1905-04-27

OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES.

Mr.  P. H.@: GERVAIS presented the fourth report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the Debates, as follows :-
The select committee appointed to supervise the ofiioial report of the debates of this House during the present session beg leave to present the following as their fourth report :


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: 


Mr. SPROULE.: Would the bon. member please explain ?


Mr. PETER H. McKENZIE.: This part of the report referred to Is the report of the sub-committee on railway rates appointed by the Committee of Agriculture and Colonization. This report was handed in about two weeks ago, and we are now asking that it be concurred in, so that discussion may take place upon it. I may say that the reason we ask for this report to be concurred in is that the matters affecting railway rates are now before the commission, and we wish to have our say with regard to them as soon as possible.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I understand that these recommendations made by the Agriculture Committee are in reference to rates on railways. I think, from the information that was brought before that committee, it was shown that the rates charged by the railways on products carried lrom one point in Ontario to another point, or from one

point in tlie Dominion to another point in the Dominion, are much higher than the rates charged by railways carrying products from an American port to an American port, or from an American port to a Canadian port. If that is the case, as these railways have been built largely by the money of the people of Canada, I think it is a very important subject, and should be referred to the Railway Commission at the earliest possible date, in order that some steps may be taken to prevent the undue discrimination that is being practiced against Canadians upon Canadian railways. It is in my own experience-I know it is a fact-that the rates on grain and products are very much lower from American ports to Canadian ports than they are from one Canadian port to another. I .think the Agriculture Committee, who have taken up this matter so energetically, and especially the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon), deserve the commendation of this House for the services they have rendered the country in bringing these facts before the committee. I think that, considering the very-great importance of the subject, it is a matter that should be dealt with at the earliest possible date.


Peter H. McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I may say that the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization considered this as a matter that very seriously affects the welfare of the people of this country as a whole. We recognize that the question is a very large one, but we confined ourselves at this time to dealing with the case very largely of Ontario, not but that complaints could be brought in from other parts of the Dominion, but the committee dealt more particularly with the railway rates as they affect the farmers of Ontario and the farm products of the kinds especially dealt with in the report which has been presented by this committee. I may say, in speaking for a few minutes upon this subject, that in western Ontario where we produce cattle for export largely we have been complaining a good deal of the rates charged us by the railway companies. The cattle industry of Ontario is on the increase and it is a very important industry not only to the farmers but to the country generally* because a great deal of money is brought in through that industry and on account of the condition of farming in western Ontario we are obliged to increase that branch of our agricultural work. We are quite well aware that the business of cattle raising requires a good deal of attention and a good deal of money, that it is a somewhat risky business and that sometimes the profit to the producer is not very large. We therefore ask the railway companies to assist us in every way possible to foster this industry. We consider that in the past they have not been doing so, and when we contrast the rates received from our own railways in Ontario with the rates given from
points in Michigan we find that the rates are against the Canadian farmer and- in favour of the Michigan farmer. We think this should not be. We find that the rate charged in Michigan is 22 cents per hundred pounds, while just across the Detroit river and as far east as London the rate is 25 cents per hundred pounds. We desire, to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the Ontario farmer, in the matter of rates on cattle, is being discriminated against in favour of the Michigan farmer and all we ask at present is that we be put on an equal footing with the American farmer. We claim that this is necessary in the interest of the cattle industry of Canada. The American farmer produces cattle as we do, and he competes with us in the British market. We are not in a position to compete with him as we ought to be not having such a favourable rate. This matter is before the Railway Commission at the present time, reductions have been made and the railway people are appealing against these reductions.	W e
want to appear before that commission in support of the plea that a further reduction should be made in the interests of the Ontario farmer in the rate on cattle. I need not say any more than that. I might give tlie House in detail different rates from different points but I may say that from Toronto the rate is 15 cents per hundred pounds where it used to be 18 cents. The commission has helped us there and they have likewise helped us in regard to the long and short haul with the result that a proportionate rate of decrease must take place as you approach the sea-board. It is a very good thing that the commission has done that and I hope it will stay with it. AVe are pleased that a long and short haul rate has been established by which the rate is reduced in proportion to the length of the haul, but we still claim that we should be put on a par with the Michigan farmer in regard to the rates on cattle to the seaboard.
Without saying any more on cattle at present, I wish to say a word or two in regard to apples. AA'e, in the western peninsula of Ontario, are large producers of apples, and we find that the excessive railway rates charged is one reason why apple growing has not been so profitable as it ought to be in western Ontario. We claim that the railway companies are charging a great deal too high a rate on apples, in fact a rate so high that it is utterly against their own interests because it is decreasing a branch of trade that might be very valuable to them if they would only consider their own interests as well as ours. AATe claim that the commission should deal with the rate on apples. We have an export rate from Buffalo to Aew York, a distance of 446 miles, of 25 cents per barrel. From AVoodstock to Montreal, a dis-
49S7

tance of 443 miles, tlie export rate is 38i cents per barrel and the local rate 46J cents. When such an enormous discrimination exists in favour of the American farmer surely it is time that something be done for the apple trade of western Ontario.
\\ e do not want to be too severe on the railways ; we are willing to give them their due, but we want them to assist us in developing the trade of the western portion of Ontario. The railway companies say that it is not fair to calculate rates on the cost of railway building now, that these railways were built at a time when the country was new, that they opened up the country and that they were run at a loss for a considerable length of time. But, we have to say as against that contention that we in Ontario practically built these railways. The Ontario government has given towards the construction of railways in Ontario 89,708,378 in cash ; municipalities have given in bonuses, subsidies and shares $12,294,105, or in bonuses alone over $10,000,000. We say that our interests should be considered by the railway companies. We have largely aided in the building of these roads and we have a perfect right to ask them to consider our interests when it comes to a matter of rates.
- We do say that they have not given our interests the consideration to which they are entitled. There are others to speak on this matter and they will go into other branches of trade as the rates affect these different branches. I will not detain the House much longer. As an agriculturist I consider that the railway companies, in their treatment of the agricultural products of western Ontario are not consulting either our interests or their own. The complaint is made that the railway companies, in their dealings with people, are killing the goose that lays the golden egg by their short sighted policy. We want this House to back us up in getting justice from the railways not with the idea of placing our railways in a worse position than others, but by, if possible, putting us on a par with the producers on the American side of the line having to compete with them in the same market.


Mr. D. A. GORDON.: Hr. Speaker, in rising to address a few remarks to the House on the question of freight rates as applied to farm commodities, I am cognizant of the fact that the question is of the greatest importance to the greatest producing class in Canada to-day, a class that supplies the great bulk of the tonnage to our railways from the point of production to the markets of the world. So great is the importance of this traffic that any condition arising to affect it either favourably or adversely is felt in every other channel of trade and commerce throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion.
We have tried to consider this question in a spirit of fairness, and we have endeavoured to arrive at conclusions by c-om-


Peter H. McKenzie: paring existing rates in the United States that is non-competitive and neutral and entirely under the control of the Canadian railroads which operate through that territory, with the rates charged in Canadian territory corresponding to that and through which railroads have been built largely with the assistance of the aid they have received from the people of Canada. If you contrast the rates charged in this way, I think there is no one but who will agree that we are not justly treated by these railroads which operate through the United States and Canadian territory. In order to show how we arrived at our conclusion, it will be necessary to look at the question from the various standpoints which effect it. I trust that I may not weary the House by quoting some ligures which bear upon the case. I first call to the attention of the House the live stock rate from territory in the United States which is non-competitive, viz.: The territory lying between Detroit and Port Huron and which can be reached by no other means than by the Grand Trunk Railway. I may mention that some of the shipments indeed have to come over the electric line to the main line of the Grand Trunk and then be hauled to Detroit or Port Huron as the case may be. From this United States territory the rate on live stock to the sea-board is as follows :
-	Cattle.	Sheep.	Hogs.Cts.	Cts.	Cts.Chesterfield, Fort Gratiot, Fraser, Lennox, Sit. Clemens, Mt. Olivet, Smith's Creek and West Detroit	22	' 23i


An hon. MEMBER.: Where to ?


David Alexander Gordon: To the sea-board. The first question we ask ourselves is :	Why
under such conditions, the American farmers are granted favours that are denied to Canadian farmers ? In order to look at l.'jat Question fairly let us see how the American people treat our railroads. In the first place they have given nothing towards their construction and in the second place they tax our railroads seven and a half times as much as the taxation imposed in Canada. When we go to Port Huron we And they have to go through the tunnel there and on the American end of that tunnel the taxes paid amount to $29,000 per annum while on the Canadian end the taxes paid amount to only $730. Judging by the treatment extended to our railroads by the Americans it would certainly seem that these railroads should have more consideration for Canadian shippers than tliev now show

Crossing over the Detroit or St. Clair river we find that the rates on cattle, sheep and hogs are as follow :
From the following points in Ontario, tariff : -
Sarnia, Windsor, Chatham, Ridgetown, Highgate, Thamesville, Bothwell, Parkhill, Palmerston, Stratford, Wiar-ton, Lucknow, Owen Sound and all intermediate points	
Rate.
over $40 per car in favour of the American farmer.
Let me next consider for a few moments the rate on grain and grain products. The
export rates are as follows :	-


Front U.   S.@: privileges tbat are enjoyed by the American farmers. The grain rate disappears and the grain and grain products rate take'the place of the two rates that are in effect in the United States. In the territory between Detroit and Port Huron the export rate to New York, Portland or Boston on grain is 10 cents and on grain products 111 cents. When we cross the river, by the ferry at Detroit or through the tunnel at Port Huron, we find the conditions entirely changed, and a blanket rate of 131c. and upwards is made from Sarnia and Windsor and all intermediate territory for a distance of 500 miles east, or to within a day's drive for a farmer of Montreal. In other words, a man on the banks of the St. Lawrence at Morrisburg or Lancaster has to pay 8e. and a fraction per bushel to get his wheat carried to Montreal, whereas it is carried from Winnipeg to the sea-board at about 12c. a bushel.
Cheese is a commodity in which Canadians are very largely interested, the development of that industry having reached proportions in which we feel a justifiable pride. When the bulk of that trade is considered, we think the railroad companies should have made some allowance for carload shipments and also for shipments that are local in their character, but we find, in comparing Canada with the United States in regard to distances for local shipments, that we are discriminated against to a very great extent. In the United States cheese is carried 283 miles by the Grand Trunk Railway for
,,wh?reas in Canada it is carried 400 miles for 36c. or one-eighth per pound more.
Beans are a product of great interest to the western counties, and particularly to the county of Kent. Last year thev were worth actually less than wheat during the fall in some' localities. The cost of shipment is the same, because beans are packed in Panels or sacks, the same as wheat products ; they weigh the same as wheat; but is costs 6c. a bushel! more to ship beans to the sea-board than it does to ship wheat.
Our complaints are not confined to the export rates alone; we are quite as much interested in the import rates. If the railroads, by making very high rates on exports, can take fifty per cent more from the pockets of the farmers than they should and thus enable themselves to make very low rates on imported commodities, they create an unfair competition witli the home manufacturer and deprive the Canadian farmer of the home market he ought to enjoy- In the United States we find the conditions exactly the reverse. The import rates and the export rates are nearly equal, so that full justice is done to the people and the railroads are aiding in developing the country and increasing the production, and I believe are increasing tlieir earnings at the same time. The following comparisons will show the discrepancies between the import and export rates:	*
Classes.
Peterboro'	 / Import...
	 I Export...
Toronto	 (Import...
	 (Export...
Hamilton	 / Import...
' '	 I Export___
Galt	 /Import...
	\ Export____
London	 /Import....
	 "* I Export....
Chatham	 (Import....
	I Export....
Fergus and Elora	 / Import....
	I Export....
Wingham	 f Import....
	I Export....
Owen Sound	 / Import...
	I. Export....
Cents per 100 lbs.
38
40
42
284,
50'
56
584
50
60
60
24	20	17	1.3433	29	24	1924	20	17	13435	30	25	20264	224	184	1537	32	26	21264	224	184	15444 27	38 234	275 194	234 16"49	39	27J	23432	27	23	19"504	39	274	234264	224	184	15"44	38	28	2432	2S	234	1953	434	304	2633	29	24	2053	444	31	264
19"
20"
1.34
21"
234
15"
16"
134
24"
lfi
18
So that you see all through the high rates are levied on the great bulk of the commodities that the country produces and exports; and it lias been truly said that the cardinal principal has been to burden the traffic with all the charges which it would stand, regardless of what would be a fair and just charge tor the services rendered.
With regard to export rates, I mav say Mr. GORDON.
that the question is so large a one that the investigations made by the committee have been confined largely to Ontario, simply because it would be an almost impossible'task to deal with the question as it affects tin-whole country this session and do it anything like justice.
When we come to the question of local rates in the state of Michigan as compared

with the rates out of Toronto in Canada the difference is very striking. As an example let us take a shipment from Detroit to Battle Creek a distance of 145 miles, and compare the same with the rates charged for similar shipments for the same distance out of Toronto in Ontario. The comparison is as follows :
	Class		of Freight.		
lsc	2nd	3rd	4th	5thCts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cis.	Cts.Chicago to Battle. Creek. . .	28	24	20	134	10Equal distance out of Toronto	30	32	27	23'	18Difference in favour of U.S..	*	8	7	94	8
Let us now take the rates from Detroit to Saginaw, 107 miles and compare them with the rates for similar shipments for the same distance out of Toronto in Ontario.
	Class of Freight.*				
1st	2nd	3rd	4 th	5thCts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.Detroit to Saginaw	28	24	20	14	10Equal distanceoutof Toronto	34	30	26	20	17Difference in favour of U.S..	6	6	6	6	7Class of Freight.	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5thCts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.Detroit to South Bend. Ind .	30	26	20	131	uEqual distance west of Tor-	40	35	30	25	20Difference in favour of U.S..	10	9	10	114	9
Class of Freight.
1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5thCts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.Detroit to Grand Rapids	
Equal distance west of Tor-	30	26	20	134	Honto 	38	33	29	24	19Difference in favour of U.S..	8	7	9	114	8
A comparison on a sliding scale of the above rates is interesting. I have selected for comparison the rates between Battle Creek and Detroit and between Toronto and Brantford.' From Battle Creek to Detroit is 145 miles, as compared with 65 miles from Toronto to Brantford, so that in examining this table we must remember that the distance from Battle Creek to Detroit is more than twice the distance from Toronto to Brantford. The rates are as follows :
Class of Freight.
1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5thCts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.Battle Creek to Detroit	26	24	20	13	10Toronto to Brantford	28	25	21	18	14Difference in favour of U.S..	2	1	1	5	4
Let us now compare the rates from Buffalo to three points in Canada with the rates from Port Colborne to the same three points, on the different classes of merchandise :
Class of Freight.
1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5thCts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.	Cts.From Buffalo-	To Toronto	30	26	20	15	12To Brockville	44	38	30	214	18.',To Montreal	44	38	304	214	184From Port Colborne-	To Toronto	32	28	24	20	16To Block ville	50	44	38	31	25To Montreal	60	53	45	38	30
From Port Huron to Chicago, a distance of 335 miles it costs $20.80 to send a car containing a threshing machine and an engine. From Sarnia to London, a distance of 61 miles, it costs $20, or proportionately five times as much as from Port Huron to Chicago. When it comes to the question of shipping a buggy it is found that it costs $1.28 less to ship a buggy from Detroit to Toronto than from Chatham to Toronto, and it costs 71 cents more to ship a buggy from Chatham to Toronto than from Chicago to Toronto.
There is another matter to which I might refer, a matter which I think is more ser-rious in character. That is the fact that certain Canadian territory which should enjoy the benefit of competition has been-denied that competition, I have reason to believe, by our own railroads. The Ameri-

can roads passing through Canadian territory which are willing to accord to Canadians the same privileges that they accord to their own people have been prevented from doing so by the action of our own roads. In other words our own roads claim the right to enter the American markets and carry American products at whatever rate will secure business, but they have taken unto themselves the right to prevent the American roads from entering Canadian territory and competing in like manner. I understand that there is an agreement of this sort in existence which embraces all the railroads interested with the possible exception of one. This is a matter which if it is true as I believe it is, is a serious one. Had the territory through which these roads are operating been accorded the privileges that are given to the people in the United States what would have been the effect in developing these portions of Canada and would not farming and manufacturing have increased in these districts in like proportion as they have increased in the state of Michigan ? Under such competition as this working agreements might be a cause of dispute, but there should be a remedy to meet such a contingency. I call the attention of the House to these facts and we are hopeful now that we have a Railway Commission, that such action will be taken as will put these matters fully before that commission and enable them to do full justice to Canadians.
In answer to the question as to why such extraordinary privileges are given shippers in the United States the Canadian railroads say that they are compelled to do so, first by competition, secondly by the interstate commerce commission, and lastly by the fact that public opinion would not tolerate discrimination on their part in any way.
May it not be asked whether the attitude of our railroads has not had the effect or driving Canadians to Michigan ? The rates they have accorded both to manufacturers and farm producers can be regarded as neither more nor less than a bonus to producers to settle in the United States and develop business in the Territories served by these lines. I think that if it were stated squarely that the effect of this arrangement of railroad rates is to offer a bonus to Canadians to live in Michigan it would not be extravagant, for the facts are as I have stated. One of the questions that have perplexed Canadians for a long time is why farm products in the United States have been worth more than in Canada. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it not clear that if we had proportionate freight rates to the sea-board, if we had in our railway rates the advantage to which our geographical situation entitles us, farm products in Canada would be not as high but higher in value than in the United States? I believe that the lowering of freight rates Mr. GORDON.
would not only secure us the advantage to which we are entitled, but would greatly increase the business of the railways by developing the country as it should be developed. I have a number of figures here, but will not read them, as I do not wish to weary the House. But I take a deep interest in this question because it is of financial importance to our farmers. I believe that the opportunity now offers to do a great service to the country in this matter. I believe there are many things that we could do to benefit the farmers, things that, I believe, we might have done during the past two months, when we have done so little else. For instance, the question of car demurrage is a grievous one to producers and shippers. I understand that it is questionable whether the Railway Commission have jurisdiction in the matter or not. The question has not been raised by the railroad companies, but the doubt has been suggested. If the Railway Commission have not jurisdiction, that jurisdiction should be given to them. The conditions framed by the railway companies should be submitted to the Railway Commission and approved, so that the public interest m!ty be protected. I am not going to say that demurrage charges are wrong. I know that in many cases they are a protection to the public. But there are cases in which railroad companies are ready to take advantage of their right to charge demurrage, and this matter should come within the jurisdiction of the commission. There is another thing that I would mention. The railway companies have been empowered to make conditions such as suit themselves. They have forms of bills of lading which protect themselves, but show no regard whatever for the public interest. I think that a uniform Bill of lading is one of the things that should be provided for the protection of the public and of the railroad companies as well. If these grievances can be remedied I believe we shall have done a service not only to the farming community but to all other classes of producers in Canada as well.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).: I am glad that this question has been brought before the House, and that it is proposed to send this report of the Agricultural Committee to the Railway Commission. I had every hope, when the Railway Commission was appointed, that within a very few months matters would be so regulated that the Ganadian farmer, the Canadian manufacturer, and Canadian producer would receive some benefit from the large outlay of public money in paying the expenses of the commission. But, instead of improving, the situation is going from bad to worse, as I understand it. Before I give instances in point, I may mention that a few days ago I submitted a question to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)

