1908-07-10

AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 38, 1907.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 204) to amend chapter 38 of the statutes of 1907. He said : The purpose of this
Bill is to repeal one section of the statute referred to. That statute contained a number of provisions with regard to the deposit of mortgages as railway security. The retention of one provision, which was inserted in the Senate, was due to a misunderstanding between the gentleman who was interested in obtaining legislation, a legal practitioner in the city of Ottawa, and the Deputy Minister of Justice. The deputy minister assented to a number of sections, but not to this one ; but by a misunderstanding it was included among those that were passed by the Senate and concurred in by this House. As soon as the matter was noticed-in fact, within a day or so of prorogation-a letter was written to the gentleman interested in the legislation, asking him to inform his clients of the misunderstanding, and stating that it would seem to be necessary to reconsider the provision in question.


Mr. LANCASTER.: What is the effect of the legislation ?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: It is difficult to state the effect of the section which is sought to be repealed without reference to the exact language of it. It relates to the registration of mortgage securities by railway companies, and the effect of that on the claims of creditors. When the Bill comes for discussion on the second reading or in committee, I shall be happy to give all the explanation in my power as to the exact nature of the provision.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved that the House go
iuto committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of opium for other than medicinal purposes.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
Mr. LEMIEUX.: Mr. Chairman, this resolution speaks for itself. In moving it I


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.
Resolution reported read the second time and agreed to.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I may say to my hon. friend that he is very much in the position of a certain practitioner, a friend of mine, who many years ago made a motion in court in a certain case. The court was so much in favour of the motion that they refused to hear him, and he complained most bitterly because he was not allowed to make his argument.

Mr. LEMIEUX moved for leave to Introduce Bill (No. 205) to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of opium for other than medicinal purposes.


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

Mr. BLAIN.: Before the orders of the day are called may I be permitted to direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior to a question on page 12747 of ' Hansard,' only a part of which was answered. He answered parts 1 and 2, but left parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 unanswered. Perhaps the hon. minister will give the matter his attention and have these parts of the question answered to-morrow.



JUDICIARY OF MANITOBA AND ONTARIO.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House it is expedient to provide for the payment to one additional county court judge in the province of Manitoba, and two additional district court judges in the province of Ontario, each $2,500 per annum during the first three years of service, and after three years of service each $3,000 iper annum.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
Robert Laird Borden: I presume that this resolution is made necessary by provincial legislation in each case.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: What is proposed is two extra judges in district courts in the new portion of the province of Ontario and one extra county court judge in Manitoba. The districts in Ontario are the district of which Sudbury is the centre and another new district, in the territory of Rainy River. The Sudbury district was constituted by provincial statute a year ago. It was assented to in the provincial legislature a day or two before this House prorogued in April, 1907. It was then too late to legislate here in pursuance of that statute and the consequence has been that up to the present it has not been possible to appoint a judge for the new district of Sudbury, though the necessary legislation has now been on the provincial statute-book for some 15 mouths. The officers of the court, I understand, have been appointed and the court is in existence ready to do work except that there is no judge. The appointment of a judge is very urgently needed in that district. The court in the district of Rainy River is a new district court which has been established during the session of the Ontario legislature of the present year. The work of establishing the court, so far 3-s the appoint-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
ment of officials is concerned, has not gone so far in Rainy River as in Sudbury. I am not aware whether the sheriff and other of-licers have been appointed, but the growing needs of that portion of the province where settlement is proceeding and where the settlers are situated at very long distances from the nearest towns where courts can be held, made it absolutely necessary that these appointments should be provided for without further delay.
With regard to Manitoba there is a general statute under which the government of that province, when the appointment of another county court judge is needed, may so declare and in that way bring into force, automatically as it were, the statutory prerequisites for the establishment of the court. This county court judge is required in the northern part of the province, in the part which is at present, as I understand, filling up with settlers to a very considerable extent, and therefore, in the opinion of the provincial government, the establishment of a new court is required. It is simply with regard to these three cases that this provision is made and in each case there has been the necessary action by the provincial authorities.


Mr. GERVAIS.: Might I say a few words with respect to the request which has been made to the government for years for an increase of salary to the circuit court judges of the city of Montreal. As we know, in Quebec there are but three circuit court judges, who have been appointed to sit for the district of Montreal, in the other twenty districts, the circuit court work is done by the superior court judges. They have been discharging their duty for many years ; they are hearing during that time over 20,000 cases per year ; they sit about every day in the year and they are receiving a paltry salary. I think it but fair to ask that they should now be granted the increase of salary which were granted two years ago to all the circuit court judges of the other provinces. They are but three, they are clever, painstaking learned men, assiduous in their work and I think I am safe in saying that all the people in Montreal, the bar of Montreal, everybody in the district would be highly pleased to have an increase of salary of about $1,000 given to each of these judges. They are Mr. Chief Justice Leboeuf, Mr. Justice Dorion and Mr. Justice Purcell. I hope that my remarks will be given due consideration and that some provision will be made during this session. The bar of Montreal have been petitioning for years that such an increase should be granted this year if possible. These judges deserve the increase of salary that has been granted to the circuit court judges in Ontario, and I do not know why they were left out when the general increase of salaries to judges was voted by this House.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The question raised by the hon. gentleman is one to which a good deal of consideration has been given. Not long since a memorial on the subject was presented and I must concede that so far as my own views are concerned, I could not but recognize the justice of many of the representations with regard to the salaries of the circuit court in Montreal which were made in that memorial. The whole question of judicial salaries is, however, a very difficult one to deal with and a very awkward one to reopen. Judicial salaries were considered by this parliament only three years ago and a very considerable measure of increase given to nearly all of the judges throughout the Dominion. I cannot pretend that there are not some inequalities in those salaries and those who suffer from the inequalities think that there is lack of equity and lack of justice in the relative salaries as compared with the amount of work that falls on different courts or judges to do and press very strongly that recognition of their position should be had and some betterment of their salaries granted. Personally I am not willing so soon to open that troublesome question again. Inequalities, I am afraid, will always exist, even under the most careful revision that could possibly be made. We are, I think, and I suppose all lawyers think, not at present paying our judges enough, we are not getting throughout the country as good service as we could get if we paid better figures. I think that judicial service is just like any other service and that the cheaper you try to get it. the poorer the quality of the product. In that view I certainly should be better pleased if we could provide some considerable general increase to our judicial salaries. I am afraid, however, that that is not the sentiment of parliament and I doubt if it is the sentiment of the country. I am afraid the general view is that a lawyer is a lawyer and the cheaper you can get him, the better for your own pocket.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice should know that everybody is satisfied throughout Canada with the general increases of salary granted to the judges. There is no complaint on that score and we shall not want any more increases for twenty years to come, I think; but I would like to know from the minister whether he is aware of the fact that out of the judges who got increases of salary two years ago, the three circuit judges in the city of Montreal were omitted ? There were only three judges in all Canada who got no increase of salary and these were the three circuit court judges of Montreal. I took some interest in their case and was told that it was through an oversight that no increase had been given them. That is why I call once more the attention of parliament to this omission and inequality of treatment.
Resolution reported read the second time and agreed to.
I Mr. AYLESWORTH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 206) to amend the Judges' Act. He said : This Bill contains not only provisions embodying the terms of the resolution just passed but also a provision with regard to the chairman or assistant chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, where such official has been a judge of the Superior Court prior to his appointment. The effect of the amendment is to reduce from fifteen to twelve years the period of service which would entitle the chairman, in such a position as I have described, to the usual retiring allowance.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 197) respecting the sale and marking of manufactures of gold and silver and gold and silver plated ware-Mr. Fisher -read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. KEMP.: What are the changes in this Bill from the Act formerly passed but which never came into operation ? It was to have come into operation in some seven or eight months but I doubt if it ever did. That Act was carefully thought out in committee, and I would like to know what the .changes are.


Mr. FISHER.: The Act to which my hon. friend refers was passed in 1906. The different interests were represented in the committee which considered that measure and they threshed out their different views, But before the Act came into force, the interests concerned found that some of its provisions would interfere with their trade and they asked the government to postpone its coming into force.


Mr. BRODER.: Did it come into force by proclamation ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, automatically at a certain date. It was not as usual the date of the assent to the Act, but the date fixed was March 13 last. Shortly before that date, the wholesale dealers in jewellery, the retail dealers and the manufacturers met together to discuss how it would affect them and found it would act prejudicially. They made representations to the government a few weeks before the date fixed for its coming into force. The government did not see how it was possible to make the necessary amendments and put them into shape before March 13, so we brought down a short Bill simply repealing that Act, and told the interested parties that we would if possible this session bring in a new Act to meet their views. The chief difference was with regard to the amount of gold in what are called pure gold articles. The dispute was whether nine carats or ten should be required as the minimum. The old Act re-

quired ten and tlie English law requires nine. Therefore with a ten carat requirement, the importation of English goods was practically prohibited. Eventually the manufacturers, while not agreeing to the change to nine carats, said they would leave the decision with the government. The importers and dealers all wanted nine carats substituted for ten. Various minor amendments were also suggested and the question was threshed out between the officers of the Crown and a committee composed of representatives of the retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers. This committee drafted a new Bill, but it was found that, owing to their inexperience in drafting legislation their Bill was not in proper shape to present to parliament, and the Justice Department undertook to draft another.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is the change from ten to nine ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. The other amendments are minor ones.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: Has the Bill been threshed out by the representatives of the various interests concerned and found satisfactory ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The accredited representatives of the retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers went into the whole matter and discussed it with the law officers of the Crown, and they have agreed on the provisions of this Bill, which has been well di^ cussed in the Senate and meets their views:


William Foster Cockshutt: Does it come into immediate operation ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, on the 1st of October next. .


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture one question about the Bill. I have had a communication about it, in which a reference is made to section 9:
The original intention of the manufacturers was to have goods marked in such a way that the public could distinguish between spurious and reliable articles. To accomplish which it was proposed 'that gold jewellery when stamped should possess such marks, and only such marks, as would enable the consumer to determine, first, the maker; second, the period of time when made; third, the quality of the article made. Section 9 deals with this question. but absolutely fails in every (particular. As we read the section, permission is given to stamp or apply either a trade mark only, or a quality mark only, or numbers not denoting quality only, and a trade mark combined with a dealer's initials only, or if the dealer prefers, all or any combination of said referred to marks, and the date mark is eliminated entirely.
I think the minister has a letter containing the same statement, that is from Mr. Ellis. The matter is a highly technical one, and I do not profess to understand it, but Mr. FISHER.
I thought it my duty to make these observations and to read this communication, in order to be sure that the matter has received the attention of the government, and that the minister is satisfied, if he is satisfied, with the present condition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I had the same communication from Mr. Ellis. .While perhaps his views may be slightly different from the accredited representatives of the trade, we have looked into that matter, and the Senate went into the question carefully, and this section 9 seems to cover the consensus of opinion of the trade. As I understand it, Mr. Ellis' objection is to the removal of the necessity of the trade mark. But the Bill provides that the article must contain a trade mark registered in Canada, and that the trade mark contains the date. If the article is marked with a foreign trade mark, it must be registered, and the mark must be put on at the time of manufacture. But if there is no foreign trade mark put on, then it could be imported without that trade mark.


Mr. SPROULE.: What is to indicate the day of the manufacture? If only the registration trade mark is given, that would give no indication to the public.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If there is no trade mark on. the date of the manufacture would be in the record, but the importer would have to comply with the Act. If there are any trade marks, any special marks, they must be in accordance with the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we are all agreed that the object of the Bill is to prevent the practice of fraud on the public, but at the same time, while securing that object, it is desirable to disturb as little as possible the trade of the country in this important branch. 1 assume that the government has taken this question into careful consideration, but I do not suppose that at this stage of the session we will be able to give the subject any elaborate discussion, even if we had the technical knowledge to be able to do so. 1 would like to know from the minister whether he is satisfied, and whether the officials of the government having that matter in hand, are satisfied, that this Bill does, to as great an extent as practicable, prevent fraud and imposition upon the public. Some cogent illustrations of that evil were brought to my attention last year by gentlemen who wete engaged in the trade, particularly by Mr. MoNaught, who thinks the Bill in its present form is calculated to do away with those evils. Is the government satisfied that this legislation will have that effect?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can say, practically yes, in regard to that. There could be greater protection, but I think it would be an interference with trade which would not be desirable. We must recognize the conditions,

and we must recognize the evidence of those who are engaged in it. The provisions of this Act seem to prevent any fraud, so far as that can be done with fair consideration for those engaged in the trade. It might be possible to invent greater restrictions, but I think it would be impracticable to enforce them. Mr. McNaught is urging . upon us very strongly that this Bill should become law.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am not quite clear whether it is compulsory that the imported article should have a trade mark on it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is not compulsory that it should have a trade mark, but if it has a trade mark, it must be a trade mark registered in Canada.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then it is compulsory that all articles made in Canada should have the name of the maker on them?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it is not.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is voluntary whether a man puts it on or not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If he does put it on, it has to be in conformity with the Act.


William Foster Cockshutt: What is the least quality of gold that can be stamped as gold?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nine carats.


William Foster Cockshutt: That is less than half gold.
Mr. FISHER, The old Act was ten carats.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am a little anxious about the matter, although it is so late in the session that I realize that there is not much time to give it consideration. There are some things in this Bill under which it seemed to me the public will not be protected in the way we desired to protect them when the matter was first initiated in reference to the old Bill.


Mr. HENDERSON.: As I understood the Bill anything that is not stamped or marked will certainly be regarded as spurious. The public has no guarantee whatever.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is it.


David Henderson: An article may be eight karat, but because it has no stamp the public has assurance what the character of it is. It does seem to me that this is not a tremendous amount of protection to the public. I do not see any great advantage to be gained by it, -but if I know that it is a matter that excites some considerable interest in the country and if the interests of those who are mostly concerned in providing an article for sale to the public that is reasonably good are protected I do not think we can take much exception to it. I fancy the public will have to take care of themselves in this matter as they have done before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the public be protected against jewellers selling goods as gold, or pure gold, without being stamped, thereby deceiving the public and without any punishment provided for such deception ? If that is permitted it seems to me that the Bill is of little use.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The public will look for the mark, they will not find the mark and they will know the article is not genuine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the article is stamped ' pure gold ' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They could not do it under this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They could do it outside of this Act and not be amenable to punishment ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No they would be amenable under this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What provision is there in the law to punish them provided that were done ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Act says that if an article bears any mark it must have applied to it the following marks and descriptions and amongst these is the number of carats.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: The Act calls for stamps representing a certain quality of gold in the article, and if the stamp is not on it is prima facie evidence that the article is not gold. The principal change in this Bill is the difference between nine and ten carat gold. The former Bill prevented nine carat jewellery coming in from Great Britain. The change in this Bill is to conform with the English trade mark rather than with the American. It is a well understood fact that the English hall mark cuts down the quality of gold stamped on the article. The American Act says that while it is stamped ten carats it must contain at least nine and a half carats of gold, and that if the article is soldered it must contain not less than nine carats, Seventy-five per cent of the jewellery that came in from the United States stamped ten carat was really only nine carat. It would have been a great injury to the retail jewellery business in this country had they continued the ten carat mark for the simple reason that retailers have an immense business in those nine carat hail mark goods and they are excellent wearing articles. I have a letter from one of the largest wholesale and manufacturing jewellers in Canada who says :
We think it would be in the interest of the trade if the Bill were put through in its present shape this session.
The wholesale dealers, the manufacturers and retailers have had over twenty meetings in Toronto over this Bill and practical-

ly the Bill, as presented to-day, is their own drafting.


Albert Edward Kemp: The drafting of the retailers.


Adam Zimmerman: No, the drafting of the wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers, with one exception. I understand there was one manufacturer who took exception to the nine carat gold. He wanted to see it ten carat but he stood at one side and said that he would leave it to the government.	.
On section 7-exceptions ; certain articles of silver.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you require the exenrption of articles by the Acts of the Governor in Council ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think there will have to be a more lengthy description of these articles made by the'regulations which will have to be made by experts. You could hardly do it in the Bill.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 18S) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act.-Mr. Oliver-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
Mr. STAPLES.: I would like an explanation of this legislation. It is one of the most important Bills of this session, affecting the interest of the farming community of the west, and I hope the committee will not rush it through without giving it the consideration to which it is entitled.


Mr. LAKE.: I may say that certain proposed amendments to this Bill were laid before the members yesterday, and I have done my best to look into them. Two sets of amendments have been brought down and distributed among the members, the second set only yesterday. I understand that the minister has gone very thoroughly into this matter, and is pretty well posted in all the details. We want to know what the proposed amendments mean before passing the various clauses of the Bill.


Mr. OLIVER.: In regard to the two sets of proposed amendments, they have been distributed for the information of the House, so that no one would be taken by surprise. The difference between the two sets of amendments proposed, with regard to section 31 of the Bill, is a difference not in principle but only in detail. I may say that the Bill which has come down from the Senate is based on the report of the Royal Grain Commission which was appointed in 1900, and which made a very exhaustive examination of the grain trade, both in the west and Mr. ZIMMERMAN
in the east and in Great Britain. That commission embodied its views in a report which has been before the House for a considerable time. Preparatory to the framing of the Bill which would embody the propositions of the commission, a conference was held under the auspices of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That conference was attended by representatives of the railway interest, the milling interest, the grain dealing interest, the farming interest, as well as by a number of members of this House and the chairman of the Royal Grain Commission; so that there was a fair opportunity for all sides of the question to be presented. As a result of that conference it was decided not to follow in all particulars the views of the Royal Grain Commission. Some things which they recommended were not acted upon, and some of their recommendations were varied; but in the main the Bill as it was presented to the Senate and as it has come down to us is the embodiment of the views of that commission. When the report of the Royal Grain Commission got into the hands of the public generally, especially the farming community of the west, there was of course brought to bear upon it an interest that was not fully in evidence in the conference before the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In other words, the great farming interest of the country had an opportunity to discuss pro and con the merits of the question and to give their views directly as to what they wanted; and it is in accordance largely with the views that have been expressed directly by the grain-growing interest that the amendments which have been placed before the House in sheet form have been prepared. It was thought right that any amendments that were to be suggested should be printed and placed informally in the hands of members. We thought it would save time in discussion to have them distributed in convenient form.


William D. Staples: This question, I understand, arose in the Committee on Agriculture three years ago, when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) moved for a committee to thoroughly investigate the grain trade of the prairie provinces. The committee granted that request, and there was a committee formed. Parties were summoned from all over the western country, as well as millers from the east, and the matter was gone into very fully, with the result that a royal commission was appointed and given authority to go all over the country and even to Great Britain to ascertain what was the best way to protect our grain until it reached the foreign market. That grain commission cost the country something over $30,000, although it was anticipated that $10, 000 would be sufficient; so that this legislation up to the present time has cost the country an enormous sum of money. The Grain Growers' Association, who represent the agricultural interest of the prairie pro-

vinces, liave been very active in trying to guard that interest. When they got the report of the Royal Grain Commission, they asked for an interview with the government here. That was granted. When the delegates from that association arrived here, they were surrounded by other parties who were apparently very much interested in the grain trade. They came here, not expecting to be confronted with the bankers and the railway magnates of the country. I understand that they have had no easy task in trying to get the legislation they desire, and I regret that the legislation which is before the House to-day is far short of what they were looking for. For that reason I think the committee should go very carefully through every clause of this Bill and see if we cannot work out a measure satisfactory to the grain growers of the west. The Grain Growers' Association are so much interested in this that since that Bill has gone through the Senate, they sent their delegates back here. I understand that delegates from Saskatchewan and Manitoba are here in the interests of the grain producers of the prairie provinces. There have been many conferences to which we on this side of the House have not been asked. We did not know what legislation was going on or what provisions were being discussed, and in so far as regards what has taken place between the committee and the farmers' delegates, we are in the dark. Therefore we are entitled to all the time necessary to find out from the minister, as well as those who were with him in the conference and who were ail western Liberals, how the matter really stands. I remember that when the delegates came down to meet the Minister of Trade and Commerce, we were not even given an invitation to go over to the meeting and hear the evidence. But knowing that the conference was taking place, we did go over, and were told we could not be admitted until the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) was consulted, and he came out and graciously allowed us to go in. I hope that the interests of the farmers will be protected by this legislation.


