dismissal of Wenceslas Lebel, of Kamouraska, as preventive officer of the Customs Department.-Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska) .
For a copy of all letters, evidence taken under investigation by superintendent Sharp, reports and other documents connected with a claim for damages occasioned by fire to the property of Angus J. McAuley, of Tracadie Prince Edward Island, on the 16th day of July, 1911.-Mr. Macdonald (Piotou).
For a copy of all letters, petitions, reports, charges or other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department relating to the dismissal of J. D. McFarlane, postmaster at Southwest Margaree, Nova Scotia, and the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).
For a copy of all letters, documents and memoranda from the government of British Columbia, and all other papers relating to negotiations affecting the exportation of salmon, the boat rating in canneries, the system of issuing licenses and the restriction of licenses to Asiatics iu the province of British Columbia, and all orders in council made in regard to any of these matters since October 1, 1911.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
For a copy of all papers and documents in the case of Rex. vs. Sheldon and others.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all letters, documents and correspondence relating to action by the government in regard to the relief of the shareholders and depositors of the Farmers' Bank,, and of the order in council appointing Sir William Meredith as commissioner, and all correspondence in relation thereto.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
For a copy of all papers on file with the government and of all letters, telegrams and correspondence between the Labour Department and the Board of Conciliation in relation to the strike now and for some time past existing on the Grand Trunk Pacifio Railway west of Winnipeg.-Mr. MacNutt.
For a copy of all reports, surveys, plans and maps made or prepared during the year 1911 or this year, in respect of or in connection with the Hudson Bay railway or the suggested ports at Nelson or Churchill on

T
the Hudson Bay, or relating to the navigation of the Hudson Straits.-Mr. Aikins.
For a copy of all documents, letters, requests, reports recommendations and evidence taken under investigation, by Dr. Shentliff, relating to the dismissal of Anson Sheltus, of St. Armand station, county of Missisquoi, a preventive officer of the Customs Department.-Mr. McKay.
For a copy of all documents, letters, requests, reports recommendations and evidence taken under investigation by Dr. Shentliff, relating to the dismissal of Charles 0. Jones, postmaster of Bedford, county of Missisquoi.-Mr. McKay.
For a copy of all documents, letters, requests, reports, recommendations and memoranda relating to the dismissal of Allan Kennedy as general government telegraph repairer at Inverness county, and the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).
For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, requests, orders in council, reports, recommendations and memoranda relating to the dismissal of Dr. A. G. Carmichael as superintendent of salmon hatchery at northeast Margaree, and the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Chisholm.
For a copy of all documents, letters, requests, reports, telegrams, recommendations and memoranda relating to the dismissal of James McPhee as Customs officer at West Bay, Nova Scotia, and the appointment of a successor.-Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).
For a copy of all papers, documents, &c., concerning the incorporation and operations of the Fidelity Trust Company of Montreal. -Mr. Lemieux.


THE GRAIN ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting grain.-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
On section 124-hospital elevators,
George Eulas Foster: The first subsection provides that a hospital elevator shall be situated only at a terminal point. There does not seem to be any reason for that limitation. A hospital elevator is for the treatment of sick grain, and if at any time large storage elevators are erected at Winnipeg or in the interior, it will be economical to have the hospital elevator nearer to the central point where grain is brought for large storage purposes and have it treated there. I propose, therefore, to strike out these words, so that the subsection will read as follows:
There may be such number of hospital elevators as may be determined by the board, which shall be governed by such regulations and restrictions as are imposed by the board.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 99,
George Eulas Foster: In subsection 3, providing that no. grain shall
be allowed to pass inspection except on a lower grade, I propose to add, ' subject, nevertheless, to the provisions of section 99 and ' before the words ' subsection 5 of section 115.'


Frank Oliver: I do not suppose it is the intention of the minister to meet the point I raised in the former discussion of this section? If it is, I do not think these words meet it.


George Eulas Foster: They are not for that purpose. This seems to be a sort of governing clause, Snd I wanted section 99 included.


Frank Oliver: I have no objection to that, but I would like to ask if the minister has considered the point I raised as to the necessity of providing specifically that sound grain shall not be mixed with sick grain in the hospital elevators?


George Eulas Foster: I have gone over that carefully with the officers of the department, and I have had the advantage of having Mr. Horne here for a few days, during which I have gone over the matter with him, and it does not seem to me that it would be fair to do that with reference to the hospital elevator, if you wish to nurture and keep up an institution of that kind. In a time of great fatality and wide sickness, a hospital elevator has a great deal to do. Grain may come in, part of which is sound and part being mixed with oats or seeds, and this will be cleaned and separated. Then, when there is not this large amount of diseased or mixed grain to be treated, if you took away the storage privilege from these hospital elevators, they would be left bare of work, and it would be almost impossible to keep them in operation from year to year.


Frank Oliver: That hardly is the point. The hon. minister is arguing as though the contention were that good grain should not be stored in the hospital elevator. That is not the contention. The contention is that there should be a specific provision that sound grain should not be mixed with unsound grain in the hospital elevator. If the intention is to prevent such mixing of sound with unsound grain, then as I read the section it would be desirable, to say the least, that that idea should be more clearly expressed. If, of course, it is the idea to permit the mixing of sound and unsound grain in an hospital elevator, then the section is all right as it is.


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact in the hospital elevator at Fort William no mixing has been done.


Frank Oliver: I assume that.


George Eulas Foster: And it has been carried on in that way because supposed to be contrary to the provisions of the Grain Act.
In no case, whether in a terminal elevator in the western inspection division or in a 'public elevator in the eastern inspection division, shall grain of different grades he mixed together while in store.
Now this is subsection 8 of section 126 and it refers to a terminal elevator. Well the hospital elevator is a terminal elevator.


Frank Oliver: When you read subsection 3 of section 124, which governs the action of a hospital elevator, in my reading it would permit of grain being mixed as a necessity of the operation of the elevator.


George Eulas Foster: _ That is in the second part of the subsection?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That seems to me to refer to the shipping out of the elevator.


Frank Oliver: So it does.


George Eulas Foster: 
Frank Oliver: No reason whatever.


George Eulas Foster: That is what it is meant to do, it seems to me.


Frank Oliver: Will the minister say specifically that it is the intention to prevent the mixing of sound grain with unsound grain in the hospital elevator?


George Eulas Foster: That is prohibited to my mind at the present time.
Section as amended, agreed to.
Mr. FOSTER North Toronto).	Now
clause 2, the interpretation clause, will have to be amended in order to bring it into accord:
' Hospital elevator ' includes every elevator or warehouse situated at a terminal point-
I move to amend that by striking out the words, ' situated at ia terminal point.'
Section as amended, agreed to.


George Eulas Foster: Now
come back to section 92 which, alter the amendment in section 124 needs to be amended also. I propose to drop the words from the beginning to the end of the word ' elevators ' in the seventh line and commence the iseetion with the words:
All grain shipped


Frank Oliver: Then drop the words:
For eastern points.
The rest of the section remains. I think that makes still more clear the point we spoke of a moment ago.
Section as amended, agreed to.


Frank Oliver: While you are on this section there is a case which has 'been brought to our attention by wire, and perhaps the minister would not object to considering it in connection with section 91, at least I think that is where -it would properly come in. The telegram to which I refer is as follows:
Car 142982 loaded with wheat was inspected at Winnipeg, February 8, and unloaded at Fort William February 12. Grade lowered two grades causing loss of 20 cents per bushel to shipper without notifying shipper or inspection department at Winnipeg of such change. Grain Act should provide some protection in such cases and shippers be given an opportunity to dispose of grain before identity is lost.
(Sgd.) RANDALL, GEE & MITCHELL.


George Eulas Foster: I am informed that that occurred from mistake. The Canadian Pacific railway clerk made it No. 6 instead of No. 4, but the error was detected and the Canadian Pacific railway has arranged the matter.


Frank Oliver: That incident has been dealt with?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to delay the committee, but I thought it might be desirable to make such provision as is suggested in this telegram, that in such case the car should be held for some portion of time, the shipper should be notified so that he might make other disposition of the car before the identity of the grain was lost.


George Eulas Foster: I am informed that has always been done, and the grain either turned into a special bin or some other provision made for it.


Frank Oliver: Then the identity of the carload is preserved until the question is settled?


George Eulas Foster: The identity is maintained until an arrangement has been made and a settlement reached. However, I will look into the matter and see if anything is necessary to be done.
On section 145,-hospital elevators.


George Eulas Foster: I move to amend this by striking out in line 29 the words ' at the same terminal point.'


Mr. ROBB.: How will the minister prevent the grain inspector from running that

grain back to an elevator west of the point where he found it out of condition. It should be so arranged that, the grain would at least work its way towards the seaboard.


George Eulas Foster: 
George Eulas Foster: The millers have requested to be placed on the same footing as seed elevator men in regard to elevators used solely in connection [DOT]with their business. I, therefore, move the following as section 150a:
On application by the owner of an elevator which is part of a plant engaged in the manufacture of grain products in the western division stating that he does not wish to engage in the business of storing grain and that such elevator will only be used for the storage of grain owned by the said applicant and used in the process of the manufacture of such products, the hoard may exempt such elevator from that part of the Act which relates to the storage of grain for the public. The license issued shall he a special license for such class of elevator and the bond required, if any, shall he at the discretion of the hoard.
2. Any owner who violates the conditions under which such license is issued shall be guilty of an infraction of this Act.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that is quite clear in providing that it is intended to apply only to elevators at the point where the mill is situated.


George Eulas Foster: Then what would be the objection F


Frank Oliver: The mill for its own special purposes gets all the general protection and advantage that is given the elevator for the general and public good. The mill would be able to demand the right to erect an elevator for its own private purposes on railroad property, and would get for its own private purpo'ses all that protection and special legislation which is only justifiable when it is absolutely for tlie benefit of the public.


Mr. TURRIFF.: Then, too, ail the big milling 'Companies buy millions of bushels of wheat which they do not grind. They all have their system of analysing wheat and sell all wheat which, while it may-grade well, does not make good flour. If they are going to engage in that business I do not see why they should not have a different license.


George Eulas Foster: The application was made simply for the elevator 119
run in connection with the mill itself. Perhaps this would define it:
On application by the owner of an elevator which is connected with and part of-
Section as amended, agreed to.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Will these people be under bond the same as in any other elevator?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: Has any organization been asking for this?


George Eulas Foster: The Dominion Millers' Association have been asking for it.


William Erskine Knowles: Who are they?


George Eulas Foster: They are Dominion millers, a very important organisation.


William Erskine Knowles: Does it include the western millers in such towns as Saskatoon and Calgary? The Dominion Millers' Association is a very important organization spread al'l over the country.


George Eulas Foster: 1 only-know it by the name of its organization. They appeared before me, through their officers, at the same time that the Grain Growers' Association were here. I move that section 121 be adopted. This is one of the clauses that stood.


Mr. NEELY.: Mr. Chairman, I think there was a very special point in connection with this clause when it was allowed to stand. Would the minister be good enough to tell us why he has come to the conclusion that it ought to be adopted in its present form? The minister's attention was called to the fact that there is a very radical difference between this clause and a similar clause in Bill (Q) of last year. According to this Bill certain privileges are to be given to the operators of terminal elevators east of Fort William and Port Arthur, in the eastern inspection division, that are not to be given to the operators of terminals in the western inspection division. If it is any disadvantage to mix grain and depreciate grades thereby in the terminals in the western inspection division, why should that privilege be given to the operators of terminals east of the -western inspection division? It is a very serious proposition that the minister asks us to adopt. He ought to be able to give us some satisfactory reason why that special privilege should be given to operators of terminals further east than the western inspection division.


George Eulas Foster: What privileges does my hon. friend refer to?


David Bradley Neely: If he has given this matter enough consideration to ask that this section be adopted as it stands, the minister will understand the difference there is between this clause and a similar clause of Bill (Q) which was before the House last year. Section 121 reads:
In sections 122, and 125 to 150, both inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires.
And so on. Sections 123 and 124 apply only to terminals operating in the western inspection division. The minister, by reading sections 123 and 124, will see that terminal elevator operators under very heavy penalties are prevented from doing certain things.
No person owning, managing, operating or otherwise interested in any terminal elevator shall buy or sell grain at any point in the western inspection division.
And so on. Penalties are provided for the violation of this provision. Why should that section apply to operators of terminals in the western . and not to operators of terminals in the eastern inspection division? In the second place, the minister must have had some reason for making this change. At whose instance was it done? The same officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce undoubtedly assisted in the preparing of this legislation as assisted in the preparation of Bill (Q) last year. If there is a radical change of this kind between the two Bills it must have been at somebody's suggestion, on somebody's initiative. On whose initiative? The minister's? If not the minister's, then whose? That is information that we are entitled to when we come to this very important change from the Bill of last year.


George Eulas Foster: So far as I am informed section 121 is the same as that in Bill (Q) that was passed by the Senate .and that was introduced into this House last year.


David Bradley Neely: Has the minister not a copy of Bill (Q) in his possession, because I can read him section 121 from Bill (Q). It says:
In the following sections of this Act, from section 122 to section 143, both inclusive.
Section 121 in this Bill omits sections 123 and 124.
On section 122-terminal, public and hospital elevators,


George Eulas Foster: One clause of this section provides that the board may revoke a license upon summary proceedings before the board. It gives an appeal to the Governor in Council, and it says that pending the hearing of that appeal the revocation of the license shall Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto.)
continue in force. That seems not only a drastic interference with business, but it may possibly lead to dislocation and confusion in the grain transport, because pending the decision on the appeal everything is stopped on the elevator. I propose to substitute for that provision the following as subsection 4:
Upon complaint by any person in writing under oath, setting forth the alleged particular violation of law, rule or regulation, the board shall forthwith examine into such complaint, and may require such proof as seems necessary, and if the allegations made are proved to the satisfaction of the hoard, it may recommend to the Governor in Council the revocation of such license, accompanying such recommendation by the evidence on which it is based, and tbe Governor in Council may thereupon, in his discretion, revoke such license.
Thus, pending a decision by the Governor in Council, the business of the elevator will not be interfered with. We suppose that the board would probably be right, but if there is an appeal provided, it implies that the board may make a mistake, and until final judgment is given and the revocation confirmed, business may be carried on as usual.


David Bradley Neely: This is one more absurdity that we aTe discovering as we go along in some of the most important working! sections of this Bill. One is inclined to ask what authority and power this board is really going to have under the provisions of the Bill. Now, we have what is supposed to be a board of experts on the ground, and that board is asked to make an expert investigation into a charge laid against the operations of a terminal elevator, and after a most thorough investigation they render their decision, saying if the charge is well founded, that the license should be revoked. Surely that is not a case for hanging up the operations of the board or any one else by reference to the Governor in Council. We quite understand that the decision of the board holds good until the further decision of the Governor in Council is obtained, but in the name of common sense why should there be any reconsideration of the decision of the board. They are on the ground, they have the authority, they have everything that will enable them to make a thorough and first-hand examination into the facts of the case.
They have the witnesses before them, and the hearing of evidence at first hand gives the man who is the judge, an advantage in deciding whether or not a witness is telling the truth. It appears to me that every argument is against any appeal from the minister to the Governor in Council. The fact that this provision is similar to the one in Bill Q of last year

does not affect the argument. That Bill, with the exception of two or three clauses, was not considered either by this House or by the Senate. If the license of a terminal warehouse is revoked by the board, I think their decision should stand as final. I am free to say that I do not like the appearance of this proposition at all. If this board are to be free and independent to do what they think is right in every instance, I think their judgment should be untrammelled. If the matter is to be referred to the minister, there might be instances in which the minister might consider it advisable to give special consideration, where an independent board might think otherwise. For these reasons I am opposed to this provision.


John Gillanders Turriff: If the board decides that any elevator has been guilty of wrongdoing, there is very little doubt that it has. Take the case of an elevator at Fort William which got into trouble a couple of years ago, and was heavily fined for wrong-doing. Should that elevator in a similar case be allowed to go on, and do the same sort of business after the commissioners had found them guilty, until the Governor in Council should go over the evidence? It seems to me that there is no good ground for going Deyond the decision of the board of commissioners, who are supposed to be experts, and who ought to be in a better position than the council to come to a just decision on the evidence brought before them.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose that similar reasoning might be applied to upset the present jurisprudence of this and every other British country. Whatever else you may say, a man whose property rights or liberties are at stake has a right to a thorough trial, and I think to a thorough revision of the trial. At the present time there is an appeal from the subject all the way up to the Crown, it may be through half a dozen intermediate processes. This subclause 4 was embodied in Bill Q; and such independent and assiduous consideration as was given to the framing of this Bill and to the basis upon which it is framed, has seldom been given to any Bill that has received the assent of this House. After having gone over the whole subject, the framers of the Bill proposed to give the board the right to revoke the license. Then they evidently felt that that was drastic, and that a man who had a million or a million and a half dollars, and vast business interests which could hardly be weighed and estimated by the amount of fixed capital in the business, ought to have a chance) for an appeal, and they provided for an appeal. As the clause stands, I do not think there is any doubt that it does not 119}	[DOT]
meet what the business sense of this country would consider to be just and fair. If you are going to allow an appeal at all, surely after the first court has adjudged a man guilty of murder, it is not right to say that you will hang him on the first judgment and then allow him an appeal to a higher court. Let the man have the breath in his body until the final court reviews his case. It is true, this is not a case decapitation or hanging, but it involves a vast amount of money and vast business interests, and in, looking to a man's property interests we give him all the protection that the law can give. It seems, therefore, absurd to say that the commission should revoke the license, that is, put the punishment into effect, and then allow an appeal to a higher body. To make this provision reasonable and logical you should knock out the proviso. Then we would come back to where my hon. friend says he stands, and make the commissioners' decision the final judgment of the court from which there would be no appeal. They are on the ground, they have heard the evidence, they are the men who ought to make the judgment, and it should not be appealed from. The same course of argument could be made with reference to all appeals. The first court has the atmosphere of the case, it has the evidence, it has looked into the eyes, and seen the demeanour of the witnesses; and yet we do allow appeals. For my hon. friend and myself, who have not a million dollars or a great interest in an elevator, it is easy to say, let the first judgment take off the man's head or take away his property rights; but if he or I were in. the position of the elevator man, with all the interests involved and the business responsibilities that he has. we would be disposed to take the other argument and say: Give us a chance for a review; we are not saying anything against these three commissioners, but we are saying that the matter involved is too important; it is not a matter of a hundred or a thousand dollars, but it concerns all we have; therefore give us a chance at least to have the case reviewed by a higher court. I think it would not be reasonable that in giving effect to the verdict, we should stop all operations, and then allow an appeal. If the original decision were set aside, and after a week or a fortnight, or a month, you would say to the elevator man, now start up your business again, it would seem to me that he would have a good claim for damages. ,
Now on both these counts it seems to me that the proper business view to take is to let this board investigate, and when they have investigated and taken the evidence and all other necessary proceed-' ings, we give a chance to appeal to the

next court, and let that court decide whether or not the person adjudged of being guilty in the first instance is, in its opinion to be held guilty and the penalty is to take effect.


Mr. McKENZIE.: The minister draws an analogy between appeals in this case and appeals in other courts. But it is well understood and well defined machinery exists in connection with appeals in. other courts in many cases, where the rights of the appellee are protected. Is there any machinery provided for an appeal under this Act, defining how it shall be brought about, and so on? What is the procedure under the Bill?


George Eulas Foster: I am not a lawyer and, not taking the legal ground, it seems to me to be a very simple and very common-sense business. The commissioners have heard the case and said: Your license is revoked. These gentlemen make their appeal to the Privy Council, and that body calls for and reviews the evidence which has been adduced and the report of the commissioners. It does not need a group of lawyers or a court of justice, or anything of that kind, to carry that simple process to its simple conclusion.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: What objection would there be to substituting an appeal in the ordinary course in our courts instead of to the Governor General in Council.


George Eulas Foster: In that case there would be very long delay. A matter of this kind, it se^ms to me, ought to be quickly adjudged. If the license were revoked and an appeal were provided to the judges of our courts, it might take months and months before the revocation became effective, after you had the judgment of the first court against these men, and before you got to the final court, and there is the added expense which is involved. I suppose if the matter went to one court, it could go to another court in the way of further appeal?


Frank Oliver: I think the minister in his argument, does not apprehend the situation exactly. This is not a matter simply between the elevator owners and the government, it is a matter between the elevator owner and the people who are storing grain in the elevators, whose business is being bandied from titue elevator; and' the owner of the elevator is there to a certain extent as a trustee under bonds to the government. Therefore it is not a matter of whether he is in any degree breaking the regulations which the government has laid down. That is not the question. The question is, what is he doing with the property of other people, which is contained in liis elevator? The section as it stands was not prepared for Bill (No. 32), as I un-Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
derstand the matter, but is part of the existing Grain Act, and has been on the statute-books for some time, at any rate since 1908.	.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, it has been the law.


Frank Oliver: The very purpose of it, in the case of this man who is handling other peoples' property, is that action can be taken on the moment to protect that property. That is the purpose of the section as it stands, and in my judgment, it is desirable that that should continue to be the position.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: At six o'clock I was drawing attention to the proposed amendment to subsection 4 of section 122. The section is taken from the. Grain Act as amended in 1908, as a result of careful inquiry by a commission especially appointed to look into that Act. The minister has said that the provision is drastic. It is drastic but it is an extraordinary provision to meet extraordinary cases, and it is not to be presumed that the warehouse commissioner, in whom that authority has heretofore been vested, would exercise it lightly or without due consideration. So I think the minister is taking a doubtful course in the amendment he proposes. It is essential that action should be taken promptly, otherwise the interests of the third parties, innocent parties, anight be swept away before anything could be done. Surely it would be safe to entrust to this highly-paid, responsible and competent commission the authority which has heretofore been vested in the warehouse commissioner. While, of course, it is not likely that occasion would arise for the exercise *of this drastic provision, it is possible, and the section, is intended to meet the extreme 'and extraordinary cases that might arise. The minister has increased the authority of the Board in the matter of oar distribution and it seems to me that their authority in this instance might very well be maintained.


George Eulas Foster: I think I said all I have to say before six o'clock. I would point out that under the existing law the right is given to the warehouse commissioner to revoke the license and then there is an appeal to the Governor in Council. The principle of a: higher authority is therefore recognized in the old Act. That makes my hon. friend's position different from that of the hon. gentleman who sat by him this afternoon, and who did not want any appeal at all. I think my hon. [DOT] friend's course is the more reasonable, be-

cause he has some regard for the widespread and British idea of having a review of the case from the court of first decision.


Frank Oliver: While I put a different line of argument before the committee from that of the hon. member from Humboldt (Mr. Nee'ly), it was not because I disagreed from his view, but because I was arguing for the section as it stood. For my part, I wish to say here that in many cases justice delayed is justice denied.


George Eulas Foster: There are many other cases where justice performed too quickly is the rankest kind of injustice. Lynch Jaw is an example of that, and we get as far away from that in this country as we can. So I will still credit my hon. friend with favouring an appeal. It does not seem to me a sensible thing to stop, say, a seven million bushel elevator on the decision of a board or commission, to hang it up perhaps in the very midst of a busy season, when cars are rushing down, and all the elevator facility possible is requisite; it does not seem to be the sensible way of carrying out the law, if you are going to give an appeal, to stop the whole operation of that immense factory until the appeal is heard. The appeal is heard, it is decided in one way or another. If the appeal is favourably considered, then the court of first instance made an error, and still you have stopped 'the whole operation of the elevator. But it does not merely take away some of the profits of the elevator company, it inconveniences the whole grain trade of the country to a large extent. A third party comes in there. The man who wants storage, the whole transport business, the people who own the grain that is to be transported-ajl these come in, and you hold that up before you have had the case finally decided. That, I say, does not appear to me to be a businesslike method. You say, and rightly too, that it is not a matter simply between the elevator man and the commissioners, but that the elevator man has interests in trust, he has the grain in storage. That is just what gives a great deal of force to the legislation as I propose it. He has other people's interests in his hand. If the appeal in the end carries out the decision of the commissioners it is proved that he has been doing what he ought not to have been doing, with property not his own.
But how does the mere revocation of his lioemse make reparation to the man whose properties he has misused? There is other reparation to him. We look for reparation to the man who has been misused, to the penalties attached-the revocation of the license is only one-to the bonds that the elevator company gives, which I am going to make very heavy bonds so as to make that part of the security just as valuable as it can be made. There are securities for reparation to the individual, there is the penalty, which is what you may call a fruitful penalty. The revocation of a license is not a fruitful 'penalty in the way of restoring rights of which some other person has been defrauded by the elevator man. So I think we are sufficiently safeguarded by those other securities and penalties so far as the interests of the third party are concerned that have been confided to the elevator man. Then again I think there is this in it. This is to be a case which will never occur, it is a penalty which we hope will never be invoked, because we hope there will be no violation which will make it necessary to invoke it. It is an extreme penalty that can be invoked on the elevator company or the warehouseman for any misdirection of his effort and for any violation of the Jaw. The very fact that it is there will prevent the thing being done in a maximum of cases, and maybe in all the cases. There is held out before him- the revocation of his license. He does not feel that the penalty is one whit mitigated to himself, he is not encouraged one whit to a violation by the fact that there will be a court of appeal. He does not want to be brought into it at all in that way. It will be just as effective a penalty by having an appeal as it is if there is no appeal. You have it more in the one instance, but it is not a healing penalty in any way by its being immediately inflicted. You cut off a man's head, you revoke his license, you stop the whole business, but there is no fruitfulness in that penalty, you have to look for that in other directions. Why then not go the length of not penalizing the public, of not stopping the operation of a great factor in transport? Why not go that length, and let this alone until the appeal is heard, for it is possible that things will happen during that time.


Frank Oliver: That is the very point.


George Eulas Foster: My view is this, that if a man who violates the law knows that the revocation of his license is likely to take place, he will not mix wheat. But suppose he mixes 1,000 bushels, he is liable to a revocation of his license, and the penalty of revocation may be put upon him. Once that issue has been raised, and information has been laid against him, and his case goes before the board-, do you suppose that man is going on in the same careless way, or the same wilful way to a second1, third, fourth and fifth violation? I think not. I think the tendency will be for him to say: Well, I have been caught once, it is my neglect, I think maybe it is by connivance, maybe it is by wilfulness; I have been caught once, I am not going to put myself in the position to

be caught again. It will make him extraordinarily careful, and it will do another thing. The board is there all the time, the officers of the board are there all the time. Here is a violation of the law which they have discovered. Their oversight will be all the more keen and careful, and in both these ways it will operate to make a second violation almost impossible. I think that the whole business, the information laid, the action of the first board, the penalties, the bonds-all those put together seem to make an accumulation of penalties and cause a maximum of carefulness that you will scarcely find in any other legislation wie have upo-n the statute-book. You may say this is extraordinary legislation, and I think we ought to be guided by a common-sense rule in not applying a penalty over and above what is necessary to correct the offence.


Frank Oliver: 
George Eulas Foster: Under supervision.


Frank Oliver: Under supervision-and he makes such disposition of the property of others within that elevator as he sees fit while the case is going on. I submit that is not good business and it is not in the public interest, assuming such a case to have occurred. This man is handling a vast amount of property which is not his own, but the property of other people, being of more value than his own property and if he is found to be in the wrong to the extreme degree, it is common, sense and plain business that his authority over Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
the property of other people which he is using dishonestly should be turned over to the board and that the responsibility for the exercise of that authority should .be assumed by the government through the board.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend's argument would he very strong if it were the case, we will say, of a cashier in a bank who had charge of all the money, documents and securities of the bank.


Frank Oliver: The case is very nearly parallel.


George Eulas Foster: We will follow that out and see whether it is or not. That cashier is found guilty of having forged a cheque for, we will say, $125. He is brought up on that, you give him his trial and you give him an apDeal. You continue him in the office of cashier.


Frank Oliver: No, no; it is not done in that way.


George Eulas Foster: But suppose you did it.


Frank Oliver: But you do not; no such thing ever occurred in the history of a bank.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend must allow me to carry out my own reasoning. You keep him in his office of cashier and let him do the business-keep an eye on him as much as you like. It is possible for that man to make away with securities arid cash, to *get them out of the bank, but it is not the same with the elevator man. The cash with the elevator man is in his elevator -the wheat-every bushel of it is insnect-ed in under grade and not a bushel of it can go out unless it passes the eye of the inspector, the same weight, the same quantity and the same grade. The cash is all kept in the bank- What can the elevator man do with the wheat? He will not burn it, he cannot sell it, he cannot take out of his elevator one single bushel more than the warehouse receipt calls for having reference to the proper numbers in the register and under the supervision of the inspector.
The millions of bushels are kept there, except what goes in the regular way and it can go in no other way. He might steal a little good grain from one bin and put it into another, but that is a trifle in comparison. My hon. friend is not right in saying that should not allow him to continue in operation under supervision because in the meantime he might get away with the goods. He simply cannot get away with the goods.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 123-buying and selling of grain by owners, &c., of terminal elevators,
George Eulas Foster: I want to add there before the word ' western ' in the third line the words ' eastern and '.
On subsection 2,


George Eulas Foster: After the word * which ' I wish to insert the words ' with the approval of the Governor in Council '.


Frank Oliver: I understand my hon. friend is putting the words ' eastern and ' before the word ' western ' in the third line of the first clause?


George Eulas Foster: ' Eastern or.'


Frank Oliver: I think I understand the idea that my hon. friend wants to convey, but I do not think this is the place to put those words. The buying will take place in the western division, but the man who owns an elevator in the western division, as the clause stands and as I understand my hon. friend wishes it to read, with the addition of the word, ' eastern still shall not buy grain in the western division.


George Eulas Foster: The object of the clause is, first, to separate the terminal elevator operator from^ the business of buying and selling grain. If the terminal elevator operator is in the western division the clause as it was would cover him. But if there was a terminal elevator operated- in the east it would not cover him. You think the worlds do not carry that idea out?


Frank Oliver: They are not in the right place to carry out that idea.


George Eulas Foster: What is the suggestion?


Frank Oliver: I think that if, in the second line the words ' public or ' were inserted before the word ' terminal ' it would cover the case.


George Eulas Foster: No, we do not propose to extend it to public elevators-only to terminal elevators.


William Erskine Knowles: Why?


Frank Oliver: I understand that either a public or terminal elevator comes under the supervision of the board for the storage and handling of grain, but that the owner of that elevator should be divorced from the business of buying or selling grain.


George Eulas Foster: No, simply as regards the terminal elevator; that is the public elevator at the terminal point.


James Alexander Robb: This legislation has been drafted largely at the demand of the western grain growers. Has the minister considered that in making the restrictions -and regulations, so strict at Fort William and Port Arthur he is running the risk of diverting the trade of the west down to Duluth, where they can handle grain without being subject to such -strict regulations. After all, the men who put money into buying the grain are going to handle it at the point where they can get the most profit out of it, and if we tie them up by hard and fast rules at Fort William 'and Port Arthur the business will be diverted to Duluth, because they will be able to secure freight rates just as -cheap to Duluth, and the rates -east of Duluth will be just as satisfactory to the mam who is shipping grain as they will be from Fort William. It -s-eeims to me that the government should take carefully into consideration the fact that they -are probably making legislation that is going to drive the business away fro-m our own Canadian routes-.


George Eulas Foster: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) that I hav-e given -a good deal of -consideration to that side of the question. I have heard all the arguments pro and con from the different interests, an-d I think I have read every scrap of evidence there is ex-tant with reference to th-e matter. My hon. friend (Mr. Robb) -started by saying that w-e are making this legislation largely in the interests of the western gr-ain growers.


James Alexander Robb: At the demand of th-e western grain growers.


George Eulas Foster: I will acknowledge that the legislation would not be as it is if it wer-e not that tbe west was there, and that the - western demand was there; but at the -s-ame time we are a Dominion House of Parliament and I think we have to look -to th-e interest of all C'anada as well as to the interest of a part. That is the reason this legislation does not go as far as some of -the western grain men would like it to go, because, when we are asked to bind this around and around with restrictions and with -regulations which will inevitably hamper traffic to a certain extent, we ought, I think, to be wis-e enough not to go so far as to strangle the growing child and in the -end find that we did not conserve for this country the whole strength of its -manhood's powers. I think it is a very important point to consider whether or not we are going so far that w-e will make it a preferable thing for men with western grain to ship it through another country than our own. I think wie have not gone too far in that direction in oui legislation up to the present. I think th-e members of the House, no matter what section of the country they come from, whether it be -east or west, ought to face th-at part of the problem, and be very care-

ful in that respect. It is said that we have advantages ~in certain respects which will keep the grain in our own routes. I tam not foolish enough to-night to stand here and say that we are going to have this year, next year, or the year after, or for many years to come, or perhaps for ever, the handling through. Canadian routes of all the grain that grows in our northwest. There will be preferences 'and there will be conditions which will take a portion of our grain by the southern routes no matter what may happen in the way of our legislation or of our development.
But, proper and conservative legislation, joined) with good and increased storage and the multiplication of methods of exit which are as cheap >as they can possibly be made, will I think beep the great majority of that western grain in our routes, and maybe draw some of the grain from the western United States into that channel. I for one would be very sorry to bind up the whole business so that it would have the effect of precluding capital from going into that western country and into the grain business; capital from the United States; capital from Great Britain, or capital from our own country. I know there are men In the west who say; hang capital, we don't want it; we want this thing made hard and fast. But, if any part of this country wants capital, it is the west. I am glad to see it coming in, no matter whence it comes. There is an outcry raised against American capital that is coming in, building terminals, building line elevators, and there are some men in the west who would burn up the whole shebang, and keep everything that has that sort of development in it out of the country. I do not think the majority of the west would do so; I do not think sensible thinking people, taking the whole case all around, would do t<hat. I think, for the development of storage capacity in the west, (storage capacity which is sadly lacking and which tjhat country is crying for), you have to make some concession to capital, and you have to give it fair-play and maybe something more than fair-play in the early part of the development of that country, in order to get the required storage facilities. I do not want to put restrictions in this Act which would drive that capital out of the deep interest it has taken and the large development it has made, but at the same time we don't want any monopoly in the west and control will keep monopoly in bounds. And, a little patience and the cultivation of good feeling, and a little sensible action will I think make matters much better than they have been for the last few years. The point brought up by my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) is an important point and none of us should allow it to (scape attention while we are considering this Bill.


George Eulas Foster: 


William Erskine Knowles: I do not just see the point my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) makes. The premise which he bases his remarks upon is that we are able to get in the west the same rate to Duluth that we are able to get to Port William. We are not. It so happens at this very moment, or it very soon will happen, that we will have it, but we do not have it as a normal thing and everybody in this House is aware of that. For my own part I am not afraid that the influence of the grain growers is ever going to be so great cn this government, and'probably not on any government, that the interests of the moneyed people, the great capitalists to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred, will have any violence done them in this House. We need not stay awake late at night being afraid that the pressure will be so strong from the farmers that this government will be driven in a moment of reckless calamity to put its foot on the neck of the capitalists. Another point, _ especially with reference to what the minister has said is that his remarks struck me as being rather incongruous. He says with one breath that if there is any place that wants capital it is the west, and in the next breath he says this Bill is going to be framed for the whole of Canada. Both statements are true, but I could not see any co-relation in the two statements. If, as he says, the Bill will be passed for the benefit of Canada, he means there will be that protection to the eastern interests which my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) has referred to. The coming of capital for storage purposes at our great terminal elevators is a matter-if you speak of it from a sectional point of view-is a matter of absolute indifference to us. Looking at it from that point of view it is indifferent to us where our wheat may find its storage on its way to Liverpool. Speaking of it in the sectional sense we would not care whether we found facilities at Duluth or at Fort William, and I mention that because I think I see in the remarks of the minister a certain inconsistency in his commencing by saying that the Act should be framed in the interest of the whole of Canada and then, in a gentlemanly way, 'lecturing us because the west wants so much capital. It is true we do want capital, but I do not see how it is of concern to the west whether this particular capital is located at Fort William or at Duluth. For that reason I am not able to follow my hon. friend's reasoning as far as I usually do.


Frank Oliver: I would still like to have from my hon. friend a clear explanation of the insertion of these words ' eastern or ' before the word ' western.' I would like to know what he understands the effect of that to be.


George Eulas Foster: What I have in mind is this. We are legislating for terminal elevators. They are such public elevators as are located at what may be denominated a terminal point. If a principle is right to be applied to a terminal elevator at Fort William or Port Arthur, it is right to be applied to a terminal elevator doing the same kind of work east of Port Arthur or Fort William or wherever it may be. If, for instance, we come to have terminal elevators at Vancouver, if that is declared by the Governor in Council to be a terminal point, then the same principle would apply to them. I do not see any argument on the ground of consistency which would apply to one terminal elevator and not to another, because one was a few miles east or west of the other.	,


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend speak of terminal elevators in eastern Canada- for instance, on the Georgian bay or at Montreal?


George Eulas Foster: They are not now terminal elevators in the sense of the Act, but it might be that the Governor in Council would declare St. John or Montreal a terminal point, and then the same principle would apply to them that applies to elevators at Fort William or Port Arthur.


Frank Oliver: I did not think there was any question as to the purchase of grain in the eastern [DOT] inspectional division, but only in the western.


George Eulas Foster: It was in the west that the question arose and that the necessities were pressing; but if the necessity arose in the east, we would have the power to apply the same principle.