499S
based upon a statement made to me by a large shipper, that the Armour Company of Chicago, had secured all the space on the steamers from Montreal this season, which steamers are subsidized by this government. If this is the case any Canadian shipper who wishes to send freight by Montreal must deal with the Armour Company.
Some time ago, I made the statement to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) that since the Railway Commission was formed we were paying a higher rate on our goods than formerly. He stated that there had been no advance on the Intercolonial Railway. Now, here is a letter from a gentleman in his own province ; and I hope he will pay particular attention while I read it :
St. John, N.B., March 6th, 1905. Ontario Wheel Company,
Gananoque.
Dear Sir,-Inclosed please find freight bill oi wheels shipped to you by Mr. Ed. A. Morgan, Fredericton. We note that you have credited us with $17.95, while the freight bill amounts to $20.48. We have charged you with the difference, $2.51. Kindly send US' credit note for same, and oblige,
Yours truly,
(Sgd) M. E. AGAR.
We ship all goods and credit the party with the freight to the point of destination? We have the tariff rates, and we credit on the invoice the amount shown by tlie tariff. The receiver pays the freight, which is thus credited to him on the face of the invoice. After receiving this letter I went to the railway agent and asked how It came that the tariff had been raised. He explained that tbe rate to Fredericton bad been 58 cents per hundred pounds-a pretty round, full rate, I should say. They billed the goods to Lennoxville, and they went from Lennoxville to Fredericton. But, since my bon. friend tbe Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson), acquired the Canada Eastern Railway, tbe Grand Trunk Railway have instructions to ship everything to Fredericton over tbe Intercolonial Railway, and tbe rate to be paid is 06 cents per hundred pounds. If the minister desires to verify tbe figures be will find them in Grand Trunk supplementary tariff D.G.M. 4. page 10.
Another case came under my personal observation. We had tbe misfortune to lose by fire our carriage works at Broek-ville. We bad a contract with tbe Nova Scotia Steel Company for a quantity of tire steel. It happened that a car came immediately after tbe fire. We could not use it at Brockville, so we instructed the railway people to give instructions to have It forwarded to Gananoque, where the tiring had to be done after tbe fire. The rate from tbe works in Nova Scotia to Brockville was 25 cents per hundred pounds. The car arriving at Brockville
was not unloaded, but was simply forwarded thirty miles to Gananoque, and when it arrived there, the rate charged was 37 cents per hundred pounds-or 12 cents per hundred pounds for the thirty-mile haul from Brockville to Gananoque. We have refused to accept the car, and the question is in dispute. A few days ago we received a circular headed ' Canadian Freight Association.' It appears that nearly all the railways in Canada and the United States have joined this combine in freight rates. I see that the Intercolonial, under the direction of the Minister of Railways is a member of this combine for fixing and settling rates. They notified the shippers as follows :
The railway companies regret to say that they find the practice of false classification, false representation of the contents of packages, false report of weights, &c., continues unabated. It is therefore thought desirable that the attention of shippers should be called to the provisions of the law on the subject. Section 279, subsections 2 and 3 of the Railway Act, 1893, are as follows :
These are the late additions to the Railway Act, specifically hitting at shippers.
Any company or any officer or agent thereof, or any person acting for or employed by the company, who, by means of false billing, false classification, false report of weight, or by any other device or means, shall, knowingly, wilfully, or shall willingly suffer or permit any person or persons to obtain transportation for goods at less than the required tolls than authorized and in force on the railway of the company, shall for each offence be liable to a penalty of not exceeding $1,000 nor less than $100.
That is all against the man who ships the goodsi That takes place under the Act passed by this government which came into force less than two years ago, appointing this Railway Commission-everything to hit against the manufacturer, or producer, or shipper, not a word to protect the shipper if the railways overcharge. 1 have had two eases come under my personal observation within the last two months. I received a carload of rim strips from Tennessee, tbe freight bill on which was two hundred odd dollars. Before accepting it I talked with the railway people and told them that the rate was too high. No. they said, the rate was all right, but it was in the weight of the car. This car weighed nearly one-fourth more than any other car we had ever received from these people. I refused to accept it. and asked the agent at Gananoque to take it out and have the strips weighed. There were over 5,000 strips. He did it, and found there were about 8,900 pounds of an overcharge if the weight that was on the bill of lading was correct. 11'e refused to accept the car. and told them they could unload it in the yard. It laid there for three or four weeks in dispute, and finally the railway people put

on a man and I put on a man and we weighed it, and found about 9,000 pounds of an overcharge in the freight rate. They allowed it off, took the proper weight, and I paid it. Had I paid at first I could have had no action against the railway company under this law or any other law. The same thing happened after a fire at Brockville. They had a quantity of tire steel, their agent shipped it to us at Gananoque, and when it arrived we weighed it. and the bill came in from the railway with 1.890 pounds more freight on that lot of steel than we found it weighed, and that is now lying in dispute between us and the railway people. But there is nothing in the Act in this case to allow us to come upon the railway for overcharge. They weigh their cars, and you have to pay the money before you receive the freight, whether the amount is right or not. If you put in a claim you have to wait two or three years for your amount. Now in speaking in reference to freight in Nova Scotia, the rate to Brockville is 25 cents, and I think it is the same rate if shipped as far as Kingston. But we are receiving every day carloads of steel from Pittsburg. Pennsylvania, for 204 cents freight rate. In my opinion 20i cents freight rate from Pittsburg is much less than 25 cents from Nova Scotia to Brockville. The distance is further, more roads to go over. I trust that what has been said already and what may be further said today will appear in the ' Hansard.' and will be brought to the attention of the Railway Commission.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Could the hon. gentleman tell us the respective distances from the Pittsburg fields and from Nova Scoti.a ?


George Taylor: I have not the distances, but I am quite sure it is further from Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, by railway around by Niagara Falls than it is from Nova Scotia to Brockville. But, I rose particularly to refer to a firm of millers who, since the investigation was had by the Railway Committee, have placed this letter in my hands, and I want to put it on 1 Hansard ' so that the Railway Commission may see it and attend to it.
George Taylor, Esq., M.P,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Will you be good enough to send ns a copy of the Act passed, we think, last parliament, by the Railroad Commission regarding freight rates on produce ?
We understand it this way :	That grain
shipped from, isay Georgian bay ports, to Kingston, or to any station between Georgian bay and Montreal, cannot, in any case, be charged with a rate higher than they would make to Montreal. Since this new law was put in force last year the railroads have succeeded in raising the rates on all local goods, and are falling behind the Act for protection, stating that they must conform with the Act. It strikes us as being strange that parliament Mr. TAYLOR.
should legislate against the people in favour of the railroads.
Corn is now being carried from Chicago to Portland for six cents and a fraction for 100 pounds, delivered to the steamer. Some 500,000 bushels have been contracted for at this rate. This grain can be , stopped off at Montreal by paying the same rate. A contract has gone in force, we understand, to this effect. But if we bring corn from Chicago to Kingston we pay 124 cents per 100 pounds for milling in transit and about 20 cents per 100 pounds for local use.
Now the shipper fit Chicago can ship bis corn to Portland at G cents, but if it is stopped off iu Canada to be milled in transit, the Canadian miller lias to pay 124 cents per 300 pounds freight, and if be sells it for
local use, lie has to pay 20 cents.
' [DOT] [DOT]
It would look to the writer that Ontario was the dray horse for the Grand Trunk Railway and is paying the expenses of hauling this American corn from Chicago to the sea-board, or in other words,* is paying the expenses of hauling this American grain from Chicago to Europe, out of which we get nothing. Would it not be well to get a commission to inquire into this ?
Hitherto the lake freighters made a rate from Montreal independent of any railway rate. Last April the railroads decided to charge a certain rate of freight from Georgian hay to f.o.b. steamer, Montreal, but the lake boats came in and could afford to carry for considerably less money. The consequence was that the railroads, after waiting two or three weeks looking for business, and not getting it, made a rate equal to the lake freight.
However, they are doing better this year; they have succeeded in roping in the lake steamers, what we call package steamers, that are able to come through the Welland canal, and by doing so, they have established a rate of six cents per bushel on wheat from Fort William to the sea-hoard port of Montreal. This is about one cent to one and a half cents higher than they were able to do last year. This is certainly a tax on the Manitoba producer. As there are only a few boats of light draught that can make this trip through to Montreal, the railroads are able to control them, but if the Welland canal were deepened and enlarged, as i{ should be, so that a large steamer that carries 10,000 tons, or even half that amount, could come through to the port of Kingston and be discharged, there would easily be a saving of two and a half cents per bushel on the carrying charge. This is a very important thing for our country, and is more to us than any legislation that is now going through the House.
Now if that is the true state of affairs, and I am certain it is, because these millers are engaged in tlie business, they know what they are doing, they have to pay 124 cents to get corn from Chicago to their mill to be ground in transit, while that same corn can be carried through to Portland at 0 cents, and if they sell any to the Canadian people they have to pay 20 cents freight rate. It is the same thing on every line of goods manufactured in the country. We are paying for the short haul the same as on that carload of steel from Nova Scotia

to Brockville, 25 cents, and 12$ cents after sending it thirty miles further west. So it is on all the short hauls. I think this Railway Commission long before this date should have investigated and settled this matter to the benefit of the Canadian producer and Canadian shipper.


Mr. A. F. MACLAREN.: As I went fully into the question of freight rates two years ago, it is not my intention to take up much time of the House at present. I then gave quotations to the House very fully, before the commission was organized. At that time I asked that a commission should be organized to investigate these things, and I am very glad indeed that at last these matters are going to be referred to the Railway Commission. 1 want to speak very briefly with regard to some of the industries with which I am connected myself. As you all know,
I am connected largely with the cheese industry, and many people in my riding and north of the Grand Trunk and west of Toronto are very much interested in the rates on cheese. I may say that they are paying a very much higher rate of freight on cheese north of the Grand Trunk Railway and west of Toronto than they are paying 40 and 50 miles south. I only intend to give the House one or two figures to substantiate that statement. In Listowel, in my own county, where we often ship 10 and 15 carloads of cheese in a day, we are paying 7 cents per 100 pounds more than they are paying 40 and 50 miles south ; in fact, they are paying 7 cents from Windsor to the seaboard less than we are paying from any place north of the Grand Trunk in my county. They can get as much freight carriage from Windsor for 93 cents as we can for $1. The rate from London, Ingersoll and Woodstock is 7 cents Jess ; they pay 31 cents where we pay 38 cents to the sea-board. All we want is fair play, equal rights and equal rates. The farmers in my part of the country are complaining very bitterly in . regard to the very high rates of freight that they have to pay on the produce of the farm, and I think it is high time the Railway Commission was looking into this question. I think it is a very extraordinary thing that we should have to pay 7 cents more to ship cheese from points in my riding, as well as from Wingham, Lucknow, Kincardine, Harriston and other points in that district, -more than they have to pay to ship cheese from Windsor, London, Ingersoll and Woodstock, although about the same distance to the sea-board.
There is one other line that I want to speak about, and that is the cement indus try. I find that we are paying very high rates of freight on cement, and, as we all know, cement is an article that the farmers are very much interested in. I will give an example of some of the rates charged from different points in the province of Ontario :
Belleville and Trenton section

	Miles.	Rate, cents.
Thorold to Kingston..	
238	10Dumfries to Kingston.	
226	10Lakefield to Cornwall.	
225	9Durham to Belleville	
232	101Durham to Trenton..	10JWe think that rate	should be reduced to	10 cents. Oshawa-	Miles.	Rate, cents.Marlbank to Oshawa..	
137	8Marlbank to Lindsay..	
144	8Thorold to Port Hope.	
138	8Durham to Oshawa..	
152	
The rate from Durham should not be more than 8$ cents.
Now, we will take Toronto, which is a very important point. Toronto is to Durham what Montreal is to Lakefield and Marlbank, our largest eastern market. A comparison of the table below will show that an 8-cent rate is no more than equitable:
Toronto-
Lakefield to Toronto.
Lakefield to Kingston Marlbank to Montreal Durham to Toronto..
We think the rate from Toronto to Durham should be reduced to 8 cents. There is no reason why we should be robbed, because we think our dollar is just as good as the dollar of any person in any other part of the country.
Rate, Miles, cents. 293	9
122	71
235	9
119	9
Peterborough. Lindsay, Beaverton, Midland, Meaford, Perietang-	/
Rate, Miles, cents.
Marlbank -to Midland	
Marlbank to Sutton	
Lakefield -to Milverton	
Dumfries to Ma&oc	
Dumfries to Kingston	
Thorold -to Kingston	
Durham -to Lindsay	
Durham to Beaverton	
Durham to Peterborough ..	..
Durham to Midland	
Durham to Meaford	
Durham to Penetang	
219	10
206	10
205	10
203	10
226	10
238	10
188	101
190	11
221	10|
204	12
186	11
189	11
The less mileage the higher the rate, according to this. We think these rates from Durham should be reduced to not more, than 10 cents. .
Barrie-
Owen Sound to Beeton	
Owen Sound to Newmarket.. .. Durham to Barrie	
Rate, Miles, cents.
168	9
197	9
149	10
The shorter the haul the higher the rate.

Grave;! hurst to North Bay-
Rate, Miles, cents.
Marlbank to Gravenhurst .... 208	101
Marlbank to North Bay	
323	121Thorold to	Gravenhurst	
176	10Thorold to	North Bay	
291	12Durham to	Gravenhurst	
197	11Durham to	North Bay	
312	15
Three cents more than from Marlbank to North Bay, a shorter haul.
Woodstock to London-
Rate,
	Miles.	cents.
Thorold to Woodstock	. 83	6Durham to Woodstock	. 86	8Thorold to London	. 112	6Durham to London	. 96	8Now. we do not think that is equal rights,	or equal rates, or fair' play, else.	or anything	Niagara Falls to Sarnia Tunnel-	Rate,Miles.	cents.Lakefleld to Niagara Falls.. .	. 184	8Marlbank to Niagara Falls.. .	. 253	9Durham to Niagara Falls .. .	. 158	SDumfries to Sarnia	. in	6Thorold to Sarnia	. 171	7Durham to Sarnia	. 145	8Dumfries to Windsor	. 162	6Thorold to Windsor	. 222	7Durham to Windsor	. 206	8I am not going to take up	a lot of time	
giving these comparisons, although I might give them all. I think it is high time the Railway Commission looked into this matter.
Now. I want to say one word in regard to the farmers and the hard work they are doing in producing the commodities of the farm. The farmers of this country send their sons and daughters to farmers' institutes and to colleges to educate them in regard to the best methods of producing these commodities, but I think the farmers are the worst organized class of men for themselves on the face of the globe. I think that if they would meet together and consider what it costs to place their goods on the markets of the world, it would pay them to look into the matter very cai-e-fully and try to get equal rates and fail-play all along the line. The farmers in my section of the country are becoming very much interested, and they are beginning to consider the best means of placing their goods on the markets of the world at the least cost. Probably if we would talk more business in this House it would be better for the farmers of this country. I am very glad to know that this question has been brought before the Committee on Agriculture, and, although I mav be entitled to very little credit for it, I may say that I spoke on the question of transportation three years ago, and that I was the first person to suggest that this subject be taken up by the Committee on Agriculture. Some of my friends objected to it being brought before the Committee Mr. MACLAREN.
on Agriculture, but it is a question that I think properly comes within the sphere of that committee. I think that the lion. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) should look into these things, and try to devise means whereby the products of the farm mav be placed upon the markets of the world ill the most economical manner, and that he should see that the farmers of this country are not robbed from the freight-rate standpoint. The farmers in my part of the coun try wonder why their dollar is not as good as the dollar of people in the south. We find people in the south, in our own country, not in the United States, are getting for 93 cents what we are paying $1 for. I think it is time this matter was looked into in the interest of the farming community of this country. What we want is equal rates, equal rights and fair play.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into any comparison such as that made by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Maclaren) in regard to the importance of the discussion of the Autonomy Bill and compared with the question of freight rates. They are both important in their own way and their own spheres. Nor am X going to dissent from any proposal that may be made in this House having for its object the reduction of freight rates to the shipper, whether he be a farmer or whether he be a manufacturer. Nor, do I complain that the presentation of this case to the House is inopportune, because to my mind it is always opportune to ventilate a grievance here, and the opportuneness can best be measured by the extent of the grievance. But, I wish to call attention to the fact that the proposal now made to the House seems to me to be somewhat irregular, and I want to ascertain whether any good results are likely to flow from it. The object is to lower freight rates. It is generally admitted that ithe freight rates charged by railway companies in many cases are too high, and that there is not a fair rate charged in proportion to the length of the haul. But what do we expect to accomplish by the proposal now before the House ? We had an inquiry made by the Agricultural Committee which appointed a subcommittee to consider that matter, and the report of which subcommittee is transmitted to the House by the main committee. That report contains a schedule of freight rates which it recommends to the House should be sent to the Railway Commission. As I understand it, the duty of a committee of this House under its order of reference, is to secure all necessary data and information and to present its observations and recommendations to parliament. That is done for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of parliament, and in order that the government may take action upon it. Is not the government abandoning its functions when, instead of taking action on the report of a committee of the House, it

merely makes this parliament the medium for transmitting that report to a comparatively irresponsible body. The First Minister shakes his head at that. Let me ask the right lion, gentleman how far can that Railway Commission of its own mere motion, deal with the question we are submitting to it. Will he be good enough to tell me that. There are different classes of freight rates referred to in this report namely, local freight rates, freight rates from certain localities in Canada to a port of shipment for export, and most important of all a reference to the comparatively low freight rates that railway companies are charging on goods collected outside of Canada and hauled through Canada for export or delivery. If I understand correctly the duties of that railway commission it cannot deal with these rates at all.


