1911-07-21

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: With reference to the question which came up yesterday, and which was brought up by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) in regard to the inquiry made by Mr. Justice Murphy as commissioner to investigate frauds in the administration of the Chinese Act at Vancouver, I stated yesterday that I had a conference with the . Minister of Justice on the matter, but that I had had no time to read the report, and had only looked at the conclusions. The first conclusion is that Mr. Justice Murphy advises certain prosecutions be taken. The other recommendation was that the report should not be made public until the prosecutions had been taken, the reason being-I could not give the reason yesterday, but I can now-that if the report were made public before the prosecutions were undertaken, witnesses for the prosecution might disappear. I under-derstand, on further conference that the parties indicated for prosecution are in China and therefore that no prosecution we could undertake would reach them. I have looked at the report and see no reason why it should not be given to the public even in the face of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Murphy. Therefore, I lav it on the table. As hon. members will see, it is a rather voluminous document. What I have here is the report and the evidence. There is also about a trunkful of exhibits which I said might be sent to the office of the clerk.



MR. COURTRICE.

Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I wish to refer to a question asked by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid). The question was based on an item which appeared in the newspapers and referred to Mr. Courtrice, an employee of the Department of the Interior. I have made inquiries, and find that Mr. Courtrice applied for leave of absence without pay beginning on the 1st of July. He was granted the leave, but, on the reassembling of parliament he was told he must report for duty. He has been at work in the department at his ordinary duties since and including Wednesday afternoon.



THE CENSUS-OMISSIONS IN ENUMERATION.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) whether or not he has any further information about the alleged irregularities in connection with the census. I would like to inform him at the same time, that I have a letter from a gentleman residing in an apartment house in Toronto stating that people in that House to the number of twenty-two were not included in the enumeration. And when he asked the enumerator the reason for this, some very unsatisfactory reply was given, and the enumerator also stated that if any person were omitted they had enough in other respects to make up for any such losses. I have forgotten the exact expression, but it is something like that. I intended to bring the letter in, but omitted to do so. ' I do not know whether the minister has ascertained yet whether I have the honour to be enumerated or not. I would like very much to know.


Mr. FISHER.: I should have preferred not to make a statement until I had had an opportunity for fuller investigation. I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will send in the names of the people said to have been omitted, so that I may investigate the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I will.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) himself is concerned I can only make a partial statement, not yet having had an opportunity to investigate the matter fully. The statement given me is that the enumerator called at the hon. gentleman's house when he and Mrs. Borden were out. The servant told him so and said that if he would come back, no doubt they would be in. The statement I have is that he went back five or six times, and was not able to find any body in the house. I am making more careful inquiry to find out whether that means that he w-as not able to find Mr. or Mrs. Borden, or that he was not able to find anybody at all. The statement made to me, was that he was not able to find any body at all. He did what his duty required in such circumstances and sent an absentee card to the office, which is in the office, and was there when my hon. friend made his statement the other day. That card will ensure that the case will be worked out and fully enumerated.


Robert Laird Borden: I made full inquiry, and my information is that the enumerator did state that he would call again, but from that time up to the present, so far as my information goes, h* never has called again. Of course, I havt. no personal knowledge of the matter, but that is the information that comes to me after careful inquiry.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Was the house open all the time?


Robert Laird Borden: The house has been open all the time.
NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-REDUCTIONS ON OVERCLASSIFICATION, &c.


Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) if the computations have been made which would enable him to inform the House as to what reductions have been made in expenditure on the Transcontinental in reference to over-classification, overbreak and matters of that kind. The minister will recollect that I asked him, some time ago, in reference to this, and if my recollection is correct that hon. gentleman told me he could not put it in figures at that time because the matter would involve a good deal of investigation before the result could be known. The investigation had been made by the arbitrators and data obtained on which a computation could be made, but at that time it had not been worked out. Perhaps he can inform the House whether that has been done, and if so what is the result, if not, what is the probability of the information being available within a short time.


Mr. GRAHAM.: My recollection is that I gave a portion of the figures. But the report of the arbitrator was made in technical terms, and I was not at that time able to have it reduced to dollars and cents. I will make inquiry at once and see if the matter is in the form the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) 'desires and will give him the information.



ST. PETER'S RESERVE.

Mr. BRADBURY.: I desire to ask the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs (Mr. Oliver) with regard to the official documents in the case of the St. Peter's Reserve. I understand that the Royal Commission of Manitoba has made an official request to the minister for the documents and that the understanding was that if the commission made the request the minister would grant it. The commission sits on the 24th instant and it will be difficult to proceed without these documents.


Frank Oliver: The requests spoken of have been received, and measures are being taken to furnish the documents as requested, so far as we are able to do so.



CHARGES AGAINST HON. MR.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to ask the Prime _ Minister what is the reason of the delay in calling the committee which the right hon. gentleman moved for. a short time before the adjournment, to inquire into certain matters which, in his Mr. FISHER.
opinion, affected the status of the Minister of the Interior. A committee was moved for, was constituted, and I believe had one or two sessions, and was to resume work on the 18th instant. Up to the present time, so far as my information goes, there has been no attempt to call that committee together. If the matter was worthy of public attention, and necessitated the appointment of a committee, I would think it was especially worthy of expedition. I am at a loss to understand why the committee has not been called before this.


Wilfrid Laurier: Like my hon. friend, I am at a loss to know why it has not been called. I do not know any other reason except that the attendance of the House has been very small; I do not know whether the members of the committee are in the House. When the chairman is here, I shall ask him.


Mr. CLARKE (Essex).: The chairman is waiting for the arrival of the members of the committee. One was here the second day of the session, one only arrived yesterday, and another has not arrived yet. As soon as all the members are here, it is the intention to call the committee together.


Robert Laird Borden: I may observe to my hon. friend that if delay in the arrival of the fifth member makes it impossible to go on, the committee might not go on at all this session. I would think the proper course would be to call the committee and to see who is present.
Mr. CLARKE (Essex.) I understand the other members will be here within a day or two.



WAYS AND MEANS-VOTERS' LISTS IN UNORGANIZED DISTRICTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into committee of Ways and Means.
["At six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: Before you leave the chair, I desire to refer briefly to the condition of matters in the northern district of Ontario as regards the preparation of the voters' lists for the unorganized portions. As the Prime Minister is aware, there was a good deal of discussion in the session of 1908 as to the methods which were prescribed by the then Election Act for the making up of the voters' lists, and a good deal of criticism was directed to the somewhat cumbrous procedure prescribed by the amendment to that Act. The amendment requires the services of a board of registration, comprising three judges chosen from the adjoining counties, the chairman of which was to be the senior judge of the electoral district for which the lists were to be made up. Now, I have received, as the sitting member, a semi-official noti-
9B01

9S02
fication that no voter' lists are to be made up under that Act, and that no board of registration is being constituted for that purpose. I am not aware, and my right hon. friend will be able to inform me, whether any special proclamation has been issued requiring the voters' lists in those unorganized territories under this Act to be made up at an earlier date than the period prescribed by the statute. If there has been no such proclamation, or if no such proclamation is to be made, then section 9a of the Act will govern, and the lists must be made up between two specified dates, namely, the 1st day of August and the 15th day of October in each year. Now since the discussion ensued upon the making up of these voters' lists a practical test of the workability of the Act has been made, it was made in the year 1908. I know that my right hon. friend will credit my words when I say that, with all the speed that could possibly be put upon the cumbrous machinery that was at the disposal of the district judges, by shortening the available time in a manner which was, according to my view, beyond the jurisdiction of the board of registration within those periods, from the first week in August up to the 26th day of October 1908, the judges were only able, with the kindly assistance of the Department of the Secretary of State, which opened the printing bureau on a Sunday and printed the lists, and then, by the kindly assistance of this government in sending a special train with the lists to the scene of the election, they were able, three hours after the election had commenced, three hours after the polls were opened, to get lists there, which were imperfect and irregular. During the course of revision by the board of registration there was a judgment written out by the board, of which I presume a copy is lodged in the office of the Secretary of State. It is not in my hand at the moment, but I can produce it shortly. The judgment was to the effect exactly as I contend, that under the provisions of this Act it was impossible, within the periods, and with the machinery at the control of the board, to revise and complete the lists within that time.
Now those are the conditions which prevailed in the northern districts in 1908. But the difficulties there are tremendously increased at the present time. There are polls, of which I have received a semi-official notification from the enumerator, which will be opened in the district of West Algoma, to get to which, and to get back again to my home, will require a, journey of not less than 2,000 miles. Now what I am told is that the board of registration will have to be a law unto selves that in making this Act workable and applying it to the preparation of these
lists, they are going to cut down all the periods mentioned in the Ontario Voters' Act which governs the period for making up the list under this Act. Consequently the lists cannot be properly prepared.
If the enumeration is to take place fifteen days after the notice, or ten days after the notice, as the case may be, there will hardly be time to enable anybody to get there in order to make the enumerator.
I am told that in some instances a cane* trip is required, and a great deal of walking and railway travel is necessary ia order to reach these polls. Therefore I draw this matteT to the attention of Uie government in order that, before the work of the board of registration is organized and the enumeration of the voters' in these polls is commenced, careful regard should be had to the condition of things which arose in 1908, and that care should be taken to give the necessary time in order that proper lists may be obtained, and that everybody may have an opportunity of seeing that fair lists are made and that a fair revision is had. The lists of 1908 were very unsatisfactory. Names were put upon these lists by the hundred, wthout any attempt to obtain information as regards the qualification of the voters.
That was shown to be the case before the Board of Registration, and in one place many hundreds of names were dropped off. The revision was not so satisfactory in other ridings where that contention was not expressly insisted upon. I should like the government to give some intimation as to whether, under that condition of the law, the Board of Registration is authorized by this Act to shorten the periods which are fixed for the making up of these lists. It is of the most vital importance if we are to have a fair list up there. It is all very well for an enumerator, after having given notice which, by the Act governing the time, is said to be thirty days, and which the Board of Registration reduced to ten days, to be there and get the names of a whole lot of men on a pay roll or from a mine superintendent or a road boss and put them on the list without giving an opportunity for any one to investigate. The Ontario Voters List Act, amended, of the Dominion Elections Act, is made to govern matters of this kind, provides that a longer time shall be prescribed for the making up of these lists. The section to which I refer reads as follows :
In the preparation of such lists the provisions of the law of the province regulating the preparation and manner of revising and bringing into force the provincial voters lists in the like cases shall, as far as possible, be observed and followed, but the revision of the said lists shall be had before Ihe board of ce-| gistration, who shall hear all appeals from the said enumerators, and no person whose name

is not included in the voters' lists so prepared and revised shall he entitled to vote.
Under the Ontario Consolidated Voters' Lists Act of 1907, section 60, not less than thirty days is the time prescribed for posting notices.
Not less than thirty days after the posting of the notices the enumerators shall visit every part of the territory where by the statute or by proclamation of the lieutenant governor there is required to be a polling place, and shall ascertain the names of all persons who are entitled to have their names entered on such lists, including any who may deliver to him an affidavit according to form 22a or 22b.
It is all very well for the enumerator to go to satisfy himself by reference, perhaps, to incorrect information as to the qualifications of voters, but there is a period prescribed by the Ontario Voters' Lists Act for the preparation and making up of these lists just the same as there is under the Assessment Act or in connection with any other procedure in an organized district. Especially is it necessary that sufficient time should be allowed in these remote districts, as we have to face them for the purpose of the preparation and revision of the voters' lists. The polls are absolutely new and are in very (recently opened up country and very remote and difficult of access. If the Board of Begistration is arbitrarily to be permitted to shorten the period from thirty days to ten days or even less, or to usurp authority not accorded to it by statute in order to make that change, there will be no accurate list of voters in the northern country, and there will be no opportunity afforded to any persons desirous of obtaining an accurate list by means of a fair revision of the list. The Act as originally framed provided that the time for appeal should be thirty days. That appeal has been cut down by the amendment of the Act to ten days. I am most anxious in the interest of a fair voters' list to be prepared under the most difficult conditions, to bring to the notice of the government the fact that if the Board of Registration is to arbitrarily change the law, arrogate to itself the functions of this government, revise and amend the statute and prescribe other days or sets of days and other times than those limited by this statute for the preparation of these lists, there will be greater confusion in that north country in connection with the preparation of these voters' lists than there was in 1908, more inconvenience and very great dissatisfaction with the methods which are employed in the making up of these lists.


Mr. LANCASTER.: And disfranchisement.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: 

[Stage Direction]
When this Act was framed in 1908 my right hon. friend, with some hesitation, said that he hoped it would be workable. Strong objections were made by myself and others as to the workability of it, we having some personal knowledge of the local conditions, but I hope that my right hon. friend will realize that it is undesirable that the conditions to which I have referred shall again obtain in that part of the country.	.
It was stated by my right hon. friend that the act was intended to procure a fair voters' list, but I would refer him and his Minister of Justice to the proceedings and records of the Board of Registration to ascertain whether the provisions of the Act do provide for a fair voters' list. There is a ruling in writing by the Board, in which all members of the Board concur, that the proceedings necessary to procure proper lists under this Act could not be performed within the time and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and the Board went so far in the first instance as to say that the election then pending would have to be postponed in order that proper lists might be obtained. The Board, finding it had no power to interfere with the currency of the writ then issued, reconsidered their finding and decided to make a law unto themselves and to have a special train for the Board to carry its court from poll to poll to revise these lists. We know what confusion ensued; where the lists had to be sent down, the Secretary of State fetched from his constituency in a motor car, the printing bureau working on Sunday in violation of the Lord's Day Act and a special train sent out with the lists to Sault Ste. Marie, and along the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I desire that the government should give me this information: Has there been a proclamation under the Act of 1908 prescribing an earlier day for the making up of these voters' lists; if so, when will the work of enumeration be started and how long is it expected, from the most recent advice the government has, that it will take; and, will the government see to it that the Board of Registration is prevented in this instance from arrogating to itself the functions of government by abridging the time which by this Act is directed to be followed as far as possible. The words, 'as far as possible' are introduced into section 5 of the Act. But who can say that in a territory so vast that one has to travel
2,000	miles to go to and from these polls that the time limited by the Ontario Act is unfair.	Who will say that when in
order to get to a place to make up these lists one has to travel into an almost unknown region, that the thirty days prescribed by the Ontario Act for the preparation of the appeal and the holding of the Court, should, under the
difficult conditions existing, be curtailed, or any other period prescribed by the Board of Registration, to the prejudice of those who are anxious to have a fair list. This is a vital subject, and I would urge the government to consider the difficult conditions existing in that country, especially in West Algoma, where it is exceedingly difficult to get to these far distant polls where up to a year or two ago no white man's foot had ever stepped. In this territory, I have been told, that two or three thousand names are to be put on the lists. I can scarcely credit that. In the face of the imminence of a repetition of the various irregularities of procedure of 1908, I urge upon the government the very great necessity, in the interests of a fair election, of seeing that the procedure prescribed by the law is strictly followed.
Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: The administration of the statute which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) has referred to is not in any way in the hands of the Department of Justice nor is it, I think, in the hands of any department of the government. The idea with which this statute was framed, and the intention of parliament in passing it, was that the preparation of the voters' lists in the unorganized portions of Ontario should be in the hands of the judges of the various courts of the districts constituting this unorganized territory, who were thought to be the best people for the practical administration of the provisions of the statute. The statute having been framed and passed with that intention it seems to me it is now in position to be worked out without reference to any kind of governmental supervision or control. The conditions which existed three years ago when this statute was for the first time coming into practical operation were of somewhat unusual character. Before, under the statute, it was possible to complete the lists the House was dissolved and a general election was called. That general election being fixed for the latter part of October and the lists being in preparation during the immediately preceding months it may very probably be that there was need, for limiting, to the very briefest period which the statute would permit, the times during which the various steps towards the preparation of a voters' list should be taken. The Secretary of State of that day did, I believe, concern himself to a very considerable extent, in an effort to be of assistance to the judges in working out the provisions of the Act. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) says that the practical operation of the statute at that time was in its result not satisfactory. That is probably a matter of opinion. At all events I have never heard any complaint with reference to the result of the operation of the statute in
[DOT]9907

question, upon that, the only occasion upon which it has been operated, except the [DOT]complaint which has come from the hon. gentleman himself. I am encouraged to think that there has not been any need felt of amendment to the provisions of this statute, from the circumstance that not only has no suggestion of amendment at any time come from any of the numerous judges who were concerned three years ago in working under this statute, nor has there been so far as I am able now to remember *any suggestion of amendment made by even the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) himself.
No amendment has been proposed to this House during the sessions that we have had, and I have been gratified to think from that circumstance that this statute, which, as I have no doubt everybody who hears me is aware, I myself framed, has been found to answer well the purposes for which it was passed. In regard to the present situation, fortunately we are not in the same position that existed three years ago. No one, I presume, has any expectation that the general elections which follow upon a dissolution of this House, are any where in sight, or are at all liable to take place until there has been at least one session or perhaps two sessions more. In these circumstances there seems no danger to be apprehended that it may be found necessary on the part of the learned judges who are at present engaged in the preparation of these lists to curtail at all the time which the statute provides for taking the various steps.