Frank Oliver: It is the purpose to put the purchase of grain in eastern Canada on the same footing as in western Canada?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I do not see why this provision should not apply to public elevators as well as to terminal elevators. A public elevator is on all fours with a terminal elevator, except that it Js not at a terminal point. It is under government supervision, under the control of the board, and subject to the provisions of the Act. In every particular, except as to the granting of warehouse receipts, it is in the same position as the elevator at the terminal, and my contention is that, being of the same kind and character as the terminal elevator, so far as the provisions of this Act are concerned with regard to the mixing of grain, the owner or operator of that elevator should be prohibited from the buying and selling of grain just the same as if he were the owner or operator of a terminal elevator. The principle may be right or it may be wrong, but if it is a, sound principle, it is just as sound and just as necessary in the case of public elevators as in the case of terminal elevators.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend may be right on the question of principle, and yet there is a difference between what we call a public elevator elsewhere and a great terminal elevator at Fort William or Port Arthur. What we are trying to do in this legislation is to cure what is said to be a very great evil that is concentrated at Fort William and Port Arthur. We are making what my hon. friend says is very drastic legislation, and does he not think that we have gone far enough in confining it to the terminal elevator? What would happen if we attempted to apply the same principle to public elevators? No need has yet arisen, and in legislation of this kind we should not be ahead or needs. If it becomes necessary in the future to apply this principle to public elevators, this House, I suppose, would be prepared to do it; but this House will think a good deal before it does. You go a long way when you eliminate the interest of an eastern man from your western field in the buying of grain. After all, who does the buying of grain, and what is the reason for all this machinery? The love of gain, the speculative interest, on the part of the buyer; yet behind it all is the farmer with his grain to sell. He wants every buyer and every storage facility he can get to ease his position and increase his profit. We do not want to interfere with that more than is absolutely necessary, and the government does not think at the present time that a case has been made out for applying this principle to public elevators.


Frank Oliver: If public elevator meant only an elevator in the eastern inspection division, I could appreciate my hon friend's argument, and, for my part, I would be quite willing to agree to the clause being framed to give that effect, but, as a matter of fact, there are at the present time, I understand, and the number may be greatly multiplied, public elevators at Winnipeg and at St. Boniface, public elevators that are west of the terminal elevators, and unless these elevators of which I speak are put under the same control as the terminal elevators, the whole position that is in view in the making of this resolution applicable to terminal elevators is lost.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think so.


Frank Oliver: It is really of no serious *effect. It was proposed to be brought in last session in the Bill which was discussed before the Senate and came down to this

House. It may be that it is not a proper principle, but if it is to be embodied in the Act as a principle 1 am urging that it be made effective with a declaration that it be carried out in fact, not that it will apply only to one section of the trade and not to the other, although the trade will be affected practically just as much in one case as in the other. I do not speak particularly of the public elevators east of Fort William. I am quite willing that they should be excluded on the argument my hon. friend has given. But that is not the case in regard to such elevators west of Port Arthur, and I would still urge that this provision be made applicable to them.


George Eulas Foster: There is one other point that I want to call the attention of the committee to, and I think it is a pretty important one. We may call for railway openings. It takes an immense amount of money and a great deal of time to increase our railway openings from the west. They will come in time, but it will be long, while there is one thing that can come in a very much shorter time, and that is storage facilities. Now the building of storage facilities for western grain has, to a large extent, been at a standstill for the last few years. Why? Because people did not know the ground upon which they were standing, because capital was not willing to put itself into the building of storage elevators. The railroads themselves had not been adding to their storage facilities because they did not know what was going to happen. They have not been building large elevators as they otherwise would have, because they did not know what was going to happen. What was the use of building elevators if the government was going to take these elevators away from them, by expropriating or leasing them and until that doubt is settled you will not have a move forward in the efficient multiplication of storage facilities where large capital is to be invested in order to secure them. Now I think we have gone as far as we possibly can go when we apply this principle, this drastic principle, in an experiment to the terminal elevators only. I would not like to go so far as to apply it to public elevators.


Frank Oliver: Either west or east?


George Eulas Foster: I look for an increase in the coming year of from seven to ten millions of capacity in the public elevators in the west. That is outside of private enterprise, outside of government elevators in the northwestern parts, outside of the combination or co-operative elevators, whatever you are minded to call them. I want to see them all for my part and I believe everybody in the west wants to see that storage. I would Mr. OLIVER.
like to see storage elevators at all the great strategic points. That matter is now being considered. What will eventuate I do not know, but I think my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) will agree with me that if we could have four, five or six big elevators at strategic points in the west, scattered here and there, it would be a great insurance against what is taking place there this year, and against what may take place other years as the productive facilities increase with such rapidity in a ratio greater than the transport facilities themselves can possibly increase. My hon. friend behind sounded in our ears a note to which we might very well listen and restrain ourselves from attempting to go too far all at once.


William Erskine Knowles: I have the same ambition and the same hope for the increase of elevator storage that the minister has. I do not think, however, that we are going to affect the matter detrimentally by putting the trade of handling and storing grain on a strictly well defined basis. Representations have been made to the government that those who handle grain now, and store it, make their money not out of storing grain and handling it, but out of manipulating it. Naturally people may have hesitated in the past few years in putting further capital into this business. I have been told on what I consider good authority that the storing of grain at the prices which are charged, does not pay, that grain and storage men make money out of dealing in grain, and not out of the storing of it. That is what I have been told by an authority as high as there is in any railway company in Canada practically. Now we are going to make it more inviting for men to put their money into the storing and handling of grain by providing that it shall be carried on as a business separate by itself. I think we will make it appeal to the ordinary hard-headed business man better if we divorce that business entirely from the business of trafficking in the grain itself. In any other commodity which railways handle for example, they handle it by itself. I think the grain trade is unique in this: That the interests that handle it, that transport it, and that take care of it on its way to the market are the same interests to a certain extent that make a business of buying and selling the very commodity which is in their custody and in their hands so much of the time. I have understood, and I still understand, that it was proposed to divert these two businesses, to make the storing and handling of grain a separate business from the buying and selling of that grain. I think it will do more to invite capital into the construction of public elevators if you make this a strict business proposition so that those who engage in it will not have to compete with man. who

are skinning and manipulating the grades. It may be there has been a standstill in the past with regard to the increase in our storage elevators. There has been the question, as the hon. minister has said, that it was not known whether these elevators would be expropriated or not, but I have not heard very much talk about public elevators being expropriated. And these are the elevators ot which the hon. minister has been talking to-night. Naturally for a 1 year or two there may be some uncertainty about this business, just as there was when the Bill was brought down, as there was last winter, since the present Prime Minister went throughout the country saying in most unmistakable terms that he was going to put into effect the public ownership of [DOT]elevators now.


Mr. BENNETT (Simcoe).: Does it not occur to the hon. gentleman that a grain firm engaged in a very large way in the purchase of grain for shipment to the old country, will, from the very necessity of the case, require an elevator of its own. There is a case in Midland where a firm has an elevator with a capacity of 1,250,000 bushels. Probably 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 bushels pass through it every year, but the bulk of this is owned by the company owning the elevator, although it is true they handle grain belonging to other people.


William Erskine Knowles: No one has asked that this should apply to the eastern division, which would eliminate the case mentioned, and I do not think any one would abject to placing in the section a clause that it would not apply to elevators handling their own grain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said simply that the bulk of it is owned by them.


Mr. STAPLES.: How would that work in practice? In the west the farmers are building many elevators and they are putting their own buyers on the market. If you applied this you would prohibit them from doing that and thus deprive the farmers of the very best service and protection they are getting. Then the large milling companies afford a great deal of storage capacity to the farmers, but this would prevent them from handling grain for others, and so you would decrease the storage capacity of the west to that extent. This clause would not work out to the advantage of the farmer.


William Erskine Knowles: It has not been suggested that this should affect the country elevators.


William D. Staples: Would that apply to a firm like the Ogilvies?


William Erskine Knowles: If they own terminal elevators, it would. I do not believe the
same people would have the custody of the grain after inspection and also ownership of it.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).: Subsection 2 of the section covers the case of millers like Ogilvies.


William Erskine Knowles: Subsection 2 of section 123 reads:
2. Subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who owns, manages, operates or is otherwise interested in any terminal elevator,-
(1)	which has been leased to the board for
operation, or which has been leased to any person, firm or company for operation with the approval of the board or which is managed and operated by persons approved by the board; or-	.
(2)	which is used or operated in connection with any flour mill situate at the same terminal point as such elevator.
That means that once an elevator is leased, and many elevators are leased, then if that lease is approved- by the board any one who owns or manages or operates it escapes from all penalties of that section. It is too wide altogether. The board must approve in practice of any proposed lease of an elevator. If a man is operator and lessee he is permitted to go out and buy millions of bushels of grain. If the clause means anything it means that once an elevator is leased and the lease has been approved the lessee or any person interested in the elevator can go out and buy and sell all the grain he likes.
Another point affecting the legal interpretation of the section. It says it shall not apply to any person interested in the ownership, management or operation of any elevator the leasing of which has been approved by the board, but it does not say that this immunity is only with regard to that elevator. Suppose a man is interested in the ownership of elevator A, and that is leased to a company. He has only a small interest in it, but he would go into court if charged with breaking this Act and say that subsection 2 savs that this shall not apply to him because he is interested in the ownership of an elevator, the leasing of which has been approved by the board, although he may have a mammoth interest in other elevators. The clause should read so that it protects him only with regard to that one elevator; as it reads he can commit any infraction of the Act so long as he can prove that he is interested in an elevator which has been leased. I would move the following amendment:
No person owning, managing, operating or otherwise interested in any public or terminal elevator shall buy or sell grain at any point in the western inspection division.

Subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person by reason only of the fact that he:
(a)	owns or is otherwise interested in the ownership of any such elevator leased to the board for operation, or which has been leased to any person for operation with the approval of the hoard;
(b)	is an owner or holder of stock or shares in any railway eompany which owns or operates such elevator and winch does not as a business buy or sell grain;
(c)	which is used or operated with any flour mill situate at the same terminal point as such elevator. Provided, however, that such elevator shall be subject to such restrictions and regulations as are imposed by the board, with the approval of the Governor in Council.
My first amendment with regard to immunity is meant to apply to those who are interested in the ownership, management or operation of an elevator, the leasing of which has been made. I have made this immunity so that a person shall not come under the penalty of 123 'by reason only of the fact that he is interested in such ownership, that shall not 'be sufficient to penalize him, he shall not be prosecuted for that reason alone. Then there is this further remedy when I say ' owns or is otherwise * interested in the ownership of any such elevator.' The clause as it now reads ' owns, manages or operates ' should not apply when he is only custodian of the grain. He can buy all that grain he likes because he has divested himself of the management or control of the elevator. I put in the clause about owning railway stock for the reason that those who own money in the country, many of them, have stock in railway companies as well as own the elevators; consequently they are interested.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Does *the hon. gentleman think that, were his last exception eliminated there would still be any application to the person who held stock m the railway company?


William Erskine Knowles: If the company owned or operated the elevator, I think he would be indirectly interested.


Arthur Meighen: Does he contend that under the wording of the Bill he would be held to be interested?


William Erskine Knowles: I think under a strict interpretation of the clause a man who owned or operated an elevator would be debarred from buying or selling grain.


Arthur Meighen: Could not the whole clause be avoided simply by the same company organizing again under another name, that is to say, might there not be two companies taking out separate charters and calling themselves different names? Then Company A, being engaged


William Erskine Knowles: in the purchase and handling of grain, and B engaged in the storage of grain, would not that means avoid all the effects of his amendment, and would not it avoid the effect of the clause as it stands?


George Eulas Foster: 3788'
]ike little men on each side and vote for and against.


James Alexander Robb: Having admitted that the government are going to either construct or lease some terminal elevators, is the minister prepared to say what charges will be made in the rates for winter storage at government elevators?


George Eulas Foster: Why, bless you no. We shall have a 'commission that will look into that and come to their conclusions from their knowledge. That will be all arranged by the commission with the approval of the Governor in Council.


William Erskine Knowles: 
George Eulas Foster: Are you sure you have all his name?


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, Frederick William Gordon. Haultain, and if the minister wants further identification, I will say he is the man who said that reciprocity was a great thing for the country once upon a time. Frederick William Gordon Haultain is British born, and as loyal as the next man on the government benches, but for eight months he supported reciprocity, and on the eve of the election when the whip was laid on his back, the same Frederick William Gordon Haultain came and supported a policy that the people of to-day are finding has put them in the position of being losers of millions of dollars. That is Frederick William Gordon Haultain. I think I have a right to ask, as a member of this House, why that information was sent to Mi. Haultain before we were given the same information, and why, three or four days after the telegram I have referred to was sent, when I asked whether there would be an appropriation for this in the supplementary estimates, the Prime Minister told me as a member of the House that it had not been considered.


George Eulas Foster: What was the question the hon. member asked?


William Erskine Knowles: Whether it had been decided to place a sum in the supplementary estimates for the taking over of- the terminal elevators.


George Eulas Foster: Where can I find that?


William Erskine Knowles: I do not remember the page, but the minister will find it in Hansard, and I would ask the explanation now which I think I have the right to ask.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to see how you put the question to the Prime Minister?


William Erskine Knowles: Well, there are lots of your friends around you there who will find it for you in a few minutes; they are not busy; they are not taking very much part in this discussion. I am sorry to see that, the western members on the Conservative side are not taking the part they should in trying to get this Bill modelled up as they know the great majority of their constituents would like to have it modelled. However, it is not passed yet and I hope they will give us their opinions before the final stage. Wherein does the Minister of Trade and Commerce think my argument was wrong when I said that this Bill would leave it open to anybody who was operating a terminal elevator to buy and sell grain.


Arthur Meighen: I do not intend to make any reference to the celebrated personality who seems to hover around the imagination of my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), and I apprehend that if he were
present to-night that gentleman would be able to take care of himself quite as well as would the Prime Minister, were he present. However, as to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moosejaw, personally, in so far as it differs-which is not by a very wide margin-from the Bill as it stands, I would have no objection to it.
It seems to me that it would be well to move very cautiously in this matter. If men wish to evade section 123, I cannot see how they can be prevented from doing so, either under the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Moosejaw or under the Bill as it stands. For instance, suppose five men desire to go into the gram buying business and also in the business of a terminal elevator. They know that under this clause they cannot do it in their personal capacity, nor can any one of them. All they have to do is to form two joint-stock companies, calling the first the Brown Elevator Company, and the other the Brown Storage Company. Under these two names these five men can, in defiance of both the Bill and the amendment, conduct the joint business.


Mr. McCRANEY.: Does not my hon. friend think, that the words ' or otherwise interested in ' would cover the case of holding stock in both companies?


Arthur Meighen: No. The five men are stockholders in both companies, and they own all the stock. ' A ' cannot buy and sell grain while the Brown Storage Company is storing grain because he is interested in that company. But the joint stock company which ' A,' ' B,' ' C,' ' D ' and ' E 5 form, called the Brown Elevator Company, is not interested in the Brown Storage Company, directly or indirectly, and the Brown Elevator Company can go into the field and buy qnd sell grain. I am thoroughly convinced that the whole object of the Bill can be evaded in that way. No individual who is interested in a company doing one line of business can himself engage in the other line of business, but a joint stock company might be formed which as a company" had no interest in the other, and it could do the business. Nor can you get away from that difficulty unless you have legislation that will prevent the interlocking of both directors and shareholders; because, while you might say that no company owned by one set of men could under the name of another company owned by the same set of men perform the two businesses, you would have to say that no man could be interested in two companies which performed as part of their business both of these lines. And suppose we went so far as to legislate that no company which had a shareholder owning even one share of stock could do business as an elevator company if he had also one share of stock in a company doing a grain

business. That would be of course absurd legislation on its face, but we would have to go that far at least to get over the' difficulty; and even if we went that far, all they would have to do would be to put their stock in trust, and the wit of a legislature could never get over that difficulty. 'By means of a trusteeship the law could be evaded in spite of us. I only say this to urge that we had better go slow and see how this works out in practice, and if we find that it is absolutely worthless, we might as well quit. This is not the first time that this difficulty has been encountered. The practice of the interlocking of shareholders and directors is at the bottom of the biggest difficulty in the republic to the south of us. That is the reason of the difficulties in regard to what is called the money trust, which it is so far impossible to get over. The same difficulties exist here in a smaller way. While I appreciate the purpose of the government, and hope that they will have some success, I have great doubt whether the clause as it stands or as proposed to be amended will have very much effect.


David Bradley Neely: I am sure that we have listened with great interest to the very frank statement of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie.


Arthur Meighen: Do you think it is true?


David Bradley Neely: In the last parliament my hon. friend was very much interested in what he and other western members considered to be the only effective remedy for the evils that existed or that were supposed to exist in the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur. If the hon. member for Portage la Prairie is so frank in expresing his opinion that this clause, or even the amended clause proposed by the hon. member for Moosejaw, will not remedy the evil that we seek to remedy, why does he not state with equal frankness what he thinks would be an effective remedy?


Arthur Meighen: For the simple reason that that is not under discussion now, and I try to stick to the point.


David Bradley Neely: I think it is under discussion. I think the minister by his statement has brought it under discussion. The whole question of the government's intention in regard to taking these elevators out of the hands of the present owners, or rather the operators, is very much the question before us at the present time. I myself was responsible in the last parliament for making certain statements in regard to the situation at Fort William and Port Arthur that brought me a certain amount of criticism, because, like the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, I was somewhat frank in dealing with the subject, and I said on one or two occasions that I Mr. MEIGHEN.
could hardly understand why the present system of supervision of the terminals could not be made effective if it was not effective. Hon. gentlemen opposite found great fault with the position I took at that time-insinuated that I was not fairly representing the farmers of the west. The hon. member for Souris, the hon. member ;or Portage la Prairie, and other gentlemen thought the government should immediately place a sum in the estimates for taking over the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur.
It must be done. The farmers said it was the right thing to d*o, they declared it was the only remedy, and they were the people who knew. And these gentlemen stood right at the farmers back at that time, Mr. Chairman, and they refused to have anything to do with the government legislation until the government of the day would make a pronouncement as to their position on this question of taking over these terminal elevators. Now, look at the situation to-day. The Minister of Trade and Commerce makes a statement to-night as to what so far as he knows, he considers the intention of the government to be. He tells us that they propose to make an experiment, and that experiment is to take over, either by construction or leasing, one or two terminal elevators at Fort William and Po'rt Arthur, and operate them for a year or two alongside of the elevators that are being operated under present conditions, and see by this experiment whether or not this method believed by the farmers of the west to be the effective remedy will have any value or not. In the very next breath the minister tells us that so far as he knows those elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur in the year 1910-11 were operated in a manner that was absolutely above suspicion, and that so far as he knew no fault could be found with the method already in vogue as to government supervision of them. That was the effect of his statement-that in 1910-11 those elevators were operated -without reproof or without cause of complaint. What brought about that change in the year mentioned from preceding years ? We did not hear anything of that in the last parliament. The minister may say that we had not an opportunity because the session was not closed until very nearly August, but a great part of the information as to the operations of 1910-11 at the places in question was available before the close of the last session of parliament, and if the minister and hon. gentlemen from west of the great lakes did not have that information they could have obtained it. Yet that did not make any difference in their attitude of opposition to Bill Q. They said that Bill could not be passed unless the government put so many millions of dollars in the estimates for the

taking o^er of the terminals. Now, what does the minister propose to accomplish ? I am looking for light, I am looking for information. What does the minister propose to accomplish by taking over simply one or two terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur? The shipping season begins in the fall of the year, the government will have one or two of these elevators, and the first thing we know is that the elevators are full. The other ten or twelve elevators are there waiting to do business; and the farmers who cannot get their grain in the government elevators are going to be compelled to send it to the other elevators. How does the minister expect that the operation of one or two elevators at the terminals will enlighten the public as to the benefits to be derived from government operation, especially when he tells us that eo far as he knows in 1910-11 there was no fault to be found with the present system? That is ia sort of piecemeal proposition. My view is that the government should go either all the way or go no way. They should either perfect the present system, or else go the distance of taking over the whole system of terminals. How else can they get any results from government operation ? The whole object of this Bill is to remedy conditions, or supposed conditions, about which we have heard a great deal of fault found-the conditions existing at the terminals. If you are not going to take the radical steps demanded by the men of the west, and the minister evidently considers them to be radical, then I would like to know what sense there is in taking the position at all, and what benefit there is in this whole legislation. I have listened to the member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), explaining the advantages of tire amendment that he proposes in lieu of this section. I think I am somewhat of the opinion of the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), probably neither the section itself, nor the proposed amendment, will be efficacious in preventing the men who own the interior elevators throughout the west from also being interested in the operation of the terminal elevators. If the minister, with the aid of his legal advisers-and I am sure the member for Portage la Prairie is willing to give him all the assistance possible in this respect-is unable to draft a section that will prevent the condition complained of, that ia of the men who own and operate lines of country elevators from also owning and operating the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, is unable to bring here a clause that will absolutely commend itself to this committee as meeting this situation, then it seems to me this section is absolutely of no value, and it is only fair and right that 120
the minister should tell us he does not think this section will fill the bill. If the minister does not think he can draft a section to meet the requirements, and if he is going to try any experiment at all, he ought to try the experiment that the farmers of the wresit have asked for, and take over all the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur.


Levi Thomson: I am rather surprised to hear the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), confess
that there is a wrong, fox which there is practically no remedy. The government is assuming that there is a wrong, and where there is a wrong, I think-although in this I am contradicting the hon. member for Portage la Prairie-there is a remedy, and this committee should find that remedy. It is all very well to use destructive arguments as the hon. gentleman has done. Destructive criticism is -of very little use, we want constructive criticism. I was also surprised to hear him say that the matter referred to by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down was not in discussion-that is of finding a remedy for these wrongs. If it is not under discussion why waste time, we should not have anything to do with this matter at all. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says there is a wrong, and that he is trying to rectify it; and I think he has satisfied himself-I am sure he must have-that so far as rectifying the wrong complained of, the proposed section 123 is so much useless paper, it is not worth the paper it is written on.	.
The mere fact that he refuses to discuss that section now, and in connection with it the amendment of the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) convinces me of that fact. There' is something in the suggestion of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and I think he could easily rectify it by the insertion of a word or two in the 4th line, so that it would read:
No person owning, managing, operating or otherwise interested in any public or terminal elevator shall buy or sell or be otherwise interested in the buying or selling of grain, etc.
Let us compare for a moment, the section as it stands, and the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Moosejaw. In the first place you will find that by section 2, subsection 1, it says that section shall not apply by reason only of the fact, etc. The hon. member for Moosejaw has shown the difficulty that will arise as the section is at present drafted. That is, a person may be interested in, or may be the owner of a terminal elevator, which shall be leased in accordance with the provisions of the following subsections. He may own half-a-dozen elevators, but so long as he has one elevator



in which he is interested, leased to some person else, he is exempt. The other subsection (b) should commend itself to the approval of the minister, where the person who is the owner of stock or shares of any railway company which owns or operates any elevator, shall also be exempt. I think the hon. member for Portage la Prairie is satisfied that this can be remedied, and that the minister must see that this clause is defective and can and should be improved.


George Eulas Foster: I think that both of the suggested amendments are perhaps worthy of more consideration than I was at first disposed to give them, and what has been said by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has also impressed me, as all his utterances on these legal questions do. I would be sorry to have the clause pass without getting as near as possible to the intent of the Act. We might allow this to stand and think it over, and pee if we can get any better construction of this clause. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) has also a suggestion to make I understand.


Mr. AIKINS.: I would move to add as an amendment at the end of section 123:
But if the person who is mentioned in subsection 2 owns, manages, operates or is otherwise interested in any terminal elevator other than a terminal elevator mentioned in subsection 2, he shall not be exempted from the provisions of subsection 1.


Levi Thomson: That only covers one of the difficulties.


George Eulas Foster: We will allow this to stand at present, and take it up again.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister asked if I would read the question which I had asked the Prime Minister. It is at page 2911 of ' Hansard J February 12.


William Erskine Knowles: I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached to place a sum in the supplementary estimates for the securing of elevators by lease, purchase, or expropriation.


Mr. BORDEN.: That question has not yet been formally considered. An announcement will be made in connection with the supplementary estimates.


William Erskine Knowles: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman if he sent the following telegram to Mr. F. W. G. Haultain:-
F. W. Haultain,
Regina
Telegram received. The statement you bring to my attention is utterly untrue. Bill now before the House includes power for purchase, lease or expropriation of terminal elevators; an appropriation to be placed in the supplementary estimates for this purpose.
(Sgd.) R. L. BORDEN.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I sent that, but it is quite true that the supplementary esti-Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).
mates have not yet been formally considered, and that an announcement to the House will be made when that takes place.
I understood that the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce would give some information as to how this information came to be given to Mr. Haultain several days ahead of the time when the Prime Minister told us the matter had not yet been formally considered in council.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think I promised my hon. friend to give him any explanation at all.


William Erskine Knowles: You raised a hope.


George Eulas Foster: I am sorry if I raised a hope that now I shall have to dash to the ground. I quite see what an important influence this has in the proper arrangement of section 123 so as to make it effective. It has been the only little divergence from the straight and narrow path that we have carefully followed, which was to discuss this Grain Bill on its merits. This little episode, however, shows how manfully we have stuck to the right principle. But as there is always an exception, my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has formed the exception. However, knowing hipn as we do, we will forgive him that breach of the general method which has 'been adopted in the discussion of this Bill. I do not think the Prime Minister was much out of the way. I think he explained himself, he gave an answer, and he gave an explanation. He said it had not been formally considered, and in following up the answer he said that the supplementary estimates had not been considered. This, if it comes in anywhere, as it will come in, will be in the supplementary estimates. I think the Prime Minister was quite consistent in what he said as to why he sent a telegram to Mr. Haultain, and the Prime Minister when he comes will give that explanation himself. I suppose it was to give certain information to Mr. Haultain.


William Erskine Knowles: I think I had a perfect right to bring this to the attention of the minister. I contend that we should have been given every particle of information that the government possesses. The Prime Minister was possessed of certain information that he was in a position to impart to a political pet, Mr. Haultain, of Regina. The Prime Minister, I think, had a greater duty to perform to us than he had to perform to Mr. Haultain. Mr. Haultain was told in categorical terms that such money would be in the estimates. I asked: Had the decision been reached to put that in the estimates, and I am told the matter had not been formally consid-Mr. KNOWLES.

ered. Was Mr. Haultain told that it had not been formally considered? No, he he was told in the most formal way that the vote would be in the supplementary estimates for such and such a purpose. I think we are entitled to just as much information as Mr. Haultain was, if not a little more. It is an important matter for us in the west. I have letters upon letters from people in the west, people whose hopes have been raised that they would secure terminal elevators by lease, expropriation or purchase by this neiw government. Perhaps those hopes are to be dashed to the ground. If the minister will be more particular to execute his promise of expropriating the elevators and less particular about establishing a Tariff Commission, he will confer greater benefit on the people in the west. We have been told that the one great reason for the haste of the government in instituting this Tariff Commission was that they made a promise, and the promise was weighing heavily upon their conscience until it was fulfilled. Surely if they are so much in a hurry to fulfil their promise in regard to the Tariff Commission, why should they not be equally in a hurry to keep their promise in regard to terminal elevators? Their rule seems to be that promises to the manufacturers must be kept, but promises to the farmers may be ' chucked.'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand the hon member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) to say that although an individual in his private capacity could be prevented from doing a thing that was subject to a penalty, if he were to join a corporation he could secure immunity for doing that very thing which he could not do otherwise. All I have to say is that corporations are subject to the penal laws. In redrafting this section I hope the minister will do it in such a way that it will apply to corporations as well as individuals. The criminal law deals with corporations just as well as with individuals. True, you cannot put a corporation in jail, but you can reach them by heavy fines. As this would be an indictable offence, I would suggest that whatever penalty applies to an individual should be made to apply to a corporation.


Arthur Meighen: The point is that the corporation would not be violating the law, and therefore would not be subject to the penalty. The corporation would be quite within the provisions of the Act. Certainly a corporation under the Act as it stands, if it violates the law, is subject to the penalty the same as any one else, because the word ' person in the interpretation clause covers ' firm "or corporation '. I do not see at present what remedy there 120*
would be that would not make the evil worse, that is to say, that would not entail an even worse confusion. I do not think my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) would advise the government to frame this clause so that no person could be an owner of stock, however small, in one company doing a grain business, and also own stock in another company doing a storage business. If he did that what would happen the unfortunate individual who received by will stock in one business, when he himself owned money in another? He would be violating the law without any act of his own whatever.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 125-security by license,


George Eulas Foster: I propose to amend this section by striking out all the words after ' sum ' in line 24 to ' elevator ' in line 26.
The words struck out will be ' of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, in the discretion of the board, for each terminal.' Then I propose to insert the words ' of seven thousand five hundred dollars for each terminal elevator of fifty thousand bushels capacity and under, and of a proportional sum for each terminal elevator of more than fifty thousand bushels capacity.' That puts it upon the basis of $7,500 for a bond for a 50,000 bushel elevator or under, and on the same proportional basis for an elevator of over 50,000 bushels. Seven thousand five hundred dollars is 15 cents per bushel and that is based on the principle of 15 cents for every bushel of capacity in the elevator. That is the same bond that is given in Minnesota; it is not considered too large, and it is cheerfully given there, I understand.


Frank Oliver: How would that rate compare with the rate actually required now?


George Eulas Foster: It is much larger. We cannot go above fifty thousand. If you have a seven million bushel elevator you get a much larger bond.


Frank Oliver: I draw the minister's attention to the fact that a little while ago his argument was that the bond was sufficient security and that there was not the necessity of action by the board to close an elevator. I must say that fifteen cents a bushel is not a very adequate security.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will make the calculation he will find that it gives a very large security.


Frank Oliver: It is a large security, but it is not an adequate security.


George Eulas Foster: I think it is an adequate security, if you take into

consideration that the grain itself is within the elevator. It is not taken out. Of course, if it were something which was dissipated and if all you had wras 15 cents a bushel, it would not be a very large proportion compared with the price of the grain, but this is a large bond for security.


Frank Oliver: I am not complaining of the bond, but I am complaining about the application of the minister's argument in a former case.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 57-sale by sample.


George Eulas Foster: Section 57 at present reads as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall prevent any person from selling or buying grain by sample regardless of its grades.
I propose to add the following:
Subsection 2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act that may conflict therewith, sample markets may be established in the cities of Winnipeg, Fort William and Calgary and the mixing of grain permitted in connection therewith under such rules and regulations as shall he recommended by the hoard and approved by the Governor in Council.	.
3. The provisions of section 208, with the exception of subsection 3 thereof, shall apply to sample markets when established.


Frank Oliver: On the face of it, this amendment would seem to contemplate the mixing of grain at terminal points, or at ainy rate it would contemplate the mixing of grain after inspection. I think that in the beginning of our consideration of the Bill it was generally conceded that that principle was objectionable to the spirit of the Bill; that is to say, that there should be no mixing after inspection. I think the committee would he glad if the minister would give a somewhat full explanation of tihis proposed amendment, because it seems to contradict the principle of the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: 
Frank Oliver: I think we do. We want to have a very thorough understanding of this question which is a vital point of the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: Very well, if my hon. friend requires a fairly full explanation he has a perfect right to have Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
it. Perhaps it would be as well to premise the statement in reference to this by a little glance at the history of the grain business in the United States of America, instead of travelling .all over the States and particularizing, it would be just as well for the purposes of this explanation that we should take the state of Minnesota and confine ourselves to that. The facts of the case in reference to the development of grain marketing in the state of Minnesota are briefly these: The time was when they had no sample market 'and allowed no mixing of grains. They had a grade market and a grade market only. Gradually, in the evolution of the grain trade and public sentiment developed and in the course of time, in the early eighties, I think it was, the grade system pure and simple was superseded by the sample market system. For a number of years the sample market system has been the one in vogue in that state. The modus operandi of the system is something like this:	.
Grain coming from the west to Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth, is at a certain point outside of Minneapolis sampled by the samplers of the Grain Exchange of Minneapolis and also by the samplers of the state who correspond to our government inspectors. These samples are sent in the one case to the members of the Exchange, and in the other to the proper state officials. The object of the sampling by the state official is to set the grades of the grain; the object of the sampling by the grain exchange is to get from these cars sale samples which -are placed in the band's of the members of the exchange. These samples appear in the exchange when the exchange opens for business. There is a sample of the grain taken from each car, the number of the car, and the district from which the car comes, and these samples are viewed by the buyers, and according to the quality of the samples shown the purchase is made. The samples taken by the state officials, have by an early hour of the day been inspected by the state inspectors and the grades for the cars are fixed and the certificates are sent up to the grain exchange and the buyer then has the advantage of the sample itself which he can see and feel, and of the grade and standard which has been established by the state inspector. The purchases are then made and the cars have gradually made their way down to the city and they are to remain for a certain period. These carloads of grain are bought then by people upon the sample market. They are afterwards taken, if bought by the millers, to their mills, and if bought otherwise they are taken to the warehouses as they call them, or the public or terminal elevators, as we call them. They are inspected into these

elevators and are stored in them and are again inspected out, and are to be inspected out at the same grade and at the same weight as when inspected in.


Frank Oliver: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say there were two inspections P


George Eulas Foster: There is a sample inspection by the state and that becomes the inspection into the elevator. I did not mean to say there were two inspections into the elevator.


Frank Oliver: When the grain leaves that elevator is there a verifying inspection or a different inspection?


George Eulas Foster: am fully convinced, as the result of the tests that I have spoken of concerning different types of wheat, that it becomes absolutely necessary, if we are to have an ideal market, that we must have a sample market to temper the inefficiencies and inadequacies of the grading system, and in order to have such a sample market, we cannot, rely on the western millers, who can place a carload in a special bin, hut we must have the grain specially binned in the terminal elevators .in order to enable the eastern miller and the old country miller to enter into this competition.
I find also, on page 103 of the proceedings of the same conference, a statement from Mr. Henders, who I think is at present the president of the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association, as follows:
We cannot compete under the present existing conditions, but if we could be put in such a position that we were able to go. on a sample market in Winnipeg and select our types of wheat and compel the Ogilvie Milling Company and the Lake of the Woods Milling Company to go on the same market and select their types of wheat the same as we do and compete with us, we could go into the business. On the other hand we put ourselves in this position that we send to the old country the wheat which is not selected by the Ogilvie people or the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, a secondary article which goes into a general bin, and this fixes the price at which we have to sell our good stuff.
In the minutes of the proceedings of the Senate Committee, on page 200, I find in a formal statement put in by Mr. McKenzie, the secretary of the Grain Growers' Association, the following:
There is a consensus of opinion that a sample market established in Winnipeg would be in the interests of the grain producers. In my judgment, that, however, can oidy he made effective by permitting dealers special binning privileges in terminals so as to preserve the identity of their purchases on the sample market. I cannot conceive of a purchaser on a sample market storing his grain in a special -bin in an elevator operated by his competitor. The risk would be too great; his competitor would soon put him out of business. The only effective special binning privilege that could be secured would he in government owned terminal elevators.
I read these as sample statements from those wbo in the west represent the organized grain -producers in the associations known as the Grain Growers' Associations. I might quote from Mr. Fream, of the Alberta Farmers' Union, to the same end, that he is in favour of a sample market, but he wants to see government elevators at the terminals before he would be in favour of having a sample market introduced. Thus much for the opinions of those who represent the grain producers of the Northwest. When we come to other classes who are interested in the Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
grain business, we find probably different views. Many of them are in favour of a sample market; some of them are not. On the whole, I should judge that the preponderating opinion of those most vitally interested in the grain business of this country is in favour of having a sample market in Canada. It is in deference to the course which history has taken in Minnesota and generally in the United States, and also in deference to this opinion, which I believe to be general, that the government has determined to introduce at this time into the Grain Bill a provision under which sample markets can be established at Winnipeg, at Fort William and at Calgary.
The arguments on general principles, without taking up too much of the committee's time, seemed to me in general to be these: The natural method of .buying and selling is for the seller to show and the buyer to examine the article which it is proposed to exchange between them. A man wants to buy a horse, some one else wants to sell a horse. The buyer and the seller come together, and the buyer examines the points of the horse with what knowledge he may have and lie fixes his price for that horse on his own examination. He does not sit in his house and buy a horse by grade or anything of that kind. That is probably an extreme illustration, but what I wrant to come to at first is, that the natural way of buying and selling is to buy and sell by an actual examination of the article of wdiich an exchange is to be made between the two. Now it would seem to be plain that where you have three or four standard grades of grain, the standard 'being fixed as being of a cgrtain weight, of certain texture or kernels of grain, certain colours and so on, that you will have as between the different grades established varying degrees of excellence in the 'grain. You will have a No. 1 which is 'flush and full. You will have a No. 1 which is between that and a hare No. 1 which the inspector looking at in sample, and knowing what the various standards are, will say: 'Yes, that can go into No. 1 '; and so you have these spreads in value between the different grades as far as the grades go. From what study I have given to the matter the impression is strong with me that the farmer gains less and loses more by sales under grade, than he would if he made his sales by sample. If you have a sample market in Winnipeg, where the farmer's grain, sampled from his car, goes on inspection, and the buyers are present in the sample market the grain of the farmer is not simply bought by those who are upon the sample market because it grades No.