Mr. CONMEE.: The general Act, of which this is supposed to ibe an amendment, has certain regulations regarding the inspection of grain in the Manitoba division. It deals with other divisions, but I am more particularly interested in the Manitoba division. Under that Act and the amendment now proposed, all grain going east of Winnipeg for shipment to the terminal elevator or any point east of Winnipeg must be inspected as it leaves the car into the elevator. But that is not the practice at Winnipeg. Grain shipped to Winnipeg is not inspected as it goes into the car, but as it comes out. That grain is reinspected and a check inspection made at the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William before it enters these elevators. If it is not found up to the standard given 399
at Winnipeg, the car is detained until it can be adjusted by the chief inspector. The law further provides that the certificate given at Winnipeg is final as between the buyer and seller. At Port Arthur or Fort William there is a better opportunity of inspecting the grain as it goes into the elevators, because the whole car load is under the eye of the inspector, and according to the rule it shall not be inspected at night. There is, therefore, a better opportunity for inspection there than at Winnipeg where the grain is not inspected in the elevator,, but samples taken from the cars after it comes out of the elevator. If the grade given at Winnipeg when inspected at the general elevator is not found to be the proper grade, the car is held up until adjusted. Under the law the certificate given at Winnipeg is final between the purchaser and the seller. This is for the purpose of facilitating grain transactions. But the grain may be discarded at Port Arthur or Fort William, because it is not up to the standard grade and may be held up. If the inspector can get a surrender of the certificate given at Winnipeg, the grain can be reinspected. But if that certificate has been negotiated and gone into other hands, it may not be secured, and in that case I am unable to find out what becomes of the grain. I am told that in some such cases, everybody gets tired. The elevator man, the inspector and the railway people, if they find some other grain will stand it, will dump it in with this other grain and somebody gets a less valuable grain. If the certificate is still in the hands of the party who got it, no doubt it could be surrendered, but frequently it changes hands and in some cases they do not get the certificate surrendered. That illustrates my point. The grain that is shipped to Winnipeg they take simply from the car, but do not give it any grade. They take it into the elevators and clean it and mix it, and then grade it after it is reloaded into the cars again. That same grain is inspected at Port Arthur going into the elevators there. The grade cannot be changed. Even if the inspector at Port Arthur or Fort William finds a difference, the chief inspector is the only one who can determine whether the grade should1 be changed or not. I am not finding fault with that, but it is not as speedy a way of dealing with the thing as might possibly be worked out. The result is that under this amendment it is proposed to hold cars at Winnipeg 24 hours in order that there may be a sample mark and the grain sold there without inspection. If that grain is not sold or dealt with at Winnipeg it may go to the terminal elevator without being graded, as I understand it. If it is ordered into the Winnipeg elevators and not inspected going in, it is inspected coming out after it has been treated. I am not speaking now of scoured grain. I am



speaking of the ordinary grades. Now, that privilege which is allowed to the elevators and dealers in Manitoba is taken away from the elevators and dealers of the province of Ontario, and I do not think that is fair. I will give notice of an amendment which will at least to some extent remedy the evil. If it is satisfactory to the grain or elevator people at Winnipeg to try to make an artificial condition where nature never intended it, I am willing to let them struggle with it and I do not want to interfere with their programme. If it is proper and right to take this grain and clean it and improve it to a point or two in grade in the city of Winnipeg, it is certainly right to do it at the terminal elevators. There may be some difference of opinion as to whether my amendment should be to Bill (7 Z) of the Senate or to the Grain Inspection Bill, known as Bill (CO) of the Senate. The Bill now before us is the Bill that imposes the conditions, and I think this is the proper place for the amendment. I beg to give notice of the following :
All grain not inspected and graded at Winnipeg, shipped to any terminal elevator in the Manitoba inspection division, if inspected before entering such elevator shall at the request of the owner, and upon the surrender of any certificate of inspection previously given, be reinspected and graded according to its merits, before, or at the time of shipment from such terminal elevator.
I believe this amendment would to some extent overcome the discrepancy I have pointed out. There is a considerable quantity of grain which goes through Winnipeg and which may be held there, and which may not enter the elevators at all, and as to that class of grain I simply ask that the same privilege which is extended to the Winnipeg elevators shall be extended to the terminal elevators at the head of the lakes.


Frank Oliver: The remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) would apply entirely to Bill (OC) of the Senate, and not to the Bill we are now considering. There is a certain relationship between the two Bills, but the Bill now before the House has reference to the transportation of grain and the identity of the grain, whereas the other Bill is to establish grades, and to that Bill this amendment is pertinent. I do not think it is in order to accept notice of this as an amendment to the Bill (CO) of the Senate, which is not before the House, but that informality might be waived.


James Conmee: This is the Bill that imposes a condition on grain going east of Winnipeg-why that line should be drawn has always been a mystery to me-and, therefore, it seems to me that my amendment is relevant to this Bill. However, I do not care which Bill it goes in, if I am given an assurance that Bill (CC) of the Mr. CONMEE.
Senate will be considered by the House. I was told that if a certain amendment to the Bill prevailed in the Senate the promoters intended to withdraw it. My position is that I want a fair consideration for this amendment, and if the House rejects it I will have to be content.
On section 3, (i) eastern transfer elevator.


Frank Oliver: This is in line with the suggestions of the Royal Grain Commission, and is a very important section. It provides that western grain, in transit to eastern points or to the sea-board, shall be subject to the same control, the same supervision and the same inspection in the transfer elevators as it has hitherto been in the terminal elevator at Fort William. It is a preliminary provision, looking to the preservation of the identity of the grade of the grain during its whole course of transportation, or from the collecting point to its ultimate destination, either the mill or the sea-board. While every provision was made in the original Act for the preservation of the grade of grain in terminal elevators, the transfer elevators were left free, and of course there was an opening for abuses, for which the Royal Grain Commission has suggested this as a remedy.


William D. Staples: How many extra officials will be required to do all this work ?


Frank Oliver: I could form no idea how many would be required. The proposition certainly will involve the appointment of a considerable number of responsible officials, and will involve the payment of a considerable number of salaries. I do not wisli to minimize the importance of this section, it is a radical departure from the Act as it stands to-day. The Royal Grain Commission believes this provision to be necessary in the interest of the grain growers -of the west, to securing that their products shall reach the market in proper condition.


William D. Staples: This is a very important section, and is drawn, I understand, to meet the views of the farmers of the west, and to protect the identity of their grain until it reaches the foreign market. As to whether the provision contained in this Bill is the best one for securing that result, we do not know. Tbe Bill has been up in the Senate, and lias been well considered there ; I believe it has also been before a caucus or committee of gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House, and it has come down to us in this form. So I suppose we shall have to hold them responsible for it.


Frank Oliver: The present section comes to ns as it was framed by the wisdom of the Senate, and no one so far has suggested any amendment to it. It embodies the result of the investigations of the Royal Grain Commission, and the application of the wisdom of the Senate to its suggestions.


Richard Blain: There have been several complaints from gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, that they were not invited to the meetings and the investigations that have been going on. Perhaps the minister would give us an explanation of that.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is under a wrong impression, there has been no special committee of, the House.


Richard Blain: I do not mean a special committee appointed by this House, but a committee composed of members on the government side of the House, with the minister occupying the chair. Perhaps the minister will explain why gentlemen on this side of the House were not invited ?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that there is any explanation to be offered. If any members of the House see fit to associate together for the purpose of considering a measure which is to come before the House, I do not see that their course requires any explanation.


Mr. HERRON.: I am not very familiar with the grain growing business myself, but if I had had an opportunity of consulting with the delegates that have been here for the last week or ten days, I would have considerable more information than I have to-day. I have heard that there have been meetings from time to time of the western members on the government side of the House, but I only heard of them after they were all over each day. I regret that we have not been admitted to their councils, and have not consequently been able to get the views of the representatives of the western grain growers. I am as much interested in grain growing as any other member of this House, and I would like to see the interest of the grain growers well protected.


Mr. SCHAEFNER.: This is not a party question, so far as I am concerned. I want the very best conditions possible to prevail as regards the grain growers of the west. Personally, I represent a district that grows more wheat than the district represented by any other member of this House. I think that the courtesy might have been extended to us of inviting us to take part in these meetings. It is another evidence of the hole and corner work done by certain members on the other side of the House. There was absolutely nothing in this question of a party nature. As we have not been able to confer with these representatives from Manitoba and the other western provinces that have been down here, we come to this discussion under great disadvantages. We should have had an opportunity of attending those meetings of which the Minister of the Interior was chairman. We knew that these meetings were going on, but we could only get in there, as it were, by pushing ourselves in. We are here, western members, trying to do our utmost in the interests of the farmers. We find 309J
that in the past we have not received justice, but that will come up a little later. However. I want to enter my protest. The Minister of the Interior may say that hon. members on this side of the House, if they had liked, could have met together and talked matters over. But, this is a little different. This is a matter which affects both sides of the House equally and I say that very small courtesy was extended to the members of the House. These meetings have been going on from day to day and we were not given the benefit of attending them. Because we did not have the opportunity of hearing what the wesern representatives had to say we are hampered in this discussion.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that my hon. friend's complaints are well founded. I do not think they have anything to do with the case.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think they have.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend has had consultations with his friends on the other side of the House with regard to matters which are not necessarily party questions. I do not see why he should deny to other people the same privilege.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We had none with the representatives from the west.


Frank Oliver: With regard to this particular case, this Bill is before the House to-day exactly as it left the Senate. Nobody has suggested any interference with it- My hon. friend has had just as much opportunity to follow the discussion in the Senate as anybody else has had. He has had just as much opportunity to consider the provisions of the Bill as anybody else has had. If he is not able to give a reasoned judgment writh regard to the question it is his fault and not the fault of any one else. As far as the suggestions which have been placed before the House in printed form are concerned. I will have to take the responsibility, together with those with whom I have consulted, but in so far as the Bill is concerned it is as it left the Senate, and so far as we have not attempted to make any change in it, my hon. friend is just as much responsible for it as any other member of the House. There is no change in the conditions whatever, and I think he is certainly undertaking to make a grievance when none exists.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), as I understand it, complains that Some hon. gentlemen in this House have been enabled to receive some information winch would throw light on the matter, which is not a party question, which has been denied to himself.


Frank Oliver: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the complaint that has been made by my hon. friend

from Souris. The people of the west have thought that this was a matter of sufficient Importance to justify them in sending down special envoys to inform-the government and the members of the House supporting the government?-no, but to inform the whole House as to the scope of the measure and the provisions which they thought it should contain. My hon. friend from Souris is as much a member of the House as the hon. gentlemen opposite who were permitted to receive the information imparted by these representatives from the west. If the minister means to say that gentlemen on this side of the House can bring no intelligence to the discussion of the subject, we have nothing to say about that. He is entitled to his opinion.


Frank Oliver: That would not apply to the western members, only to some of the eastern members.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But if he acknowledges that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, coming from the wTest, possess as great an amount of intelligence as hon. gentlemen on the other side, I cannot see how he will say that the grievance of my hon. friend from Souris is not well founded. It is in the interest of the people that all possible information shall be obtained by the members of this House, whether from the government or anywhere else, because we are binding the people by the legislation that we make. I do not see how the hon. gentleman can justify the exclusion of some hon. members of the House from information which fs possessed by others, because when a matter of this kind comes before the House to be discussed, and when hon. gentlemen on this side are called upon to discuss'it, they are entitled to the same information as that which has been received by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I do not think that hon. members on this side have been properly treated in this respect.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend speaks of the exclusion of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House from sources of information. There has been no exclusion of any one on the part of any one from any source of information. As far as the intelligence of hon. gentlemen from the west is concerned, my hon. friend, in undertaking to speak for them, is casting a reflection upon them that I do not think he is justified in doing.


Albert Edward Kemp: I would like to ask the minister if this is the Bill which created so much interest in the Senate, in regard to which the Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, representing the government, and Senator Davis, representing some one else


Frank Oliver: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: May I inquire from the minister if he takes the same position in this House that Sir Richard Cartwright Mr. LANCASTER.
took in the Senate with respect to this Bill?


Frank Oliver: We are not dealing with that Bill at all. It has not come down yet.


Richard Stuart Lake: The two Bills are mixed up together in a way, and it is a very difficult matter to keep them separate. The conferences which I understand have been held have been in connection with both Bills, I presume, as we have amendments proposed to this Bill as sent down from the Senate.	The hon. minister of
the interior speaks of this as a conference between party friends, and he says that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House may have their own meetings just the same as have hon. gentlemen on the other side. But I would point out that these conferences which have, II understand, taken place, have been on a different footing. I have been informed that not only have the members on that side been meeting together, which, of course, they had a perfect right to do, but that they have had before them the chief Inspector, a paid official, to give evidence, and that they have also had before them, I presume on invitation, the representatives of the two great railways in the west, the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway, the two parties most interested in the conveyance of the grain and the representatives of the farmers. That being the case, it seems to me that it partook more or less of the nature of an official conference. However, the minister did not see fit to invite hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to that conference, and, of course, he takes, the responsibility of that. I only express the same belief as that which has been expressed by an hon. gentleman on this side of the House already, and that is that the Bill has been treated from a purely party standpoint and not as a matter in regard to which both parties should do their utmost to agree upon some mutual understanding for the benefit of all concerned in the grain business of the west.


Mr. BURROWS.: The hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension regarding what has taken place. As far as I understand, the representatives of the railway companies came here themselves. They were not asked to come here, and they were not asked to come to the meetings that the members on this side of the House had. At the same time representatives of the Grain Growers' Association also came here. They came of their own accord, they were not asked to attend our meetings, but they did attend them. It was quite open to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to have also met these gentlemen if they wanted to do so.


Richard Stuart Lake: We never heard of them until several days after these meetings had been held.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: These gentlemen are all here. It is open to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to hold meetings and discuss the matter with them. I am sure that they would he very glad to place their views before hon. gentlemen. This is not a party question, but I am sorry to see that hon. gentlemen opposite are attempting to make it so.


William D. Staples: Does the hon. gentleman mean to tell me that these gentlemen came to their meetings without an Invitation, that they simply came and walked into the minister's room without being invited?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: If the hon. gentleman would use his brain a little he would understand. I said that these gentlemen were not asked to come to Ottawa, that they came of their own accord, they came while this Bill was being discussed, and they had a right to come to any meetings that they could get into and we were glad to confer with them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why did not the hon. gentleman send an invitation to hon. members on this side to attend those meetings and hear what was said by these gentlemen from the west?


Frank Oliver: I cannot give an answer to my hon. friend and I think my hon. friend and his friends are doing their best to give an answer that the country will accept. That is, that these gentlemen are prepared on any occasion to make any question a party question and to obstruct business when they think they can take a party advantage.


Robert Laird Borden: That is an absolutely unworthy statement of the Minister of the Interior. He is relapsing into his old mood ; he had been improving lately but evidently the strain of the hot weather has upset him again.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Midsummer madness.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the way to make this a party question ? It is for the minister to take sources of information such as those which have been available and to call the members on his own side of the House together and to absolutely ignore gentlemen on this side of the House. That was the way to make it a party question. If he desired to have the advantage of the services of ail the members of the House on this Bill, when these gentlemen from the west came here to express their views upon a subject as to which they had special knowledge, he would have called together all the members from the west whether they sat on this side of the House or on that side of the House if he did not intend to make this a party question. If he desired to make this Bill the best Bill possible in the interests of the country he would have called together the Liberal and the Conservative members from the west; if he did
not desire to make this Bill the best Bill in the interests of the country but the best Bill in the interests of the Liberal party then he would do exactly what he has done. And when a respectful remonstrance is made in the House about it and when information is asked the Minister of the Interior flies into a passion and accuses hon. gentlemen on this side of obstructing. It is just what might have been expected from the minister when he is a little off his base.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 5-sections 10 to 16 repealed.


Frank Oliver: These sections relate to the appointment of a weighmaster and the weighing of grain. They were contained iu both the Grain Inspection Act and the Manitoba Grain Act, and it is thought better, in order to prevent confusion, to strike them out of the Manitoba Grain Act, of which this is an amendment, and leave them standing in the Grain Inspection Act.
On section 8-bond of licensee.


Frank Oliver: This relates to the bonds which are given by the operator of a terminal warehouse. It adds to the proviso of section 18, which reads : ' Provided that when any person procures a license for more than one elevator, no more than one bond may be given '-and then comes the amendment-' the amount of which shall not exceed the above maximum ; ' the maximum set out in the preceeding part of the section, which is $50,000.
On section 9,


Frank Oliver: I move that subclause 4 be struck out and the following be substituted:
No grain shall leave a public terminal point without being officially weighed unless the owner or his agent orders otherwise.
The difference between this amendment and the one in the Senate Bill is this : According to the latter all grain billed to any public terminal elevator within the Manitoba inspection division shall not leave that inspection division without being officially weighed. My amendment provides that if the owner orders to that effect, it need not be weighed, and the owner will not have to pay the weighing charges.


William D. Staples: That would apply to dealers in grain particularly ?


Frank Oliver: To anybody.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does this apply to grain placed in a terminal elevator ?


Frank Oliver: It applies to grain that is passing through a terminal point and is not put into the elevator. The Senate Bill provides that such grain must be unloaded and weighed and then put back into the car again before it goes forward and a charge

is made against the grain. It was considered by the Senate sound public policy that grain passing east should have the advantage of being officially weighed where there were conveniences for weighing it. But on further consideration it was thought that if a man did not want to take that precaution and would rather save the expense, he could give an order to that effect and his grain would be sent forward without being weighed.


William D. Staples: One of the objects of the amendment would be to hurry the grain along.
iMr. OLIVER. Precisely.


Richard Stuart Lake: The amendment in the Senate Bill speaks of grain billed to any public terminal elevator and the hon. minister's amendment speaks of a public terminal point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What distinction between a terminal point and a terminal elevator?


Mr. CRAWFORD.: The grain might be billed to a public terminal elevator and ordered forward to a further point. According to this clause, if billed to a terminal elevator, it would have to be weighed, although an order was subsequently given to send it on to a further point.


William D. Staples: If it is put into an elevator, it will certainly be weighed; but if it was ordered on, it is optional with the owner whether he has it weighed or not.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William D. Staples: I do not see any objection provided the shipper thoroughly understands the amendment.


Mr. WILLIAM WRIGHT.: What docs it cost to remove the grain from the ear and weigh it ?


Frank Oliver: It costs three-quarters of a cent a bushel to officially weigh the grain which is a considerable tax.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 10-subsection 11,
Every public terminal warehouseman in the Manitoba inspection division shall insure against fire with companies satisfactory to the commissioners, all grain received, handled or stored by him.
Frank Oliver: I move that the following words be inserted ; Provided always that this subsection shall not apply to eastern transfer warehousemen. The reason for making the exception in the case of the transfer elevator, is that when the grain reaches the eastern transfer elevator it is under insurance by the owner, and there is not the same necessity of making a provision for insurance that exists in the western part. So far as the Fort William terminal to which point the farmer sends his grain, he is not in a position to take special means to insure.


Frank Oliver: Therefore we require the warehouseman shall insure everything in his warehouse. But we except the eastern division, because the warehouse man puts on the insurance, and the dealer makes his own insurance.


William D. Staples: Therefore the owuer is fully protected all the way through.


Frank Oliver: He protects himself after he leaves Fort William. He is protected to Fort William, and after he leaves Fort William lie must protect himself, so far as insurance is concerned.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It has been suggested that no grain shall leave the point after being inspected unless the owner or his agent gives an order by writing, so there shall be something to show.


James Conmee: He might do so by telegraph.


Frank Oliver: It might be held that the telegram was not a sufficient order, though it would be sufficient.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is a better order than exists now.


James Conmee: The elevator man must haye some evidence that the order is given, he will look out for himself.


John Crawford: It could be done by wire or telephone.


Frank Oliver: I move to add this subsection :
Provided always that this subsection shall not apply to eastern transfer warehousemen.


James Conmee: I want to refer to subsection 8 of section 9 which reads:
Im no case, whether in a public terminal elevator in the Manitoba inspection division or in an eastern transfer elevator, shall grain of different grades be mixed together while in store.
I want to point out what may possibly take place. The machinery of that clause simply provides that while they may mix the grades at Winnipeg and St. Boniface, by legislation, that same action is prohibited at the terminal or transfer elevators. That comes back to the point of the motion I suggested this morning. I think it is decidedly unfair. Whatever treatment or arrangement there is for handling the grain at Winnipeg should apply to other elevators. I do not see why that should not include all elevators In the Manitoba inspection division. If It is intended to iuclude the terminal elevators of that division, and the Port Arthur and Fort William elevators are in the Manitoba division, and to include the eastern transfer elevators as well, I wish to ask the minister If he does not think that the wording of that section should be changed so as to include the Winnipeg elevators.


Richard Stuart Lake: Why is there a distinction made between the cleaning and scouring

elevator at Port Arthur and Fort William, and that at Winnipeg. There seems to be a distinction made with regard to the grading.


Frank Oliver: The reason for the difference my hon. friend speaks of is that for the purposes of trade it is found necessary to handle the grain on grade instead of on sample. Grain is bought on sample, but it is sold on grade; it is bought from the farmer on sample, but it reaches the consumer on grade. There is a point of change between the conditions of handling by sample and handling by grade. The consensus of opinion is that that point of change seems conveniently located at Winnipeg. There must be a change somewhere, and the consensus of opinion is that the change should occur at one point, and not at interlocking points. The opinion is that Winnipeg is the point at which it is best for everybody that the change from sample to grade should take plate. Generally speaking, the grain comes together at a certain point, and there it is inspected. Therefore, as the conditions between the purchasing and handling on sample and the purchasing and handling on grade, change at Winnipeg, it is thought advisable that the provisions which are intended to preserve the identity of the grain from Winnipeg east, should not apply to Winnipeg or points west, Winnipeg being the point of the assemblage of the grade and the point of inspection.


James Conmee: I cannot agree with the view of the minister on that point.


Frank Oliver: 1 am not stating this as my view, I am simply stating the fact that this is the consensus of opinion. It is simply a statement of the facts.


James Conmee: I am glad that the minister has an open mind on the subject. The fact is that most of the grain now shipped from the west is not inspected at Winnipeg at all. Another large quantity comes into the Winnipeg yards, and under this Bill the owner may hold it for twenty-four hours to be sold on sample, if he wishes. If he does not order it into the elevators or on to some siding for handling, it goes on. That grain is not in some cases graded at Winnipeg, grain is not in all cases inspected at Winnipeg except that which comes from the elevator. This clause prepares the way for selling on sample, and change of conditions, and change of ownership at Winnipeg. I venture to say that perhaps 90 per cent of the grain changes its ownership before it reaches Winnipeg. When it comes to Winnipeg it is not the grain of the farmer, except in very few instances; it is the grain of the grain dealer, and the grain dealers through this Bill say: We want the privilege of taking it into the elevator and advancing its grade, advancing it from No. 2 Northern to No 1. We want the authority of mixing it, of grading it, but we will not allow anybody else to do so. We stipulate by law that they shall not do it at the public, general or transfer elevators or in the Dominion of Canada. It is, I submit, unfair to pass such legislation.


Mr. TURRIFF.: My hon. friend would give the impression that the bulk of the wheat shipped from points west of Winnipeg goes into elevators in Winnipeg before it is graded. I am satisfied that not more that one per cent is thus treated ; the great bulk is shipped from the different stations west of Winnipeg, inspected and graded on its way through Winnipeg and goes into the terminal elevator at Port Arthur.


James Conmee: Is not much of the wheat placed in elevators in Winnipeg without inspection and sent out of these elevators on grade ?


John Gillanders Turriff: Only a very small proportion. Most of it goes from the elevator at the country point through to the terminal elevator.


James Conmee: My honoured friend is mistaken, even if he is from the west. I consulted Inspector Horn and his statement was that no grain was inspected before going into the Winnipeg elevators so the Winnipeg inspection of that grain is inspection after the grain has been cleaned. I I offer no objections to the sample market or anything else at Winnipeg but I do say : Tlease take your hand off our throat, we do not want to be treated differently from Winnipeg.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: This amendment is inserted at the instance of the farmers and for their benefit.