Mr. W. E. SMYTH (East Algoma).: Mr. Speaker, I can speak as one who suffered somewhat from the iniquitous lists that were gotten up by this government in 1908, perhaps more so than any other member of this House; in fact, so much so, that it was necessary for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State to send up eight or nine of the hel-meted gentlemen who stand around the corridors of this House, and other parts of this city, to protect life, and property during the voting period in the backwoods of Algoma. The manneT in which the lists were gotten up there ought to bring a blush of shame to the right hon. the premier, who now sits looking me in the face, when I tell him that there were 630 names placed on the voters' lists 50 miles from civilization, and placed under the control of followers of this government who controlled the camps where the men worked. One of the enumerators whom I questioned as to how he came to get so many names on the list, and as to whether he was satisfied that these men were still in the woods or were in the woods at all, said to me:	' I got
some of them from the foreman of the camp, some from a certain gentleman in


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Blind RiveT, a lawyer who was very friendly to this government, and some from men in the woods who were coming out.' These men who were placed on the lists were hired in the city of Hull, in the city of Ottawa, and in different parts of the province of Quebec, and their names were placed on the lists the moment they set their foot in Blind River or between that and the place for the polling. They were so unacquainted with that part of Ontario that the gentleman who took their names from them was not able to understand one-half of them; so he took a jump at them, and those who were placed wrongfully on the lists had substitutes on polling day when they came to vote. 630 appeared at the polling booth, and 230 voted. The balance of the 630 refused to take the oath, because they were conscientious men after all; but that was no credit to the government, who placed their names on the lists. To show you that the lists were gotten up in a partisan spirit, under the hands of those friendly to the government, at the dictation I have no doubt of some of the members of the government, those men were^ practically placed in the position of criminals, and your humble servant was placed in a very peculiar position. When I or my agent objected to those names being placed on the list, I sent a subpoena to every man on the lists who I knew had no right to be there, and because I did not accompany it with conduct money, these men did not appear at the revision, and the judges allowed every name to re-main_ on the list. The result of the election in these bush polls was of course exactly what we expected. I had the magnificent number of 18 votes to my credit as against 200 or more to the credit of the gentleman who intended to have. their votes, and got them. As my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) has said, there should be no curtailment of time in getting up the lists in the northern parts of Ontario at any rate. The distances are great. Although I live within a hundred miles of some of the points in my constituency, I have to travel 570 miles to get to those points. Moreover, a great many people do not see the proclamation at all, because they are scattered in hatches through the woods, while the proclamations are posted only where there are school houses or at other public places; so that in many parts of Algoma the men entitled to vote do not know that a proclamation has been issued, and that their names are on the lists until it is too late. Now we have a new condition of affairs in that district. There is now the district of Porcupine, with a great number of people there who were not there at the time of the last election.
I am told that there are some 10,000 people there. Then, we have the Grand

Trunk Pacific crossing the northern part of the district of Algoma, and that is hard to get at. So that it is necessary for this government to see that plenty of time is given, and that a careful list is made up in the northern parts of this province. I hope the government will not repeat what they did in 1908. I think it was a very unfair handicap. I am never afraid to go up against any reasonable proposition in an election, so much so that I have the honour, which perhaps no other member of this House has, of having won four general elections in six years. So that I am not any ways afraid where there is not such a handicap placed upon me as was the case in the last campaign. I was glad, however, that the good people who were entitled to vote knew what they were voting for, and placed me in this House. I hope the next time we shall not have the same handicap.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I yould ask for an 'answer to the question which I put.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry I cannot give any answer to my hon. friend. The administration, so far as this Act is concerned is in the hands of the Secretary of State (Mr. Muprhy) who is not in his seat to-day. He will, however, I have no doubt, read the remarks of my hon. friend and give an answer on Monday.


EXPRESS RATES, PARCEL POST SYSTEM.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: For a few moments I wish to refer to a matter which I brought before the House the other day, in connection with the principle of state ownership in competition with private ownership, in order to secure better treatment for the public.
I pointed out that in the province of Ontario, where there is state ownership now in regard to hydro-electric power, there is a great improvement, and I urged that by the same instrument a great improvement could be made in the telegraph and cable charges in this country, if we adopted state ownership. I also elicited from the Postmaster General the statement that state ownership was likely to obtain in the matter of telegraphs and especially in connection with cables, and that an understanding had been reached by the Postmaster General of England in association with the Postmaster General of this country to have state ownership, 'and, therefore, a reduction in the tolls. While I am referring to that I wish to say that I hope no agreement will be made by which, for a small reduction in the telegraph and cable tolls, the right of the state to intervene and to establish its own cables will be interfered with. No parliament should part with a sovereign
right of the state. That was done some years ago to the great disadvantage of the province of Ontario, when the Ross government gave a monopoly to three companies to develop power at the Niagara frontier, and bound the state that as long as that franchise existed the state would not interfere. This was a wrong. The state cannot part with a sovereign right in that manner, and if it does any other parliament can rescind the Act. The same thing could happen in connection with the telegraphs and cables, if the state agreed, tor a small reduction to postpone the experiment of state ownership.
Having said that, I wish to come to another practical point where state ownership will render great benefit to the people of this country. This is in connection with the post office and the parcel post. The people of this country are to-day paying exorbitant express charges. it is true the Railway Commission had undertaken to reduce them, but the process has been very slow, and the people of Canada are dissatisfied with the express rates obtaining in this country. While the express companies which are owned by the railway companies, are making an enormous profit out of their charges.
Just to show you what can be done in this matter, I may say that only the other day the Railway Commission of the United States intimated to the express companies that they proposed overhauling their rates. The result was that a great reduction has already taken place in express charges. It was not only the threat of the railway commission which reduced the rates in the United istates, but rather also the well known fact that there is a widespread agitation in that country to-day for the adoption of the parcel post system of England. We have in Canada a better parcel post system than they have in the United States, but our system is not as good as the English system. The effect of the English parcel post system-and in fact of the European parcel post system-because they have a better one in Germany-is to give the people an express service which does not cost one-third of the rate prevalent in Canada, and there is no such thing in England or Germany as the tyranny of the express companies so well known in America today.
Some centuries ago, the greatest departure in scientific subjects was when Sir Francis Bacon came forward with his great work in regard to scientific investigation. He said he had found a new instrument or new method in regard to scientific investigation, which he called the principle of induction. This brought about a revolution in scientific discoveries and in philosophy. Well, the great political principle to-day in regard to economics is state competition, as

against these great public service corporations.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not good for reciprocity.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not see the point of my hon. friend's remark. However, if we cannot have absolute public ownership in this country, we can at least have the state in competition with these companies. .1 have tried to show the other day that if the Intercolonial system were extended we would have a reduction in freight rates. This seems to me to be a self evident fact. To-day we have an organized parcel post system in this country which ought to be extended. The government is pledged not to extend it because the railway companies have told them they must not do so, using this pretense that if the parcel post rates are reduced the country storekeeper will be injured. There may be something in that, but it is a peculiar thing that every time 1 heard that argument, I was able to trace it back to the express companies. My contention is that all the people of Canada would be greatly benefited if the parcel post system of this country were extended and put on the same basis as the parcel post system of Great Britain, and still more if it were put on the basis of the parcel post system of Germany. Every citizen of this country feels the .burden of these express charges, and while the Railway Commission has not yet been able to catch up with them and effect a reduction, I think we oughr to go ahead and increase the weight of the parcels we allow to go through the parcel post. We ought to reduce the rates, and make them what they are in Great Britain or in Germany. If we do that a great benefit will be conferred on our people.
Just to show you that the railways dictate the policy in regard to these matters, I need only tell you what is admitted to be the case in the United States. It has been found that the railways control the express companies. The shareholders of the express companies are pretty well spread out, and have brought a great deal of influence to bear in arguing that the parcel post system cannot be adopted, much less extended. John Wanamaker, the late Rost-master General of the United States was asked While he was in office why the people of the United States could not have a parcel post system. He said there were four reasons, and the four reasons he gave were the names of the four great express companies operating in that country, every one of which is controlled by the railways. The railway lobby in the Senate of the United States has been all powerful for 20 years, and it is, apparently, all powerful yet. But the day of relief is at hand, and the widespread movement Mr MACLEAN.
in the United States for the adoption of a parcel post system, in connection witn the threat of the Interstate Railway Commission to reduce the rates, has brought about *& great reduction in the express charges in force.
Every time the attempt has been made it has been stopped by some great influence, and that influence comes from the railways. We are told that we were to have an international court in regard to railway matters. The chairman of our commission, and the chairman of the United States commission in consultation devised a scheme, and I believe it was authorized by law. But somebody has interfered, and it is a dead letter. My information is that the railways have been sufficiently powerful with the government to have the proposal tied up, and made innocuous so far as they are concerned. If these corporations can exert such an influence, if for twenty years they have been able to prevent the expansion of our parcels post, the people of this country ought to know it, esipecially In view of the fact that an election is near at hand. The people ought to have an opportunity to say whether we are to have the benefit of the parcel post system. It is all very well to have a skeleton of the system, but that is not enough; you must have life in it. The life is this principle of state competition with these corporations. Extend your parcel post system, and the express rates in Canada will be cut in two to-morrow. I would remind the House, of the experience I had in the Railway Committee some years ago. I took some action with a view to bringing the express companies within the purview of the Railway Act. We had a special committee on the subject of which Sir William Mulock was chairman. At our first meeting the express companies appeared by their lawyers, and presented the argument that they could not be brought under the Railway Act, because they carried parcels partly by water, and only partly by rail. That was argued for two days. When the lawyers were through, I said:	If that is
your argument it would be better for us to seek relief in an expansion of the parcel post system. The lawyer came back next day, and withdrew his whole argument, atj-mitting that the express companies could be brought within the operation of the Act. The railway companies which own the express companies feared the competition of a state-owned, state-operated parcel post system. Nothing would do so much to improve conditions in the west as to bring into operation the principle of which I have spoken. I challenge representatives of the west to say what they think of the efficacy of the parcel post system in reducing express charges. The competition of state-owned utilities with telegraphs, cables

and express would be a great relief to the people _ of the west. The proposition is self evident, and only needs to be applied. And the only reason I can find why the people of the west, and of Canada generally to-day are paying exorbitant express charges is that the expansion of our parcel post system has been checked. The fruit men of Ontario, time and time -again, have brought forward their grievances in connection with the transportation of their products. I may be told: The parcel j>ost system could not handle fruit. Whyj in Germany the post office handles all kinds of farm products. And it not only takes the farmers' products to town, but it markets the goods, and brings back the money, and the empty package to the farmer at night. And the farmers and florists, and other producers in England use the parcel post system in the same way. This system has been the gTeat instrument in the reduction of express charges. And if that is done in Europe, there is no reason why it -should not be done here. The system would be of great advantage to the farmers also in making purchases in the city, which purchases have to be carried over long distances. In the application of this principle that I advocate there is far more for the people than in this vaunted reciprocity. Give our people cheap transportation rates, and they will get better prices for their products. The return to the farmer is measured by the freight charge for the rule of the railway men is to charge all the traffic will bear. On the other hand, the state in competition with the railway that seeks to give the service at as low a rate as possible for the benefit of all. But here in Canada, and in America generally, which pretends to be the progressive part of the world is the most completely tied up to corporations. You cannot get for the people benefits that have been enjoyed by the people of Europe for fifty years past. It has been a surprise to me that not a single man from western Canada, so far as I know, has stood up in the House, and presented the high railway charges put upon the people of the west. I made a speech not long ago dealing with this question in connection with Canadian Pacific railway rates. There are members of the grain growers' organizations in the west who have defended their own rights. They have been in conference with the Prime Minister, and he has proposed to meet their grievances by giving reciprocity. I have had letters from some of these grain growers' associations, and one thing mentioned in these letters was the fact that when I ventilated the proposition not a single member from the west protested against the exorbitant and unfair charges of the railways. I contend that the relief to the people of the Canadian west is not
to be found in reciprocity, but in reduced railway charges. Do not you suppose that the Canadian Pacific railway could reduce its passenger rates, with the enormous travel they have on all their trains? They could easily give the people a two cent rate. But they will never do it until they are forced to do it. And a railway commission will never force them to do it, but state competition will bring it about in a single day. If my voice can reach the people of this country-and it may be difficult for me to make myself heard beyond this House-it will make known to the people this new political economic principle, and its effect in helping the development of the country, and affording relief to the people from unfair treatment by great and powerful corporations. That principle is the 'Competition of the state with these corporations. The state must either tie these corporations down or go into competition with them. We already have that principle applied in part. We have telegraph lines of our own, and we have a parcel post system. But these must be energized and made effective, and their tolls reduced. And somebody must be put in charge of the department who will realize that, as this is a great public department, public service is expected of it.
I give the Post Office Department credit for doing considerable service, for the people of Canada. There have been improvements, but the greatest improvements that can be made is to follow the lines of the post office department in European countries, and give us an efficacious parcel post system, a system that will meet the wants of the people. It won't hurt the railway companies. The right hon. gentleman and his friends say they believe in the doctrine of competition. Let us have competition, but don't let us have combination. There is combination now. The railways combine to keep up the rates, and they terrorize the government so that the government will not provide competition. Now, let us give the competition, and let it be a state competition if necessary. But let us have that competition, and a great benefit will accrue to the people of this country, a benefit that will not depend upon the whims of -another nation, but -upon the action of o-ur own government. It is for the state to -see that the people get fair and just treatment, and an excellent and cheap service. My object will be served if, in some way, the attention of this country can be drawn to this great new principle, that of state competition against corporations, which are exorbitant in their charges, which are -arrogant in their treatment of the public, and will only do their duty when they -are compelled to. Now, I trust the Postmaster General will have even more to say than he said the other day when he admitted that he was doing some-

thing to reduce the cable tolls, and that, perhaps, something -would be done to reduce telegraph tolls. But it is not promises we want, it is performances., The old Greek adage -was that to play upon the heart you must play upoq the heart, and the only way to bring the express companies to time is by establishing a parcel post system. If you do that we will then have, within one day, an improvement, we can out the express charges in this country in two. There is something that the government can do for the people of this nation.