Mr. EMMERSON.: It can.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what respect ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In this respect, that all such tariffs have to be filed with the Railway Commission, and if it were an American railway passing through Canada and carrying goods from an American point to another American point, they cannot carry them through Canada without paying duty unless the tariffs filed by them had first met with the approval of the Railway Commission. If my hon. friend will look at the provisions of the Railway Act, 1903, he will find that pointed out with great particularity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What section ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Section 269.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Section 269 reads :
As respects all traffic which shall be carried from any point in a foreign country into Canada, or from a foreign country through Canada into a foreign country by any continuous route owned or operated by any two or more companies, whether Canadian or foreign, a joint tariff for such continuous route shall be duly filed with the board.
That does not deal with the question. It only says that a joint tariff shall be filed ; it provides for what may be done by two railways but this is done by one railway.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: And besides there is no provision there with regard to customs duties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any penalty provided here against the railway companies if they fail to live up to this section ? it must be some other clause because this clause would not apply to the case I have mentioned. I understood from the explanation given by the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) that the Railway Commission was not intended to have the power to deal with through freight rates, and if that be so what is going to be accomplished by referring this report to the Railway Commission ? If the Railway Commission cannot deal with it what are you going to do ? Is it to be assumed by the Railway Commission tnat the schedule of rates contained in this report is stamped with the imprimatur of this House as being correct ? Is this Railway Commission of its own motion to take action on it without any instructions or without any complaint Ijeing made ? I have always understood that the Railway Commission would not take action without complaint being made ; and if that be so it does not appear to me that any good result can come from referring this report to the Railway Commission. I frankly confess that if the Railway Commission of its own motion could take action and force the railway companies to give fair rates, it would be well to have the matter brought before the Railway Commission at the earliest possible moment, but if that be not the case then it is mere child's play to send this report to them. But anyhow it seems to me that this reference amounts to the abandonment by the government of their functions. It is for the benefit of the government that this report of the committee has been submitted to this House, in order that the government may by legislation or otherwise provide a remedy, but under this suggestion we are shifting the responsibility from the government to the Railway Commission, and we are asking the Railway Commission to do what the government should do itself. We know that a grievance exists, and the question is, how shall that grievance be remedied. If by this means a remedy is not brought about, then it is only waste' of time to send the report to the Railway Commission. We can go over these irregular rates as much as we like ; we can quote them in this House and bring them to the attention of the country ; but if no practical good results from it, it is a waste of time.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Some years ago, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce ornamented this House with his person and his eloquence, he promised to have prepared and brought down a statement showing the various rates charged by all the railroads in Canada from centre to centre within Canada, from centres outside of Canada to points in Canada, and from points outside of Canada as well as points in Canada over Canadian roads to foreign ports. I have never yet seen that statement brought down, though it was promised some four years ago. I referred at that time to the question of grain rates, which eh icily interests the part of the country from which I come. Every day through the county which I have the honour to represent, we see passing train loads of grain which is carried from Chicago to the sea-board at the nominal rate of five cents per bushel. That [DOT]grain pays two cents for the water haul to Midland and three cents for the rail haul 1 from Midland to Montreal, whereas the

grain of the Canadian farmers from points along the Midland Railway to the sea-hoard has to pay three and sometimes four times as much as that three cents a bushel. That we have always claimed is a great injustice from the railways which have been built largely by moneys voted by the Canadian municipalities through which they run. I have complained of that again and again. At the time the Act for the creation of the Railway Commission was before this House I drew the attention of the House to the matter, and, if my memory serves me rightly, I was told that it was not intended that the commission should deal with the question of through rates from outside points through Canada over Canadian roads. I have no hesitation in saying that this condition of things is very unfair to the farmers of the Dominion of Canada, especially to the farmers of the province of Ontario, who above any other class in the Dominion have built their own railroads. The county of Victoria has voted hundreds of thousands of dollars to construct railroads in order that the farmers might have competition; but by legislation and amalgamation they have been deprived of competition and now they have to pay extra heavy rates. X maintain that this matter should be dealt with by the government and not referred to the Railway Commission. We do not object to the long haul rate being the same as 'the short haul, but we do object to the short haul rate being greater than the long haul. I trust that the government will take the matter into their consideration and put an end to the present unsatisfactory condition of affairs.


Mr. M. S. SCHELL.: I do not think thei'e is any doubt that the Railway Commission has power to deal with the matters under discussion. The commission already has dealt with the rates for the hauling of cattle from various points in the west to the sea-board. Evidently both the commission and the railway companies realize that they have the power to deal with this question. In many cases the railways discriminate against different sections of the country, and there is no question whatever that the Railway Commission has power to deal with that matter. In regard to the hauling of our live stock, especially to the sea-board, previous speakers have shown that the province of Ontario is very greatly discriminated against. The Michigan farmers have an advantage of at least three cents per hundredweight over the Canadian farmers, and the Grand Trunk railroad .cannot say that it is compelled by competition to give that advantage, because it draws this live	stock from non-competitive
points in Michigan, while it charges our Ontario farmers a flat rate of 25c. per hundredweight, covering a large area extending east to London. The worst feature of these railroad rates is the discrimination which is practiced as between different points in Ontario, -showing that the Mr, SAM. HUGHES.
rates have been devised with a view of getting as much as possible out of the people. For instance, take the article of lumber, which has not been referred to. From Wiar-ton and other northern points as far south as Palmerston the railroads will carry lumber to Montreal for 15c. per cwt. From points further south, such as Woodstock, Iugersoll, London and Simcoe they charge 18c. per cwt. They have a shorter haul and yet they charge three cents per cwt. more. The reason of that is I suppose that the rate was fixed some years ago because. of the water competition that existed from Wiar-ton and points adjacent. The hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Maclaren) gave instances of discrimination against the northern districts in favour of more southern districts in regard to the hauling of cement and the handling of cheese products.
So you see the rate is drawn up with a view really of getting as much as they possibly can out of the pockets of the farmers rather than with a view to giving a fair and equitable rate to all portions of the country. These are matters that we feel the Railway Commission should take in hand and deal with firmly and fairly. The railways will no doubt, put up as strong an opposition as they possibly can and they wall employ lawyers competent to handle these questions to go into the matter most thoroughly and most carefully, and the Railway Commission should have all possible information in regard to this question. Let us take for instance, the article of apples which has been referred to. We find that the rate charged on this class of freight for export is far in excess of the rate charged for other commodities of a similar nature. For instance, you have already had given you the figures "of what is charged for the export of grain and grain products ; flour in barrels for export is * charged for at the rate of 13 or 13i cents from the western portions of the province. We find that for apples, a commodity handled in a similar way, carried in barrels, the rate is 231 cents per 100 pounds, fully 30 per cent higher for apples, a commodity of less value although generally the railways fix their rates to some extent in relation to the value of the product. In this case the cheaper commodity is compelled to pay a higher rate by some 30 per cent than the rate charged for grain products. The railways I think are following this course to their own detriment. Last season the rate on apples for export was so high that there was no margin in the English market and thousands and thousands of barrels were allowed to go to waste in the orchards all over the province of Ontario. I am confident from what I know of the situation that fully one-half million barrels of apples were wasted last fall simply because the market prices in England would not pay their handling with the excessive freight rates that prevailed over our

railroads. I lhay say in this connection that while we claim that the rates for export are excessive, these are lower than the rates that prevail for domestic trade, especially for the shipment of goods to points west of Winnipeg. I want to emphasize this point that if the railroads would consider their interests there is no question whatever that they might reduce the rates on apples for export and thereby secure a much larger quantity of freight for export by bringing into the market the fruit that is now going to waste. Three or four years ago a similar condition prevailed when the markets in England were not very good and the excessive freight rates prevented the handling of any large quantities of fruit. I intimated that the rate was lower for export traffic than for local consumption. Your attention has already been called to the fact that the rate to [Montreal from western points is 28 cents per 100 pounds for local consumption, while for export it is 231 cents. We claim that that is too large a difference to be made against freight that is intended for consumption in our own markets. On shipments to any other point east of Montreal or to any other portion of the province a proportionately high rate would prevail as compared with the export rate. I would also call attention to the rate for shipment to Winnipeg. We find that the rate over our railroads is some 90 cents to Winnipeg, while for export to the European markets, London and Liverpool, the rate is only 98 cents and a fraction, and we claim that the rate to Winnipeg is out of proportion to the export rate. Another point to which we would direct the attention of the Railway Commission is the rate that is charged from Winnipeg to all points west of Winnipeg. The railroads give a through rate to Winnipeg but as soon as the goods arrive at Winnipeg, whether it'is apples or any other commodity that is being shipped, the railroads charge a local rate from Winnipeg westward ; they do not give a through rate to any point west of Winnipeg. That to our minds, is a very unfair condition of things. It does not matter whether it is apples, binder twine or agricultural implements, I understand, the same conditions prevail ; they give a through rate to Winnipeg, but a local rate is charged for every article of commerce forwarded to any point west of Winnipeg, and we desire that the attention of the Railway Commission be directed especially to that point. I wish also to refer to a matter touching the internal commerce ' oT the country particularly as touching manufacturing industries. Attention has ibeen called to the fact that rates are given American or foreign shippers sending goods into our own country very much lower rates than the rates that are given to the manufacturer or shipper of goods from points in our own provinces. If a manufacturer of lumber is shipping to Montreal 159
from St. Louis, Cincinnati or Chicago, he is given a very much lower rate over Canadian railways that a shipper of the same commodity living in Canada would receive. Your attention has been drawn to that by the figures presented by the hon. member.for East Kent (Mr. Gordon). I am not going into the figures because they are already before the House, and are there for the information of the commission, but I wish to emphasize this point that in giving a preference to American shippers, Canadian shippers are placed at a great disadvantage in competing against Americans handling a like commodity. Frequently I have had representations made to me from Montreal dealers in lumber that they could not get a rate anything like as favourarble as the rate that would be given to shippers from the cities of the United States. The matter is made very clear when we realize that the rates over our Canadian railroads for persons sending goods into our country from points in the United States are infinitely less than the rates given to any one shipping from one part of our country to another. It is altogether unfair that people living in our own country should be handicapped in this way. You will readily see that our manufacturers are placed at a disadvantage in competing with American manufacturers in regard to agricultural implements or other articles that may be shipped into our country. Reference has already been made to the fact of goods being shipped from Chicago to Toronto at a less rate than they are shipped from Windsor to Toronto or similar points in Canada. It will be seen on examining the figures presented to us that Canadians are discriminated against in this regal'd to an extent of a least 30 to 50 per cent. The elaborate figures that were presented to the House by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gordon) have shown this, and we would desire the commission to have this matter more thoroughly and most carefully inquired into, and we think they should be instructed by this House to deal with this matter firmly and fairly.
We do not wish to treat the railways unjustly. They will put the case as strongly as they can, and, no doubt, will claim that they can not carry Canadian goods as cheaply as they can American goods. But I do not think we should accept this as a reason for subjecting the traffic of Ontario to discrimination. Our railways have been subsidized very heavily, and Ontario, at least the southern portion of it, is thickly peopled and very productive, and we believe that railways are now receiving as large shipments, there area for area, as they receive in their territory on the other side of the line. Hence, if they put forward the argument that they cannot afford to reduce the rates, we shall be prepared to contend that that is not a fair and just argument. When they discriminate against



Canadians as' they do, we think there is strong ground for the contention before the Railway Commission that the rates should be made proportionate to those prevailing on the other side of the line. We know that the Interstate Commerce Act has had a good deal to do with compelling the railroads of the United States to bring their rates to a fair basis. We hope that our commission has the power to deal with this question, perhaps not as effectively as the Interstate Commerce Act provides, but still in a way to secure substantial justice from our railroad companies to those who do business with them. I shall not discuss the matter further, as I believe there are other members who wish to speak upon it. I trust they will emphasize the points already brought before the House. For, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. I am inclined to agree with the suggestion that has been made that it would be well if more time were devoted to subjects of this kind rather than so much time to the Autonomy Bill debate. I trust this matter will be dealt with promptly and effectively in the interest of all our producing classes, not only the farmers but the manufacturers as well. And we know that when you reduce rates you increase traffic. Therefore, we believe that our railroads will not suffer in the long run even if they do give us better rates, not merely rates more fairly adjusted, but lower rates for traffic to the sea-board and also, and especially, on goods for local consumption.


Robert Laird Borden: I have but few words to say, Mr. Speaker, on the subject, matter of this motion. For the purposes of the motion, I am prepared to concede that the report of the Committee on Agriculture is quite correct and that there are grievances which should be redressed. I shall not discuss that part of the question, as it has been dealt with by other speakers, some of whom at least have had the advantage of being members not only of the Committee on Agriculture but also of the subcommittee whose report has been adopted by the Committee on Agriculture as a whole. No doubt there is a good deal in what my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said with regard to the certain difficulties which present themselves in view of the provisions of the Act constituting the Railway Commission. Nevertheless, I think that as to some of the matters at least which are discussed in this report, the Railway Commission would undoubtedly have jurisdiction. Therefore there is no reason why the subject should not engage their attention. But what I particularly wish to suggest to the hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Eaurier) is a point of procedure. It seems to me that the means suggested by this motion for bringing the matter to the at-Mr. M. S. SCHELL,.
tention of the Railway Commission are rather irregular in form. The right hon. gentleman will observe that the report of the committee, after dealing at some length with the questions which have been discussed this afternoon, concludes as follows :
The committee recommend that this report, with the schedules annexed thereto, be referred to the Railway Commission of Canada for the commissioners' consideration and decision forthwith.
And then*the motion which is before the House is that the report be concurred in so far as it recommends the reference of this report to the Railway Commission. We are in this position, therefore, that without having the report of the Committee on Agriculture concurred jn by this House so far as its main features are concerned, we propose to pass a motion that that portion of the report which recommends the reference of the report to the Railway Commission should be concurred in. That seems to me to be rather involved. I should little doubt the propriety, as a matter of parliamentary practice, of referring that report to the Railway Commission even if it had been concurred in by the House. But certainly, until the report as a whole has been concurred in by the House, it seems to me a departure from the ordinary practice to make a motion of this kind. Suppose the report had been concurred in by this House, would it be in accordance with parliamentary usage to suggest that it should be referred to the Railway Commission ? That might be perfectly proper if there is anything in the Railway Act providing that the commission shall take action upon a report of the committee of this House concurred in by the House. I do not profess to be absolutely familiar with the provisions of the Railway Act, but according to my present recollection there is no provision in it which enables the commission to act upon the report of the Committee of Agriculture or any other committee of this House. Therefore, it seems to me, we should do no more by passing this motion than would be accomplished by an hon. member of the House simply inclosing a copy of^the report of the Committee on Agriculture to the Railway Commission in order that they might receive the suggestions therein contained. For, what would be the position ? Evidence has been taken before the Committee on Agriculture. I suppose it will not be suggested by anybody that that evidence could be acted upon by the Railway Commission without giving to the persons who would be affected an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce evidence on then-own behalf. The result would be that the commission would have to begin the matter de novo. They must act on the initiative of some person or on their own initiative. But there is a method provided in the Railway Act itself by which this matter, having been dealt with by a committee of the

House, could be brought to the attention of the Railway Commission in the ordinary course of procedure. The government in its relation to parliament acts as a committee of parliament. One of the regular standing committees of this House has made a report. That report, when concurred in, would operate as a recommendation by this House to the executive, the government of this country. Under section 45 of the Railway Act, 1903, the government can bring this matter to the attention of the Railway Commission. The following is the provision :
The Governor in Council may at any time refer to the board for a report, or other action, any question, matter, or thing arising, or required to be done, under this Act, or the Special Act, and the board shall without delay comply therewith.
I desire to repeat that I am in entire sympathy with the object of the motion so far as it is designed to bring these matters to the attention of the Railway Commission that it may take such steps as are necessary to redress any grievances that may exist. But I should think the proper course would be to have the report of the. Committee on Agriculture concurred in, if it be the pleasure of the House to concur in it, and then to have the government, under the provision of the Act to which I have referred, require the Railway Commission to investigate this subject and to take such action upon it as may be right in the judgment of the commission with a view to redressing the grievances complained of.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So far as material advantage is concerned, there could be no more important question, I think, brought to the notice of this House, and I am sure the members of the Agricultural Committee are to be congratulated upon the action they have taken. There is no question as to the mode of procedure, in my judgment, i think the committee have acted quite within their powers. They bring to the notice of this House certain grievances, and there is provided by an enactment of this parliament a procedure whereby action shall be taken. In the first place, the Railway Commission can act on its own motion, under the provisions of section 24 of the Railway Act which states :
The board may, of its own motion, or shall, upon the request of the minister, inquire into, hear and determine any matter or thing which, under this Act, it may inquire into, hear and [DOT]determine upon application or complaint, and with respect thereto shall have and may exercise the same powers as, upon any application or complaint, are vested in it by this Act.
There is also section 45 which says :
The Governor in Council may at any time refer to the board for a report, or other action, any question, matter or thing arising, or required to be done, under this Act, or the Spe-159i
cial Act, and the board shall without delay com-plv therewith.
Now certainly a resolution of this House should be taken cognizance of by the government, as well as by the Department of Railways, particularly when it refers to a matter relating to that department. I am sure that if this report is concurred in, and if this resolution is passed, there can be no question as to immediate action being taken, and there are certainly, it is admitted on all sides, grievances to be remedied with respect to these matters. Now the Railway Commission have very full and ample powers to deal with this matter. Reference has been made to the sections referring to tariffs. The board has complete power with respect to all tariffs. They certainly have power with respect to local tariffs ; and all tariffs whether they are joint tariffs, whether they are standard tariffs or local tariffs must be filed with the board, and must meet with the approval of the board, or it may disapprove of them. They can be amended, they can be entirely rescinded, they can be practically swept out of existence, and the board has power to make a new tariff entirely. So far as a continuous route involving a number of railways is concerned, the board have power to apportion to different railways along that route their quota of the entire freight rates from the point of embarkation to tbe point of destination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can tbe board compel a railway passing through Canada to post up its freight tariff, its through tariff of rates charged along that railway with regard to freight that does not originate in Canada, but which, originating outsiue of Canada, passes through Canada and is delivered to points outside of Canada V


Henry Robert Emmerson: Unquestionably they can, and I will give the law and the section empowering them to do so. Section 20'.) says :
As respects all traffic which shall he carried from any point in a foreign country into Canada, or from a foreign country through Canada into a foreign country by any continuous route owned or operated by any two or more companies, whether Canadian or foreign, a joint tariff for such continuous route shall he duly filed with the board.


Samuel Hughes: It does not speak of one railway only running continuously.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, but this is unquestionably with respect to two railways. Where it is one railway simply passing along through a strip of Canadian territory, I do not think there is any provision made, it does not stop, it goes through in bond, it is new traffic in Canada. So far as our neighbours to tbe south of us are concerned, it is simply American traffic coming to the border, running along in bond without ' stoppage, and going again into the United

States. That is a question with which we are not in any way affected, we are not interested.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister any authority, or has the government any authority, to publish the rates for any kind of traffic originating, say, in Chicago destined for Boston or New York, but passing through Canada over one or more rail- j ways 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, if it goes over more than one railway, it has, and if the hon. gentleman will refer to section 274 he will find the authority. I have stated that in so far as the freight goes over one railway it simply goes through in bond, and by fiction at least, it is in American territory all the way, it is considered as such.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister allow me a word ? It may be that the Grand Trunk Railway, although operating as one railway, is owned by a different corporation so far as its line in the United States is concerned, and by another corporation so far as its line in Canada is concerned, although it may come within the provisions of the section as amended.
Mr. EMiMERSON. Under subsection (f) of section 274 it will be seen :
Joint tariffs under section 269 at each freight station or office in Canada to which such tariffs extend.
That is to say, there shall be posted up at every station along the line copies of the tariff. Under section 274 :
The company shall deposit and keep on file in a convenient place open for the inspection of the public, during office hours, a copy of each of its tariffs at the respective places mentioned.
The section goes on to point out where that shall be kept on file, and where it shall be subject to inspection. Now that relates back to section 269, which makes provision with respect to traffic originating in a foreign country and passing through Canada by a different route. Certainly in so far as the Grand Trunk system is concerned, that would comprise two railways. The Grand Trunk Railway having freight originating at Chicago for Portland, for instance, would be obliged to have that tariff posted up at all convenient points named in the Act, they would have to file wtih the Board of Railway Commissioners that joint tariff, and it is subject to approval by the board. Now it seems to me the Act makes every provision for controlling tariffs or railways, whether as respects local freight rates or joint through tariffs.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Do I understand the minister to say that the Railway Commission has power to regulate the rates of the Grand Trunk, not only their freight rates Mr. EMMERSON.
in Canada, but their through rates, for instance, on freights originating in Michigan ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is what I state.