2, and the price just given simply on the grade of No. 2, but the price will be proportionate to the qualities within the grade itself. A man will see a plump good quality of No. 2. He will see a less generous quality in No. 2; he will see one that goes down very close to the 'border. In a competition of buyers it is plain to me that the better price will be given for the higher quality within the grade. By the other system it is sold out of sight and by grade. It seems to me that it is rather paid for to the farmer bv the lowest of the grade than by either the average or the highest of the grade. The trouble which is complained of, and it is a grievance, is the spread in price between the different grades. Those who are in favour of a sample market believe that the purchase thereon by the competitors will bring out the value for all these qualities between the grades, and that those values will certainly be shared and gererously shared by the farmers. That is the argument for the sample market so far as that is concerned. The argument against the sample market is one that says: ' Hold by the grades ' and avoid mining. Now it seems to me a necessity for a sample market that you should have mixing privileges as well, and mixing privileges, says the man who stands by the grade, and that alone,	will deteriorate the
grades themselves, and on the ultimate market you will therefore, get a less price than you would if you had no sample market, and no mixing of the grain as a concomitant of the sample market. The man who buys on the sample market with the privilege of mixing in a bin at the terminal elevator or anywhere else, buys the different qualities within the grades and he directs them to his bin. He will buy, for instance, a good grade of No. 1 and he will buy the best grade of No. 2. He will direct both of these-if he buys a carload or two or three carloads of each-to his bin in the terminal elevator. They will go into thiait bin, and the two of them mixing together will make a good grade of No. 1, and before they go into the market they pass the inspection and receive their grade out. That grade out given by the same inspectors is a uniform grade, and the grain goes upon the market with the impress of the grade, with the certificate that the government inspector gives it. I do not know if there are any other points that should be mentioned in giving this very cursory, and of course not very full or complete, description of the sample market as contrasted with the grade market, or the difference between the two. No doubt we shall have some conversation upon this, and other gentlemen will have their views upon it. We will discuss it and I shall
have further opportunity for speaking upon it. Probably I have said sufficient in introducing the question to the committee for its consideration, and by and by for its conclusion.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: Is the sample market in the United States under federal control, or state control?


George Eulas Foster: It is under state control.


Frank Oliver: I am sure the committee is indebted to the minister for the statement he has made on the introduction of this very important amendment. But I am bound to say that the explanation he has so far given does not meet the questions that are in my mind. First let it be thoroughly impressed that for good reason or bad, whether wisely or unwisely, it has been the principle contended for, especially by the western farmers, but acceded to by everybody-that it was in the interests of the trade and in the interests of the grower of grain, that grain should go forward to its ultimate market according to the inspector's certificate.
That has been a cardinal principle of our grain trade which has been held more and more strongly every year, and the desire to maintain that principle is the foundation of the demand for government ownership of terminal elevators, or for the divorcing of the ownership of terminal elevators from the buying and selling of grain. The minister did not make it clear whether this is an amendment that applies in fact cnly to grain bought for local consumption and not in serious measure to grain for export. It seems to me that while ostensibly and according to the argument of the minister it is a provision which will be applied particularly to grain intended for local consumption, as a matter of fact the mixing privileges which this contemplates will apply to grain for export quite as much as to grain for home consumption.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend understood me to limit it to grain for home consumption he took from my words a meaning that I did not intend to convey. They apply generally.


Frank Oliver: If he had given it to be understood that it applied especially to grain for home consumption I could then have seen the force of the argument, but if it is to apply to all grain I fail to see the logic of his explanation. It is then in direct contradiction to the principle that has been established and carried on for so many years. I am not going to argue for the moment that that principle is right, it may be that in the quotations he has given my hon. friend finds good reason for reversing the principle, but before reversing it there should be the most sub-

stantial reasons and the most complete explanation.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: After the grain arrives at an elevator at Fort William it is allowed to be mixed, and a man buying on sample market is allowed to mix it, and the grain is graded out.


Frank Oliver: That is what is proposed under the amendment and I say that is contrary to the principle which now prevails. To-day the principle is that the grain is inspected as it comes from the country elevator, at Winnipeg; it goes forward under that inspection and it is held most strongly, especially by the farming community, that it should still go forward c.u that inspection, and should not be mixed at Fort William.


William Henry Sharpe: Did they not pass a resolution at Brandon last year asking for the establishment of a sample market?


Frank Oliver: In my humble judgment there is an effort under the name of establishing a sample market to secure unlimited rights for mixing grain for export and that is entirely contrary to our present principles of handling grain.
There can be no question of the advantage of selling grain on a sample market if there is a demand for that grain which demand can handle it without requiring it to be graded or to go through varying channels of transportation. Then, undoubtedly the farmer will get a truer value for his grain. But that only applies and qan only apply so far as there is a consuming market within such range as will allow that grain to go forward without breaking bulk, so that the grain which has been bought on sample will be actually delivered to the place of consumption. Once bulk has to be broken before grain reaches its ultimate point of consumption then, in order that the grain trade may be carried on with facility, it must be carried on under grade and not under sample. You cannot preserve the identity of grain in practice between Fort William and Liverpool.
You must carry on the trade between Fort William and Liverpool on grade and not on sample. You can only carry on the trade by sample where you can reach the point of consumption without breaking bulk from the point of shipment. When conditions in Minneapolis are cited as conditions that might prevail at Winnipeg, you lose sight of the fact that at Minneapolis a large percentage of the wheat is for home consumption, and a small percentage is for export. But at Winnipeg the small percentage is for home consumption, and the large percentage is for export. That makes a radical difference in conditions. In the case of Minneapolis it matters little what Mr. OLIVER.
happens the small proportion of wheat that is exported; the great bulk of it is milled for home consumption, and the great bulk of the mills are right at Minneapolis. But in our case, where only a small part of the whole product is locally milled, the large proportion is for export. Therefore, it makes a great difference to us how that grain that goes to the export market is handled; it makes less difference how the grain that goes for home consumption is handled. Therefore, when a proposition is made which, under the name of giving our farmers the advantage of a sample market, merely becomes a proposition to legalize the mixing of grades for export, it is a matter of a most objectionable character. I wish to place myseif on record as being strongly opposed to the proposition of legalizing the mixing of grain in the terminal elevators, because that is what this proposition is.


William D. Staples: It is a proposition for a sample market.


Frank Oliver: A sample market has nothing whatever to do with the mixing of grain for export, or has no necessary connection with the mixing of grain for export. So far as there is a milling demand which can be centred in Winnipeg for the purchase of the farmers' grain, that milling demand can be exercised without mixing the grades in the terminal elevators. The two things have no necessary connection. Provision can be made in the Bill, if necessary, for selling grain on sample in Winnipeg. The provision exists in the Bill to-day, but it has never been taken advantage of, because I presume, the time has not arrived when conditions were favourable to dealing with it in that way. At present, in the Bill of 1908, provision is made that the shipper of a car of grain can order it stopped at Winnipeg for the nurpose of giving him an opportunity of selling it on sample, and afterwards within six months hie can ship it farther east at the same through rate, a provision absolutely intended to facilitate the establishment of a sample market in Winnipeg. So far as I can see. that is all that is necessary to the establishment of such a market, except the local milling demand, which is the only thing after all, that will create a sample market. When my hon. friend gave notice of the amendment, I -wired Mr. R. McKenzie, at Winnipeg, whose name has been mentioned here, asking him his opinion of the amendment. I will read his reply:
Suggested amendment positively no value to western farmers. Opposed utterly hv our association. Ostensibly to establish sample market, effect will be to enable few' private individuals to make immense profits out of second-class grain at expense of reputation of standard grades, with no advantage to farmers. Conditions essential to establish sample

market at Winnipeg, involve making Winnipeg an order point, and sending samples from points west of Winnipeg in advance of cars, as in Minneapolis, and equal opportunity to all dealers to have identity of grain purchased on sample preserved at terminals.
Tire suggestion of Mr. McKenzie has all been met in making Winnipeg an order point, that is. a point to which cars may be ordered and held for the purpose of the load being sold. In regard to the other suggestions that he makes, they can be dealt with very easily, and in no way do they involve the question of mixing at terminals. I have here a copy of the ' Grain Growers' Guide,' containing -an article by the editor upon the sample market in Minneapolis. I think it was perhaps from this article that my hon. friend got the information that he gave to the House to-night. Mr. Chipman went to Minneapolis for the express purpose of studying the sample market, and his conclusion is this:
It was quite evident from the best advice to be received in Minneapolis that the sample market cannot be created by statute. The only thing that can be done in the matter b.v law is to make the conditions favourable, and the sample market will follow promptly. These conditions will include:
1.	Sampling of cars at divisional points outside of Winnipeg.
2.	Increased terminal elevator accommodation.	.	.
3.	Permission to special bin and mix gram purchased on the sample market.
4.	A prompt and efficient system of handling appeals against the grade given by the government inspector.'
In regard to number 3, I take it that is mixing for the purpose of local use, that is to say, for home milling consumption, which of course must be done. When the grain goes to the ultimate consumer the miller must, of course, mix the grain to suit his particular trade. No doubt the British miller has to do the same. When the grain is bought -on sample and can be delivered with, the package unbroken, it is perfectly legitimate to mix that grain to make it suitable for the miller's market. But that is a different proposition altogether from mixing that grain for the purpose of sending it across the water. _ If the grain to be exported is to be scientifically mixed, it necessarily follows that it will always be only what will pass the grade; it will be of a lower standard than if it were not scientifically mixed, and the result of that is that our trade is affected to that extent in the British market,^ and our home prices are correspondingly affected.
That is necessarily the result of permitting or legalizing the mixing of grain in the terminal elevators for export. Let me draw the distinction absolutely between the question of establishing a sample market
and the question of mixing grain for export. The one has no necessary connection with the other and while the establishment of a sample market in so far as it could be established would necessarily be to the benefit of the farmer, and particularly to the benefit of the farmer producing the highest quality of grain, the privilege of mixing for export would necessarily have the absolute contrary effect and would be a detriment to the good farmer inasmuch as lie would not be getting the grade for the higher quality of grain that he produced.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I regard the amendment moved to-night by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) as being perhaps the most vital feature of this Bill and I welcome with all the earnestness I can the principle launched in this amendment. I believe that it will open up a line of legislation and of grain operating in western Canada that will go far, in the course of time, to get over all the obstacles under which we suffer now. I cannot say that I am surprised that the hon. member foi adnionton (Mr. Oliver) has a telegram in his possession that the clause is absolutely worthless from Mr. Roderick Mackenzie of the Grain Growers' Association. I regret that. the officers of that association cannot see^ their way at the present time to give their assistance to the establishment of sample markets. But while I cannot feel myself to be in touch with them so closely as are the hon. member for Edmonton and his associates I do feel that on this subject I am certainly as closely in touch as I can be with the farmers of my own constituency. I did not learn until I reached this House and knew that sample market provisions were in contemplation by the government that those at the head of the association had become antagonistic to the idea. During and before the last contest I was met by farmers at every point in my constituency and at points in other constituencies in Saskatchewan as well as in northern and southern Manitoba and the desire seemed to be universal that sample marketing privileges and machinery should be provided. I believe that desire is universal to-day and that the gentleman who sent that telegram will become aware of it in due course of time. Why is this proposition made and what is the object to be served? I do not know that I am capable of stating it as it appeals to my mind. I think it appeals to my mind fairly clearly, I will no the best I can to state it and I will be brief. Our grading system is at present in vogue and in order to carry out that system we have to have certain specified and defined grades. We must have a certain number of grades ranging in merit I from the -best to the worst. Each must

be defined in so far as words can define it and the grading is done according to the definition. Let us take the case of wheat in order to make it simple. If in buying all the wheat could be divided into 'certain sections in such a way that each would just reach the grade that is to say if it could be so divided that all in each section would just be No. 1 Hard and no more, all No. 1 Northern and no more, all No. 2 Northern and no more and so on down the list, the farmer would get the full benefit. Then there would be no means of extracting from him a certain amount of the value of his wheat. As the system is operated up to this point, by means of one device or another, the purchaser of the grain, chiefly by mixing, has been enabled-I am dealing now with the export trade because it will make the argument clear-to make the export grade the minimum in each case. By mixing perhaps two different samples of No. 3 Northern he is able to make them No. 2 Northern, the one making up what the other lacks. By mixing a high No. 2 and a low No. 3 he is able to make a No. 2 Northern. At all events he so arranges that, generally speaking, he is able to export different classes of grain, each of the minimum of its grade. He does not buy that grade, On account of the grading system in vogue he is able to buy on one basis and sell on the other and by this means he is enabled to snatch and appropriate to himself the excess of value that comes by reason of the fact that a certain sample of grain stands between the grades. It is to get over that disadvantage under which the farmer labours that this provision is introduced. The question before us is: Does this provision for a sample market get over it? I contend it does. What is the machinery? What does the Minister of Trade and Commerce present to the committee? It is that markets shall be arranged at certain points and it is provided that all that is necessary for that arrangement shall take place there. In addition, in so far as the grain that is bought by sample is concerned it may be specially binned at the terminal elevators or at the public elevator at Winnipeg and may be mixed; that is to say that grain that is bought by a purchaser may all be mixed together and he may do what he likes with it. In so doing he divides it into certain grades and he is able as well to so arrange it that it will be the minimum of its class. But in order that he may do that and get the grade he is bound to pay the farmer what that grain is actually worth because he buys it by sample and his competitor is right there to compete with him. He is therefore bound to give the farmer what he formerly has been able to extract himself. He is bound to pay the farmer every cent that that far-1 mer's grain has in value over and above the Mr. MEIGHEN.
minimum of its class. So that the establishment of a sample market and allowing mixing at the terminals, in so far as the grain is bought by sample, gets over the difficulty under which the farmer has laboured for a number of years as, by virtue of the fact that under these mixing privileges and on account of the practice of purchasing by sample there will be returned to the farmer that which has formerly gone to the purchaser and the operator. The hon. member for Edmonton seemed to argue that this was all right in so far as the home market went, that in so far as grain was bought for milling purpose the sampling provisions were good and would redound to the farmer's benefit, but they had no application to grain bought for export.
In the first place I do not think the practice has iso settled. I have spoken with men in the grain business in Duluth. I refer now especially to one who is on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange at present-and my information is that grain is bought by sample for export just as generally as it is bought for local milling. It appears to me that the advantage to the farmer is just as clear in the one case as it is in the other. The mixing is done when it is bought for milling purposes at home and the sample provisions are provided in order that the farmer may get the benefit of that mixing. It anolies just as well to what is bought for export. The provision must be made that only grain bought by sample can be so mixed, and that it cannot be mixed in such a way that other grain bought by grade under the old system, can be mixed with it. The point that did appeal to me, and I think both the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) raised it, is that mixing being allowed in the elevators at Fort William that contain the grain bought by sample, that mixing will result in enabling the purchaser to ship across the water to the ultimate purchaser the minimum grade of No. 1 hard, and the minimum grade of No. 2. That is to say, that the grain which goes across the water will always be at the minimum, instead of it being, if no mixing were allowed, much of it above what is the minimum of No. I Hard, and much of it above what is the minimum of No. 1 Northern, and so on all the way down. Of course, it is quite clear that if we could provide that our grain should go over there intact, and much of what goes over as No. 1 Hard, is really afcove No. 1 Hard, that would enhance the reputation of our wheat, and if the machinery were just up to that point the farmer would get the benefit. But I apprehend that by the -sampling provision the farmer would have his option to sell one way or the other; the competing buyers are there, the man who is buying by sample and the man who

is buying by grade, and the farmer can sell either way. The man who is buying by sample could get the benefit of the mixing provision, and he will consequently pay a much higher price, and the man who is buying by grade has to pay it or he won't get the grain. It appears to me very much could be done through the machinery provided by this section to meet the difficulty that was in the mind of the hon. member for Edmonton. I do not pretend that I have always understood this question, or even that I fully understand it yet, but I know that a very strong feeling has prevailed that only by government operation can the difficulties be overcome. I am still an advocate of government operation. I earnestly hope that the government shall adopt not only this provision but the other also, and by means of the two together we will I feel certain be able to work out a satisfactory solution. The sample market is certainly popular in the constituency of Portage la Prairie. I have no doubt whatever of that. I would need evidence greater than could be read by the hon. member for Edmonton, to convince me that it is not. I have certainly failed to read the mind of the farmer in my constituency if I have not read it right when I say that he is heart and soul behind the proposed sample clause submitted to this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


David Bradley Neely: I would like to see the Bill in proper form carried very promptly through the House, and to see its provisions, so long as they meet the necessities of the case, become effective at once. But, we are called back to consider this clause for the purpose of considering an amendment, which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen), admitted in his opening remarks, was an absolute reversal of the whole policy of the past in dealing with our grain. The minister makes practically the same admission, and the question is too serious to pass over lightly. We discussed some days ago the value of a sample market, or the possibilities of a sample market under the present conditions. Is the minister going to ask us to insert a provision now which will permit the very thing that is complained of by the men who are asking for this legislation!? There would not be lamy Grain Bill at all before this House if it were not that the farmers of the west have complained in the past that mixing of grades had been carried on in the terminal elevators, and that as the result of that mixing our grain standards had been depreciated especially in the Liverpool market. As we all know, we have a condition in the grain trade in western Canada that is not altogether analagous to the condition in the grain trade of the states across the line. We
know that practically all the wheat grown in Minnesota and the Dakotahs is exported in the form of flour if it is exported at all, and that practically none or it goes to [DOT]the outside world's markets in its 'natural condition. The hard wheat that is graded according to our grading system is almost entirely milled in the mills of Minneapolis. On the other hand, the bulk of the Western Canadian grain is sold in the markets of Great Britain and elsewhere. The present system, whether it is right or wrong, has been the only system in vogue in this country aince we have had a grain trade from the east or from the west. The farmers of the west have made complaints- and that is the cause of this legislation- that until last year the elevator operators at Fort William and Port Arthur had been mixing in their elevators the different parcels of grain shipped into these ele-vatoTs, some labelled No. 1, and some No. 2, or No. 3, as the case may be, and that they have been raising a great quantity of the producer's wheat to a grade higheT than was given to it by the inspector's certificate it received when it passed through Winnipeg. Every year our inspectors select samples of the different official grades, and in every case those samples which are sent to the world's buyers are a better average than the minimum of the grade requires. The western grain producer claims that as a result of the mixing that has gone on in the terminals in years gone by, the Liverpool purchaser of his wheat has not been getting the kind of wheat he might expect to get from the sample furnished him by the government inspector at the beginning of the shipping season. That is why this grain legislation was introduced in the last parliament, and has been re-introduced this year.


Arthur Meighen: This does not prevent that at all. The grain would still be inspected out, and the grain thus inspected, must be equal to the sample in the hands of the purchaser in England. This legislation has no effect whatever on that.


David Bradley Neely: The point I am making is, that if this legislation goes into effect, it will bring about a condition of affairs absolutely identical with that which the farmers have been complaining of in years gone by-that, instead of the Liverpool buyer getting the average of the grade which he might expect to get, judging from the sample which the inspector sends him, he has been getting, as a result of the mixing that has been going on at the terminals, the minimum of the grade, and this has depreciated the standard of our grain in the Liverpool market, and lowered the price. If these practices have not been going on, the farmers are mistaken, and there is no necessity for any legislation, other than what

we have on the statute-books at the present time. If, on the other hand, the farmers have been suffering, as they have been complained of doing, from this very condition at the terminals, what does the minister mean by undertaking to legalize the very condition that has been complained against, and that is the cause of any new grain legislation at all? 1 can quite conceive that a sample market under proper conditions, might be of very great benefit to the grain producer. There is no doubt that the farmer loses and is bound to lose, by having to sell all his grain on the straight grading system, because there is, and must always be, such a difference in the prices paid for the different grades that the man who has a very high average of a certain grade is necessarily losing to some extent; but if the buyer in the world's market could be assured every shipping season, that he was getting something more than the minimum, that he was getting the average of the grade he had been led to expect to get, from the samples he receives from the government inspector at the beginning of every shipping season, the farmer would not be losing as much as he does at the present time. I can quite see, that beyond all that, there are conditions uinder which a sample market might be an advantage; but I dto not think the sample market would be of any advantage whatever iif we are going to insert a clause; such as this amendment is, that will permit of promiscuous mixing at the terminals, and of re-grading the groin out of these terminals for export purposes. If, for instance, a miller from Ontario wishes to go to the sample market at Winnipeg or at Fort William, and purchase a certain brand of No. 3. and a certain quality of No. 2, and intends to take that grain down to his mill in Ontario, certainly if a sample market is going to be of any advantage in that case, you must give him the pr'vi-lege of leasing a special bin in the terminal at Fort William; but if he does so, and the different parcels of grain which he purchases on the sample market are, inspected or not, I say that if you give him the privilege for his own convenience of putting a certain parcel of No. 3 and a certain parcel of No. 2 or of No. 1 into a special bin at Fort William or Port Arthur, you have no right to allow your government inspector to re-grade that grain out of the elevator. Then, if the Liverpool buyer wants to purchase grain and comes over to our sample market-we will sav that he is a miller, or is buying for ia mill or a number of mills-if he wishes to come over and buy certain qualities of grain on the sample market and ship them in one parcel to the mills for which he purchases, there is no reason why he should not have special bin privileges at Fort William and Po't Arthur. There is no reason why you Mr. NEELY
should not have a sample market and the mixing privilege if you restrict them in the ways I have suggested; but there is no evidence of any restriction. If you are going to allow a Liverpool buyer to come to the sample market and take a certain sample of No. 3 and a certain sample of No. 2, and send them to a special bin at the terminal, mix them and have them regraded out, you are going to have continued in the grain trade, exactly the condition which the farmers are complaining of at the present moment. The grain_ dealer is not a philanthropist, and he will deliver to the purchaser, to whom he sells, either in eastern Canada or in Liverpool, a grain not a bit better than what the absolute requirements of the case demand.
1 And what are you going to have with this anomalous mixing privilege as suggested by this amendment? You are going to have continued in existence, only on a much larger scale than at present, the mixing of grain to the disadvantage of our grading system and to the advantage of the man who comes between and sells the farmers' grain to the world's buyers. This, Mr. Chairman, strikes me as being such an important amendment that I do not know hut that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might very well give us a little further time for its consideration. I am not blaming the minister for the fact that on his own side, as well as on this, there is not as full a House at the present moment as there might be. But whether this amendment is carried out or not, I want to say, so far as the position taken by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) is concerned, I think when he says the farmer of the west would like to have a sample market he is perfectly correct, but my hon. friend knows under what conditions the farmer thinks that a sample market oould be safely and properly established.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member not think that the conditions set out by Mr. Chipman are not satisfactory?


David Bradley Neely: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Chipman guards his position very thoroughly.


Arthur Meighen: Those conditions are all provided for here.


David Bradley Neely: Does my hon. friend mean to say they are all provided for in this amendment?


Arthur Meighen: I think so.


David Bradley Neely: Then the hon. gentleman's vision is much clearer than mine.


Arthur Meighen: Bead it and see.


David Bradley Neely: I have read it thoroughly again and again, and I can see no safe-

guard in any shape or form for the evils that would be brought into being in my judgment. If the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) takes a different view, his vision is much clearer than mine.


Arthur Meighen: What I stated was that in my judgment the Bill provides the conditions set out by Mr. Chipman, and I think my hon. friend would hardly dare-I am sure he would not dare-to stand up in this House and say there was anything wrong in th.e ' Grain Growers' Guide.'


David Bradley Neely: I will frankly say that I am not the proprietor or publisher of the ' Grain Growers' Guide,' and I aim not a shareholder or stockholder in it or any similar publication. I am not a member of the Grain Growers' organization, or any business concern connected with it.
I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), should take such a position


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: -Because anything that
emanates from the 'Grain Growers' Guido,' or the officials or head men of the Grain Growers' Association in his own province, seems to contain in itself the germ of disapproval so far as the 'hon. gentleman is concerned.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no, not necessarily.


David Bradley Neely: Apparently sio. It appears that when the minister is making use of a quotation which bears out his argument from some member of the Grain Growers' Executive, or from 'the ' Grain Growers1' Guide,' it is very acceptable, but when anything to the contrary is suggested by way of authority from these very same sources, that is enough to condemn it in the eyes of the hon. gentlemen opposite, including the member for Portage la Prairie. Now, I think hon. gentlemen opposite ought to be reasonable in this matter.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend knows the rule, which is a very good principle in law or anything else, that a man's admission can always be used against him, but it can never be used in his favour.


David Bradley Neely: I am not going to split 'legal hairs with the hon. gentleman, because I am not a lawyer, and I do not propose to enter into any fine legal discussion, but I am lawyer enough, I think, to see the effect and the tendency of this amendment, and I fail to see yet-'and I have read the article of Mr. Chipman, editor of the 'Grain Growers' Guide,' who let me say takes no active part in politics whatever-that the article makes any such admission as claimed by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and the minister in dealing with
this proposition to allow -mixing privileges at the terminals and then grade the grain out again for export purposes.


Michael Clark: I am really anxious to h-ave a little light on this question. I listened extremely carefully, with all the care I was capable of, to the minister and my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), but I cannot say that I understood the question much -better after they were done than when they began. It may have been my obtuseness, it very likely was; but -a man rarely gives up some belief in his own judgment, -and I have some suspicion that they do not understand the question themselves as well as they might do. Now, with regard to the minister's statement of the general desirability of buying upon sample there can b-e no two opinions. In the internal markets of the old countries of Europe no other kind of selling of grain is known. The farmer takes his sample to the market, and he sells upon that sample, and he sells the -bulk at the price he has- arranged for. But wliy do w-e h-ave a system of elevators and grades in this country ? I think the answer is very simple and on the surface. It is because we have an en-ormous export trade. We cannot sell our grain to the consumers -as they sell their grain to the consumers in the old countries of Europe. These grades and elevators-, and -all this complex -and large machinery that is unknown in Europe, -are necessary here because of our -enormous -export trade. Now that would seem in itself to cast 'some doubt upon the general argument in favour of this -amendment that -has been presented to this committee by the Minister of Trade and Comoi'erc-e. My horn, friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) does- not agree with the -leaders of the grain growers nowadays. This nonagreement is of somewhat recent origin surely. There was- a time, if my memory serves me right-very likely as my hon, friend's memory i,s younger he may be able to correct -me, hut I am -almost sure I -aim right this time-when there was *mention made by hon. gentlemen on th-e other side of the House of government ownership -and operation of elevators. I am surely right in -that recollection, and -at that time the 'hon. member for Portage la Prairie and Mr. Roderick Mackenzie were absolutely -at -one. The vote of my hon. friend was in -accordance with the opinion of Mr. Roderick, Mackenzie.


Arthur Meighen: Not on reciprocity.


Michael Clark: What in the world has that to do with the matter under discussion? When the hon. member becomes a little older and wiser, he may come into accord with Mr. Roderick Mackenzie on reciprocity. If this blockade continues, it will be necessary to find an outlet for

our grain somewhere. There was a time when he. was in accord with Mr. Mackenzie to this extent that he voted for a resolution in favour of government ownership and operation of elevators.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear, that is correct.


Michael Clark: Then his education has gone on very rapidly in the last few months. I am only sorry that he cannot carry on that education in such a way as to convince me of what he has learned.
He dealt with a matter that is elementary to us who are trying to get to the bottom of this very complex question. For an amateur he gave a fairly good description of what has been the evil with which we are contending, that is the mixing of grain. It is just the description I have heard Mr. Roderick Mackenzie give of that very evil so that on this head also he is in agreement with that gentleman. His peculiarity is that he has voted for an amendment which will allow this mixing to go on. The mixing is the evil we want to get rid of.


Arthur Meighen: The mixing of itself is not the evil we want to get rid of, the evil we want to get rid of is that the grain buyer is getting the benefit of the mixing instead of the farmer.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend overlooks one half his case. Canadians have been proud of our grain product and we wanted to preserve that grain product according to its grade on the Liverpool market. If the mixing lowers the character of the grade it lowers the value of the grain at Liverpool and to that extent lowers the price which would be obtained by the farmers at Portage la Prairie as at other places. I contend that the mixing is the evil and that being the case the Grain Growers came here two sessions ago and said that the only way to cure that evil is by government ownership and operation of elevators.
We have now come to this situation that our friends opposite are doubtful about the establishment of government ownership and operation being the cure for this mixing; they tell us that the sample market will deal only with a very small part of the grain that is grown and exported. They will agree only to a sample market in conjunction with the carrying out of the promises which our friends opposite gave and the Grain Growers are looking to hon. gentlemen opposite as they have a right to look for the fulfilment of the promises by which they won the last'election. I would be the last man to say that government ownership is an absolute panacea for all the evils the farmers suffer from, I was brought up in too individualistic a Mr. CLARK (Red Deer)
school for that. But the Grain Growers will be less interested in my opinion than in the vote of hon. gentlemen opposite on this question.
This buying on a sample market in the first part of the amendment cannot be objected to but where we are left in the dark is in the second part of the amendment. I do not see how we can possibly meet the views of the Grain Growers or deal with the admitted evil of mixing by embodying an amendment which allows the very mixing we have been trying to stop.


Levi Thomson: The minister quotes the Saskatchewan Elevator Commission as authority for the proposed' amendment. I have met within the last few days two members of that commission, Mr. Green and Mr. Langley, and if these gentlemen ever approved of the- mixing of grain under present circumstances, they have since changed their minds, and are now strongly opposed thereto. I don't think they ever approved of allowing mixing under existing circumstances. If these gentlemen could see that we would be allowed to dispose of our grain on the American market, then possibly they would not consider the mixing of grain so great an evil, at least the sample market would be of much more use to us. I do not know that these gentlemen would be so strongly opposed to a sample market, even with mixing, provided) that we had government ownership of all terminal elevators; without that they are as strongly opposed to it as they can be. Mr. Fream is of the same mind. There is no use casting slurs at these gentlemen. They are careful, conscientious men who have gone over this -thing, and know more about it than most of us do. I have listened with attention to the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). I do not know how long he has been engaged in farming. I have been at it for over a quarter of a century, and I am beginning to doubt my knowledge of some of these things. My hon. friend, I fancy, thinks he knows all about this question. Perhaps after he has been dealing with wheat as long as I have he will find out that he does not know so much about it. We have a good deal to learn about it yet, even those of us who live in the west. I would ask the minister not to press this amendment.


David Bradley Neely: Will the minister tell the committee on whose recommendation, by whose advice, he has come to the conclusion that it is advisable to legalize the mixing of grain as he proposes to do by this amendment? The member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) tells us that many of the farmers in his constituency are in favour of a sample market. Are they in

favour of mixing as is proposed under this amendment? How many communications can the member for Portage la Prairie give us from farmers in his constituency to that effect? Did the Minister of Trade and Commerce get his advice from the farmers, from the men who came down here and discussed this legislation with him? I would like to know that. The member for Portage la Prairie tells us that it is in the interest of the farmers. Now the farmers should know something about what is in their interest, and will the minister say whether it is the farmers who advised him along this line? Did they suggest this legislation legalizing the mixing, the very thing they have complained of for years, the very thing that this legislation was originally intended to stop? If they did not advise him to do so, then at whose request is he doing it? I cannot forget that a few days ago the member for Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) made a very strong speech in favour of this very provision in the amendment. But what sort of a constituency does that hon. gentleman represent? It is not a constituency of farmers by any means.
The chief interests in his constituency are industrial interests, are terminal elevator men, mill-owners and proprietors, men interested in the buying and selling of grain. That hon. gentleman was strongly in favour of the enactment of just such legislation as the minister proposes by this amendment, and his whole argument, and the argument of the member for Portage la Prairie, are along the same line. The argument of the meuniber for Rainy River was all to the effect that this would be in the interest of the grain producer and not of the men who operate the terminal elevators. Beautiful philanthropy! The hon. gentleman who represents the elevator interests and the milling interests in this House, those interests being the chief industrial concerns in his constituency, advocates this very thing, and his reason is that it is in the interest of the western grain producers. And the member for Portage 'la Prairie, who represents a rural and farming constituency, strange to say, can support that for the very same reason. It is a remarkable state of affairs. No doubt the minister is also legislating in the interest of the grain producers, because they are the men who handle the grain and who take their profit out of it. I say these gentlemen should have some knowledge and some information to show us why the minister is making this proposition, and why he proposes to change the whole current of legislation in this country by this simple looking amendment to clause 57. As I said, certain gentlemen representing the western (grain producers were here, I believe, when this Bill was first brought into committee; they
no doubt made certain representations to the minister. I took an opportunity to discuss this very question of the sample market with some of these gentlemen, Mr. Fream, Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Henders, and they said they did not want a sample market under present conditions.


William D. Staples: Under what conditions would they accept it?


David Bradley Neely: Under government operation of terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur.


William D. Staples: Suppose you got them?


David Bradley Neely: That is the point. We are legislating so as to legalize mixing, but we are not 'legislating for government ownership or operation. We are making it permissible for the government to do it, but that is all. We had the definite statement from the Minister that he would not lead the committee into any false conclusions by saying the government propose to go into this matter on a wholesale scale.


William D. Staples: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of providing sufficient money to buy all the terminal elevators at Fort William?


David Bradley Neely: The question of government operation does not involve the question of buying.


William D. Staples: Well leasing then?


David Bradley Neely: I do not know that leasing would be any particular cost at all because the elevators under their present operators are supposed to pay dividends.


Arthur Meighen: Are you in favour of leasing then?	-


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the government, but I am willing to say that if the government should stay by the present system, or if they propose, as they pledged themselves to do, to go# into the business of operating the terminals, they ought to do it in a straight, upright manly way by taking over the whole proposition. They cannot show the farmers of the west what they can do by taking over one or two elevators for a season. That particular season the rest of the elevator operators may find it a very useful thing to be on their best behaviour in order to show that the government-operated elevator had not turned out any better results than they had. But, we have had the results of the operation of these terminals year after year. The government cannot carry on a successful experiment unless they take over all the terminals and the handling of the whole year's output. This is not the way by which they can demonstrate the success otherwise of government ownership as compared with private opera-

tion. But, that is not the question under discussion. I do not want to say that my hon. friend was asking me any question to divert my remarks from the line on which I had started out, but I do say again, Mr. Chairman, that it is a strange situation that presents itself. We have one hon. gentleman from Port Arthur and Rainy River telling us that he wants this kind of legislation because it is in the interests of the producer, although he represents an industrial constituency, and the hon. member for Portage ia Prairie (Mr. Meighen) telling us the same thing because he represents a rural constituency. The conditions might be worse than they are at the present time, but if the farmers of the west are not to be consulted with reference to this legislation, if their views and wishes are absolutely to be lost sight of, and if the present conditions of marketing the grain of the west are to be reversed in a way in which the western grain producer does not want them to be, I think it is only fair that the minister should give us the reasons why he desires to make this change, and at whose instigation the change is to be made.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the passage of the Bill. I would like to dispose of this amendment to-night, in fact I would be glad if we could carry the Bill out of committee to-night, but it will not be possible to take the Bill out of committee to-night because section 123 stands for consideration, and while I would not suggest that possibly very much more could be said in regard to this amendment which is now before the committee, it will be admitted by everybody that it is the most important feature of the whole Bill as a matter of policy, and as a matter of legislation. The .membership of the committee at the present time is very small, and I would suggest to the minister that it would not be creditable to pass such an important amendment in such a small committee, and that as the Bill is not going out of committee anyway, and must be considered at another time the amendment be allowed to stand until the consideration of the Bill at a future date.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want to press unduly for the passage of this amendment, or of the Bill, and I do not think that my hon. friends on the other side can say that I have been pressing unduly, but we do want to get the Bill through. I do not know, if we were to let it go until to-morrow, what could be said further than what has been said. The hon. gentlemen who are opposed to this certainly are the pick of their side, and they are the men who have grown up on grain. They come right out of the atmosphere, they have it in their boots, and in Mr. NEELY.
their hats, it is through them all the way. They are the competent ones, they are the ones who have stayed by this Bill manfully as we have been carrying on the discussion for the last fortnight, and I am sure that nothing can be said, but what has been said so eloquently, and so well by the members who have had their full say to-night. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), is not satisfied. I would invite my hon. friend to make himself over a little if it is not too late. What is the reason a man who is not a farmer cannot express his views and give his quota to legislation in the interest of farmers, and of the grain producers of the countryP Is it absolutely impossible? The whole argument of my hon. friend was based upon a remarkable conjunction of feelings and of sentiment. The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Carrick), was in favour of this very thing and he favoured it because it was beneficial to the producer of grain. Why, should the argument prejudice the case? Could not my hon. friend (Mr. Carrick), hold that sentiment, and advance it in this House, and be thoroughly honest in it? Does it depreciate his argument because it is not made by a man who raises grain? Surely that is not what my hon. friend (Mr. Neely), would say. But the strangeness of the thing went still further. There was a complete agreement between the argument oi my hon. friend from Rainy River and the argument of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). They were on the same line. Mv hon. friend from Portage la Prairie says that his farmers are in favour of it. He advocates it because it is in favour of the grain producer, not of the grain handler. Did my hon. friend mean to throw discredit on that argument because my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie was not a farmer? Here are two arguments, one from a gentleman who is a business, man, who is not a farmer, and one from a lawyer who is not a farmer, but who represents a farming constituency. But the whole point of my hon. friend's argument, if he means to throw discredit on the thesis that was being advocated, because it was advocated by men who were not farmers, falls to the ground when he sees that the arguments, sentiments and reasons of these two gentlemen were exactly in accord with what I have read here tonight as the printed statements of the Grain Growers' Association's officers who are farmers. There is ah argument that compels me, if I were not perfectly clear in my own mind before, to come to the conclusion that this plan must be Tight. These are the sentiments of the men who grow the grain in the west. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie from his acquaintance with and knowledge of the

farmers whom he represents Is entitled to j give the reason which he has given for supporting this proposal. He believes that it will be a benefit to the farmer.
The man of general business knowledge looks over the whole scene with just as good a business head as my hon. friend has, and he says he advocates it for the benefit of the farmer. There is a concurrence of testimony that must carry weight in this House. The hon. gentleman is anxious to know why I introduced the amendment, and what did it arise from.
I will tell my hon. friend. I have given what study I could to it. I am a novice in the business but I have some power of reasoning and of getting a grasp of facts, and this proposal is here because after a thorough study I believe that the sample market is in the interest of the grain producer. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) admitted it himself to-night; he said: The farmer loses and is bound to lose under the grade system. So did the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) admit it.