Hon. B. LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: I am almost inclined to believe in telepathy, for I have been for several days working on <a plan to establish a parcel post system. I have been much interested of late in reading a very able series of articles published in ' McClure's Magazine ' of New York, and in one or two other magazines, on this very important question. In fact, my hon. friend probably knows that there is an editor in New York, a Mrs. Low, who for the past few years has made a special study of the application of a parcel post system- to the United States. In my hon. friend's statement there are many things with which I agree. The parcel post system in Europe, especially in England, France and Germany, has been a boon to the people of those countries. It is surprising what distance a parcel can be carried- at a cheap rate. When one compares the cost of carrying a parcel between Canada and Great Britain with the cost of carrying a parcel between Toronto and Halifax, one canciot but be surprised at the discrepancy between the charges. It costs -more money to send a parcel from one Canadian town to -another, -or from one province to- another, than it costs to send the same parcel across the Atlantic. You may ask why that is so. Wei, it is one of these things that can hardly be explained-. You may ask why a letter sent from Dover to Calais, from the shores of England to the shores of France, costs five cents, and a letter sent from Halifax to the Yukon, or to Melbourne, Australia, only costs two cents. That is one of the -secrets connected with the mail systems of the world. As I said, I have taken a great deal of interest in this question since I took office. My hon. friend will remember that about i906 or 1907, I made an announcement that the department was prep-arin-g a parcel post system for Canada. My hon. friend states that the old enemy is the railway corporations. I cannot say that it is the railway corporations. I supose my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) would be better informed than myself on that subject. But this singular fact occurred at the time I speak of. The moment the announcement was made that a policy could be Mr. MACLEAN.
shaped within twenty-four hours-because the Postmaster General has all the powers to start a parcel post system within a very short time with the legislation already upon the statute bo-ok in the Post Office Act- as I was saying, the -moment it was announced that we could readily establish a parcel post system in Canada, at once, for weeks and- for m-onths, the department was simply flooded with petitions again-st s-u-ch a system. These petitions -did not come from cities, but they were signed by farmers -and by country storekeepers, -and the argument which they used against the -establishment of that system was that the departmental stores would get all the benefits of the system. One peculiarity which struck me at the time was that all these petitions from every province were couched in the same terms, they were -all either printed or typewritten, and- the language was the same. There (is apparently an organization against the establishment of a parcel post. In my judgment a parcel po-st should benefit the farmers and benefit the outlying districts, and I was surprised to find these -objections coming from farming districts and from the storekeepers. On many -occasions I have tried to take up this question. I think that -a good preliminary to the -establishment of a parcel post system has -been the rural mail delivery. This, I may s-ay, is on -a fair way to success. I aim pleased to inform the House that this year, in the city of Toronto, we are manufacturing 100,000 boxes for the rural mail system. I am pleased to state that in many of the -most po-pulous counties of Ontario, -in some of the western provinces, and in some of -the eastern provinces, the system is expanding daily, the department is spending freely, and I believe intelligently in that direction.


Mr. LALOE.: Ha-s the minister, in connection with a parcel po-st system, considered what size -or weight of package he would send- through the mail?


Rodolphe Lemieux: This would require a detailed statement, which I am not -able to -give. I have some figures, and from the investigations which I have ordered, and which are now being made under the direction of Mr. Boss, of Toronto, -if the parcel po-st is established we would- have to provide for parcels of the same weight and dimension as those carried in Great Britain. I forget what are the weights -mentioned, but I can give that right away.


Mr. CUEEIE (Simcoe).: I would like to ask the Postmaster General if, in view of the fact that he is considering the possibility of instituting a parcel post, he has found it advisable to consider the question of increasing the size of the rural post boxes. They would not hold a pound of butter or of sugar. I think they cost about $2 apiece.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend refers to what we call the King Edward or rural mail delivery box?


Morley Currie: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a fair sized box. At all events it is only a matter of detail.
I would say, speaking in favour of the parcel post, that the Post Office Department has the whole machinery in its hands and can within a short time start a parcel post system better than the railway or express companies can, because the express companies only reach certain points, whereas the Post Office Department reaches the 15,000 post offices that are spread from one end of this country to the other.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That would depend on the size of the package.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly. If we were to establish that system the railway companies would immediately apply for higher i ates. They are at present applying for higher rates.


William Findlay Maclean: What railway? Mr. LEMIEUX. All the railways.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the Canadian Pacific railway applied for higher rates?


Rodolphe Lemieux: All railways-even the Intercolonial railway. We are paying mail subsidies to the Intercolonial railway -the government railway. _ The state-owned railways are also looking after their own interests. We have more difficulties with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways in the way of rates than with the private corporations. But, the first question to be dealt with would be to fix the standard of rates, because, of course, the mail cars would 'not only be filled with the ordinary mail matter, but the parcel post would take up a considerable portion of the space. Therefore, you would at once have to face the issue whether the railway mail rates should have to be raised. That is one part of it.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the Postmaster General tell me whether the arrangement with the railway companies at present is by weight or lump sum?


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the basis of mileage. It is 4 and 8 cents a mile. We have some old contracts with the earlier railway companies under which we pay less than 4 cents when it is a baggage car service, but the standard rates to-day are 4 cents if we use baggage cars and 8 cents if we use the railway mail cars. In the United States it is on a weight basis, but they are going to change it. They have experienced very many difficulties in coming to a settlement. There was a commission in session in New York for several months composed of officials of the United States government conducting an investigation and they found that the Post Office Department of the United States had been mulcted by the railways since the establishment of the mail service.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister know what the arrangement is in Great Britain in respect of parcel post between the post office and the railways?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not give my hon. friend that information. I did not expect that this question would come up this afternoon, but, in Great Britain they have the telegraph, telephone and cables, and a most perfect system of parcel post. What special arrangements they have with the railway companies I could not say, but of course they pay subsidies as we do.


William Findlay Maclean: But they give a fine service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A splendid service-the best in the world.


William Findlay Maclean: Let us try it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But my hon. friend must not forget, and this must be credited to the post office system not only in Canada, but in the United States, that the conditions are very different. You can travel from London to Paris in less than a day, while here it would take more than a week to travel from one end of the country to the other. Therefore, that has always to be considered in the establishing of any such service. Several months ago, after the publication of those very able articles in the United States by people who have made a special study of this case, I gave Mr. Ross of Toronto, who is personally in favour of the parcel post system, _ authority to look around and consult with people, especially in Ontario, where I met, a few years ago, the strongest opposition, I am sorry to say, when this question was mooted for the first time. I have instructed him to investigate and prepare a report. I expect this report veTy shortly and then I will be able to say something more definite upon the question. I am glad that my hon. friend has brought this .question before the House this afternoon, in order to invite the attention of the country and the House to the consideration of this very important system.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I desire' to say a word in reference to the matter of excessive rates brought forward this afternoon by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). I do not know of anything to-day in Canada that is a greater handicap to the business of the country than the rates that are
(JOMMO.NS
charged by express companies. That applies more particularly to the north-western provinces than to any other part of Canada. I speak from experience because the concern of which I am president in my own town fills an express car every day with express parcels. Most of these parcels are small and they go to all parts of the country. During the fall of the year, the busy season, we probably ship to a greater extent than a car load a day. I find that the rates are most excessive. In the western Canadian provinces they are handicapped to such an extent that it is almost impossible for them to give <you repeat orders for goods to be shipped to them when they have to go by express. They have to give you large orders, buy once a year, and get their goods shipped by freight for the reason that if they repeat and have a parcel sent to them by express they are unable to pay the excessive freight charges. I know that in one case where I shipped a parcel, and not a very large one . either, to British Columbia, the express charges on it were $D0- over one-third of the entire value of the whole parcel. The result of it is, as I have already stated, that business is handicapped in the west and it is handicapped in the east too. because wholesale merchants and manufacturers in the east are unable to get these repeat orders that they should have on account of these exorbitant and extravagant express charges. A further handicap when you ship by express is that if you happen to ship from your own station by a Canadian express company to a point at which they have no office and the parcel is handed over to the American express company, they charge you double rates. Altogether the people are actually robbed by the express rates in this country. I do not know_ of anything to-day in Canada that needs investigation and looking into to such an extent as do the express rates. Two or three years ago there was an investigation into some of these express companies and the profits they were making were so exorbitant that one could hardly believe the figures when he read them. We have, as the hon. member for South York has stated, transferred to the Railway Commission power to regulate freight rates. I do not want to find any fault with the Railway Commission.
That Board has been doing good work and I think the people of Canada appreciate it, but, I cannot understand what is the trouble with them in connection with these express rates. It is two years since this matter went before them and there has not been a word from them in connection with it. Are they making any effort to relieve the people of this country from these exorbitant rates and charges; if they are, we know nothing about it. I am also interested in a line of business in the United Mr. LALOR.
States and the rates there are far different from what they are in Canada, because you can ship quite a parcel in the United States for ten cents, whereas in Canada there is no rate under 25 or 35 cents. The question of express rates in this country is of the greatest importance, and I hope the Railway Commission will move more expeditiously in the matter than they have done.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there in Haldimand county the same prejudice on the part of country store keepers against departmental stores as there is in other parts of Canada?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: There is no doubt that the country merchants are very generally opposed to the parcel post system especially if large parcels are to be taken through the mails. The large departmental stores are a very great handicap to the country merchant, and it is very doubtful indeed whether they give the people much greater value than they get from the country stores. There is a strong inclination on the part of the people of the country to take a catalogue issued by one of these departmental stores and order something that is now sent to them by express, and if there was a parcel post system, it is very questionable whether this practice would not be carried on to an enormous extent to the detriment of the country merchants. The parcel post system is a debatable question, and it is possible that in the interests of the public generally, it might be carried too far.


Mr. SPROULE.: Of late years it has become so easy for great corporations to coalesce under the same management or arrive at an understanding with regard to rates that the public are often unfairly treated in the matter of charges for the use of these public facilities. This applies to railway companies, express companies, telephone companies, telegraph companies and others. It is universally admitted that :t is very difficult for parliament to interfere with these wealthy corporations for the protection of the people. So powerful are they and so far-reaching the influences they can bring to bear on governments that it is almost impossible to get any government with sufficient moral courage to grapple with them in the public interest. I was a member of a committee to inquire into certain rates charged by public utilities, of which Sir William Mulock was chairman. From every part of the country there were people coming to these corridors, lobbying the members, telling them what would happen to their political friends, what great injustice would be done these corporations, how the public would suffer, and bringing every influence to bear on the representatives of the people and of the

government to stop interference. It has been said over and over again that but for the influence brought to bear on the government at that time to frustrate the plans of Sir Wm. Mulock, that gentleman would not be on the bench to-day but would still be a minister of the Crown. They made it so disagreeable for him that he chose to leave public life rather than to submit to the indignities heaped upon him. I was a member of that committee and I know what difficulties1 .confronted him. In my judgment the solution is either independent competition which will afford reasonable charges, or otherwise absolute control of these utilities by parliament. Parliament must deal with that problem one way or the other. I believe the time has come when no government can remain in power that is not possessed of sufficient moral stamina to grapple with these problems. We have tried competition by subsidizing other lines of railway and granting other charters, but our experience is that when competition appears these interests get their heads together and come to an understanding for their own benefit and remove the competition we expected to get. We have in a measure tried control under the Eailway Commission which, although it does not come up to our full expectations, is certainly doing something. Perhaps it is not doing all we expected of it, because we have not given it greater powers.
Now, what has competition accomplished? Have we examples from sources that are not controlled by corporations to show whether it does good or not? I cited an example to this House many years ago which will bear repeating-the carriage of grain by a private-owned railway as compared with its carriage by the government-owned railway at a figure which the gov-vernment declared paid, but which thle private corporations have not been satisfied with as sufficient to enable them to pay their enormous dividends. The Canada Allantic railway, a private corporation, carried wheat, for instance, 346 miles for 2.27J cents, a little over 21 cents a bushel, while the government railway carried it 828 miles, nearly three times the distance, for the same charge. That was healthy competition. When that fact was brought out, the Minister of Railways was asked if it paid to carry the grain at that figure. The answer was that having regard to the return cargo it did pay. That is one concrete illustration among several that I could give which will serve to show the advantage of healthy competition. If the Intercolonial railway had been extended to Parry Harbour so that it could have taken the grain from there instead of receiving it at Montreal from the Grand Trunk railway, it could have hauled it from Parry Harbour to Halifax for very much less than 313
it cost to haul it jointly by the private-owned railway and the government-owned railway; and had the government railway been extended to the Georgian Bay, there is no doubt that the private-owned railway would have been obliged by the competition to reduce its rates. Let me give another example that came within my own experience a few years ago. I required to get a piece of machinery of only 400 or 500 weight from a firm between 30 and 40 miles east of Toronto. The charge for delivering that in Toronto was $5; yet a farmer offered to haul it with his team at the same price, although we did not give him any subsidy to help him to carry it, while we subsidized the railway very heavily. Then, I take the express charges. Farmers often have to get a small piece of machinery. I have had to do it more than once-a piece of machinery that cost me 25 cents, and I have paid 40 or 50 cents express to have it carried less than 50 miles. This is exorbitant and unfair, and there should be some authority in the land to see that justice is done to those who are compelled to use these public utilities. The same is the case with regard to the telephone and the telegraph system. I remember ordering a small article a part of a farming implement, through the telephone at a distance of less than a hundred miles. The article cost me 40 cents; and the express and telephone cost me $1.20. And that is called^ reasonable. I say it is little better than thievery, and so long as there is not some authority in the land to control these, public utilities, so long will these exorbitant charges continue. On one occasion in this House, when the government was being criticised for not controlling the railways in the interest of the farmers, the Hon. Edward Blake made this remark: 'I have often thought of it and have searched my brain to find some means of controlling them, but I have long since come to the conclusion that it cannot be done, for two reasons, that these corporations, when they do wrong, have no body to be whipped, and they have no soul to be damned.' Therefore they go on with evidently no fear of the future. If these corporations were not earning big dividends, it might be pleaded on their behalf that they were not making exorbitant charges; but -when you see the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway selling up to between 200 and 300 per cent, you can take this as evidence that their earning powers and their returns from the subsidies which parliament gave them, are yielding them more than they are entitled to. So it is with the express companies. The glimpse which the railway commission has recently given the public of what these companies have been doing has shown that what they have been making out of the public has



been away out of proportion to what was required to pay a large dividend on every dollar they invested in the service. I join with the hon. member for South York every time in demanding that these public utilities should be brought under such control, if there is no possibility of having a healthy and permanent competition, as to secure for the people the service of these utilities at a moderate and reasonable cost.	_
The sooner parliament deals with it the better. Some may say it is a heavy task, but parliament is here for that purpose, and we should never shrink from any task that confronts us as parliamentarians or as a parliament. These problems are not impossible of solution if we apply ourselves to them, and until that is done I will be an advocate of government ownership of these utilities, or absolute control over them by some commission, power or authority which will force these corporations to do what they ought to do in the interests of the great users of these public utilities.


Mr. SCHAFFNEE.: I was not present when this discussion started, but I have heard enough from those who have spoken to understand that this is one of the most important matters which could possibly come before this parliament. Originally, I understand the question had to deal with parcel posts, but it seems to have extended a little beyond that, and taken in the express rates and freight rates.
If there is any part of this country of ours where this question is all important, it is the west. I do not intend to say very much about freight rates now, because, if I understand it, it is not the intention of the hon. gentleman who first brought up the question to have the matter dealt with now, but when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) introduces legislation into this House to give a guarantee of $35,000,000 to the -Canadian Northern railway for a railway from Port Arthur east, and only gives $2,000,000 to build the Hudson bay railway, to use an expression far more forcible than elegant, I think that is simply rotten legislation, and had it not, been that we were about to have an election we would never have heard of such rotten legislation being introduced.
We have no parcel post in this country, so I do not know that there is very much use spending time discussing it, we have, however, express rates and freight rates which are very unsatisfactory. I would like to have an answer from some member of the government. I would ask the government if the present Railway Commission has full jurisdiction over the express rates of this country.


George Perry Graham: Personally I have no doubt that the legislation now on the Mr. SPROULE.
statute-boks gives the Railway Commission full authority over the express rates in the Dominion of Canada, but it does not cover international express rates.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I was referring to the Canadian express rates only.


George Perry Graham: To make it explicit, if my hon. friend will put his question on the Order Paper, it will be answered.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I will do so. There is no question about the freight rates and express rates being too high, and I agree with any hon. gentleman who says in this House that it is the duty of this government to take the matter up. It is one of the most serious grievances of the west, and if the government had been as anxious to settle the grievances over which they have control as they have been in running to Washington, in an endeavour to do something which a great many people think is of no use, they would have been doing something for the benefit of the country. Through rates are not so bad. If you go west of Winnipeg and ship goods to Port Arthur or further east, you get practically the same rates as they have in the United States for similar distances. That being so, why should the western local express and freight rates be so high?