Edward Cochrane: I understood there was some difference of opinion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a question of law.
Mr. HAGGAItT. That is under clause 273 in regard to revising the tariffs-1 until such tariff is superseded or disallowed by the board.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of course the board has power to do that. If they file a tariff and the board takes no action, then, of course, that tariff has effect, but it is subject to the control of the board and therefore the board can regulate it. If the board takes no action, then, of course, that is a different phase of the question.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Em-merson) one question ? There is a provision in section 268, by means of the imposition of customs duties, for control over the tariffs mentioned in that section. I do not observe any similar provision made for enforcing the tariffs referred to in section 269. Do I make myself clear ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I see the point.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister said that there was some provision of that kind.
Mr. EMMERSuN. My impression was that there was a provision that where freight, en route, passed through Canada originating at a foreign point and destined to a foreign point they were required in that case, unless they complied with the tariff, to pay the customs dues. I was then speaking from memory but on closely reading the clause I find that it provides that :
Any goods carried or being carried from Canada through a foreign country into Canada, in violation of this section, shall, before being admitted into Canada-
Again that would be

be subject to customs duties, as if such
goods were of foreign production and coming into Canada for the first time, and, in case such goods are of a kind which would not otherwise be subject to any customs duties hereunder, shall be subject to a customs duty of 30 per centum of the value thereof.


Robert Laird Borden: They cannot do that in the same way, because, if the goods are coming in for consumption they must pay the duties in any case, but could you not make a similar provision by providing that if the tariff was not observed by the railway companies the goods should pay double customs duties or something of that kind ?


Mr. EMMEESON  .@: There might be a provision made of that kind, I apprehend, and I think there was, speaking simply from memory, hut, there is a remedy even in respect to these companies, and if any one will closely read the several provisions of the Act he will find that the Board of Railway Commissioners have a remedy even as against railways running through Canada with traffic originating in a foreign point and destined to a foreign point of which there are two. Now, this is a question that should be viewed purely from a business standpoint. I do not apprehend that any political aspect can be given to it, and I would be very sorry to see the matter viewed at all from that standpoint. Reference has been made by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) to a combination of railways and he referred to a joint tariff. There Is a provision in this Act whereby a joint through tariff can be arranged and agreed upon by the several railways in Canada, but that tariff must be subject to the approval of the Railway Commission ; that is to say, subject to their supervision and direction. They can control it, they can annul it, and it is entirely under then-direction if they see fit to exercise their powers under this Act.


George Taylor: Then I might ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals if he thinks it right that they should fix a rate of 6 cents on corn from Chicago to Portland and of 124 cents to Kingston ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend asks me that question. I am not familiar with the tariff from these different points, but I know that my hon. friend has quoted certain tariffs and has stated that the freight rates have been increased. Speaking on the authority of those who have to do with these matters, I stated on a former day in this House, and I now repeat, that freight rates on the Intercolonial have not been increased. I shall take occasion to inquire into the statements made by the hon. gentleman in respect to certain freight rates on the Intercolonial from western points to Fredericton, N.B., as compared with the rates charged over the Canadian Pacific Railway. Certainly the matter has never been brought to my attention and as far as I have any information on the subject at all it is that the rates are uniform, notwithstanding the fact that the Intercolonial Railway has to carry a somewhat greater distance. Combinations of railways can be controlled by the Railway Commission. There cannot be such a thing in Canada as a combination on the part of railways for the simple reason that the commission can annul or rescind the tariff of these railways and they can themselves, in place of the tariff that has been rescinded, originate and create a tariff of their own. They can also say as to what proportion shall go to this railway and what
proportion shall go to that. They have the right to determine as to the total freight rate from the point of shipment to the point of destination, and as well they have the right to determine as to the apportionment of the total among the different lines of railway over which the traffic may be hauled. My hon. friend cited an instance and gave figures as to certain charges from Sydney to Brockville and he also quoted certain freight rates from Brockville to Pittsburg. Pennsylvania.


George Taylor: Brockville to Gananoque.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is immaterial- Brockville to Gananoque.


George Taylor: No, it is not immaterial. The rate from Sydney to Brockville is 25 cents and from Brockville to Gananoque, a distance of thirty miles, 124 cents is added to that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You there get the local rate and it is governed by the want of competition. But, my hon. friend said that he could ship from Brockville to Pittsburg at a very much less rate. Unquestionably. The distance from Brockville to Pittsburg is less than 600 miles while the distance from Brockville to Sydney is, I think, 1,036 miles. By the longest route, the Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburg road, the distance to Pittsburg is 598 miles. There is a more direct route than that. That is a round about route by way of Rochester passing through Bradford and Alleghany city to Pittsburg. So you have a haulage of 1,036 miles on the one hand as against a haulage of 598 miles on the other. It would be idle to compare rates when there is such a discrepancy as to distance.


George Taylor: What I complain most of is hauling it over 1,000 miles for 25 cents and then hauling the same car without unloading thirty miles further and then charging 12* cents.
Mr. EMMKIbON. That is by reason of the local raw


George Taylor: Then why should the Railway Commission allow such a local rate ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know that the matter has been brought to the notice of the Railway Commission. Let me say this on behalf of the Railway Commission, that they certainly have, taking into consideration the conditions under which they have worked since their organization, gotten through with a tremendous amount of work. I think I brought to the notice of the House on a former occasion the number of orders which the Railway Commission had passed, ex parte orders in the main-at least the major portion of them were ex parte orders -but a very large portion of them were contested cases. The contested cases have, I think, exceeded 100; the uncontested cases were away up in the hundreds ; and

if I mistake not, and I speak subject to correction, the number of orders issued was in the vicinity of 800. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) says that in the Railway Act he finds provision for protecting the railways against fraud and dishonesty, but that nowhere in the Act is there protection for the shipper. The cases are not at all analogous. The shipper has his remedy in law against the railway company, just the same as any person doing business has his remedy against the party with whom he deals. The provisions in the Railway Act against fraud and dishonesty in classification and weight are placed there largely to avoid the necessity of having goods held up at certain points to be subject to thorough investigation by the officers of the company and to prevent the delays that would ensue. The railway companies are common carriers subject to the common law, and, having certain responsibilities upon them, they have a right in the public interest to be protected. It is the same protection that has been accorded them for years, and it is the same protection that is accorded to them in all countries.


Edward Cochrane: What has all this to do with lowering the freight rates ? The complaint is that the farmers of this country are charged unfair rates and are not properly protected, and it appears to me that a shipper might be protected when a farmer would not be protected at all. As I understood the minister, he said the farmers had nothing to do with it, but I can tell him that it is the farmer that has to pay the freight rates in the end. If the Minister of Railways is a farmer in Michigan and I am a farmer in Canada, and he can send his produce through Canada to Portland or Boston at a less rate than I can send my products to Montreal, then I am at a disadvantage and cannot compete with him. The consumer is not affected and the shipper is not affected, but it is the farmer who is injured in trying to get his goods to the foreign market.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not disputing the position taken by my hon. friend, but we were discussing the carriage of freight through Canada to the sea-board on a continuous line of railway ; and if the shipper is not affected, then my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) will have to settle the question with my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor).


Edward Cochrane: The member for Leeds or the member for East Northumberland cannot settle it, but the .Minister of Railways can, and the blame is on him if he does not settle it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am afraid my hon. friend is unduly absolving himself from responsibility.


Edward Cochrane: Well, 1 will change places with you and take the responsibility, and settle it, too.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) has a certain amount of responsibility as a representative of the people, and he cannot unload it on to my shoulders or on to the shoulders of the member for Leeds. The hon. member for Leeds raised the question, and I do not say he improperly raised it, as to the distinction between the railways and the shippers.


George Taylor: I referred to the fact that the railway companies have notified the shippers that if they give improper weights or classification they will be subject to penalties under the Railway Act. The railway companies can protect themselves, for they have the classification and they have the scales to weigh the goods. The Minister of Railways says that the receiver of goods from a railway company can protect himself by law, but how can he ? Two years ago I received from Tennessee a carload of rims stripped, and when we weighed it it was
5,000	pounds short. I put in a claim to the railway company for a drawback, but they said it had been weighed on some railway connection in the United States and they refused to pay. Two or three months ago a carload came to us, and I know there were several thousand pounds short, and although we were badly in need of the goods we had to dicker with the railway company for several months, and finally they said : Put on a man and we will put on a man and settle the matter, and when that was done it was found to be 10,000 pounds short. If I had paid that money, how could I collect from a railway company away down in Tennessee ? I would bring a man forward to swear that the weights were not correct, and they would bring a man to swear that the weights were correct. I have claims standing for four or five years against railway companies, and I cannot get them paid. It is the shippers who need protection, and not the railway companies.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) purchased a ton of hay from a neighbour and sent his team to get it, and it was afterwards found that there were only 1,740 pounds in it instead of 2,240, he would have his remedy against the vendor.


George Taylor: That man is in Canada.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So he is ; and the railway company, to whom he paid his money, is in Canada. If by misrepresentation or mistake he is called on to pay more money than he rightly should, he has eertain-1.' a remedy against the party to whom he paid that money. My hon. friend says that one man would swear one thing and another man would swear another thing. The point is :	Is there less weight ? If
there is, that is capable of being demonstrated, and my hon. friend would have his remedy, as people have their remedies in all walks of life and all business transactions occurring daily throughout the country.


George Taylor: But the railway company have the power within their own hands tc make the right classification and to make the weight right before they deliver the goods. They can collect the money as they go along.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But my hon. friend forgets that they can only make that classification in accordance with the statute. It can only be done with the approval of a tribunal appointed by the parliament of Canada, namely, the Railway Commission.


George Taylor: But why does the parliament of Canada put a penalty on the shipper who sends out a box of goods marked as weighing 200 pounds that weighs only 150 pounds, when the railway company has the power to fix the right weight ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The penalty is fixed, not for misunderstanding, but for wilful fraud. That is an element that has to be taken into consideration, and the penalty is enforcible only under these conditions. It is true, there may be some error in respect of weight, but that can be remedied, as it always is remedied when it is demonstrated between individuals. I need not speak further with respect to the matter. We must all bear in mind that so far as Canada is concerned, indeed, so far as this continent is concerned, the Act of 1903, is practically experimental. It was,
I think, very wisely drawn. It is not a perfect Act; we do not have such even in this twentieth century ; but we are enjoying it as an experiment at least, and, in so far as the results are concerned, if general observations and the testimony of people who have had some experience of the operations of the commission are of any value, it has been productive of much good it the people of Canada. The questions they have decided with respect to level crossings and other crossings, with respect to disputes between railways and between shippers and railway companies-all these things go to. show that the Act has been of material advantage to the people of Canada, even though it has been in operation only a few months, although probably two or three years would demonstrate more clearly its advantages. IV e should not forget that in the light of experience we can act; and, if the provisions of this Act do not meet the conditions in Canada to-day, it is with-'n the power of this parliament to make the necessary amendments covering all these difficulties, and remedying the grievances which may exist.


Mr. W. P. COCKSHUTT.: 
Mr.  P. H.@: McIvENZIE. I may say that when the subcommittee took this matter up and looked into it, they very soon became convinced that it was impossible for them to furnish the information covering the whole country in the short space of time allotted to them. In speaking to the motion, I said that the Railway Commission were dealing with this matter, and while they were doing so we wanted to give them our evidence. We therefore thought it advisable to take some special farm products in Ontario as examples, and with that we left it. Cement was spoken of by Mr. Maclaren, who was interested in it, and being on the committee was allowed special license in regard to it.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course that may be the exact reading of it, but it does not seem to me that this is the case we want to get at, the question whether a road is operated by two companies or one. The question to which I wish to get a reply is:	Can the
Railway Commission compel one or two companies, as the case may be, which handle goods collected in the United States and which pass through Canada to another point in the United States, upon which a lower freight rate is charged than the same company exacts on goods collected in Canada and conveyed to that same point, to reduce their freight rates to the same proportionate rate as is charged on the same class of goods collected in American territory.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say that the commission has power to deal with a rate on freight from an American point to another American point even if it passes through Canada. I am not prepared to say that, but I have no doubt that the commission can take that rate of freight into its consideration when it authorizes a rate in Canada and can regulate its rate in Canada in accordance with justice by comparing the rate with that charged from one American point to another. I think in that way the commission has absolute power over the rates from any Canadian point to any point elsewhere and therefore it has practical power to deal with rates from Canadian points to outside points in comparison with or in relation to the rates from points in the United States to other points in the United States. To that extent I have no doubt whatever that they have the whole power and I think that answers the objection which the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) seems to take.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That answers the objection fully, because if I understand correctly in the schedule of rates that was given many of these quotations referred to freight collected in the west and carried through Canada consigned to points in the United

States in the east, and as I understood the explanation of the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) when this Bill was under discussion, we could not deal with or control through freight rates. Believing that, it seems to me this could not be worked out, but if the commission has the power to deal with it it can be worked out.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What the ex-Minister of Railways no doubt meant was that the commission had no power to control rates from one point in the United States to anther point in the United States, in which he was correct, but when dealing with a rate from one Canadian point to another the commission has the power and it may utilize its knowledge of the American rates in regulating the rate to another Canadian point and therefore the knowledge of these facts which under the Act the railway company is obliged to supply to the commission if it passes through Canada is useful as a guide and help in regulating or deciding the rate from a point in Canada to another point in Canada or to a point outside of Canada. My hou. friend will see that the Railway Commission has absolute control over all freight rates in Canada; it can authorize a tariff or change of tariff or fix a tariff, and if it finds at any time that circumstances and conditions have changed and that any tariff is no longer working justly it may then cancel that tariff and substitute another. It has, therefore, I think absolute and complete control over a tariff of rates in Canada. But I would like to point out that the Railway Commission is composed of men. The Railway Commission can only do a certain amount of work within a certain period of time. The Railway Commission, to my personal knowledge, has been working extremely hard on its work and an enormous number of questions have been submitted to it. It has had to deal for the 'first time in the history of Canada with an enormous mass of tariff questions, of railway freight questions, and I had myself no conception until it was brought to my attention of the immense complication of tariff rates and of the enormous difficulty there is in dealing justly and fairly with them. It is a very intricate question, so intricate that it has been found necessary by the great railway companies to appoint special agents, men of special qualifications, men who are difficult to find and who, when found, must be paid the highest salaries of any men employed by a railway company, with the exception possibly of the president. It is a very complicated question and it is impossible that the Railway Commsision at one blow or in a few months could overcome the difficulties of this work and establish an absolutely fair set of rates all through the country at one fell swoop. It will take time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not making complaint with regard to the time.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not say that my hon. friend was complaining. But I point this
out in justice to the Railway Commission and to the House. The Railway Commission have not to deal with the freight rates alone. They have to deal with difficulties that have arisen between municipalities or corporations and the railways, with difficulties that have arisen among the railways themselves concerning conflicting interests and conflicting claims. And while, the freight rate question should be dealt with in the interest of the public and is probably the most important question which will come before the Railway Commission; there are other questions which the members of the commission cannot ignore but which they must deal with. I think the members of the Committee on Agriculture are to be congratulated on bringing this question in this way before the House and preparing for the reference of it to the Railway Commission. I am satisfied that the Railway Commission will take the matter up and deal with it as promptly as possible, and I think that the form in which it is put before the House will accomplish the object in view, which is so important in the interest of the farmers. I may say, in regard to that, that while the committee has been dealing simply with one phase of this question as affecting particularly western Ontario, there is no doubt that there are questions of a similar character affecting other parts of the country ; and I think it would be well for the Committee on Agriculture, on a future occasion, perhaps at another session, if it is not possible to take it up this session, to take up other branches of this question and deal with them in the same way as in this case. I would say in this respect that the eastern parts of Canada also suffer from discrimination and difficulties in regard to freight rates, perhaps, just as greatly as the farmers of western Ontario, though we do not happen to have exactly the same relationship towards the farmers of the United States that the farmers of western Ontario have. These things are work for the future, and I hope they will be taken up and dealt with in the same manner as in this case.


William Foster Cockshutt: I would like to ask if the Railway Commission have power to deal with the rates in a case where a steamship company and a railway company combine to give the rate. I have known cases in which the rate from Liverpool through to Brantford or London has been less than from Montreal to the same points, the rate for the short haul being actually greater than for the long haul. Have the commission power to deal with such a case ?
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ALEX. MARTIN.: I desire to say a few words to the House on this very im-

portant question regarding discrimination in freight rates. It has been suggested by the chairman of the committee that the scope of this report should be confined principally to one province. I think to do so would be to take a very narrow view of the transportation question in Canada. You will agree with me, I think, Mr. Speaker, that it concerns more than one province, and that while discriminations and anomalies may exist in freight rates all over Ontario, they exist equally in other sections of this great Dominion. Those gentlemen who are suffering from these grievances have my sympathy, as I am sure they have the sympathy of every well wisher of Canada. But I wish to point out, and I would be remiss in my duty if I tailed to point out to this House that in the maritime provinces, and especially in my own province of Prince Edward Island, there are anomalies and discriininaations in railway rates much heavier and more disadvantageous than any which have been referred to yet. I will mention only one or two items at present, as probably this question will come up again and be discussed more fully at another time. Borne reference has been made to freight rates on cattle. Now I would like to point out that a carload of cattle, say twenty head, can be taken from Guelph, Ontario, and landed in Halifax for the -sum of $65, that is a distance of over 1,000 miles. But down in Prince Edward Island, to take a car of cattle from a point on the Prince Edward Island Railway to Halifax will cost $70, and the distance is less than 200 "u'ies. When a farmer in Prince Edward Island wants to ship a car of cattle to Truro, or or even to Pictou, from some points on the Prince Edward Island Railway he has to pay as high as $05. Reference lias also been made to the discriminations in freight rates on grain, and I will give an instance in that line also. At present you can take a car of grain 1,300 miles west of Nova Scotia down to Pictou, a car containing
2.000	bushels, and it will cost you $142, or a little over a third of a cent a ton per mile. But in my own itrovince, if you want to -send the same quantity of grain,
2.000	bushels of oats from a point on the Prince Edward Island Railway either to Truro or Halifax, you have to pay $100 in winter and $S0 in summer. So that, whereas you can get a carload of grain carried over 1,000 miles from the west to the maritime provinces for $142, in the province I have the honour to come from you have to pay $80 for carrying it 200 miles. I could multiply instances of the same character. In fact every thing as a province we have to ship, but I call the attention of the chairman of the committee to these instances only, with the hope that he will not confine the scope of this investigation to one province. I trust that when these discrim-


Alexander Martin: inations that have been mentioned by other speakers are referred to the Railway Commission, it will also take into account anomalies which exist in regard to all the other provinces, east and west, from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island. I think those two instances alone will satisfy any lion, member that they require the attention of the Railway Commission with a view to remedying the grievances which they indicate. It was not at first my intention to speak on this subject, but when I heard several lion, members mention -the discrimination which they declared to be burdensome in their provinces, I could not help refering to much more serious grievances in my own province. I think, Sir, that this is a very important subject, and I agree with the remark that it is of equal importance to the subject of separate schools which this House has been discussing for five or six weeks. I hope this government wil lake up this question seriously, with a view of remedying the grievances complained of.