Frank Oliver: Both myself and Mr. Chipman say you cannot create a sample market by statute.


George Eulas Foster: I deny that Mr. Chipman's whole article and the conclusions from it are anything else but an argument in favour of a sample market. I have read it carefully and it seems to me that the whole description is sympathetic to* a sample market. I believe that the main thing to keep our minds on is what is in the best interests of the producer of the grain. The exporter and the buyer will take care of himself. The eternal battle point between buyer and seller is where the farmer comes in and at the present time he comes in at a disadvantage. The sample market to my mind will give him the advantage he has heretofore been deprived of and that is sufficient reason for me to favour the passage of this amendment. I have a good deal of respect for theory. There are just as good men who can be found who out or a life-long experience in the grain business will stand up and say that as far as this whole matter is concerned the buyer on the European market buys by grade under our present system and his price is predicated upon that grade. He buys on grade and he fixes his price according to the grade and whatever is over the grade upon which he buys it, is so much advantage to him and so much taken from the farmer. It is the farmer who has been missing the fatness of the grade and it is the handler and the miller here and the miller in the old country who gets the advantage of the fatness of the grade. To hear some of my hon. friends opposite you would think there was a generic difference between the mil-
121 '
ler who bought for milling purposes in Ontario and the same miller who is the ultimate buyer in the English market.


Michael Clark: Will the minister explain how you can sell on sample from here to Liverpool?


George Eulas Foster: I believe that' with the establishment of a sample market within five years you will find the biggest grain market in the world in the city of Winnipeg, and I believe when a sample market is established in Winnipeg the European buyer and the Ontario buyer will be there in person or by agents and will be buying by sample on that market. I believe that the possibilities of the market in Winnipeg are illimita)ble. You say that Minneapolis has the advantage in the sample market because Minneapolis has the advantage of the millers close by, but Winnipeg has the advantage of the millers on the sample market itself in the person of commission agents who will buy for them. You say that we are perpetuating mixing which we have been trying to minimize by previous legislation. Will my hon. friend talk with Mr. Mackenzie from whom he received that telegram and put to Mr. Mackenzie this question: do you believe in a sample market and Mr. MacKenzie will say:	I do. Then ask him:
Mr. Mackenzie, do you believe a sample market is possible without mixing, and he will say I do not. Then ask him are you in favour of a sample market now, Mr. Mackenzie, and Mr. Mackenzie will answer:	I am, provided wTe have the
proper mixing-no, I will not put it in that way: provided we have our mixing in the place where no other mixers will be allowed to meddle with us and provided we do it ourselves. That is what Mr. Henders will tell you, and that is what Mr. Fream will tell you. They are all in favour of a sample market and they will tell you that a sample market is impossible without mixing, but they do not trust their mixing to go on in the other fellow's shop; they want a government shop in which they can do their mixing in their own bin. We will give them a government shop in which they can do the mixing in their own bin. Before next season's grain is ready to be shipped there will be elevators placed under government operation where these gentlemen can have their bins and where they can do their mixing under conditions which they themselves declare will be honest conditions. In the face of this why is it that my hon. friend must seek for reasons for my bringing this proposal in? These are the reasons. I may be in error but my position is that if we have a sample market, then with the other conditions which



will go with it, we will be helping the farmer directly and we will be helping him greatly. You say that the grain out of these bins where grain has been mixed will be degraded on the European markets and so lower the price. Let me take two branches of that argument. Suppose it does slightly degrade, and suppose the English buyer there puts his price down a little the reflection of that fact on the farmer in the west will be something, but a sample market in Winnipeg where his grain is bought on sample will take away the spread that now exists and he will thus get two or three times on the balance of price.
I believe more. Here is the gentleman who inspects the grain out in bodi'ly form. He inspects out the grain which comes from 'the farmer; on that inspection it is put into store on grade, and is inspected out by himself on grade. It comes out as he sees it. It comes out good and easily goes as No. 1. Another lot comes out. He says, I am afraid of that a little; it is very close down to No. 1, the very lowest point of No. I; it is a little shaky; that will go down into No. 2; and so all through. He will not pass a grade to go to the old country market or to the ultimate buyer unless he knows that it is without suspicion of that grade. That is the system on which the grading has been done, and to-day I have talked to one of the best and oldest graders in this country, Mr. Horn, who tells me that the complete testimony from the English market is that the grades of Canadian grain have been remarkably even and satisfactory, and that therefore, there is scarcely any grievance or complaint on the other side. The man who grades out those grades, and sees that they are not skin grades, but are generous grades, is the very same man who will grade out the grain that is mixed in the bin for the sample market buyers, and will see that it goes out on exactly the same level as the others. Therefore, I do not look for that degradation of grades that is feared by some.


Michael Clark: If everything is so satisfactory, why pass an Act at all?


George Eulas Foster: I pass the Act because I think it will be for the benefit of the men who ought to have the greatest benefit, that is, the farmers who produce the grain.


Michael Clark: They are getting it now, according to your own statement.


George Eulas Foster: They are not. It is the ultimate buyer and the handler who are getting all the fatness, and the farmer gets paid only for the very lowest grade, and even for a grade below what is the real grade. This dread would be to Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
my mind diminished by the sample market, and the ultimate good resulting from it would be infinitely greater than any possible harm, if we admit a possible harm, from the degradation of the grades if that should take place.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved the adjournment of the House.
Frank Oliver: Has the minister anything to tell us in regard to the questions with regard to the Manitoba extensions which were on the order paper to-day in my name, and which were passed over?


George Eulas Foster: To-morrow I will move that the resolution be taken up on the next day. I do not think the Prime Minister will be with us^ to-morrow, but I will communicate with him at once and if possible will have those questions put down for to-morrow. I do not know anything about them myself.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: There is a rumour in the Montreal papers that the Manitoba boundaries question will go over to the next session.


George Eulas Foster: *If I were my hon. friend I would not put my faith in rumours.


Frank Oliver: What will be the business taken up to-morrow?


George Eulas Foster: If I can get that clause fixed up, I will try to get the Grain Bill out of the way, if possible. Then there will be one stage for the Manitoba Boundaries Bill, but that, I imagine, will not cause any discussion. The Tariff Bill will probably be taken up, and the Highways Bill, if the Minister of Railways is back, as I hope he will be, and after that we shall probably go into Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 27, J912.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 114), to incorporate Revillon Fr&res Trading Company, Limited.-Mr. Barker.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved thjit the House go into Committee ot the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolutions:-
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Oivu Service Act and the Acts in amendment thereof, and to provide as follows:-
1* (As section 39, subsection 2), Ithat a person who has served seven years as a chief clerk m the_ outside service of the Customs may he appointed to the rank of senior chief clerk, subject to such examination on the duties of office and other qualifications as is prescribed by the deputy head in a report to be concurred in by the head of the department. The salary of such senior chief clerk shall be from $2,200 to $2,800 per annum.
2.	(As section 39, subsection 3), that a person who has served over three years as a clerk in the outside service of the Customs may be appointed to the rank of senior clerk, subject to such examination on ithe duties of office and other qualifications as is prescribed by the deputy head in a report to be concurred in by the head of the department. The salary of isuch senior clerk shall be from $1,200 to $1,600 per annum.
3.	That the part of schedule ' B ' of the Civil Service Act which relates to Customs be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
SCHEDULE f B * CUSTOMS.
Higher Classes.
Collectors, salary per annum	from $ 300 to $4,500
Chief inspector, salary per
annum	 "
Inspector of ports, salary
per annum	 "
Assistant inspectors, salary
per annum	 "
Chief clerks salary per annum	 "
Senior chief clerks, salary
per annum	 "
Surveyors, salary per annum	 "
Assistant surveyors (comprising tide surveyors, chief waiters and chief lockers), salary per annum	 "
Technical Officers.
Dominion Appraisers, salary per annum	from
Appraisers, salary per annum	 "
Assistant appraisers, salary
per annum	 "
Gaugers, salary per annum	 "
Other Classes.
Senior clerks, salary per
annum	from
Clerks and landing waiters,
salary per annum ________ "
Examining officers (including preventive officers whose duties are not chiefly clerical, and lockers), salary per annum.. '
Packers and messengers, salary per annum .. ..	"
3,290 "	4,000
2,000 "	3,000
1,600 "	2,000
1,200 "	2,200
2,200 "	2,800
1.200 "	2,800
1,200 "	1,600
$2,200 to $2,600	
1,200 "	2,200
900 "	1,600
900 "	1,600
$1,200 to $1,600	
400 "	1,200
100 "	1,000
400 "	800
He said: His Royal Highness the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, has been pleased to give his assent thereto.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) if the question at issue between Canada and the United States with reference to the Fishery regulations on the treaty shore under the award of the Hague Tribunal and the recommendations of that tribunal has been settled.
Hon. J. D. HAZEN.: I scarcely know how far I should go in reply to the inquiry of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at the present time. Perhaps my right hon. friend will allow the question to stand and I shall reply to him to-morrow, and in the meantime I shall see my right hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: I simply want to know if it has been settled; if not, I shall not press my question.



WINTER COMMUNICATION WITH PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, Prince Edward Island) moved the adjournment of the House in order to call the attention of the government and of the Minister of Railways to the inadequacy of the train service for the transportation' of passengers between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, ror some years
past it has been the practice of the Prince Edward Island railway to have a special train to meet the winter boats at Georgetown to take passengers who come by those boats from Pictou to Charlottetown without delay. This year that train has been taken off and the consequence is it is exceedingly inconvenient to the travelling public. There is only one train a day between Georgetown and Charlottetown and passengers wishing to go to the mainland from Charlottetown have to leave for Georgetown by the early afternoon train, remain there for a considerable portion of the afternoon and cross to Pictou the following morning. It takes about twenty hours to go from Charlottetown to Pictou, a distance of about ninety miles. Going the other way the conditions are still worse. The boat cannot possibly arrive at Georgetown until after the regular train leaves in the morning. She arrives at Georgetown about two hours after the _ train leaves and, there being no other train, passengers have' to remain there until the following morning, twenty-two hours after they arrive, before they
[Stage Direction]
can go to Charlottetown where business is generally done, or proceed by the regular train to their destination. In_ former years we had the privilege of a special train leaving Charlottetown in the evening about eight o'clock meeting the boat at Georgetown and passengers could go on board and proceed to Pictou the following morning. In the morning the train would take the passengers on the return trip on the arrival of the boat. The train would take the passengers to Charlottetown where they could do business and proceed by the regular train to their destination the same day. This train has been taken off I suppose by the Railway Board or perhaps by the management at Charlottetown for purposes of economy. I do not think there is any economy in it for this reason that under such conditions as I have pointed out, travel would practically cease. The railway management at Charlottetown will give a special train to Georgetown and return at. any time for $40 and, therefore, I presume that $40 will pay the expense and leave something over, probably $30 would be the expense of a special train. As the fare between these two points would be about $1.25 or $1.50. I am sure I shall be well within the mark when I say that an extra fifteen or twenty people would travel by that road per day if that accommodation was given and that this would pay the whole cost of the special train.
I am convinced that no money is saved by this policy. But for some reason or other the Railway Board appointed a few years ago seem to do strange things, they do not seem to take into consideration to any great extent the convenience of the public, but in order to save a dollar they give these peculiar orders or perhaps the management at Charlottetown is to blame. But there is more than that to it. When Prince Edward Island joined the confederation we came in under a bargain and that was that we were to have efficient and continuous steam communication for passengers the year round with the mainland.
I do not suppose that the present hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), is familiar with that. I do not know that the board of railway management are familiar with it, but they ought to be familiar with it, because it is important. In order that the present minister may have his attention called to it I shall read the clause in the agreement made at confederation which says that we are entitled to have a better train service than we are getting. Then, among other things, the Dominion government undertook this:
.efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers, to he established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion, winter and sum-Mr. HUGHES (Kings).
mer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
I am sure that no man will say that the service that I have pointed out is either efficient or continuous, for passengers landing at Georgetown have to remain at least 22 hours before being able to proceed to any other point on the island. I would ask that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways and Canals take this matter into consideration, and give an order by wire to the management at Moncton, and the management at Charlottetown to put a special train on at once such as we had in former years. This matter has been going on for six weeks. Possibly it has been brought to the attention of the minister because I see by letters and papers, some of which letters I have myself received, that the inconvenience is so pronounced that the people are very much put out by it, and I would ask the minister to send a telegram either to the management at Moncton or at Charlottetown instructing them to remove these grievances immediately. I would ask him also to see that these vexatious and cheese-paring regulations are not continued by the board in the future.
Hon. Mr. COCHRANE (Minister of Railways and Canals).: As the hon. member from Kings, Prince Edward Island. (Mr. Hughes), says, I am not familiar with the train service down there, but I will take it up with the board at once, and see what can he done. It is only one other evidence that the hon. gentleman and his party have not done their duty during the last' fifteen years, because, if they had, they would have had a ferry in operation such as we are proceeding at once to construct, and which we hope to have in operation in a few months.
Mr.	HUGHES	(Kings,	Prince	Edward
Island). Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr.	HUGHES	(Kings,	Prince	Edward
Island). I have the privilege of replying.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, go on.
Mr.	HUGHES	(Kings,	Prince	Edward
Island). I am pointing out to this House and to the minister, that we have not as good a service as we had in former years under the late administration, and that we would be satisfied if we had such a service.


Francis Cochrane: If you had had a car-ferry you would have had a good service.


James Joseph Hughes: I hope we will have a car-ferry

within the time that the minister has
IJromised.


Francis Cochrane: Well then, be satisfied.


James Joseph Hughes: If we have that, and if it removes all the difficulties, that we have laboured under for many years it will be a very good thing, but the fact that under this government, the privileges that we have had have been taken away from us is not the best proof.


Francis Cochrane: I said to the hon. gentleman that I would look into the matter at once.


James Joseph Hughes: -YTes, but somehow or other the service has been taken from us in the meantime. I am sure that I presented the case reasonably fairly to the minister and I do not hink that the minister should in his reply have made the statement that he was doing much better or intended to do a great deal better than the late government had . done.
Motion (Mr. Hughes, Kings, Prince Edward Island) negatived.



NEWS SERVICE FOR MAGDALEN ISLANDS.

[Stage Direction]
On orders of the day being called.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I am told that a Marconi service has been established by the government in order to supply the news every week to the Magdalen Islanders. Would my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) inform me by whom that new service is provided and what is the nature of it? I see that the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) announced in. the press the other day that the service had been established.



DISMISSAL AND APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

Mr. WILSON (Laval).: I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) to the fact that on January 24, 1912, an order of the House issued on my motion:
For a return showing all the employees of the different departments at Ottawa, and also in the nine provinces and territories of Canada, and other places outside of Canada, in the inside and outside service, who have Kit their employment since the 1st October._ 1911, up to the 10th January, 1912, inclusively, with their names, Christian names, age, na-tionalitv, employment and salaries respectively: "the date of their appointment; the date of their leaving; their salaries at the time of their appointment and at leaving; the reasons of their leaving; and if replaced or not; the names, Christian name age, nationality, employment and salary of those who have replaced them; and in the case of dismissals, a list of the persons who asked for their dismissals; in the case of those replacing them, a list of the persons who recommended their successors.
I want to draw the right hon Prime Minister's attention to the fact that this return has not yet been brought down Jit seems to me that it would be very easy to procure the list. The heads of the different departments have pay lists.


Mr. BUREAU.: Too long.


Charles Avila Wilson: I do not think it is too long. 1 would like to have the mswer of the Prime Alinister as to that.
All- BORDEN. I shall direct that attention be given to the motion, which, as Ear as I can gather its terms, seems to be pretty comprehensive.
matnjtt<TRA ROUNDARY EXTENSION.


John Douglas Hazen: I will be delighted to. look into the matter and get the information for my hon. friend (Air. Lemieux) at the earliest possible date.



BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY.

Mr. PUGSLEY.: I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the House (Mr. Borden.) if the papers connected with the negotiation of the boundary waters treaty have been laid on the table.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that they have been laid on the table of the House. On a former occasion I mentioned to the hon. gentleman the reason. I am not aware that the matter has been arranged. It is necessary to obtain consent. However, I shall make inquiry about it and aisk why there should have been such delay. I think the delay is greater than should be necessary.


Frank Oliver: I would like to renew the inquiry I made yesterday as to the answer to a question relating to the resolution m regard to the boundaries of Manitoba. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) said yesterday that he would draw the attention of his colleagues to it and have the information produced as soon as posible.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid I did not have my attention directed to it. However, I am supposed to move the resolution as soon as the government orders are called and possibly I may be able then to give my hon. friend the information desired.
w. '"'FIVER. The notice appeared in the Votes and Proceedings on Friday last and it is rather important that the answer should be in such shape as to enable the basing of an argument upon it before the resolution is moved.
3&35



PAYMENT OF CENSUS ENUMERATORS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr, PUGSLEY. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) if the amounts due the census enumerators have yet been paid. The Minister of Agriculture smiles-let me say to him that to hundreds of people all over Canada the matter is quite serious. Only to-day I had a letter from a settler in the province of Saskatchewan who tells me that he has as yet been unable to market his grain and he is in a position almost of poverty and yet there is quite an amount due him by the Department of Agriculture. I have letters also from quite a number of others. .1 do hope that the matter has been settled, or that it will be in the course of a few clays. What is the position now?
Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture).: I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) that this matter is being expedited as fast as possible by the officers of the department. I am unaware that hundreds are unpaid, but I do know they are being paid as fast a^ it possibly can be done, and my impression is that there are not a great many left to be settled with at present. Those who are not paid, will be paid as fast as we can do it, probably within a week or two.



PROVINCE OF MANITOBA-EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:-
Resolved, that it is expedient, (a) to extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba northward to the sixtieth parallel of latitude and northeastward to the shores of Hudson bay, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the legislative assembly of Manitoba and by parliament;
(b)	to authorize the Governor in Council, inasmuch as the province was not in debt at the time of its establishment, to pay to the said province an annual euim of $381,584.19, being the equivalent of interest at five per cent on $7,631,683.85, the difference between a principal snm of $8,107,500 and $475,816.15 heretofore advanced by the- government to the province for provincial purposes; such annual sum to be paid as and from the first day of July, 1908, but subject, however, as to payments due upon the coming into force of any Act founded upon these resolutions, to the deduction _ of certain sums received by the said province by way of interest on capital allowance in lieu of debt;
(c)	to authorize the Governor in Council to pay to the said province, in lieu of ownership of public lands, an annual suim based upon the population of the said province as ascertained by each quinquennial census thereof, such annual sum to commence with $562,500 (less certain deductions in respect of what are known as swamp lands and university lands) and not to exceed the annual sum of $1,125,000 (less equivalent deductions); the same to be paid as from the first day of
Frank Oliver: 
Robert Laird Borden: It will be remembered that on the 13th day of July, 1908, the right hon. the then Prime Minister moved certain resolutions in this House with regard to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. The resolution so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, was in the following words:-
Whereas, petitions have been presented to the government and to this House from the legislative assembly of Manitoba, praying for an extension of the boundaries of the said province northward and eastward, and for an additional subsidy to the said province in lieu of the ownership of public lands in the territory to be so added.
Be it resolved.
That it is expedient that the prayer of the said petition should ho acceded to, and that upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislative assembly and by parliament the boundaries of Manitoba be extended as follows:	_	_
The Northern boundary to he the sixtieth parallel of latitude; the western boundary to he the present eastern boundary line of the province of Saskatchewan to the said sixtieth parallel, the eastern boundary to he the present eastern boundary as far north as the northeast corner of the province, thence on a straight line to the most eastern point of Island lake and thence on a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the Shore Line of Hudson bay.
And, be it further resolved:
That whereas, notwithstanding the extension of territory above described, the ungranted lands of the Crown in the territory so to he added to the said province will still continue to he administered by the government of Canada, for the purposes of the Dominion ; and the said province will not have the public land as a source of revenue.
It is just and equitable to recognize the increased cost of civil government which such extension of territory will occasion to the province, and in view of the premises, to make to the said province an increased allowance by money payment, the amount of which should be the subject of negotiation between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba.
For some time afterwards, the question of the financial terms was the subject of negotiations between the government of Canada on the one hand, and the government of the province of Manitoba on the other, but without any definite result. So, the matter stood when the present admin-

istration took office on the 10th of October last. Shortly after we had taken office, the Prime Minister of Manitoba and one of his colleagues, visited Ottawa, and after some negotiations a basis of arrangement was arrived at, which is set forth in a letter which I wrote to the Hon. R. P. Roblin, Premier of Manitoba, on the 20th day of November last. The letter is in these words :-
Ottawa Ont., November 20, 1911. Dear Mr. Roblin,-Referring to our interview, I beg to say that the conclusions arrived at are as follows:
The extension of the 'boundaries of Manitoba has been under consideration at those interviews and a basis of settlement has been reached respecting the financial terms which hitherto have been in dispute.
The basis adopts the principle of equality of terms as between Manitoba and the other prairie provinces. The application of this principle to the details remains to be worked out.
I may add that we shall introduce the necessary legislation at this session.
Believe me.
Yours faithfully,



R. L. BORDEN.

[Stage Direction]
Hon, R. P. Roblin,
Premier of Manitoba,
Ottawa, Ont.
This principle has been worked out with results which are briefly set forth in the resolution which is now submitted to the committee. Perhaps it would be advisable to place these results before the committee a little more in detail, and I shall begin by stating the amount of subsidy to which Manitoba, apart from this resolution, would be entitled for the year beginning July 1, 1911.
The following statement shows the amount of subsidies to which Manitoba is entitled for the year beginning July 1, 1911:
Allowance for government and local purposes, B.N.A. Act, 1907, sec. 1
.(1) (a)	$190,000	00
Eighty cents per head per annum on 455,614 population, as ascertained by the census of June, 1911.. 364,491 20 Indemnity for want of public lands
(cap. 50,	Acts of 1885)	
100,000	00Interest at 5 per cent on capital allowance in lieu of debt (various statutes)	
178,947	66Total	$833,438 26
The following statement shows the approximate amount of subsidy Manitoba will receive under the resolution now under the consideration of the committee for the year beginning July 1, 1912:
Allowance for government and local purposes, B.N.A. Act, 1907, sec. 1 (1) (a)	$190,000 00
Eighty cents per head on 455,614 population, as per census of June,
1911, B.N.A. Act, 1907, sec. (1)
(b)	 364,491 20
Indemnity for want of
public lands	$562,500 00
Swamp lands deduction, about,$134,230 00 University lands deduction.. .. 15,000 00
[Stage Direction]
 149,230	00
[Stage Direction]
 413,270 00
Interest at 5 per cent on
$8,107,500	$405,375	00Less interest at 5 per cent on $475,816.15	
23,780	81Total	$1,349,345 39
This might be compared with the amount of the subsidies which the two neighbouring provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan will receive during the year beginning July 1, 1912, under the statutes which were passed bv this (parliament in 1905, creating a portion of the Northwest Territories into those two provinces. The following shows the amount of subsidies that the province of Alberta will receive for the year beginning July 1, 1912:
Allowance for government and local purposes, B.N.A. Act, 1907, sec. 1
(1)	(a)	$180,000	00
Eighty cents a bead on 374,663 population, as per census of June,
1911, B.N.A. Act, 1907, sec. 1 (1)
(b)	 299,730	40
Allowance in ilieu of debt, 5 per cent on $8,107,500 (chap. 3, sec. 19,
Acts of	1905)	   405,375	00
Allowance in lieu of public lands cap. 3, sec. 20, Acts of 1905).. .. 375,000 00
Total	$1,260,105 40
The following shows the amount of subsidies that the province of Saskatchewan will receive for the year 'beginning July 1, 1912:
Allowance for government and local purposes, B.N.A. Act, 1907, sec. 1
(1) (a)	$190,000 00
Eighty cents a head on 492,432 population, as per census of June,
1911, B.N.A. Act, 1907, sec. 1 (1)
(b)	 393,945 60
Allowance in lien of debt, 5 per cent on $8,107,500 (cap. 42, sec. 19, Acts
of 1905)	_	 405,375 00
Allowance in lieu of public lands	.
(cap. 42, sec. 20, Acts of 1905).. 562,500 00
Total.. .. ^	$1,551,820 60
The resolution embraces some other considerations to which- it will be desirable to call attention. As far as some of these allowances are concerned, it is proposed that they shall date from the 1st day of July, 1908, and, therefore, as to these there will be arrearages. The province of Manitoba took the ground that the
[Stage Direction]
extension of its territory should have taken place at the same time that the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were constituted, and that it should have received from the federal treasury the same consideration which was at that time extended >to the two new provinces then created. This contention was pressed with a great deal of earnestness and persistence. \Ve found ourselves unable to assent to it; but, inasmuch as this parliament did on the 13th day of July, 1908, by the resolution which I have already quoted, determine that the boundaries of the province of Manitoba should be extended in accordance with the terms set forth in that resolution, it seemed to us a fair proposal that the treatment now proposed for the province of Manitoba should begin as and from the 1st day of July, 1908, and with a good deal of reluctance, the province has eventually come to the conclusion to accept those terms. It will be desirable, therefore, to submit to the committee a statement of what -those arrearages will amount to.
I have an approximate statement of them here. It will be necessary probably to work them out more definitely and morp fully, but in the meantime the committee is entitled to such information in regard to this matter as is in the possession of the government at the .present time. The following is a statement showing approximately what arrearages will be paid to Manitoba, should the proposed Bill become law forthwith:
(a)	An-nual allowance in lieu of
debt under Bill	$381,581	19Annual allowance already received	
178.947	06Arrearage each year	
202,637	13
Arrearages for four years, July 1, 1908, to June 30, 1912.. .. 810,648 52
(b)	Annual allowance in lieu of
lands under Bill	 562,500	00
Swamp lands deduction,
average say	$105,500
University lands deduction	 15.000
Already received	 100,000
[Stage Direction]
  220,500	00
Deducting that sum of $220,500 from the proposed annual allowance in lieu of lands under this resolution, namely, $562,500, the difference is, -found to be $342,000. The estimated arrearage each year will, therefore, be $342,000,	or	forfour years the sum of $1,368,000. Adding that to the sum	of $810,648.52,	above
mentioned, we have the estimated total arrearages of $2,178,648.52.
Then it is desirable that the committee -should ha-ve before it such information as *is in our possession respecting swamp lands. Members ' ,v>a House are aware that Mr. BORDEN.
under a statute passed some years ago there was conveyed to the province of Manitoba a very considerable area of lands known as swamp lands. I believe that the total acreage up to the end of 1909 so conveyed was approximately 2,009,368 acres. The way in which that works out, according to the information at present in our possession, would be somewhat in this wise:
Acres.
Swamp lands conveyed to Manitoba up to the end of 1909, approximately	2,009,368
Sold by the province as per statement furnished by the province.
January,% 1912	 838,484-16
Balance to* be reconveyed to the
Dominion under Bill	1,170,883-84
Estimate of swamp lands in the ex-existing province of Manitoba still available-
(a)	Balance as above	1,170,883-84
(b)	Classed as swamp lands by
Dominion government but
not transferred	431,918
(c)	Estimated acreage of swamp
in surveyed part of the province, exclusive of (b).. ..1,760,000
(d)	Estimate of swamp lands in
unsurveyed part of the province	4,870.000
Total estimated swamp lands..8,232,831-84
Then I have a note which reads as follows:
The specifications (b), (c) and (d) were made by the late R. E. Young, chief geographer and superintendent of railway lands, in February, 1911. With reference to item (d) Mr. Young said:-The unsurveyed area in the province is estimated at 12,900,000 aeres. This is largely unexplored. It is thought thirty oer cent (4,870,000 acres) may be swamp. This land will be of considerably less value than the swamp lands already referred to.
It does not occur to me at the present moment that there is any further information which I could profitably give to the committee at this stage, but I should be very glad to give any further information in my possession to any hon. gentleman desirous of halving it.
Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Chairman : Whatever there may be in this resolution of a controversial nature, I do not, for my part, intend to advert to upon the present occasion. I think the time of the committee will be better employed in endeavouring to get information, which has been partly presented by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) in order that we may appreciate the reasons of the policy which has been adopted by the government with respect to this matter, and the basis of the financial terms which they have given to the province. The resolution in that respect is simply meagre, and I am sure

there is further information which could be got, by inquiring for it. I have to observe first of all, that in regard to the territory added to Manitoba the resolution as introduced by the Prime Minister will have to be amended by him, so as to conform to what I understand is now the settled policy of the government, with regard to those boundaries. My hon. friend has based his resolution in that regard, upon the resolution which was adopted by this House in the month of July, 1908, in whicli the boundaries intended to be assigned to Manitoba were thus defined:-
The northern boundary to be the sixtieth parallel of latitude; the western boundary to be the present eastern boundary line of the province of Saskatchewan to the said sixtieth parallel; the eastern boundary to be the present eastern boundary as far north as the northeast corner of the province, thence on a straight line to the most eastern point of Island lake and thence on a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson bay.
The resolutions now proposed, although based upon that of 1908, do not seek to define the boundaries intended to be conveyed to Manitoba. My hon. friend in his resolution simply says:-
Resolved, that it is expedient, (a) to extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba northward to the sixtieth parallel ot latitude and northeastward to the shores of Hudson hay, upon such terms and conditions as mav he agreed to by the legislative assembly of Manitoba and by parliament.
There never has been any difficulty at all on this question of boundary between Manitoba and the Dominion government, in so far as the western boundary is concerned, because though the province of Saskatchewan made application to have its boundary extended eastward to the shores of Hudson bay, north of the territory whidh now constitutes the province ol Manitoba, the Dominion government of that day could not see the propriety or the justice of this wish on the part of Saskatchewan, but thought, on the contrary, that territory geographically belonged to Manitoba, and ought to be given to her. There never was any difficulty either as to the northern boundary of the province, it was always understood that it should be the 60th parallel of latitude. The difficulty arose with resard to the eastern boundary, and that difficulty was that the province of Ontario made a large claim to have its territory extended north of what is now the present boundary of Manitoba-in fact at the conference which took place between the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta. Manitoba and Ontario, in 1906 the government of Ontario asked to have its boundaries extended up to the Churchill river.
On the other 'hand, the House remembers that- the province of Manitoba asked to have its boom diaries extended eastward over the territory which was claimed by the province of Ontario, north of the Albany river up to about the longitude of Fort William. The government, of that day could not see its way clear to grant either the prayer of 'the province of Manitoba or the prayer of the province of Ontario in its entirety, but thought that justice would he done both if the boundary between the provinces 'were made as described here, that is to say an extension of the present boundary of Manitoba from the northeast comer of that province by Island lake to about the 89th degree of west longitude. I am aware that the province of Manitoba at first demurred strongly to accepting the boundary which we had assigned to them. Several conferences were held between the government of the Dominion and Manitoba. I had the pleasure on more than one occasion of having conference with my hon. friend the present Minister of Interior (Mr. Rogers) when be was a member of the government of Manitoba, not only _ as stated by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), as to the financial terms, but also <ais to the actual location of the boundary. And I may say that it was only last winter, after the conference we had between the Dominion government and the provincial government, that the boundary which we had offered the province of Manitoba was 'accepted. The record of that .conference is before the House. In the memorial which was sent to my right horn, friend (Mr. Borden) after he bad accepted office, and which also he ha,s laid before the House, the government of Manitoba officially and formally accepted the boundary which had been offered. It is also of record-or, if not of record, it is of public knowledge-that the government of Ontario was not satisfied with that boundary and pressed to have its claims accepted, that is to have its boundary extended northward to the Churchill river, as it nad claimed originally. 1 assume that, as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) has brought in the resolution in its present form, ' extending the boundaries of Manitoba north-eastward to the shores of Hudson, bay ' without stating precisely the point at which the boundary is to touch the bay, the government have not yet decided Whether they should or should not accept the pretensions set forth by the province of Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: My right lion, friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is mistaken in that regard. The boundaries are the same as those defined in the resolution of '1908, 'except that they have been set forth in more explicit terms by the Dominion geogra-I piher. This more definite and explicit des-

crip'tion was placed in the hands of the proper officer of this House to prepare such resolution as might be necessary, and be has prepared the resolution in the way in which it is set forth, amid which seems to be all that is necessary, inasmuch as the lands 'are not being handed over as th :y are being handed over to Ontario and Quebec.


Wilfrid Laurier: Whatever may have been the cause which inspired the present resolution, as to the effect of it I am obliged to differ with my right bon. friend. If the resolution were to be adopted as it is, ' to extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba northward to the 60th parallel of latitude and 'eastward to the shores of Hudson bay,' there would be no actual definition of the boundary. I presumed, am the innocence of my heart, that it was because the boundary had not been decided. For it is reported that Sir James Whitney said no later than last week that he expected that Ontario would have a harbour on Hudson bay. Therefore, I assumed, that the question had not been settled. But, if there is any doubt on this point, a new resolution has been given notice of by my right hon. friend in which it is stated that the eastern boundary of Manitoba shall be that set forth in the resolution of 1908, the production of a line from the north eastern corner of Manitoba to Highland lake and from that to the 89th degree of latitude. I apprehend that the matter has been settled finally and that the province of Ontario has agreed to have its boundary such as was set down in that resolution of 1908, that is to say it will have no harbour at Churchill or Nelson, but is to go no farther northward on the shores of Hudson bay than the 89th degree of latitude. But I persist in saying that if the resolution were to remain as we now have it under consideration, and the Bill were to be put in this form, it would be impossible to say where the boundary of Manitoba was. My right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) will not pretend seriously that there is any definition of a boundary in the resolution we now have before ns. I presume that if he is to introduce legislation that will be effective he must amend his resolution and state that the boundary of the province of Ontario is to be the 89th degree of latitude. If it is the intention of my right hon. friend in this way to settle the boundary of Ontario, it would be preferable to make the matter perfectly clear.


Mr BORDEN.: I have no objection to that. But, perhaps the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did not understand me. For what reason is a resolution necessary at all? The proposed Bill will not alienate any part of the public domain Mr. BORDEN.
of the Dominion, and in that way it will not constitute a charge upon the treasury. It would not occur to me-with all deference to the right hon. gentleman-that any resolution was necessary so far as the question of boundaries is concerned. The resolution is necessary so far as the increased subsidies are concerned, these being a charge' upon the public treasury. If my right hon. friend who has had great experience, thinks it would be better to state the boundaries in the resolution exactly as they are to be defined in the Bill, I should have no objection. But it occurred in the way I have stated. The specific boundary, more definite and more specific than as expressed in the resolution of 1908 but covering exactly the same territory, was placed in the hands of the officer of the House for the purpose of preparing the proper resolution. He has framed it in the way in which it appears before us. But, as I say, if an hon. gentleman of the experience of my right hon. friend thinks it would be better to express it more fully, I have no objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it ought to be expressed. But, even from the point of view of my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden), I think it essential because the money terms to be granted to the province must depend largely upon what territory is given to the province.
My hon. friend has copied the resolution adopted in 1905, with regard to Saskatchewan. Under the resolutions now before us; the territory of Manitoba will be about the same as the territory of each of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and, therefore, I do not see how it is possible to offer to the province of Manitoba any compensation in lieu of the lands which are to be retained by the Dominion unless we know exactly the area of the province, and you cannot know what is to be the area of the province unless the boundaries are settled. That is an additional reason why the, boundaries ought to be settled here and now. I am glad that my hon. friend agreed to the suggestion I made which, if there was any doubt, will remove that doubt. So it is settled that the boundaries of the province of Manitoba are to be the boundaries which we offered in 1908.
I said to-day that I did not want to enter into any matter of controversy on the present occasion, I am seeking for information, but I would observe to my right hon. friend that there is no justification that I can see why these four years' arrears set forth in the resolution should be given to the province of Manitoba. What reason can there be? The province of Manitoba has contended that its boundaries should have been extended at the time that the provinces [DOT] of Alberta and Saskatchewan

were created. I cannot see that there is any connection between the two ideas. If Manitoba were entitled to an increase of its territory-and for my part I have always been of this opinion-this question had no relevancy whatever to the creation of the new provinces. Everybody knows that in 1908, when we created the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan,; the province of Manitoba made a strong effort to have its boundaries extended.! But parliament has not forgotten that the reason we did not extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba at that time was that we thought it would not be advisable to extend those boundaries unless the two neighbouring provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan had an opportunity of presenting their claims to us. It was well known to us that the province of Manitoba was making a claim for the extension of its boundaries eastward, and it seemed to us that, although we had not then res ceived any request for- the extension of the boundaries of Ontario, it would not ba in the- public interest, and we would be inviting trouble if we were to attempt to settle the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, where they come in contact with the boundaries of Ontario, unless we had also the opinion of the province of Ontario.
Therefore, we held a conference in 1906, with the three provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. I stated a moment ago that the government of the province of Saskatchewan, asked to have its boundary extended eastward along the present northern boundary of Manitoba to the! shore of the Hudson's bay. I must say that after having heard what the province of Saskatchewan had to say upon this point I could not see my way to recom-i mend this to my colleagues or to parliament. It seemed to me that that territory belonged to Manitoba and should be given to Manitoba. When it came to the discussion of the eastern boundaries of Manitoba where they touched Ontario we found, as I said, quite a cleavage of opinion between the two provinces, and neither would give way. Ontario insisted on having its territory extended westward as far as the Churchill river, and Manitoba claimed an extension eastward to Fort William. We could not see the propriety of these respective pretentions of either province, and we struck what I then thought was a legitimate boundary of the two provinces, and I am very happy to see that it has been at last accepted.
The province of Manitoba has sought to have these terms date back to the year 1905. This pretension of the province of Manitoba has not been accepted by the government. My hon. friend tells us that after a conference they have determined
to extend the terms back to the time that we made this offer, in July, 1908, and no further back. What reason can there be why Manitoba should be given any terms dating back to 1st July, 1908? The reason which is given us is that at that time the province of Manitoba was offered these boundaries. There was a controversy between the late government and the government of Manitoba as to the financial terms which would be'extended to Manitoba as a consequence of the extension of its boundaries. If that had been the only controversy between us and the government of Manitoba, the government of Manitoba might perhaps say:	We were
ready to accept those boundaries in 1908, and if we did not accept them it was because the financial terms which we asked were not granted, and if those financial terms for which we then made a claim and which have now been granted, had been granted then, we would have had those financial terms since the 1st of July, 1908. If the government of Manitoba were in a position to make that statement there might be some basis for giving the province those terms as from the 1st of July*. 1908, but I have to call the attention of the House to this fact, that the boundaries which we offered to Manitoba in 1908 were not accepted by Manitoba in 1908, or in 1909, or in 1910, or until about the month of March, 1911, and then were not officially recorded until the month of October, 1911. Under such circumstances I fail to see upon what basis it -can be claimed that the trems which are now extended to Manitoba should date back not from the time the statute is passed, but to July, 1908. For my part I repeat that this seems to be a claim for which there is not a shadow of foundation. But I shall not press the point to-day, I said I would not enter into any controversial matter, but would put forth my objection as I conceived it to be, and as I think it must impress the mind of any one who thinks that Manitoba ought to be treated fairly, even generously, but at least reasonably.
I have nothing more to say except that I shall ask the Finance Minister to give us the reasons why he has agreed to these terms which are proposed in these resolutions. These terms were pressed upon us more than once by the government of the province of Manitoba. We have always treated any new province coming into confederation on the terms which are given in the Confederation Act, that, is to say that the province must be given a portion of the revenue of the Dominion to carry on its affairs.
This was done by the Act of Confederation of 1867, the terms of which were revised in 1907 and put upon a new basis.