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I want to endorse very fully all that has been said by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), my hon friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), and my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) in Tegard to the overcharges in express and freight rates. Without desiring to take up the time of the House with a reiteration of the arguments which have been so far laid before us, I would like to place on record one instance of the way in which the public of western Canada-and probably the whole of Canada-are being robbed by the railway companies in freight rates. The railway companies of the west advertise that pedigreed live stock is carried at half rates. On the face of it this looks pretty well. It looks as though it were in the interest of the farmers and of agriculture. But when any one happens to send a pure-bred animal from one point to another, he finds that instead of paying half rates he is paying full rate, because of the method followed by the rail-wav company, which is to double the weight of the animal, and then cut the transportation rate in two.
I see that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) smiles, but I happen to have in my pocket the proof of what I am saying. I have here a bill which I received myself last week, for freight on a thoroughbred stallion. If my hon. friend knows anything about thoroughbred driving horses even, he will know that there never was a driving horse

which weighed 4,000 pounds. Yet, that is the weight charged against me by the Canadian Northern railway. After figuring it out at 4,000 pounds, the transportation is cut in two. I think the government is blameworthy for this condition of affairs, because no man or company should have the right to charge more than the actual value of the transportation furnished. I think this is a matter that ought to be attended to at once by the hon. minister under whose control it comes.


Mr. BEATTIE.: This debate, Mr. Speaker, started with a discussion of the question of parcel post in Canada, and led up to a criticism of the express rates prevailing throughout the country.
There can be no question that the express charges are too high; I do not defend the express companies so far as that is concerned. But it must be remembered that they carry an immense variety of parcels. One has only to notice the express wagons as they go about the city to see that they carry many parcels that the post office would not want to carry. And I should think that the small parcels, such as the post office ought to carry would be the very ones the express companies would not want. And this small class of business must be expensive for the express companies. When a parcel is to be picked up, they must send a man with a horse and wagon perhaps many blocks distant from their office, and in the city of its destination, equal trouble must be taken in delivering that parcel. There must be a great deal of expense involved in this business, expense which, I think, many people are apt not to consider. I am not defending the rates of the express companies, 'but they, like other people, are entitled to fair play. An attempt is made to compare our conditions in this matter with those of England. But no such comparison can be made with fairness. You can cross England in a very few hours; it takes days to cross Canada. Our population is very much more scattered than theirs. So far as the matter under discussion is concerned, the two countries cannot be compared. I am quite in favour of the government taking any reasonable course to reduce express charges. The charges on parcels should be regulated_ by weight, and that is not done to-day. I had proof of that only recently. I sent a parcel on which I paid 75 cents. When it arrived at my home, the expressman wanted 45 cents. I am not complaining of the attempt to charge twice; that was a mistake; but the fact that the charge was different at the shipping point and at the receiving point for exactly the same parcel shows that they have no proper scale of charges. Especially such small parcels as are referred to by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) should be charged 313*
for weight. Of course, there are parcels, millinery goods and articles of that kind, that take up much room yet are very light. But, as a rule the charge should be strictly by weight. It would be better, in the case of most of these parcels to leave the business to the express company rather than to try to do the business through the post office. The express company gives a receipt for a package and undertakes to deliver the goods in good order. I do not know that the government would want to carry parcels on that basis. I have had some experience in this kind of business, and I believe that some people are harsh in their remarks about the work of the express companies.


CHINESE INVESTIGATION
[Stage Direction]
COMMISSION.	-
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: I wish to refer briefly to a matter that I had occasion to mention yesterday, namely, the Chinese Investigation Commission at Vancouver. At the conclusion of my remarks I left it to the judgment of the House whether or not we should put on record our opinion as to the failure or the government to present that report. In consequence of the nature of the discussion which followed I thought it my duty to proceed further, so I gave notice to the government of my intention to move a resolution to-day expressing the opinion of this House that that report and the evidence should be laid on the table. I am happy to say that on this occasion the view of the government has come to coincide with my own. The fact that the first minister presented the report at the opening of the House to-day relieves me from my duty to proceed with the motion of which I have given notice. But, with the permission of the House I would like to refer very briefly to the suggestion of the first minister that I wasted time in occupying three hours in presenting what I did of the evidence, and commenting upon it. I would like to contrast that statement of the Prime Minister with the volume of evidence he has presented here to-day. I have not yet had the opportunity to look at that evidence and report, but I should think, from seeing it as it was laid on the table that it must cover in the vicinity of 10,000 pages. I think that if the government can find a person to make a readable summary of evidence so voluminous including a little comment, and do it in less than three hours, that person must oe a Jim Dandy indeed. In connection with the suggestion of wasting time, I believe it would be incumbent on some person to make a review of that report after its presentation. For my part, I should like very much to have made my summary from the official evidence, and also to have had the advantage of the conclusions ar-

rived at by the judge, so that I might apply his conclusions if he had forestalled me, and present the view that I thought best to present to the House. But, as I had not the official report, I was compelled to do the best I could and use the reports of the newspapers.
I	must express my disappointment at the suggestion made to-day that there will be no prosecution consequent on this investigation. From what I know of the evidence brought out I believe there are persons equally culpable with the few Chinese who have made their escape from the country since their complicity in these crimes has been brought to light. It seems to me that the detective force of the Dominion police could not be put to better use than in following up the inquiry started last summer, and so skilfully carried on, to run down the persons responsible for this conspiracy, to identify as many of them as possible, and to gather material upon which, I am quite sure, prosecutions could be sucess-fully conducted. I have not had the opportunity to read the report, but I should like to have been told by some person on the government side who has had that opportunity whether or not the commissioner makes any remark upon the patronage system, and the manner in which it is administered in Vancouver, and the irregularities resulting from it. To my mind that is the crux of the whole matter. If we could have assurance from the government that the patronage of the government at Vancouver could be taken out of the hands that now control it, better still, if we could have assurance that the customs appointments at Vancouver and elsewhere-because they are very important-would be relieved altogether from political pull, and put into the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners or some other independent authority, I think we should have some valuable assurance that frauds of this nature would not be so likely to occur in future.
Now, just a few words in conclusion with reference to my good friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) the minister from British Columbia. A few weeks ago, that hon. gentleman took occasion to visit my riding. Because of the remarks' of the speaker who preceded him, and the other remarks of the speaker who came after him, this member of the government had no time to say anything of consequence at New Westminster except that he had not time to go into his subject, Yesterday in this House, though evidence was presented to show that he is regarded in some quarters-and not without show of reason- as particeps criminis in these frauds at Vancouver, to the extent at least of being an accessory after the fact toy exercising no diligence to secure punishment, again he had not time seemirgly, to make any reply Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
or defence. It seems to me the minister from British Columbia is the most untimely man in this country-he never has time for anything.
I feel like apologizing to this House for the minister from British Columbia 1 wish to say that he is not a fair specimen of what we have out there. 1 thing that his prolonged and continuous residence at Ottawa must have deteriorated his quality, and that it would be a very good thing for the Minister of Inland Revenue if he could become again a permanent resident of British Columbia. I want to say to the House, what the minister from British Columbia knows very well, that the custom out there is when a man is attacked, to make some show of defence. He knows that even if Providence has not equipped us all with the same degree of manhood, that no matter what the inequalities may be between the attacker and the attacked, it is expected out there that when a man is told that he is put on his defence he should rise to the occasion and make some defence. Mr. Speaker, I think it is due to this House, and due to the government, and it is due to the minister himself, that we should have heard from him some explanation of the extraordinary course he is shown to have taken in connection with this Chinese investigation. I must express to you, Sir, and to the House my disappointment that the minister representing the province from which I come, should so utterly fail, in my estimation, to have regard for the duties, the responsibilities and the dignity of his office.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1FR. I think I can dispense my hon. colleague from taking any notice at all of the charges which have been made against his character, t think the silence of my hon. colleague, in the attack which has been made against him, is quite justified by the report which has been laid to-day on the table of the House. When the House has taken cognizance of that report it will see that the commission altogether exonerated my hon. colleague from the insinuations which were made against him in the newspapers read on the floor of this House. With regard to the action to be taken by the government on this question, I have not said that no prosecution should be taken, nothing of the kind. I said simply that after reading the report cursorily-it is a report of more than one hundred pages-I could see that the commissioner's recommendation applies to only two parties, to the Chinese interpreter, Yip On, in the Department of Customs and to another man; these are the only two who were signalized to be prosecuted. But 1 have not yet seen any others, not having read the report minutely. With regard to the insinuation of the appointment in the

custom house of men who are not fitted. I have only to say to the hon. gentleman, and he knows it-at all events he ought to know it-that the only party employed in the customs who has been suspected of anything wrong, is not an appointment of this government, but is an old officer who was appointed by our predecessors. No other man, so far as I know, has been charged by the commissioner or anybody else in the Customs Department, except the Chinese interpreter and the collector of customs. Of the only two parties who have been suspected of 'anything wrong, one is a fugitive from justice now and the other was not an appointee of this government.


Robert Laird Borden: Xne Brime
Minister might have gone a little further and stated that the appointee of tne former government-because that seems, to weigh with him a great deal-was exonerated by this same report.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the only party who is charged with anything wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime
Minister said he had been suspected, but he omitted to say that he had been exonerated. I think it would have been only fair and just to have added that. But the Prime Minister did not touch one very important phase of the situation. The commissioner, in his report, said the collector of customs had had duties imposed on him in connection with Chinese immigration which, added to his duties as collector of customs, made impossible demands upon his time. But he went on to say something more. He pointed out the nature of the administration of this Chinese immigration law at Vancouver, and he said that in many respects the administration of that law had been absolutely farcical. He pointed out the reasons why. The Prime Minister has not alluded to these, nor has he shown in what respect the government have taken any steps to make that which was farcical really effective. We do not know up to the present time, so far as I am aware, in what respect the administration has been changed in that regard. I am not suggesting that it has not been changed, it may have been; but up to the present time we have no information before us whatever on this subject. I think information should be given, if not to-day at the earliest moment possible, as to how matters are at the present time with regard to that question. Then there is another matter upon which I would like to have some information, that is about what time did this inquiry end, at what time did the taking of evidence cease; how long after, or was it before this report was made and received by
the government, and what steps, if any, have been taken since the receipt of the report in connection with any of these matters. It is said that the men who were indicated as guilty by the report have escaped from the country. When did the evidence disclose to the government that these men were in all probability guilty of some criminal act, and what is the reason they were allowed to escape after that evidence had been brought to the attention of the commissioners? These are all matters on which it is only reasonable that parliament should have some information. I do not know that the Prime Minister will be able to give it to-day, but I think he ought to give it on Monday, at the latest.


EXPRESS RATES.
Morley Currie: Before you leave the Chair I would like to refer for a few moments to the subject that was brought up by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). This subject of express rates is a very burning topic amongst the community at large, amongst the mercantile classes and amongst the farmers. I am pleased that it has been brQught before the House, and that the discussion has thrown some additional light upon the future policy of the government. It is quite true that there is a division of views on this subject, there is a divergence of opinion as to whether the adoption of a parcel post system would be of benefit to the country as a whole or not. The arguments advanced, as already stated, are that if a parcel post system is instituted, the large departmental stores will benefit at the expense of the country storekeepers. Now that is a very important matter, because these catalogue houses and these departmental stores are now competing very strongly with the storekeepers. I do not suppose that, in the matter of price or quality, these departmental stores are actually competing with the country stores.
But the fact that they advertise so extensively all over the country gives them an unfair advantage over the local trader with the result that the people of the country send their money to the larger centres, such as Toronto, and get inferior goods to those which they could buy at home for less money. Nothing that could be said in this House or out of it could make any headway against the immense volume of advertising that these departmental stores indulge in. The great campaigns of advertising which they conduct invariably lead to the conclusion in the minds of the public that prices .are lower in these departmental stores than they are in the home stores. When the discussion was at its height, when this question was at its hottest stage and before it was turned over to the Railway Commission, the fact was apparent to

everybody that the departmental stores were obtaining much cheaper rates of express on their parcels than the average public could obtain. We will take an express parcel. shipped by a departmental store a distance of 100 miles; the rate would be, say, 15 cents. Putting it in the reverse position the merchant or farmer shipping articles from an outside station back to the city would pay an express rate of 35 cents on the same weight of goods, so that there was a gross injustice done to the public in that way.


William Findlay Maclean: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that express companies discriminate in favour of departmental stores and against the public?


Morley Currie: They did that extensively, and I have no knowledge that the commission has put in force rules against it. So much did they discriminate and so low were the express rates that were quoted to these departmental store people that I doubt very much whether this government could afford to carry goods by parcel post at such low rates. The public at large, and more especially the public who live in the cities, are very deeply interested in cheaper rates by express companies. Most of the articles that are consumed in the city-eggs, butter and other [DOT]country produce-are articles that pay express rates. These goods are shipped to the city by express for the simple reason that if they were shipped by freight the time occupied in their carriage would be so great that, being perishable, they would be destroyed. I know that one small town in my riding sends an average of one car by express every week of farmers' produce to the city of Toronto and the express rates would be very exorbitant on that. I have no doubt that one of the chief reasons why the people in cities pay such exhoitoi-tant prices for the food they eat to-day is the terribly high express rates which the farmers and dealers have to pay on the farm produce which they ship to Toronto and various other cities. I am told that fruit can toe shipped by express in cold storage from California and other distant points in the United States to the great centres in Canada at a much lower rate than would be charged upon same articles procured 25 or 30 miles out of the city. A basket of cherries or case of peaches could be brought from California at almost as low a rate of express as that at which they could be brought from Grimsby or Oakville.
This question has been discussed pro and con and there has been a great deal of agitation amongst the public with regard to it. As already stated by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) and others who have spoken, the question of freight on express rates is a burning one all over Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe),
the country. During the past winter the Manitoba 'Free Dress' devoted a great deal of time and space to quoting figures in order to show that in western Canada the rates of freight were far greater than the rates charged in the adjoining states of the Union. In that discussion the 'Free Press' took occasion to comment on some remarks that I had made in this House on a previous occasion. I wish to make a reply to the discussion of the 'Free Press' as far as freight rates in the West are concerned. This discussion of freight rates by the Manitoba 'Free Press' would have some point and would be of some value to this House and benefit to the country had the figures which they gave in their comparison with reference to the state of Minnesota not been open to question. What do I mean by that? I mean that about four years ago the state of Minnesota established a board to govern freight rates. This board was to have absolute jurisdiction over all the freight and railway rates within the state of Minnesota. The board was of a socialistic character. It held its meetings and it issued a schedule by which it cut freight rates then paid throughout the state in two. The freight rates that were paid and had been paid in that state until recently were such that they were fully 50 per cent less than the freight rates paid throughout the Canadian Northwest. To carry on the agitation in the west in regard to these freight rates emissaries were sent to Canada and copies of the schedule published by the Minnesota board were sent broad-past all over the Canadian Northwest. The railways in Minnesota brought this question before the courts .with a view of determining whether this board had acted properly and whether its jurisdiction were such that it could make this enormous, arbitrary cut in the freight rates. The railways succeeded in showing the court that the rates established by this board were absolutely wrong, that they were virtually confiscatory in their nature, inasmuch as it was impossible for the railways to carry freight for the rates that this revolutionary board had established there. The courts have given a decision against the. state of Minnesota and its board in that respect and, as I say, the arguments advanced by the 'Free Press' in using this comparison of freight rates between Minnesota and Canada are not trustworthy and of no value.
However, it is apparent to any person that in many cases freight rates, even in Ontario, are very unjust and wrong. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) referred to some freight rates within his knowledge. I could have said to him that the principal town in my Tiding, Colling-wood, is 35 miles from his principal town,