Mr. R. N. WALSH.: Before this discussion closes, I would like to say a few words on the same line as the hon. member who has just preceded me (Mr. A. Martin). When this matter was taken up before the Agriculture Committee it covered the subject of freight rates over the whole Dominion. To facilitate the work of the committee, a subcommittee was appointed, who took up the question of freight rates confining it practically to Ontario. When their report was presented I took exception to it, because I knew that discriminations existed in the other provinces. I was met with the statement that the work of the committee was only to establish that discriminations existed by getting some evidence. Then, when the matter came before the House it would establish that discriminations existed and when the evidence went before the commission we would all have a chance from our various provinces of presenting evidence. I am anxious that this matter be looked into from the position of the province of Quebec. I have been waiting for somebody better qualified to speak in regard to the province of Quebec than I am, but as nobody has done so I wish to bring up a case that we have been complaining of. I will give an instance which exists in my own county. From the village of Hemmingford to the city of Montreal the distance is forty-four miles. The rate charged on a carload of apples is forty dollars. I have letters from people in that vicinity complaining very much about it. As my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) said this afternoon probably we do not appreciate the effect of American competition as they do in the west, but what we object to is the discrimination of our own railways. It exists in this way that from any place that is near the

water front where there is competition with the boats, the rates are much more favourable than they are from a place such as I have mentioned where it is impossible to get competition. The freight must go by the Grand Trunk Railway ; consequently, there is discrimination in rates. Before this goes before the Railway Commission I would like it to be stated and understood that this discrimination extends all over Canada so that when we present our evidence to the commission we may have a resolution backing us up. We are willing to present our evidence but we do not want it stated to the commissioners that this House considers that discrimination in rates exists only in the province of Ontario. We want it understood that it exists all over so that we may have an opportunity of presenting our evidence.


Mr. H. H. MILLER.: Mr. Speaker, I think the subject now before the House is one worthy of the attention of every member of this House. The hon. member for Queen's, P.E.I. (Mr. Martin) has complained, as have some other hon. gentlemen, that attention has been given exclusively to the matter of freight rates as it concerns the province of Ontario. I am sure that it was not the intention of the special committee appointed by the Committee on Agriculture to give particular attention to this matter in one province more than in another, but it was felt that some report had to be brought in, and brought in quickly, to be of any use for the purpose of the Railway Commission. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), in his address, spoke in rather a complaining way because the Railway Commission had not acted very quickly and applied remedies before this. I do not think the Railway Commission is deserving of censure or blame in this matter, I do not think that the people of this country, I do not think that the farmers of this country, have the idea or the desire that the Railway Commission shall be used simply as a means of attack upon the railway companies. I do not think that we desire to have any treatment from the railway companies beyond that which is reasonable and fair. We ask that they shall accord us as shippers of freight treatment that is reasonable and right, and we are willing to accord to the railway companies in return treatment that is right and equitable, as far as they are concerned. In order to arrive at a conclusion as to what is right and just and fair, a great deal of evidence will have to be obtained. This evidence will have to come from a large area. Evidence will have to be heard from many persons, and evidence will have to be heard for and against. This will take time and occasion delays. We not only desire to do what is right and fair to all concerned, but we realize that if this parliament, or if the Railway Commission, should impose unreasonable burdens upon the railway companies, or if they
should restrict or interfere with the business of the railway companies, or reduce their freight rates so that their income, with reasonable management and proper economy, would not yield a reasonable return upon the money invested, the result would be, not only disastrous to the interests of the railway companies, but disastrous to the best interests of the people of this country. Therefore, we only desire and expect and ask for treatment that shall be fair and right. It may be thought by some that a matter of freight that can only make a difference in the price of a bushel of grain of probably a cent, or a fraction of a cent in the price of a pound of beef, is, after all, a very trifling matter, but we must remember that the farmer is a manufacturer, that there is a cost price upon every article that he manufactures or sends to market. We must remember that the farmer supports his family, carries on his business and pays his debts, not from the gross price of the articles or commodities that he sells, but from the narrow margin that he may look upon as profit, as part of the price that is over and above the cost of that production, and on one cent a bushel, or a fraction of a cent per pound in the price of the beef cattle that he sells, or the price of his land or dairy products, forms a very large proportion of the margin of profit. I believe, Sir, that our farmers are -equal in intelligence, and equal in so far as their habits of industry, economy and thrift are concerned, to the farmers of any other part of this globe; but I do believe that if they are handicapped by unfair and unreasonable freight charges, it will be the duty of every member of this House to lend whatever assistance he can, and to use whatever influence he may possess in any reasonable way to remove that handicap, and place our farmers upon an equal footing with the farmers in the country to the south of us. As a further evidence, if further evidence be required, of the lack of method or system, and I think I may say lack of fairness, in imposing freight rates, I might read a letter, dated the 25th of this month, and addressed to the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. McKenzie). The hon. member for South Bruce had intended reading this letter when he spoke upon this subject, but inadvertently omitted to do so. *The letter is addressed by Mr. John Toliuie, of the Ontario People's Salt and Soda Company of Kincardine, and is as follows :-
Kincardine, Ont., 25th April, 1905. Peter McKgnzie, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
My Dear Sir,-Last week we shipped a car of salt to William Simpson, Ridgetown. The usual rate was five cents per hundred pounds on the Grand Trunk Railway to St. Thomas and two cents per hundred pounds on the Michigan Central Railway from St. Thomas to Ridgetown, and while the Grand Trunk Railway only charges the five cents as formerly the Michigan Central Railway charged six cents per hundred

pounds, making a total of eleven cents against seven cents, the former rate. Thus the Grand Trunk Railway carried this freight 116 miles for five cents iper hundred pounds, and the [DOT]Michigan Central Railway charged six cents for 44 miles. Would you he kind enough to draw the attention of the House to this state of affairs, and also to one of the members of the Railway Commission and greatly oblige.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) JOHN TOLMIE,
Secretary.
Sir, it is only one other item of evidence that as has been stated by the previous speakers, the rate upon cattle shipped froiti Port Huron to Montreal is 22 cents per 100 pounds, while the rate on cattle shipped from Sarnia, on the eastern side of the river, is 25 cents per 100 pounds. I would like to read from the statement made by Mr. Loud, who represented the interests of the railway companies before the Railway Commission in Toronto, last Tuesday. One short paragraph reads as follows :-


John W.: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. H. GERVAIS.: I beg leave to move, seconded by Mr. Schell and with the consent of this House :
That the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of this House be taken up for consideration, and that the same be now concurred in.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I would observe to my hon. friend that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) objected to the report being taken up at this sitting.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I have shown the report to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and have explained its contents to him, and I think he is now ready to withdraw his objection. I think the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) wiii bear me out in that.


Mr. BERGERON.: I understand that to he so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R, L. BORDEN asked :
1.	Who are or were the contractors for the construction of the pier at or near Fort Lawrence, in the county of Cumberland, Nova Scotia ?
2.	Has the work been completed ?
3.	If not, when will it be completed ?
4.	What amount has been paid to the contractors up to the present time ?
5.	What is the amount or estimated amount of the contract 1
Hon. II. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Messrs. Lyons & White.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	$13,260.	)
5.	$14,895.


ST. PETER'S BREAKWATER.
Mr.   A.@: MARTIN-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1.	Were tenders called for work on the St. Peter's harbour breakwater, in Prince Edward Island ? If so, when ?
2.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tendeT ?
3.	Whose tender was accepted ?
4.	Was any deposit put up by the party to whom the contract was given ? If so, what was the amount of the deposit ?
5.	Is the work being proceeded with ? If not, why not ?
6.	Has the contractor asked to be relieved of his contract ? If so, has the government granted his request ?
7.	If the contractor has been relieved of his contract, has he forfeited his deposit ? If not, why not ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Robert N. Cox and Kimble Webster, $9,281 ; Thomas Campbell, $14,600.
3.	4, 5, 6 and 7. Contract was not let and new tenders are being called for.


MO REEL RIVER BRIDGE.
Mr.   A.@: MARTIN-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1.	Have any complaints been made to the government with reference to the placing of the railway bridge at the mouth of the Mor-ell river, in Prince Edward Island, and to its interference with navigation?
2.	What is the depth of water at the mouth of the Morel! river, and also for three or four miles up the river from its mouth ?
3.	Has any dredging been done at the mouth of the Moreill river ? If so, when, at what cost, and for what object?
4.	If the bridge is an interference with navigation, what action does the government propose to take to remove the difficulty ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Channel dredged at mouth of river to 8 feet. No information in department as to depth of water up river.
3. Dredging done from September 11th to November 27th, 1903, and from May 14th to August 12th, 1904 ; amount expended to 30th of June, 1904, $1,967.13; dredging channel to 8 feet through, mud fiat at mouth of river.
4.	A new bridge arranged so that it can be opened to let vessels pass through lias been contracted for.


THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not there is any truth in the rumour which has come from several different quarters that the Minister of Public Works has tendered his resignation as a minister of the Crown ?


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no truth in the statement.	-


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


RAILWAY COMMISSIONER BRUNET.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask whether or not there is any truth in a similar rumour which has prevailed for some time with regard to Commissioner Brunet of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. It has been rumoured for some time that his resignation has been given or is at the service of the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is equally no truth in that.


NOVA SCOTIA SUPREME COURT.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know from the right hon. the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there has been a vacancy in the bench of the Supreme Court of the province of Nova Scotia for about fifteen months ; that is to say, for some fifteen months there have been six judges in that court instead of seven. The chief justice resigned in January or February, 1904, and Mr. Justice Henry resigned in February, 1904. The vacancy created by the latter resignation was filled by the appointment of Mr. Fraser, of this House, and a month or two ago the vacancy created by the resignation of the chief justice was filled by the appointment of Mr. Justice Weatherbee. In the meantime, nearly a year ago, Mr. Justice Ritchie died, and a vacancy was thus created ; so that from January or February, 1904, up to the present time there have been six judges only of that court instead of seven, as the law requires. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is the reason of the delay in filling tlie vacancy and when it is proposed to fill it ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to siy that I cannot give an answer to my hon. friend to-day, but perhaps at some later time I may be able to gratify bis legitimate curiosity.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I trust that it will be inside of the next fifteen months.


THE COMMISSIONER SHIP OF THE YUKON.
Robert Laird Borden: If I am not displaying a curiosity that is altogether too fastidious, might I be permitted to ask whether or not the vacancy in the Commis-sionership of the Yukon created by the resignation of Mr. Congdon, in November last, has been filled, and if it has not been filled, whether it is the intention of the government to fill it, and at what date ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Colonel Wool, who is the commander of the Mounted Police in the Yukon, is now acting as commissioner. As he is performing the duties satisfactorily, it is not the intention, at the present moment at all events to replace him.


Robert Laird Borden: He is filling tlie position, not as permanent commissioner, but as acting commissioner ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Yes.


PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Archibald Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in resuming the discussion on this question, which has been engaging the attention of the House so long, it would be a bold man indeed who would be expected to say anything new upon the subject. It has been discussed in every possible phase, and the arguments both pro and con which have been presented have left very little to be said. However, on such an important issue as this, one hesitates to give a silent vote, and therefore at the risk of wearying the House I shall crave its indulgence for a very short time. There is one thing very gratifying in the two Bills now before the House. I do not think anything could illustrate better or afford a stronger evidence of the great prosperity and the wonderful development of this country. We are undertaking by these Bills'to create two new provinces in the great Northwest, which a few years ago was scarcely known to civilized man, where the Indian and the Buffalo were the only dwellers- in those vast regions of wonderful extent, of immense resources, of almost incredible possibilities. Nothing could warrant that but the great progress that is taking place and the stream of immigration that is going into that country, owing to the wise administration of the department by the late Minister of the Interior, and also as a tribute to the wise statesmanship of the worthy premier who guides the destinies of this country.
When we look around us it is almost incredible that such great changes should have taken place in the last ten years in this Dominion- We find that our trade has more than doubled, we find our young men instead of fleeing from this country as from a plague, now remaining in it and going out to build up homes for themselves in the Northwest. Not only that but we find a stream of immigration 150,000 strong coming into this Dominion every year with strong arms and stout hearts to build up and develop the immense resources of the Northwest. That development is one of the most gratifying things to which the people of Canada can look forward and as I said before the necessity for creating these new provinces could only be brought about by the wonderful development that has taken place and the marked progress
that has been going on for the last few years. This parliament is now charged with a very important duty. We have to give these new provinces a certain constitution ; we have to define the powers, and privileges which they shall possess. First we have to decide whether there shall be one or two new provinces. The government of this country have decided that their shall be two provinces. Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Northwest differs from that decision and thinks that there should be only one, but in my opinion the government in coming to the conclusion that that vast region should be divided into two provinces has made a wise decision, a decision that I am sure will meet with the approval of not only the members of this House but of the great majority of the people of the Dominion of Canada. We have other things to do. We have to decide what the boundaries of those Territories shall be. We must take these immense regions, these vast and boundless prairies with their rivers, streams and lakes, their mountains, hills and valleys, rich in mineral wealth, rich in agricultural resources, 500,000 square miles of territory and say where those boundaries shall be. I think the government have been wise in deciding that the boundaries shall be as is provided in the Bill. We have also to decide what disposition shall be made of the public lands. Here we And that the premier of the Northwest Territories and some members of this House differ from the decision arrived at by the government. The government have decided that tlie lands of the great Northwest shall be held by the Dominion of Canada. Mr. Haultain and some others believe that those lands should be handed over to the people of the Northwest Territories. For my part I quite concur in the decisioii arrived at by the government that the Dominion lauds should be vested in the Dominion parliament as they are the best able to manage and take care of these lands. Then we have many other things to decide ; we must decide whether these provinces should have any representation in this House or in the Senate and if so what that representation should be. The government have decided that for tlie present they shall have four members in the Senate and the usual proportionate number in the House of Commons. Then we have also to decide^ where the seat of government should be. We have in that respect provided only temporarily that the seat of government should be at Regina and Edmonton until otherwise decided by the provinces themselves. Then we have to decide whether eacli of these provinces shall have one or more legislative assemblies. Three provinces of this Dominion have two chambers, a legislative assembly and also a Senate. The government has decided that there shall be only one chamber in the new provinces in the Northwest. Perhaps the people of the

Northwest if left to themselves might decide to have two, but we have fixed it that there shall he only one legislative assembly. We have also to decide what the laws and courts shall be, what rules and regulations shall govern in the courts, what their rights shall be as to property and civil rights, the administration of justice, and so forth. The government have, I think wisely, in this Bill provided that all the laws and courts and officers shall be continued as they are at present, leaving it to the provinces to finally decide or to make any other provision that seems to them best. We have also to decide what shall be done with the Hudson Bay Company's privileges. We did not leave that to the provinces. We say in the Bill now before the House that nothing in this Bill shall in any -way prejudice or affect the rights and privileges of the Hudson Bay Company. Then too, certain powers were granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway many years ago, whereby they were granted perpetual exemption from taxation on them road, their stations, sidings, workshops, buildings, rolling stock and all. That was embodied in an Act passed by this parliament many years ago. We have accordingly set forth in this Bill that these rights and privileges shall remain and so, Sir. you will see the importance of this Bill so far as the Northwest Territories are concerned. We have then had the important duty placed upon this parliament not only to decide and fix the boundaries of these Territories but their manner and procedure of government, their rights, privileges and so forth. In many of these respects we have probably gone against the wishes of some people, certainly in some cases we have gone against the wishes and desires of the present premier of the Territories, Mr. Haul-tain, but the wisdom of this House, will,
I think, warrant the government in the stand they have taken, and I am quite sure that they are expressing the will of the great majority of the people of this Dominion in retaining the control of the public lands and arranging the constitution as they have done. There is also another question which has engaged the attention of this House almost exclusively in this debate ; that is the question of education. What are we doing about education. We are simply legalizing the system of education that they have now in force, the system that has been in force for the last fifteen years. No member of this House from the Northwest Territories either Liberal or Conservative who has spoken on this Bill, has denied that the school system that they now have in force and have had in force for the last fifteen years in the Northwest Territories is a most excellent one ; no complaints have reached the House from any parties up there objecting to the school system which they have in force for all these years. Mr. Haultain, the Prime Min-Mr. CAMPBELL.
ister of the Northwest Territories has stated that if he were dictator to-morrow he would not change that school system by one iota.
Now, to my mind the objections that have been taken to these Bills and the arguments presented by many hon. gentlemen on the other side have been by no means fair. They have misrepresented the action of the government. It has been charged that by this legislation the government proposed to perpetuate in the Northwest a system of separate schools in the interest of the Roman Catholic church, a system that, so far as the provinces are concerned, will be as unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. They have said that we are strangling the new provinces, that we are binding them with bands of iron that they will never be able to break or unloose. And so the impression has gone forth throughout the country that we are doing something hideous in the Northwest, something that the people do not want, something that will inure to their grave disadvantage and will breed discontent and strife among them. It seems to me that this statement having gone forth, it is a right and proper thing for us to investigate and learn exactly what is being done. The territorial government of the Northwest Territories was first established in 1875 by an Act passed by the parliament of the Dominion. Under that Act the minority, Protestant or Catholic, was given the right to establish separate schools. They did establish these separate schools. For a number of years they had a dual system of education, the same as we have in the province of Ontario, and the same as they have in the province of Quebec. Some of these separate schools were Protestant schools but the larger portion of them were Roman Catholic. The public schools were managed by the government of the Northwest Territories, but the separate schools were managed and controlled as they are in the province of Quebec, and as they are in the province of Ontario, by the bodies that organized them. In the province of Quebec, I understand, the separate schools are exclusively Protestant schools. The Protestants manage these schools in their own way-they select the teachers, they prescribe the text books, they have their own inspectors. The provincial government gives these schools their regular grants of money, the same as to the other schools. In the province of Ontario (the separate schools are largely Catholic schools, though a few of them are Protestant. As in Quebec the Protestants manage their own schools, so in Ontario the Roman Catholics manage their own schools, selecting the teachers, prescribing their qualification of teachers, selecting the text books and making their own rules for school government. In these schools it is prescribed that, for a certain portion of