James Conmee: I did not say who had it put in.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: You said it was done in the interest of the grain men. It is true that grain is put into elevators in Winnipeg without inspection, cleaned, possibly mixed to some extent, and then graded out of the elevator. The object of this amendment, as I understand, is that the farmer shall have the privilege of detaining his car in Winnipeg for twenty-four hours, in order that he may, if possible, sell it on sample, on its intrinsic merits, to get any possible advantage from its being above the average of its grade. I do not think it will be satisfactory to have grain inspection at Port Arthur but that is a matter for the House to decide.


Richard Stuart Lake: Do the cleaning elevators clean any grain in Winnipeg, except what belongs to the elevator companies ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I think not. We want to give the farmer the privilege of selling on sample in Winnipeg before the grain is inspected.


James Conmee: I was not discussing the detention of the car but subsection 8 which

prohibits the mixing of grain in a public terminal elevator, or an eastern transfer elevator. If it is good legislation for the terminal elevators and the eastern transfer elevators, it should be good legislation at Winnipeg. I would like someone to show me how the farmer is to be benefited by this. It is amazing to me how many men from Winnipeg and its vicinity have a deep affection for the farmer ; all this legislation is for his benefit


Frank Oliver: The farmer has sent them here.


James Conmee: Then all I can say is the Lord help the farmer. This is clearly a provision not for the benefit of the farmer but for the benefit of the gentleman who manipulate matters in the grain business in Winnipeg, because it is a provision which is prohibitory against everybody else. I submit that the section should be altered to include all elevators, or at least the Winnipeg and St. Boniface elevators, the terminal elevators and the eastern transfer elevators.


William D. Staples: I would like to ask the minister what were the views of the delegation of the Grain Growers' Association upon that particular point. He was at the conference with them and it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Rainy River has not been.


James Conmee: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; I talked it over with them.


William D. Staples: No doubt you did, as I can see by the fight that you are putting up. I rather appreciate the position you are taking now and I have some sympathy with your argument. Whether it would be wise to adopt it or not I am not prepared to say, but it does seem there is a discrimination against the elevators at Port Arthur. I can understand that grain going down by way of the back lane, by way of Morris, coming from county elevators, loading platforms and farmers farms, would not be treated the same as other grain passing through Winnipeg, and the question occurs as to why the shippers of that grain should not have the same privilege at Port Arthur and Fort William as the farmers whose grain goes through the city of Winnipeg. There is some force in the hon. gentleman's argument and I would like an explanation along that line. Whether it would be wise to extend the privilege as far east as Fort William and Port Arthur I am not prepared to say at the present time, not having had the opportunity of considering the question in the same way that the hon. gentlemen opposite have had. What are the views of Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Langley upon that point?


Frank Oliver: This subsection that has been specially amended is not proposed to be amended. It is as it comes from the Mr. CONMEE
Senate, and as far as I am aware there has been no suggestion on the part of the hon. gentlemen whom my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) has mentioned that there should be any change.


William D. Staples: Is there any objection to the argument that the hon. member for Rainy River has set up?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say that, but there is no objection to the wording of the subsection as it appears in the Bill other than the objection that my hon. friend from Rainy River makes. There is no doubt that with respect to grain that does not pass through Winnipeg there has to be provision made for the inspection of that grain at Fort William, and there is such a provision, but, unfortunately, my hon. friend til inks the provision for the inspection of that grain at Fort William does not permit of the mixing process being carried on at Fort William, while, as he says, there is a possibility of the mixing process being carried on at Winnipeg, or at any other point farther west. That is true, and, if it is a grievance, that is his grievance. I am not stating any personal opinion on this subject. I am merely stating the facts. Every one knows that every farmer in the west is fully imbued with the idea that he loses, in some way or another, by the improper mixing of grain. He has that idea, whether it is correct or not, and the very purpose of the appointment of this royal commission was to go into the question of the handling of the grain after it left the farmer's wagon, so that some means might be provided that would ensure that the grain went forward in as nearly its identical condition to the ultimate market as possible. That being the case, I am satisfied that the farming interests of the west would look not only doubtfully, but with the very strongest objection, at the proposal that mixing should be recognized at any elevator beyond the point of first inspection, that is at Winnipeg. My hon. friend lias said that he would make provision that there might be mixing at Fort William, at Winnipeg and at eastern elevators. I can only say that he is in the same position as the celebrated juryman who remarked, after the verdict had been rendered, that he never sat with eleven such obstinate men. My hon. friend is very definite in his opinion. But the only difficulty is that he holds it, as far as I am aware, absolutely alone, as far as the grain producing element is concerned. He may be right and the rest may be wrong. But I am bound to represent the view of the majority in this case, and the view of the majority is distinctly against any liberty of mixing grain at any point farther east than Winnipeg.


William D. Staples: Has the minister any evidence as to whether or not mixing takes place in these Winnipeg elevators?


Frank Oliver: I think it is admitted. I do not think there is any question about it.


William D. Staples: If I may toe permitted to mention what another gentleman who is not here said, one of the delegates from the west stated his view to be that mixing should be prevented in Winnipeg just as much as it is attempted to be prevented at Port Arthur and Port William.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why not?


Frank Oliver: That is another question that I am not prepared to answer at the moment. Let us deal with one thing at a time. I merely point that out to show how far in the minority my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) is in declaring that mixing ought to be permitted not only at Winnipeg but at Port Arthur and points east.


William D. Staples: If the farmers object to mixing in any case why should they be allowed to mix at Winnipeg, or if they are permitted to mix at Winnipeg, I do not see why they should not be allowed to mix anywhere. There should be the same objection to mixing at Winnipeg as at the terminal and transfer elevators.


James Conmee: I am not in as hopeless a minority as the minister seems to think. Who were the jury? The jury were the grain buyers at Winnipeg and some of the railway men who are not interested in this matter. There were a couple of farmer delegates here, and I submit that these delegates were of my opinion. I submitted this resolution to one of them and he approved of it-I forget the gentleman's name ; he thought it was perfectly correct.


William D. Staples: Was that one of the delegates from Manitoba or Saskatchewan?


James Conmee: He was from Saskatchewan. I submitted it to another this afternoon and he said : That would mean mixing at the terminal elevators? I said : Yes, that would mean mixing of the regular grades, but it would not mean the mixing of scoured wheat or bleached wheat. He said : I am not in favour of mixing at all. I said :	Do you not know that mixing goes on in Winnipeg He said :	No.
I said :	Are you in favour of it at
Winnipeg ? He said : No. So I claim that the farmers' representatives are with me in this matter. If it is proper to do it at Winnipeg, then it is proper to do it at other places ; just do what they do at Winnipeg. That is all I am asking. I am not asking more, and I am not going to be satisfied with less.


John Crawford: The minister has very clearly set out the position of the farmers with regard to mixing. They are under the impression that they are losing by the mixing of grain in the elevators. This provision is placed in the Bill for the purpose
of getting away from that condition as far as possible. The farmers expect to extend the same supervision all through the west, and they ask that the prohibition against mixing of grain at Fort William be extended to Winnipeg. The western farmers believe that they or the country are going to own all' the elevators in the country and they wish to provide conditions whereby the grain can be sent forward with its particular grade and identity maintained until it reaches the miller. That is the object of the farmer, and he expects to work that out in the future. The great bulk of the grain is inspected at Winnipeg, and once that grain is inspected there should be no interference with it, and the grain should carry its inspection certificate clear through until it reaches the miller. If this amendment be adopted the existing abuses will continue. There may be a little mixing done at Winnipeg, but the great bulk of the grain is sent through in carloads to Fort William. Not five per cent of the wheat of the west that passes through Winnipeg goes into the Winnipeg elevators.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman stated that nearly all the grain was graded and inspected at Winnipeg and if that is true it is not graded until it comes out of the elevator.


William D. Staples: Why not inspect it in the elevators ; would not that relieve the situation ?


James Conmee: That would relieve the situation. The grain at Winnipeg being inspected out of the elevator it means they have had an opportunity of treating it and mixing it if they want to. I do not believe that any intelligent farmer will believe that my proposal would be detremental to him. If the member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) were here I believe he would endorse my statement that the farmer can keep the identity of his grain and that by mixing the better grades with some of the other grades he can make a car of grain worth $100 more to him. In 90 per cent of the cases the farmer parts with his grain before it reaches Winnipeg. Who gets the benefit of the raising of the grade. By this process you improve the wheat by taking the dirt and small grain out of it and you enhance its value and it is the grain dealer who gets the benefit of that. Whether grain is inspected at Winnipeg or west of Winnipeg it is all reinspected at Port Arthur and Fort AVilliam. I agree that you should not change the grade that is given at Winnipeg but Mr. Horne is chief inspector and if there is a difference of opinion he decides. Every day at Port Arthur and Fort William it occurs that they will not grade wheat as it is graded at Winnipeg and the cars are held up until the matter is settled between the inspectors. Unless a certificate of the Winnipeg inspection is surrendered there appears to be no

adequate remedy in the law and it is difficult to determine just what becomes of the grain under those circumstances. There is an inspection at the terminal elevator in every case and that is the only reliable inspection. If your inspection at Winnipeg was reliable why do you inspect it over again at Port Arthur and Fort William. The fact is that the terminal elevator is the only proper place for inspection. My position is that if this mixing is permitted at Winnipeg you should not prevent us from doing the same thing at the terminal elevators. Just prevent it at Winnipeg and you will see how soon there will be a delegation down here wanting you to change the law.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is my opinion that we should not have any mixing at all and with that end in view I move to amend the clause so as to make it read :
In no case, whether in a public or private elevator in the Manitoba inspection or in an eastern transfer elevator, shall grain of different grades be mixed together >while in store.
I desire by this amendment to prevent this mixing in Winnipeg.


Richard Stuart Lake: If this amendment prevents the mixing of different grains at Winnipeg I would be in support of it. If a farmer wants to have his grain properly cleaned before inspection he has to sell it to the owner of one of these mixing elevators in Winnipeg which are in private hands. Of course lie has the alternative of sending it to an elevator at Fort William but in that case it has to be inspected before it is cleaned.


James Conmee: And there is no reinspection.


Richard Stuart Lake: And there is no reinspection after it is cleaned. There are many cases in which the farmer would wish to have his grain properly cleaned and improved before it is inspected but this Bill would compel him to sell it before it is cleaned and therefore it discriminates against the farmer and in favour of the buyer. We have heard something about this all being in the farmer's interest, that the grain should be capable of being cleaned at Winnipeg. That is not so. The grain lias to have passed out of the farmer's hands before it goes into the cleaning elevator. For my part I concur in the view of the minister that tl,ie great concensus of public opinion in the west is that the wheat should be kept intact after it leaves the farmer's hands and should be inspected and. graded just as it is. I certainly do not approve of the mixing that takes place at Winnipeg, and in order to treat all alike and to have no discrimination against any one, I think that ail the grain should be inspected and graded before it gets to the mixing elevator either at Winnipeg or at Port Arthur Mr. CONMEE.


Mr. CASH.: We have to handle this subject pretty carefully, for this reason. I know that the farmers of the west very generally want an order point at Winnipeg ; but if you pass such an amendment as this, you are going to do away with the possibility of an order point. There is no doubt that five-sixths of the grain of the Northwest is mixed in elevators. The elevators have not the capacity necessary for maintaining the identity of any man's grain. There is no doubt also that the grain is inspected in Winnipeg in carload lots. The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) has the idea that the grain is put in an elevator to be inspected, whereas any western man knows that it is inspected while in the car. The samples are taken from the car and inspected, and the grain passes on to Fort William.
1	do not know what percentage of that grain is sold in Winnipeg or passes through the elevator there, but a very small per cent. It is unfortunate that the special privilege should be accorded to elevator men in Winnipeg to buy grain and mix it, whereas the same privilege is not accorded at Port Arthur or Fort William. As I understand this business-and I have been at all the conferences except one-there is an elevator man at Port Arthur who makes a specialty of cleaning, drying and scouring grain. The grain is inspected in the elevator and it is inspected out again. The inspector at Winnipeg inspects that grain ; and when it goes Into the elevator at Port Arthur it is mixed, so that its identity is not preserved, except so far as it Is No. 1 scoured it would go into a bin of No. 1 scoured, and it is inspected out as No 1 scoured, and is sold as that particular grade. Therefore I think it would be most unfortunate to allow the mixing of grain in this elevator. I know that the owner of that elevator thinks that when he scours the grain it is bettter than it was before-better than No. 1 bard. He also thinks that No. 1 damp is better after he has dried it than the other grain which was not damp at all. If that is his opinion, and lie mixes the grain, it will have a very unfortunate effect. The main object of the farmers in asking for this legislation is to prevent the mixing of grades and also to have an order point in Winnipeg ; so that if their grain goes above No. 2, though it will not grade No. 1, or if it grades between No.
2	and No. 3, they will get the benefit of the increased value of their grain ; and the only way they can get that is by having an order point at Winnipeg where the grain can be sold on a sample. The buyer in Winnipeg will have the same privilege as the miller from Ontario or the old country of buying that grain. If a dealer buys it, he may mix it in the Winnipeg elevator, because it has not been graded. The farmer is then more likely to get the value of his grain. After the grain is once inspected, no more mixing should he allowed. If you

are going to have an inspection at Fort William, you will require the same force of men there as you have at Winnipeg ; it would require a duplication of the entire force. It seems to me thaFyou should have one point for inspection, I do not care whether you make it at Winnipeg or at Fort William.
iMr. LAKE. The hon. gentleman's argument in regard to a sample market at Winnipeg is quite correct after you get to the 15th December ; but up to that time the farmer is at his disadvantage as compared with the private grain dealer, that he cannot have his grain mixed and cleaned before inspection, while the private grain dealer can do so in the Winnipeg elevator.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Because he has not an elevator.


Richard Stuart Lake: Because the farmer has not an elevator ; that is the reason. Now, we have been told that possibly 5 per cent of the grain which passes through Winnipeg goes into the Winnipeg elevators ; that is to say, the grain dealers mix the grain together and form a grade which is just as close as possible to tlie line between the different grades and themselves reap the benefit of that mixing, while the farmer cannot do so. 1 hold that it is better not to allow any mixing at all. All the grain when it arrives at Winnipeg should be inspected and graded. I am strongly in favour of preventing the mixing of grain at Winnipeg,, more especially as we do not permit that to be done at Port Arthur, and in this way are discriminating against the farmer who have to use elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William.


James Conmee: I would be in favour of grading the grain into its proper class on its merits as they do in Minnesota, but I find I am in a minority. But the Winnipeg elevators have the same machinery as Mr. King has and so have nearly all the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. There is no necessity for singling out Mr. King's elevators, because the others have the same machinery, whether they use it to the same extent or not. At Winnipeg they have the facilities for doing everything Mr. King can do at Port Arthur. I have an amendment here which I would like to read because perhaps hon. gentlemen who are supporting the other amendment first moved might possibly prefer this one. If any one will look at the first section of the proposed amendment, it will be seen that it is proposed to change the interpretation clause. In the old Act


William D. Staples: What does the hon. gentleman mean by the old Act.


James Conmee: I mean the present law the Manitoba Grain Inspection Act, chapter 88 which we are now amending. The interpretation of clause 8 of that Act provides :
Public terminal elevator includes every elevator located at any point declared by the minister to be a terminal and doing business for compensation, in which grain is stored in bulk or the grain of different owners is mixed together or in which grain is stored in such a manner that the identity of the different lots or parcels cannot be accurately preserved.
A terminal elevator, in the provisions of this Act relating to terminal elevators and warehouses includes a warehouse.
That is changed in the proposed amendment and the reason is obvious. A mail might say, mine is not a public elevator, I am handling oul.v my own grain and not grain for compensation, and I have the right to mix when I choose. The minister's amendment reads :
' Public terminal elevator ' includes every elevator located at any point declared by the minister to be a terminal, and ' terminal elevator ' in the provisions of this Act relating to terminal elevators and warehouses, includes a warehouse.
This takes some ambiguity out of the old section. There was a doubt as to whether the minister could declare an elevator a public elevator, the owner of which would divide it into two, at Winnipeg or elsewhere, and say this half is public and the other half private, and in the private portion I can do as much mixing as I like. The gentlemen controlling elevators at Winnipeg are not subject to the Act. They are not public terminal elevators and are not under the regulations to which the public terminal elevators everywhere else are subject. They may be private elevators or elevators of any other kind, they do not come under the operation of this Act. I propose this amendment which I think will meet the objections of some hon. gentlemen and be perfectly fair :
Provided that all elevators at Winnipeg and St. Boniface in which grain is stored, cleaned or mixed and from which grain is shipped east of the said ports shall be deemed public terminal elevators.
If that be adopted all these Winnipeg elevators that do that kind of business will be on the same footing as other terminals as to the mixing and other conditions. In my opinion mixing is the proper thing. If you clean the grain, you enhance its value. You get a better grain and it realizes more money. The reason the farmers cannot do it is because they have not the machinery. But it is unfair to discriminate against that class of farmers, whose grain is not inspected at Winnipeg1, but goes to the terminal elevators for treatment. They ought to have the same privileges that they have in Winnipeg.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I beg to withdraw my motion in favour of that of my hon. 1 friend.	, i


Frank Oliver: I cannot accept the amendment. In the first place it is not necessary because at any point declared a terminal by the minister, all elevators are subject to the control of the Act. It is quite competent for the minister to bring into operation all the provisions with regard to the Winnipeg elevators. Therefore this legislation is not necessary. The only difference is that my hon. friend proposes that where-ever a terminal point is declared all the elevators shall be public elevators. There is no difference in the authority of the minister to declare any point a terminal.


William D. Staples: This parliament should decide and not leave it to the minister.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) is correct, then the farmers and everybody interested in the appointment of tlie Royal Grain Commission were under a mistake. He has argued for the mixing of grain in transit. It may be that he is right and all the rest wrong, but he is on one side and all the rest on the other side. The change he suggests appears to be a dangerous one. There must be mixing of grain in the ordinary commercial handling of the crop, because the farmer cannot ship his individual load of grain all the way to the British market and preserve its Identity. Winnipeg is the great converging point for grain in carlots, the grain must be brought together somewhere, and that coming together must take place before the grain reaches Winnipeg or in Winnipeg, as at Winnipeg it receives its final grading. To prevent that grain coming together and constituting grades in Winnipeg would unquestionably be to the detriment of the farmers. To say that there shall be no mixing in Winnipeg is to say that there shall be no dealing on sample in Winnipeg. The whole idea we have gathered from the farmers is that they wish to reap whatever benefit is to be derived from making Winnipeg an order point. In the country elevators there must be mixing, you could not legislate to prevent it.


William D. Staples: I contend that the grain should go out of the Winnipeg elevators on the same grade as it goes in. This sample grain should go forward in carlots the same as other grain.


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: The farmers claim it would be a great advantage to have a sample market in Winnipeg.


William D. Staples: I agree.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Suppose we have a sample market. Then if a farmer has a No. 2 which is nearly a No. 1, he can reap no benefit from it unless the man who purchases it can mix it with other grain and make a No. 1.


William D. Staples: I agree that the establishment of a sample market in Winnipeg or the west would be one of the finest things that could take place.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 


Samuel Jacob Jackson: That is what we are doing.


William D. Staples: But it should be purchased as sample and go forward as sample wheat, not under any particular grade, then it has its intrinsic or commercial value wherever it goes. If you allow it to be mixed and to go out under grade the benefit is a question.


James Conmee: The point under discussion does not touch the question of sample market. If the Winnipeg elevator operators are permitted to clean and mix grain they and not the farmers would reap the benefit of the enhanced value of that grain due to its cleaning at Winnipeg.


Richard Stuart Lake: It is thoroughly understood that in order to derive the full benefit from a sample market owners at Winnipeg must be permitted to mix to grade after December 15, but before December 15, I submit there should be no mixing at Winnipeg terminal elevators or anywhere else.
Amendment, Mr. Conmee, negatived.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19,


Frank Oliver: In the printed sheets before the members, there is a proposal to add to this new section 40 the words * or upon his written order.' I do not know that it is very important, but it has been suggested.
Mr. S'CHAFFNER. That is just what I wanted in the previous clause.


Frank Oliver: In that case the warehouse man will not make the delivery unless the order is such as will be satisfactory to him. I do not think he needs the same protection.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 22-provision for failure to redeem cash purchase ticket.
William D. Staples: What is the object of that clause ?


Frank Oliver: In a transaction between the seller and the purchaser, in case the purchaser of the grain, after giving a ticket to the farmer, is not able to cash the ticket, it gives the farmer a lien upon the grain. If he does not get his money within so many hours he can put his lien upon the grain in the elevator. That is a recommendation of the Royal Grain Commission.
On section 23.


Frank Oliver: I desire to move, in addition, that the following penalty clause be inserted :
23a. Section 60 is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
4.	Except in the case of accidental damage to, or the accidental desertion of, any public country elevator in which grain has been accepted for general storage as herein provided,

if the person operating it, when called upon to do so by the owner of the grain, fails to account for the grain in accordance with the terms of the warehouse receipt given under the provisions of this Act or of the further orders of the owner, he shall be deemed guilty of an offence under section 355 of the Criminal Code, and shall be liable to the penalties therein provided, and, in addition, to the forfeiture of his license.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 24-storage, special bins : sample to be preserved, &c.
William D. Staples: There will be a good many receptacles required in some of the country elevators.


Frank Oliver: This only applies to grain that is special binned, so that there will not be a large number. Of course, there is a suggestion that samples should only be taken on the request of the owner, but there are objections to that. Perhaps it is better to leave It as It Is. This is the recommendation of the Grain Commission. I beg to move a penalty clause to the special binning clause as follows :
24a. The said Act is amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 64:
64a. An operator of a country elevator or warehouse who sells, assigns, mortgages, pledges, hypothecates, or in any manner oharges any grain stored in the said elevator in special bin in accordance with the provisions of this Act, which is not the sole and absolute property of the said operator, shall be deemed guilty of an offence under section 390 of the Criminal Code, and shall be liable to tlie penalties therein provided, and, in addition, to the forfeiture of bis license.


William D. Staples: It will make the grain merchants sit up.


Frank Oliver: These penalty clauses are in the Criminal Code and they do apply to these cases now\Jmt it is thought better to put them in the Act so that everybody will see what his responsibility is.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Wbat about a sample being a ' fair and proper ' sample? It is not very definite.