Markdale, and I can ship freight by wagon from Ooliingwood to Markdale at a cheaper rate than I can ship the same freight by rail.	*
The reason is that where there is interchange of traffic each railway charges its local rate thus making the through rate exorbitant. It is time for us to consider means to compel railways to interchange traffic in the interests of the people. The consuming public are deeply interested in express rates and the government of the day should be up and doing to provide a remedy for the existing evil. There are three lines of action possible; one, government control over the rates, a principle we have accepted by the appointment of the Railway Commission and another, the establishment of competition by the government. I may belong to an antiquated school, but to my mind, I consider it wrong for government to take any action which would unduly destroy private investment and enterprise. The Minister of Railways (told us, speaking on the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, that we are no longer pioneers in Canada, but that the object of the government in assisting railway building in the west was to bring about competition. Our experience, however, is that when you bonus a railway to bring about competition you are simply doubling the charge on the public without attaining your object, for the railways get together and combine on rates to their own advantage. Can any one here say that when a new railway is brought into a town, genuine competition ensues. The only advantage a new railway affords the manufacturer is to save the expense of shipping over two lines, for, if he has only the Grand Trunk he can only ship over the Grand Trunk at carload rates, whereas if the Canadian Pacific railway comes to his factory he can ship to Canadian Pacific railway points also at carload rates. If the government compels railways.to exchange traffic, one railway will afford the same facilities as two will; the cost of the extra Tailway will be saved and in the end the public would get cheaper rates than they could by such so-called competition as I have spoken of. When we are talking of railway matters we are prone to think that the United States and Canada are the only two countries in the world, but let me point out what France has done. After the great war the government of France realized that they had to take steps to reorganize agriculture and other industries and that the best way to do so was to encourage the building of railways and canals. The government of France grappled with the question and spent enormous sums of money and the following citation from the Cambridge Modern History, Vol. XII, ' The Latest Age ' p. 101, will show what France did in respect of transportation matters:
In the matter of manufactures and commerce, the resources of the state were especially, and at this period lavishly, employed in creating for the nation a material equipment, which had been left in a singularly inadequate condition by the Second Empire, occupied as it had been with other matters. Credit is due to France that, immediately after her disasters, she did not shrink from this increase of burdens, but reasoned that by this means alone she could be enabled to liquidate the claims of her onerous debt. From this period dates the creation of roads and highways with such ramifications into country districts that the strivings of the new life from that time onward touched the tiniest villages and hamlets. The extent of the new roadways has been estimated at 200,000 kilometres, and at 1,200 millions tbe grants given since 1876 for this network; 120 millions are required for its annual upkeep. It has completed the great national and departmental highways, temporarily sacrificed to the need of railways, and since restored to high honour.
The time has come when in Canada we should consider whether the government ought not to direct its attention to co-ordination and co-operation such as the French people have brought about and which, to my mind is the only real method by which we will' 'ever secure lower freight rates.
We shall never have lower freight rates in. the west if we go on building transcontinental railways at the price we are doing. It is well known that the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway would have lowered their rates if it had not cost so much to build the transcontinental line. The great need of the west is not so much through lines as branch lines. The railway companies and other land companies have taken the bulk of the lands near the railway lines. You will find very few people living within three or four miles of the railways in the Northwest. The bulk of the farming population [DOT]-the homesteaders-live eight or ten miles from the railways, some fifteen, twenty or thirty miles. These people expect and are entitled to railways, and the policy of parliament should be to build branch lines in the west, so that nobody would be obliged to haul his goods more than three or four miles to or from a railroad. Consider the ease of the island of Prince Edward. That island is endowed by nature with everything necessary to make it a great and prosperous farming country, hut it lacks transportation facilities. There is a government railroad running from one end of the island to the other. For many years, as long as I can remember, a tunnel has been advocated to offer the island closer connection with the mainland and _ the rest of Canada. I agree that that is a matter which should receive our earnest attention; but no engineer in Canada will say that that tunnel could be completed withing less than five or six years. But in the meantime the island is suffering for transporta-

tion facilities, acid the government has not devised a practical plan for giving it immediate relief. How could it be done? The island Tailway is a narrow gauge railway. If the government would provide a landing place such as we have at Point Tupper in Cape Breton, and change the gauge of the island railway so that the people could move their produce in car-loads by oar ferries direct to the mainland, the result would mean thousands of dollars saved to the people of Prince Edward Island every year. Yet neither the Minister of Raii-ways nor anybody else in the government has offered any practical suggestion. At present everything that leaves the island or goes to it has to be handled two or three times at great cost. Some hon. members cannot understand why freight rates are greater for short distances than for long distances. It is because the railways have to do much more loading and unloading of the goods for the short distances thaa for long distances. To return to the question of express rates, there is a third method by which those rates can be reduced, that is, by the government buying out all the companies that control the express business of this country and nationalize the whole system. If they are -allowed to go on as at present they may go- on watering their stock by capitalizing their earnings until the government will have to pay a vast su-m for them. The only fair and just method of dealing with them would be to nationalize these express -companies at a fair and reasonable figure, and proceed to carry on the express business of the country on a just and equitable basis. Then we would have no more discriminatory rates and no more rebates to large concerns like departmental stores, but we would have fair -and- equal justice to everybody, and the man who would benefit most would be the farmer who produces truck and small produce for the cities. The store keeper would also benefit, because he would get his goods cheaper, having t-o pay smaller rates for shipping them. I a-m very pleased that the -h-on. member for South York has -brought this matter before the House. I know that he would be the last man to suggest that the money -spent properly for the cars, the offices and buildings, the equipment and the development of the business -of the express companies should be either confiscated -or subjected- to unjust, unfair or arbitray competition. The most reasonable course would be for the government to establish a system whereby all the express (business of the country would be done in connection with the postoffice service. I trust that this question will again come before this House at a time when we can discuss it at greater length, and when we can put our views on record by having a resolution of the House on the question.


Morley Currie: At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILL.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 198) to incorporate the Quebec and Great North Western Railway Company.-Mr. Hodgins.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed discussion of motion for Committee of W'ays and Means.
Mr. HENDERSON.: The subject on which I intended to address you to-night, Mr. Speaker, had reference to postal rates, and I would have preferred- not to take up the matter until the Postmaster General was- in his seat. However, he can read my remarks in ' Hansard,' and probably be in a position to answer them.
I did not intend to make any reference to matters which were discussed this afternoon-more -especially the question of express rates. I would rather leave that in the hands of gentlemen who are more familiar with the subject, and who have more to do with the express companies than I have. Not being in the business, I confess that I do not come in direct contact with the express companies, therefore, any grievances I might put forward would simply be of a secondhand nature.
A great deal has been said during the past year with reference to the excessive charges of the express companies. Whether the companies have undertaken to reduce these charges -or not is a point- upon which I am not informed. Some of the hon. members spoke this afternoon with reference to certain advantages which the departmental stores of Toronto, for example, would receive on account -of changes suggested in regard to the parcel post system, and of the advantages which they might also have under th-e express regulations. No doubt these departmental stores have very great advantages in the country. I think they _ secure these advantages by their peculiar mode of advertising-for instance, they will advertise that a certain article' which sold for $2 yesterday will be offered for $1 to-day, o-r that an article which was worth $1.50 yesterday can be had to-day for 50 cents. There are a great many people in the country foolish enough to believe these statements, hence the business done by these concerns.
I am glad the Postmaster General has come in, because this is something which will appeal to him directly.

These departmental stores send their catalogues from one end of the Dominion' to the other-you find them all over the country from Cape Breton to British Columbia. I was going to complain of the advantages which these companies enjoy in postal rates over other people or companies who do not do as large a business. Now I do not consider it fair that these departmental stores should have special privileges under the post office system- that is, that they should get a cheaper rate of postage than anybody else sending out a smaller number of catalogues, for instance. I remember within the last two years applying to the hon. the Postmaster General to get a like privilege for a constituent of mine; a man who was engaged in the manufacture of a spraying compound, and who was anxious to advertise it throughout the country, if he could get the facilities for sending his catalogues out at the same rates as ether concerns doing a larger business. I discovered then that the departmental stores in Toronto, which were doing a very large business, were able to send their catalogues at a lower rate of postage than a man in my county, simply for the reason that he did not send out such large quantities.
I	had always thought that there was no discrimination in postal matters, but that the man w'ho sent out ten letters a day sent them at the same rate as the man who sent out one hundred. But it would seem that the man who sends out a large number of catalogues makes a special rate with the Post Office Department, and thereby gets an advantage in the way of advertising over the man who does not do so large a business. If I am wrong in my statement, I hope the Postmaster General will put me right, for, as the matter is now understood it is a grievance in a part of my county. An industry is being carried there in a material for spraying fruit trees, known as the lime-sulphur mixture. If this industry could advertise as cheaply as others do, it would be of great benefit. I think the Postmaster General might take into consideration the smaller concerns _ of the country, and put them on a par with the larger concerns.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would refer my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) to section 70 of the postal regulations, which reads:
Tlie articles of printed and miscellaneous matter comprised in the following list are subject to the rate of one cent for each two ounces or fraction thereof.
And included in this list are catalogues. I will read what my hon. friend has said, and will inquire if there is discrimination against the industry he has mentioned. I cannot find authority for it under the law. But I will inquire into the matter.


David Henderson: If I may be permitted, I would remind the Postmaster General that when I applied to him to get a special rate which, it was understood, was applicable to the large department stores in Toronto, the reason he gave me why it could not be given in that case was that the business was not sufficiently large to pay for the extra service that would be required where the catalogues were posted.
I have not read the regulations, and have no doubt they are exactly as the Postmaster General has read them. But it seems to me, after what I learned at that time from the Postmaster General that the regulations are not being carried out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto).: The very extreme importance of this measure will amply justify, if any apology be needed, lengthy debates of the subject by the opposition as a whole or by individual members. The more this pact is investigated the more it seems to me, the matter calls for very grave consideration on the part of members of this House, and of the people at large. And the greater the opportunity the public has to investigate^ it the more the people justify the discussion by the very intelligent way in which they are now receiving the information that is being supplied them by members of this House, by the, press and otherwise. The measure is not only of very great economic consequence, but it involves very grave considerations, political and national. In fact, so grave, in my opinion, aTe the objections to this pact from the political and national standpoint that it may be said really to affect fundamentally the very constitution under which we live, the underlying principles of confederation. None of us need be reminded of our country's early history, and the many struggles of our people for constitutional government, and for economic, and political consolidation. These things are a part of Canada's recorded history. The changes I have referred to culminated, as we know, in the compact of the provinces which now forms our constitution, the Act known as the British North America Act. It does seem to me that that Act was framed not only for the consolidation, and advancement of Canada, but also to assist in the consolidation and advancement of the Britsh Empire. If proof of this were needed, we find it in the very words of the preamble of the Confederation Act itself. It says:

And whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire.
That being one of the objects, we in our day and generation should see to it that nothing is done that shall alter our position or undermine British institutions or our imperial relation. For it seems clear that anything that undermines our British institutions or our British connection strikes a blow at Canadian nationality. I think a reference of this kind is not inappropriate having regard to the importance of this pact. The very terms of confederation seem to have been based upon the idea that the provinces then separated desided to trade together, and to combine into a federal union for the purposes of common defence, progress and advancement as well as for the promotion of their various provincial enterprises. Section 121 of the Bri-ish North America Act shows that the framers of the Act had this in view:
All articles of growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the provinces, shall, from and after the union be admitted free into each of the other provinces.
Every hon. member is familiar with that section and I would ask them that it be viewed in that aspect. The provinces said: We are to trade together, there are to be no tariff walls between us, we stand back to back, and face the rest of the world.
As between us there is to be no tariff wall, everything is to be free that comes and goes between us; but we are to hold ourselves at liberty to shut out the rest of the world if so desired. Now that seems to have been a fundamental principle of confederation, and I do think that the extreme haste with which this government proposes to railroad this pact through the House without consulting the people is inexpedient and almost indecent, in face of the_ fact that there was ample time in which to have consulted the people. The provinces were not consulted as provinces; the people who are citizens of the various provinces were not consulted Therefore I say that what has been called obstruction bv the opposition is justified, and the opposition have done nothing more than their bare duty in that respect. This proposed change, in the opinion of many, is of such importance as to justifiy more than the hasty consideration which it received when it was brought into this House, ana was entitled to very full consideration on the part of the public at large. As I said a moment ago, the more this pact is considered the more apparent becomes the fact that the people regard it as a fundamental change. . Their existence in many respects is proposed to be altered by it, and we are face to face with a new condition which may in time bring about a new nationality. Now it would seem to me Mr. MACDONELL.
that the very fullest consideration should be given to this question. The Minister of Finance, when he brought this measure down, brought it down hastily, as he himself, I think, admitted in a speech which he delivered in Windsor Hall, Montreal; he admitted that there was not adequate information before the people of this country on which to form their opinion. I will read the quotation later from his speech on that occasion. What information the people have received they have otbained, in great measure, from the members of the opposition in this House, aided by their friends and allies throughout Canada. Because in this great fight the opposition have made allies. History appears to be repeating itself, events are similar to those that occured in 1878. Men are breaking from their old party affiliations, and many of them are allying themselves with the party that is opposing this pact. They are men who formerly opposed this party, and so we find various organizations growing up from day to day in this country, all in opposition to this pact.
Now we are told that there is an invisible border line extending some three thousand miles across this continent. Well, one does not like to be reminiscent in certain matters, but that line is not an invisible line. It was not an invisible line when many of the founders and forefathers of this country came across that line long years ago, and left behind them all their earthly possessions in the then republic. That line is still there, it is a line of national demarcation,. Tariff walls would not alter it if they were removed. The line is just as indelible now as it was then. I am not referring to that line with any hard feelings, nor do I desire to arouse any such feelings. But I say that the people who left that country long ago and came here to live under British institutions, which were guaranteed to them by thd British government, have a right still to appeal to that guarantee. On the part of the people of this country there is a strong desire to continue those British institutions and political affiliations with Great Britain. Now of course we are living in a utilitarian age. We are not dealing now with flag waving incidents, b( cause it is to be hoped that the hundred years of peace which has prevailed between ourselves and our neighbours to the south will soon be celebrated and will be repeated in the ages to come.
We oppose this pact both upon political and economic grounds. It does seem to me that, both from a political and an economic standpoint, it deserves more careful consideration than has been given it. It seems to me that the opposition to this treaty has made many friends and allies during the time it has been up for discussion. Many people have been

touched in their sentiments of nationality by its provisions. It was not thought perhaps by those who introduced it that it would have any sentimental aspect, or that it would be viewed from a sentimental point of view by the people of this country. But I can assure the hon. gentleman who introduced it that there are a great many people in this country who are opposed to it in their most sacred and patriotic sensibilities. They are opposing it because they believe it is calculated to endanger the political conditions under which they now live, is calculated to lead to profound changes in our commercial and political relations, and ultimately to political union with our neighbours to the south. There is that element who are opposed to it. Then we have the people whose interests are affected, people who view it from an economic standpoint, the great commercial interests of this country. It does seem to me that the great commercial and business interests of this country from end to end are opposed to this pact, men who have never taken any strong part in party politics in this country, or no part at all. One of the outcomes of this feeling is the Canadian National League, which has been recently formed with headquarters in the city of Toronto. It has been _ organized by a number of patriotic citizens who have inscribed upon the front of their literature their views and their reasons. These are men who, in private life and in business life, have not heretofore taken a prominent part in politics, and who have no notion of participating in public affairs, men who are not concerned which party is in power. These men have leagued themselves together to form this alliance. Permit me to read some of the objects of the Canadian National League:
The Canadian National League_ was formed following the protest against ' Reciprocity with the United States of America/ which was signed by eighteen supporters in Toronto of the Liberal party in Canada and published m the press on February 20, 1911.
The objects of the League are:
To oppose the adoption of the proposed reel-procity agreement Detween Canada and the United States of America, and to support such measures as will uphold Canadian nationality and British connection, will preserve our fiscal independence and will continue to develop onr present national policy of interprovimcal and external trade, under which the Dominion has achieved its present prosperity.
The basis upon which the League has been formed is Canadian nationality, British connection and fiscal independence.
Now surely no intelligent Canadian can quarrel with the objects of this League Canadian nationality, British connection and fiscal independence. These gentlemen have given numerous and weignty reasons in support of each and every one
of these objects. Hon. gentlemen in this House are well aware of the formation of this League, and of the high character of the men composing it, and of their aims and aspirations. These men have no purposes to serve but the public good. They honestly belive in the necessity of such an organization, because they believe that Canadian nationality, British connection and fiscal independence are more or less menaced by this pact. Now we have heard a good deal about the city of Toronto in connection with this question. We know that the Toronto Board of Trade went on record against this pact by a vote of something like 280 to 13. I desire shortly to read an extract from the address which Mr. Gage, president of the Toronto Board of Trade, delievered on the 19th of January of the present year.
Canada lias never known a time of such universal prosperity. Our farmers are prosperous, our merchants and manufacturers are prosperous, our labouring classes have abundant employment with good wages. Is it not a good time to leave well enough alone.
If our American friends wish t;o share m our unequalled prosperity, let their manufacturers continue to do as they have been doing in the past few years-locate branch factories in Canada-they will he welcome. If our American farmer wishes to 'get rich quick, let him follow the well-beaten trail made by nearly a quarter of a million farmers from the United States, who have already found homes in the Canadian west.
Surely no one can quarrel with that. It is believed by the board of trade, as indicated by the president's language which I have read, and by the members' vote which I have mentioned, that if this pact passes there will be a discontinuance of the Americans coming to Canada with their money and establishing manufactores or branches of their large American industries, 'these are not idle words, they are not words said in jest, or said simply for the purpose of making conversation; they are words uttered because it is believed that they are true. These are the business men of the community. They do not confine their remarks simply to the manufacturing element, but they refer to the farming community and point out how, if the American farmer wishes to come here, he can do so. Let me give the counterpart of that reference which I have read. I desire _ to quote Senator Beveridge from the American point of view upon the same aspect of the question. We all know of Senator Beveridge. On the discussion of this reciprocity measure, he spoke as follows:
There must he reciprocity with Canada. Our tariff with the rest of the world does not apply to our northern neighbours. That policy already has driven American manufacturers across" tile Canadian borders, built vast plants with American capital on Canadian soil, em-