It seems to be reasonable that if a new territory is to be added to Manitoba where they will have to carry on the civil government, they should be given a reasonable allowance to meet the increased expenditure which this increase of territory will entail upon them. That, I say, seems to be reasonable. But, what is proposed to-day is not to give to Manitoba a sum of money to carry on the civil government in the new territory -which is to be allotted to the province, but the whole financial terms which are now granted to Manitoba are to be revised and Manitoba is to be given compensation in money above anything that it is receiving at the present time". That is my first objection. My second objection is that Manitoba is given a sum of money in compensation for land not only within the extent of the territory which is to be added to its present domain, but over the whole of the province. In other words, Manitoba, which has been for forty years in Confederation, is to be treated exactly as if it were a new province entering to-day the family of provinces. It has been for forty years a member of confederation; it has received the same terms as those which have been given to the other provinces. K has been given special terms from time to time on account of it being a new province and being therefore entitled to special treatment, but to-day it comes in and is treated exactly as if it had been the same as the territory which we are adding to the province. I do not think there is any justification for that. But that point I shall not press any more to-day. I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) what reason there can be for the proposal as contained in clause (b) of the resolution.
(b) to authorize the Governor in Council, inasmuch as the province was not in debt at the time of its establishment, to pay to the said province an annual sum of $381,584,19, being the equivalent of interest at five per cent on $7,631,683.85, the difference between a principle sum of $8,107,500 and $475,816.15 heretofore advanced by the government to * hi province for provincial purposes; such annual sum to be paid as and from the first day of .Tuly, 1908, but subject, however, as to payments due upon the coming into force of any Act founded upon these resolutions, to the deduction of certain sums received by the said province by rvay of interest on capital allowance in lieu of debt;
To find the origin of this disposition we have to go back to the Act of Confederation itself. When the four provinces formed the confederation each had a debt. Old Canada, afterwards Ontario and Quebec, had a debt of $67,000,000, New Brunswick. $7,000,000 and Nova Scotia about $8,000,000; $62.orin.oon of the debt of Canada $8,000,000 of the debt of Nova-Scotia and $7,000,000 of the debt of New Brunswick were assumed Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
>y the new Dominion. Compensation was made because the debt of one province exceeds the ratio per head of that of other provinces and since then whenever 'Vve have brought a new province into the Dominion we have always given it an allowance calculated on this amount of the debt of the province entering into the confederation, the sum being $32 per head of the population. That is what was done with Manitoba. By the last Act upon this point, the Act of 1885, Manitoba was given an allowance for debt calculated upon its population at the time. What reason can be urged why, when Manitoba has c-een in confederation for forty years, 'these terms should be departed from and it should be given the same treatment as was given to Alberta and Saskatchewan? I have only to answer my hon. friend saying that Alberta was given an allowance for debt because it had no debt at the time, the same as the other provinces of $32 per head upon a population numbering 250,000. My hon. friend has departed from these terms and he has applied others to the case of Manitoba. Upon reviewing the whole situation I cannot see that there is any basis for that departure. But, he has a right to his opinion and I would he glad to hear what he has to say upon this point.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the Bill which will be founded upon these resolutions is to establish equality between the province of Manitoba and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan; in other words to do simple, plain every-day justice to the province of Manitoba, which, I a<m sorry to say, was withheld from that great province by my right hon. friend when he was Prime Minister of this country. I am sorry to say that the statesman in my right hon. friend is being lost in the lawyer. What he has said is substantially correct with regard to the principle upon which the allowances were made in lieu of debt, but the situation in regard to the provinces forming the confederation to-day cannot be described as otherwise than anomalous in regard to the amounts which have been given them from time to time. I do not believe it possible to say that the allowances which are now made to the several provinces in lieu of debt- -are on any logical basis. From time to time changes have been made and if my right hon. friend will hear in rriind that what we desire to -to in the case of the Bill which will be founded upon these resolutions is to put Manitoba upon a precise equailitv with Saskatchewan and Alberta he will have no difficulty whatever in understanding the terms of this resolution. Take the

statements submitted to the House by my right hon. friend. The position with ri gard to the subsidies to-day is that thi amount of subsidy to which Manitoba if now entitled for the year beginning July 1
1911,	is $833,438. The approximate amount of subsidy which Manitoba will receivi under the proposed Act now under consideration for the year beginning July 1.
1912.	will tv "t1 '~m 345.39. Under the proposed Act Manitoba will receive an additional amount of subsidy of about $516.000. Let us consider these figures. The allowance for government and local purposes to Which Manitoba is now entitled $190,000, will remain precisely the same under the new Act. Manitoba's position in regard to that is precisely the same as the position of the other provinces. By the British North America Act, 1907, it is provided:
That the following grants shall he made yearly hy Canada to every province which, at the commencement of this Act, is a province of the Dominion, for its local purposes and the support of its government and legislature.
And then, a fixed grant is given, according to population. The grant that Manitoba is entitled to under the provisions of that Act, subsection 1 (a) is $190,000; the province of Alberta is receiving under that same section, and will receive, $180,000; and the province of Saskatchewan $190,000. Therefore, so far as these three items are concerned, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Alberta are in precisely the same position, under the Britith North America Act of 1907, which applies to the several provinces.
Take the next item, eighty cents per head per annum on 455,614 population as ascertained by the census, June, 1911, $364,491.20. That is precisely the same amount as Manitoba will receive under the new Bill, and that compares with $299,730 that Alberta will receive, and $393,945.60 that Saskatchewan will receive. In other words, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta take only what they derive under the British North America Act of 1907, as to these two items which I have mentioned. In connection with the item to which my hon. friend has directed my attention most particularly-under the - resolutions, Manitoba will receive an indemnity for want of public lands,-because Manitoba has no lands, as the House knows, as Ontario had, and as the eastern provinces of the Confederation had. The indemnity for want of public lands, fixed under the Act and suhieet to increase is $262,500. If Manitoba had received no swamp lands and no university lands, Manitoba would receive under the terms of the Act, $252,500. But Manitoba received about two million acres of swamp lands, of which some 838.000 acres-sneaking from memory- have been sold. The position is that Manitoba
tas sold 838,000 acres of land, received the noney, or will receive the money, if the <ales have been made on the installment plan, and has a balance of some twelve Hundred thousand acres of swamp lands still vested in her. It would not be fair to give Manitoba the full $562,000, and the result is, that there must be a deduction, representing five per cent, interest upon the selling price of the swamp lands, which Manitoba has already sold. The estimate of that is about $134,230, and I may say that the Bill will make provision for a careful audit of the accounts of Manitoba in that respect, in order that the proper amount may be accurately ascertained. The deductions which would take place from the selling price of the swamp lands are these; certain amounts were charged by the Dominion to the province, in connection with the expense of surveys, and Manitoba should also be made an allowance for the expense connected with the sale of these lands. Those amounts will be deducted and as nearly as we can ascertain. Taking the figures of Manitoba, the amount which would be deducted on the basis of five per cent which is the basis as between the provinces and the Dominion, is about $134,230.
Then, in the year 1885, under chapter 50 of the Dominion Statutes of that year, in the settlement with Manitoba as of that date, 150,000 acres of land were given by the Dominion to the University of Manitoba. The lands, as of that date, were' placed on the basis of two dollars per; acre making $300,000, and five per cent upon that equals $15,000. Add $15,000 to the amount of $134,230, which I have mentioned before, and you have a total of $149,230, which must be deducted from the total amount of $562,500, stated to be indemnity for want of public lands, leaving the balance $413,270, which Manitoba would be entitled to receive under that heading.
That is putting Manitoba precisely on the same basis as Saskatchewan and Alberta, but making the necessary deductions Manitoba will receive less by reason of having obtained the moneys representing the selling price of these swamp lands.
I come to the next item, viz., the allowance in lieu of debt. The province of Saskatchewan gets an allowance in lieu of debt, five per cent on $8,107,500-that is under the Autonomy Act of 1905, chapter 42, section 19-and Alberta is put on precisely the same basis getting also an allowance in lieu of debt, five per cent on $8,107,500, or $405,375 for each province. Now, the position, so far as Manitoba is concerned, is one of perfect equality. Manitoba is given 5 per cent allowance on the same sum of $8,107,500 or $405,375, precisely the same amount as is given to the prov-

inee of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan, but less interest at five per cent upon $475,816.15. Now, what is that $475,816.15. Let me explain: some of the provinces have borrowed from the Dominion certain amounts, and have to that extent diminished their capital allowance upon which they have received the five per cent in lieu of debt. The province of Manitoba has diminished her capital sum on which she has been receiving interest in lieu of debt, to the amount of $475,816.15, and taking five per cent interest upon that we have the sum of $23,780.81, and subtracting that from the sum of $405,375


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What has been the total debt allowance to Manitoba, previous to this proposition, say on March 31, last?


William Thomas White: $178,947. At five per cent on capital allowance in lieu of debt, Manitoba is now receiving $178,000 and if you multiply that by twenty you will get the total of about $3,570,000.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I thought my hon. friend would have the figures at hand. Can he tell me whether or not Manitoba has withdrawn on her credit at Ottawa?


William Thomas White: That is precisely what I am dealing with.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Does my hon. friend know what the total debt; of Manitoba is?


William Thomas White: I do not know offhand.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in discussing the; subsidy resolution of 1907, laid it down that it was absolutely essential in considering this question that the fact should be ascertained as to the total debt of the province. I thought my hon. friend would know what that is.


William Thomas White: I do not think it is essential myself, but it can be easily found out.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The Minister of Trade and Commerce thought it was essential three years ago.


William Thomas White: That may be, but I cannot undertake to get figures for hon. gentlemen opposite in connection with everything my colleagues may think. However, the interest at five per cent on this sum of $475,000 is $23,781.81, and the result is that Manitoba receives in lieu of debt the sum of $.381,584.19.
These figures show that we are placing the province of Manitoba upon a precise equality with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to do simple, plain justice to Manitoba-to put it in the Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
position in which it should have been put in the year 1905, when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were constituted. Manitoba contends that these increased subsidies should date back to that year, and there is very much to be said in favour of that contention; but, as the resolution of this House, concurred in I think unanimously, was passed on July 13, 1908, Manitoba with some reluctance has consented to accept the increased subsidies from July 1, 1908. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has I think in his mind that the increased allowance should only be in lieu of such sum as might reasonably be required for the increased expenditures of Manitoba in connection with the added territory.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: In that case, Manitoba would receive a comparatively small sum. I think this matter goes very much deeper than that. The province of Manitoba has been dissatisfied for years, and where you have such a province as Manitoba dissatisfied, and expressing that dissactisfaction, irritably, as my right hon. friend once said, something is wrong in the political situation; and what we are trying to do is to remedy that. In 1881 Manitoba's boundaries were greatly extended by the Campbell Act; but the boundary award deprived Manitoba of that territory. I have said that we are seeking to put Manitoba on the same basis, as far as financial terms are concerned, as the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I have figures submitted by Mr. R. E. Young, the chief geographer of the Dominion, on February 6, 1911, in which the total area of Alberta was placed at 253,000 square miles, Saskatchewan at 250,000 square miles and Manitoba at 73,000 square miles, or less than one-third of the area of Saskatchewan or Alberta. Now, we propose, by enlarging the boundaries of Manitoba, to increase its area to 251,832 square miles, which will bring about practical equality of area in the three provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are we to have a map laid on the table of the House showing the boundaries of the enlarged province?


Robert Laird Borden: I will have that before the second reading.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend has instituted a comparison between the treatment accorded to Manitoba and that accorded to the other provinces. Manitoba is of course giving back her swamp lands, a statement with regard to which was given by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. With regard to those swamp lands, I am unable to estimate their value, but Mr. Young, who is responsible for the figures which have been sub-

milted to the House by my right hon. friend says:
The unsurveyed area in the province is estimated at 12,900,000 acres. This is largely unexplored. It is thought that 30 per cent (4,870,000 acres)) may be swamp. This land will he of considerably less value than the swamp lands already referred to.


Wilfrid Laurier: If Manitoba has disposed of these swamp lands to the extent of 800,000 acres, is there any information as to the price realized for them?
Mr. WHITE (Leeds),. In the figures' submitted by the province of Manitoba, which, as I have said, must be checked on behalf of the Dominion before a final adjustment can be made, the total acreage sold is stated to have been 838,484-16 acres; the amount received for them is $3,137,399.30. Dominion deductions from provincial subsidy with respect to surveys of swamp lands, &c., amount to $211,942.95; provincial expenditure on account of swamp lands, proportionate estimate, $240,854.60. These two make a total of $452,797.55; leaving the net amount received or to be received by the province from swamp lands at $2,684,601.75. Five per cent of this amount is $134,230.08, which I deduct, as I have previously explained. That would give an average of about $3 an acre for the sw'amp lands already sold by Manitoba. As to the swamp lands, the right to which Manitoba will now surrender, estimated at over 8,000,000 acres, what the value of these is I am unable to say; but Mr. Young expresses the opinion that these lands are of considerably less value than the swamp lands already referred to. Of course, they are not yet surveyed, and it may be a considerable time before they are available for sale.


Wilfrid Laurier: Were the sales of the swamp lands cash sales or on credit?	.


William Thomas White: On credit, most of them, paid for in instalments.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is more money expected to he paid on account of these sales?


William Thomas White: The figures given represent the principal sum. They will have to be made the subject of an audit. But so far as this Bill is concerned, that makes no difference, for this reason. We charge Manitoba with the total amount for which she sold these lands. Manitoba will continue to hold that amount, and we charge her 5 per cent upon it, and deduct the interest from the amount she would receive if she were placed in the same position as Alberta and Saskatchewan, and did not own swamp lands.


William Pugsley: Does the charge of 5 per cent on the proceeds of the sales of swamp lands date from the 1st of July, 1908, or from the time the sales were made?


William Thomas White: We consider the state of the account as from the 1st of July, 1908.


William Pugsley: From the time the sales were made.


William Thomas White: Up to that time Manitoba had been deriving certain subsidies under statute. Well, we start afresh as on the 1st of July, 1908. We take the total capital amount for which on that date Manitoba had sold the lands-because the province will continue to administer these lands and receive the payments-we take 5 per cent upon that, and deduct from the 5 per cent upon the total capital allowance of $8,000,000, and the result is the balance which Manitoba will receive under the proposed new Bill.


William Pugsley: Manitoba, for instance, 10, 15 or 20 years ago received cash from the swamp lands. Why, then, should she not give credit to the Dominion for the interest which she has received upon them in the meantime?


William Thomas White: As a matter of fact, whatever Manitoba derived was derived by virtue of the statutes at that time. What we are doing, as I have already said to this committee, is to place Manitoba on a footing of equality with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and we are commencing to make a fresh start as on July 1, 1908. So far as the suggestion of my hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is concerned, that Manitoba might very well reply-although I do not think it necessary for her to reply-that she would be justified in asking for these increased amounts from July 1, 1905


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: I think I have answered the questions propounded to me by my right hon. frieua (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), although I do not know whether it is entirely to his satisfaction or not. With reference to the boundaries, I think the leader of the government has mentioned all that is necessary to be stated, namely, that the boundaries are precisely the same as those fixed by the resolution adopted by this House on July 13, 1908. As to a point made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the effect, as I understood him, that Manitoba had not accepted the boundaries, my understanding is a little different from his. I believe Manitoba would have been willing to accept the boundaries de-

fined in the resolution of 1908 if the financial terms had been satisfactory. That is my own belief in regard to the matter. The whole question of dispute between the government of Manitoba and the Dominion government related, as I understand, to financial terms; the boundaries proposed would have been entirely satisfactory. In that connection, I will read a letter from the then premier (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to Mr. Roblin, which reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Roblin,-I have the honour to enclose the draft of a Bill for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. This Bill is on the line of the resolutions adopted by the House of Commons at its last session. ' The amount of allowance to be paid to the province in lieu of lands has been left in blank. According to the aforesaid resolution of the House of Commons this amount should be fixed by negotiation between the Dominion government and the government of the province.
We will be happy to confer with you at any time that may be convenient to yourself and to your government.
Tours respectfully,



WILFRID LAURIER.

[Stage Direction]
I will now read a letter in answer to that from Mr. Roblin. It is to the following effect:
Winnipeg, March 1, 1909.
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-I am in receipt of your letter of the 26th nit with enclosure as stated. I have read the Bill and, _ as I presume you would expect, I am disappointed. The preamble in the Bill only recites one of our requests, viz., subsidy in lieu of lands, where onr petition also asks for a readjustment of subsidy or capital account; but which I presume, can be dealt with in the conference.
Our legislature has unanimously passed a resolution authorizing the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada to be memoralized along these lines. I presume the material will reaoh you in a day or two, if not already in your hands. In the meantime I enclose yon a copy of the resolution on which the memorial is founded.
I accept the invitation you have extended by your letter to the members of my govern-men to a conference regarding the terms upon which the said extension of boundaries is to he made.
As your parliament is in session I can understand that yonr time is considerably taken up. I therefore will ask you to be good enough to name the day or days that you can give for such conference and in that way avoid the unnecessary and tedious delay of the representatives of Manitoba at Ottawa
You will therefore he good enough to name the day or the days and advise me.
Yours very respectfully,
(Sgd.) R. P. ROBLIN.
It will be seen that the premier of Manitoba raised no question, so far as the correspondence goes at that particular time, with regard to the boundaries. I have Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
understood subject to correction-because I was not in any way privy to the negotiations -and my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) may have a different view, and may recall that some objection was raised with regard to the boundaries-that Manitoba wouild have been willing to have accepted the enlarged boundaries which we now propose, provided the financial terms had been satisfactory. The point as to which the province of Manitoba and the Dominion government were unable to agree was principally with regard to this matter of financial terms, to which I understand. the leader of the opposition now objects. I think that is all that I have to say upon this occasion.
William Pugsley: 
William Thomas White: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What explanation has he of the fact that Alberta and Saskatchewan were each allowed 5 per cent on $8,107,000?


William Pugsley: Those were territories of the Dominion of Canada. They had no public works. New provinces were being created. The whole territory had to be-developed, and so it was reasonable to give them a certain allowance to construct parliament buildings, to build roads and other public works, and to make the other expenditures necessary to the work of a provincial government. But Manitoba, as I have said, has been forty years a province of Canada. Her people agreed to enter into confederation on the terms arranged at the time she entered. If the hon. gentleman will look at previous legislation he will find that, almost without exception, when it has been deemed advisable to increase the debt allowance of any province, there has been a readjustment in the -case of all the provinces. He will find that some years ago the debt allowance of Ontario and Quebec was increased from $62,500,000 to $73,000,000, and that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were treated on a similar basis. You are adding to the debt allowance of Manitoba, -one of the old provinces of Canada, to the extent of about $5,000,000, and basing that allowance upon its population. But if you were to do the same with Ontario and Quebec, what would you have? Ontario and Quebec now have a population of about 4,500,000. Give them the same debt allowance per head, as you propose to do in the case of Manitoba,



over and above the cost to them of the assets which they handed over to Canada, and they would be entitled to a debt allowance of about $130,000,000, as against $73,000,000 which they have been allowed. This would at once give to these two provinces an additional revenue of about $3,000,000 over that which they are now enjoying. Take the case of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. If you deduct from their debt allowance this revenue producing property, the railway between Halifax and St. John, which was built by the two provinces and handed over to the Dominion, and treat these two provinces in the same way as you propose to treat Manitoba to-day, you would add a good many hundreds of thousands of dollars to the revenue of these provinces on debt account. And I presume the same would apply to the province of British Columbia.
What I ask is not that the government should decline to take into consideration the necessities of the province of Manitoba, if it is thought necessary to increase her debt allowance. I would not complain if all these provinces were being treated alike. But what I do complain of is _ that the government should come down with exceptional legislation proposing to deal with one of the old provinces of Canada, one member of the family of provinces, upon an exceptional basis, while altogether ignoring the claims of the other provinces. Because Manitoba is close to the other prairie provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and because she has an alleged grievance which has been assiduously cultivated by gentlemen in accord politically with the present government, we are to deal in an exceptional way with Manitoba in order, as it is said, to put her on an equality with Alberta and Saskatchewan. But Alberta and Saskatchewan, as I have said, were created as new provinces. It had always been recognized that in the case of new provinces there should be a debt allowance. There was a debt allowance given to Manitoba, an allowance which was then thought to be fair, and with which the people of Manitoba were perfectly satisfied. In the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan it was thought reasonable to make these debt allowances. When these new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were_ created from the territories of the Dominion there was every prospect of their increasing rapidly in population. And to-day, Saskatchewan, after having been in confederation only about six years, has a population larger than that of Manitoba. There would be reasonable justification to look forward and make a debt allowance somewhat in accordance with what it was supposed would be the population of the province within a comparatively few years.


William Pugsley: !
Cannot my hon. friend see that when you attempt to treat an old province which has been in the Dominion for forty years on a basis which will put it on an equality with two other provinces of the Dominion, utterly ignoring the claims and the position relatively of the other provinces of Canada, you are doing an injustice, and more than that you are creating a source of dissatisfaction which is going to lead to infinite trouble in the future? The idea of the fathers of confederation was that these subsidies should be upon a fixed basis, and if the hon. gentlemen will look back to the legislation which was enacted not many years ago when the debt allowance was last increased, they will find that that was accepted by the province of Manitoba as a full and complete settlement of all claims up to that time. Surely it is better that when there is any proposition for an increase of subsidy to any of the provinces, the negotiating should be done as it was a few years ago by a conference of representatives of the different provinces, so that they might agree upon what would be satisfactory to all, and so that no injustice might be done. It is not in accordance with the scheme of confederation, it is not in the best interests of the country to pick out any one province and attempt to alter the terms of confederation in relation to that province.
But this government is moving along these lines in other directions. The province of British Columbia has made claims which were also submitted to the conference, and the conference unanimously decided that it would be against the interests of the people of Canada to determine the claims of any province by arbitration. Yet my right hon. friend, as reported in the Toronto ' World,' has sent a telegram to the Premier of British Columbia agreeing to refer the claims of British Columbia, which weTe dealt with at the provincial conference, recognition of those claims being then refused, to a commission, on? of whose members is to be chosen by this government, another by the government of British Columbia, and the third by these two, or, in case they fail to agree, by the Colonial Secretary-to all intents and purposes an arbitration, the arbitrators being allowed to determine as to the claims of a province for consideration in a financial way beyond what is provided for by the British North America Act. As well might Saskatchewan make a similar claim now or in the not far distant future, as well might New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario or Quebec. To say that it is unwise, is simply to say what all public men from confederation down to the present time have said should not be done, that whenever there was a proposition to increase the allowance to any one prov-

ince, the subject of the allowances of all the provinces should be dealt with. Surely the province of New Brunswick, for instance, would have as much Tight to have her subsidy readjusted, to have her debt allowance readjusted, and surely Ontario and Quebec would be entitled in the same way to have taken into account the valuable properties which were handed over by those provinces, and which became a part of the assets of the Dominion of Canada. If this Bill goes through, I do not see upon what ground a separate application from any one province could be refused recognition by parliament, if you get away from the well settled principle adopted at the time of the British North America Act which has been recognized ever since.
Let it be well understood that what it is proposed to do by this resolution is to increase the debt allowance of Manitoba, which had no debt at the time of its establishment, after it has been forty years in the Dominion from $3,500,000 to upwards of $8,000,000, and the government base their argument entirely on the fact that they want to place Manitoba on an equality with Saskatchewan and Alberta, altogether ignoring what would be justice to the other provinces of Canada. The Minister of Finance says that we want to do justice to Manitoba in another way, we want to give her territory as large as that of Alberta or Saskatchewan. We often hear of Manitoba being a postage stamp upon the map but Manitoba to-day contains 20,000 square miles more than the three maritime provinces. The three maritime provinces have but 52,000 square miles, while Manitoba has something like 73,000 square miles, and it is proposed at once, without consulting the other provinces, without seeing what New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island may think, to add something like 200,000 square miles to the territory of the province of Manitoba.


William Thomas White: Was it not proposed in July 1908 by resolution of this House to do that precise thing?


William Pugsley: Yes, it was, my hon. friend is entirely right.


William Thomas White: Did you object to that?


William Pugsley: I intended to urge certain terms which I thought would do justice to the maritime provinces, and I propose to urge those terms in a little while upon the attention of this government and this committee.
We come now to clause (c) which authorized the Governor in Council:
To pay to the said province, in lien of ownership of public lands, an annual sum based upon the population of the said pro-122i	;	|
vince as ascertained by each quinquennial census thereof, such annual sum to commence with $562,500 (less certain deductions in respect of what are known as swamp lands and university lands) and not to exceed the annual sum of $1,125,000 (less equivalent deductions); the same to be paid as from the first day of July, 1908.
What is the position Manitoba is put in? When she received those swamp lands she was not entitled to any more debt allowance than she then received, that is absolutely clear because she- started with a population of 15,000 when she entered confederation. She had a reasonable debt allowance, I think considerably beyond what she would have been entitled to simply on the basis of population. The Minister of Finance says she has sold the best of her swamp lands at low prices. She does not propose to account for the interest on the moneys she has been receiving during the last twenty-five 'or thirty-five years, but she proposes simply to begin to hand back what is left, the worst of them, and then to begin paying interest as of the first of Juiy, 1908, of $130,000 a year when she is to get from the Dominion something like $700,000 or $800,000 a year or perhaps even more than that. The paragraph contains these words:
The Governor in Council to pay to the said provinces in lieu fof ownership of public lands,
That is not the language which was used by the late government away back some thirty or forty years ago; when an allowance was made to Manitoba it was put in as for want of public lands. This resolution would seem to imply that in some way or other Manitoba is entitled to the public lands within its boundaries and that as it is not intended to give these lands to the province, this large sum of money, $562,500, should be given to her in lieu of public lands. I notice that when the resolution was first placed on the order paper the words were:
-in lieu of ownership of public lands in the added territory.
When my right hon. friend the Prime Minister had the resolution drawn no doubt he saw that the only thing which he could logically ask parliament to do was to make an allowance in lieu of public lands in the added territory.
But that would not suit the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), because he was wanting a bigger haul out of the Dominion treasury than would be represented by anything commensurate for the loss of the lands in this added territory, and so I take it for granted that he succeeded in getting the resolution altered and that a day or two afterwards, when it appeared again upon the order paper, it

3863
was to authorize the Governor General to pay this amount in lieu of ownership of public lands.


William Thomas White: I can assure my hon. friend that that is not a correct statement of the case. The change was due to the mistake made by the law' clerk in regard to the matter. The Bill as it now stands is precisely as it was in the beginning.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to accept the statement of my hon. friend, but certainly the law clerk has a good deal of ability, and his legal instinct would show him that the right thing to do was to put it in because he would hardly assume it to be possible that my hon. friend would be making an addition of this territory away to the north which will not have very much settlement for a hundred years to come the ground for such a large allowance. Some parts of it will be settled, like the Pas and around the mouths, of the Saskatchewan, Nelson and Churchill rivers, but, speaking generally, it will not be of enormous value to the Dominion or to the province for many years to come. The law clerk would see that it was proposed to do something by reason of adding this territory, and that the words ' in lieu of ownership of public lands ' should be in. But, there is no doubt that the scheme of the government is to make the addition of this new territory an excuse tor altering the whole terms of confederation in so far as Manitoba is concerned, for picking out Manitoba as a favourite child in this family of provinces, and for giving it exceptional treatment, and giving it in such a way that I am sure, if we were dealing -with Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New' Brunswick, or Prince Edward Island, my hon. friend would be terribly shocked if such a proposal were made. I desire to take the position that these lands do not belong to Manitoba. Those of us who come from the smaller provinces to which no territory can be added, in order to do justice to the people we represent, have to take the ground in the strongest manner possible that neither Manitoba, Ontario, nor Quebec, is entitled to one acre of these lands which are outside the bounds of these respective provinces. These lands formed a part of the Hudson bay territory, they were bought by the original four provinces of Canada, and they paid their hard money for them. While it may be natural and right that they should be added to these provinces, yet if they are to be so added the addition ought to take place upon terms upon which the other provinces have been consulted, and with which they are satisfied. The Act of 1871, I think, provides that the boundaries of a province may be extended. But it expressly Mr. PUGSLEY
provides that in case the rights of any other provinces in the confederation are in any way affected by that extension these provinces shall be consulted, and the government or the legislature-I forget which-of the provinces concerned shall be assenting parties.	_
It is proposed to enlarge the territory of Manitoba. It is proposed to give her $560,000 ai year in lieu of public land. On the order paper also we find a proposition to enlarge the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and to give to them vast tracts of territory which, I say, belong to the whole people of Canada, the people of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, as well as to the people of other sections of Canada. In regard to the question of representation, I would like to invite the attention of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, to the point as to how this addition to the territory of the province of Manitoba-and of course the same question would come up- when we come to deal with Ontario and Quebec, and more especially in reference to Quebec-will affect the representation of the other provinces. When_ we coine to Quebec the contention, I think, can very properly be raised-and I submit it with all seriousness to my right hon. friend-that the added territory shall form no part of the province of Quebec, so far as the unit of representation is concerned. Quebec, under the British North America Act, is entitled to 65 representatives. I think it is impossible to successfully meet the contention that that means Quebec as it existed at the time of confederation. I observe in the resolution upon the order paper that there is no saving clause in regard to that. If I remember rightly, in the resolution which was passed in 1908, there was a saving clause. My Tight hon. friend the leader of the opposition, then Prime Minister, suggested, or consented to, an amendment by which it was provided that the added territory should not count in the estimate of 65 representatives for the province of Quebec, but that the additional territory should have representation, just the same as if it were another province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That condition was accepted by the province.


William Pugsley: Yes, that condition was accepted by the province.


Mr. FOWLER.: Does my hon. friend give it as his opinion, that it is within the power of this House to pass legislation limiting the representation of Quebec, as far as added territory is concerned, or would it not require an Act of the Imperial parliament?


William Pugsley: I would think not, because I think Quebec means Quebec as it existed at the time of confederation. But, at all events, my own view is, that if the

terms of confederation are to be Te-adiust-ed with respect to Manitoba, there ought to be Imperial legislation and the boundaries should be fixed. But, that is a matter for the legal advisers of the government. What I submit is, that as Quebec is to be the pivot upon which the representation of the different provinces turns, it should be Quebec as it existed at the time that confederation was formed. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, when he was leader of the government, recognized that principle and introduced a saving clause into the resolution. I would like to direct the attention of my right hon. friend the leader of the government to the fact that the boundaries of Quebec have already been enlarged. They were enlarged in 1898. I know the argument has been raised that the statute simply fixed the boundaries. I do not think so. I think that by that statute, there was something like 200,000 square miles added to the territory of Quebec. At the time of confederation, everybody recognized that Quebec extended to the height of land. We know that in the olden days, when the province of Quebec was .owned by the French and Prince Rupert'Land was owned by the English, Prince RupeTt Land was understood to cover all the territory which was drained by the rivers that flowed towards Hudson bay. and in the old geographies, the height of land was shown as the northern boundary of Quebec. This is very important, because all that section of country through which the Transcontinental railway runs from a' point,-I do not know what distance from Quebec, but extending north of Lake Abi-tibi, is included in the territory which was formerly Prince Rupert Land, because, as hon. gentlemen know, the river Abitibi as well as all the other rivers in that territory drain through to Hudson bav.
I would suggest to my right hon. friend that when he comes to consider the question it cannot do much harm to extend the proposition of the right hon. the leader of the opposition a little bit further and as regards the basis for representation leave Quebec as it was at the time of confederation. So far as Manitoba is concerned, and also so far as Ontario is concerned, the subject of representation is also important. As my right hon. friend knows, there is in the British North America Act, section 51, what is known as the saving clause, so far as the other provinces apart from Quebec are concerned. That provides that although relatively to Quebec a province might lose its representation as a result of the census, yet such province shall not lose unless it has fallen a certain percentage behind all of the provinces of Canada. In the case of New Brunswick, after the last distribution, if the computation were confined to the original provinces of .Canada, New Brunswick would not have lost in her representation, but it was because of the new provinces being considered that the effect of this saving clause was done away with and our province lost in representation. In the representation case which came before the Supreme Court of Canada and afterwards went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in which I had the honour of being concerned, I took the ground-as the court held that the population of the new provinces should come in against us in considering the effect of that saving clause-that the population of the territories should not count. The point was left undecided. There is no principle upon which the population of the territories should count; it could not be brought in under the terms of section 51 of the British North America Act in any way. You will have this result, that in all these additions to Quebec and Ontario and Manitoba you are bringing in a portion of the territories; you are making them a part of the province, and their population, which, if they had remained territories would not have counted against the older provinces in respect to representation, will count from the day you make them part of a province. Therefore,
I do submit that the provinces ought to be consulted. I do submit that before you strike a blow at the provision of the British North America Act which was intended to save these smaller provinces from the loss of representation, you ought to expressly provide that the population of these added territories shall not at all interfere with the operation of that saving clause or affect the rights of the other provinces so far as representation is concerned. 1 have felt it my duty to mention these matters, which hon. gentlemen may think more especially pertain to the province I have the honour to represent, and I do so-because I believe it is important. I remember very well when the matter was discussed in the New Brunswick Legislature some years ago, when I was Attorney General of that province, that the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries expressed himself as veTy strongly of the opinion that in any redistribution these questions ought all to be taken into consideration. I am relying with the utmost confidence upon his being a strong advocate of the course which I contend ought to be adopted now. I have not dealt very much with the subject of the public lands in the territories because that question will come up more appropriately when we come to deal with the resolution as affecting the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. But, these questions are germane to the subject because it is proposed to give Manitoba this very large allowance in lieu of public

lands to which, the province of Manitoba is not entitled. I am fortified in that view by the statement of Sir James Whitney, Premier of Ontario, made in the legislature a few days ago, when he said that neither Manitoba nor Ontario was entitled to these lands and that they are lands which belong to the Dominion. That is the view I take and that is a view that cannot be too strongly urged. No province ought to be allowed to receive a subsidy upon the theory that it is any more entitled to the public lands of the Dominion than any other province. Whatever else it is deemed desirable to give to Manitoba in order to enable her to carry on government by reason of the added territories and discharge her duties in respect to the people who are there now, or may be there in the future, well and good; and I would not only be just but generous to the province in that respect. But, I do not want to express my approval of taking up the case of any one province and making it a separate case and attempting to take it out of the well settled principles which govern the status of all the provinces under the British North America Act.


William Thomas White: I wish to say a word with reference to the last paragraph of the resolution, which reads:
(d) To authorize the Governor in Council to pay to said province, one-half on July 1, 1912, and one-half on July 1, 1913, the sum' of $201,723.57 towards the construction of public buildings.
The explanation of that is that the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively received under the Alberta and Saskatchewan Act, to provide for the construction of public buildings, the sum of $468,750, the payment of which was spread over five years. The province of Manitoba has heretofore received from the Dominion on account of the construction of the legislative buildings and government house at Winnipeg $267,026 and the sum of $201,723.57 referred to in the resolution is the difference between the two amounts I have mentioned. I have listened with very much interest to my hon. friend and to his expression of opinion that the other provinces will be dissatisfied with what he calls the exceptional treatment of Manitoba. In my judgment, if there has been any exceptional treatment of Manitoba, it has been by the late government and not by this government, and in that connection I would call the attention of the House to the differences between the status of the several provinces of the confederation with regard especially to the ownership of their natural resources. All the provinces of Canada, with the exception Mr. PTJGSLEY.
of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, were made sovereign provinces and the lands belonging to the Crown were vested in these provinces. The result is that they have had the advantage of their lands, their minerals, and the royalties consequent thereon. That is not the case with the three prairie provinces. They have no land, they are not sovereign states in that sense as the other provinces are, and the result is that prima facie they should be entitled to the same treatment. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba not being sovereign provinces, not being entitled to their lands, minerals and royalties, should prima facie, other things being equal, and having regard to their status in the west, be entitled to precisely the same treatment. That is what we are trying to accord to them. My hon. friend said that no province is entitled to an acre of land without the consent of all the other provinces.