Frank Oliver: It is hard to make it any more definite.


William D. Staples: You could not get a more perfect sample than by taking it out of every load.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How much?


William D. Staples: About a handful.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It does not say so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frank Oliver: I move that subsection 8 of section 30 be stricken from the Bill. It is considered that this subsection would unduly disclose to competitors the private business of grain handlers. The intention of the section is to make the commissioner aware of the conditions under which each elevator operator is handling his business, and subsection 8 requires that every patron of an elevator should be entitled to that same statement. It is believed this would be an undue burden upon the men who are operating elevators, and as the interests of the public are protected by the reports to the commissioner this subsection does not seem necessary.
Amendment agreed, to, and clause 8 -stricken from the Bill.


James Conmee: This subsection only applies to country elevators but if it is good for country elevators it should be better for other elevators. I suggest that the word ' country ' be struck out so as to make the section read :-' Public elevators and warehouses.'


Frank Oliver: The new section simply amplifies the provision in the existing Act and requires that there shall be a detailed statement. The country elevators are patronized by the farmers of the surrounding country who are not in the same position as business men would be to acquire knowledge of the standing of the men with whom they are doing business, and it was considered that this section would be a protection to them. It is In the line of protection for the man who Is doing business with the elevator, and it is not necessary to take the same precaution in the. case of the great terminal elevators who are doing business with business people.
On section 31,


Frank Oliver: I beg to move that subsection 3 be omitted and the following substituted :
3. In the ease of a flag station -or siding from which grain is shipped, the commissioner may, in his discretion and for such period or periods as he deems necessary, require the railway company to provide at such flag station or shipping - siding a suitable person whose duties shall be:
'(a) to keep open for the use of shippers at all times during the day a car-order-book, as provided under this Act, in which orders for cars may be entered in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(b)	when the loading of cars is completed, to seal such car or oars;
(c)	to provide shippers with the regular form of grain shipping hill; and
>(d) when such grain shipping bill is properly filled out by the shipper, to hand it to the conductor of the train that picks up such car or oars or place it where such conductor may get it.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for a convenience of shipment at railway sidings where it has not been found necessary by the railway company to establish an agent. It could not reasonably

be required of a railway company that it should establish an agent with telegraph facilities at every siding, and it was thought that if the railway company would engage some person resident at the siding to keep an order book and to allow grain to be put in the cars and to be carried on to a station where the billing would be done, every interest would be served. The railway companies were willing to do that, and as the Bill left the Senate it provided for that. But it was thought that the dates fixed in the Bill might not be satisfactory, and as the railway companies did' not object, the amendment was finally agreed to, as it is now proposed-that the railway company will appoint such a person at the order of the warehouse commissioner to act during such time as is necessary, and his duties shall be as defined in the Act. This proposition will certainly be a great convenience to the farmer's in the more thinly settled parts of the country. Subsection 4, which makes it possible to limit the operation of subsection 3, is struck out altogether.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Were the representatives of the farmers agreeable to that?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
On section 37-equitable distribution of cars.


Richard Stuart Lake: With regard to 99a under this section, would the amount of grain available for shipment apply only to grain in the elevator ?


Frank Oliver: It would apply not only to grain in the elevators but also to the cars ordered. We would be bound to assume that grain was available for shipment when the cars were ordered.
I move to insert the following on page 12, line 26, as section 99c :
99c. Grain in carloads offered for shipment to points (in Canada east of Winnipeg may be consigned ' to he held at Winnipeg for orders ' en route to its destination on the direct line of transit on the following conditions:
(1)	The shipper shall pay to the agent of the transportation company at the point of shipment the sum of $3 per car.
(2)	The shipper shall endorse upon the consignment note and shipping receipt ' This car to be held at Winnipeg for orders/ with the name and address of some company, firm or person resident in Winnipeg, who will accept advice from the carrier of its arrival in Winnipeg and who will give to the carrier instructions on behalf of the owner for its disposal.
(3)	Twenty-four hours free time after such advice of arrival shall be allowed the advisee in which to dispose of the property.
(1) If the carrier, within twenty-four hours free time referred to dn paragraph 3, receives written directions for delivery within its Win-nipeg-St. Boniface terminals, such delivery Mr. OLIVER.
shall be made to team tracks or industrial spurs or sidings within its own terminals upon payment of the current grain rate in effect to Winnipeg or St. Boniface at the time of shipment.
(5)	The carrier may, in the absence of written instructions from the advisee for the disposal of the grain within the free time mentioned in paragraph 3, forward the grain to its destination as consigned.
(6)	Grain shipped ' to he held at Winnipeg for orders ' delivered dn Winnipeg or St. Boniface, as provided for in paragraph 4, may be sent forward to any point in Canada east of Winnipeg within six months of its receipt at Winnipeg or St. Boniface at the balance of the through rate from the initial point to destination, as provided in the carrier's authorized tariff in force on the date of -the initial shipment, plus one cent per hundred pounds terminal charges, less the $3 per oar mentioned in paragraph 1.
(7)	The detention of grain at Winnipeg-St. Boniface, under this section, shall not affect the application of the provisions of the Inspection and Sale Act with respect to such grain.
(8)	In case of the congestion of traffic caused by the operation of this section, the Board of Railway Commissioners may make an order suspending the operation of this section for the period mentioned in such order.
(9)	The provisions of this section shall have effect only from the fifteenth of December in any year to the first day of September in the following year.


Richard Stuart Lake: When does the inspection take place of this grain which is being held in this way ?


Frank Oliver: As it leaves Winnipeg.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is that provided for ?


Frank Oliver: There is no specific provision. The provision with regard to inspection is contained in the Inspection Act. This Act gives no direction to the inspector. It has nothing to do with the inspection, but merely with transportation. Therefore the provision with regard to delays In transportation, and so on, are put into this Act. Under the provisions of the Inspection Act, cars going through without being unloaded are inspected during their necessary detention of a couple of hours at Winnipeg, and grain that has been unloaded in Winnipeg and is being sent east from there is inspected out of the elevator. Grain held there under the ordinary point system would be similarly graded going out.


James Conmee: As I understand, if the grain stands there for twenty-four hours, samples are taken, an inspection is made but no grade is given and if that grain does not go into a Winnipeg elevator it passes on to the terminal elevators without a grade.


Frank Oliver: Oh, no, the detention for twenty-four hours makes no difference in the grading.


Richard Stuart Lake: The charge of $3 is for demurrage for the day's detention.
t


Frank Oliver: That is a charge for detention with the privilege of unloading in Winnipeg. The order point is a railway question rather than a grain question, and we had to deal with the railway companies. At first the railways objected to this proposal as it would interfere with their business. They now do this in the case of the miller or shipper. They will hold a car in Winnipeg and for unloading and reloading they charge one cent per hundred, that is $6 for a 60,000-pound car. In securing for the farmer the same privilege as is given to the miller we have to make some compensation to the railway and it is arranged that thei railway company shall collect one-half the ordinary charge for detention from the farmer, that is $3, and then the other three dollars is to be paid by whoever ships the car out. The farmer has the same privileges and pays the same amount as the miller.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What provision is there for the shunting of the car?


Frank Oliver: If he sells for delivery in Winnipeg, the $3 pays for delivery in any siding or spur there.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The ordinary charge for that is $5.


Richard Stuart Lake: Am I correct in understanding that this whole provision was arrived at as a compromise after the conference held by the minister, the Grain Growers' Association and the railway companies during the last few days? If that is so, it is a matter of negotiation and it would be useless for us to discuss the fairness of the proposition.


Frank Oliver: When the Bill was before the Senate an amendment was introduced providing for an order point at Winnipeg. The railways and the grain growers asked to meet representatives of the government to discuss this and some other important questions in connection with the Bill before it came to this House. We met and at first the railway companies opposed granting any such privilege as was suggested in the amendment before the Senate,' as they said it would be burdensome on them and would interfere with their business, but on further discussion we found that they already accorded this privilege to the milling and shipping interest and they agreed to grant the same privilege on the same terms to the ordinary shipper or the farmer. As a matter of fact the provision was drafted by one of the railway solicitors.


Richard Stuart Lake: The privilege is practically granted to the millers all through the season.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: That is part of the present traffic arrangement. They stop the grain and mill it.


Richard Stuart Lake: I merely want to point out that this is giving a limited time to the farmers to take advantage of through
rates. I think there should be a sufficiency of cars. If that were the case, this arrangement could be carried out the whole year round.


James Conmee: This arrangement with the grain shipper and the miller is that, in the case of the mills, the cars are unloaded and go off for another load; in this case they are held for twenty-four hours.
On section 41-loading lines for grain to be marked inside cars.
Mr. OLIVER moved to :
Leave out section 118a and substitute the following therefor:
118a. For the purpose of preserving the identity of grain in transit from Winnipeg to points of consumption itn eastern Canada or to ports of export shipment on the sea board, the warehouse commissioner may grant to any shipper permission to lease for such term as is approved by him special bins in such terminal or transfer elevators as are necessarily used in the transportation of grain eastward from Winnipeg for the special binning of grain in transit. The bin capacity which may be so leased in any terminal or transfer elevator shall be -as the warehouse commissioner shall approve, but shall not be lesj than 16,000 bushels in any elevator. The term of the several leases shall be as approved by the warehouse commissioner.
2.	The shipper receiving -such permission may, -subject to its terms, enter into agreement for the lease of special bins in terminal and transfer elevators necessary to the transportation of grain from Winnipeg to the point of destination.
3.	The rates to be paid for the lease of such special bins shall be such as are agreed upon: provided that on payment of the regular rate for the full capacity leased for the full term of the lease the shipper acting under the permission of the warehouse commissioner, as in this section provided, shall be given a lease of the bin capacity to which he thereby becomes entitled.
4.	Upon the shipper who -has secured such permission producing to the warehouse commissioner satisfactory evidence that lie holds leases of such special bins in the several terminal or transfer elevators necessary to the transportation of grain from Winnipeg to the point of destination as will enable him to -preserve the identity of the grain during its transportation from Winnipeg to the point of destination in not less than 16,000 bushel lots and that such leases are in accordance with the permission already granted, the warehouse commissioner may authorize such shipper to take such means as are necessary or possible within the provisions of this Act and of the Inspection and Sale Act to preserve the identity of grain which he desires to ship through the elevators in which he holds leases of special bins.
5.	The warehouse commissioner shall issue such instructions and regulations within the provisions of this Act and of the Inspection and Sale Aot as are practicable and necessary for the preservation of the identity of grain which is being shipped by the shipper to whom permission has been given as provided

in this section, using bins specially leased in the several elevators as above provided for the storage and trans-shipment of such grain: provided always that nothing in this section or in such instructions or regulations shall be construed to authorize the placing of grain of different grades in the same special bin in any terminal or transfer elevator.
6.	An infraction of any of the instructions or regulations issued by the warehouse commissioner under this section shall be deemed to be an infraction of the provisions of this Act.
7.	The provisions of the Inspection and Sale Act shall apply to grain specially binned in transit under the provisions of this section.
8.	The provisions of this section shall have effect only from the fifteenth day of December in any year to the first day of September in the following year.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If it is limited to the period from the 15th December to the 1st of September that about destroys all the good that may be in it.


William D. Staples: The decision is in the hands of the commissioner as to whether special bins shall be allowed or not.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William D. Staples: And only within those dates.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is of very little benefit.


Frank Oliver: Possibly. Of course, a great many people hold that it will be a very serious detriment.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: But, if the Grain Growers' Association, after consulting with hon. members on the other side, in regard to which we know nothing, are willing to subscribe to such a condition they should not expect members on this side of the House to advocate very enthusiastically what they want. If they want special binning, they want it, but if it is limited to the period from the 15th December to the 1st September it will not be of very much benefit to them.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The representatives of the farmers are perfectly satisfied to have this from the 15th December to the 1st September, because they know that with the large crops that we expect to have the yards in Winnipeg will be so congested that it will be impossible for them to do any business.


William D. Staples: If the farmers' delegation do not want this privilege-the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jackson) says he has been in conference with them while we are allowed to remain in the dark-I suppose we will have to accept the Bill as it has been prepared. But, from the information I have from the Grain Growers' Association of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, I am satisfied that they do want the privilege of special binning. I think that special bin-Mr. OLIVER
ning, if it does not create too great a congestion, is a proper thing.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jackson) to say that the farmers do not want this special binning privilege ?


James Conmee: No, he did not say that.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: No, I did not say that.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understood the hon. gentleman to say so.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Were you talking with reference to special binning before I came in ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Yes.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I did not understand that at all.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I have not received an answer to my question as to whether the members of the Grain Growers' Association of the west are willing to accept this Act as presented now under which the special binning privilege will only prevail from the 15th December in one year to the 1st September in the next year.


John Crawford: The farmers want special binning all the year around, but I think that they are pleased to get the principle approved of. They are willing to accept this for the present as an experiment.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Will the hon. gentleman please tell us how he obtained that information ?


John Crawford: Well, it comes.


William D. Staples: It is in the discretion of the commissioner to say whether the privilege of special binning shall be permitted or not.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The reason I asked that question was not perhaps the same reason as that which might be taken by hon. members on the other side. I have come to the conclusion, perhaps wrongly, that it is not of very much use for us on this side to protest against this provision, because it has been cut and dried by the minister, the members on the other side of the House and representatives of the farmers. If the farmers had not agreed to this proposition I would have moved an amendment that this privilege of special binning extend over the whole year but, as I believe the representatives of the farmers of the west have agreed to it, there is not very much use of my moving an amendment. If they are satisfied I am.
On section 44-schedule ; new forms.


William D. Staples: I do not see anything in the Bill that provides for the tariff that shall be charged by the interior elevators. The farmers' elevators in Manitoba have
12593	JULY 10, 1908	12594
suffered greatly and, in fact, a good many of them have had to go out of business through the competition of the elevator corporations. For example, at my own point, we have a farmers' elevator which lias done more towards regulating the market than anything else could possibly have done and wliich has been the means of the farmers obtaining better prices for their grain than they otherwise would. But it works out in this way : I have known the elevator companies to put their tariffs down and instead of charging If cents a bushel they have charged 1 cent. That should be regulated in some way so as to prohibit that, because the effect of it is practically to cause the farmers' elevators to go out of business.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman will look at section 111b on page 4 of the sheet which has been distributed he will see that a section has been introduced which is intended to meet the case that he has spoken of. The idea is that the owner of any elevator must make the same charges in all the elevators he owns.


William D. Staples: That is right.


Frank Oliver: It is not so right as it looks. Suppose a company lias a large number of elevators and, at a certain point, some other company cuts rates, this section provides that the company may cut rates at that point without compelling it to come down at all of its elevators.


William D. Staples: Then it is not as far reaching as I think it should be.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The farmer will get the benefit and that is what we are working for.


William D. Staples: The farmer will undoubtedly receive the benefit for a time, but the moment the farmers' elevators are crowded out of business, good-day, Mr. Farmer, because they will fix the price as they choose.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The farmers own the elevator.


James Conmee: If the farmer is the aggressor and lowers the rate, then the elevator company will lower its rate at that one point also; but if the elevator company is the aggressor and lowers the rate, it will have to lower it at all other points. I think the farmer is well protected in that case.


William D. Staples: It is all right if the farmer is well protected.


Frank Oliver: I move to repeal paragraph (h) of section 2, and to substitute the following :
' Public terminal elevator ' includes every elevator located at any point declared by the minister to be a terminal, and * terminal elevator ' in the provisions of this Act relating 400
to terminal elevators and warehouses includes a warehouse.
'Amendment agreed to.


William D. Staples: Before this Bill comes up for third reading it should be reprinted.


Frank Oliver: I will move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again, and in the meantime I will try to have the Bill reprinted with the amendments agreed to placed in their proper order. This will enable the Bill to come up for reconsideration with the Grain Inspection Act alongside of it, so that we can see whether there is any clash between the two.


Richard Stuart Lake: The opposition should have a day's notice of when this Bill will again be taken in committee. It has been brought down so late in the session that, with the long hours we iiave to work, it has been impossible for us to give it the consideration it should have received. Again, the amendments were only brought down within the last day or so, and the members of the opposition have not had the same advantages as the members of the government side have had in consultation with the officials of the government and with the representatives of the railway companies. There is no doubt in my mind the Bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go nearly as far as I think it should. There is the further objection that the Bill was sprung upon us to-day, for we were told last night that other Bills would be taken up, and hence we were not prepared for it. The Bill was introduced in the Senate, which is supposed to have plenty of time on its hands, and it only came to this House within a week of prorogation. The responsibility of it must rest upon the government, for the members of the opposition have not had a proper opportunity to make a thorough examination of its various provisions and to discuss them.
Progress reported.



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 203) to amend the Grain Inspection Act.-Mr. Oliver.
At six o'clock, House took recess. .
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 192) to incorporate the Alberta and British Columbia Railway Company-[DOT] Mr. Herron
[Stage Direction]


Bill (No. 195) respecting the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company.

Mr. Zimmerman.
Bill (No. 185) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company.-Mr. Johnston.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 100) to authorize a bounty to volunteers who served the Crown in South Africa-Mr. Oliver-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2-application of Act.
Frank Oliver: I desire to move that the following be substituted for this section:
This Act shall apply to all officers and men who served in South Africa with any corps raised in Canada during any of the years 1899, 1900, 1901 and 1902, and who at the time of their appointment to or enlistment in such corps or any corps so raised were resident or domaeiled in any part of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: You have a resolution on the Order Paper designed for the purpose of permitting the amendment now suggested by the minister. The usual course is to move the resolution first. Its object is to meet certain objections raised on this side to the effect that the Bill did not include but should include persons now proposed to be included.


Mr. FIELDING.: The resolution should certainly be moved first.
Progress reported.
House went into committee to consider the following resolution :
Resolved, that it as expedient to provide in connection with the Bill now before this House, intituled: * An Act to authorize a bounty to volunteers who served the Crown in South Africa/ that it shall apply to all volunteers who resided or were domiciled in Canada at the time of their enlistment for military service in South Africa; that, in the event of a volunteer's death between the date of has enlistment and December 31, 1910, the pioposed grant of land may be anade to his legal representatives; and that any person entitled -to choose scrip in lieu of land may give notice of his choice before December 31 1910.-Mr. Oliver.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask if this will apply as well to the South African Constabulary which went to South Africa from Canada?
Mr. OLI\ ER. That is the intention.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Would it apply to Canadians who enlisted in South Africa itself ?


Frank Oliver: No, it does not apply to any who did not enlist iu Canada.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: There is another point. There are hundreds of good Canadians who went to South Africa and joined different corps there, such as the Roberts Horse, aud I would respectfully point out that these men are all omitted. Their career can be traced just as well as the career of those who enlisted in Canada. Take my own case, I was not a member of any corps that left Canada. I did not enlist In any corps in Canada.


Mr. DANIEL.: This resolution refers only to volunteers who enlisted for military service. That means enlisted men and does not include commissioned officers.


Frank Oliver: The amendment which I have placed in the hands of the chairman provides for that.


John Herron: I would like to know if the Northwest Mounted Police are to be included. They were excluded in some way from participating in the benefits that accrued to volunteers who took part in the Northwest rebellion of 1885, and I believe that was due to some misapprehension or misunderstanding. I always think they were entitled to recognition in the shape of lands, medals or other honours which went to men who served in the Northwest Rebellion.


Samuel Hughes: They got the medals but never got the land.


John Herron: I want to know if the members of the Northwest Mounted Police who enlisted in South Africa will be included.


Frank Oliver: They will.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister is going to propose an amendment which differs in terms from the resolution. The very reason which makes this resolution necessary would prevent that amendment from taking effect. Your resolution should be in exact conformity with the terms of the proposed amendment.


Frank Oliver: The resolution simply states the principle, and as long as the amendment does not go outside that principle, I imagine it is in order.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the hon. gentleman said it did go outside.


Frank Oliver: Not outside the principle of the resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: What do you mean by the principle?


Frank Oliver: The question raised was whether officers would be included. I submit that when we speak of volunteers who served the Crown in South Africa, that includes officers.


Robert Laird Borden: It applies to volunteers who resided or were domiciled-in Canada at the time of their enlistment.


Richard Stuart Lake: 


Robert Laird Borden: That may be, but I certainly understood from the hon. gentleman's answer to my hon. friend from St.

John (Mr. Daniel), that there was something not included in this resolution which would be included in the amendment.


Frank Oliver: There was something contained in the second clause of the Bill that did not cover the point raised by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel), but the amendment I intend proposing does and it comes within the terms of the resolution.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does the amendment cover all the cases provided by the resolution? I understood from my hon. friend from Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) that it did not. [DOT]


Frank Oliver: Perhaps not. It may not cover all' the cases which the resolution would cover, but it certainly is covered by the resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment can be smaller than the resolution but not larger.


William D. Staples: I have had several communications from the pioneers and a petition from the association of western pioneers asking for a land grant. Mr. Isaac Cowie, the secretary of the association, has written me quite a long letter, according to which they appear to have a very just claim; and I think that while this South African Land Bill is being considered, the western pioneers should have their interests considered and some land grant made to them. I might read the letter which accompanies the petition :
The letter is as follows :
Re old settlers' claims.
I am directed by the petitioners, for whom I am acting, to inclose for your information a reprint, from the Manitoba ' Free Press ' of this date, of the petition of the western pioneers, with a full list of signatures, amongst which you will find many respected names, and probably a few of your own constituents. There are probably three hundred other claims not represented by signatures-some of the persons to whom the circulation of the petitions was entrusted (having failed to attend to the matter.
You are respectfully urged to give this matter your best personal attention, and to see that the petition be not only received by but also acted upon by the House of Commons, whose proceedings will be keenly watched in this respect by the parties interested.
The claims of the original white settlers and pioneers, who probably conferred more benefit upon the land of their adoption than any other of its pre^confederation inhabitants, are the only ones which have not long ago received the attention-if troublesome the double attention-of the government; And we now wish to strongly emphasize the concluding paragraph of the petition, praying for the prompt settlement of a claim held in abeyance for the last thirty-eight years by the present parliament.
I have brought this matter before the House after waiting in the hope that these 400J
people might be dealt with, but I think they1 are entitled to some consideration.


Frank Oliver: The subject of this petition is not connected with the subject of this Bill. It is, of course, a matter that can be dealt with in due course.