BRITISH AMERICAN CONFEDERATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Banks from the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported a joint resolution respecting the proposed confederation of provinces on the northern frontier of the United States, which was read a first and second time (it was afterwards read a third time).
The joint resolution, which was read at length, declares that the people of the United States cannot regard the proposed confederation of the provinces on the northern frontier of this country without extreme solicitude; that a confederation of states on this continent extending from ocean to ocean, established without consulting the people of the provinces, to be united and founded upon monarchial principles, cannot be considered otherwise than in contravention of the traditions and constantly declared principles of this government, endangering its most important interests and tending to increase and perpetuate embarrassments already existing between the two governments immediately interested.
Of course the reference in the resolution as to not consulting the people is incorrect. There was some dispute at the time as to whether the people of Nova Scotia had been consulted, but as we all know they had been.
Mr. FIELDING.: Had been?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. The people of Nova Scotia were not consulted. It is not material, but as a matter of history my hon. friend is wrong.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think I am correct because the issue of confederation was before the people at the election.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken historically.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think not, but at all events this resolution of Congress was passed at a moment when reciprocity was in the air and it was passed in consequence of the repeal of the reciprocity treaty at that time. Although, Canada met with certain temporary losses by the cancellation of this treaty, the American people were apparently unaware of the fact that we were able to take care of ourselves, and indeed, the very next year, we began to show signs of our ability to be able to do without reciprocity in the future. We know what our friend, Mr. Champ. Clark
has said that we would joyfully become part of the republic and this and other similar expressions are used by American statesmen when referring to this pact, which at least shows what is in their minds when entering into the arrangement. In a recent speech in New-York, President Taft used this language:
I have said that this was a critical time in the solution of the question of reciprocity. It is critical because unless it is now decided favourably to reciprocity, it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States. The forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate her by a Chinese wall from the United States, and to make her part of an imperial commercial band reaching from England around the world to England again by a system of preferential tariffs, will derive an impetus from the rejection of this treaty, and if we would have reciprocity, with all the advantages that I have described, and that I earnestly and sincerely believe will follow its adoption, we must take it now, or give it up for ever.
Such views are being constantly expressed by statesmen of the United States and circulated through their press. We know that Sir George Ross has declared it to be bis belief that annexation lurks at the bottom of this pact in the mind of our American friends. As confirmation of his opinion I cite this language of the Hon. G. S. Boutwell, President Grant's Secretary of the Treasury, and a member of Congress at the time of the repeal of the reciprocity treaty:


ANNEXATIONIST HOPES.
[Stage Direction]
The fact of the annexation of Canada to the United States whether the event shall occur in a time near or remote, depends probably upon our action on reciprocity. Canada needs our markets and our facilities for ocean transportation, and as long as these advantages are denied to her, she can never attain to a high degree of prosperity. The body of farmers, labourers, and trading people will favour annexation ultimately should the policy of nonintercourse be adhered to on our part, and they will outnumber the office holding class, and thus the union of the two countries will be secured.
We were told then that the repeal of the treaty was to drive us into annexation, and that such was the policy of the Americans, but it failed in its aim. The Minister of Finance in introducing this measure referred at length to the connection of Conservative leaders in times past with reciprocity, but he touched very gingerly the period from 1838 to 1891, because he knows the state of public opinion in Canada on reciprocity during that period. He knows that the defeat of the Liberal party in 1891, was largely due to its advocacy of that policy. We know that prior to 1891 Mr. Erastus Wyman was busy with his friends
[Stage Direction]
in New York, Mr. Carnegie and others, and he was helped by his friends in this country, Mr. Tarte and Mr. Merrier, the ' political allies of the Liberal party. We .know the course taken at that time by the Hon. Edward Blake, and that he and Gold-win Smith declined to follow in the footsteps of these men who wanted to lead us into commercial union. The Minister of Finance said very little about that period.
The hon. Minister of Finance is on record on many occasions in regard to the Imperial preference, >and we are now fed with preference pap, so to speak. When complaint is made of this reciprocity pact, the public is told: 'See what we have done for England; see the British preference.' Well, the British preference is going to become non-existent if this pact passes; there will be very little of it left. On the items enumerated in the schedule to this pact the preference will be zero, because the duty the American people will have to pay on them when they come to this country will be nil. At the time the Minister of Finance intnoduced the preference, there "was no intention on his part or on the part of the government to give a preference to Britain alone. We are told now with great acclaim that the Liberal party gave the British preference. No one knows better than the Finance Minister that at that time it was a preference not to England alone, but to any nation that could qualify by giving us as favourable treatment as we gave it. When the Finance Minister introduced the preference in 1897, at page 1111 of 'Hansard,' he said this:
I stated that the tariff that I am about to read to you is the general tariff, but that before I conclude I shall be prepared to make a statement in relation to a special tariff that will apply to Great Britain and any other country which is prepared to accept the conditions which that tariff imposes.
Later on he spoke as follows, page 1131:
We do not by our resolutions offer anything to Great Britain alone. We recognize the fact that Great Britain by her liberal policy is in a position to avail herself of this offer immediately, hut we make our offer not to Great Britain only, but to every nation which is prepared to accept it. We make it to every country which is willing to establish fair and reasonable trade relations with Canada.
On the same page, speaking of the favoured nation treaties, he spoke as follows:
I say that it does not seem fair and reasonable that we should he obliged, while we are offering certain terms, not to Great Britain only but to all countries which will place themselves in the same position-it does not seem to be fair and reasonable that we should be obliged to extend the privileges of this schedule, which we call a reciprocal tariff, to nations which are not willing to do anything in return.
Now, I have just two comments to make on that statement. One is that the offer Mr. MACDONELL.
was not made to Great Britain alone; it was made to any country that chose to accept it. Secondly, at that time at least the Minister of Finance was apprehensive of these favoured (nation treaties, and was unwilling to grant anything in the nature of a treaty or tariff arrangement which would entitle the favoured nations to favoured nation treatment in our market. Things have very greatly changed since then. At that time the favoured nations were not to participate; rather than that he would change the Bill, and the Bill was changed in the following year. But now, when this reciprocity of another kind is going through, the favoured nations are let in. I do not see how the minister or the government can reconcile the two positions. When dealing with England they would not allow the favoured nations in; but in dealing with the United States in the present pact, so anxious apparently are they to get .it through that they are willing to open the door so wide that thirteen other nations are allowed to participate without giving anything in return. That is one of the great objections to this agreement. With the United States it is very different. By their constitution their favoured nations do not participate with Canada in their market. When we are told that this looks like a fair arrangement to both countries, both giving up something and both getting something, that feature is entirely overlooked, and it has a very important effect.
Now, we are told that reciprocity when it existed in the old days brought prosperity. Well, certain interests in Canada were very prosperous. I have no desire to disparage reciprocity at that time or deal unfairly with it; but every man in this country knows that at that time, unfortunately for the powers engaged in it, but fortunately for us who had grain to sell, there was a very disastrous war in Europe, the Crimean war. For the first years of the reciprocity treaty wheat brought $2.50 a bushel in England. We participated in that prosperity. Whether we had reciprocity with the United States or not, tour wheat was (worth as much money as any other, or more, because of its superior quality, and we got no more for it by sending it to the States. Then during the latter part of that period, when the American war was raging, when teas of thousands of the farmers of the United. States had to abandon their husbandry operations and take the field, and when the price of foodstuffs and bread-stuffs soared high, we again participated in that prosperity. But it was not all prosperity in Canada at that time. Let me just refer to the shipping trade that languished during those years. Following the treaty, business in and out of the port of Montreal declined. The carrying trade of
9B49

the St. Lawrence in 1854 was valued at $33,033,128. In the next year it dropped to $15,208,000. The ships' tonnage going to the sea from Montreal and Quebec decreased from 1,487,097 tons to 870,794, and the value of the exports from $42,000,000 to $28,000,000. On Canadian canals in the first fiscal year of the treaty the tolls fell off by 32 per cent. That in itself tells a very dismal tale of the effect of reciprocity, even at that early period, on the shipping and the foreign trade of the country.
We see that the shipping. declined in tonnage and in value. The canals did not do the same work, and there was not anything like the same volume of- business going through them. With the exception of the traffic going north and south there was very little business being transacted in the country compared with what there had been a year or two previous. But, our American friends were then after what they are now after. They were not so diligently in pursuit of it, it is true-still they were after it. I refer to the natural resources of this country. At that time the grass had not, so to speak, shortened for them. They still had a vast storehouse of natural resources, but as time has gone by this has been, pretty well drawn on. One of the main reasons, and one of the avowed reasons, is that the American people shall have access to our natural resources, and not only have access to them, but take them away to a foreign country and manufacture them with foreign labour.
Let me just point out what President Taft said about that:
Ought we not then to arrange a commercial agreement with Canada, if we can, by which we shall hare direct access to her great supply of natural products? Should we not now, therefore, before their policy has become too crystallized and fixed for change meet them in a spirit of real concession, facilitate commerce between the two countries, and thus greatly increase the natural resources available to our people? By giving our people access to the Canadian forests we shall reduce the consumption of our own which, in the hands of comparatively few owners now have a value that requires enlargement oLonr available timber resources.
This is explicitly one of the American main objects of reciprocity, and it is equally one of the main reasons why it should be opposed.
I would refer for a moment to an article which appeared in the London ' Times,' and which I think most fittingly puts the case to the Canadian people. Hon. gentlemen will, perhaps, recollect the correspondent of the 'Times' who headed his article during the last two or three months, ' The Buttering of Parsnips,' with special reference to the right hon. gentleman who leads this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
Allow me to read an extract from one of these letters:
The short sighted man says, ' let us sell our wheat and our timber.' The long sighted man replies, ' no, let us sell our flour and biscuits and furniture and paper. Let us not sell our raw materials, hut the manufactured article. That is the only way in which we can reap the full profits on our products and establish ourselves in the community of interests that makes a nation.'
Surely no one could epitomize the protection of our natural resources in more clear language than this. ' But,' hon. gentlemen on the opposite side say, ' we are not going to interfere with your manufactured articles.' Well, the same writer in the same article deals with that under the caption ' The Spider and the Fly.' He say®:
You say it is restricted reciprocity, and we will go no further. But you remember the fable: the spider invited the fly to step into his parlour. The fly replied, ' I will only put in one foot, the rest of me will remain outside.' The spider was satisfied. Why? Because he knew the foot would stick.
What does that show? It shows that when the farmer finds his goods give him very little if any advance in price, and that all he produces is open to competition, and that he has no protection in anything he raises, but has to pay duty on everything he buys, he will not be satisfied. If the farmer realizes that he has to suffer competition from American farm products, I think there will be a very great hue and cry throughout the country.
The timber question was mentioned by President Taft, as it has been mentioned by many others. Two authorities on the subject who ought to be acceptable to the Liberal people of this country, are Senator Ross and the Hon. Mr. Sifton.. These are two gentlemen who have gone on record as being directly opposed to this treaty, especially so far as timber is concerned.
I do not desire to take up the time of the House with the reading of Senator Ross's remarks, suffice it to say that he has gone flatfooted on record as being in opposition to the treaty with special regard to lumber, and in that respect he quotes, with approval, what was said by the Hon. Clifford Sifton, as chairman of the Commission on Natural Resources-or as we call it now, the Conservation Commission. It is well to read and heed the warning of Mr. Sifton, who says:
At the end of 20 years the United States would have no timber for sale, in the ordinary way. In Canada the supply was large, but if the supply in the United States ran out, the supply in Canada would last the United States for only seven years. The time must come, however, when the people of Canada would demand legislation prohibiting the export of marketable timber.
[Stage Direction]
That is the natural view, and the only view which will do justice to Canadian interests.	,
Now, not only is this government, by its treaty, not protecting and conserving our resources, and especially our timber resources-not only is it not heeding the warning of the chairman of its own commission-a commission constituted for the purpose of collecting information, but it is exposing these very resources to the free exploitation of the American trust man and combine man, because by taking down the duty on timber or by making it free, you will no doubt give the lumberman of this country a very large and immediate profit on his timber, but we must bear in mind that much of this timber which is growing on this Canadian soil of ours is owned by Americans. We have no desire to interfere with any man's property rights in this country, but there is no reason why the exploiter should be facilitated in denuding and depleting our country of its natural resources, and of its timber in particular.
Both liberals and conservatives talk with pride and with pleasure about our great country. We are in the habit of hearing Canada praised, and it pleases us. Our British brethren, as well as foreigners all join in one accord in complimenting this country upon its almost inexhaustible store of natural resources. How, I ask in the name of common sense, are we to preserve these resources if they are not protected from exploitation? If any one and every one can come in and take out timber, our minerals, &c., at a nominal figure, as they have in the past, what benefit is it to Canada? Many of these resources might just as well be in Egypt or in Russia if thev are simply for the exploiter, to be removed in the rough or natural state.
What benefit is it to the country? Take an American lumberman who came here years ago, and bought blocks of virgin forest for a trifle-what benefit is it to this country if he is allowed to take out that timber in the rough. Of what benefit are any of our natural resources unless there is some guardianship, some protection, some conservation? For these resources are inter-dependent. If you remove the timber, you make less favourable the conditions of agriculture. And so in other matters. But of what avail is it for us to boast of our great natural resources if those resources are to be exploited by any one who chooses to come and acquire them? The only affect is to make the rich man richer, and the poor poorer. The lumberman who has acquired the timber will increase his revenues-to him that hath shall be given. But what will become of the mechanic or farmer who wishes to buy lumber? Why, the great consuming public will have to pay , Mr. MACDONELL.
more for their lumber than in the past. And that is one of the features of this pact that is most frequently attacked. It is said, and said truly in my opinion, that it is a pact for the trusts and combines; it will leave this country exposed, as the United States has been exposed to the exploitation of these men. A moment's reflection will cause one to realize that the American trusts and combines will extend their operations to this country. They are anxious to do it; they seek to enlarge their area from which to draw the resources they need. That is why this pact is welcomed so cordially in the United States.
Now, it does seem to me that the home market for the producer of this country is the best market. It is said that the home market is not large enough, but we know that about 80 or 85 per cent of all that is produced in this country is used in this *oountiry. We know that the home market has built up our neighbours to the south, and that the farmer in that country has been the best advocate of the factory. And so he should be, because the factory assures him of customers for what he raises. Let me quote on this subject no less an authority than Mr. Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture for the United States. He fills the position occupied by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher), who is now leading the House, and I think that hon. gentlemen will agree that the Minister of Agriculture should, and in some cases does, know a great deal about the agricultural conditions of his country. Mr. Wilson said:
The American farmer brought about the building of the American factory, because he wanted a home market. That home market is the best to be found anywhere, because our people all live well and are all able to buy the best farm produce,-that is, all who are willing to work. It may be said, without much exaggeration, that the American farmer is responsible for the upbuilding of the factory. He has voted steadily for half a century to give protection to the extent of the difference in cost of production between this country and any country that desires to sell in our markets. Was that right or wrong? Was it wise for the farmers to do that? There was no market at home. They wanted a market as near the factory as they could bring it. Now millions of people who work in these factories and in occupations other than farming want food at reasonable prices. Who can condemn them for that desire?
All that is said by Mr. Wilson can be truly said by the Minister of Agriculture of this country. We are now embarking, as it were, upon the period that they have passed, we are experiencing the same conditions here that they experienced in their country a very few years ago, and we are finding that the best market for the farmers' produce, is in the towns and cities which are built un around the factories. Therefore, it