the day, the dogmas and tenets of the Catholic church shall be taught. Now, I am free to say that I believe that it would be better if there were no separate schools either iu the province of Ontario or in the province of Quebec. If the children all went to one school it would be better for all hands. But I do not see that we in the province of Ontario are suffering very severely because of the existence of separate schools in that province. In the constituency I have the honour to represent, there is only one separate school. A few years ago there were several. But the *people found that these schools were expensive and that the children trained in them were not receiving as good an education as they would receive if they attended the public schools. And so, in the rural parts of the county, they have united with the public schools ; and to-day there is only one separate school in the whole riding of Centre York. In a short time, I am confident, the separate schools will be confined to the cities and larger towns. In the rural districts where the population is about equally divided between Protestant and Catholic it is a misfortune to have two schools. It weakens both ; it destroys the usefulness of both. But, as I have said, in the rural districts the separate schools are becoming a thing of the past, and I cannot see that we in Ontario are suffering very much because of the existence of the separate schools-I do not believe we are suffering at all. There is no province in the Dominion where the people are better educated than they are in Ontario. The laws are well observed and the administration of justice is all that could be desired, and, in every way, the province of Ontario stands at the head of all the provinces in this vast Dominion. And no country in the world has a better system of education than we have in the province of Ontario. At the great exhibition in Chicago. Buffalo and St. Louis the educational system of Ontario was praised and admired by every country in the world. In the United States there is not a single state that has not been copying the educational laws of Ontario. So while I say, that in my opinion, it would be in the interest of the province if separate schools were done away with and we had only one school system a national system. I say that if our Catholic friends desire, as they have a right under the British North America Act, to continue that system, it is for them to say. I point this out to show what is a separate school and to show that the reason why they are separate is because of the religious instruction they give. In the province of Ontario it would be very hard if Protestants were obliged to send , their children to the separate schools, because the religion that is taught in those schools is not acceptable to the Protestant. Now, what is the svstem 160
first established in the Northwest Territories? And is the system so established the one we are continuing in the Northwest? Not at all. I have in my hand the-ordinanees passed by the Northwest Territories themselves. As I have said, the-Act of 1875 gave the territorial government: power to establish separate schools, and they did establish them. They had the dual system, and from 1875 to 1891 one class of schools carried on by Catholics and the other by Protestants. But in 1891. the territorial government, believing that this system was not the best for that country, that it was an expensive system, that in that vast region where the population was few and far between the number of children of school age must necessarily be very small, they found that continuing a system of dual schools as not only expensive, but that it was not meeting the wishes of the people or accomplishing the object they desired. So in 1891 they abolished this system altogether, and established a system that to my mind seems to be one of the best national school systems to be found in any country in the world. What is that system? The whole management and control of education in the Northwest is placed in the hands of a minister of the Crown called the Commissioner of Education. He has power to make laws in relation to all these schools. What are the duties and his powers? I find in reading clause 3 of the Northwest ordinances passed in the year 1891, that it creates a Department of Education, in these words :
There shall he a department of the public service of the Territories called the Department of Education, over which the member of the Executive Council appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the seal of the Territories, to discharge the functions of the Commissioner of Education for the time being shall preside.	*
Clause 4 reads :
The department shall have the control and management of ail kindergarten schools, public and separate schools, normal schools, teachers' institutes and the education of deaf, deaf mute and blind persons.
5.	The commissioner shall have the administration, control and management of the department, and shall oversee and direct the officers, clerks and servants thereof.
Regulations of the Department.
6.	The commissioner, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, shall have power :
1.	To make regulations of the department-
(a)	For the classification, organization, government, examination and inspection of all schools hereinbefore mentioned ;
(b)	For the construction, furnishing and care of school buildings, and the arrangement of school premises ;
(c)	For the examination, licensing and grading of teachers, and for the examination of persons who may desire to enter professions, or



*who may wish certificates ot having completed [DOT]courses of study in any school ,
(d)	For a teachers' leaving course and teachers' institutes and conventions ;
2.	To authorize text and reference books for the use of the pupils and teachers in all schools hereinbefore mentiened, as well as such maps, iglobes, charts and other apparatus or equipment as may be required for giving proper instruction in such schools ;
3.	To prepare a list of books suitable for school libraries, and to make regulations for the management of such libraries ;
4.	To make due provision for the training of teachers.
Here you see, Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Education, under this ordinance, has complete control of every school in the Northwest; he has the control and management of every school, the licensing of teachers, the selecting of text-books, the appointment, classification, organiza/tion, and so forth, of all schools in the Northwest. Now, we go on further, and I find provisions defining more clearly how the schools shall be conducted. In clause 73 I find that in all elections for trustees ballots shall be used, whereas in Ontario trustees for the separate schools are always elected by open vote. I find this provision also in clause 62 :
Each person nominated for the office of trustee shall be a resident ratepayer of the district who has paid all taxes due by him to such district and is able to read and write.
No man can be elected a trustee of any school in the Northwest unless he is able to read and write-a very wise provision. In clause 82 there is a provision for an audit:
The books and accounts of every rural and village district shall be audited in each year prior to the annual meeting, by an official auditor in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the department.
Then in clause 95 I find the duties of teachers more clearly defined. I am only pointing out a few of the duties. Subsection 15 provides that no text-books or apparatus shall be used in the schools other than those authorized by the department. Every textbook or apparatus used in any school in the Northwest must be such as provided by the department. Subsection 17 gives the trustees power to engage a teacher or teachers duly qualified under the regulations of the department to teach in schools. No teacher can be employed in any school in the Northwest unless he is fully qualified ; that is, he has to pass a normal school examination and must have obtained a certificate. Now, here is an important clause in regard to the language to be used :
136. All schools shall he taught in the English language, but it shall he permissible for the board of any district to cause a primary course to be taught in the French language.
2 The board of any district may, subject to the regulations of the department, employ one or more competent persons to give instruction in any language other than English in the school of the district to all pupils whose parents or


Archibald Campbell: guardians have signified a willingness that they should receive the same, hut such course of instruction shall not supersede or in any way interfere with the instruction by the teacher in charge of the school as required by the regulations of the department and this ordinance.
Then, as regards religious instruction, clause 137 provides :
No -religious instruction except as hereinafter provided shall be permitted in the school of any district from the opening of such school until one-hailf hour previous to its closing in the afternoon, after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board may be given.
.So that these ordinances provide that there shall be absolutely no religious instruction at all in any school in the Northwest, unless the board of trustees see fit to authorize it to be given for one-half hour before the close of the school.
2. It shall, however, be permissible for the board of any district to direct that the school be opened by the recitation of the Lord's prayer.
Now, iu this connection I may say that I believe that is a wise provision. I think that in every school all over this vast Dominion it would be a wise provision that religious instruction should be given. I am not one of those who believe in Godless schools, as they are called ; I believe that among the boys and girls growing up in this Dominion of Canada to-day the great book of all books, the book that teaches a man, not only how to live, but also how to die, is almost a sealed book. They may read it at home on Sundays, bat I am sorry to say that in our towns one hour a week iu Sunday school is all the instruction they get; and* if you leave out the opening and closing exercises of the school, in all there is not half an hour a week given to the religious teaching of these children. I say that it is a lamentable thing that in this great Dominion of ours the Bible, the book we ail prize and revere, is not taught to the children in these schools. Instead of finding fault with that provision, I say it is one of the best provisions in the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, providing, as they have, for that half hour's _ religious instruction, and I would not object if it were double that length of time. I have said that the qualifications of the teachers shall be as prescribed by the Commissioner of Education. Clause 149 forbids the trustees to employ any one else :
No person shall he engaged, appointed, employed or retained as teacher in any school unless he holds a valid certificate of qualification issued under the regulations of the department.
Then again, we go a little farther and find some other clauses that are very commendable :
Duties of Teachers.
It shall be the duty of every teacher-
04 0

1. To teach diligently and faithfully all the subjects required to be taught by the regulations of the department ;
-* To maintain proper order and discipline and to conduct and manage the school according to the regulations of the department.
Everything is provided for. Every one of these ordinances, passed by the Council, and every one of these regulations, made by the Commissioner of Education, must be observed, and lived up to by the teachers, trustees and inspectors in every way. I see also that there is provision made for reports. The trustees and inspectors have to make their reports and there is a heavy fine if they do not make proper reports. In my opinion there is no better national school system to be found in any country iu the world than in these Northwest Territories which were adopted by the Northwest Council themselves, and which has been iu force for 14 years, without any objection being made to it at all. No resolutions, no memorials have been sent here protesting against it. Every hou. gentleman from the Northwest who has spoken, v.'ho understands the system, who has lived under it, who has probably attended the schools and who has probably taught these schools, commends this system as being a national school system in every way.
What are we doing ? In tbe clause which we are proposing we are simply legalizing this school system which was adopted fourteen years ago by the Northwest Territories themselves, and with which they are so well pleased. But, if we were only legalizing these ordinances, I do not think we would be doing justice to the people of the Northwest. Times may change. In five, or ten, or twenty years from now, as the great Northwest grows and prospers as the flow of immigration continues, with the result that instead of there being 500,000 people there will be 2,000,000 people in that country, it may be that the system of education now in vogue may not be suitable. They a ay require to change that system to keep up with the times, iu order that there may have modern and up-to-date schools, and the government have wisely provided for that iu the second clause of this amendment which is now before tbe House and which leads as follows : 111
111 the appropriation by the legislature or distribution by the government of 'the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with said chapter 2'.) or any Act passed in amendment thereof, or in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any class described in the said chapter 29.
Mark these words :	' or auy Act passed
in amendment thereof or in substitution therefor.' What does that mean ? Could the English language make it plainer? From time to time, as people require, as the people desire, as the people find there is need for it they can change or alter or substitute 1604
or make amendments to these regulations, it is a wise provision, because, as I said, iu five or ten years from now the system now in vogue may not be suitable to the needs of these new provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) pretend to say that they could adopt another system instead of that ?


Mr. CAMPBEDL.: I take the words of the amendment 'or any Act passed in amendment thereof or in substitution therefor.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but go on a little farther.


Archibald Campbell: 'There shall be no discrimination.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Just before that.


Archibald Campbell: Well, I will read the whole clause for the benefit of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule).
In the appropriation by the legislature or distribution by the government of the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with said chapter 29.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now, then


Archibald Campbell: Wait until I get through.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the part I want to draw attention to. ' In accordance with,' referring to this special Act, so that it means that they cannot change the system of schools.


Archibald Campbell: Does it ? I did not read it in that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am inclined to think that every lawyer in the House would read it that way.


Archibald Campbell: In the appropriation by the legislature or distribution by the government of the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with said chapter 29



not this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is chapter 29 ?


Archibald Campbell: Chapter 29 of the ordinance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is chapter 29 ?


Archibald Campbell: Chapter 29 is the ordinance passed by tbe Northwest Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Archibald Campbell: ' In accordance with said chapter 29.' It does not stop there.
' Or any Act passed in amendment thereof or in substitution therefor.' Who is to amend ? Who is to substitute ? Certainly the provinces. No one can gainsay that, and I say that the government are not

504S
only legalizing this school system that has been in force for fourteen years, and which has worked so well in the Northwest, but they are giving and wisely giving, in my opinion, the power to amend, to change, to alter, to substitute other Acts for this as time rolls on, and therefore I say that there could be no better system than this that has been established. In this connection I want to refer our hon. friends on the other side


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) or the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether they agree with that interpretation of the law.


Archibald Campbell: Well, the Act is there. We have the plain meaning of it. Our Conservative friends are very anxious and very willing to quote the ' Globe ' newspaper. They seem to be greatly interested in what the ' Globe ' says. I think they have fallen in love with the 1 Globe.' I hope they will continue that good feeling. The ' Globe ' is a powerful- newspaper in this land. The ' Globe ' is doing a wonderful amount of good to the people of this country in diffusing information, and although I do not always agree with the ' Globe ' and although I do not agree with the editor of the ' Globe ' in the view which he has taken of this question, yet I recognize the ' Globe ' is a powerful organ in this Dominion. As I said before, our friends have frequently quoted the ' Globe.' Now, I take very great pleasure in quoting the * Globe ' also, and I commend the words of the ' Globe ' to their serious consideration and I hope they will profit by them. In its issue of March 21st, 1905, the * Globe,' after publishing the amended clauses proposed by the Prime Minister, goes on to say :
In effect these amendments leave to the new provinces the same educational laws as they have to-day subject to such provincial legislation as the provinces themselves may from time to time enact.
I commend that language to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and I read it again for his benefit.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) is reading from the ' Globe ' but I would like to know whether he has ascertained from the leader of the government whether that is what is intended by the educational clauses of the Bill as now before the House ?


Archibald Campbell: It seems to me that the amendments before the House are so plain and so easily understood that the wayfaring man though a fool may not err therein. The ' Globe ' article goes on to say :
The existing territorial law is found in the schools ordinance of the Territories, being chapter 29 referred to in the amendments pas-Mr. CAMPBELL.
sed in 1901 as a consolidation of previous legislation. All public schools and all Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools in order to be recognized at the hands of the provincial government must conform to the public school law. Under these amendments no schools not conforming to the Territorial law as it is today, or to the provincial laws which the new provinces may from time to time enact

It seems that they have power to enact new laws.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. member (Mr. Campbell) not aware of the fact that the text-books are not all the same, but that there are two of the series which are optional with them and which they may use, or take two of the text-books of the separate schools in Ontario instead ? Surely the hon. gentleman is aware of that ?


Archibald Campbell: That does not matter because the text-books are all selected by the Commissioner of Education in the Territories, and if the provincial government chooses to make separate text-books that is their own business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the point. The statement of the hon. member was that the curriculum is the same, the text-books all the same, the regulations all the same and the inspection the same, I have shown that they are not all the same.


Archibald Campbell: They are all sanctioned by the Commissioner of Education. For my part, if the provincial government chooses to restore the old system of separate schools let them do so, but what I say is that by this law we are placing it entirely in the hands of the provincial government to do as they please ; to establish any separate schools they like, and if they choose to select separate text-books for the minority schools that is their own business and we have nothing to do with it. But we stand squarely on provincial rights. What would happen. Mr. Speaker, if we were not to adopt this legislation, but if instead we adopted the amend- 1
meat proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition ? in my opinion that amendment would fasten for all time to come a system of separate schools upon the Northwest Territories that the people do not want, that they abolished fourteen years ago. The hon. gentleman proposes to' leave this matter subject to the British North America Act. Now, what does the British North America Act prescribe ? Section 93 reads as follows :
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education-
If it stopped there, it would give the provinces full power over education ; they could do as they liked ; but it goes on to say :

subject and according to the following provisions :
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
Now. it seems to me that if we simply adopted the British North America Act, we would restore the system of separate schools that was granted to the Northwest Territories In 1875, that they found unworkable, that they did not like, and that they abolished fourteen years ago. I am totally opposed to the restoration of that system. It would create confusion. Many of my friends may differ from me in this respect; but in my opinion it would re-establish that system of separate schools, and as a Protestant I believe it would be tbe worst thing that could happen to that great Northwest if the system of separate schools whicli existed from 1875 to 1S91 were reestablished.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the last clause of the amendment which says that they shall exclusively make laws in regard to education ?


Archibald Campbell: I thought I had dealt very fully with that. If the hon. member has not read it, he had better read it. That is my objection to the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition. I take it that every legal gentleman in this House will admit that when we have once passed this Act and granted the new provinces a constitution, our powers are exhausted. Whatever system we give them shall remain ; and my objection to the amendment of the leader of the opposition is that immediately you adopt it, you fasten for all time on the people of the great Northwest a system of separate schools that they do not want, that they abolished fourteen years ago. The Act now before the House is as plain as the English language can make it- that 'we are simply legalizing the law that they now have in force, and that they have had in force for fourteen years ; a law that every man from the Northwest says is au

admirable one. and one with which the people are satisfied. We are not only doing that, but we are giving them the power to amend, alter, or change the law as time goes on ; so that for all time to come they will have in the new provinces an up-to-date school system, the very best that can be found ; and surely that is what every one desires. A great number of petitions have been presented to this House with regard to this measure, and a great many resolutions and memorials have been passed by different bodies throughout the country. A great many of our clergy throughout Ontario have take exception to this Bill. At first their objections were largely to the school system that we were forcing on the Northwest ; but as they have read the amended clause and the discussions that have taken place in the House, they have largely abandoned that position, and now' they say it is not a question of separate schools at all, but it is a question of provincial rights. Well, when we are simply legalizing a school system that the people of the Northwest themselves passed, and giving them the power to amend or alter that school system from time to time, 1 would like to know how we are interfering with provincial rights. In this Bill we are saying there shall be ttvo provinces instead of one; we are interfering w'ith provincial rights in that respect ; but in my opinion it is a w'ise departure to make. So far as the educational clauses are concerned, I cannot see how we are interfering with provincial rights at all, when we simply adopt the school system which the people have themselves passed, and give them the power to amend or alter it if they desire. Now, in reference to these petitions. The hon. member for East Grey has been more diligent than any other member in presenting petitions against this Bill ; he has presented a great number of them. But, after all, how many men in this great Dominion of Canada have signed those petitions ? In Centre York, which I have the honour to represent, there are over 6,000 electors, and in all the petitions sent to this House there have not been 200 names from that constituency, and from all those 6,000 electors I have not received a dozen letters all told in reference to this Bill.
Some meetings have been held. There was a meeting in the city of Toronto, the very centre of the opposition to this Bill, where every newspaper almost has been protesting against it, a city of 300,000 people. The great Massey hall was hired, an army of speakers was announced, whose names would draw a crowd from all over, invitations and notices and tickets were sent otit broadcast by the thousand, and you would suppose that in the great city of Toronto the Massey hall would be crowded to the doors. But what was the state of affairs ? When the meeting was called to order the Massey hall was not half full even Mr. CAMPBELL.
in that great city. If there was such an excitement in the city of Toronto as has been represented, surely the citizens would have turned out to express their dissent from this Bill. Then, Sir, a meeting was held in my own county, in the town of Mimico. Two very distinguished gentlemen from Toronto went out there to set the heather on fire ; they were going to discuss this Autonomy Bill, men of ability, men well versed in all the details of the Bill, and eloquent gentlemen. They advertised the meeting all over, sent invitations all around, but when that meeting was called to order there were present forty persons and six boys all told. Another meeting was held in Toronto Junction, my own town, represented now by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). A requisition was presented to the mayor asking him to call a meeting to discuss this outrageous Autonomy Bill. The requisition was largely signed. All the ministers of the town and other distinguished men were asked to address the meeting. In that town of 9,000 people, when the meeting was opened at eight o'clock, there were only twenty-eight persons, by actual count, present, and at no time during the whole meeting were there more than seventy-five or eighty persons in the hall. Then a few days ago we had a meeting called in Stouffville, in the adjoining constituency represented by the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), but on the border of my own constituency. I took a good deal of interest in that meeting ; I was anxious to know what the people of Stouffville felt over this Bill. The meeting was widely advertised and was called by a number of the most representative people- of the town, so^ I was naturally very anxious to hear how it turned out. I wish to read to the House an extract from a letter written to the Toronto 1 News by Mr. T. Russell Fitch, secretary of the Liberal Association for North York, in connection with it. Mr. Fitch says :
In fact this meeting which was originated so clearly with the idea of making party capital, fell so utterly flat that the promoter thereof even forgot to move a vote of thanks to the speakers l,e had brought here. Your own reporter who, I presume, wrote the article, stated after the meeting to myself and half a dozen others that the meeting certainly fell flat, and that he couldn't see why they held it. ' Why,' he said, 1 they didn't even propose a resolution of any kind as a result of it, the only thing they did was to pass the hat for collection.'
This is borne out by the facts as, although a resolution had been already prepared, censuring Sir William Mulock and the government on these clauses of the Bill, the originators of the meeting did not dare to present the same to the meeting for the very good reason that it would have been defeated by a vote of three to-one. An amendment had also been prepared by those in favour of the Bill, but it could not be presented, as no original motion had been proposed. Those in favour of the Bill did talk of making their amendment an original motion, but decided that it would he discourteous to 1 those who were responsible for the meeting,