William D. Staples: Is it the intention to deal with this petition in any form this
session?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid it is rather late to deal with it this session.
Mr, BICIvERDIKE. Would it not be possible to include the men who fought in the Fenian Raid? They fought to defend our own land, and are as much entitled to consideration as the men who went abroad to fight.


Mr. M. S. SCHELL.: I wish to support this suggestion. It would be highly appreciated by the veterans who went to the front at'the time of the Fenian Raid, and I would be very much pleased if the government would see their way clear to include them in this grant. They did as much to deserve recognition as any, and there are many of them in Quebec as well as Ontario. I do not think the government would make any mistake in including them.


Mr. FOWLER.: As we are proposing tjo include all the veterans, I would suggest that the survivors of the Arlstook war, who have not been spoken of, should be included, also the veterans of the rebellion of 1837.
Mr. BEiNNETT. And the survivors of the local elections in New Brunswick.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to, and the House went into committee on Bill (No. 109) to authorize a bounty to volunteers who served the Crown in South Africa.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 2,


Frank Oliver: That the following clause he substituted for clause 2;
This Act shall apply to all officers, non-commissioned officers and men who served in Souh Africa with any corps raised in Canada during any of the years 1899, 1900, 1901 and 1902, and who at the time of their appointment to or enlistment in such corps or any corps so raised were resident or domiciled in any part of Canada.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Would this include such a case as was suggested by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes), that of a Canadian who happened to be in London at the time who went direct to South Africa and returned to Canada?


Samuel Hughes: For instance, I know several men who lived in the Yukon and who could not get into the first corps and went to Africa on their own account.

Take Colonel Hamilton Merritt, of Toronto: Cliarlie Ross, the scout


An hon. MEMBER.: And Sam. Hughes.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, and Sam. Hughes. These men went to South Africa, and I think those three officers, ' although I say so, as shouldn't,' probably reflected as much credit on Canada as mauy others. But they are only instances of hundreds, possibly thousands, who went under similar auspices, who returned to this country and who represented Canada in South Africa to the best of their ability. I would suggest it might read :
This Act shall apply to all officers, non-commissioned officers ajjd men who served in the South African field forces during any of the years 1899, 1900, 1901 and 1902, who at the time of their appointment or enlistment in such field forces were resident or domiciled in any part of Canada.


John Herron: I would refer to a case in my district where a man who had resided there twenty or twenty-five years telegraphed for permission to enlist in the Duke of Cambridge's Own. In that corps a man bad to pay for bis uniform, horse, accoutrements and everything but his rifle, and put $500 in the treasury before he would be permitted to join. This man left my county and went over and joined the Duke -of Cambridge's Own corps, served throughout the war, and is living in that country to-day. I think it wrouid be very hard if he is going to be excluded from this small grant.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the amendment of my hon. friend from Victoria and Haii-burton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) cover such a case as I have instanced?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it would, because the amendment speaks of their being being domiciled in Canada at the time of their appointment or enlistment, resident or domiciled in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: In case a young man happened to be in England at the time, if he was over 21 years of age, his home would be wherever he was at the particular time he enlisted. Therefore, if lie were then in England he could not take an affidavit that at the time he was domiciled in Canada as his home.


Mr. STANFIELD.: I would ask the minister about this case : A young man going to school in England at the time the war broke out was a native of my own county, and he went out and served with considerable distinction. Since then he has returned to his native town. Would this Bill cover his case?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I think there can be no doubt whatever that In the case the hon. gentleman has just mentioned, his domicile is Canada, because he was only going


Samuel Hughes: to school temporarily. Therefore, if he was entitled in other respects, there could be no question as far as his domicile is concerned.


George William Fowler: But if he did not join a corps raised in Canada?


William Pugsley: The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Victoria and Halibnrton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) would cover his case. I do not understand that the Minister of the Interior objects to a clause which will cover all Canadians who served in South Africa.


Frank Oliver: I have an open mind on the subject.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the Minister of Militia say whether the amendment would cover those who served in the field forces in a military capacity in any corps? Because there are other forces, perhaps they are not called field forces, that might not come under that designation. For instance, would the medical department come under that designation, would the army service department and various other departments of the army-would they come under the designation of field forces? If they would, then I have nothing more to say; but if they do not, I think we should be careful in adopting the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton without knowing exactly wliat we mean.


William Pugsley: They are all serving, are they not?


John Waterhouse Daniel: It is a technical term, and perhaps the Minister of Militia will be able to elucidate it,


Mr. BEATTIE.: Any Canadian, if his name is on the roll, should be entitled to a land grant. The fact of his name being on the roll should be a guarantee that lie has served with a Canadian corps and is entitled to the land grant, no matter where lie came from. I do not think you should shut him out.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Certainly not.


John Herron: A man whom I know enlisted and started out in charge of horses. After they had started on their journey he met with an injury and was invalided by the doctors of the corps. Unfortunately his injury did not permit him to go to South Africa. Does the minister think he would come in under this Bill?


Frank Oliver: I am anxious to know just how far the House would like to have this privilege extend. We are anxious of course to meet the views of the House. I think myself that we should deal liberally with those who sacrificed their time and risked their lives in the cause of the empire in South Africa. We do not wish to give any restricted privilege for the sake
12601	JULY 10, 1908	12602
of restriction, but what we must do is to put a proposition before the House that can be carried out in a practical way, so as to include what we wish to include and exclude those we do not want to include.
I do not think it is possible to frame a Bill that will absolutely meet every case. No such legislation has ever yet been devised, and I do not think we can devise such legislation to-day. After I have heard from the House just how far they wish this privilege to go, I will do my best to put their views in concrete form.


George William Fowler: I understand that some of the later contingents did not take any part in active hostilities in South Africa.
I think there was one lot who just reached there after the war was concluded. I do not know whether they landed even. Would they be included?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid the amendment of my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton would exclude those.


George William Fowler: I thought so. That amendment seems more restrictive than the Bill.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid it Is.


Frederick William Borden: It is not intended to be.


Frank Oliver: We all want to do what is right and fair by the men who served the empire, as these men did, or who intended to serve. I want to know just how far we can go. From the expressions I have heard here to-night it would not be possible to draft a section that would cover all the cases that have been brought forward, that is, it would not safely cover them. It is best to decide how far we want to go, and then give time to draft a section to cover the points.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the suggestion of the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) is a good one, that is, to take those who have signed the roll of any Canadian contingent.


George William Fowler: That would shut out such a case as the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton mentions.


Samuel Hughes: That would shut out any superior officer.


Robert Laird Borden: If the committee is disposed to accept the suggestion that all persons domiciled in Canada who served in the South African war should come within the provisions of this Bill, it is not a difficult matter to alter the amendment so as to cover them. If it is desired that any person resident or domiciled in Canada who served in South Africa in a British field force


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Or who enlisted for such service.


Robert Laird Borden: I am dealing with the one thing at a time. That can be added afterwards.


Frank Oliver: As suggested by the hon. member for Kings and Albert, that might cut out those who enlisted and who arrived in South Africa just after the close Of the war, but who are entitled to consideration.


Mr. OLIVER  I .@: It is not difficult to add that:
Or who were appointed to or enlisted in any corps raised in Canada during any of the several years for service in South Africa.


Frank Oliver: Then my hon. friend cuts out those Canadians who enlisted in corps that were not raised in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I have covered that case by the first amendment, and I have covered the other case by the second amendment. If you ask fhat any other case be provided for, I will cover that by a few more words.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: I think it will be admitted that the wise policy is to give recognition to Canadians who went to South Africa in Canadian forces. It does not seem to me that it is wise to extend this privilege beyond the men who went out in Canadian regiments. I think this right of recognition should not depend upon whether these men actually went into battle or served in any particular engagement, but that those who left the shores of Canada to go to South Africa to fight and were prepared to fight if necessary, should receive recognition. If you take the case of men who chose to go over to England and enlisted in English regiments you are dealing with men who did not go as Canadians, and I therefore think that this recognition should be confined to those who went and served as Canadians.


John Stanfield: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to correct him?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not referring to the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Stanfield), but the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron)-the case of a man living in the Northwest who went over and enlisted in an English regiment.


John Herron: At the time this man cabled to England for permission to join the forces he did not know that we were going to send troops from Canada.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If you deal with cases of that kind, you will have all kinds of excuses which no department could follow up in order to arrive at a proper basis for determining who should be entitled to this grant. There may be cases of officers who served with distinction who being Canadians served in the

Imperial forces and wlio are deserving of recognition, and those can be dealt with separately. But if - we are dealing with non-commissioned officers and men, I think this country would only be disposed to give recognition to Canadians who went as members of Canadian forces.


Samuel Hughes: Take three cases that I have in mind; one was that of Charlie Boss, of the Northwest Mounted Police, the scout, and the man who won the battle at Cut Knife Hill in 18S.1. Charlie Ross went to South Africa and did splendid service. But the particular cases that I have in mind are those of two young men in Toronto-Wasson and Jackson. These two men could not get into the first corps. They were away earning their living and not within reach of their regiments. They started back to the regimental headquarters, but when they arrived the corps were tfilled. They went to South Africa in a hay ship. I could give the name of another young fellow, Charley Graham, from my own town of Lindsay who also went out in a hay ship. They joined Roberts' forces, and by their conduct reflected credit on the name of Canada. Yet these men would be excluded under this resolution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where are you going to draw the line?


Samuel Hughes: Any Canadian who served in any corps in South Africa. Take the case of Colonel Hamilton Merritt, of Toronto ; he served on General Brabant's staff.


An hon. MEMBER.: You are included.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly. I could not go to South Africa because of. the tyranny of an English general who was serving under the Canadian government.


Malcolm Smith Schell: I would like to ask the minister if a man availing himself of his privilege and locating on land would be entitled to a homestead and to a pre-emption also?


Frank Oliver: The provisions of this Bill admit of a volunteer or his assignee getting the full benefit of the Act whether he has already a homestead or not.


John Herron: Or whether he is going to get one?


Frank Oliver: Yes ; it is precisely the same thing.


George William Fowler: You are going to allow a man to have a homestead in addition to this?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George William Fowler: And a pre-emption, too?


Frank Oliver: If he takes it in a preemption area.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 


George William Fowler: You will give him a whole square mile of land? He will be glad to see another war break out.


John Herron: I have given notice of an amendment to this motion. The minister has made some change in. it, but I have something to add when the time comes.


Frank Oliver: I think we had better allow clause 2 of the resolution to stand and proceed with the Bill. We can have an opportunity to redraft clause 2.
Section 2 allowed to stand.
On section 3-grants of land authorized.


Mr. OLIVER  I .@: would like to move an amendment to that section as follows :
That the word ' volunteer,' in the first line of clause 3, be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor: ' officer, non-commissioned officer Or man, or in the event of his death, between the date of his enlistment or appointment and December 31, 1910, to his legal -representative.'


William D. Staples: What will be the necessary procedure for a widow to take in order to get this land grant ?


Frank Oliver: She would simply have to establish her identity and the rights of her husband before tbe Militia Department.


John Herron: Before that section carries, I have given notice of an amendment to this clause, and I think it is necessary to put it in here. I propose that clause 3 be amended by inserting after the word ' volunteer ' the words ' legal representative,' by striking out the word ' adjoining ' as it appears in the second line, and by providing that it shall apply to odd and even numbered sections all over the country. The Land Bill we have just passed may possibly have a hearing on clause 3.


Frank Oliver: Under this provision and under the Land Bill the volunteer may take his land anywhere on the odd or even-numbered sections or on adjoining odd or even sections, but it does not provide for him taking them up except they do adjoin.


John Herron: The South African veterans are generally residents in portions of the country that are well settled, and if a man could get a quarter-section in his locality, even though it did not adjoin his own quarter-section, it would be far better to let him have it than to compel him to move 100 miles away.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot see why the nurses who accompanied the physicians to South Africa should not get a land grant. Does this clause include the chaplains ?


Samuel Hughes: If they were enlisted it would.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister should take into consideration the question of including the nurses.


John Herron: I would move that section 3 be amended by striking out the word 1 adjoining.' I believe the word ' adjoining ' will work very great hardship in the cases I have referred to. I do not see what difference it makes to the country whether the South African veteran gets his quarter-section adjoining his own, or whether he gets it some other place in the neighbourhood.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is legislating for an exceptional case instead of for a general one.


John Herron: It is so general that it will apply to more than half the volunteers who are residents of that country.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. If the hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was at all familiar with the conditions in the Northwest he would understand that it is very difficult to get quarter-sections adjoining each other. The Bill now practically amounts to nothing, so far as a number of young men residents of Alberta and Saskatchewan who went to South Africa are concerned.


Frank Oliver: If the opinion of the House is that the Bill amounts to nothing there are many people in the country who would much prefer to see the Bill withdrawn.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I am certainly not of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn. On the contrary, I have _ advocated in this House for several sessions the granting of land to the South African volunteers of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am not speaking of the men who enlisted from other provinces and who received grants from Ontario and British Columbia, but I do think some provision should be made to set aside a grant of land to the young men who went to South Africa from the western provinces. What I want to point out to the minister is that if a man takes up a quarter-section under this Act he has to comply with the regulations of the homestead law. and while that may be well enough for a farmer or a rancher who wants to get more land, still there are many young men in the cities, towns, and villages who cannot leave their business, and the only benefit of this Act to them is that that they will get scrip for $160, which if they can sell for $80 they will be lucky. I have protests from this class of veterans and at the proper stage I shall move amendments to the Bill. That is what I intended to convey when I said that'the grant to this class of young men in Alberta and Saskatchewan has been practically whittled down to nothing.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not see why a South African veteran should be allowed to locate on two separated quarter-sections any more than you should allow a homesteader who has the privilege -of taking out
a pre-emption to do so. There will be millions of acres of land available for the South African veterans, and I do not think there is any hardshio whatever if they have to locate on quarter-sections adjoining. Let me point out to my hon. friend (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) that if the veteran does not want to live on the land and earn the patent by performing homestead duties, it is not necessary for him to take $160 in scrip. He can take his warrant which he has the privilege of selling and his assignee has the privilege of locating on two quarter-sections and performing the homestead duties and having the patent issued in his own name.
I believe the warrant will be worth more to him than a separate patent for a quarter-section.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose a volunteer does not want to take 320 acres and go and farm it, but prefers to take the 160 acres, what title would he have to the 160 acres? Would he get scrip for it?


Frank Oliver: He has the chance of taking 320 acres as a homestead, or the chance of assigning his right to another person who will fulfil the duties on the 320 acres; the effect of which is, as my hon. friend from East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has said, to give him a free patent for 160 acres, or scrip to the amount of $160, which is receivable at its face value in payment for Dominion lands.


Samuel Hughes: How would the assignment be equal to 160 acres?


Frank Oliver: In this way, that whoever he assigns to gets 320 acres for fulfilling the duties that are required of a homesteader on 160 acres.
Amendment of Mr. Herron negatived.
On section 4-conditions.


George William Fowler: I do not think you should allow a substitute. I think there should be just two alternatives; either give the man a grant if he wants to go to the land himself, or give him the scrip if he does not want to go on the land. But do not allow a substitute to take up the land, because the result will be that these rights will be sold for a trifle, especially by many eastern men, to some person who has never been in South Africa, but who will reap all the benefits barring the few dollars he pays for the right. If the volunteer himself wants to go on the land and fulfil the conditions, let him have the 320 acres. If not, let him take the $160 of scrip which he can use as he likes.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose a man entitled to the 320 acres could not conveniently go on the land himself, could he place somebody else there to do the work for him?


Frank Oliver: Not unless he assigns his rights to that other person.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose lie had a brother who would do the work on it?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter that he aud his brother would have to arrange between them; but he would have to assign his rights to his brother. It seems to me that the opportunity given in the section as it stands is all that can reasonably be asked.


Mr. G. H. McINTYRE.: I presume that the general purpose under this Bill is to reward Canadians who have served the empire in South Africa; but in addition to that you desire if possible to get these good Canadians to settle in the Northwest, for various reasons that will suggest themselves. A young- man who is sufficiently loyal to risk his life in South Africa is a pretty good kind of man to mix with certain elements that will go into that country. Therefore it is desirable to do everything in our power to get that youug man to go out thpre and settle; but the idea of a substitute does not appear to fulfil the purpose of the Bill, and I agree with the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) that if he will not go out and take up the land and become a settler, we would do well to drop the provision for a substitute and let him accept the scrip.


Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.: Could the minister not arrange to diminish the number of months the veteran is required to remain on land? A man who has served his country for three years in South Africa in such an nHnnns way should not. I think, be bound to remain so long on the land. I think It would be sufficient to require him to remain three months on the land to do his settlement duties. I am in favour of seeing that the settlement duties are effectually done. It will not do to allow the land to lie vacant, and if necessary he could make up for the diminished time the veteran would have to be on the land by doing an extra amount of settlement duties. A good many veterans might remain three months on the land, but could not conveniently stay the whole summer. It would make very little difference to the country so long as the settlement duties were thoroughly done. These veterans should certainly get some advantage in this respect. And the time limit should not be so strictly enforced against them, considering the 'time they have already served their King and country.


Samuel Hughes: I am very glad that the hon. member for East Huron (Mr Chisholm) has brought up that point. I might draw the minister's attention to the American regulations at the close of the Cuban and Philippine war. The volunteers on their return were each handed their scrip, and the time they had served in the campaign was counted in their homestead duties.


George William Fowler: I believe in being generous to the young men who went out to


Frank Oliver: South Africa to fight the battles of the empire, and I think the provisions of this Bill are very generous. Under it, as I understand, a South African veteran can take up 320 acres of land as a veteran; he can then take 160 acres more as an ordinary homesteader, which gives him 480 acres; then by paying $480 he can pre-empt another 160 acres, which gives him 640 acres, or a mile square, for the small sum of $480. I think we are dealing pretty generously with these South African veterans without letting up at all on the homestead conditions. It would be much better for you to give a cash bonus to the veteran than permit him to sell his rights to some person and thus let some one who never made any sacrifice whatever get all the benefit. The provisions of the Bill are quite broad and generous enough and you should strike out the substitute.


Mr. BARR.: I presume that the object is to recognize the services of the volunteers who went to South Africa, and I do not think this recognition would be of much value to them if they could not hold their land by engaging others to do the settlement duties. There are many of the volunteers engaged in other business besides farming, and this grant would be of no advantage to them if they were not allowed to provide a substitute. I think this Bill Is not too liberal and that you might go a little further. No doubt many of these volunteers would appreciate very much having a farm of 160 acres, and if they could, without giving up their business, go out there and work a short time on the land or engage others to break it up for farming, they would hold it for all time to come and hand it down to their children as a memento of the services they had performed. I think they should be given the advantage of holding their land without having to give up their business connection in other parts of the country. Those Canadians who went to South Africa made their mark there; they won several battles, and to a certain extent taught the British soldiers how to fight and how to manage without exposing themselves unnecessarily, as British soldiers were accustomed to do. In fact, they introduced a new life into the army of that country. It is a pity this Bill does not deal witli them more liberally by enabling them to hold their land without breaking up their business.


George William Fowler: I would like to hear an expression of opinion from the minister with regard to this question. We know what has been the fate of this scrip in the past. Scrip speculators went over the country and bought the scrip for a mere song and many made large fortunes out of it. In like manner fortunes will be made, though in a smaller degree, by men who have no title to any recognition. Take this land a mile square to-day, that is worth $3,000 or $4,000, and you are giving it for

the price value of the scrip. In a few years it will he worth $25,000 to $30,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not think the question of a man's right to homestead and preemption need be mixed up with this at all. You are giving a veteran, something for his work in South Africa. If he has had a homestead, he cannot get another. If he has not you cannot, when giving him something you say he is entitled to, cut him out of his right to a homestead. As regards the cutting down of the settlement duties, that would be most unsatisfactory. You are giving a half-section, half a mile wide by a mile long, to a South African veteran, and he has to do the necessary homestead duties and six months residence each year for three years. It would be most unsatisfactory to other settlers in the vicinity if he could earn his patent by doing less homestead duties-if, for instance, he could earn it by a three months' residence or less, or by doing the cultivation duties instead of residence. I agree with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Fowler) that they are being dealt with liberally. They are being given half a section instead of the quarter-section, which was what most of them expected, and I do not think we are asking too much if we ask that they should perform' the necessary homestead conditions. Then as regards doing away with the right to substitute ; a substitute may be just as good a settler, and that is one of the chief objects the government has in view, namely, that in giving this land to the South African veterans you ensure that the land will be occupied, cultivated and settled upon.


Samuel Hughes: What the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Fowler) said about the scrip holder in days gone by selling his scrip is absolutely true, because very few people could be induced in those days to go and settle in the Northwest, but it is entirely different to-day. I know hundreds of boys who are just waiting for this scrip to go up and settle in the country. Many no doubt will sell their scrip, but there are scores who will go there and settle.


George William Fowler: My suggestion will not apply to them.


Samuel Hughes: The young fellows in the towns who cannot afford to go out should not be discriminated against.


John Herron: There should be a distinction between a man who is a resident and a man who has never been in that country. Partially the object of giving this land is to promote the settlement of the Northwest, and I think that a man who has not been there, either before, during or since the war, should be asked to go and reside there either on his land or at least in the country.


Thomas Beattie: The best plan to adopt is to compel the volunteer to settle on the
land or take his scrip. Otherwise you will have' the land sold and held vacant by speculators for many years to come. In the case of scrip given after the Riel rebellion not one in a hundred of those who were entitled to it and received it settled on the land. The scrip was sold as low as $10 to $15. I tried to sell mine and all I was offered for it was $15. The hon. member for Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) says he knows of hundreds of boys who will go out and settle on the land. Well, that is the best argument we can have for making them settle on it or take their scrip.


John Barr: The Ontario government have dealt more generously with the veterans in that province, they have exempted the land granted to them from taxation, except for school purposes, for ten years, and if the grantees do not settle on the land the government buys it back, sometimes of course for a small amount, $50 or $100. I do not think that this government would be wise in following their example and exempting the lands in the west from settlement duties. Even in New Ontario that retarded settement to such an extent that the Ontario government would probably not do it again.