William Pugsley: To an acre of Dominion land.


William Thomas White: And he was speaking of the extension of the boundaries at the time and I am not sure whether he meant the transfer of lands to the provinces or the extension of t.heir boundaries. I understood him to mean that the extension of boundaries could not take place without-*
Mr. PTTOSL^Y. What I said was that the Dominion lands belonged to the whole Dominion.


William Thomas White: Which Dominion lands?


William Pugsley: Wherever they are in the territory. The lands north of British Columbia belong to the Dominion, the lands north of Ontario belong to the Dominion, and the lands north of Quebec belong to the Dominion and the lands in the prairie west all belong to the Dominion.


William Thomas White: Do I understand my hon. friend to object to the transfer to Quebec of the added territory which is proposed, or was he referring to Manitoba?


William Pugsley: Yes, and Ontario too without treating the other provinces fairly and justly.


William Thomas White: We are now dealing with the resolutions regarding the province of Manitoba. As far as the other provinces are concerned, I have no doubt that when they understand the situation they will be satisfied that it is only fair and just to Manitoba that this Bill should be enacted, in order that it may be placed on an equality with these other provinces, because Manitoba, like them, was deprived of its lands, minerals and royalties. Let me point out also that Manitoba under ex-

isting legislation, is entitled to xeeeive about 8,000,000 acres more of swamp lands from time to time as they would be selected. It is getting an increase of about $500,000 a year by way of subsidies, and a total cash payment in respect of arrearages of about $2,000,000.


William Pugsley: From the standpoint of the Dominion, would it not be better for Manitoba to keep her swamp lands and sell them, because the Dominion gives away its lands free? .


William Thomas White: Manitoba has applied for an extension of her boundaries and for better financial terms. Presumably Manitoba knows her own business. A portion of these swamp lands will not come in for many years. But looking at the question at large and from the Dominion standpoint, having regard to the future as web as the present, the swamp lands represent in value a very large sum of money, which will be a set-off as far as the other provinces are concerned to the increased amount of money that Manitoba is now getting.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is it the intention of the government of which the hon. Minister of Finance is a member to hand over the lands to the provinces, as was promised by the Tight hon. leader of the government in the last campaign? If it is, it seems to me that this would be a good time to start doing that instead of giving an increased subsidy.


William Thomas White: The right hon. leader of the government, I have no doubt will be able to answer my hon. friend; but that question does not arise in connection with the present situation. This matter has been a long-standing sore to Manitoba. She has asked for an extension of her boundaries and a revision of her financial terms, and when we are proposing to meet her in these respects, hon. gentlemen opposite are seeking to confuse the issue by asking such questions as that of my hon. friend. From my knowledge of the right hon. leader of the government I have no doubt he will be prepared in time to carry out explicitly whatever he promised. This question with regard to Manitoba should not be regarded from a narrow point of view. As the hon. member for St. John has said, Manitoba has been virtually a postage stamp on the map. A man has only to look at the map to see that great injustice has been done to Manitoba for years. Manitoba's claim has been soundly based, and everybody now, as in 1908, is in favour of enlarging her boundaries. The west is not entitled to exceptional treatment, but it is entitled to just and generous treatment. I am the first to rejoice that Saskatchewan and Alberta were dealt with so liberally as they were. I like to
see those new children in the confederation treated properly. I have no exception whatever to take to the subsidies that were granted to Alberta and Saskatchewan. But we must go farther and put the pioneer province of the west in the same position ais those favoured children in the confederation. And public opinion in eastern Canada will sustain that position, because it is the application of simple justice to Manitoba. The commercial hope of Canada to-day lies in the great west. There is room there for millions and tens of millions of people, and Manitoba is the pathfinder, the province that blazed the trail and suffered the privations of the pioneer in the early days of the west. We should not approach this question in the spirit of lawyers looking for technical points in sta. utes, but we should approach it in a broad statesmanlike way, with a desire to redress the injustice which Manitoba has suffered, and to put her in the same position as Saskatchewan land Alberta. It would be unfair in the extreme to put the province which has borne the burden and heat of the day in a subordinate position as to her 'territory or financial subsidies. Not only will the other provinces (not be dissatisfied, but they will abundantly approve of the course which this government is taking in redressing the injustice under which Manitoba has laboured, and in putting the pathfinder of the west in as good a position as the two sister provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Robert Laird Borden: In compliance with the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the apposition, I have asked the clerk of the House to amend the first paragraph of this resolution so as to set forth specifically the boundaries as they are proposed in the Bill. I have 'already informed the right hon. gentleman that those boundaries are the same 'as those defined by the resolution of 1908. The description is more elaborate. It has been prepared by the Dominion geographer, and with great care. I would therefore move that the first clause of the resolution be amended by substituting therefor the following:
That it is expedient to extend the limits of the province of Manitoba so that the boundaries of the province shall be as follows :
Then follows the description.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: I want to follow the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance on the point that he made that there should be equality of treatment between the different provinces in regard to subsidies and territory.
I want to point out to him and to the 'Committee that equality of 'treatment does not involve merely an intimate know-

ledge of the multiplication table, or the other rules of arithmetic, but that equality of treatment necessarily involves due consideration of the physical and other conditions surrounding and connected with, the provinces with which it is proposed to deal. For instance, because the province of Ontario has a certain area and receives a certain consideration from the Dominion treasury, it does not by any means follow that part of the territory of Canada, lying ibeneath the Arctic circle and of the same area would fee entitled to receive the same .consideration, if 'erected into a province. That is an extreme illustration, but I want to make a statement of the position, as between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, to which no person can take exception. A provincial government is charged with certain duties of administration in behalf of the people under its jurisdiction, and the cost of that administration depends somewhat upon the area ever which the people are spread, and as well upon their occupations and the means of communication. Now as between the province of Saskatchewan and the proposed province of Manitoba, each province will have an approximate area of 250,000 square miles. Of that area in the province of Saskatchewan it is fair to assume that not less than 200,000 square miles will be occupied by agricultural settlement. I think it is fair to assume that of the 250,000 square miles of the proposed province of Manitoba, that part which will be effectively occupied by agricultural settlement, will not be more than 50,000 square miles. That is to say, the area over which the respective provincial governments will be required to administer justice and deal generally with the subjects which comes within the range of a provincial government, will in the case of Saskatchewan, be over an area of 200,000 square miles, and in the case of Manitoba, over an area of 50,000 square miles. So that if there is to bo equality of treatment in regard to the conditions as they exist, on the face of it, the province of Saskatchewan is unquestionably entitled-if the justice for which my hon. friend (Mr. White, Leeds) clamoured so loudly, is to be done-to receive a larger grant from the Federal treasury than the province of Manitoba. I do not want to be understood as objecting in any degree to liberality being extended by the government to the province of Manitoba. If it were possible to be generous to Manitoba without being unjust to the rest of the Dominion, then there would be no objection whatever to any amount that might be given to Manitoba. I am not even suggesting that the generosity shown in this case is an injustice to the other provinces, but I am bound to place before the committee the fact that what is an adequate and proper payment from the Dominion Mr. OLIVER.
treasury to the province of Manitoba for the services of provincial government in that province, is by all right and reason, not an adequate payment to the adjoining province of Saskatchewan for the same purpose. And the same argument holds good in regard to the province of Alberta, but to an even greater degree, because that province is recognized as being of agricultural capability from north to south and from east to west. So that there is in that case, an area of presumably 250,000 square miles over which agricultural settlement may be spread, and wdiich will require the administration of the provincial government which will have to incur corresponding expenses because of that. Therefore, if this question is to be decided as a matter of strict justice, and only as a matter of justice, I submit to the committee that that is not the basis upon which it is being decided now.
There are two features of provincial subsidies which are being dealt with in this arrangement: One is the feature in regard to the debt, and the other is the feature in regard to lands. The feature in regard to debt is dealt with by simply doubling the present debt allowance of Manitoba, or placing it on an equality with the province of Saskatchewan. I take a somewhat different ground, possibly, from my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), and I offer no criticism against that increased debt account. I offer no criticism of the increase of debt account, because of equality of population between Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Be it remembered that the debt account is adjusted by population and not by territory, and that the addi-i tion of the new territory to the province of Manitoba has nothing whatever to do, either nearly or remotely, with the question of debt account. If Manitoba is entitled to an increased allowance of debt account it is entitled to that because of its population, and not because of its territory. But if I say that I am not exactly in accord with the remarks of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), I want to follow it with a statement that will be absolutely in accord with what he savs. It cannot be held to be reasonable that there should be a readjustment of debt account in regard to any province without the consent of the otheT provinces. So when this government undertakes to readjust the debt account of the province of Manitoba, admitting that it is in itself a fair adjustment, it is taking upon itself the responsibility of disturbing the fundamental elements of confederation, and giving good and sufficient reason for some, at any rate, of the other provinces to come forward and demand a similar readjustment of debt account ; and if the plea as to justice is to obtain, as my

hon. friend the Minister of Finance insists that it is, then the other provinces have just as good a right to claim justice
as Manitoba has. That is a matter that I think the committee should consider very gravely; that it is not for any government to gratuitously disturb the basis of confederation and introduce an element of discord 'when that condition could toe avoided.
This should certainly never be done under the conditions that exist at the present time, where a government deliberately comes forward and, under a plea of doing (justice to one province takes it upon itself to readjust the debt account of that province-at once holding out to the other provinces the promise, or at least making the suggestion, that if they will only bring sufficient pressure to bear, their debt accounts may be readjusted as well; placing a premium-absolutely placing a premium-upon agitation against the fundamental basis of confederation. I think that a government which takes that attitude has something to answer for to the people of this country, altogether of more importance than the doing of what may be called justice in this particular to one province. The government has a duty to perform and a responsibility to bear, to the whole Dominion of Canada which weighs as heavily upon it as its duty and responsibility to the province of Manitoba. There is a proper way to secure a readjustment of the debt account of the province of Manitoba, but I submit that this government has not taken that proper way.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.	[DOT]
On the order being called for the House to go into committee on Private Bills,


Robert Bickerdike: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point or order. I claim that these two Bills (No. 68) and (No. 69) are exclusively educational Bills, with which this parliament has no right to deal. The Ontario government were represented before the Private Bills Committee, and opposed the Bills.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the hon. member is out of order in attempting to discuss that question now. The motion is to go into committee, and it would be improper to discuss the question of the constitutionality or the principle of a Bill. That could be done in committee.


Robert Bickerdike: I can only raise the point of order when you are in the Chair.	[DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no point of order in it, because it is a legal and constitutional question which the Speaker never decides.


Robert Bickerdike: I have raised the point of order; you can do as you like with it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 68), respecting the Queen's College at Kingston, and to change its name to Queen's University at Kingston.-Mr. Nickle.
On section 1-existing rights and liabilities continued,
Robert Bickerdike: I would again raise the point of order that this is a purely educational Bill, and has no right to be brought before this parliament, that the Ontario legislature would have just as much right to issue a bank charter as^ this parliament has to issue an educational charter. Consequently I object to the Bill being passed. The proper course would be to refer it to the Justice Department for their opinion. There is no question in the minds of many of the best lawyers in Canada that this is. a matter over which this parliament has no jurisdiction, and is exclusively a matter for the Ontario legislature. Therefore, I move that this Bill, and Bill (No. 69) be referred to the Justice Department for their opinion.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I am afraid that this motion is out of order.


Robert Bickerdike: I move that the committee rise.


Mr. NICKLE.: I hardly think I would be discharging my duty to my constituents, and to those who have placed this Bill in my charge if I allowed the hon. member's motion to go without challenging the correctness of his statement. In order that the House may adequately understand the relation of this institution to the national life, it is necessary that I .should go into its history, take the House into my confidence and explain to them what legislation nas been passed in this House affecting the university that now presents this Bill for consideration. In 1849 Queen's University was incorporated, not by an Act of the parliament of Upper Canada, but by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative. From 1841 until 1874, the original charter granted toy Her Majesty continued unchanged and under it the university was governed. In]

1874, after the union of the Free Church of Scotland and the old Kirk in Canada, it was necessary to make application for fresh powers and at that time the legislature of the province of Ontario passed an Act in regard to the matter, which was then thought to be constitutional. However,	a case commonly called the
Temporalities Fund Case, was taken to the Privy Council, and that body laid down the principle that in the case of any corporation or institution enjoying privileges that affected the citizens of the two provinces, it would be ultra vires of either , province to legislate away the rights of citizens of the other province. Believing that decision to be good law, the trustees of the university in 1882, made application to this parliament for a confirming statute and this parliament passed such an Act. Again in 1889, when fresh powers were required, application was made to this parliament and a most vigorous debate took place in this House, participated in by men like Sir John Thompson, Hon. David Mills, Sir John A. Macdonald, Mr. Weldon, of St. John and other eminent constitutional lawyers, after which by a vote of 104 to 35 this House decided that it had authority to deal with this question, because the rights of citizens of Ontario and Quebec were at issue. Again in 1906 the trustees came to this House for legislation when this House took the responsibility of passing legislation affecting Queen's University.
We come to the present. The hon. gentleman says that he understands the representative of Ontario contends that this House has not jurisdiction. It is well that the entire facts should be in the possession of the House. It is quite true that the province of Ontario did stand represented before the Private Bills Committee and the matter was thoroughly canvassed from every point of view. The stand taken by the province of Ontario was, that if clause 2, which reads:
The university is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.,
-were eliminated the province of Ontario had nothing more to say and was satisfied that this Bill should be passed. The hon. member for St. Lawrence division (Mr. Biekerdike) has opposed this Bill from its inception to the present. From the time his voice was first heard in opposition to it, until to-day, he has left nothing undone that could secure the overthrow of this Bill. Imagine if you will, the scene in the Private Bills Committee a few days ago. The hon. member for St. Lawrence, contended that clause 2 infringed on the rights of Ontario, but when those who had charge of the measure withdrew the objectionable clause, he immediately changed his position, and said that with that clause out, we had no jurisdiction. The legisla-Mr. NICKLE.
tive authority rests somewhere in regard to this university, and those who have this Bill in charge contend that as the Dominion parliament has three times passed legislation affecting the university, as the' Privy Council has given a decision that would seem clearly to indicate that jurisdiction lies here, this House should take the responsibility of legislating. The hon. member for St. Lawrence says that we should ask the opinion of the Justice Department. The hon. gentleman at the first meeting of the Private Bills Committee caused such a motion t.o be put, and the question was referred to the Department of Justice. But the hon. gentleman for St. Lawrence was not there at the second meeting when Mr. Gisbourne, the representative of the Department of Justice, came and gave an opinion.


Charles Avila Wilson: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to state that the question has been referred to the Justice Department ?


William Folger Nickle: I said that at the first meeting of the Private Bills Committee it was moved' that the question be referred to the Justice Department. It was then referred to the Justice Department, and at the 'second meeting of the committee the representative of the Justice Department was present and he said that the question of jurisdiction was iso shrouded in doubt that the Justice Department would, not take the responsibility of saying that jurisdiction did not lie within this parliament, that the courts were open to any man who felt himself aggrieved and if it were not constitutional the fact that this House had 'arrogated to itself a right which it did not possess would in no way affect the rights of those interested in this Bill.


Charles Avila Wilson: Was that opinion given in writing ?


William Folger Nickle: I am not aware that it
W'*S.


Charles Avila Wilson: It would be very useful to the committee if it was in writing for the benefit of everybody.


William Folger Nickle: Does the hon. gentleman doubt my word ?


Charles Avila Wilson: Oh, no.


William Folger Nickle: That Bill was held up at the first meeting o:f the committee 'and I do not think that the hon. member will question my statement that it was (referred to the Justice Department and the passing of the preamble was held up until such time as the Justice Department could give an opinion. At the second meeting of the committee the Bill was taken up clause by clause, and 'at the last, when every clause had been 'considered, the preamble wias considered, it secured the concurrence of

the committee -an-d the Bill was reported to the House. The Bill has since with amendments, been before the law clerk of; the House land no objection has been raised' by him. I can do no more than explain to the House the position that I and the promoters have taken. I am giving to the House my recollection of the opinion of the Justice Department, and if any hon. gentleman for one moment doubts what 1 say, I would be only too glad that that opinion should be asked in writing, but I would like to call the -attention of the House to the fact that they are inflicting a great h-ai'diship o-n this university by retarding the passing of this legislation which means a great deal to the university which I have the honour to -represent here to-night.


Mr. BURNHAM.: I can enlighten the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) who has just spoken a little on this subject because I took the liberty of referring the matter to the Department of Justice myself. We had a great deal of confusion in the committee, and we became entangled in a variety of religious questions which some of us, including the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bicker-dike) did not understand. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Biekerdike) objected on the ground of jurisdiction and the Bill under that reservation was considered very minutely and in every particular and detail -and eventually was reported. The only question was that with regard to jurisdiction. In regard to my reference to the Justice Department, I do not suppose I am violating any confidence of the Justice Department when I say that one of tlie most important officials of the department took the trouble to come over to the committee room. He took me to one side and said:	You will not consider it offensive on our part if I say that we do not care to put down in writing any opinion on a -subject of this description for it is outside of the function of the Justice Department to advise in such matters. The hon. member for Kingston has stated accurately what has occurred and I am very glad indeed to be able to say that that is why there is no opinion in writing.


Charles Avila Wilson: The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) deserves credit for having taken the trouble to procure the opinion of the Department of Justice on thi-s question. We also owe some gratitude to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) for having communicated to the committee the opinion which he has had from the Justice Department and the opinion of the representatives of that department in the committee. But I think it would have been better for the members of this committee
to have had the opinion given in the House by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) himself. The opinion given by an official of the department to the committee is very useful, no doubt, but the committee, being informed of that opinion, should have reported to that effect and I am not aware that the report which the Chairman has laid on the table of the House relates that fact. It seems to me that the motion of my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bicker-dike) is only reasonable. We will have the opinion of the Justice Department by to-morrow, and the department is ready to give its opinion according to the statement of the hon. member for Kingston. I have no doubt that the department is ready, and I would, therefore, second the motion of my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Lawrence, that the proceedings should be suspended until this favourable opinion to my hon. friend's contention shall be brought before the House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Bicker-dike moves that the committee rise.


William Thomas White: This parliament has already assumed jurisdiction in this matter. Now, I think myself that it is too late to raise the question of jurisdiction. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has shown clearly that the matter has been before parliament on a previous occasion and that it has been considered by such eminent authorities as Sir John Thompson, Hon. David Mills and others, and it seems to me pretty clear that the question of jurisdiction should not be raised. It will stultify this parliament as to its previous action. If there is any doubt in regard to the matter it is open, as my hon. friend from Kingston has said, to any one interested to test the matter in the courts. Then possibly the jurisdiction of the Dominion can be determined. But it does seem to me that, this matter having been before parliament, not only once but more than once


Robert Bickerdike: Not this Bill, Sir.


William Thomas White: But this question in substance has been before this parliament.


Robert Bickerdike: Not in the present shape.


William Thomas White: Well, not in the present shape, but still in -such shape as t-o be dealt with under the jurisdiction of this parliament. The same question I have no doubt arose then that is raised by my hon. friend now-the same question of jurisdiction, the same question of whether we really had legislative authority to deal with it. It does seem to me

that we are not going to be freed from that doubt. The proper way is to assume that parliament has the powers which it has already assumed to have and which, according to the opinion of the eminent jurists referred to, it had. The proper procedure is to take up the clauses of this Bill, make such progress as we can with them and subsequently allow any question to be raised. We stultify parliament by attempting to determine whether it has jurisdiction which it has in fact already assumed in the past.


Charles Avila Wilson: The minister contends that it is too late to raise the question of jurisdiction.


William Thomas White: Not too late.
_ Mr. WILSON (Laval). The question of jurisdiction was raised the first time the Bill appeared before committee. It was raised to-night when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. It is raised now when the Chairman is presiding over the proceedings of this committee. It is all very well to say that because Sir John Thompson, or some other eminent jurist, gave a certain opinion _we should assume the legislative jurisdiction, of this parliament. It is all [DOT] very well for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) to be the commissionaire of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) to bring his opinion before the committee, but it seems to me if the Minister of Justice himself would give his opinion to the committee it would be better, or if the Minister of Finance undertakes to say that this is the opinion of the Minister of Justice, supported by a full Cabinet, that is another proposition entirely. I do not think we deserve any reproach.


William Thomas White: I am not reproaching you.


Charles Avila Wilson: Perhaps the word ' reproach ' is not the right word, but I do not think we have been negligent at all. We have been awake from the first time the Bill appeared before the committee. I have no other motive than the welfare of Queen's University, but above all, the rights of the citizens of this country without any consideration or regard for their nationality. The word ' national ' is mentioned in the Bill connected with the word ' undenominational.' If the minister will look a little further on in the Bill he will find, in clause 20, that notwithstanding all the privileges they want to get from this House, and which it is proposed to grant to them, the university is still to continue distinctly Christian, putting away all British subjects in this country who are not Christian.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend (Mr. Wilson, Laval) must have misunder-Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
stood me, because I certainly did not mean it was any reproach to hon. gentlemen opposite that they had raised this question of jurisdiction. We were discussing the question of jurisdiction which had been raised, and properly raised by another hon. gentleman. The position I have taken is that we have already created our own precedent. Parliament has already dealt with this matter, and I understand from the hon. member for Kingston, that when the matter was being dealt with before the committee, a member of the Department of Justice attended and stated that while there might be some doubt about the matter, it had already been dealt with by parliament. I think it inadvisable to confuse the terms of the Bill with the question of jurisdiction. If my hon. friend desires to discuss the terms of the Bill-the clauses of the Bill, why, of course, that may properly be done in the committee. But, that should not be confused with the question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction is one thing, the question of the propriety of the main clauses of the Bill is another thing. They may be discussed separately. But the point I am endeavouring to make, is that as the subject of Queen's University has been heretofore dealt with by this parliament of Canada, I do not say it is too late, but I say it is inexpedient to raise the question now, to-raise any doubt as to the proceedings of parliament in the past, especially if the Minister of Justice, or the Department of Justice, have any doubt about the matter which they are unable to resolve. There are a number of matters which come up before this parliament in regard to which the question of jurisdiction arises. It may be that it is very difficult to determine these questions, but the fact remains that this subject has been dealt with from time to time by the Dominion parliament.
There would therefore be no harm in taking up this Bill and considering its several clauses. As I understand it, a representative of the province of Ontario attended the Private Bills Committee; the University being situated in Ontario, and that province being the authority^ to raise objection on the question of jurisdiction, but as I understand from my hon. friend (Mr. Nickle) the representative of Ontario withdrew opposition as to clause 2 which declares the University to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
Mr. BI0TTET?T)IKE. I do not think the hon. member for Kingston would say that.


William Thomas White: Of course I was not present and I cannot speak on the subject from personal knowledge, but my understanding is that the representative of Ontario did not object to the jurisdiction of the Dominion having regard to clause 2

declaring the University to be for the advantage of Canada.
Mr. NICKLE The province of Ontario objected to that clause being inserted in the Bill, but Mr. Code, who represented the province, isaid that if that clause were deleted the province had no further objection.


Robert Bickerdike: I think my hon. friend from Kingston is in error.


William Thomas White: Well, I was not present, and I bad better not deal wiSi that feature of the case. It is an essential point that parliament has already dealt with the matter.


Mr. NESBITT.: When?
Mr. WHITE i(Leeds). On three occasions as I am told by my hon. friend (Mr. Nickle).


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is nothing before us to show us that such is the case.


William Folger Nickle: The question was dealt with in 1882, 1889 and 1906 by the Dominion Parliament.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In what way?


William Folger Nickle: It was rather complicated and it may take some time to explain the [DOT]details.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Can. you do so briefly ?


William Folger Nickle: I can and I cannot. I have done it once -and I will try again. In 1882 the legislation that was then found necessary was promoted to confirm an Act of the Ontario legislature owing to the decision of the Privy Council in Dobie and the Temporalities Fund. Hon. gentlemen who are of the Presbyterian persuasion may remember that after the union of the Free Church of Scotland and the Old Kirk, questions arose in regard to the administration of certain church funds, and the litigation went to the Privy Council when it was decided that where a citizen of two provinces, that is of Upper and Lower Canada, had rights', that the legislature of neither ^ provinces could destroy or annul these rights. It was to conform with that decision that in 1882 the university came to this parliament to get confirming Legislation for the Act of 1874 passed in the Ontario legislature. Then, in 1889, the trustees again came to this House for legislation, at that time the question involved was the giving to graduates the right of representation on the trustee Board. Again in 1906 a further extension of the franchise, so to speak, to the graduates, was desired, and again this House was appealed to, and again this parliament decided it had jurisdiction. I may read for the information of the House What Sir John Thompson said in 1889:
I am afraid that in the short time remaining for the disposal of jrivate Bills, it may be almost impossible if the objections are insisted on, to close the discussion. If hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken intend to insist on those objections, it is not worth while, I confess, to proceed; but, perhaps, they have merely spoken for the purpose of asserting their view of the jurisdiction of thia parliament and they will permit the Bill to pass. If the Bill is to he opposed I shall offer a few observations in regard to it. There has been much argument offered on both sides, iu which I cannot concur, hut the strong point in favour of the passing of this Bill, if dt is a Bill which commends itself to the House on its merits, i9 this: that this parliament in 1882 asserted its jurisdiction and passed an Act by which it arranged the organization of this college. I must assume that in passing that Act it made provisions and regulations which were unwise or inconvenient in their operation, and the promoters who submitted to that Act in 1882, come now to the same body and ask for the removal of those unwise or inconvenient restraints. I think the House, under such circumstances, ought not to decline jurisdiction, especially in regard to a private Bill.
And, Sir John Thompson was thought to be a pretty good constitutional lawyer.


Robert Bickerdike: The Minister of Finance is hardly fair in preventing this committee from knowing what the Minister of Justice or the Justice Department has replied to the question that was asked. I am not a member of the Private Bills Committee, and, therefore, I do not know what the opinion of the Justice Department is. So far as I can learn there was no such report presented to the Private Bills Committee, and if there was such a report, then the Committee of the Whole is entitled to see it. Why not let this Bill stand until the Minister of Justice is present to state his position on the matter? It is my opinion that the Ontario legislature would have as much right to issue a bank charter, as for this parliament to issue an educational charter, and the fact that parliament has in previous days dealt with this legislation, is no reason why, if parliament was wrong then, we should! perpetuate the wrong now. I will take every means I can to get the opinion of the Justice Department before this committee.


Charles Avila Wilson: It is my duty to strongly object to the manner in which the Minister of Finance has expressed his satisfaction with the report made to him by the hon. gentleman from Kingston (Mr. Nickle). Suppose, for example, that that famous officer of the Law Department expressed his opinion to the hon. member for Kingston and to myself, each of us might draw a different conclusion from that opinion, and, therefore, we would be no better off than we were before in com-

ing to a determination, unless we were able to present that opinion to the members of the House to enable them to form their own judgment on it. It is the duty of the hon. member for Kingston to place the opinion of the Justice Department before us. If the other practice is going to be followed in this House, it will undoubtedly lead us into error.	_
If the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice were contained in the report of the committee, the situation would be different.' When I asked my hon. friend if he would take the responsibility of saying that the opinion given by the Minister of Justice was as stated by the hon. member for Kingston, he would not take that responsibility. If Laval had given the same opinion instead of the hon. member for Kingston, I am inclined to think that the hon. Minister of Finance would have taken it cum grano salis.


Wilfrid Laurier: I came into the House while this matter was under discussion. I understand that objection is taken to the Bill by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence division, Montreal, (Mr. Bickerdike) on the ground that this question concerning Queen's University is a provincial question. I must add my testimony to the statement made by my hon. friend from Kingston by saying that to my personal knowledge this parliament has already dealt with Queen's University. I remember the occasion to which my hon. friend has referred. I do not remember what the question was, but I know that it arose from a division which took place in the Presbyterian church in 1882. I have not forgotten the other incident referred to, when the opinion of Sir John Thompson was given that this parliament had jurisdiction. The matter presents itself in this way. The university was in need of legislation, and it had to decide whether it would go for it to Toronto or to Ottawa, and I presume that, following the prece 1-ents of 1882 and 1889, it decided to come to Ottawa. In my judgment this parliament has certainly jurisdiction, because we have these two precedents. Under such circumstances I would be loth for my part to vote to kill the Bill for want of jurisdiction. I understand that the motion made by my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division is that the committee rise. If this motion were carried, the Bill would be killed. I would be averse, for my part, to take such a course, and I think the House should be chary about doing so. I think my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division will agree that it would be hardly fair to the university to kill the Bill. My hon. friend may be entitled to information, and I am sure that the hon. member for Kingston would not object to giving it. For these reasons I could not vote for the Mr. WILSON (Laval).
motion that the committee rise; but in the meantime parliament will not be prorogued for some time yet, and it should be possible to furnish the information asked for by my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division.


William Thomas White: What has been pointed out by my right hon. friend had already been pointed out by the hon. member for Kingston. It seems perfectly clear that parliament has dealt with^ Queen's University on two previous occasions, and no less eminent a jurist than Sir John Thompson expressed the opinion that this parliament had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Bill. The hon. member has pointed out that this legislation is of supreme importance to this university and to its adherents and supporters, who are a large and influential body of people, and it seems to me that we should proceed with the Bill and the question_ raised as to section 20 or any other section may he discussed afterwards in the committee or in the House. There is no question involved in this Bill that cannot be discussed apart from the question of jurisdiction. This parliament would stultify itself if it decided that it had not jurisdiction in this matter. I entirely concur in the view of the right hon. the leader of the opposition.


Robert Bickerdike: I do not wish to kill the Bill, but I have endeavoured on three occasions to -get the opinion of the Justice Department on this question. My hon. friend from Kingston states that the Private Bills Committee has had that opinion. I am not a member of that committee, and I think we are entitled to have that opinion laid on the table of this House. There are some clauses in the Bill that we have pleaded with the promoters to leave out, because they are insulting to a large number of people. As long as clause 20 remains in the Bill, I will take every chance to defeat it. I stated to the promotor of the Bill that if that clause were struck out, I would not raise the question of jurisdiction.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The hon. member for the St. Lawrence division evidently feels strongly on this matter, and I understand he is speaking from information given to him by people who are supposed to have some authority. Personally, I do not think there is anything in the objection as to the jurisdiction of this parliament, and that opinion is fortified by the fact that on two previous occasions parliament has exercised jurisdiction by dealing with Queen's College. But the law officer of the Crown is the Minister of Justice, and I must say that he does not honour us with his presence in parliament or in parliamentary committees as frequently as -he ought. When hon. members raise a

serious question, I think the committee is entitled to know what the Minister of Justice thinks of it, just as a few years ago when a question was raised on a similar Bill, Sir John Thompson as Minister of Justice gave his opinion and settled the question. While not agreeing with my hon. friend from St. Lawrence in the objection he has raised, I think the promoters of the Bill would be well advised if they allowed it to remain in committee until the Minister of Justice stated to the House the opinion which he is said to have given.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Lost.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Hon. members know that it is near nine o'clock. I say that the Minister of Justice should be in his seat to give his opinion on a serious question raised in this committee, and that question will not be settled by the hon. gentlemen saying ' lost.' Hon. members who do not belong to the Private Bills Committee, and who had not an opportunity to hear the discussion theTe, cannot form an intelligent opinion on the legal question from the short discussion we have had to-night.
All I wish, with the desire of assisting the Bill-not believing in the point raised by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike), because there is no political question involved in this matter, not the *slightest in any degree-is this: that my friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) having raised .a question upon which the opinion, of the Minister of Justice ought to be given; that he is not unreasonable, 'and that he is not stating a position which is untenable, when he suggests to the committee that we should have an opinion from the Minister of Justice before a conclusion is reached upon the matter. Can any reason be seriously urged in opposition to that course ? Hon. gentlemen want to rush the Bill through without giving those who apparently have some ideas upon the subject, time or opportunity to present those views, without giving them an opportunity of having the legal question determined which they are instructed and advised is a very serious and important one. That is the whole issue and that is the question. Therefore, I would ask my hon. friend, from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) to recognize that it is impossible for the Bill to go through at this sitting of the House and to accede to. the request of my hon. friend, Mr. Bickerdike.


Charles Avila Wilson: I want to make my position very clear on the question, and I desire to state that I do not want to kill the Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles Avila Wilson: Hon. gentlemen may protest; they seem to be in a great
burry. If the ministers had been in their seats at eight o'clock, instead of 8.15, we would have been able to proceed very well with the business before the House. I remember in the old days when we on this side occupied the seats 'to the right of the Speaker, and) those gentlemen who now sit there were sitting on this side, that a certain hon. gentleman who was a plain member of parliament and not a minister, took very good care when the member for Laval was absent from his seat, to express deep sorrow that that hon. gentleman was not in the House when a public question of interest to his riding was being considered. I shall not mention the hon. gentleman's name.


Wilfrid Laurier: He is not in his seat now.


Charles Avila Wilson: No, he is not in his seat now. I do not know whether that hon. gentleman wishes to refrain from giving his opinion on this Bill. At any rate the position I am taking now is the position that every member of the House, in my opinion, should take. I want to know whether the hon. member for Kingston is sure of his ground, or whether he is afraid to knock again .at the door of the Minister of Justice in order to have his opinion confirmed and submitted to the House ? I think, Mr. Chairman, my demand is a reasonable and just one and should have been accepted by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hour for Private Bills having expired, the House will go into Committee of the Whole on the resolution in regard to the Manitoba boundaries.



PROVINCE OF MANITOBA.-EXTENSION OP BOUNDARIES.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on resolution respecting the boundaries of Manitoba.
Frank Oliver: When the House rose at six o'clock I was discussing that part of the resolution which deals with the question of debt account. I want to point out to the committee, that the question of the readjustment of the subsidies to the provinces was dealt with in the conference that was held, I believe in 1906, and the conclusion of which conference was afterwards embodied in an amendment to the British North America Act. At that conference a change was made in the basis of two features of the subsidy allowance, namely, in regard to civil government, and in regard to payment per head of the population. It was arranged at that conference, and afterwards sanctioned by the Imperial authorities, that hereafter the allowance for civil government, and the allowance on account of population would increase

from time to time with the increase of population. There was no such readjustment in regard to debt account. But in my humble judgment, Mr. Chairman-and I am speaking now on behalf of the western provinces-such a readjustment would have been right and proper at that time, and not having take place at that time would 'be right and proper and would be in order to toe taken into account at some future conference. The idea of the subsidy is for the purpose of enabling the provincial governments to discharge the responsibilities which iconifederation lays upon them, and it is an evident fact that these responsibilities, speaking generally, have increased with increase of population, so that, however the original basis of subsidy was arrived at, or for whatever reason a *certain sum was fixed upon, if the population has .increased largely then that fixed sum becomes inadequate and should, outside of the question of law, as a matter of-equity, be subject to readjustment. What has occurred in the case of Manitoba is liable to recur in the case of that province, and still snore liable to occur in the case of the three provinces farther west: That is, that their debt accounts being adjusted on the basis of present population, the population of those provinces is liable to increase so very rapidly that the provision towards their total subsides on debt account is certain to be .inadequate. It is I presume, that reasoning which leads the government - to make provision for an increase of Manitoba's subsidy on debt account by doubling the calculation, that is to say increasing the population basis from 135,000 to 250,000, the basis of population adopted in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan. But the arbitrary adoption df the same basis of population as was adopted in the case of Albeita and Saskatchewan does not by any means settle the question, does not by any means bring it to finality. Once the government undertakes to depart from the original fixed basis without consultation with the other provinces there i.s no finality. And in my judgment there should not be a finality so long >as the population is increasing, but there .should not toe action by the government dealing with the case of a single province, unless there is an arrangement and understanding with all the other provinces, so that every province shall feel that when a 'certain province has received an increase of subsidy the other provinces have been fairly dealt with at the same time. With our vast area of agricultural land in Alberta and Saskatchewan, with the increases of population that have taken place since these provinces were organized, it is clear to-iday that the subsidy allowance on debt account is not adequate, and is not fair to those provinces of Canada.