but if they had known what kind of a report would have been given- by the ' News ' the motion would certainly have been proposed and would have been carried by a large majority. I might add that the Liberal Association of Stouffville have called the Liberals together since the meeting, and have passed a resolution unanimously expressing approval of the course us to this Bill of our respected member, Sir William Mulock, and with the government led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which resolution is being forwarded to Sir William Mulock at Ottawa.
Sir William Mulock is not here, or I would have been very glad to have had that resolution and to read it to the House. From all these meetings that have been held, and from the small number of men who have signed petitions in opposition to this Bill, 1 conclude that the opposition to it is not as strong as has been represented. I will venture to say that in my county, and I think in most of the counties in Ontario, if a man of the amiable disposition and the genial manner of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was to go around and present a petition to the electors saying that the Dominion government was passing a Bill establishing a system of separate schools for all time to come in the Northwest Territories, a system that could not be repealed, that would be as unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and ask the electors to sign it, he would get a very large number of signatures, and the fact that these petitions emanating from Centre York were signed by less than 200 out of 6,000 people is a conclusive proof of my mind that either the people of Centre York take very little interest in this question, or else that they have full confidence in the humble gentleman who represents them at the present time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask who called that meeting in Centre York that was attended by two prominent gentlemen from Toronto ?


Archibald Campbell: That meeting was called by Mr. Hunter and Mr. Godfrey, of Toronto.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Hunter, who was the Reform candidate in Toronto, and Mr. Godfrey, also a very prominent Reformer from Toronto.


Archibald Campbell: That does not make any difference. Mr. Hunter ran as an independent candidate in West Toronto at the last election. The point I want to make is that no matter who called the meeting, the fact that only forty electors attended that meeting showed that there was little interest in the question.


Mr. INGRAM.: The hon. gentleman had written a letter up there explaining what the clauses really meant, and the people were so satisfied that they did not attend the meeting.


Archibald Campbell: That was my duty, was it not ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Of course.


Archibald Campbell: The Bill only needs explanation.


Andrew B. Ingram: Exactly ; and the explanation the hon. gentleman gave to-night will be very satisfactory I am sure when he (compares notes with his colleagues and friends.


Archibald Campbell: I hope the hon. member is pleased with my explanation. I would like him to be, and I hope he will profit by it; and if he does, I am sure he will study the interests of his constituents and vote for the Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: Any original idea is appreciated in this House, and the hon. gentleman's is the only original idea so far.


Archibald Campbell: Then you should appreciate this very much. It is something to my credit, I think, that after the subject has been debated for about a month or six weeks I can say something new or original upon it. Now, a great many people have found fault with the Liberal party and with our honoured premier for going back on their record. They say that the position taken by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) now is altogether different from that taken by him in 1896. For my part, I believe that the position taken by the Prime Minister o,n tills Bill is exactly in line with his previous record and with the principles of the party of which he is the honoured leader. The Liberal party has always been the party of provincial rights. Those hon. members who had the honour of holding seats in this House in 1S89 will remember the fierce agitation that sprang up in the province of Ontario over a measure passed by the legislature of the province of Quebec known as the Jesuit Estates Bill. That Bill the government of the Dominion had nothing to do with ; it was a provincial statute. But among those in Ontario who demanded the disallowance of that Bill, there was no talk of provincial rights. Petitions galore poured into this House. Resolutions were passed at public meetings. Ministers of different churches denounced the Bill and the course of the government in refusing to disallow it. But when the refusal to disallow the Bill was upheld by a large majority of this House, with the support of the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of the Dominion, the agitation ceased ; and to-day, when the clouds have rolled away when the passions aroused by that controversy have cooled, we see that the government of Sir John Macdonald was right in standing by provincial rights and refusing to disallow the Bill. Last session we had a debate lasting a mouth or two on what was declared to be the most important issue that had ever come before parliament, the Bill providing for the build-

ing of the great National Transcontinental Railway running from the city of Moncton to the Pacific coast. This measure was denounced by lion, gentlemen opposite in fierce language. It was declared to be one of the most outrageous Bills ever submitted to the House. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) made a violent speech against the Bill claiming that the building of this road would cost the Dominion several hundred millions of money. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) fiercely denounced this Bill not only in this House but throughout the Dominion, and liis words were echoed by nearly every supporter of his in the late general election. In fierce tones he aslced the people :	When we pay nine-tenths of
the cost of this road why in Heaven's name, do not we pay the other tenth and own the road ?


Mr. HENDERSON.: Hear, hear.


Archibald Campbell: My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) says ' hear, hear.' He agrees with that sentiment. But he knows very well that the government are paying not only nine-tenths but ten-tenths -of the cost of that road and that they own and will own it for all time, to come. So, there is no foundation for the statement [DOT]that we are paying nine-tenths of the cost and do not own the road. The voice of the electors from the Atlantic to the Pacific emphatically supported the policy of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with regard to this great work. And today this agitation also has passed away. We have no question now, and I hope we shall have no question, as to the Grand Trunk Pacific, for I believe that that measure was a wise one and will bring about a greater era of prosperity in this Dominion than any legislation that has been enacted for many years past or that will be enacted for many years to come. And to-day, Sir, we have before us the Bill and the amendment. The amendment, as I say. proposes and will, I believe, establish for all time to come, a system of separate schools in the Northwest Territories that the people do not want and that they abolished fourteen years ago. The Bill proposes to legalize a system that the people have established themselves, that they have approved of, that works well, that every man who knows of it says is an admirable system ; and also to the people the power to change that system from time'to time as the circumstances require. And I say that under these conditions I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.


Mr. F. R. LABOR (Haldimand and Monck).: Mr. Speaker, this is my first effort in parliamentary speaking, and I may say as well that I am not very much accustomed to public speaking of any kind.


Archibald Campbell: Therefore, I must ask the indulgence of the House. If I make any mistakes, I assure you is it not because I wish to misrepresent any of the arguments I seek to use.
I was very much pleased with the address of the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell). I listened to him very patiently, but failed to find in his arguments very much to reply to. The hon. gentleman has given us his own interpretation of the Bill that has been introduced to this House. It seems strange that the Toronto ' Globe ' the independent newspapers, the ministers of the various churches throughout the country, all give a different interpretation of this Act from the interpretation given by the hon. gentleman. It seems that he alone is an authority on this question, that he is in a better position to tell us what this Act really means than are the eminent legal gentlemen throughout this country. He told us that he was giving us something that was original. Well, Sir, in order that the hon. gentleman may know something that probably is a little more original than he has told us, something that will throw a little light upon the feeling that exists throughout this country to-day, particularly in Ontario and the Northwest Territories, I have pleasure in telling the hon. gentleman that the county of Mountain out in Manitoba, that safe seat of the Hon. Mr. Greenway, that gave him at the last general election four hundred majority, lias to-day returned a Conservative by a majority of over two hundred. That, Sir, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and especially the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) have told us that there was no feeling in this country against these Autonomy Bills. I think that election tells us more plainly than any words that I can use, that there is a strong feeling against this government, and I can imagine that hon. gentlemen opposite on hearing that news, and on seeing the telegram that an ex-minister received a short time ago. will feel a cold chill running down their backs.


Archibald Campbell: I would like to ask the hon. member when the new member elected in the county of Mountain will take his seat in this House ?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Well, I may inform the hon. member for Centre York that I have not the slightest idea that he was elected to this House, he was elected to the legislature of Manitoba, and the campaign was made on the very issue we are talking of to-night. Moreover, four Liberal members from this House went up into that constituency to speak for the Liberal candidate, nevertheless the county of Mountain, the Hon. Mr. Greeuway's county, has elected a Conservative as a condemnation of this government and of this Bill.


Henry Horton Miller: Since the Toronto ' Globe ' las been quoting a good deal, I would like to ask the hon. gentlemen if he has noticed in to-day's ' Globe ' the statement that a great deal of whisky and money were being used to elect the gentleman who has been returned ?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have seen some such statement as that. It was generally reported, too, that this government had sent up piles of money to carry that constituency, I think they were most anxious to do so. Now the hon. member for Centre York is a very prominent man of the Liberal 'party, a very prominent supporter of this .government, he has great influence in the party. In fact it is said that the member for Centre York is rather ambitious, that he is looking forward to advancement. It is -said that the right Ion. the premier holds one of those plums in his hand which the bon. member for Centre York is anxious to get, and that may be partly the reason why he is so enthusiastic in support of this Bill. I suspect, however, that he is not very enthusiastic, because he has a pretty good idea that when he goes back to his constituents for re-election his majority will be much smaller than it was at the last election, and it was small enough then. I notice by the Toronto ' Star,' the faithful party organ of the Postmaster General, that a relative of the hon. gentleman has just been appointed to a prominent position as grain inspector in the city of Toronto at a salary of $3,000 a year. So I think we can at least say that the hon. gentleman has considerable influence with this government.
Now we are told that there is no feeling throughout the country at all, we are told that no hostile sentiment exists to any extent, and that the feeling in Toronto does not amount to anything. In fact the Minister of Justice told us the other night that nobody left the Liberal party on this question that they had the slightest respect for. And the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) the other night called these gentlemen who were opposing the government upon this Bill, renegade Liberals. When some one asked him if he styled the Toronto ' Globe ' as one of the renegades, he said he did. Therefore the Toronto 'Globe' is in the ranks of the renegades. I wonder who it was that gave the hon. member for Ottawa authority to read the Toronto ' Globe ' out of the party? Is he especially set aside to read Liberal malcontents out of the party ; He seems to assume that position, whether he is entitled to it or not. Mr. Speaker, let me mention some of the gentlemen who are opposed to the government upon this measure, some very prominent Liberals in Toronto. There is Mr. Stapleton Caldecott, who was spoken of as a Liberal candidate iin the last election ; there is Dr. Goldwin Smith ; there is Mayor Urquhart, who was a candidate in North Toronto in the last
general election ; there is Mr. Robinette, who was the candidate in Centre Toronto at the last general election ; there is Mr. Wil-lison, the gentleman who wrote the life of the right hon. the Prime Minister ; there is Mr. D. E. Thompson ; there is another very prominent Liberal, Bishop Carman. These are all prominent Liberals opposed to the government on this question, and they are only a few of the whole number. Why, all the independent papers in this country are opposing the government. The ministers of the Gospel are opposing the government. And that reminds me of the state of affairs that existed in the province of Ontario before the last election, when we found that the ministers, the independent Liberals and the independent papers were all opposed to the Ross government, with the result that when the election came on the government was swept out of existence by the largest majority that was ever known. I do not pretend to be a prophet, but I venture the prophecy that when the next general election pomes on for the Dominion the same result will take place.


Mr. O. E. TALBOT.: That is an old story.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: We should never get tired of telling a good story, even if it is old. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not pay any more attention to the member for Centre York, because 1 do not think his speech requires any more attention from me. I want to say that I might have given a silent vote on this question, but I thought it due to the great constituency I represent in this House, the constituency of Haldimand and Monck, whose electors were kind enough to send me here to represent them, to express my views on this Bill in order that they may know just where I stand and the opinions I hold with regard to it. I consider that this Bill is one of the most important that has ever been before the Canadian parliament, and probably one of the most important that will occupy our attention for many years to come. We are giving a constitution to two great provinces in the west that will, before many years, have a population of millions of people. These two provinces will in the not distant future play a great part in the affairs of this country. The time is not far distant when the great west, including Manitoba and British Columbia, will hold the controlling power in this parliament. Therefore, in giving them a constitution, it behooves us to consider it with the greatest care ; we should try and give them a constitution that will be acceptable to the people of that country, not only for the present, but for ail time to come. We should give them a constitution that will be not only acceptable to Canada but to the British empire as well. For, Sir, wherever you find a Canadian, whether at home or in a foreign country, you will find a man who is proud of the fact that he is a Canadian, more than that you will

find a man who is proud that he belongs to the great British empire, that empire that has done more to advance Christianity, education and civilization in this world than any other nation. Sir, I have faith that those two new provinces will become great and loyal provinces, provinces of which the rest of the Dominion will feel proud ; and that if the British empire ever wants the assistance of her children in Canada, those provinces of the west will be among the first to show their devotion, their loyalty and patriotism to the Crown and to the British flag.
Now, Mr. 'Speaker, when the Prime Minister introduced his first Bill into this House that which is now known as. Autonomy Bill Mo. 1-X think that is a name that some one gave it, and it is a very good name- when he first introduced that Bill into this House, he made a very eloquent speech. It was the first time that I had had the pleasure of listening to the right hon. gentleman in an important speech and I must say I was delighted with his eloquence and his grand oratory. I was proud of tlie fact that Canada had a Prime Minister with such great oratorical ability as the right hon. gentleman. If there was any part of his address that was more eloquent than another, it was that part in which lie advocated the teaching of dogmas in our schools. When he reached that part of his address he seemed to throw his whole soul, his whole spirit into it, and he advocated the teaching of dogmas as earnestly as it was possible for him to do. I listened to him with the greatest admiration. When he was so earnest in advocating that Bill and when he was so eloquent in introducing it. I imagined that he consistently and honestly believed in the measures which were contained in the Bill and I little dreamed that within a few hours, within a few days at the most, we would see in this House the humiliating spectacle of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) leading the Prime Minister into this House like a whipped child and making him stand up and withdraw the Bill that he had introduced or at least that portion of the Bill wThicli gave separate schools in their entirety to the people of the west. But, such was the spectacle that we witnessed. Hon. gentlemen opposite, especially those from the province of Quebec, applauded most vociferously when the right hon. Prime Minister did this. I wondered what it was they were applauding. I wondered if they were delighted with the fact that the hon. member for Brandon had conquered the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and I may say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) as well was associated with the hou. member for Brandon. I wondered if they were pleased. It seemed so because they applauded and pounded their desks and if these desks had not been made of good strong Canadian timber they would Mr. LALOR.
hardly have withstood the blows. But there was the hon. member for Brandon ; he was looking the right hon. leader of the government in the face and saying that he had to-do just as he told him he must do. He was making him stand up there and withdraw that clause of the Bill that gave separate schools and church endowment to the Roman Catholic people of these new provinces. It reminded me of the old fable of Davy Crocket and the coon. You remember that Davy said :	If you do not come
down I will shoot, and that the coon said : If you do not shoot I will come down. So, the right hon. leader of tne government came down and the hon. member for Brandon did not shoot. The hon. member for Brandon had a following in this House ; he had behind him that contingent of hon. gentlemen from the Northwest. Until this time there was no evidence that these hon. gentlemen from the Northwest, or from Nova Scotia, or from any other part of this Dominion who were supporting the right hon. gentleman were not delighted with the Bill he had first introduced. There was no division in the ranks. In private conversations that I had with some of them they were loud in their praises. It was just the Bill that was required, just the Bill that should be introduced. There was no division. This Bill was prepared by a select committee. The majority being Protestant in this country they thought it wise to make the majority of the committee Roman Catholic so that there would be three Roman Catholics on the committee to one Protestant. They prepared this Bill. The one Protestant was the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) and probably be was, like be generally is in the House, asleep when the Bill was prepared. Anyway when the hon. member for Brandon and the lion. Minister of Finance came home they objected and when they objected, these other hon. gentlemen, like a flock of sheep, objected too, but they never had objected up to this time and I was quite surprised the other night to hear the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Wright) extol the virtues of this Bill. One would never have dreamed that he was one of the mutineers who had been on strike himself. There may have been a great many more striking than we had any idea of. Anyway the hon. gentlemen from Quebec seemed to be delighted. They were either delighted with the fact that the hon. member for Brandon had got the best of the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Justice, or that the right hon. Prime Minister and the lion. Minister of Justice had got the best cf the hon. member for Brandon. I do not know hardly which it was. I think though that they had confidence in the hon. Minister of Justice I think they had confidence in his great ability, and I must say I am an admirer of the Minister of Justice.
I think he is a very clever man indeed. In

talking "with one of the western Liberal members one day, I expressed my admiration ot' the Minister of Justice and said what a clever gentleman I thought him to be. This bon. gentleman replied : Yes, he is just a little bit too clever. Perhaps they thought the hon. Minister of Justice, being so clever, would be able to inclose in Autonomy Bill No. 2, certain veiled sentences. certain legal clauses that to the laymen from the prairies of the west looked insignificant, but to the Minister of Justice and the right hon. Prime Minister meant a good deal more than the gentlemen from the west: thought they did. I may say that is my opinion of this Bill. I believe it gives all that was intended to be given in Autonomy Bill No. 1, and in conversation with Mr. Haultain, the premier of that western country, that view received confirmation. X must say that I think Mr. Haultain is one of the cleverest men in the Dominion of Canada to-day. There are few men his equal in ability. He says that Autonomy Bill No. 2 gives more than Autonomy Bill No. 1 intended to give, and I notice that in an interview in the Toronto papers, Mr. Haultain carries out that contention. I think he is right. I am a layman. I am not a lawyer and I am glad of it. I am pleased to say that.