George William Fowler: There was some reason for the Ontario government granting this exemption from duties as they valued the land at only $50.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: I do not think we should make the restrictions so very onerous. The idea in my mind is that these volunteers should be induced to settle there but you must not place too many restrictions on their mode of settlement. I have heard it suggested, and I think it is a good idea, that the nurses and chaplains who attended to the spiritual wants of the volunteers should have land as well, but I do not see how you could force these to live for six months on the land. If you make the conditions very onerous you force the grantees to take scrip, and we know that in the past many people have made it a trade to go to the west and deal in scrip. In many cases the grantees would sell their lands for very small amounts. I would again urge consideration for the chaplains and nurses, those who went there in any capacity to serve their country in the hour of need. Their action gave Canada more standing in history than perhaps any other event in the last twenty years. It will redound to the credit of this parliament to deal very generously with those volunteers. If I had my will about it I would do away with the scrip altogether. I do not think it is a fair or a good way to do the business. Some system of permitting substitutes to take the land might be adopted. I have heard this evening of a man who is ready to sell his claim for $25 and I have no doubt that some men will be ready to buy scrip at that rate.


Richard Blain: As reference has been made to the Ontario Act I may quote from it :
Any person who was resident in the province and who went from the province to South Africa, to act as chaplain or nurse or Red Cross commissioner or a newspaper correspondent during the said war or any period thereof

These classes are allowed land under the Ontario Act. I think this is an example that might worthily be followed in the passage of this Bill.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Reverting to clause 2, I know a young man, Mr. Muckle, who happened to be visiting in New Zealand when the war broke out. He volunteered in the New Zealand contingent, fought through the war and immediately returned to his birthplace in Manitoba and resides there.


James Conmee: There is a similar case in Port Arthur of a young man named Gil-lis who was in South Africa and volunteered there.


John Herron: I wish to offer an amendment to clause 4 beginning at the sixth line.
I move :
That clause 4 be amended by adding thereto the words: But this section shall not apply, in so far as residence and cultivation are required, to persons incapacitated as mentioned in section 2 thereof.
The effect of this amendment is that persons incapacitated in the war may get their land without settlement duties. There are a few special cases known to every member in this House. There are a few'men in my own county and if they were explained to the committee I am sure the committee would have no hesitation in adopting this amendment. There are not more than ten or twelve such cases in Canada.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: Can a person entitled to this land assign it to any other person who must perform the duties, or would the man purchasing scrip be considered a grantee ?


David Henderson: With regard to scrip, we must all admit that in by-gone years there was a great deal of improper handling of scrip. It was no doubt bought up at very low prices, sometimes for a mere song. People there made it a business to gather up large quantities of this scrip, and buy large tracts of land with it, notably, I understand, the Saskatchewan Land Valley Company, in the purchase of 250,000 acres used a large amount of scrip. I do not think it is right that any person outside the volunteers themselves should get any advantage out of that scrip. The minister should so arrange the law that no person would he allowed to apply that scrip in the purchase of land unless he is prepared to make an affidavit that he paid the full $160 for it. I do not believe in these speculators in scrip being allowed to gather ' Mr MARTIN (Queens, P.E.TJ
it up at a mere nominal price, and then come to the government and purchase land with it, dollar for dollar.


John Gillanders Turriff: That cash scrip at the present time would have a market value of between 90 and 95 per cent, so any one that took scrip good for the payment of $100 for Dominion lands, would be able to sell it for about $150. There is a good demand for the scrip on the part of those who have payments to make to the Dominion government, so any one who took that scrip would he sure to get close to $150 in cash for it. Of course, you can make a regulation that the purchaser must pay the full $160, but if you do there will be no sale for the scrip, because if any one had $160 to pay to the government, unless he could make five, six or seven per cent on the scrip, he would not bother buying it but pay cash instead. But there is so little of that class of scrip to be had, that he would not he sure of getting over 90 per cent for its face value.


John Barr: There is another class of people that have been overlooked in the enumeration of those who ought to be entitled to a land grant, I refer to the newspaper correspondents. Like the soldiers, they went out to that country and took their lives in their hands, and they did more to advertise the country probably than the volunteers did. In my opinion they should receive recognition in this Bill.


Angus Alexander McLean: With reference to some of the contingents who went out to South Africa, and did not serve, and then returned, will they be entitled ?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter for consideration under clause 2, which has been hung up in deference to the unanimous view of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: A difficulty about the amendment of my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron) has been brought to my attention, namely, that section 2 is not yet amended, and the amendment which is proposed to section 2 would not be relevant there. I would suggest that my hon. friend's amendment be in the following terms :
" But this section shall not apply in so far as residence and cultivation are required, to persons who, -by reason of physical or mental incapacity arising from service in South Africa as aforesaid, are unable to comply with the conditions -as -to -residence and cultivation prescribed in section i hereof.
The object the hon. gentleman desires to attain is this, that the conditions as to residence and cultivation should not be imposed upon persons who, by reason of physical injuries or mental condition arising from the war, are unable to perform the duties which otherwise they would be required to perform under the law.


Frank Oliver: I think the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act would be sufficient to meet the cases suggested. Beyond that point it would be dangerous to go. The provisions of the Land Act are framed to meet just such cases as my hon. friend has in mind. I think it would be safer to leave such cases to the operation of the Dominion Lands Act.
(Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The minister then is satisfied that the provisions of the Lands Act would amply cover the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Alberta.


Frank Oliver: I could not say they would amply cover the case, but I think they would cover it so far as it would be safe to go in administration ; otherwise we might have to deal with what might amount to a scandal in the matter of medical certificates and other means of avoiding settlement duties.	[DOT]


John Herron: I had in mind one or two very severe cases in which I thought the applicant should get his patent forthwith without putting in the necessary three years. I have a case in mind where the man has been in the hospital ever since the end of tlie war, and he has a large family of ten children. I only know of two cases, but they are very special ones. I had them in view, and thought that they should be entitled to get their patents without performing the homestead duties. Does the minister think such a case could be dealt with in section 2 ?


Frank Oliver: I think clause 4 as it stands should be carried. The cases my hon. friend suggests can be met to a measurable degree under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act. I could not support his amendment.


John Herron: Perhaps the minister would not mind explaining what the provisions of the Lands Act are with respect to that particular case.


Frank Oliver: One provision is that where a homesteader is physically incapacitated from fulfilling his duties, by order of the Governor in Council, he may be granted a patent without residence.
On section 5-substitutes.


Frank Oliver: I have an amendment to clause 5 that I propose shall be added as subclause 3 as follows :
No such instrument shall be accepted or recognized by the department which is not executed and dated after the date of the warrant of the Minister of Militia and Defence, provided for in section 7 of this Act.


John Herron: I would like an explanation from the minister as to what the addition to this clause means. I believe there are cases in the country in which some men have made arrangements to dispose of their
land. I suppose this is what it has reference to.


Frank Oliver: The amendment I have moved is for the purpose that is set forth in its wording, that the assignment of the volunteer is of no value until this right has been accorded by tbe Department of Militia and Defence; that is to say that the trafficking in rights which is going on at the present time will be at the loss of the enterprising purchaser and not at the loss of the volunteer.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think there should be a change made in section 5. It reads :
No person 'shall be accepted as a substitute unless be is a British subject.
It is perfectly right that a man must be a British subject before a patent issues to him, but I do not see any more reason why a settler who purchases a warrant, and resides on the land should be required to be a British subject any more than a man who takes up an ordinary homestead. It will he a great mistake if the clause is left in its present shape. You will prevent a great many men who might wish to become purchasers from obtaining this land.


Samuel Hughes: Say ' or makes tbe declaration to become a British subject.'


James Conmee: That would be better.


John Gillanders Turriff: The law which applies to the ordinary homesteader would cover this case; he cannot get his patent unless he takes out his papers and becomes a British subject. I therefore move to strike out the words ' a British subject.'


Samuel Hughes: Then a foreigner might come in and hold this land. Can a volunteer get his patent under this section without becoming a British subject?


John Gillanders Turriff: Tbe same provision can be made as that which is contained in the Land Act.


Samuel Hughes: He should be a British subject or be required to declare his intention of becoming one the same as a homesteader.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not think a homesteader has to make that declaration. I think it would be advisable to put in a provision that the patent should not issue to any one unless he is a British subject.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Mr. Turriff moves to strike out .the words ' a British subject.'
Some bon. MEMBERS. No, no.


James Conmee: I understand he has to be a British subject before be gets his patent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, it is tbe other way.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have the amendment explained.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think there is a genera] misapprehension as to what I mean. I * propose to strike out the words that he must be a British subject in order to become a substitute for the original grantee, but I do not propose that he shall be allowed to receive the patent for the land until he becomes a British subject. Take the settler coming in from the United States ; he can take up a homestead but he does not become a British subject until he has lived three years in the country.


Samuel Hughes: Has he not to declare ?


John Gillanders Turriff: Let him make his declaration, and provide that before he gets the patent he must become a British subject.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where we grant lauds to men because they went to fight for the British Crown no one should be allowed to speculate in these lands unless he is a British subject. The Bill is all right as it is.	,


Mr.   M.@: ts McCarthy. Under the Lands Act we permit a man to make a homestead entry who has declared his intention, and why should there be any distinction made in this case?


John Gillanders Turriff: I will ask that my amendment should read this way :
No person shall be accepted as a substitute unless he is a British subject or has declared his intention of becoming a British subject.


George William Fowler: The whole idea of allowing a substitute in such a case as this is absurd. But if it be allowed it should be confined to a man who is already a British subject.


James Conmee: It should be provided that before receiving the patent he should become a British subject.


Frank Oliver: There is no provision in
the section as it stands for a substitute becoming a British subject before getting his patent, and while I have no objection to the amendment as proposed, it should be followed by a provision that the substitute should be a British subject before he gets the patent.


George William Fowler: Where is the necessity for this? Are there not sufficient British subjects to purchase these rights. It is ridiculous to extend this privilege to foreigners.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: These scrips will undoubtedly be speculated in, and that being so, it is desirable to make them as valuable as possible. If we refuse to give the privilege to those who have not. yet taken out their naturalization papers we limit to that extent the market value of the scrip.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If I felt that these scrips were to be speculated in I would Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
vote against the whole Bill. We should approach this with the idea that British subjects should settle on these lands as far as possible. It is not like a foreigner coming in and taking up a homestead entry in the ordinary way. This is a special grant to certain brave and loyal British subjects whom we desire to honour and we should restrict it to British subjects.


James Conmee: We encourage foreigners to come here and declare their intention to become British subjects, and when they do so in good faith we ought not to restrict them in their privileges of citizenship.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am quite content that such a one should have all the ordinary privileges of citizenship, but this is a special case altogether.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would add to my
amendment the words :
And no patent shall issue for any lands under this Act until the holder has become a British subject.


Frank Oliver: The difficulty could be met by adding to section 2 of the Bill the words:
The patent shall not issue until he has become a British subject.


George William Fowler: Suppose John Smith
fought in South Africa and he sells his rights to Thomas Brown, who becomes his substitute ; could Thomas Brown sell his rights to another person?


Frank Oliver: No. The Bill expressly says that the volunteers may sell to a substitute and the substitute must earn the patent.


George William Fowler: No, it does not say that.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Every restriction we put on these grants is just lessening the value of the man who gets it. Our experience fi'om 1871 to 1875, when there was plenty of scrip in the market-and at that time anybody could buy it and there was no requirement that he should be a British subject-was that better prices were got than if there had been no restriction. Any restriction Is bound to lower the price to the man who holds the property.


George William Fowler: This violates a very Important principle that we should not lose sight of, and that is the principle of settling these lands with people who are going to farm them. It is better to have four farmers farming 160 acres each than to have one farmer owning a farm of 640 acres. You are increasing the holdings to these settlers and in that way are keeping out settlement. I do not think the minister has looked Into this thing as he should. What we want to do is establish a population out there and not a few big land holders.


Frank Oliver: Not a peasant population.


George William Fowler: I do not quite understand what the hon. gentleman means by ' a peasant population.' Do I understand the minister to say that a man with 160 acres is a peasant farmer? Does he want to establish a system of landlordism in that country? No man can possibly work 160 acres by himself. What the minister wants is to establish an aristocratic class who will have servants at their command. He desires to put the lauds of this country into the hands of a favoured few. What is the secret of the success of the French nation? It is the fact that the lands of France are divided up amongst small holders-a peasant class, if you will, but the bone and sinew of the French nation.	And if you call that a
peasant class, I would that we had in Canada a peasant class, for that is the class which is the salvation of France where the land is held by the men who work it and not by the employers of labour. I think a *very great mistake is being made when we allow any substitution and do not compel these men, who have, by their sacrifices in the past, earned their right to this land, to go out themselves and settle on it. For my part I protest against this policy in the interests of the people of the west as well as of the whole of Canada.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Do I understand the bon. geiitleman to protest against this land being given to the volunteers of South Africa?


George William Fowler: If I have not made myself clear to the bright intellect of the hon. gentleman, it will be impossible, with the slight command I have of the English language, for me to use words which would convey my meaning to his intelligence. I am not opposing the grant to the South African veterans, but I am opposing the right of substitution which is attached to the grant and which is not in the interests of this country, because it will enable some of these men to sell for a song to the scrip shark, who has been the curse of the west and who has already his eyes fixed upon this Bill. There can be no doubt about that. The speculator who deals iu scrip is already looking to this Bill. He has not gorged himself quite full enough with the scrip of the halfbreed and is now after the scrip of the veteran. I say it is not in the interests of the west that large tracts of land should be held by individuals, but rather that smaller holdings should be the rule, and that there should be what my hon. friend the minister terms ' a peasant population ' rather than a population of rich landlords with servants and serfs at their command.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension as to the purpose of this Bill. This Bill is not for the purpose of benefiting the west, and none know that better than the people who represent the west. It is supposed to be a discharge of the duty of the whole Dominion to those who went to
South Africa to serve the empire. This is a sacrifice on the part of the west and is recognized as such, but the west is prepared to do its part in recognizing the service of these men. It is useless to speak of this as though it were a benefit to the west. It is a case in which .the west is carrying the burden of the whole Dominion in making some recognition of the services of these men.


George William Fowler: If that be true, better strike the Bill off the record altogether; and if it be necessary to provide some recognition for these veterans, we should do it by means of a money grant. This is only another illustration of the mistake we are committing in keeping the control of these lands in the federal government and not giving them to the provinces. What right have we to impose a sacrifice on the west? What right have we to do an act of injustice towards the west if, as the minister says, this is an act of injustice to that portion of our country. Let us from the Dominion treasury give these men proper remuneration for what they have done and not give an opportunity to the speculators to make a lot of money out of this grant, whereas our veterans will only get a very small portion of it.


Frank Oliver: I do not want to accept the suggestion, and have it put on record in ' Hansard,' that this is an injustice to the west.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is what you said.


Frank Oliver: I said it was a burden.


George William Fowler: A burden is an injustice.


Frank Oliver: Not necessarily. It is a burden the people are quite prepared to bear. I want my hon. friend to understand that the honourable part which the west took in South Africa was a burden but not an injustice. It was a burden which the west bore proudly; and when we are doing what we can to recognize the services of these men in South Africa, we are acquitting a debt of honour and the west is proud to bear its share of that burden.


Samuel Hughes: How many scrip can the speculator buy?


Frank Oliver: The speculator can buy as many scrip as he has money to pay for, but his scrip will only be of use to him if he can fulfil the duties and obligations required to earn the patent.


George William Fowler: That means he will get a few more substitutes just as he had to produce the half-breed, and he did not always produce the half-breed he was supposed to produce. The minister says this is a burden on the west. In what respect? Is it because these lands are being granted ? Then why should the west bear the burden? Why should not the whole of Canada bear

it? If you make a money grant out of the Dominion treasury, the whole of Canada will bear the burden and not the west alone.
Mr, OLIVER. Precisely.


George William Fowler: Why do you want to be unfair to the west? Is the west crying out for an opportunity to bear the burden? I have not heard the cry.


Frank Oliver: The west is perhaps more willing to bear the burden than other parts of the country are willing to share it.


An hon. MEMBER.: Why?


Frank Oliver: There has been no suggestion from any part of the country in the line my hon. friend suggested, that there should be a payment out of the treasury. It was a question of Northwest lands or nothing.


George William Fowler: It is not necessarily a question of Northwest lands or nothing. There is no reason why some minister should not have brought down a Bill providing that a money grant should be given to the South African veterans.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: According to the wording of this section, there might be more than one substitute, and the question is, which one would require to be a British subject. The first Substitute might dispose of his interest and go to the United States or anywhere else, and the last one who took tlie land would be the poor, downtrodden British subject who would have to fulfil the settlement duties. As the Bill stands, there can lie one or any number of substitutes.


Frank Oliver: I would not wish to set up my knowledge of the law against that of the hon. gentleman ; but it is as plain as the English language can make it, that there is provision for an assignment to one substitute.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That does not limit it to one substitute. I do not think any lawyer will deny that the provision for a substitute must be taken as meaning any number of substitutes. If the section said 'one substitute,' that might limit it, but as it is it means his substitute for the time being. To my mind the section is all right unamended.


Mr. CARVELL.: It seems to me that it would be a mistake to curtail the number of persons to whom those lands could be assigned ; because the man in the east cannot go and cultivate them, and any curtailment you put upon his right to dispose of them makes them of that much less value to him and therefore only weakens the object of them. I would allow as many substitutes as are allowed in the case of any commercial commodity. If this is not allowed, it would be better, as the hon. member for Kings and Albert suggests, that you should give these men a money grant. But I have not heard any such proposition before. Ever since I have been here, in every Mr. FOWLER.
session, the proposition has been to make grants of land to these South African veterans, and the powers that be have decided to give them lands. If you couple with the grant the condition that the grantee must go and settle on the land it will be absolutely useless to one-half or three-fourths of the men who went to South Africa.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I move that the. words ' twenty-one ' be struck out of the second line and the word ' eighteen ' be substituted therefor.
Amendment of Mr. Jackson agreed to.
On section 6-scrip may be granted instead of land.


Frank Oliver: I desire to move that in the last line the word 1 nine ' be struck out and the word ' ten ' be substituted therefor.


Mr. MILLER.: If this Bill does not make it clear whether the substitute or the grantee has the right to assign, ought it not to be made clear ?


Frank Oliver: In regard to the question of an assignment by one substitute to another. I can only say that, so fa.r as I can read English, this provides for an assignment from the volunteers to a substitute, and the substitute must perform the duties. If the English language does not mean what it says, then an amendment would be necessary ; but that is the intent of the Act.


Henry Horton Miller: I quite agree with the hon. minister that if the English language is as he understands it and as I understand it, then an amendment is not necessary : but there are a number of lawyers in the House who claim that the language means what it does not appear to mean, [DOT] and I would, like to hear from them.


John Herron: I moved that the following be inserted as section 6a :
Any person entitled to a grant of jand under the foregoing provisions may in lieu thereof if he so chooses, receive a free grant of one quarter-section without residence duties or homestead regulations, provided that he notifies the Minister of the Interior of his choice before December 31, 1910.
The object I have in view in moving this amendment is this. Certain men may prefer to take ICO acres of land and get a patent for the same without residing on the land. A great many men in the west who will be entitled to lands under this Act are in mercantile business, in stores, or in various occupations in town. Many more are ranchers or are engaged in some other occupation which they followed before the war broke out. Many of them would think it a great favour to be allowed to select a quarter-section of land and obtain the patent without further conditions. I would not suggest this as taking away from the rights of 1 those who choose the 320 acres but merely.

to provide for the man who wishes to take 160 acres without condition.
Amendment (Mr. Herron) negatived.


Richard Stuart Lake: 
John Herron: In reference to the provision that any transaction occurring before the issue of the scrip would be void,
is the minister prepared immediately to issue this scrip, or will that only come into effect after a certain date?


Frank Oliver: The Bill will be in effect as soon as it is assented to.


Thomas Chisholm: When can application for warrants be made to the Minister of Militia?


Frank Oliver: As soon as the Bill is
assented to.


George William Fowler: When can the speculator begin to get in his work?


Frank Oliver: Not until the certificate has been issued to the volunteer.


Samuel Hughes: The scrip must be issued on the application of the volunteer, not of the substitute?


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Has the minister made an estimate of the number who will be likely to accept grants?


Frank Oliver: The number who would be entitled according to the present drafting of section 2 would be a little over 7,000, but if all the suggestions that have been made are followed the number will be very largely increased. I would be glad to have any further suggestions in regard to the provisions of section 2 before the committee rises. I would like to have the views of the committee with regard to the different classes of people who should be provided for. If we make the provisions of section 2 so wide and so general as to cover all the cases that have been suggested to the House, we are liable to have our Act subjected to abuses in administration that will probably defeat the object aimed at. If we made the Bill fairly restrictive, or did not widen it so much that it would be difficult to operate, the understanding being that special cases might be dealt with in a special Act, I think that would be a safer plan in the public interest than to undertake to cover all cases by a general provision.
Progress reported.



PATENT AND PROPRIETARY MEDICINES.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 146) respecting proprietary medicines.-Mr. Tern-pieman.
On section 2-definitions.
Hon. WM, TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue). There is a custom in the trade that medicines are manufactured under contract for the proprietor. To meet that, I move to add the following as subsection (d ) :
WThere the manufacturer of a proprietary or patent medicine is not the proprietor
[Stage Direction]
thereof, the proprietor who procures the same to be manufactured shall be deemed to be the manufacturer within the meaning of this Act.
Motion agreed to.
Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Has the minister any further views with regard to the use of that word 'internal.' It was contended before the committee that it meant only what was introduced by the mouth, that anything taken through the nose, or a hypodermic injection of cocaine through the skin, might not come under it.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: I do not know that the doctors would agree upon what ' internal ' means. I was surprised to be told that an injection by the nose was not considered an internal remedy. This Bill proposes to deal only with medicines taken internally.
On section 7-prohibited medicines.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I would like to ask the minister if he proposes to introduce a section which will make provision for the sale of such stock as druggists may have on hand at the time of the passing of this Act ?


William Templeman: That is a point I gave some consideration to and, in discussing the matter with others, it was thought that under clause 17, where power is given to the Governor in Council to ' make such regulations for giving effect to any of the provisions of this Act and declaring the true intent thereof, in any case of doubt, as to him seems meet,' we may make regulations governing the sale of those medicines that may be in stock at the time this Act comes into force which would not be labelled in accordance with the Act. It is not at all probable that this Act will be brought into force before the first of the year, which will give dealers six months to prepare their labels in conformity with the Act and to dispose of their present stock. We do not contemplate to cause the trade any trouble in changing from the old to the new system. That point can be guarded against by regulation.