Frank Oliver: Now, to repeat. The population of Alberta, Saskatoliewam and Manitoba is a larger precentage greater than the basis of the debt account, than is the population of any of the eastern provinces. Therefore, if I were making an argument on the grounds of pure justice, I would claim at onbe that the debt allowance of these provinces should be increased in order to put them on an equal footing with the eastern provinces so far as population is concerned. But I have taken the ground that the government should not interfere with the basis of calculation of subsidy on its own initiative and should only interfere with it with the consent of all the provinces.
To emphasize the point, let me illustrate: Take the case of the province of British Columbia. That province to-day receives a smaller allowance on debt account in proportion to its present population than any other province in the Dominion. If there were any ground for increasing the payments on debt account to the province of Manitoba, that reason is just as strong or stronger in the case of the province of British Columbia; and by making the increase that has been made in the case of the province of Manitoba, I take it, the government is thereby compelled to make a similar increase to the province of British Columbia,-or, if they do not, the .province of British Columbia will rest under a sense of injustice at the hands of this government.
I have gone into this in detail for the purpose of demonstrating that this portion of the subsidy grant in regard to debt allowance should not have been interfered with by this government except as part of a general scheme in which the rights of the provinces should have been considered and, as far as possible the consent of the provinces obtained. Again I say that I deal with this question at such length because I am .quite aware that the late government will be subjected to adverse criticism because of the cash payments proposed to be made by that government in connection with the proposed extension of the boundaries of Manitoba as compared with the cash payments proposed to be made by this government; and I point out that in my judgment the late gevernment had good and sufficient reason, and was well advised, in not undertaking of its own motion to increase the subsidy of the province of Manitoba on debt account as this government has seen fit to do: I do not speak of the matter with any idea of preventing the province of Manitoba from setting a larger payment on debt account, but in order that there may be -a square deal amongst all the provinces; so that there may not be raised a sense of irritation on the part of any of the provinces which, I as I have pointed out, is bound to occur

in the ease of British 'Columbia at any rate and which would .not have oocured had not the government taken the course it has taken in this connection.
Now, as to the item in the resolution in regard to subsidy in lieu of land: The resolution 'before the House sets out that there is to be paid each year $562,500 on account of land, less certain deductions; and I am informed in reply to a question that the actual cash payment less the deductions to be made is $413,270 a year. This is $313,270 more than the province is now receiving on land account and $113,270 more than the province would have received under the arrangement offered by the late government which involved practically a payment of $200,000 on land account. The deductions that have been made from the nominal sum placed in the resolution, we have been informed by the Finance Minister, are deductions on account of swamp and university lands handed over to the province by the Dominion and disposed of, either in whole or in part, by the province and charged up to the province. On that point, I think my hon. friend is hardly dealing fairly with the Dominion in the calculation that has been made so far as the university lands are concerned. It is true I have not had very much time to consider the figures, but if this land transaction is to be a purely business transaction, and if the province is to account to the Dominion for that which it has received and the amount thus accounted for is to be deducted from the cash to be paid, then it is fair and reasonable that we should consider whether the calculation has been rightly made or not. The province is charged with $15,000 a year, presumably interest on the value of the university lands, none of which are to be returned to the Dominion. The quantity of university lands is 150,000 acres. These were selected lands, selected as being farming lands. Being within the province of Manitoba and being selected, they must have a very fair market value; and as they are acquired by the province for the purpose simply and solely of securing a revenue from them for university purposes, of course the province is entitled to dispose of them so as to get out of them the last cent of value that is in them. Now, I think it would not be an unreasonable valuation to put on these lands to say that they were worth $10 an acre. In fact, it is in my mind-having had some occasion to go into this matter in the past-that an actual accounting giving all the sales of these lands would indicate that the price at which they had actually been sold was in the neighbourhood of $10 an acre.
One hundred and fifty thousand acres of land at $10 an acre would mean $1,500,000, and if interest is computed on that at 5 per cent, it would make an interest value of $75,000 a year which has accrued to the province of Manitoba in respect of the university lands on the calculation which I think it is fair to make, while the Dominion is only credited and the province is only charged with $15,000 a year. Of course, the expense of handling, selling and selecting these lands is properly chargeable to the amount received from them, but I do not think that even under the able administration of my success _r in office, who may be supposed to have had something to do with the management of these lands, it can be presumed that the expenses of sale would make the difference between the $15,000 and the $75,000 per year. It is only fair that the minister should at a later date give us the grounds upon which he arrived at the calculations by which he charges the province and credits the Dominion with $15,000 in respect of 150,000 acres of selected lands in the province of Manitoba, the interest upon which is, according to his own figures, computed at 5 per cent.
In regard to the swamp lands, 836,430 acres realized $3,137,389. It will be observed that the swamp lands have not brought the returns per acre that I have placed as a valuation upon the university lands, but the swamp lands are not selected lands; they are taken because they are swamp lands, and they must be sold as swamp lands, but I submit that if the swamp lands are sold as they have been to the extent of over three quarters of a million acres at $3 an acre, they not being selected lands, surely the university lands, which were selected, were worth a great deal more. I am not objecting to the calculation in regard to the swamp lands, as far as I can see it appears to be a fair calculation of value.
I observe, however, that the Dominion is charged with the cost of sale amounting to something like a quarter of a million dollars. I have not the figures absolutely correctly, but it is over $200,000 a year and something less than $250,000, so that undoubtedly the Dominion is being charged up with every expense that can reasonably be charged against it. Thus, as far as the swamp land is concerned, it must be presumed that it is a business transaction as set down here and that the Dominion has got no advantage in it.
On land account, as I have said, the province is to get, over and above what it now receives, $313,000, and over and above what it would have received under the offer of the late government $113,000. The figures I have been dealing with have been the figures which were used by the


William D. Staples: Why did not the hon. gentleman work along this line at the creation of Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Frank Oliver: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) is worrying about. Conditions in Alberta and Saskatchewan are not the same as they are in Manitoba. In a large part of Alberta and Saskatchewan the trouble is to get water on the land, whereas, in a large part of Manitoba, the trouble is to get water off the land. That is the difference between the two conditions. Just as irrigation is an important question in parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan, drainage is an important question in a large part and a very v_aluable part of Manitoba.
I think the government of Manitoba, if I am permitted to criticise it, as well as this government, in this transaction whereby swamp lands are returned to the Dominion in consideration of a money payment, has made a mistake because this is not good business either for the province or for the Dominion, it does not tend to the development of the province and it does not tend to the progress of the Dominion.
As to the amount of money that is provided for in the last part of the resolution, a sum of $201,723 to be paid to the province in two annual payments, that is a small amount and it is not perhaps necessary to delay the committee in discussing it. So far as this resolution goes with regard to the increase of subsidy to the province of Manitoba, either on deist account or land account, I have no objection to it. I think the government are ill-advised in dealing with the debt account as they do. I think it would have been very much wiser, if it were desirable to increase the allowance to Manitoba, that the whole sum should have been put on land account and that the question of debt 'account should not have been raised. But, the government has seen fit to take the responsibility and, of course, it will have to take the' consequences of what it has done. I am prepared to support the resolution so far as the debt account is 123J
concerned as a western man believing that the debt account of all the provinces should be subject to a readjustment with the increase of population just the same as the per head allowance and just the same as the allowance for civil government. If Manitoba is satisfied with the arrangement in regard to land account I have no reason to complain except in so far as the handing back of the swanp lands to this government will be a detriment to the development of the province, as I see it.
But, there is one feature of this resolution, as it is brought out in the speech of my hon. friend and as I find it in answer to the question which I placed on the order paper, that I must take very strong exception to. I refer to the arrearages which are paid there. I find that an arbitrary sum under the heading of arrearages, amounting to $2,179,000 is to be paid to the province of Manitoba aside from and over and above the increase of subsidy on debt account, the increase of subsidy on land account and the special allowance made in regard to 'buildings. It is not because1 the sum is very large, it is not that anybody would wish that Manitoba should not 'have that beyond the grant which it gets now, if it had a right to it, but the principle of this payment is, it seems to me, absolutely objectionable.
Mv hon. friend has said that the province of Manitoba has claimed the payment of these so-called arrearages from the date of the organization of the two new provinces, but the government compromised with the provinces by giving payment for one-half that period. Well, if the province of Manitoba is entitled to arrears for a period of three years, or, as they claim, for a period of six or seven years, why were not the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan entitled to arrearages upon their being organized into provinces, because of the subsidy payments that the adjoining province of Manitoba had received during the previous thirty years, as against the amount that had been paid in regard to these provinces. If the principle of arrears is good in one case, it is just as good in the other. But the fact is that there is no ground for it in either case. This proposition to pay a bulk sum of two million dollars to the province of Manitoba is not a proposition that can be justified on any ground of fair-play to any other province in the Dominion, nor can it be justified on any argument of the right of Manitoba to that payment. If I appreciate the meaning of the payment, it is, on the one hand to compensate the province for the loss of its swamp lands, to make the people of the province feel that because they are getting a great big bulk sum in cash, therefore they are getting a great deal the best of this bargain.

And particularly, that they are getting a much better bargain out of the present Conservative government than they were offered by the late Liberal government. Or, on the other hand, it is to stand in the place of the granting of the demand that was made by the opposition in the Manitoba legislature, and that has been made by a large number of the people of the province. That demand, as I understand it, was absolutely conceded and promised by the Prime Minister no later than last summer, namely, that the natural resources of the province would be handed over to the province. This appears to be a proposal to pay two million dollars in a bulk sum without justification, without rhyme or reason, to the province of Manitoba, and I can only conclude it is done for a purpose. The only purpose I can see in it is to make the people believe they are getting value in the case of the swamp lands and to keep them from complaining because the leader of this government, who is the maker of this bargain, has not in the bargain implemented the promise he definitely made only last summer.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: I would ask the Prime Minister for a little information. I would be glad to know if the government of the province of Ontario has been consulted in regard to -the proposed boundary line and has it assented to the line which is set out in the resolution in the amended form in which it was proposed this afternoon by the Prime Minister?


Robert Laird Borden: When we dispose of this resolution which is concerned purely with the financial terms and come to the Bill, I will give to my hon. friend information with regard to that. I would like to say to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and to other hon. gentlemen who have discussed this question at great length, that I do not want them to understand that I refrain from answering all the arguments they have addressed to the committee for any reason of discourtesy but because I realize these matters must be gone into probably at considerable length on the second reading of the Bill and when the Bill is in committee. It is purely with a desire of not repeating arguments and to save the time of the House that I refrain from going into all these matters now. I am very glad indeed that these gentlemen have put forward their views and they are certainly deserving of consideration and a reply, and they will be replied to in due course so far as we are able to. I would say one word in answer to my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) with regard to the restoration of their lands to the prairie provinces. I understand perfectly the promise I made in that regard and I Mr. OLIVER.
want to assure my hon. friend that that promise will be carried out. But I want to tell him this: that I do not think it could have been carried out at this_ session, nor could the necessary consideration have been given to it, nor the necessary inquiry made. This question of extending the boundaries of Manitoba has been before parliament for a very long time and therefore it seemed to the government, whether rightly or wrongly, that the best course now was to put the province of Manitoba as nearly as might be in the position of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and then take up after due consideration, and upon proper inquiry, the question of restoring to all these three provinces their natural resources upon terms that would be just and reasonable. I would like to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) that one of his own colleagues on that side of the House has raised an important question this afternoon, and has expressed views with which perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) may not be inclined to concur; namely, that when this question does come to be considered, some regard will have to be given to the claims of some other provinces in Canada and especially the three maritime provinces whose boundaries have not been increased, whose boundaries cannot very well be increased on account of their natural situation. That is a matter that will have to be taken up in connection with the handing over of their natural resources to the three prairie provinces. 1 would like my hon. friends from the maritime provinces to understand that that is a matter which has not escaped the attention of the government. But, I want to say that I realize the importance of getting through with this session as soon as may be after the very considerably large dose of politics we have had for the last eighteen months, and in that view we realize that it would be utterly impossible to deal with all these matters if we are to prorogue at a date when most hon. gentlemen of this House would like to be rid of political affairs for an interval.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the government think of increasing the representation of the maritime provinces even if the number of sixty-five representatives was not increased in the province of Quebec?


Robert Laird Borden: For the time being I do not wish to be understood as dealing with the question of representation; I was dealing with the question of the financial terms. The point was very distinctly made by my hon. friend from St. John as to the necessity of some consideration being given to the other provinces in Canada, particularly the maritime provinces; because the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are getting an extension of their boundaries and are re-

ceiving the public lands within those boundaries, while the maritime provinces have no opportunity to extend their boundaries; and some consideration must be given to the feeling on their part, that when the public domain of the western provinces, a very valuable public domain, is being taken into consideration, they have a right to be consulted and to have some voice in regard to it. All of us, I am sure, will agree that they should not be permitted to labour under any sense of injustice in that regard. The proposal before the committee, so far as Manitoba is concerned, is to retain the public domain in the Dominion and to take back that portion already handed over to Manitoba in the shape of swamp lands. At the same time, in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Ontario and Quebec, the public lands within the extended boundaries will naturally follow under the terms of the proposed resolution, the lands already within the existing boundaries of Ontario and Quebec, as indeed was the case in 1898 when the bound>aries of the province of Quebec were extended by ian Act of this parliament. If the resolution is permitted to pass, I will endeavour to give to my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) on the first reading of the Bill the information to which he has just allliulded.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want to continue the discussion, but it is rather important to those of uis who represent Ontario . constituencies to know whether the government of the province of Ontario has been consulted by this government in regard to 'the line which it is now proposed to lay down as the extended boundary line of Manitoba. The resolution upon the order paner was indefinite upon that point. As pointed out by the right hon. leader of the opposition, it did not show at what point the boundary line would strike Hudson bay; but in. its amended form it is to a point on the shore of Hudson bay at or near the 89th parallel of longitude. That is a reasonably definite point, and, in view of the fact that the discussion this afternoon and this evening has Deen almost entirely upon the financial aspects of the question, I think it would be well to have it pointed out as clearly as possible to those hon. members who represent constituencies in the province of Ontario, that the line proposed as the extended boundary line of Manitoba is an absoilutely arbitrary line, and reaches a point on the shores of Hudson bay below both of the ocean ports of Fort Churchill and Port Nelson. That is the point which I think we in Ontario are chiefly concerned about. It may be said that in July, 1908, this House unanimously adopted that line, and that I, as a member of the House, while I did not dissent, must have assented to
the proposal. Well', if I did, I have certainly had more light upon the subject in the meantime, and I most emphatically dissent from the proposal at the present time. Now, the shore of Hudson bay, upon which both of these harbours are to be found, is in territory which should really belong to the province of Ontario and not to the province of Manitoba, if you go upon geographical lines. If you draw a merely arbitrary line, as is proposed in this resolution, you may give those ports to Manitoba) But the natural boundary line of the extended province of Manitoba would be a straight line northward, following, not the 89th parallel, but the 95th parallel of longitude up to the 60th parallel of latitude. If that were done, the province of Ontario would get the ocean ports on Hudson bay. I think that we from the province of Ontario should bear this in mind in this discussion. I have always understood that the government of the province of Ontario had contended, and would continue to contend, for those ports, or one of them at least, but I see no reason why both of them should not be in Ontario, and, with a representation of 86 members in this House, I should think that we ought to be able to hold for the province of Ontario one or both of these ocean ports.
Besolution as amended reported, and amendments agreed to.
Mr. BOEDEN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 115) to provide for the Extension of the Boundaries of Manitoba. He said: I will proceed to give my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) the information he asked for a moment ago, as to whether or not the province of Ontario had been consulted with respect to the line which will constitute the eastern boundary line of the province of Manitoba and the western boundary line of the province of Ontario. I would say, in the first place, that before this administration assumed office, I understand that the province of Ontario was consulted, and I think the return already brought down to the House in connection with this 'matter will show that I am not mistaken in that regard.
I would also like to inform him that the province of Ontario has been consulted since the present administration took office; and so far as that is concerned every hon. gentleman in this House who has given any attention to this country knows that there was a difference in the views put forward by the province of Manitoba, and the views which were put forward by the province of Ontario in that connection, and particularly in regard to the question of ports on Hudson bay. Negotiations have gone on in regard

to that matter. The importance of a port on Hudson hay to the province of Ontario was this:	That province at the
present time owns and operates a railway known as the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. It is anticipated that that railway will be extended still farther to the north, or to the north and west, and it is expected by the government of Ontario, as I understand it. that one day that railway may require an outlet on Hudson bay, and, therefore, a port. The boundaries of Manitoba, of Ontario, and of Quebec, we are presenting to the House to-day are those which were agreed upon unanimously by the House of Commons on the 13th July, 1908. Now, it is apparent that boundaries so agreed upon unanimously by both sides of the House, should not be departed from lightly by a succeeding administration, and so, after a good deal of negotiations and consideration of claims which had really been passed upon by the administration which the hon. gentleman supported-and I would like to observe that, as he himself has said, he is one of those that assented to the boundaries of Manitoba, of Ontario and of Quebec exactly as they are proposed by this Bill and the other Bills which are to be brought before the House later on-the question arose as to how Ontario might -be granted a port on Hudson bay, because it was desirable in the interest not only of Ontario but of the province of Manitoba and of the Dominion of Canada as a whole, that if Ontario desired to extend its railway to Hudson bay it should be given every opportunity of doing so. That is to the advantage not only of Ontario but likewise of Manitoba, and every hon. member in this House, whether representing Ontario, Manitoba, or any other province, will agree at once in the truth of what I have just stated. It is apparent to every hon. gentleman that the lands within the extended boundaries of Manitoba are to be retained by the federal government, so it was suggested, and eventually the suggestion was carried out, that a grant of certain lands, within the ownership and control of the government of Canada, might be made to the province of Ontario sufficient for the purpose of . extending the Ontario government railway to a port on Hudson bay if it should desire in future to adopt that policy. In that view the Governor in Council passed on the 20th of February an order in council, which I will lay upon the table of the House for the information of hon. members, couched in the following terms:
The Committee -of the Privy Council have had before them a report from the right hon. the Prime Minister submitting,- in connection with the proposed extensions of the limits Mr. BORDEN.
of the respective provinces of Ontario and Manitoba as defined by resolutions of the House of Commons passed on the July 13, 1908, -that -the government of Ontario represents that upon the enlargement of the territory of the province as proposed it would or -might be desirable in the interests of the province to extend the provincial railway, known as the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, at present in operation between North Bay and Cochrane, in the said province to a suitable port on Hudson bay. That it may be found necessary or expedient to select for such Hudson bay terminus a point at or near the mouth of the Nelson river, and that as the estuary of the Nelson lies some distance westward of the proposed western or northwestern boundary of the province, the government desires that such arrangements he made as will enable the province, or such commission or public corporation as may be thereunto authorized on behalf of the province, to construct, maintain and operate that portion of the proposed extension of the said provincial railway which may be projected within the extended boundaries of the province of Manitoba for the purpose of reaching the terminus to he selected as aforesaid upon the waters of Hudson hay.
The prime minister states that he considers that reasonable provision should be made to give effect to this request on the part of Ontario in so far as it is within the authority of the government and parliament of Canada, and, therefore, recommends that:-
1.	The government of Your Boval Highness be authorized to transfer to the government of Ontario or to a minister of that government or to a commission as may he authorized or required by the government of the province of Ontario on behalf of the province, in so far as the lands hereinafter mentioned or described shall he vested in His Majesty in the right of the Dominion.
(a) A parcel of land of a uniform width of five miles commencing at a point to be determined by the government of Ontario on the proposed eastern boundary of Manitoba, within fifty miles of the point of intersection of the said boundary with the shore line of Hudson hay, and extending from the said proposed eastern boundary of Manitoba to the Nelson river, but so that no portion o-f the said parcel of land shall he more than fifty miles in a direct line from the shore of Hudson hay; also such further parcels of land not exceeding in width one-half mile upon the east side of the said river extending up river or along the shore of Hudson hay as may he necessary to entitle the province to a continuous water front of ten miles upon the Nelson river and Hudson hay, including the water front which will lie within the parcel five miles in width just hereinbefore mentioned or described with such right, interest or easement in the river-bed upon tile eastern side and the foreshore contiguous to the land so to be transferred, as may he necessary or reasonably required for the erection, maintenance and operation of docks, elevators, or other structures for the purposes of the said railway, provided, however, that the total combined frontage o-f the said two parcels of land upon Nelson river and Hudson bay shall not exceed ten miles.

(b) If the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway he established at Fort Churchill, and if the government of Ontario prefer to make Fort Churchill the terminus -of their said railway, a right of way two hundred feet in width from any point on the Nelson river to the nearest available point on the Hudson Bay railway, so that the provincial railway may connect with the Hudson Bay railway at that point, Your Royal Highness' government in that event agreeing for running powers over the Hudson Bay railway.
2.	Your Royal Highness' government undertake in the event of the extension of the said provincial railway beyond the limits of Ontario, to promote such legislation as may be necessary within the powers of the parliament of Canada, to authorize such extension and the construction, maintenance and operation of the railway within the province of Manitoba, with powers to construct and operate telegraph and telephone lines, docks, elevators or other structures of every kind, to develop and operate water-powers, and generally to do all things necessary or convenient for the operation of the said railway.
3.	A period of five years he allowed to the government of Ontario within which to select and designate the said lands intended to he transferred as aforesaid, and to notify the location thereof to Your Royal Highness' government, and that this order shall cease to be effective if such location be not made and duly notified within the said period.
The Prime Minister further recommends that, if the government of Ontario assent to the foregoing recommendations the necessary legislation for the purpose of carrying them into effect shall be submitted to parliament as soon as practicable thereafter.
The committee, concurring herein, submit the same for approval.
(Sgd.) RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, Clerk of the Privy Council.
I might say in addition, that I tinder-stand that an arrangement has been made between the government of Ontario and the government of Manitoba that if the railway shall be 'constructed 'along the strip of land which it is thus proposed to transfer to the province of Ontario for that purpose, the province of Manitoba will agree to exempt the railway and structures connected with it from provincial taxation. This land will, of course, be within the province of Manitoba and will be subject to the provincial legislation; but, so far as ownership is concerned, it will be in some corporation, public body or minister selected by the province of Ontario. And, so far as we understand, there is no constitutional difficulty in bringing that about, inasmuch as it is competent for the province of Ontario to own land in the province of Manitoba or any other province of the Dominion, just as it would be competent for Ontario to own land or buildings in the city of London or any part of the United Kingdom. Under the arrangement which is made it will be entirely competent for the province of Ontario, should the government of that province see fit to do so, to extend the Timiska-ming and Northern Ontario railway to the shores of Hudson bay. And in doing so it will have the co-operation of this government, and not only of this government but,
I believe, also of the government of Manitoba, because the government of that province realizes that the extension of a great railway like that to the shore of Hudson bay would be eminently in the interest not only of the province of Ontario but of the province of Manitoba as well.


Frank Oliver: I did not follow very closely what the Prime Minister said. Is the transfer of this land contingent upon railway construction, or is it contingent merely for railway construction?


Robert Laird Borden: It is to go to the province of Ontario for the purpose of railway construction if the province of Ontario determines to extend the railway to the shores of Hudson bay; and when the land is once located and transferred to the province of Ontario-which must be done within five years-it becomes absolutely vested in Ontario and is not contingent upon the construction oPthe railway.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems difficult at first sight to completely realize this arrangement as stated by my right hon. friend, and involved in the order in council which he has read to the House. But it seems to me an extraordinary jumble, one of the most extraordinary that ever came before parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I remind the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), that it is not permissible to debate a Bill on the first reading. Rule 49 is as follows:
When any Bill is presented by a member, in pursuance of an order of the House, or is brought from the Senate, the question, ' That this Bill be now read a first time,' shall be decided without amendment or debate.
If I understand it correctly an explanation should take place on the proposal to introduce the Bill, but other discussion of a Bill does not take place on the first reading.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. But I have seen, and so have you, again and again, discussion upon the first reading of a Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the rule might be waived if the right hon. gentleman desires to make any observations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House, because then it will not be establishing a precedent which might be inconvenient should it be necessary to enforce the rule in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: Carried.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have only to say, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation which was introduced by my right hon. friend seems to be of a most extraordinary character. There has been a difference of opinion, naturally, between the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba as to the location of the boundary line, each endeavouring to have the line extended as far as it could in its own favour. My hon. friend behind me (Mr. Guthrie), has taken the view that the province of Ontario did not get its share. I have heard this idea before; and, having heard it, we of the late administration, thought it desirable to give a decision in which we took the side neither of Ontario nor of Manitoba, but looked at the matter only with a view to the Dominion at large, and concluded that the best division as between the provinces was to fix the 89th meridian of longitude; the territory to the west of that point to be given to the province of Manitoba, and that to the east to Ontario. But my right hon. friend takes out of what is given to Manitoba a strip of land ten miles wide and gives it to the province of Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: Five miles wide.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, _ it matters little, whether five or ten miles. At all events, the province of Ontario is allowed under this arrangement to encroach upon the province of Manitoba to the extent of five miles.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend is mistaken. The grant is being made to the province of Ontario just as it might be made to any individual or corporation for the purposes of the construction of. a railway, but the land is not the less within the boundaries of Manitoba. But, inasmuch as we are not handing over the Crown lands to the province of Manitoba but retaining control of them, and as Ontario desires a port on Hudson bay, we are granting to Ontario within the limits of Manitoba a right of way five miles in width from the eastern boundary of Manitoba to this port on Hudson bay.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood that.. But I see a differeince beftween making a grant to a province and to an individual. Any grant to an individual or company must become subject to the legislative power of the province in which the grant is made. In this case such a company would be subject to the jurisdiction of the law of Manitoba. Do I understand that the great province of Ontario is to be subject to the laws of Manitoba and to become liable to the serious obligation involved in this arrangement? My right hon. friend stated a moment ago that he proposed legislation to hand Mr. SPEAKER.
over the natural resources of the provinces to each of these provinces-though he said also that he was not going to give them to Manitoba-and he disposed of five miles of the resources of Manitoba in favour of Ontario. How Manitoba will be satisfied with that is more than I can say.


Robert Laird Borden: I can say that Manitoba is perfectly satisfied.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sure that the government of Manitoba is perfectly satisfactory. But the government of Manitoba is not exactly the people of Manitoba. The government of Manitoba will be satisfied with anything that the right hon. gentleman offers them; but that the people of Manitoba are satisfied, there may be some reason to doubt. At all events we shall have the new problem in the Dominion of Canada of the great province of Ontario-the banner province as it likes to style itself becoming subject to Manitoba. We have heard that there have been considerable difficulties between Mr. Roblin and Sir James Whitney. All that is done now,-Sir James Whitney becomes the subject to Mr. Roblin.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is very very well satisfied with this arrangement. But I should have thought so old a parliamentarian as he is might have concealed his disappointment much more cleverly than he has done. Under the circumstances, his heat, is very natural, and we are not at all disturbed by it.
For the extending of the Timiskaming & Northern Ontario railway through Manitoba territory these 5 miles have been set apart just in the same way as they might be set apart for any great railway corporation desiring to build a line through the province of Manitoba to a port on Hudson bay. It is to be expected that any province would welcome the construction of such a line if built by any of the railway corporations of this country and I do not know why Manitoba should not welcome the construction of such a line by the great sister province of Ontario. I beiieve Manitoba will welcome it. As to the difficulty with regard to jurisdiction, my right hon. friend perhaps forgets that the Intercolonial Railway of Canada, extends through the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and that the Canadian government has a very considerable mileage in Prince Edward Island. My right hon. friend knows that each one of those provinces has jurisdiction within the territory through which those lines of railway run, and I do not see any greater incongruity in the somewhat alarming picture which he endeavoured to draw, than there would be in having the Intercolonial railway of Canada, run through those four different provinces, and perhaps in the future through

other provinces of Canada. There will be no difficulty in working out the proposal, at least none is apprehended by those who have given it a great deal of consideration. It gives to Ontario a port on Hudson bay and if the Timiskaming & Northern Ontario railway should be constructed to that port, it would be an advantage not only to Ontario, which will thus secure the desired port, but to the province of Manitoba, and to every province of Canada that that should be brought about.


William Pugsley: Does my right hon. friend think that under the British North America Act the province of Ontario could build a railway in another province?


Mr. BOEDEN.: I have not the slightest doubt that the province of Ontario can do it, and I have not a doubt that the province of Ontario will do it, will extend that railway to Hudson bay when that northern country is more fully developed than at present.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand my right hon. friend to say that the government of Manitoba was perfectly satisfied with the arrangement, but I did not understand him. to say whether the government of Ontario had consented to it.


Frederick William Borden: The government of Ontario has assented to this arrangement and the government of Manitoba has assented to this arrangement, and every one has assented to it, except my hon. friends on the other side of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand then that there is some correspondence which has not been brought down.


Frederick William Borden: I think not.


Wilfrid Laurier: I found nothing in the correspondence brought down showing the consent of Ontario or Manitoba to this new arrangement.


Frederick William Borden: I do not think there is any correspondence on the subject. The government of Ontario has been represented here by a member of that government, who came and consulted with us on the subject. The government of Manitoba was represented here also by two members of that government, who came and consulted with us on the same subject.


Wilfrid Laurier: All this has been verbal then?


Frederick William Borden: It has all been verbal, but none the less satisfactory.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Do we understand that the title to the lands east of the boundary between Manitoba and Ontario is to go to the Ontario government or is it reserved to the Dominion?


Frederick William Borden: In extending the boundaries of the province of Manitoba the Crown reserves, as was done in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the title to the public domain which has not passed to private hands. Therefore the Crown, holding title to the public domain in the district indicated in the order in council, proposes to make a grant of a strip five miles in width from the eastern boundary of the province of Manitoba to the mouth of the Nelson river. The point at which that strip is to begin has not been precisely defined.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I was asking in regard to the title of lands in what would be New Ontario; does the federal government exercise the title or is it given to the province?


Frederick William Borden: It passes as the other lands within the province of Ontario. It is to be administered by the Crown on the advice of the government of Ontario.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: In the right of Ontario?


Frederick William Borden: Of course, my hon. friend understands that there is never any transfer made in such cases because the land is vested in the Crown in the one case as much as in the other. The only question is by whose advice shall that land be administered, by the advice of the federal government or by the advice of the provincial government. This land, like the rest of the land within the limits of Ontario, will be administered by the Crown on the advice of the provincial government.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: And on the other side of Manitoba it will be administered by the federal government.


Mr. GEEMAN.: Who will have jurisdiction over these five miles? Will it be the Dominion government or the government of Ontario or the government of Manitoba?


Frederick William Borden: It will be subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the province of Manitoba just as any other portion of land within the boundaries of that province.


William Manley German: Then will the hon. gentleman tell me who owns the land? Is it owned by Manitoba or Ontario or the Dominion government?


Frederick William Borden: It never has been owned by Manitoba, it is at present owned by the federal government and as soon as this grant is passed it will be owned by the Ontario government.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: What considerations induced the government to establish the width of five miles for this right * of way?


Robert Laird Borden: We gave consideration to it and concluded that five miles would be a convenient strip.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN moved that the House go into committee of Supply.
['Well, I will inquire if the gentleman who has been appointed is a United States citizen, and if he has not taken the oath of office as a British subject, we will have to see about it.']
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the intention of the government to appoint additional judges for the circuit court of Montreal? I see there is a great agitation in Montreal about this and I have tried since the beginning of the session to get an answer from the hon. gentleman. I notice that the members of the bar of Montreal are very insistent and many delegations have called on the hon. gentleman or at least many letters have been sent to him. Has he given a decision?
Mr. ' DOHERTY. I have not had any delegation nor have I had a large number of letters. I have had communications from a representative committee of the bar of Montreal upon the subject and, co-operating with that committee, I have given the very best consideration in my power to the problem presented in connection with the circuit court of Montreal and I have to thank that committee for having devoted a great deal of time and consideration to the subject.
That committee have agreed to a suggestion made by me, and 1 understand that the Prime Minister and Attorney General of the province to whom that suggestion was communicated has no objection to it. It has been agreed that it would be desirable, before proceeding to appoint the three additional judges who have been suggested for the circuit of Montreal, to endeavour, by selecting three judges from the rural districts in Quebec where there is the least work to be done, to dispose of the arrears that have accumulated in the circuit court. It is the intention of the government to ask the House to vote such additional funds as may be necessary to provide for any expense that may be incurred, and if the arrangement can be carried out it will place us in a position to start the present court with a clean sheet. If I mistake not, a measure has already been -introduced into the Quebec legislature, intended to provide for the simplification in some respects of the procedure of the circuit court, with a view to enabling the court to deal with cases more expeditiously. It is hoped that if the circuit court is given an opportunity of starting with a clean sheet, and its operations are further facilitated by a simplification of procedure, at all events, in certain cases, it will prove possible to carry on its Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
work without doubling the number of judges. The present idea is that there should not be any immediate increase in the number of judges, but that an endeavour should be made to ascertain whether the work can be satisfactorily carried on with the present number of judges. I may say that the hope I have that that may prove possible is not confined to myself. It is shared by the members of the Bar who, on the selection of their confreres, have been specially dealing with this matter of the business of the circuit court of Montreal. I may add further that I have had a conference with the present judges of the circuit court and they have expressed their satisfaction with this proposed arrangement and stated that, while they do not feel quite confident that even under this arrangement three judges will be sufficient, they do believe, after carefully going into the matter and coming to a conclusion, that once they are relieved of all these arrears and placed in the position that I have suggested, four judges will prove quite ample. In order to carry out this arrangement effectually, to obtain the results we desire, it will be necessary that we shall have the co-operation of the judges themselves, and they have expressed their perfect readiness to facilitate it and to cooperate with us. We need and I believe have further the good will of the members of the Bar and the sanction and approval of the government of Quebec. As I say, I have seen the communications between the Attorney General of Quebec and the committee of	the Bar to
which I have referred, in which that gentleman declares he has no objection to this endeavour being made to ascertain whether the problem that presents itself-and which, as I think everybody knows who knows anything about the administration of justice in Montreal is a serious problem-may not be more satisfactorily settled in this manner than it would be by merely appointing three additional judges to the circuit court and leave the matter in its present position. I would not like to give rise to any hopes that might later on be disappointed, but I think I may add that it is hoped that if this plan can be carried out, and if the circuit court can be carried on with the present number of judges, or only with four, possibly this House may look more favourably upon a proposition in future to increase the salaries of the judges of the court.



William Manley German: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply I wjsh to bring up a question which I referred to about two weeks ago when the

hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) was not in his seat. It is a fact that the Postmaster General has dismissed in the county of Welland a young man by the name of A. or E. W. Buck, postmaster at Crystal Beach, and he has appointed a United States citizen to his place named Rebstock. There is no reason why my friend, Mr. Buck, who has held the position for many years should have been dismissed. The Postmaster General has received, I know, a large petition signed in favour of that young man retaining the position. He was not a partisan, he is not a politician and he never took any part in politics. Why the hon. gentleman saw fit to dismiss him I cannot understand. There was a large petition in favour of him retaining the position as postmaster and retaining the post office in the building where it has been situated in the past. I would not object so seriously to the dismissal of this officer if the Postmaster General had not appointed a United States citizen to fill his place. After all the waving of the flag by hon. gentlemen opposite I cannot quite understand why the Postmaster General should dismiss a good strong healthy Canadian citizen who will wave the Union Jack and appoint a fellow who is a United States citizen and who waves the Stars and Stripes. If the Postmaster General can explain that satisfactorily to me I will submit, but I doubt if he can. I would ask the Postmaster General to reconsider his decision in regard to the matter. The hon. gentleman dismissed the postmaster at Bridgeburg and reappointed a good Conservative. I did not make any complaint about that because I had that man dismissed some years ago and appointed a new man in his place. Therefore, he has simply restored the status quo. I am not objecting to that particularly. I think he made a mistake there, but I do ask that the Postmaster General should reconsider his position in regard to the Crystal Beach postmaster and reinstate a young man of good ability, and good habits and a Canadian citizen who has taken no part in politics.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is not a good citizen then.


William Manley German: Some one says he is not a good citizen if he does not take part in politics. If he does take part in politics he is dismissed-so what is he to do?
I would ask the Postmaster General to look into the question of the dismissal of this postmaster and if he has to appoint any person in lieu of the man whom he dismissed and who should not have been dismissed, let him appoint some man who will wave the Union Jack instead of the Star Spangled Banner.
Mr.' PELLETIER. My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) has stated that I reappointed a man whom he got dismissed without reason or investigation and the inference is that he admits he was wrong when he did that, and that I am right in making restitution. Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) any remorse for having deprived this man of his office during fifteen years?


William Manley German: No, he is worth fifty thousand dollars, and he did not need it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Well, if it was his own money, that was no reason for his dismissal. The hon. member for Welland got him' dismissed without reason or investigation.


William Manley German: There was an investigation, and there was a reason. He was an absolute partisan. He would not allow a Liberal poster to go into the post office; it was a public Tory committee room. That is why he was dismissed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: But the hon. gentleman has told us that he had not much fault to find with the reappointment of the man who had been dismissed.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What about Crystal Beach?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: One at a time. I will come to Crystal Beach in a moment. I am afraid my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) has forgotten the usual courtesy of giving notice to the minister that a certain question is to be brought up on going into Supply, so that the minister may have the papers with him. I have fourteen thousand postmasters, whom I carry in my heart, but not in my head, and I fear that I am not capable of picking out any one of these fourteen thousand postmasters and tell on the spur of the moment all about the case, when I have not received notice. If my hon. friend from Welland gives me notice, I will have the files here and I will be able to give him satisfaction. The hon. gentleman tells me that I have appointed a gentleman from the United States to be postmaster, but that is news to me. The hon. gentleman from Welland was strong against reciprocity at one time, but he has now joined the party which is keeping reciprocity as one of its platform planks.


William Manley German: No.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Well, I will inquire if the gentleman who has been appointed is a United States citizen, and if he has not taken the oath of office as a British subject, we will have to see about it.