seems to me that the true policy of the government is not to alarm the commercial and manufacturing industries as they have done, but by every reasonable means consistent with the keeping of prices at fair levels, they should encourage the home market, affording protection which, as Mr. Wilson says, is enough to place the home producer, having regard to the higher labour cost of his product, on an equality with the producer abroad. If that policy were adhered to, our market would be found in our own country, we should have a large influx of the farming community, and much greater stability of our manufacturing and business interests.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, especially the Minister of Finance, have spoken of members of the Conservative party having made many journeys to Washington. Well, they were not the only ones who did that. Members of the Liberal party, on many occasions, when in opposition, and since they were returned to power, have made these same trips. One gentleman went on many occasions-the late John Charlton. He attended the National Reciprocity Convention at Washington, on November 19, and 20, 1901. He was there pleading for reciprocity, and holding out inducements for them to enter into an arrangement with us. I do not believe hon. gentlemen opposite will repudiate Mr. Charlton. Here is the picture he painted for the Americans of what reciprocity would do for them. He gave quite a lengthy address. He said in part:
What we want is reciprocal free trade in natural products, as I remarked a moment ago, we buy three times as much in the way of agricultural products as we sell to the United States. With free trade the whole vast mining region of British Columbia and the Yukon districts would draw its supplies of food from Oregon and Washington. The maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would draw nineteen-twentieths of their food supplies from the seaboard cities of the United States, and vessels bringing coal and lumber from those provinces would take back cargoes of flour, meal, &c., as return cargoes. The mining and lumbering regions of Ontario and Quebec would buy enormously of American farm products.
Now that would be very interesting reading foT the farmers of British Columbia, the maritime provinces, of Ontario and Quebec. AH these provinces were to be supplied with their foodstuffs by the American farmers. That is the exact condition today. Mr. Charlton was then speaking about a reciprocal tariff in natural products, just what we are asked to adopt to-day, and this is the inducement he offered the American people. We did not hear anything of that . kind in this country. There, he was speaking his convictions, he was away from 314
home, he was addressing strangers, and no doubt felt at liberty to unbutton himself and tell the people what was in his heart. And that was in his heart, that all the food supplies of these provinces should be drawn from the American people. Now the farmer here is told, as a reason why he should endorse this pact; it is going to improve everything; you are going to have the Augustan age in the rural districts of Canada, you are going to have a golden period; all you raise is going to bring very high prices; farms are going to improve in value, everything you have is going to be made more valuable; you are going to enter into a golden heritage, and practically your working days are over. Now let us see what effect this market of 90 millions of people has had upon the farming community in the States, and then we can form some opinion as to how reciprocity will affect farm values in Canada. It certainly will not improve them, if statistics are to be believed. Here is the record:
Advocates of reciprocity are making statements to the effect that the adoption of reciprocity will immediately increase the value of Canadian farm lands 25 per cent or more. Instead of making wild guesses let us get at the facts. Since the reciprocity negotiations began the United States government has had a report prepared by experts showing the comparative value per acre of improved farm lands in 1900 and 1910 in various border states and in the Canadian provinces adjoining them. This report states that between 1990 and 1910 the value of improved farm lands increased 67 per cent in Maine, 37 per cent in New Hampshire, 33 per cent in Vermont, 181 per cent in Nova Scotia, 120-per cent in New Brunswick, 70 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 80 per cent in Quebec, 43 per cent in Ontario, 39 per cent in Michigan, 77 per cent in Minnesota, 123 per cent in Manitoba, 201 per cent in Saskatchewan and 185 per cent in Alberta.
Now with this great market at the dooTS of the American farmers, we find nevertheless that their farms have not increased in value at anything like the same ratio as have the farms of the Canadian provinces adjoining. They have a market of ninety millions of people, where i;s their increased value? This big market does not seem to have brought riches to them. It may be said that the great increase in the value of our western lands is unusual because it is a new country. That may be so. But why the increase in the value of the farms of the older provinces? Look at the enormous increase in the value of farm land in the province of the Minister of Finance himself, most phenomenal, 181 per cent increase in Nova Scotia. Surely nothing better than that could be desired. It is two or three times the ratio of increase in the American States adjoining, and yet the farmers of this country are asked to make this change. Let us see what will happen
[Stage Direction]


if the tariff wall is taken down and natural products are allowed to pass freely between the two countries. Of course, the tendency and effect will be to produce a uniformity in *values. Land is only worth what it will produce. If all the territory is practically cne great field of agriculture, you are going to have the value of the farm lands on both sides brought down to something like uniformity. You will not have this great increase in value continuing in our Canadian farms, because the value will necessarily be brought down to the level of American farms, the same as the value of the produce on those farms. Granting that the quality of the land is the same, it seems to me that is self-evident.
Now permit me to make an allusion to the opinions of some prominent public men in the United States with regard to what is likely to happen when this treaty goes into effect. Senator Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa, is a well known public man who has delivered a great many speeches on this subject, in the Senate and elsewhere in the United States. In a very able article in the 'Editorial Keview' he says many things which are well worthy of reproduction. I will extract the following:
With respect to live stock. I have taken some pains to discover what relative prices are, comparing Canada and the United States, and this is the result: the average value of horses in the United States is $108.10; in Canada, $133. Dairy cows in the United States, $35.79; in Canada, $43. Other cattle, without respect to age or grade, in the United States, $19.41; in Canada, $31. Sheep in the United States, $4.08; in Canada, $6. Hogs in the United States, $9.14; in Canada, $11.
Bearing in mind what has been already said, I predict that with nearly everything, except wheat, barley, and possibly hay, our exports of agricultural products into Canada will grow more rapidly than the imports of such products into the United States from Canada.
That is a very important statement, and if it is true, as we are told, that the American people now sell to us $3 worth for every dollar's worth we sell to them, what is likely to take place after this treaty goes into effect?
If, as Senator Cummins says, we are going to import into Canada very much more than they are going to import of our products, what is the ratio going to be?-six to one probably, or it may be double. So that instead of trade getting better between ourselves and the United States in so far as we are concerned it will get worse because, with the exception of two items, and possibly a third, in that long list, Senator Cummins is of opinion that the Americans will sell much more largely to us than we will sell to them. He ought to know. He is a well informed public man, he understands their capacity to export, he knows the surplus of the country, Mr. MACDONELL.
he knows what the prices are there and here and he makes that very deliberate statement advisedly.
I would like to make one more reference to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson is the American Secretary of Agriculture, and he refers incidentally to a matter which has been very much discussed in this country. He refers to the milling industry. In an article in the 'Editorial Review' of May, he says:
I am firmly convinced that it would be to the advantage of both countries for us to take the export wheat of Canada, mill it and send the flour to the markets of the world, because the dairymen of the United States would then get the by-products of the mills and as the population of the United States increases, the dairy market will be greater and greater. Wo will get those by-products then, instead of having the wheat go as wheat to foreign countries where the by-products would be sold and used to great advantage by dairymen in those countries.	*
Mr. Wilson ought to know pretty well the capabilities of his country in that respect. He says candidly what many people in this country have said and have been called alarmists for saying, namely, that the wheat of this country, especially the No. 1 hard grade of wheat, would be exported to the United States and there milled. It is quite obvious, it is self-evident what the advantages will _ be to the American people from the milling of the wheat in their country. As Mr. Wilson very candidly puts it, their dairymen will have the benefit of the by-products. He, however, facetiously says that this will be good for both countries because the wheat of Canada will go to their country for milling purposes. How the benefit will come to Canada from milling Canadian wheat in Minneapolis and other wheat milling centres is more than I can tell. But, he is not concerned with Canada. He supposes that the interests of this country are being looked after by the public men of this country. He is a public man in the American union, and he is looking after the interests of that country, and apparently doing it very well. He points out very naturally, very properly, what an advantage it will be if the milling of our wheat is carried on in that country. We all know that although a comparatively large amount of wheat is produced in this country at the present time, still we are not by any means the first, or second, or third, or fourth wheat producing country in the world. The United States produces a very vast amount of wheat, more than any other country; Russia, I think comes next; France is a very large wheat producing country, then there is the Argentine Republic and possibly one other country. I think that all of these countries, at least produce a greater quantity of wheat than

we do. But, in proportion to the quantity of wheat grown in these different countries no country exports the same percentage of the quantity grown as Canada does. Although our wheat production is praiseworthy, although it is encouraging, there is such a large home consumption of wheat in these other countries that the percentage of wheat produced in the country and exported from Canada is larger, I think than the percentage grown and exported by any other country.	The export of our wheat becomes a very important matter. We are going to export an increasingly large quantity of wheat. Just in proportion to the quantity of wheat we export will rise and increase the importance of where that wheat will be milled. It is altogether unnecessary for any man to argue that it is a good thing for a country to mill its own wheat because not only does it give the millers employment, and all the incidental benefits and profits that arise from a great industry of that kind, but in addition to this, and perhaps of still greater importance is the fact that where the milling takes place the by-products remain. That is a most important thing. The by-products cannot be profitably shipped to any great distance, and it is all important that the wheat should be milled in this country, that the industry should remain in this country, and that the by-products and the benefits derived from these by-products should remain here.
I think it is only fair to say that perhaps the east and west feature of this agreement has been argued at very great length. But, if we are going to have this treaty, every man knows-it is self-evident-that to a very great extent the east and west transportation of this country is going to decrease. How much no one can tell. We know it from the history of the reciprocity treaty of 1854 that in the very next year after the treaty went into force there was an instantaneous and immense falling off in the shipment through the canals going east, and west, and from the ports of Montreal and Quebec. Their shipping declined one-half practically in one year. With that example before us, and with our certain knowledge that history repeats itself when identical conditions are re-created we do know that there will be a great decline in the east and west transportation shipping of this country. How much no one can tell. We have not heard so much of the all-red route since this pact has been before the people. That seems to have dropped and very naturally and very properly so because I do not know just what it will have to do. Where will it take the traffic? What occasion will there be for it? We are getting along pretty well at the present time with our present conditions. The all red-route was 314J
proclaimed in anticipation of a largely increased shipping business to and from the ocean ports of this country. It is quite evident that that is not going to happen. There is a very significant and a very important silence upon that question.
Now, with regard to the east and west route, it is rather wonderful that the past statements of the government seem to be entirely forgotten by members of the government themselves and largely by the public. Therefore it is necessary perhaps to refer occasionally to what was said by the leaders of this government in regard to the east and west traffic of the country, especially in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. I would like to refer to some statements made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). When speaking on the Grand Trunk Pacific and National Transcontinental railway in the House of Commons we recollect perhaps this rather striking statement:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
Heaven grant that if be not already too late; heaven grant that whilst we tarry and dispute, the trade of Canada is not deviated to other channels, and that an ever vigilant competitor does not take to himself the trade that properly belongs to those who acknowledge Canada as their native or their adopted land.
And the right hon. gentleman was followed by his Minister of Finance on the same occasion who said:
It is desirable that we should give our American brethren to understand that Canada is resolved to work out her independence in these things, and the present proposal will promote this object, and that even if still another railway should be necessary we shall be prepared to construct it. The attitude that the government has taken upon the subject . . . has already attracted much attention across the border, and there is much keener appreciation of Canada's independence than ever before.
The Minister of Finance was out herod- [DOT] ing his chief; he was prepared to build two Transcontinental railways to move the trade of Canada east and west so that we might be for all time independent of our American friends. The very bargain itself with the Grand Trunk Pacific contains penal clauses compelling the railway to carry the trade east and west to Canadian ports. Section 43 of the contract which now forms part of the bill reads:
43. The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.

[Stage Direction]
Do I need to remind toon, gentlemen that the very same principle was embodied in the British North America Act with regard to the Intercolonial railway, declaring that it was essential to the consolidation of the union of British North America, and this same principle of east and west transportation was incorporated in the agreement with British Columbia in 1871, it being made an essential part of the union that the Canadian Pacific railway should be built. This is proof that in all sections of this country and at all times in her history there has been uppermost in the minds of the people of Canada the necessity for this east and west route until now this government agreed with the United States that her trade shall be diverted to the south. American public men are gloating over the fact that the American ocean ports are to handle our export freight, and I commend to the government the views of Governor Foss, of Massachussetts, who is strongly for the agreement, because he believes it will draw all kinds of trade away from Canadian ports; that there will he no more Montreal, or St. John, or Halifax, but that Boston is to be the great port for shipment of Canadian goods. We know only too well that that is most likely what will happen if this pact goes through. It seems most extraordinary that the right hon. gentleman and his Minister of Finance should have turned around in their own tracks, and gone back on their declared policy and are now proposing by this pact to undo much of what has been done by the legislation of past years to encourage national transcontinental east and west routes. Why, the right hon gentleman, who declared so often against reciprocity should now favour it, we do not know, but there may be a rteason that will come to the surface later on. In the House of Commons at banquets and on other public occasions, and at the Colonial Conference we find him of late years pronouncing against reciprocity. In 1891 he fell fighting for reciprocity or commercial union or continental free trade or whatever you may choose to call it, and from that date to the date of this agreement he seems to have been opposed to it. In 1899 he said:
If we know the hearts and minds of our people at present, I think I am not making too wide a statement when I say that the general feeling in Canada is not in favour of reciprocity. There was a time when Canadians would have given many things to obtain the American market. There was a time when the market of the great cities of the Union was the only market we had, hut these days are past and over now. We are not dependent on the American market now.
At a banquet in Montreal in 1901 the right hon. gentleman declared:
Angus Claude Macdonell: do without British capital? What would the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) do with regard to financing his loans? Perhaps the credit of Canada is now good enough to go to the European markets, but where does it naturally go? To the London money market of course. There is not a city or town in Canada whose streets are not lighted or paved or whose public utilities are not operated more or less by British capital, which was got at a time when capital could not be got at the same rate of interest from foreign countries. This capital is invested in exploiting the mines -it is invested in our agricultural lands- it is invested in every walk and sphere of our national life, and there is nothing more closely associated with business in Canada. It has always been so, and will continue so if we maintain our trade conditions as they are at the present time. How long these conditions will last if we are going to pass over our gold and silveT to pay for American products, is a thing I do not know.
There is another matter kindred with the one of which I am now speaking. The right hon. gentleman has been full of hope that some day we would obtain a British preference. We on this side of the House have indulged the same hope and desire. What can bk more advantageous to the great farming community of this country than some preference on the British markets for food stuffs they need and which we raise? Now, this is a hope which has some prospect of ultimately materialising. In fact some of the British public men are now committed to it-and when I say this I do not mean some of the men of to-day or yesterday, because the matter has been before them for the last ten or fifteen years, and they have been advocating the adoption of some preference for the products of the overseas portions of the empire. I have every reason to expect that when the time is ripe and proper some form of preference will be obtained by the overseas portions of the empire in the home market of Great Britain.
The agreement ignores one objection which has been urged with force and persistence in Canada. It has been contended that with free trade in natural products between Canada and the United States, reciprocal treatment of Canadian products in British markets would become impossible, inasmuch as American products would seek an outlet at Canadian ports in order to secure the benefit of British preferential duties. Certainly Canada has faced no such radical change in fiscal policy since the system of protection was established over thirty years ago.
Now, how can we hope to succeed in getting that preference if the proposed treaty passes? How can we expect a British pref-Mr. MACDONELL.
erence if all the food stuffs and natural products of the American nation are at liberty to swarm over the border line into this country, and be reshipped to Great Britain as the products of this country? Surely: that would make a British preference impossible, and it seems to me natural that it should be so, because the preference would be given to us as part of the overseas dominions of the British Empire. It would not be given to the products of the United States. Now, if reciprocity is enforced between ourselves and our American neighbours, it is, of course, quite obvious that their products would come in here, and intermingle with ours in such a way that there would be no possibility of distinguishing between the two, the result would be that Great Britain would naturally say: ' It is impossible for us to admit your products into our markets when they are accompanied by a great avalanche of American products which we cannot distinguish from your own.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when introducing this measure, spoke delightfully about the certainty and the uncertainty of the duration of the pact. He told us in one sentence that this would only be a temporary affair-that if we did not like it we were not bound to anybody for any .time-and if it were found to be inconvenient or unprofitable we could undo it, and revert to our former condition-that we did not have to abide by it, but could cancel it at any time. In the next, sentence he told us that the hope was expressed 'by both prties to the transaction that it would be found profitable and that it would be enduring.
Let us see what the opinion of our American friends is as to the enduring of it. Mr. McCall, who introduced the measure into the House said in the debate on the reciprocity agreement:
It is scarcely good form for us to regulate in advance, the internal fiscal policy of the British Empire. It will, however, always be within the power of Congress, if it shall appear that any undue advantage is hereafter given to Great Britain, to correct and change these rates, or repeal them all.
Before the pact goes into force, Mr. McCall says: ' If this does not suit us we are going to repeal it.' There is a condition of uncertainty created which is in itself, a very grave objection. We all know that the commercial interests of any country strive and struggle for one thing more than all others, and that is certainty and stability. Certainty of tariff and stability of trade. They cannot get on with a tariff which is changeable like -amoving .picture show, and which may alter at any moment-new scenes being rung up, and brought into the arena. That is not a condition which the