An hon. MEMBER.: That is something to thank God for.
Mr. LAILOR, Yes, I thank God I am not. I am unable to give a legal opinion cf the Bill, but I think any layman who will read the Bill, the ordinances and the regulations of the Northwest Territories, must conclude that certain clauses of the first are i-e-enncted in the second Bill, and that whatever is retained in the second Bill that was in the first Bill is just that much in addition to what was proposed to be given by the first Bill. The original clause in respect to the right to establish separate schools is a re-enactment of the provisions of section IT of the Northwest Territories Act of 1875 in regard to separate schools. Under the statutes of 1875 there grew up in the Territories a system of separate schools and of dual language entirely conducted by the clergy. The speech of the hon. member for Brandon will prove that assertion. There were separate schools in the most objectionable form. When the kick was made on this section the government introduced the amendment under discussion. The amendment proposed says that nothing in such legislation-meaning Acts of the local legislatures of the new provinces-shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege granted in regard to separate schools in the ordinances 29, 30 and 31, of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories.
The only section of the ordinance that grants any right or privilege is section 41 of chapter 29, and that section grants the right and privilege of establishing separate
schools in the same identical language as section 14 of the statute cf 1875. The result is that the original Bill re-enacts a part of section 14 of the statute of 1S75, and the amendment proposed does not change it, because it provides that section 41 of the ordinance, chapter 29 w-hich is identical with the language of section 14 of the statute of 1875, shall not be interfered with. It is only a play on words; all the provisions of the ordinances are simply matters of regulation and do not grant a right or privilege and so are not incorporated in the Act as amended. Now then, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I claim that the second Bill gives all that it is contended would have been given in the first place. I have heard this discussed from day to day in this House, and I have never yet heard the Minister of Justice stand up to say that such is not the case. For my part I would like very much to see the Minister of Justice stand up in this House and tell us if the second Bill simply means the one half hour's teaching in these schools in the west.' I would like to hear him give it that interpretation if it be correct, but I doubt very much that he will do so. We were told by the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) in his speech, that this Autonomy Bill was never intended to give to the Northwest provinces anything more than they have now in the matter of education, and he said that it was the fault of the draughtsman who drew that Bill that it included, as the hon. gentleman said, the greatest church endowments that ever were given in the world. It was the fault of the ' draughtsman, he said, that a share of $50,000.000 worth of public school lands were given to these separate schools which were to have all the characteristics of church schools. Well, the Minister of Justice has since admitted that he was the draughtsman, so that I presume he must be the man to take the blame. But what I want to know is, who it was that the member for Brandon meant when he stated in this House that the draughtsman was to blame. I have in my own mind who it is that he did mean.
I believe that the member for Brandon meant a certain dignitary who is in this country now, and I want to state here that I will not say one word that could be in any way called a reflection upon that gentleman who is the respected and honoured head of a great church in this country. When I get through with my address I trust. Sir, that no one will be able to state that I have said an unkindly word of the Roman Catholic church or of the Roman Catholic people of this country whom I respect. That is not my desire, and in mentioning the name of the Papal ablegate, I do so, not with any disrespect, but simply to show what the member f,or Brandon meant when he referred to the draughtsman of this clause. I have proof here that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) did not make that assertion for the first time, and that it was

not the first insinuation he has made against the Roman Catholic church in this country. And, Sir, although gentlemen on the other side of the House from the province of Quebec cheered and applauded the member for Brandon when he was makiug his speech in this House, they did not avail of the occasion to repudiate some of the statements which that very gentleman has made in the past. I have the honour to represent the county of Haldimand, and speaking' at Caledonia in that county on April the 12th, 1895, Mr. Sifton, then Attorney General of Manitoba, made the following statement:
During the last 100 years wherever you find a constitutional Act (prepared of an originating character, you will find that something is drawn that indicates the hand of the clergy is there. The language may be the language of a Canadian politician, but in every case the voice is the voice of the church.
That was the opinion of the member for Brandon expressed in the county of Haldi-mand in 1895, so that I think I am safe in saying that when the hon. gentleman spoke of the provisions of this clause being the fruit of the draughtsman he referred to the head of the Roman Catholic church in this country. These gentlemen opposite talk to us about intolerance, but I do not believe that an assertion such as that made by the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has ever come from this side of the House during this debate.
When the right hon. the Prime Minister Introduced this Bill into the House he told us he was standing on the rock of the constitution, but when the leader of the opposition, that great constitutional lawyer- probably the greatest constitutional lawyer in Canada-got through with his argument on this Bill, I think the right hon. gentleman found himself in deep water, and from that time until now he has been trying to find where the rock of the constitution is. The leader of the opposition completely shattered the arguments of the Prime Minister, and we have had proof of the fact that the government themselves thought that their arguments from a constitutional standpoint were wrong, because when the Minister of Finance addressed the House he told us that he did not advocate the measure from the constitutional standpoint but because it was a measure of equity and justice. He completely deserted the constitutional standpoint taken by his leader. We are told by the new Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and by others of his supporters here, that the people of the west do not want their lands, but that they would rather the federal government would keep these lands and give the provinces an annuity instead. Can you imagine- a son saying to his father who is about to make his last will and testament-I am not insinuating that this government is doing that
although it probably will result that way

Mr. LALO'R.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: Some day or other.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Very soon.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: 
Mr.   ALEX@: JOHJfSTON. What about the mutiny over yonder ?
Mr. LALOIt. W e will come to that later, my friend.


Alexander Johnston: It will be a long tune after to-night.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They came back into line and with them they brought the balance of the mutineers, the Northwestern gentlemen. The Nova Scotians were kicking also a little I understand, they would not swallow the pill, and then those gentlemen from the province of Ontario who will swallow almost anything, even if it is not sugar-coated, such as the member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell), came back and they are now happy, but I do not think the people who sent them to this parliament, the constituents whom they represent will ever be happy until those gentlemen go back to them for re-election ; then I think the constituents will be happy. I do not suppose they will go back to their constituents like the prodigal sou, saying they are sorry for what they have doue, that they have repented and ask to be forgiven ; I presume they will go back with stiff necks and say: w liy we did not give them anything ; this half hour of religious teaching is all they get ; the Roman Catholic minority have got nothing at all. It will be the same old double game that the right hon. gentleman has been playing all his political life, free trade to free traders and protection to protectionists, one thing in Ontario and another thing in Quebec. In Ontario these gentlemen will say : Why the Roman Catholics got nothing, we did not give them anything except this half hour's religious teaching in the schools.


Wilfrid Laurier: What about Mr. Haultain's letter then ?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: 
Wilfrid Laurier: What of Mr Haultain's interview which was quoted by my friend a moment ago. that the new Bill is just as bad as the first one.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: -Ii. LALOR. i ,i0 uot know anythin about Mr. Haultain's interview, but w u ere told the other night by the Finance
memlJer for Carle-ton (Mi. R L. Borden) formed a government it Mould have to be a Protestant government. He prophesied that probablv it would not be long before that would take place. We do not believe on this side that it. will be very long, but he said that government must be a Protestant government. 1 want to say that is not the history of ,the Conservative party of this country. Sir. John Macdonald did not have a Protestant government; he had in his government distinguished I- rench Canadians of whom gentlemen on the opposite side of the House can look back to-day with pride and pleasure. It was not a Protestant government because there were representatives of both Protestants and Catholics in it and, Sir, is it the history of the Conservative party of the past that we always had Protestant Prime Ministers? We had Sir John Thompson as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, and every Conservative in this country, whether he was an Orangeman or not, was a follower of Sir John Thompson's and was proud to follow him. The country was proud of him and his party was proud of him as well. The Conservative party is the party that has always dealt out justice to the minority.
I want to say that we on this side of tile House are loyal to our leader notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Alex. Johnson) a few moments ago asked me: What about the mutiny on our side. I want to tell him that there is no mutiny on this side. The leader of the Conservative party told us both in caucus and out to vote as our consciences dictated to us on this Bill and that is the way we are voting on the measure. I want to tell the hon. member for Cape Breton that we are loyal to our leader and while we are loyal to our leader we are just as loyal to the member for Beauliariiois (Mr. Bergeron) and the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). We recognize them as leaders of the Conservative partv as well as from the province of Quebec and we are loyal to them and proud of them as members of the Conservative party sitting on this side of the House.


Alexander Johnston: Their consciences will not allow them to follow him. What about the member for St. Antoine Division (Mr. Ames) ?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: 50 72
are trying to pay back the debt they owe and they promised to pay. If they do not do something in connection with this measure, they might lose Quebec, and so, because of party expediency they have introduced the measure now before'the House Now the county of Haldimand I represent in this House had an election in 1895, and we had there the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), who was then the Attorney Genera] for the province ofManitoba. The 'Globe' says that he travelled 1,500 miles in order to teach the people of this country an object-lesson in provincial rights. That is wliat the ' Globe ' said on April 13th, 1895. He travelled up and down the side roads of Haldimand county, preaching provincial rights. I want to read to hon. gentlemen opposite some of the nice, kind things that he said about them, and I notice that when ho was speaking, many of his Liberal friends were very enthusiastic indeed, they applauded him most ferociously. Here is what he said at Caledonia on April 13, 1905 :
It was found that the system of education of 1895 which was followed in the school districts was no system at all. The result has been that throughout that section of the country where the separate school districts were in existence the people have grown up in a state of absolute ignorance and illiteracy. It is a notorious fact that in the province of Manitoba, in the district where the people are French and Roman Catholic, and where this system of schools lias been in existence for twenty years, that it is a rare thing to And a person who can read and write. I could show you, if you were in Winnipeg, a petition which came in from the reeve of a Roman Catholic municipality in which six councillors of the municipality made their signatures by putting crosses upon the paper, and to which only one could sign his name. I can refer you to the discussion which took place in our legislature in 1899, when it was proposed that we should require by our municipal law that the reeve and councillors should be compelled to be capable of reading and writing, and a gentleman who represented a constituency almost exclusively French and Roman Cathol'c, which had no schools but these Catholic schools, stood up in the committee of the legislature and said that if the Bill became law in his constituency persons could not be got qualified for the office of reeve or councillor. I said a moment ago that upon the real condition of affairs becoming disclosed it became evident that it was necessary in the interests of the province of Manitoba, if we were to have a province, that we should have it educated, that some reform should be instituted, and we work for the purpose of finding out how the reform could be instituted. In the first place, the division of the management of the schools into two sections doubled the expense, and the first thing we decided upon was that we would do away with the double management and have one set of expenses.
Out of $60,000 in 1S&8, which was up to that time the amount we were able ,to devote to education in the province of Manitoba, no less than $10,000 was expended for the purpose of the management of the two sections, Protestant and Catholic. There were grave abuses in connection with the distribution of the money. We Mr. LABOR.
have never been able to ascertain how the Catholic section worked the matter out, but I will give you one result of the distribution of the public money. They so managed that, while-the Protestant school districts received $197 each, the Catholic districts got $317 each ; that while for_each Protestant teacher there was-paid $121.76, for each Catholic teacher there was paid $195.05 ; that while the Protestant school district taxed itself on the avterage' $456.20, -the average direct taxation of the Catholic school district was only $277.95. The drift of the whole administration was in the same direction. The drift of the administration was to give the Roman Catholic Church the benefit of the public money. That system is not at all like the Ontario separate school system- you have nothing of that kind here. Under that system public money went direct to thie clergy of the Roman Catholic Church; under that system the clergy did practically what they liked with the money ; they conducted the schools-or not, as they saw fit, with the result which I have spoken of, namely, that the people in the districts they were supposed to educate grew up in absolute illiteracy ; they did not fulfil the trust confided to them, but the money was used for the purposes of the church, and not for education.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to read any more of the speeches of the hon. member for Brandon in my constituency. There are many more of the'rn I could read that were delivered by him in that constituency, which I think were an insult to the Roman Catholic people of this country. I would like to know what the hon. gentlemen opposite from Quebec think of the opinions of the hon. member for Brandon in 1895. They are evidently the same opinions he holds now, because when he stood up in this House he practically reiterated the opinions he expressed in 1895. What do hon. gentlemen opposite from Quebec think of the slurs that he cast upon their race and upon their religion ? Are we to believe that Roman Catholic schools mean ignorance and illiteracy ? Are we to believe that when church schools have been established for twenty years in a district, and where the people of that district have gone to those schools, that no man in the tow-n-ship could be found who could read or write? Are we to believe that the Catholic priests of Manitoba took public money out of the public exchequer and put it into their pockets instead of giving it to the schools for which it was intended ? Now, Sir, I want to say that so far as I am concerned I think these statements are gross exaggerations. In the county^ of Haldimand where I now live, and where I have always lived,
I have been associated with the Catholic priests during all my life, they have been my friends, and one of them particularly is one of the closest friends I have, and I want to say that I do not believe those men would take public money and put it into their pockets instead of using it to educate the people of their flock. But so far, there is not a gentleman from the province of Quebec or a supporter of the right hon.

gentleman in this House, who has stood up and repudiated those statements. I want to say that so far as I am concerned I believe they are exaggerated, I do not believe that they represent the true condition of affairs so far as the priests of the Roman Catholic church are concerned.
Now, Sir, hon. gentlemen opposite preach to us a great deal about tolerance. We have had many lectures read to us on tolerance, but I wonder if you can find anything that has been said on this side of the House during this debate so intolerant as the speeches of the hon. member for Brandon. Yes, 1 will go further, and ask hon. gentlemen to quote anything that has been said by Conservatives inside or outside of this House that would equal the utterances of the hon. gentlemen themselves in IStMi. So far as I am concerned, I can point to my record in the county in which I live, and no one can say that I have not been tolerant and just towards the people of all denominations. 1 believe that in that county there is no man more respected than I am by the Roman Catholic people, because I have been their friend and they have been my friends.
1 want to say, Sir, that in the county of Haldimand, the Roman Catholic people are among the best citizens we have in a social way and a business way. When you talk about intolerance at the last general election in the county of Haldimand, let me tell you that Michael McConnell, a splendid type of Irish Roman Catholic, was the candidate of the Conservative party, and was loyally supported by that party. We live there in perfect harmony, there are no religious cries, no religious differences. Although the Catholic people in Haldimand and Monk have some of the best churches in the county, 1 am glad to say that there are no separate schools in that county, their children all go to the public schools. That, I believe, is the proper system, and I want to place myself on record as being an advocate of a public school system in this country. I do not believe that separate schools are in the interest of the Roman Catholic people any more than they are in the interest of the Protestant people. 1 believe the children of both Protestants and Catholics should go to school together, should play together, and grow up side by side, without any differences whatever. I had an evidence of the friendship formed in boyhood days in the last general election in my county. I met a man coming out of the polling booth, he was a member of the Roman Catholic church and I said to him : ' I thought you were a Conservative.' ' No,' he said, ' I have always been a Liberal, and my father before me ; but when I think of the days that you and 1 used to sit together in school, the friends that we were in our boyhood, when I come to vote I always vote for you, regardless of my politics.' That, Sir, is a sample of the friendship formed in earlier days between school boys, and that is the right kind of 161 '
friendship. I believe it is in the interest of this country that the children of all denominations should go to the same school.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are told that the Bill now before the House simply means that in the Northwest Territories the children of Roman Catholics will go to the same identical school as other children, with the same books, with the same curriculum, the same school inspector, the same qualified teachers-that everything is the same in the two systems of schools, only that one is a separate school and the other is a public school. Now, I want to say that I consider that is the most absurd feature in the whole Bill. I say that the Prime Minister might better have stood by his first Bill than to give us a Bill which is such as they now describe it to be. I want to say, as I have already said, that I do not believe that such is the case. If, as some hon. members say, it is simply a duplication of the public school system, why, in the name of common sense, should there be two schools, and these schools exactly alike ? If you had granted a church school, then the question would have been settled for all time to come, and the. Roman Catholic minority would have been satisfied, but I claim they will never be satisfied with schools such as hon. gentlemen opposite declare them to be, and we have evidence of that in the fact (that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has been holding public meetings in the province of Quebec and declaring that the people of Quebec would not be satisfied with that kind of a school system. Whether he was sent there to do that by the Prime Minister or not I do not know. It may have been that he was sent there in order that the people of Ontario and other provinces would think that they were dissatisfied. I say it is ridiculous to have two school-houses, one on one side of the road and the other on the other side of the road. One is a red school-house at which the children belonging to all the denominations of the Protestant sects go to school, while on the other side of the road there is the school attended by Roman Catholic children. The children of one school will say: You are not good enough to go to our school, so you will have to go to a school of your own. I say that is the most ridiculous feature of the whole Bill; it is a duplication of the whole system ; we have two schools exactly alike, as hon. gentlemen opposite have told us, one on one side of the road for Catholics and the other on the other side of the road for Protestants. That is a ridiculous feature of the Bill, and if there were no other reason than that for opposing the Bill, it should of itself be a sufficient reason. Hon. gentlemen talk about the separate schools of the province of Quebec. The separate schools of Quebec are the public schools, and they are entirely different from the public schools of Ontario and of the other provinces. There is



no religion whatever taught in the public schools of Ontario. A child of any denomination can go to any of these schools and he will never hear of religion, but I am told that in the province of Quebec the public school is practically a French school, where the French language is taught and where the English language, in many instances, is not taught at all. I am told that the Irish Roman Catholic of Quebec is worse off than the Protestant, because he has to send his children to a French school, and these children have to learn French or they will not learn anything. When lion, gentlemen opposite from Quebec, talk about toleration, they are not as tolerant as they would have us believe. I want to deal out justice to all classes of the people in this country. I do not like these religious questions in public affairs. I am sorry to see them introduced, and I am sorry from the bottom of my heart that the right hon. Prime Minister of this country has seen lit to throw this question into the political arena in order that he may upset the people of this country and create strife, when the question should be settled by the provinces of the west themselves. Tlje hon. Minister of Finance, in his speech, told us of the schools of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. He told us that they had schools down there where the sisters of the church taught in their garb during the day ; lie told us that when the right hon. Prime Minister was there he said : Why, this is a separate school, and that the answer was : No ; this is a Nova Scotia school, not a separate school. Now, we have before us the tolerance of the people of Nova Scotia and New 'Brunswick. In the province of Ontario, although we have a separate school system, we have enlarged upon that system, and we have given the Roman Catholic minority more than was given them in the original Act. Now, 1 say, in conclusion, that with the history of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario before us, we have evidence that the people, if left to themselves, will be kind and generous to the minority, will treat them as they should be treated, and accord to them all the tolerance that is due. With these examples before us, I say that we should have some faith in the two provinces of the west, Alberta and Saskatchewan ; and we should trust them as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have been trusted, and I have confidence that these great provinces of the' west will deal leniently and liberally with the minority. When I vote in favour of the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), I am not voting against separate schools, and I want that distinctly understood. I an voting for provincial rights. I am voting that this question he left to the provinces themselves. I am voting for that, because I have faith that these provinces will deal out justice and equity to the Roman Catholic minority, both now and in the future, and Mr. LABOR.
for that reason I shall support the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


Mr.   T.@: MARTIN moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Samuel Hughes: I have not yet heard of the return in regard to Port Arthur and Fort William, which was promised some time ago.


Mr. HYMAN.: I think I will be able to lay it on the table of the House either tomorrow or on Monday.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.

Friday, April 28, 1905.