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

[Stage Direction]
Interior Department-Immigration contingencies-Canadian and British and foreign agencies and general immigration expenses, $500,000.
['No, not till Thursday.']
William Manley German: I wish to call the attention of the minister to certain regulations of his department which, in my opinion, operate very unjustly. The regulation now is that, if a foreigner starts for Canada he ' cannot remain in any intervening country, say the United States, for a week or two, and then come into Canada. This is a very serious matter, and I would like the minister to consider it. . I shall give one instance as an example of what is happening continually. About two years ago the Ontario Iron and Steel company employed a foreman from Pittsburg who was an expert iron worker. He had worked in the Pittsburg mills for several years, he had never become a United States citizen, he being a Swede. He came to Welland and he had to put up seventy dollars as security that he would go back to the United States within thirty days.
This mam stayed for thirty days. He had to go back or lose his $70. He could not stay in Canada unless he was a United States citizen. That is happening continually. There are good men, who would make excellent citizens of Canada, who have come from a foreign country and have lived in the United States for a year or two or three years; they have not become naturalized as citizens of the United States, and they cannot come into Canada and stay here. This is the most absurd problem in connection with the immigration matters that is confronting the Minister of the Interior at this moment. I have talked it oveT with the chief immigration officer, Mr. Scott, and he sees the difficulty. The only way out of it that I can. see is to 'allow the immigration officers some	degree of discretion in the
matter, if you have the right kind of officers, as>
you have in Welland, because I saw that they were appointed. Make the regulations more elastic and give the officers some sort of discretion. This is not the first time that I have 'called this hard and fast rule to the- attention of the Minister of the Interior. I called it to the attention of the former Minister of the Interior. I hope that the present minister will see some way of getting over a very serious difficulty that stands in the way <k our getting first-class settlers into Canada.


Mr. PARDEE.: I want to .supplement the remarks which my hon. friend from Welland has just made. I can understand that, with the hard and fast regulations which Mr. PELLETIER.
the United; States has against us, there should be something along the same line in Canada. But it does seem ridiculous that persons coming from one part of Canada through the United States to. another part of Canada, should, under the regulations of the Immigration Department, be disturbed and put to the trouble of proving exactly who and what they are, and going through a course of sprouts which, if nothing else, is humiliating to the person who is subjected to this treatment. A short time ago I brought to the attention of the minister a case in which an officer, acting entirely in accordance with a memorial that had been sent out a day or two previously, had stopped a person who had come from Winnipeg, bad passed through the United States, and was coining to Sarnia, and had almost turned him back because some slight part of the regulations promulgated by the department had not been lived up to. Having regard to the regulations of the United States in regard to our workmen going into their country, I think we should have as high a wall against them as they have against us; but when you have a set of officers, as you have on the border, who are above the ordinary intelligence, .and who realize that they hold a more or less delicate office, in which a mistake on their part might lead to trouble between us and the United States, I think the minister should allow them to a certain extent to use their discretion. In some of the smaller centres, it is necessary at 'certain times to bring in labourers to perform local work, and in those oases I think the immigration officers ought to have power for a certain length of time to allow labourers to come in, in order that not only public works, but private 'enterprise, should not be kept back. I think it would be well that both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Labour should take this matter up, and see if the immigration regulations cannot be so framed that they will work more smoothly with regard to people who come to Canada with the intention of becoming good citizens and helping the country along.


Mr. ROGERS.: I appreciate the force of the argument made by my hon. friend from Welland and my hon. .friend from West Lambton; but I am free to confess that I am not 'sufficiently conversant with the regulations to give the hon. gentlemen an answer off-hand. While the regulations may entail a certain amount of hardship,
I am sure that they were not adopted without some good and sufficient reason in the judgment of the department. I shall be glad, however, to take the matter up at me very earliest opportunity with the officers of the department, and see if some modifications along the lines suggested,

consistent with safety to the administration of this very delicate matter, cannot be made in the regulations.


William Manley German: I do not wish to criticise for a moment the administration of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rogers), I do feel more like criticising the administration of his predecessor, because I took the matter up with him, and wanted him to do something but I could not get him to act. All I want is that the present minister will take this matter into consideration and decide upon some beneficial action. This situation, as I understand it was created in order to keep the Hindus out of British Columbia. But that does not apply here. This is a grievance which must be remedied, and it will be remedied, I am quite sure, by the minister.


Mr. BEATTIE.: I think these troubles are largely caused by want of judgment on the part of the officer. A case came under my notice the other day where a lady who had lived all her life in a Canadian town along side the border paid a visit to the United States. On returning to Canada she was stopped by an officer who would not allow her to pass. Fortunately there was another officer present who knew this lady, anid so she was allowed to proceed. She was a very respectable, well dressed lady, and there was no reason whatever for the indignity to which she was exposed. The trouhle is that a lot of messengers have been taken out of this House and appointed to .positions on the border. I think if good officers were appointed there would foe no trouble whatever. It is simply due to the stupid officers that were appointed by the late gouvern-ment.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I do not at all agree with my hon. friend from London, in the remarks which he has made concerning the officers. It is not at all, in my opinion, a question of the fitness of the officers, .but the responsibility lies with the regulations which have been made in the past, due perhaps to certain exigencies which arose. From my experience, which has been very considerable, along the border, the officers have been men above the ordinary intelligence, but they have simply done these things from a desire to live up to the regulations, and thought they were only carrying out their duty in that regard.


Thomas Beattie: Do you consider a man is fit for such a position if he refuses to admit to Canada a respectable lady who lives here?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The officers have to act according to the regulations.


Thomas Beattie: I do not think such conduct is the indication of intelligence on the part if the officer.


William Manley German: I cannot allow the statement of the hon. member for London to go uncontradicted, because I know these officers, I realise that they would like to use a certain amount of discretion, and discrimination, but they are_ tied down hard and fast by the regulations, and as I have already said I tried to get the exMinister of the Interior to change them, but he would not do it, and he deserved to be turned out I think. I hope the present minister will do better and make these regulations more elastic so that the officers in whom he has confidence may exercise some discretionary power.


An hon. MEMBER.: If they do not give efficient service put them out.


Mr GERMAN.: I do not think the minister should take such an extreme course in the case of officers who are intelligent and efficient. Let these officers have -some power of discretion, and let the regulations be sufficiently elastic so that an intelligent immigration officer can admit a foreigner possessed of means; who is on his wray from the United -States into Canada. Under the regulations at present the officer cannot do that.


Mr. LALOR.: "I agree with the arguments presented by the member for Welland (Mr. German) and the member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee). Undoubtedly a great many very objectionable cases occur at present in' connection with the officers questioning people who are coming into Canada. Only last Saturday I was coming across the border and saw a poor woman being stopped, and one time I was afraid she was going to 'be put off the train by the officer. It turned out afterwards that although she could not speak very good English -she lived a short distance from the border at a village called Sherkston, where she lived with her family. I believe these officers are painstaking and careful and do anything they possibly can to assist immigrants, and it may be the regulations are too strict. But at the same time I call attention to the fact that these troubles do not all exist on the Canadian side. I live close to the border, as my hon. friend from Welland does, and travel backwards and forwards to Buffalo very often, and I think he will agree with me that we see more objectionable cases on the American than on the Canadian side.


William Manley German: That is quite right.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: If some international arrangement could be made between Canada and the United States under which there could be a change in the regulations with respect to people who have to cross backwards and forwards, it would be a


Mr. BELAND.: I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact that some of the officers in the port of Sherbrooke are not very conversant with the French language. Trains of the Boston and Maine and Grand Trunk railways enter Canada through to Sherbrooke from all points in New England. The New England states are inhabited largely, as you know, by French population, and during the summer months their relatives in the eastern townships go down to visit them. Sometimes aged relatives go there and spend a few weeks, but when they return home they experience a good deal of trouble. I have a case in mind which happened last summer of' an old French settler returning from a visit to his son in the state of Maine, but who was turned back at a point below Sherbrooke and had to go back to his son before he could get home. These cases are quite frequent. I would impress _ the minister with the necessity that all immigration and customs officers, for instance, in eastern townships, should be thoroughly conversant with both languages, I think that it is a fair request to make to the minister who knows the importance of the French language as he speaks it very well himself.


Robert Rogers: I do not know who the officers are at Sherbrooke, and I am not conversant with the conditions to which he refers. But I certainly can appreciate the point that it would be very advisable that the officers in charge should speak both languages. I shall be very glad indeed to see if we cannot arrange that at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. MICHAUD.: Living as I do near the border, between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine, I am in a position to know that Americans are dealt with very fairly by our people. They are allowed to come with their teams or to walk across the boundary line, and our immigration agents are very considerate in dealing with these visitors. But it is entirely different when we go to the other side. At St. Leonard when an international bridge was under construction I went there to see the work. I crossed on


Francis Ramsey Lalor: the ferry, and when I landed on the American side I had to give a long account of myself to the United States immigration officer before I was allowed to proceed, I explained that I wished to stay there for only about ten minutes, but he told me that I must give my pedigree or he would not allow me to cross. Other Canadians there have had a similar experience. Canadians walking or driving to the other side of the line have to give an account of themselves. If a man has his wife with him, he has to give an account for her; if they have children with them, it must be explained to whom the children belong. It is very annoying to our New Bruns-wickers. If the minister could bring about arrangements under which people from our side could be allowed to drive or walk across on telling the immigration officer their names and what they are going for, it would be an advantage to many of our people.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This will probably be my only opportunity to bring to the attention of the minister the facts with regard to a matter of importance to the people I represent. There is an agent of the Department of Immigration at the port of North Sydney, and quite a number of immigrants from the other side of the Atlantic arrive at that place. But in case of those who are sick a different situation arises from that at Halifax or Montreal. The immigrant from Liverpool goes direct to Halifax, and he can be sent back, I presume, if the officers deem that course proper. But immigrants coming tp the port of North Sydney generally come from St. John's, Newfoundland. Restrictions upon immigration such as are known here are not in force in Newfoundland. Immigrants land in Newfoundland whose real destination is Canada.
After staying in Newfoundland for as long as they please, they take the train from St. John's to Port aux Basques thence cross in the steamer ' Bruce ' to North Sydney. It often happens that immigrants arrive there suffering from trachoma. The immigration officer at North Sydney is not in a position to send them back to the old country, because they do not come to North Sydney from the old country, but from Newfoundland. The only thing he can do, is to send them back to Newfoundland. But to send an immigrant to Port aux Basques is to send him to a place where there are no hospitals, and where he cannot get treatment. Sometimes cases arrive involving no little distress. A wife may arrive with her children to join the husband and father, who may have been in Canada for years preparing a home for them. But if one of them has trachoma, they may all have to be sent back to Newfoundland, and the husband,

though a Canadian citizen, can do nothing for them. But at North Sydney we have excellent doctors, and two excellent hospitals, one at North Sydney and one a mile and a half further down, with a tramway from the terminal wharf to both hospitals. If the regulations permitted it, we could treat these people on the spot. If it turned out, after a fair term of treatment that a cure could not be effected, the immigrant might then be deported. But in some eases those sent to Newfoundland afterwards find their way into Canada without complying with the regulations. These people are mostly Assyrians. Many of them are already in Canada. We find them honest, industrious citizens, willing to do any work that comes their way. All I ask is that these people should be put on the same footing as Europeans in regard to this matter. We are anxious to have them in Nova Scotia, for we need people to work in our mines or about our steel works, and we find these are good people. I hope the minister will give this matter consideration and place these Assyrians on the same footing as Europeans coming into Canada.


Robert Rogers: The point the hon. gentleman raises is a rather important one. Some of the hon. members who have participated in the discussion this evening have pointed cut the difficulties in connection with immigrants coming from the United States. It is true, we need to have fairly close regulations to prevent people coming in who are undesirable. And I understand that some attempt has been practised in connection with their finding their way around through Newfoundland to avoid certain regulations they would meet if entering by other ports.
For that reason the point raised by my hon. friend is rather a difficult one but the chief officer of the department is present and has heard what my hon. friend has said; it will have very careful consideration in order, if possible, to remedy the trouble and remain consistent with our rules and regulations. I understand we have a doctor at North Sydney who looks after any person coming in who requires medical attendance.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is not permitted to treat them?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Why?


Robert Rogers: He is permitted to examine and see what is the matter and if there is nothing serious the matter he passes them on to some other doctor.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If he finds they have trachoma he is not permitted to treat them but must send them out of the country.


Robert Rogers: In that case I understand he returns them to Newfoundland.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And they cannot get treatment where they are sent.


Robert Rogers: That is unfortunate for them. However, it is a matter that is worth looking into.


Robert Bickerdike: In the early part of the session I made some suggestions in regard to improving the immigration system and I hope the minister will be able to say to-night that he has adopted those suggestions. One of them was that the inspection should take place before the immigrants go on board the vessels.


Robert Rogers: There is reasonable precaution taken in that way in view of the fact that all immigrants are examined by the ship's doctors and by the board of trade doctors before they are allowed to take passage for Canada. In that way the department feels they are fairly well protected. Less than I per cent of the immigrants have been returned.


Robert Bickerdike: If the same care was taken in inspecting them before they embark at Liverpool, the trachoma would be discovered there and that would relieve the troubles we are experiencing at Montreal. The expense would be great but surely it is worth while to go to any expense. The introduction of cholera to this country some years ago was owing to lack of inspection on the other side.


Robert Rogers: When we looked into this matter we found that the question arose whether we had authority to undertake the inspection on the other side. The cases of trachoma that have been reported are very few.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Has the department immigration hospitals in St. John and Halifax?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In granting aid to the provinces in the matter of immigration, does the minister intend to vote money directly to each province to supplement expenditures made by the provinces for immigration work, or will the aid merely be limited to the payment of salaries of persons named by , the provincial governments to attend to immigration work in England?


Robert Rogers: It would not be wise for the government to make a direct grant, because you have to keep control of your whole machinery to make it as effective as it should be. We are suggesting to the provinces that we are prepared to carry out any reasonable policy that they will recommend that will be in keeping with that effort to improve, if possible, the conditions of the different provinces, and we

shall endeavour to circulate literature that in consultation with them we will agree upon as being the most desirable for each province.


Frank Oliver: I understand that one office is occupied by the provincial and federal immigration branch at Toronto. Where is the office, and who pays the rent?


Robert Rogers: The office is in the Union station and we pay the rent.


Frank Oliver: I am interested in this matter of immigration work, especially in the project of co-operation with the provinces which my hon. friend has put forward as the leading feature of his immigration policy. What is the intention in regard to the number of provincial agents to be appointed and paid by the Dominion, and are these agents to be nominated by the provincial governments?


Robert Rogers: I do not know that we have any special rules as to nomination of officers. We have not accepted any nominations or asked any government to nominate any special officer, but we have asked them to give us all the information they possibly can. I thought we ought to have about two agents for each province to work up this matter of co-operation and work together. That was the suggestion with relation to the maritime provinces, which, with Ontario, have taken the most active interest in the plan.
The work in the prairie provinces has been pretty actively canvassed and in so far as the western country is concerned my hon. friend quite understands that we will give it every possible attention in order to continue as aggressively as we possibly can the policy in that direction in co-operation with the provinces, or in any other form that will be best calculated to bring in all the immigrants that we can secure.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will the agents be sent abroad or will they remain in Canada?


Robert Rogers: That is a point in Tegard to which we will take advice from the provinces concerned and we will be guided by their judgment.


Frank Oliver: Will this force of provincial agents be in addition to the Dominion force that is now at work m Europe?


Robert Rogers: Yes, it is extra over and above the officers now engaged.


Frank Oliver: That would mean the addition of eighteen salaried agents to the staff at work in England and on the continent?


Robert Rogers: Yes, two for each province.


Frank Oliver: It would be a very important addition to the cost of the Immigra-Mr. ROGERS.
tion Department and I will risk the expression of the idea that the expenditure of such a large sum as would be necessary under that proposal with the special view of introducing legislation into the eastern provinces where there is no free land, nor the same opportunity as there is in the prairie provinces, will certainly not produce the same result to the Dominion as like effort or like expense would if directed towards the prairie provinces where the opportunities at present exist.


Robert Rogers: I can appreciate what my hon. friend says in respect, of the western provinces and their possibilities. At the same time we must all realize the feeling that exists in the maritime provinces with respect to the matter of immigration. They have certainly not received much attention in this regard. In the province of New Brunswick they have adopted a very aggressive policy involving the purchasing of considerable tracts of land and dividing it up something in the form suggested by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr.. McKenzie) when he was discussing the same thing in respect to the province of Nova Scotia. I certainly think it is worth while for the department to lend what assistance they can to the provinces which are so desirous to secure immigration and which are putting forth such an effort as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are. We would be failing in our duty in administering the immigration Work of this country if we did not lend that assistance that their energies appear to entitle them to. If it does not turn out as they expect it would be their misfortune and we would be very sorry but at the same time they have possibilities that entitle them to the consideration that we are suggesting.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When Mr. Hawkes was in the maritime provinces conferring with the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in connection with immigration matters, a suggestion was made to him by the Secretary of Immigration for the government of Nova Scotia as a means of inducing immigration. There was brought to his attention the idea of organizing a corporation sufficiently strong to purchase a great area of vacant or abandoned farming lands in that province and to help along intending settlers who might eventually determine to locate on this land. I think I mentioned this suggestion to the minister during the debate on the resolution of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). I know that such a thing is now receiving the consideration of some people m Nova Scotia with t'he view of organizing a company for that purpose. I would like to inquire of the minister if he would consider it a prac-

t-ical thing from his view point to aid a corporation of that kind in some form or another, such as a guarantee of interest upon bonds, or the payment of a subsidy according to the results, and if it would be possible to enter into any contract with the department. That suggestion has been made, I know, to the Department of the Interior by the government of'Nova Scotia. Possibly the minister has not had an opportunity of seeing it or of giving it consideration. I would like to know if any suggestion in that form would be apt to meet with the favour of the minister?


Robert Rogers: I have not seen or heard of a proposition of that kind as coming from the government or as a suggestion in the department up to the present time. I would rather fear that the suggestion might be surrounded with a certain amount of difficulty in connection with the department being a party to any undertaking of this kind which might be regarded as speculative in its nature. I would want to have that matter very carefully considered before I would venture to make any hon. friend anything like a definite answer. I have not heard of it yet and I have not had under consideration the representations, which he said have been made to the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think they were made to Mr. Hawkes, as a matter of fact.


Frank Oliver: In the case of agents who will specially represent the various provinces, are they selected bv the provincial governments or will they be selected by the Immigration Department?


Robert Rogers: We propose to consult every government and agree with them as to what agent we will select and as to who will be a desirable and useful man as publicity man for the province that he represents. We propose to invite every government to give us their advice and join in the recommendation of the man who will be useful to carry on the work.


Frank Oliver: As a matter of fact the federal government will actually engage the man and pay him?


Robert Rogers: That is right.


Frank Oliver: And he will actually be under the federal government's supervision from start to finish?


Robert Rogers: That is right.


Frank Oliver: I want to know if the $50 as laid down in the regulations is in force during this season?


Robert Rogers: Yes, until the end of this month. The money qualification for immigrants other than Asiatics is $50 from the 1st of November to the 1st of March 124
and $25 from the 1st March to the end of October, just the same as it has been.


Frank Oliver: When the estimates were up before I made an inquiry in regard to the closing of offices in Great Britain and I was informed that none had been closed. Have there been any changes in England?


Robert Rogers: No changes.


Frank Oliver: And the same on tb* continent?


Robert Rogers: No change either.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the Boston office been opened?


Robert Rogers: No, but we hope to open it on the 1st of March.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who are the officials to be appointed?


Robert Rogers: They have not been named yet.


Frank Oliver: I have been informed that the immigration agent at Edmonton has been dismissed.


Robert Rogers: What is his name?


Frank Oliver: Webster. I would be glad to know what was the reason of his dismissal.


Robert Rogers: I do not remember the case now, but I will supply the information to the hon. gentleman to-morrow.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Webster was a gentleman of very considerable standing in the community when he was appointed, and I believe he was a very competent agent. Mr. Webster was a Liberal, but I am well aware there were no grounds for his dismissal because of partisanship. He certainly did not show any partisanship during the recent election. I am therefore, entirely at a loss to understand on what ground he has been dismissed. I want to place on record the facts in connection with the appointment of the man put in his place. I understand that the man who is to be appointed is one W. H. Clegg, who was president of the Conservative Association in Edmonton during the last election, and who was a party to an attemot to discredit me in the elections by giving an order for the manufacture of a ballot box which was put before the public as having been made in my interest, and improperly made for the purpose of misdirecting the results of the election. This is the man who has been appointed in Mr. Webster's place, and I must say that I do not think the appointment reflects any credit upon the minister or upon the department.


Robert Rogers: I am very sorry to learn the information which my hon. friend has imparted to the House. I will have the matter looked into and if the information



is well founded I will deal with it in the proper manner.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Some years ago there were appointed in different towns and villages of Ontario a number of agents whose duty was supposed to be to bring in farm hands or domestic servants, and some of these agents were very active and some of them did little or nothing. They were paid at the rate of two dollars per head for each farm hand or domestic they induced to come into the country. Now, in my view these agents have not been a very great success, to say the least of it, and I wish to know if it is intended to continue them.


Robert Rogers: The returns for last year show that 4,224 males, 2,144 females and 157 children were distributed by these agents, in the province of Ontario. We have about seventy-five of these agents and the amount paid them last year was $5,152. I discussed this question with Mr. Duff, Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, a short time ago, and although he is thoroughly informed in matters of this kind, he was not in a position to say definitely and off-hand whether, in his judgment, it was a wise thing to discontinue the agents. He is making inquiries into the matter, and we expect to hear from him in the near future, when I shall be glad to communicate his views to my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson).


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: Judging from the fact that $5,152 was paid to these local distributing agents in Ontario last year, it would seem that 2,576 farm hands and domestics were placed by them in the province. A return brought down to the House some time ago shows that about two hundred and fifty of these agents were appointed throughout Ontario in 1907 and that the number has been reduced from year to year until last year there weTe eighty-eight. The demand of western Canada has drawn heavily on some of the oldest and best agricultural counties in the province of Ontario, and consequently there has been in some of these counties quite a decrease in the population. In my opinion, these local distributing agents have proven nothing less than an absolute failure in carrying out the business for which they were supposed to be appointed. The fact is that many of the Ontario counties which are most in need of people have not received one man or one woman through these agencies during the past two years. During the last ten years there has been a decrease of 3,476 in the population of the county of Dufferin, and not one person was placed in that county in the last two years by these agents. The same remark applies to Lennox and Addington, where there has been a decrease of 2,965.


Robert Rogers: In the county of Prince Edward, the population is less now by 714 than it was ten years ago, and not a single person was placed in that county through the medium of these local agents. In the county of Lambton, where the population in ten years has decreased by 5,380, there was just one person placed there by the local agency last year and nine in the year 1910. I do not believe there is any excuse for continuing a system of that kind, which in my opinion was devised for no other than political purposes. The province of Ontario has given liberally of its people to meet the demand of western Canada, and, Sir, it is the duty of this government to see that justice is done to that province with respect to this question. You may talk as you please about the demands of the maritime provinces and of western Canada, but, if this heavy dram on Ontario is continued, disaster will overtake the province, there is, in my opinion, danger of opening and developing the west more rapidly than the circumstances appertaining to the whole country would justify.
According to a return brought down there were 4,177 people placed by these agents in Ontario in the last two years. In twenty-one counties there were 1,450 people placed; yet in one county alone there were placed more than half of that number or 767, leaving 683 for the other twenty counties. Surely nobody can defend such a system as that; there is no equality or right of justice in it. Many of these counties are so handicapped to-day by the labour situation that many of the farms are not producing one half what they otherwise would do, and are used for grazing purposes because of the lack of labour. For instance, the county of Lamb-ton received only ten men in two years, and yet, notwithstanding the increase of the towns and cities, it has fallen off in population 5,380 in ten years. The county of Oxford showed a falling off of 1,032 people in ten years, yet it received only 125 in two years. Prescott received only 5 last year and none in 1910. The county of Durham received none in 1910 and four in 1911; yet there is a falling off there of 1,555. Middlesex received six in 1910 and 15 in 1911, and shows a falling off of 4,285. The census returns show an alarming condition of affairs in the province of Ontario, and the absolute necessity of the government seeing that something is done to meet the conditions that have arisen in that province.
A few days ago I urged on the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he was putting the grain Bill through, to do something to offset the spread of noxious weeds in the province of Ontario and provide for the destruction of weed seeds in screenings at the elevators, and thus prevent them being fed on the farms.

The absence of farm labour and the spread of noxious weeds in Ontario demand the consideration of the government. I do not believe that this government can afford to place the responsibility on any other shoulders than their own. I do not think they can _ depute their responsibilities to the provincial government or to any one else. I believe it is their first duty to see that in the older provinces that are annually denuded of farm labourers by the excursions to western Canada to harvest the crops there, that something is done to meet the conditions that exist, as a result of the policy that has been in force for many years. I do not object to these people going to western Canada. We are glad to nave our people go and settle in that country; but I believe that the previous government lost sight of the fact that it was their duty to see that other people took their places in the older provinces, where they would find the conditions more congenial and the training they would receive such as better to equip them for their experience in the newer country. I am glad the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has brought up the matter of the local distributing agents in Ontario. Any one who knows the circumstances of their appointment and the manner in which they have discharged their duties knows that they have not been satisfactory. I understand that they were to receive applications from farmers and forward them to the superintendent of immigration to Ottawa, who was to send them to government agents in the old land and they to the boking agent there. This would entail a delay of several months before the farmers could be supplied. That policy has proven so unsatisfactory that very few of the booking agents to-day care to have men sent out in that way. I believe it is the duty of the government to see that there is a labour bureau establishment in every province of Canada, and that the booking agents in the old country are kept in touch with the conditions here. The labour bureau would receive applications from the farmers, and the immigration authorities would have absolute knowledge of the conditions in this country, and would see that men were sent out and placed by the bureau which would be in direct touch with farmers. I know as a matter of fact that at the present time the provincial department of immigration in Ontario has about 800 applications for men'; yet we have in force a regulation preventing immigrants from coming here between the months of November and March unless they have $50 in their possession. As.far as Ontario is concerned, I do not think it is advisable to enforce these regulations, particularly in face of the conditions that exist in this province at the present time. In 21 of the very best counties of the province of Ontario, there has been a falling off in the popula-1244
tion of 56,352 people, and the fanners are handicapped by the lack of farm labourers. There is a great outcry in the newspapers that the farmers of Canada are not producing enough to meet the requirements of the people. Why do we devote all our energies to the growing of wheat for the people of Europe, and fail to look after conditions in our own country, and to see that we do not have to import butter from Australia and New Zealand and eggs from Kansas and potatoes from Ireland as at present. Our friends opposite were very anxious a few months ago that reciprocity should be adopted, not for the relief of the farmer but for the relief of the consumer; but if they had done their duty by the older provinces, the conditions that are in existence here would not be in existence. I would therefore earnestly urge the minister to see that different methods are adopted, and that the province of Ontario receives at least equal treatment to that extended to the other provinces, and to see that the whole energy of the government is not devoted to western Canada as it has been heretofore.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman please inform the minister and the House, if he can, how emigration from the older provinces can be prevented?


Donald Sutherland: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have heard it stated-I do not know whether it is correct or not, or to what degree it is correct -that it was the practice some time ago in 'the province of Ontario to secure farm Labour, employ that Labour for a few months during the summer, and when the crops were all harvested, to permit that Labour to go away. If that is true it is a very unfair and unjust thing to Ontario or any other province.


Donald Sutherland: I may tell the hon. gentleman that that statement is not correct. I have been connected with immigration work in the province of Ontario for nearly three years-and -at no month in the year have we been able to supply the demand for farm labourers in that province. That may seem unreasonable. A few years ago there were people in the city otf Toronto clamouring for assistance from the city authorities, yet those people would not go and work on a farm, although there was an abundance of such work to be had. If they were not qualified for farm work they would not be of any use on a farm. There are applications on the boobs of the Department of Immigration -at Toronto, -as I said a few minutes ago, ito the number of upwards of 800, at the present time. Many of these -applicants are 'asking for married men by the year, undertaking to provide them with houses, offering wages of at least $300 or $350 and more per year, and free fuel, free milk, a garden and other things. There is in the old country an abundance of such labour to be had. Last year the Ontario government advanced upwards of $25,000 to assist farm laborers and domestic servants to come out here, and place them on farms in Ontario, the provincial government is still pursuing that policy. Why should they -be compelled to do that ? Is it not the duty of the federal lauthori-ties to see that that is done, and to see that these demands are met, thus freeing the provincial governments from the necessity of entering on work of that kind? I may say that two years ago I was compelled to cable to a booking agent of the old country because the Dominion regulations were so strictly enforced by the late government as to prevent a number of men accepted by an Ontario government agent from coming out here and assure them of employment. I was told that the booking -agents had been threatened with the loss of the bonus which was paid to them if they continued to send -immigrants to the provincial authorities -and not to the local distributing -agents. But notwithstanding that, we find1 from the return brought down, that many of the best counties, counties that are most in need of men, are not getting one single man through the medium of the machinery which has been in existence in Canada for many years past.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does the Ontario government or the federal government conduct any system of assisted immigration, or do immigrants coming out to Canada for employment have to pay their own fares?


Donald Sutherland: The provincial government has been advancing $20 towards paying the fare of each farm labourer that came here.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I have had some little experience in regard to importation from the old country, not of farm labour, but of a different class of labour, and I must say that assisted immigration has been, so far as my experience is concerned, a failure. I have paid out a good deal of money for assisted immigration in connection with institutions with which I am interested, and I do not think I would be very far astray in saying that in nine cases out of ten these immigrants jumped their bonds, beat us out of the money, and proved very poor labour indeed. Therefore, I am not a very strong advocate of assisted immigration. I believe the proper class of immigrants to come to this country are men that will pay their own way. They will make better help and be more dependent on their exertions than immigrants who are assisted by ttenevolent or manufacturing institutions, or by the government, be it provincial or Dominion. My experience has been that assisted immigrants have 'been a complete 'and 'absolute failure.


Robert Rogers: I would like to say a word in connection with the information my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has been good enough to give. We can well understand that the views of a gentleman who has had such a large and varied experience as he has had in the past in connection with immigration are of great practical importance, not only to the minister, but also to the department which carries on immigration work. I have listened -with much attention to the hon. gentleman's statement as to how matters have been working in the province of Ontario, and I am bound to think that perhaps these local agents, as they are called, have not been the greatest possible success so far as regards contributing anything to the immigration policy in that province. I find on glancing over the return that 2,000 o-f these immigrants were distributed by the Salvation Army, and I am glad to say-in so far as the west is concerned, at all events-that the officers of the Army have been very satisfactory, very energetic and very honest in their business dealings in connection with the immigration woTk which they undertook. In my judgment, it would not be desirable to discontinue in any form whatever the efforts which they are now making with respect to immigration work. I appreciate very much what the hon. member for South Oxford has been good enough to say in connection with immigration, a matter which is of such deep interest to himself personally, and I hope he will do me the honour of calling on me some time in the near future so that we may have an opportunity of discussing in more detailed form

the views which he holds and gathering more detailed information on the subject with the idea of doing the best we can on immigration work in Ontario.


Frank Oliver: If the figures are available, would the minister state the number of persons excluded from Canada last year coming from Great Britain, from the United States, from the continent of Europe and from Asia?


Robert Rogers: Persons excluded last year:	British, 247; United States, 21,466;
European, 607; Asiatics, 60. Total, 22,580.


Frank Oliver: I would like to have the number deported, if that can be given.


Robert Rogers: 1 have not that at hand, but will be glad to give it later.


Frank Oliver: Possibly at some other time, when the minister's estimates are up, these figures can be given. I wish merely to get them on record. I ask also with regard to the Boyce-Sneed case in Winnipeg. These two parties come from Texas, and one of them was deported while the other was not. On what grounds was one of them allowed to remain in the country?


Robert Rogers: The immigration officer in Winnipeg, when I was there last Christmas, gave me the explanation verbally, and his statement, as I recollect it, was that the woman was deported on the ground that she had just come out of an asylum, and under the Act such people are subject to deportation. In the case of the man we had not the same right in the judgment of the officer, and, therefore, he did not order the deportation of the man.


Frank Oliver: Does not the minister think that both man and woman were subject to deportation regardless of the fact that one of them had lately been in a lunatic asylum?


Robert Rogers: I am free to say I am inclined to agree with the hon. gentleman. But Mr. Bruce Walker, the officer in charge, did not take that action. I do not know what reason influenced him. Perhaps he thought he was going to save the life of the man; perhaps he did.


Frank Oliver: I would like to ask a number of questions with regard to Asiatic immigration, if convenient. ' How many Japanese arrived within the last calendar year?


Robert Rogers: There were 727 men, and 337 women.


Frank Oliver: How many Japanese are estimated to be in Canada now?


Robert Rogers: The figures are not available.


Frank Oliver: How many Chinese arrived in the past calendar year?


Robert Rogers: The number was, men 6,794; women, 79.


Frank Oliver: How many Chinese were exempt from the head tax?


Robert Rogers: I have not the number, but I have the class of people exempt.
Tlie members of the diplomatic corps or other government representatives, their suite?, their servants; consuls and consular agents; the children born in Canada of parents of Chinese origin who have left Canada for educational or other purposes on substantiating their identity to the satisfaction of the officer of the port or place where they seek to enter on their return; [DOT]merchants, their wives and minor children; wives and minor children of clergymen, tourists, men of science, subject to such regulation as may from time to time he made by the government; duly certificated teachers.


Frank Oliver: In connection with the Japanese students, would the minister give a statement on a future occasion of the number of Japanese returned to Japan, and the same of the Chinese returned to China?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Can the minister give me an idea of the means now taken to check the arrival of Chinese, to see that they comply with the law with regard to the head tax.


Robert Rogers: They are examined at the ocean port under the Chinese Act.


Frank Oliver: Are there special officers to deal with the Chinese?


Robert Rogers: They are dealt with by the immigration officers.


Frank Oliver: Under special instructions under the Chinese Act?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Oliver: How many Hindus arrived during the past year?


Robert Rogers: There were 13 men and 1 woman.


Frank Oliver: I have seen in the papers a statement that two Hindu women had arrived and were held for deportation. Have they been deported?


Robert Rogers: They arrived and were held for deportation, and their time was up on the 6th of February, but the time was extended in order that we might ascertain whether they came by direct passage or otherwise. When we get that information we shall be able to decide what course to take.


Frank Oliver: Is there any special regulation to prevent Hindu women from coming in?


Robert Rogers: No.


Frank Oliver: Hindu women can come in the same as Hindu men?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Oliver: So, if the women in this case are rejected, it is because they did not comply with the ordinary regulation?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are there many Hindu women in Canada?


Robert Rogers: Very few-half-a-dozen or so.


Frank Oliver: How many Hindus are resident in Canada?
Mr.* ROGERS. From 2,300 to 2,500.


Frank Oliver: How many is it supposed returned during the past year to India?


Robert Rogers: I have not that information.


Frank Oliver: Would ic be in the department?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we can supply it very readily.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister make any statement as to his conclusions in regard to the relaxing of the regulations for the admission of Hindu women, the wives of Hindus living in Canada?


Robert Rogers: We have had a special officer investigating those conditions and as far as we can judge from the information we have been able to obtain about 5,200 Hindus have come to Canada and to-day we have less than 2,500 left so that they are evidently finding out for themselves that either the climate or conditions are not suited to their wants. Some of their number were anxious to promote immigration and increase their numbers in Canada and to bring as they claimed their wives. But on investigations the report I get is that the class of Hindus we have in British Columbia are not a class who would possibly bring their wives to settle in that province. I do not of course mean that in every case; I am speaking in general terms. The police of Vancouver complain rather bitterly that some of the Hindus are rather a troublesome class and the health officers of Vancouver make a similar complaint that they are not a desirable class of settlers to have if it is possible to avoid doing so. In view of the condition and class of Hindu that we happen to have in_ Canada I do not think there is any chance of women coming out to take up their homes here and continue as residents in Canada. I am speaking only from the information handed me by the special officer detailed to ascertain this Mr. OLIVER.
information. I think that 300 of these Hindus left Canada last year, but I hope to have the report of the special officer in a short time and to submit to the House.


Frank Oliver: The committee may assume that it is not the intention of the minister to relax the conditions in regard to Hindu women?


Robert Rogers: Not at present, no.


Frank Oliver: Can the minister explain the apparent fact that the number of Japanese who have arrived in the past year is in excess of the number provided for in the understanding with the Empire of Japan? I think the understanding is that about 400 labouring people may be admitted in a year. Last year 727 entered. Of course the difference may be made up of Japanese of other classes.


Robert Rogers: In 1911 we had 427 and
in this year apparently 727.


Frank Oliver: It is a serious question. If the arrangement made is being adhered to by the government of Japan it is perfectly satisfactory but if not it is desirable that parliament should be advised of the fact. There is really a total of over a thousand.


Robert Rogers: I shall look into that.


Frank Oliver: Is there any change in the regulations regarding the admission of Chinese that would increase the exemptions from the head tax formerly in force?


Robert Rogers: No there has been no change.


Frank Oliver: Is the Chinese immigration increasing?


Robert Rogers: To some extent, but not very largely.


Frank Oliver: What is the appropriation of $75,000 which is not required for 1912-13?


Robert Rogers: That is for seed grain. We will have a supplementary for seed grain this year.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. ROGERS moved the adjournment of the House.


Frank Oliver: What is the order of business for to-morrow?


Robert Rogers: We will take up government Bills.


Frank Oliver: Which will have precedence?


Robert Rogers: We will take up probably the Tariff Commission Bill. I think that will be ready to go on to-morrow.


Frank Oliver: The Grain Bill is first on the list.


Robert Rogers: Probably the Grain Bill too. I expect my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be ready to go on with that.


Frank Oliver: And if not that, the Tariff Commission?


Robert Rogers: If not that, the Tariff Commission.


Frank Oliver: And the highways?


Robert Rogers: Yes, and then we will go into the estimates if we get -through with those.


Frank Oliver: The boundaries question will not go on to-morrow?


Robert Rogers: No, not till Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Wednesday.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 28, 1912.