Thomas Chisholm: The minister has perhaps not thought of the fact that in a a great many cases druggists do not know the contents of their patent medicines, and it will be impossible to get rid of their stock at the expiration of the time mentioned by him. I think there should be some special provision to allow them to dispose of all the patent medicines that are on their hands at the time the Act is put into force. They might be compelled1 to put a date upon the bottle to show that it was manufactured before the Act passed.


William Templeman: A special label ?


Thomas Chisholm: Yes, a special label. It would be impossible to put labels on the stock that they have in their drug stores to Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
indicate what the actual contents of the bottles are, because druggists would not know' what these were themselves.


William Templeman: I am of opinion that I have authority to require them to put a special label on the quantity that may be in stock at the present time, or to label it as nearly as possible in conformity with this Act.


Thomas Chisholm: If you could compel them to put some special label on to show that the stock was manufactured before the Act came into force it would save them from losing their stock. We would not wish to do any injury to those who have laid in a large stock. Frequently druggists buy a large stock of a particular kind of patent medicine which is used in their neighbourhood. They get a discount if they take a large amount, and if some provision were not made such as I suggest an injury might be done to local druggists throughout the country.


John Barr: Many drug stores have these patent medicines on their shelves for probably two or three years. Giving them until next January would afford them no opportunity w'liatever to dispose of their stock. I think it is a question that should be carefully guarded. It is absolutely necessary that a restriction should be imposed which would prevent them from selling year after year or from buying more stock and selling it under the pretence that it w'as the stock which they originally had on hand. A great injustice might be done to the druggists who have a stock of patent medicines on hand unless provision is made which wall enable them to dispose of it.
On section 9-distribution from door to door.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I W'ould like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that in schedule (a) there are three or perhaps more coal tar products mentioned, but there are several others that might as well be included.


William Templeman: The schedule was prepared by the chemist of the department but it may not be complete. Under clause 17 it w'ill be seen that we can add to or remove from schedule 1A ' any poisonous or patent drugs as from time to time may be deemed expedient. One of the first things that would be done after this became law would be to complete that schedule and issue a circular.
Mi-. DANIEL. I think this schedule would be more satisfactory if instead of mentioning a few of these coal tar products it should include all coal tar products. Why should a acetanilide be included in the schedule and antipyrine left out. If you are going to include any of these coal tar products you should include them ail.


William Templeman: Are all coal tar products poisonous ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: One is perhaps not so bad as another but they are all of the same character and liave the same effect. The Bill at present really puts a ban on these mentioned and gives an advertisement to those that are not mentioned.


William Templeman: What are they ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: As it happens those that are not mentioned are largely proprietary. For instance, antikamnia which is said to be an extract of acetanilide and bicarbonate of soda but the basis of it is aeetana-lide. It is sold under the trade name of antikamnia and would not come under this Bill. It is the same with antipyrine which I believe is made in Germany and which is also proprietary. It is a coal tar product just the same as acetanalide and phenace-tine. Those that are not mentioned by name in the Blli are in the same category as those which are, and they should only be taken under advice.


William Templeman: Would you suggest that the Bill should say : Acetanalide and other coal tar products ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would put It In that way.


Thomas Chisholm: These coal tar products all affect the heart and are exceedingly dangerous medicine.


William Templeman: Before putting the Bill in force I presume this matter would be submitted to the proper authorities. It is my intention that it should be submitted to some eminent medical man so that we might get a complete list, and in the meantime we can insert the words : ' and other coal tar products.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: The trouble about inserting a complete list in a statute is that they are constantly getting out new coal tar products and describing them by some trade name. The minister in the schedule puts a ban on certain preparations and at the same time gives an immense advertisement to other preparations which are largely proprietary, such as antipyrine and antikamnia, to which exactly the same objections apply. I think it would be only fair and right, both to the public and to the people dealing in these things, that the general term should be used instead of these individual terms, unless you see the individual names of all the preparations.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there not coal tar products which are not of a medicinal character? If so, would it not be wise to say ' and all other coal tar products used for medicinal purposes ' ? Otherwise you would make it too comprehensive.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That would not be necessary as the Bill applies only to preparations used as medicines.


William Templeman: I move that the words ' and other coal tar products ' be added to the schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I would like to ask the minister if he has been able to devise any plan for putting a limit to certain advertisements of medicines or remedies that are not at all reputable? I think I need not enter more particularly into a description of them ; they will suggest themselves. These advertisements have appeared from time to time in some newspapers which are not over particular, and it would be well, if possible, to put some limit upon them.


William Templeman: That is a point which has been considered. The practice of publishing advertisements of patent medicines that are not of a creditable character has been, I was going to say, universal ; but in recent years, I am bound to say, there has been a great improvement in that regard. Public opinion has put a ban on that class of advertising, and it is not nearly so commonly in vogue now as it was formerly. I had an amendment drafted prohibiting obscene advertising, but I recognized the difficulty and also the danger of trying to exercise a censorship over advertising of any kind. I did ask the Department of Justice some days ago how far we could go in prohibiting obscene or objectionable advertising of patent medicines, but the Department of Justice, up to the present time, has not helped me out. So I thought it better to let this Bill become law without referring to advertising at all. As I have said, the evil is not nearly so great as it used to be. The press of Canada has refused to carry in its columns advertising of that character, and I do not know that it would be wise to attempt to legislate on the subject in this Bill. I am afraid that we might have some difficulty in enforcing such legislation, and I am not prepared to draw the line between what should and what should not be published. I think that this measure, which is not very drastic, is along the right lines, and after we give it a fair trial for a year or two, we can perhaps devise a clause to regulate such advertising.


Thomas Chisholm: The minister has in the schedule a basis for regulating all such matters. By enlarging the schedule he can overcome to a great extent the evil complained of.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that the minister, in section 14, subsection 2, appears to contemplate some kind of third party procedure. I am not quite sure that will work



1262S
out satisfactorily. What is contemplated exactly by subsection 2 of section 14 ?


William Templeman: In the Bill as first printed we had incorporated a warranty clause, requiring the giving of a warranty by the manufacturer to the vendor. We thought it would be very cumbersome to have that warranty accompanying every sale of goods, and we substituted clause 14, which is an entirely new clause, approved of by the special committee. If my hon. friend will look at the latter part of section 14 he will see that the manufacturer's name and number must be given on the label and that is sufficient identification of the manufacturer for the purposes of the section, and he can be brought in as the defendant in a prosecution. The action will then be brought against the manufacturer and the court will find, if the offence be proved, against the manufacturer.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be some provision in the Summary Conviction Act which provides that the defendant can obtain a summons to bring a third person before the court, but unless there is, this subsection could not be worked out. Can the minister tell me if there is any such provision ? The subsection reads :
2. If the person who gives notice of such defence, or the prosecutor, obtains a summons to bring such third party before the court, the court shall at the same time hear all the parties and decide upon the entire merits of the case, not only as regards the person originally accused hut also as regards the third party so brought before the court.


Mr. CLARKE.: I do not think there is any such provision in the sense the hon. gentleman refers to. There Js in civil proceedings. What I should judge this to mean is that the defendant, in order to exonerate himself, must institute a new proceeding against the third party, which would really be a separate prosecution. If he wants to clear himself, he [DOT] should lay information against the party responsible and prove his charge.


Robert Laird Borden: In some provinces there is a provision for bringing in a third party in civil cases, in others there is not, and this applies to the whole of Canada. Even If this were intended to apply to civil proceedings alone, I do not think it would work out very satisfactorily. But in a criminal proceeding, I do not see how you could work it out at all. There will be two different prosecutions, and the bald statement that ' the court shall at the same time hear all the parties and decide upon the entire merits of the case,' would be a little too general to enable the provisions of this section to be worked out at all. Is it contemplated, for example, that the magistrate would give the one judgment in the two cases and that this section will be sufficient Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
for that to he done ? I would hardly think so


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is another way in which it could be done. The proceedings could be amended by making the manufacturer a defendant along *with the other party. It is, of course open to some objection.


Robert Laird Borden: We have not the time to work it out and it is not of sufficient importance to insist upon. No doubt the Bill will have to be amended.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY-HARMONY TO ELMIRA BRANCH.

Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved second reading of Bill (No. 202) to authorize the construction of a branch line of the Prince Edward Island Railway from Harmony, on the Souris branch, to Elmira. He said : This is for the purpose of taking authority, if the government so desire, to build a line, a little over thirteen miles long, from Harmony, on the Souris branch, to Elmira. It will serve a very important country, where there are several sections thickly settled which are without railway communication. The road will cost probably in the vicinity of $400,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask whether or not there were some other proposed branches which seem to have been agitated for in Prince Edward Island for a number of years? When I visited the island three or four years ago, I heard of several of these branches which seemed to 'be on much the same basis as regards their claims on the exchequer. Why has this particular branch been selected and the others put to one side ?


Mr. GRAHAM.: The government is of the opinion that this is all we can undertake this year. Some branch had to be selected, and I suppose the same question would be asked of any branch. Two branches were asked for in this vicinity. The Prince Edward Island legislature passed a resolution in which they named several branches and this was one.


John Dowsley Reid: In whose county is it ?


George Perry Graham: It does not say in my brief which county it is in,_ The resolution passed by the legislature of Prince Edward Island referred to many branch lines.


Alexander Martin: Has the minister that' resolution with him ?


George Perry Graham: No.


Alexander Martin: He will find it includes many lines in addition to the little bit of a paltry spur line he proposes.


Mr. EMMEKSON.: I wish to again refer to the whole question of branch lines in connection with the government system of railways in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Would that not be an irrelevant matter?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it is germane to this Bill. It is a branch line being constructed by the government, the others are branch lines connected with the government system and the one question is involved in the other. It seems to me that the government, before constructing new branch lines in Prince Edward Island or any other province should consider and deal with the branch lines already in existence connecting with the government system. The Dominion has expended in connection with the several branch lines throughout the provinces traversed by the Intercolonial Railway nearly $7,000,000. The provinces have contributed to the same end about $5,000,000. The branch lines thus added by this parliament are all designed for one purpose, evidently we must assume that they are for the purpose of promoting the interests of the several communities traversed by them.


Samuel Hughes: I do not like to raise a point of order, but I am forced to. I do not see the bearing of branch lines in other provinces on the Bill under discussion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I submit I am in order ; I am arguing that before such a Bill is proceeded with the government should deal with the question of branch lines already constructed.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am rather inclined to think that a general discussion of branch lines in other provinces is hardly relative to a motion for the second reading of a particular Bill which deals with a particular branch line in one province. Beyond that the hon. member will see he is reviving a discussion which has already taken place in this House in this session at his own instance on the same question.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of course I submit with all deference to the ruling of the Chair.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think a discussion as to whether or not this branch line should be constructed is germane, but not a discussion of other branch lines in other provinces.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not propose to deal with other branch lines in other provinces, but I do propose to show reasons why the government should not deal with this particular branch line at this stage. Parliament, before committing itself to an expenditure of $400,000 or $500,000, should inquire into the question of whether the expenditure already made in the past in 401*
connection with branch lines has been effectually made and has been made to accomplish the object which parliament evidently had in view, that is the benefit of the communities traversed by other branch lines.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member has paid no attention to your ruling.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think thus far the hon. member is paying attention to the ruling.


Mr. TAYLOR.: They are only building this on paper for election purposes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am dealing with this on principle. There is no narrow pent-up Utica of partisanship that will confine my views at this time. When this Bill has passed both Houses and has received the assent of His Excellency the responsibility will be on the government, but at present it is on parliament. The question is : Should parliament authorize the government of Canada to construct even a small branch line like this of only thirteen miles until parliament has dealt with the wider and greater question with respect to branch lines already in existence?
I have no particular objection to this branch line. Jly hon. friend the Minister of Railways has referred to the fact that the legislature of Prince Edward Island has passed a resolution, unanimously I assume, in favour of the construction of this particular line, and other lines, and that resolution no doubt called upon this parliament to authorize the construction of this particular branch line as well as others mentioned in that resolution. In considering that request, it seems to me to be the bounden duty of parliament to inquire whether this authority should be given until this parliament has dealt with the branch lines already existing in a way that would make them fulfil the respective missions which it was expected they would fulfil when parliament authorized their construction. The same question would arise if we were asked to subsidize an additional branch line in connection with the government system of railways on the main line of the Intercolonial Railway. This, I understand, to be an extension of the government system, and you cannot separate it. Because it happens to be in the province of Prince Edward Island is no reason why it should be separated from the whole system of the government railways of the Dominion. Should that be extended, should there be a draft made upon the revenues of Canada to create additional lines to the system until that system is placed in a position whereby it would fulfil the aspirations and hopes of the people when that system was constructed? I submit I am in order. I bow to your ruling, but I do not think I am departing from your ruling. I .submit that the Minister of Railways, who cf course spoke for the government with respect to their policy in that regard, should give some idea as re-

gards the course to be pursued iu connection with branch lines already existing before asking us to deal with the proposition involved in the Bill now before the House. I hope I have made myself clear, and I hope the Minister of Railways will see the point of the objection I take to the Bill at this moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
Alexander Martin: About three weeks ago the minister gave notice of the introduction of a Bill to construct branch lines in the province of Prince Edward Island, one being the branch line mentioned in the Bill, and the other a branch line from Montague bridge to connect with the Murray Harbour Railway. I would like to know what change has come over the spirit of the minister in leaving the second branch out.


George Perry Graham: No matter how willing the government might be to do things, it cannot do everything at once, even if it were inclined. This branch, I find on investigation, has been surveyed and decided on some years ago; the other one had never been surveyed except possibly by a preliminary survey. I want to know, as near as possible, what a thing is going to cost before I ask parliament to commit itself to the construction. I was not in a position to do that with the second line. I may say, without speaking from any great knowledge, because I have been but a short time in parliament, that Prince Edward Island possibly is in a different position to other parts of Canada, in many respects. I have no idea whatever that building a branch line in Prince Edward Island is for the purposes of making money for the government.


Angus Alexander McLean: Was the minister ever in Prince Edward Island?


George Perry Graham: I have not been in Prince Edward Island, I am sorry to say, but I hope to visit it before another session of parliament. We have selected this branch line because it seemed to be needed, and that is all we feel in a position to ask parliament to authorize this year.


Alexander Martin: I think that is a very lame excuse, it is the lamest excuse I ever heard this minister make. These are hardly branch lines, they are only spurs. I do not think the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) need be alarmed unless they build it in the way they constructed the Hillsborough bridge at a cost of three prices. I am a little alarmed at anything undertaken by this government from what I have known of them in the past. This railway is only thirteen miles in length and if they proceed upon the same lines as they have in the past it will cost a great deal more than it should.
Mr. EMMERSON


Henry Robert Emmerson: Move the six months' hoist.


Alexander Martin: The Minister of Railways and Canals says that he would not undertake that branch that he had in his proposed Bill because it was not surveyed. The minister must be asleep, or lie did not know that parliament was meeting. I know' that previous to the election of 1904 there was not only a survey but two or three different surveys. There were surveying parties in every section of the country to see which way the road would take. I believe that there were as many surveys there as have been made for the road which he proposes now to construct and if there is anything in his argument why not proceed with the New London branch ? How many surveys had they previous to 1904 of the New7 London branch?


George Perry Graham: There have been several surveys made of the New' London branch, but of the routes surveyed not one w'as satisfactory to the people, we have complaints that every one of the surveys which is made will not serve the people.


Angus Alexander McLean: Why did not the minister give us the report of these surveys ? He has refused to give It to us.


George Perry Graham: I may be dense and I may be stubborn, but I do not propose to ask parliament to vote money for a railway until I know something about it. With reference to this line that we now propose to construct, a survey has been made, it is satisfactory to the people and we are going to build this branch this year. If hon. gentlemen from Prince Edward Island do not w'ant it wre will not force it upon them. It is going to cost a lot of money for a short line. This is all that we can see our way clear to do this year.


Alexander Martin: The minister is not well posted as to w'hat has taken place in that province. Is not the minister aware that the people came to an agreement, of w'hicli I have a copy, and which agreement was submitted to the hon. Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) a few years ago when he was in Prince Edward Island w'ith the tariff commission. I do not think the minister has any right to say that they do not proceed with the building of that branch line because the people have disagreed about the route. Here is the agreement and I will read it to the minister. It is signed by Mr. A. B. Warburton who is ray opponent in the next election.


Charles Marcil: I hope the agreement is not too long because it is out of order. The question is whether this line should be built and no other.


Alexander Martin: This bears on the question that the minister took

up and surely I should have an opportunity of replying.


Charles Marcil: Allusion can be made to it but it is not the question before the chair.


Alexander Martin: There is the agreement.


Charles Marcil: The question before the chair lias reference to the construction of the Elmira branch.


Alexander Martin: I hope I am in order. The minister says they do not want to proceed with the New London branch because there is a disagreement about routes. Here is the agreement that they entered into, signed by representatives of the different sections, and it shows that there was a perfect unanimity. I believe that we are going to have an exhibition of the same character as that which we had previous to the election of 1904. We are now in the last session of parliament, I presume, and the Bill is introduced to construct a few miles of railway in Kings county for the benefit of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes). I believe it is only on paper.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: Your belief is very active.


Alexander Martin: Yes, very active. In 1904 they pursued a different course. They began surveys all over the province. They began to survey this very railway and the minister says there is a disagreement about the New London branch. If there is a disagreement about the route, of the New London branch there is also a disagreement about this one. I know something of the history of these railways and there was a pretty free fight with regard to the proposed route of the Elmira branch. Here is a statement about the surveys we had in 1904-in 1904 and it is 1908. four years ago. I made the statement in the early part of the session that the hon. member for Kings had said that unless this branch was built within a year he would resign his seat. He contradicted me, he said the statement was not true. I believe he said two years in place of one. But, four years have gone and it is safe enough to come in with a Bill now at the end of a term of parliament and say that they are going to proceed with that. line. This is a different procedure from that of 1904. Here is a return which I asked for and which will be given an idea to the House of how they spend money in order to carry elections and for the people of Prince Edward Island. There is the survey of this Elmira branch costing $1,500 ; there is the survey of the New London branch, costing $1,500 ; there is the survey of the main line to the west shore near O'Leary costing $1,500. That is the way
the money goes. What do they give to the people of Prince Edward Island for all this expenditure ? The minister says that they cannot proceed with the New London branch. I wanted to quote the agreement that was entered into but the chairman ruled me out of order. I bow to the decision of the chairman.


Charles Marcil: I understood the hon. gentleman was going into details about the New London branch.


Alexander Martin: If this Bill on paper is going to help the return of my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) I do not think I should oppose it, but I must say it comes far short of what Prince Edward Island requires. The Minister of Railways laid great emphasis on a petition from the legislature of Prince Edward Island, and that legislature is of the same political stripe as the Minister of Railways, and if he had so much confidence in that petition as he pretends to have. I rather think he would carry out the prayer of the whole petition and not simply a small part of it. The Conservative government, in 1896, prepared a comprehensive Bill which would satisfy the province' of Prince .Edward Island in regard to branch railways. In consideration of the fact that the original railway on Prince Edward Island was paid for by the province the Conservative government decided in 1896 that 106 miles of branch railways should be built; and, mind you, they came to that conclusion when the revenue of Canada was only $40,000,000, while now the expenditure is $126,000,000. Why, this Liberal government spent as much money on the few miles of railway they have built in Prince Edward Island as would have equipped the whole province with every mile of railway the people want if the money were wisely expended. The Conservative government, in 1896, knew that the people of Prince Edward Island were coming to the government year after year for a branch railway, and they asked the people to state exactly what the province required, and the people of Prince Edward Island came to an understanding as to what was required, and the government embodied it in a resolution submitted to this parliament. The resolution moved by Mr. Haggart in 1896 was as follows :
Mr. Haggart moved that the House resolve itself into com m 1 It ee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to build and operate as part of the Prince Edward Island Railway the following lines of railway, that is to say:
(a)	From Southport to Murray harbour south with cross line connecting with the Prince Edward Island Railway between New Perth and Cardigan stations touching at or near Montague bridge.

That is the only line this government has undertaken, and it is not completed yet.
(b)	From Souris or Harmony station to Elmira.
(c)	From a point beween Loyalty junction and York station to Cove head, and thence to Oyster bed bridge.
That is one of the finest sections of country in the province, and the railway would reach the best fishing grounds and would afford the very best feeder for the main line. The branch this government did build is making money, and in consequence of it the deficit on the Prince Edward Island Railway is decreasing year by year. If you extend it to Rustico and New London, as the Conservative party proposed to do in 1S9G, I believe that in a few years the deficit on the Prince Edward Island Railway would be entirely wiped out.
*(d) From Emerald junction to Stanley bridge touching at or near Clifton.
(e)	From Summerside to Richmond bay.
(f)	From some point at or near O'Leary's station to some point ion the western coast between Brae and Cape Wolfe.
(g)	From Wiltshire to Victoria.
All those branches would only amount to about 106 miles, and it was estimated at the time that their cost would be $1,088,000.


James Joseph Hughes: That is on paper.


Alexander Martin: Your Bill is on paper too and you may be on paper yourself pretty soon. Now, these 106 miles could be built for something over $1,000,000, and yet this government built about 60 miles which cost them nearly $2,00,000.


Mr. J. .: 1. HUGHES. That is simply incorrect.


Alexander Martin: Do you know how much it cost ?


James Joseph Hughes: I do.


Alexander Martin: You do not know anything about it.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I do.


Alexander Martin: That was a comprehensive Bill which would have settled the whole trouble in Prince Edward Island. As I said before, a huge mistake was made for the province when the original cost of the railway was charged in its debt account with Canada. The Conservative party said that in consideration of that large sum of money, three and one-quarter millions, being charged against the province, the best way to expend it would be to give the province railway accommodation, and if the Conservative party had been returned to carry out that policy, I believe that all these branches would have been built to-day at no greater expense than the few lines that have been completed.
Mr. MARTIN (Queens, P.li I )


Angus Alexander McLean: Some time ago I put some questions on the Order Paper with reference to the New London branch of this railway, and they were answered by the Minister of Railways. In the year 1904 a survey was made of the New London branch and the lion. Finance Minister, when acting as Minister of Railways, promised to do everything in his power to build that branch.


William Stevens Fielding: No. My hon. friend is not serious when he talks of the Minister of Finance promising to build railways.


Angus Alexander McLean: I will just read a copy of a return dated 1904, and I think the Finance Minister will change his mind.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I did not promise anything.


Angus Alexander McLean: I believe the present government will promise anything, especially when an election is coming on. Here is a letter dated Moncton, N.B., the 1st of August, 1904, and signed by D. Pot-tinger, an officer of the government, with reference to the New London branch, the Elmira branch and the O'Leary branch. This letter states that $1,500 would be the cost of a survey of each of these branches, and at the end it reads as follows :
All these amounts will have to he expended before the 30th June next, so it is important that the works should be got ready for tendering as soon as possible.
Why did they want these works to be tendered for before the 30th of June, 1904? Because they intended to issue the writs for an election, and wanted these tenders to be out to deceive the people. They did not intend to go on with any of these works, and they do not intend to-day to have any contract for the Elmira branch any more than they did for these three branch lines. This letter goes on to say :
If you require any more people to attend to this, please let me know, and I will ask Air. Schreiber to give me the names of some that he says he has on his lists here.
He wanted some men to go out and tell tlie people that the government were going to build these branches, but there were never any contracts issued for that purpose. In March, 1908, I asked the Alinister of Railways this question :
1. Did the government receive petitions from inhabitants of Clifton, Stanley and Hope River, Prince Edward Island, praying for extension of railway from the main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway to Stanley Bridge or vicinity, and for the placing of a sum sufficient for the purpose in this year's estimates ?
The answer was :	' Yes.' He received
those petitions, and lie received petitions also in 1904, and the Alinister of Finance

said iu 1900 that he would appoint a competent engineer, an independent man, to go and make a survey of these branch lines, but no survey has been made up to the present day. The next question was:
Is it the intention of the government to grant the prayer of the petitions?
The answer was : ' The government has not so decided.' The third question I asked was :
Is it the intention of the government to make surveys this year with. a view to extend the railway system along the north shore of Prince Edward Island?
The answer was : ' No decision has been reached.' Although the Minister of Railways gave this answer in March last, I presume that he has not considered the matter even up to the present time. I would ask him now if he has reached a decision with reference to the construction of a railway on the north shore of Prince Edward Island?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has named several railways. What railway does he now refer to?


Angus Alexander McLean: The New London branch.


George Perry Graham: The hou. gentleman .was complaining that no independent engineer has been sent to fulfil the promise of the Finance Minister to make a survey of that branch up to the present time. If he looks at the supplementary estimates he will see that there is an amount for that work.


Angus Alexander McLean: Will the minister say that work has been done yet?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman was asking me if it had been considered. I was replying to his question.


Angus Alexander McLean: The question is this:
Is it the intention of the government to make surveys this year with a view to extend the railway system along the north shore of Prince Edward Island?
Will the minister answrer that question now ?


George Perry Graham: Yes. It is the intention of the government to comply with the request of my hon. friend and to meet his complaint that no independent survey has been made of what is known as the new London branch. Whether it will be built or not is a matter for future consideration, because I will not build any railway until I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the public and ought to be constructed.


Angus Alexander McLean: Then I will ask the minister if lie has read the report of tne engineers who made the survey of the New London branch line in 1901 ?


George Perry Graham: I have not.


Angus Alexander McLean: I do not think the minister takes very much interest in the construction of this railway. The railways which lie now contemplates building are simply political railways. I do not object to the building of a railway from the main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway to Elmira. I think it is necessary in the interest of the people that that railway should be built, but I think there is a railway which should be built in preference to that, namely, the railway along the north shore of the island. The people there last year, as I have stated before in this House, ou account of the weather which existed in the province, were unable to ship any of their produce until after the winter season came, and as a result they were put to great inconvenience and loss. If there had been a railway on the north shore, they would have been able to sell their grain and other produce like other people in the province. You are building the Grand Trunk Pacific at a cost of $250,000,000, and you contemplate building the Georgian Bay canal at a cost of $90,000,000 and the Hudson Bay Railway at a cost of $90,000,000 or $100,000,000 where there is not one workman living, while in Prince Edward Island and in the settled portions of Nova Scotia there are people living who have been for a hundred years without any railways at all. Why does this state of affairs' exist ?
You go up here 150 miles north of the Ottawa, in some cases 200 miles, where there is not a man living, and you build a railway at the expense of the people where there will not be a white man living for the next ten or twenty years, and where no railway can get any traffic. Why do you build these lines? * That is the question asked by every man in Canada and the government cannot give any answer. These places will never be settled except in some spots where the lands are good, but where we have land settled, on which people have been living over a hundred years-places which are the most thickly settled portions of Canada to-day, with fifty-five people to the mile-you will not give us any railway. Our sons go out to the Northwest. Why? Because they have not got the railway communication they should have at home. But when they go out to the northwest, they settle near a railway, and they will be very apt to go near where there is a railway, because they . know the government are spending money for the few people living in the west in order that they may get their votes. At the next general elections however the government will be disappointed at the result of their policy, for our people are sufficiently intelligent and patriotic to know that their own homes should be provided with railway communication by the government and let those people who go out west take pot luck the same as those in the east have had to do up to the present. We are spending millions of dollars on Russians and Galicians

out in the Northwest and are leaving the Scotch and the Irish and the English to get along as best they can in the east without government assistance. Our people in the east have to haul their produce some twenty five or thirty miles to market, and in many sections in Prince Edward Island they have no markets in which to sell their produce at all which they can reach with any convenience. The policy of the government is unfair to the people of the east. The east is neglected in favour of the west. The west is getting it all. What has been the condition of affairs in this House during this session? Two-thirds of our time has been taken up with the affairs of the Northwest and of Ontario, and millions of dollars have been spent in the west compared with only thousands in the east. It is true that we have one hundred and seventy-eight items to-day in the estimates for Nova Scotia, but that does not amount to very much. That is only an election dodge. We have only a few items for Prince Edward Island, and the time will soon come when the First Minister will regret the stand he has taken with reference to the east. It is time for him to look to the east and leave the west alone. They have enough. Millions of dollars have been spent and mis-spent in the west, some of which should have gone to the east, and it is time the government realized that fact. It is time the government should take in the branch lines which the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) is interested in. I believe that probably we shall take in those branch lines, but we should build some railways for the people who have built up Canada. We should not concede everything that the people of the west ask for.


William Stevens Fielding: I am much obliged to my hon. friend for the testimony he has given of what the government are doing in the west, and no doubt in the west he includes the middle country, the great province of Ontario. Altogether too much of our time is taken up in debating these matters from a sectional point of view. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that the maritime provinces are getting too much and their press circulates the story that this government is favouring the maritime provinces. The speech of the hon. gentleman is a good answer to that charge and no doubt will be made use of.


Mr.  J. J.@: HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) The hon. members for Queens, P.E.I., appear very anxious to get the people of Prince Edward Island to think that the construction of the branch line from Harmony to Elmira will only be on paper and that the government is not sincere. Well, this government has shown its sincerity by its action in the building of railways in Prince Edward Island and other improvements in that province. The senior member from Queens County (Mr. Alex. Martin) condemned the government because it only built sixty miles Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
of railway in that province the last few years, but that is far more than the previous government did. The late government brought in a resolution on April 21, 1906, when parliament was about to expire by efflux of time on the 23rd of that month, to build seven or eight branches of railway on the island, and parliament had only two days in which to consider that and many other matters, and the subject was never mentioned again. But this government proceeds in another and different way. It brings in its Bills to build railways, passes them through the committee stage and makes them the law of the land, and puts the money in the estimates. That is what has been done in this case and in addition we have the word of the Minister of Railways that this branch will be proceeded with this summer.
Now let me say a word or two with regard to the senior member for Queens county, who seems to take special delight in overstating the cost of the Murray harbour branch. Why he does this, I cannot imagine except that he wishes to prejudice the construction of railways in our province in the minds of members from the other provinces. I can know of no other reason. He lias repeatedly made the statement this session, which is absolutely incorrect, that the Murray Harbour branch cost over $31,000 a mile or $2,000,000. When I denied that, he asked me if I could give him the figures, and I am now in a position to give them. The total cost of that branch line, including rolling stock, stations, sidings and everything else, was $1,255,495.59 or $23,782.83 per mile, which is about one-third less than the statement made by him. But that is about as near the facts as he generally gets.
My hon. friend the senior member for Queens (Mr. Martin) professes great anxiety for the extension of the Montague branch until it would connect with the Murray Harbour line. I have just to remind him that some two years ago, when I was pressing that matter on the attention of the government, he was the very man who came in with the interruption that I was asking for too much.


Alexander Martin: You were going to Murray river at that time.


James Joseph Hughes: I was stating that the connection should be made with the line to Murray Harbour.


Alexander Martin: You said Murray river.


James Joseph Hughes: That statement is about as near the facts as nay hon. friend manages to get. That is all I have to say with regard to this matter. This project of an extension of the railway from Harmony to Elmira is bona fide. The line will be constructed. The present government and Minister of Railways are the men to do what they say, and my hon. friend can possess his soul in patience.


Alexander Martin: This is a death-bed repentance on the part of the government with regard to this branch line to Elmira. I do not think it will go down very much with the people, but he thinks he will get a few votes on the head of it.
The Murray Harbour Railway seems to be troubling him. I said it cost nearly $2,000,000 and he questioned that.
I asked him what it did cost and he could not tell me, but said it cost $1,200,000, rolling stock and all. From the figures in the Auditor General's Report, it appears that without the rolling stock it cost more than that amount, and with the rolling stock my figures will be nearer correct than his. What petitions has the minister for a branch line from Victoria to North Wiltshire?


George Perry Graham: 1 do not know.


Alexander Martin: Has the minister received any petitions for the extension of the railway from Montague bridge to Eldon ?


George Perry Graham: We have received petitions for the building of several branch lines, but I cannot answer the question. 1 agree that the people who live where there is no railway are very anxious to have branches.


Alexander Martin: I have a return here and I have also correspondence referring to petitions which have been sent to the department which are not included in this return. I know that petitions were sent for lines from Montague bridge to Eldon and from Victoria to North Wiltshire, but they are not mentioned in this return. What rates will the minister charge on this line when it is built?


George Perry Graham: That is something I am not prepared to say.


Alexander Martin: I told the minister that if he had any feeling of kindness, any milk of human kindness in his breast, he would try and reduce the rates on the railways in that province.
I have here an address by Dr. Andrew McPhail, Principal of McGill, editor of the University Magazine, who lectured a few days ago before the Canadian Clubi at Charlottetown. Dr. McPhail is well known all through Canada and the United States, one of the prominent men of this continent, a native of Prince Edward Island, of whom that province is justly proud. Dr. McPhail says :
I see that you do not take yourself serious-
!y-
He was talking to the people of Prince Edward Island.
The Dominion provides your railway and the trains run twelve miles an hour.
I hope the minister will hear that-12 miles an hour. Professor McPhail happens to live on a branch line ; if he lived on the main line, he could not say that the Dominion paid for the railway, because the people of Prince Edward Island built the main line.
The Dominion provides your railway and the trains run twelve miles an hour. It is incredible that you will endure it. You pay your share for trains that run at forty miles an hour in the rest of Canada. It only cost me $4 to come half the way from Montreal to Prince Edward Island-it cost me $17 to come the whole way.
What is the matter with your railway system? I presume he travelled on your railway, and he paid $4 for one half the journey and $13 for the other half.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Where is the halfway?


Alexander Martin: You live nearer to it than I do.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Down about Tatamagouche.


Alexander Martin: Where you were horn.


John Stanfield: I object to the hon. member speaking like that.


William Stevens Fielding: The member for Tata-magouebe objects.


Robert George Macpherson: I did not know he
was the member.


Alexander Martin: (reading) :
It cost me 11 cents to go an equal distance from Montreal, it cost me (10 cents to go an equal distance in Prince Edward Island.
He knows what he is talking about; he can go 20 miles from Montreal for 11 cents, but it cost him in Prince Edward Island, at a 12-knot rate, 60 cents to go an equal distance. I hope the minister is ashamed of himself.
I have something else to refresh his memory. I think this will be the last straw that will break the camel's back.


George Perry Graham: It is nearly broken now.


Alexander Martin: I have in my possession a letter written to me by a prominent farmer in Prince Edward Island, and he encloses a bill from a condensed milk factory in Charlottetown. This farmer ships every few days milk to that factory. He lives twenty miles away. Here is the memo, of milk received from Mr. J. F. McLeod for the month of May, 1908 :


Mr.  J. .T. HUGHES@: My hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Martin) persists in overstating the cost of the Murray Harbour Railway. I gave him the full cost of the rolling stock, and he declared that I did not include the rolling stock. I gave him the figures, and I will give them again. The cost of the railway, exclusive of rolling stock, was $1,067,095 ; cost of the rolling stock, $185,407, or in all, $1,253,098, or $23,782 per mile. The hon. gentleman is entirely incorrect in his statement. The only object he can have in view is to prejudice in the minds of the members of this House the claims fpr the increase of railways in Prince Edward Island.


Alexander Martin: Your statement is incorrect.



BOUNTIES ON CRUDE PETROLEUM.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 192) to provide for the payment of bounties on crude petroleum-Mr. Fielding-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 4,
Richard Blain: May I ask the Finance Minister how much it is expected will be paid out of the treasury under the terms of this Bill ?


William Stevens Fielding: I should think not much. There is an enterprise in the province of New Brunswick to which its friends attach some importance and they are hopeful that it will be developed to a considerable extent. I should be very much pleased if their expectations are realized and if we have to pay a liberal sum, but, at all events, we should give them an opportunity of sharing in the bounty in the same manner as they do elsewhere.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 200) respecting the salary of the superintendent of insurance.-Mr. Fielding.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the second reading of Bill (No. 201) to assist in maintaining an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Canadian press.
George Taylor: I understand the minister to say that this was to extend the existing arrangement for two years.


William Stevens Fielding: Except that the existing arrangement is on a sliding scale which averages $12,000 a year ; so that we propose to give them the average for two years.


George Taylor: I heard my hon. friend the leader of the opposition saying that he had some correspondence with respect to this Bill and perhaps it would be as well to let it stand.


William Stevens Fielding: I thank my hon. friend for the suggestion. We will let it stand.
Motion withdrawn.



THE AUDITOR GENERAL.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient 'to provide that the Auditor General be paid a salary of $5,000 per annum.
Bill reported, read the third time and Resolution reported, read the second time passed.	and agreed to.
Mr. MARTIN (Queens, P.E.T )

Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 208) respecting the office of Auditor General.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second times and House went into committee thereon.
William Stevens Fielding: In this Bill we change the salary and we insert a section for the purpose of preserving to the Auditor General the right of promotion which, under the existing law, belongs to him now, so that there may be no change in that respect. The Governor in Council makes the appointments, but promotions have always been within the authority of the Auditor General, and as it seems that under the new Civil Service Act there may be some doubt in that respect, we are making it clear.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that the right of promotion personally or the promotion of the clerks in his office ?


William Stevens Fielding: The promotion of his clerks. The office of the Auditor General, being regarded as somewhat different from an ordinary departmental office, the practice in the past has been that he should be allowed to make promotions. It would come as my duty to report these promotions to council, but I have no voice in making them. We preserve that right to him because he is an officer of parliament and not an ordinary departmental officer. This is the law now and, as the civil service law might interfere with it, we preserve the right of promotion.


Richard Blain: Who fixes the salaries of the clerks ?


William Stevens Fielding: The salaries will be fixed as required by the Civil Service Act. but promotions will be made by the Auditor General himself.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADA SHIFTING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Shipping Act, chapiter 113, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, by repealing section 958 and substituting therefor-
958. The Governor in Council may from time to time,
(a) by order in council declare that the foregoing provisions of this part shall not, while such order in council is in force, apply, either throughout Canada or in any specified waiters of Canada, to the ships or vessels, or to any specified ascertained or ascertainable class or number of the ships or vessels of any foreign country in which British ships are admitted to the coasting trade of such country, and to carry goods or passengers from one port to another in such country; and
(b) revoke or vary such order in counoil.
2.	That the Act founded on this resolution shall not oonne into force until His Majesty's pleasure thereon has been signified by publication in the ' Canada Gazette.'-Mr. Fielding.
George Taylor: We will take the resolution now and the discussion can take place upon the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so. '


Henry Robert Emmerson: What is the explanation of this ?


William Stevens Fielding: The purpose of the BUI may be briefly stated. We have been granting coasting privileges to the ships of a number of foreign nations which in return have given us the privilege of coasting in their own land. There is nothing in this Bill about American vessels because the United States do not give us coasting privileges. However, in the case of Norway for instance, we have no coasting trade there and the privilege they give Is no advantage to us. Norway, on the other band, has been making much use of our coasting trade and the complaint is that our native vessels are placed at a disadvantage in that respect. An order in council some months ago provided that on the 1st of January next the privileges granted to these various countries, including Norway, should be cancelled and that thereafter their vessels should not be entitled to our coasting trade. We will probably all agree that is a desirable policy. But it has been represented to ns by the coal companies that this would be a hardship upon them. They say the Norwegians have been supplying vessels of a special class intended for the coal trade and that if we should suddenly determine that these vessels are to he shut out of the coasting trade it will not be possible for them in the short time allowed to find either Canadian vessels or British vessels to do the work. They also say they have a number of vessels which have been chartered for several years, and the cancellation of these charters would be a very serious loss to them. It has been suggested that we might meet their views by giving them the privilege of employing vessels of a certain class which do not come into competition with Canadian vessels. We have discovered that under the existing law, while we have the power to shut out foreign vessels altogether, we have not the power to say that a particular class of these vessels shall he admitted. What we propose by this legislation is to give the government the power not only to exclude them altogether, but to discriminate and to say th:it we may admit vessels of a certain class, these being the vessels which do not come into competition with Canadian vessels. We might allow them the coasting trade for a limited time until arrangements can he made to supply their places With British vessels. We could not even say un-

tier the present law that we would admit a vessel to the coasting trade of the Atlantic but not to the coasting trade qf the Pacific, or the great lakes, and so on. This legislation proposes that there should be elasticity to enable the government to meet the particular conditions as they arise. The general policy of the government is to exclude these vessels from the coasting trade, but under this amendment, which cannot take effect until authorized by the imperial authorities, we would have the power to make exceptions for a limited time if we so desire in such cases as I have mentioned.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the class of vessels be decided on by the tonnage?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Either steam or sail?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no distinction in the law as respects steam or sail.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Under this the government would be able to allow Norwegian vessels of a certain tonnage to engage in the coasting trade.


William Stevens Fielding: And exclude these of a smaller tonnage.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I presume wo have no Canadian vessels to do the trade?


William Stevens Fielding: Not in the case of the larger vessels, certainly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is it a fact that these vessels are manned by Norwegians?


William Stevens Fielding: I should think so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is it a fact that year in and year out they do a Canadian coasting business ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the coal trade is largely handled by them. In some cases they are of English build for Norwegian account, owned and manned by Norwegians and under the Norwegian flag ; sometimes they are owned by Englishmen but sail under the Norwegian flag and so are treated as foreigners.
Mr, STANFIELD. I notice in the newspapers that these foreign steamers are given a preference over Canadian ships in loading at the coal mines. Could not we protect those Canadian vessels in this legislation ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a different question from the one dealt with by this Bill. The complaint there is that steamers are given preference over sailing ships and the steamers would be given preference whether they were British or Norwegians. I believe there was considerable trouble about that matter, but I am advised it is all adjusted now and that there is no complaint.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have a long letter from a sea captain resident in Westmore-Mr. FIELDING.
land who sails a British vessel and his great complaint is that his vessel was discriminated against in favour of the Norwegian steamers. In that way, if this permission is given, there is some ground for the exception taken. I am not familiar with the circumstances myself, but it seemed to be a matter for the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I submitted the complaint to that department.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is not a question of discrimination between the Cana-liau vessel and the Norwegian vessel, but a question between the sailing vessel and the steamer. However, while there was some cause of complaint in the past, I understand that it has been largely, if not wholly, removed.


Angus Alexander McLean: The Minister of Finance states that Norwegian vessels have been chartered for the coal trade for several years. I want to know whether that is the reason for the passing of this Act, because I think that these Norwegians should not control the shipping trade of the maritime provinces as they do to-day.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: Nonsense.


Angus Alexander McLean: I know that is correct. I do not care whether it is Sydney, or Inverness, or Pietou ; and I tell the Minister of Finance that he should not take the opinion of men who are interested in one particular locality. He knows that the men engaged in this business cannot get a cargo if a Norwegian vessel intervenes, whether it is half loaded or fully loaded.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise for the purpose of letting my hon. friend know that his information is entirely incorrect, for this reason, that having been in my county within the last two weeks and knowing that my hon. friend and some other gentlemen here had been complaining of the difficulty of schooners from Prince Edward Island and elsewhere getting coal expeditiously, the managers of both mining companies informed me that there had not been the slightest delay in the shipments of coal from any of the piers by any schooners that came there so far this summer. In fact, they were anxious to get the trade and to deal expeditiously with any schooners that came there. We have two large piers capable of supplying more coal per day than all the schooners of Prince Edward Island could possibly engage in carrying. If my hon. friend will give me a bona fide case of any schooner from Prince Edward Island which has been delayed with a shipment of coal in my county, I will undertake to see that there is a remedy.
I can assure him that all the complaints in ^hat regard, so far as Pietou is concerned, are entirely incorrect. There was some difficulty in regard to shipments from the

Inverness Coal Company, and an agitation was worked up on that account; but any complaints with regard to the shipment of coal from the Dominion Coal Company, or from the county of Pietou, are not well founded.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 2081 to amend the Canadian Shipping Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 207), respecting certain patents of the Metal Shingle and Siding Company.- Mr. Johnston.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
George Taylor: What is the business for to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We may take one or two Bills ; but I think it more likely that we shall go into Supply and take up the remaining items of the main estimates and then proceed with the supplementary estimates, beginning with civil government and continuing somewhat in the order in which they stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.13 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, July 11, 1908.