mercantile and manufacturing classes in this country desire. It is quite obvious that that kind of a temporary tariff would be most injurious. It would not be a stable condition of affairs, after diverting our routes of transportation north and south, after changing our trade conditions, and adopting our commercial life to the new conditions, to have all this suddenly overthrown and wiped out. What condition would trade be in then? ' Disorganization ' is scarcely a fair word to express the condition in which we would find ourselves.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) took exception to a remark which I made regarding his statement in Montreal.
I have it before me now. Speaking at the Windsor Hall, Montreal, on March 25, 1911, the hon. minister said:
We know that a great many things have been said about this agreement which are wrong; we know that a great many men have formed their opinions in relation to this measure without adequate information, and so it is our desire that as opportunities occur, we shall endeavour to remove some of the misunderstandings which exist.
If the people have not had adequate information regarding this agreement who is to blame? Surely, the government. It may be, with the extraordinary and undue haste that has characterized the government's action, they could not prepare for our people proper information on this subject. But apparently our American friends were warned 'and advised in advance. They had their information all prepared, and much of what has been used in this House and throughout this country is information we have gleaned from American sources. Had full information been before the country when this pact was brought into the House, there would not have been the lengthy discussion upon it. We on this side have insisted that the people should have the information necessary to form an opinion upon this question. Every man in this country is as much entitled to information upon the nature of this pact as were the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Customs (Mr. Fater-son) when they were discussing it. It is an essential and fundamental change in our economic and national conditions. Every man. is affected by it, and every man is entitled to the means of forming an opinion upon the matter.
The opposition have condemned and opposed this pact in the belief that it is bad for Canada and for British interests. That, of course, is merely an opinion. But what we have tried to insist upon was that the people should have the information necessary to form an opinion in the first place, and in the second place that they should be afforded an opportunity to express that opinion. We believe that the people may
be trusted. And we believe that on this subject the people are being educated. Notwithstanding the complete absence of information brought down by the government, the people are getting the information. Public men are arising everywhere to spread the knowledge of the subject and people who are not in public life at all are engaged taking part in the work of public education. We hope the people will be given an opportunity of expressing themselves, pro and con on this question. That is all that the opposition asks. We believe that the people may be trusted; but we believe also that when the people's voice is heard on this subject it will be, not unanimously, of course, but by a^ heavy preponderance in opposition to this pact.


William Ross Smyth: Mr. Chairman, I assure you of my sympathy in having to sit up so .late listening to this debate. Perhaps you are tired because of hearing only from one side. And we on this side also are not only somewhat tired, but almost ashamed that in the House of Commons, representing this great Canada, we have a majority who sit as dumb as oysters. We know that these gentlemen have ability to discuss this question if they wish to do so. We also understand that they are taking advantage of their position for the purpose, as they think, of letting this side talk itself out. I do not know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who is now leading tne House is going to accomplish exactly what he has set out to do. But I am sure that every member on this side-I would like to include the ' colony,' but I am perfectly satisfied I speak for all the Conservatives -is willing to remain here until this time next year if our humble efforts may protect the interest of the people. Surely, we could have no other desire at heart than the interest of the people to leave our homes and businesses and come here to remain during the sweltering July nights, impairing our health, to carry on the debate on this question.
I feel it my duty to address this House, becaue my constituents have sent me here not to sit dumb, but to express to the powers that be my views on the questions before the House. It is not for me to say how hon. gentlemen on the other side shall meet their constituents and explain why they did not take part in the debate. Only a few of them have taken part. But apparently they would rather leave unsaid what they believe to be the right thing for the people, than to say what they would have to say under the dictation of the gentleman who leads the House. We on this side, thank God, are left untrammelled; no lash is applied to us. Who can think

- 9963
of our leader doing as the leaders of gentlemen opposite did?-going down to Washington where no doubt, the president entertained him kindly and gave him a good time. He certainly made them feel good and they evidently thought it their duty to tie this'-(in their eyes)-little Canada to the United States. We on this side take issue with them. We are not prepared to hand ourselves and our country over to the United States. I have lived on the borders of the United States for many years and have had dealings with people of the United States. I have always found them honourable and honest in any dealings 1 have had with them. But I have also found that they were ail well worth watching whenever you are making a trade with them, for they would get the better of you if they could.
In the many dealings I have had with them, I always took the precaution-perhaps it is because I am Scotch-to have my wits about me before I attempted1 to trade with them. It would have been well for this * country if these gentlemen, before they hied down to Washington, had taken the precaution to be well on their guard. It would have been well if they had gone down there with .some mandate, either from the people at large or from this House. But, instead of that, they did not give any hint to the people of this country of what they were going to do at Washington. I do not think they knew themselves, and if they did know, they knew it a year before. If they knew, they knew it when they went the previous year to do a little dickering with these same gentlemeji in Washington. It is my belief that the' gentlemen who went last fall to Washington to make this pact had promised the American negotiators that next year they would give them a little more. Now we find these two gentlemen tying up the people of this country to a pact which, I am satisfied, the majority of the Canadian people do not want, and won't stand for. The Conservative party in this House are numerically not as strong as the government party, but I think we represent, perhaps, the maiority of the people of Canada. We conscientiously feel it is our duty to oppose this pact in the interests, as we think, of the great majority of the people of Canada. We believe that it has been entered into without due consideration. We believe that there are no two men sitting in this House who are able to go to Washington and, off their own bat, to use a slang phrase, negotiate intelligently concerning every interest. that they are going either to make or to break.
Now. Sir, I understand that the hon. the Minister of Finance is neither a lumberman, a miller, a merchant, or a manufac-turere. I think he is a retired gentleman,
Mr. SMYTH (ATgoirnL
or soon will be. We know that the other negotiator, the hon. the Minister of Customs, makes very nice candies, very nice cakes, and all that sort of thing; he makes crackers, but he has given us a cracker now that we don't want to take. He took very good care to protect his crackers. * However, I was going to say that the two gentlemen who went to Washington could not be familiar with all the interests they were dealing with. I have had some experience in life myself. I have not been a baker, but I have been a blacksmith, a soldier, a sailor and a farmer, and I would hate to take upon my shoulders to s?y that I knew all about either farming, or soldiering, or anything else in connection with the industrial life of this country. I contend that the two gentlemen who went to Washington knew but very little gbout the lumber interests of this country. If they had been alive to the lumber interests they would not have allowed the Americans to draw the wool over their eyes as they have done. It is of course well known that lumber has been allowed to come into this- country free for years; we have -had free lumber entering Canada from the United States for several years. We had been up against a $2 per thousand duty, until a short time ago, upon our lumber going into the United States. Now, as I understand this pact, lumber is going into the United States free. That looks all very well on the face of it. But how does our lumber compare with the lumber that is coming into Canada free of duty? It is well known that lumber is not manufactured) solely into boards. Lumber has to be manufactured into other articles; it has to be planed, tongued and grooved in many instances, thereby not only reducing its weight because of the dressing, but reducing its weight because of the fact that it has to be dried before it is dressed. Now, the United States very carefully shut out dressed or partly dressed lumber. They knew that if we had to ship all rough lumber into the United States from the interior of Canada, lumber in its rough state, the addition to the weight of that lumber, in comparison with what it would be if it was dried and planed, would more than offset the price of lumber in its dressed state. When we talk of lumber we do not mean simply boards. Now, the Americans very wisely objected to allowing our shingles to go free into the United States. It is a well-known ' fact that the lumbermen to-day, in order to make a living and a fair profit out of their industry have to utilize every bit of the timber that is standing on their limits.
It is a well-known fact that to-day the lumbermen are using up material, odds and ends, for lath, &c., that they wouldn't look at fifteen or twenty years ago. But
99G9

they have to use that. They have a great surplus of that sort of material, but very little of it is going to be allowed into the United States because it cannot go in free.
If I understand it right., all their rough lumber, partly planed, lumber, ishavings and lath come into this country free.


William Stevens Fielding: No, we have made no change whatever in our lumber duties. The only change that has been made is that the Americans admit our lumber on more favourable terms than before.


William Ross Smyth: While you are at it you might have made a very material change to the benefit of the lumber interests if you had been alive to the necessities of the case.


William Stevens Fielding: But as we gave them nothing in the matter how could we expect to claim all those great benefits? We gave them no change in lumber; it remains the same.


William Ross Smyth: But you could have protected the lumber interests when you had the chance.


William Stevens Fielding: The protection remains the same in Canada; it is not touched one iota.


William Ross Smyth: I quite understand that it is not touched one iota, but you did not take advantage of the fact of being there. When you had the opportunity you could have placed $2 a thousand feet on lumber coming into this country.


William Stevens Fielding: But we did not want to do that.


William Ross Smyth: Why? If you had been wide-awake and understood your business you would have done something for the lumber interest.


William Stevens Fielding: We think it is bad policy; we do not want it.


William Ross Smyth: Perhaps the hon. gentleman is not aware of the fact that the Americans require the better grades of our white pine lumber. They do not require our lower grades stuff such as hemlock and spruce (other than pulp wood), and lo_w grade pine. There are lumbermen within the sound of my voice now who will tell you that every mill yard in northern Ontario at least is piled high with the lower grades of lumber that southern pine comes in competition with in this country. The profit perhaps of their whole operations is in the cull end of the lumber and how they can best market it. If they have a failure in marketing the cull end of their lumber they usually make no profits that year at least. Our Canadian lumbermen in _ my district-I do not refer to the American
lumbermen-claim that instead of getting lumber into the United States free they would rather have had an import duty on southern pine coming into this country.


William Stevens Fielding: Is that the Conservative policy?


Mr.   SMTTH@Algoma: I am talking from the standpoint of the lumbermen's interests. I am trying to show the hon. gentleman that he did not know his business when he went to Washington, and I think I have succeeded perhaps in convincing him, because at least I got a response from him, that it would be to the interest of the lumber industry to shut out the southern pine as against our low grade lumber. I think that the hon. gentleman will agree with me in that respect.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I do not. I say it is not in the interest of Canada to increase the lumber duties at all, and if it is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite to increase the lumber duties let them say so.


William Ross Smyth: 
Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They are Grit organizers now.


William Ross Smyth: Every man of them is a Grit organizer under the guise of a grain grower. But after the campaign of education that was carried on a few weeks ago by a very able member of this House, there are not so many of them sticking so closely to the so-called leaders of the grain growers. I had the honour and pleasure of b|eing in the west myself for a few weeks, and I met a great many of the grain growers. I met a good many of the gentlemen who came down here demanding that the government should assist them in several ways, and wient back convinced that the government were going to do something for them in connection with this reciprocity pact or something else. But when thiey found out that they were humbugged and sold out, that their so-called leaders were nothing but political heelers who had been trading on their credulity and tb(eir name as grain growers, they abandoned them, and to-day we do not find all the gentlemen who were here backing up those who stayed over the day after to confer with the premier staying with the machine. Now, the grain growers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are a very intelligent class of men, especially those I met, and they had only to be shown that they were being misled by the so-called leaders of the Grain Growers' Association to realize the position that they had placed themselves in. In travelling through the west, I found one or two of my friends who were inclined to be in favour of reciprocity, one friend especially, a very intelligent sort of chap; but he had been hob-nobbing with bad company politically; and when I asked him to tell me just how
he understood this reciprocity pact, he said, in the first place, the government is going to allow implements to come free into this country.' I said, 'Who told you that?' He said, 'the leaders of the Grain Growers' Association; and they issued pamphlets in my own riding telling the farmers that they were going to have free implements. If that is the kind of campaign with which this government think they are going to carry the country next time, they are gpeatly mistaken, because the farmers today are too wideawake to be humbugged with any such nonsense as that. While some who do not read very much may be persuaded at the first blush that that is the case, by discussion with their neighbours they soon become enlightened. That is the process going on through the west, and it leads the government to question whether they should give the west redistribution and increasjed representation. We on this side of the House want to see the west properly represented; we shall be glad to see its representation trebled. The west deserves it, because to my mind it is the greatest part of this country agriculturally, and in many other respects. Our friends opposite wepe very cocky a few months ago about what they were going to do when they got increased representation from the west. They arie not so anxious now; they want to put off the evil day as far as they can. Now, we do not fear going to the country on this reciprocity pact. We will welcome the election at the earliest moment, and you can throw in a few bush polls if you think they will strengthen your chances very much, because your Waterloo on this verj question is not very far distant, if I read the minds of the people of Canada aright. We are accused now of having all the wealth behind us, of being imperial jingoes, and last night I was sorry to se-e the Minister of Finance lose his temper and accuse us of being obstructionists and of reading from newspapers. I would like to know where we arie going to get our information if we do not read from newspapers, because we cannot get it from the government. I often wondier whether they are to compile it or not; they certainly have not produced it here, and I do not think they want to produce it. I will not bother the House by reading much from newspapers, but 1 have a few documents here that I would like to read from, and they will be very interesting. It may take two or three hours to read one of them alone; but there has been so much reference to former treaties that I think it would be well to have thesernat-ters placed on Hansard so that they will be in the hands of every member of this House and of every citizen of Canada, and I am sure that the hon. gentleman who is leading the House to-night will bear with me an hour or two while I read part of that.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly, with great pleasure.


William Ross Smyth: Before I take up that document, I want to take up another matter in connection with this pact. We are told that there is no danger of annexation-that the United States can get all 'the advantages of us they like, they can own us root and branch, but we will still be British subjects. That is a grand feeling to have, that we will be able to control ourselves in that way, even when the United 'Stateis controls everything ,we have. I would rather remain, feeling that the mother country was going to have a firm and solid hold on Canada for all time to come, than see the United States get one dollar's worth of our products, because we can live splendidly without them. Many years ago they told us repeatedly that annexation or starvation was staring us in the face. They told us and the outside world that we were hardly civilized, that we would never be able to take care of ourselves or build railways, because we had no land to build on except a little strip along the front.
They found, Sir, they were mistaken in that. They found that we had the land, that we had the men, and that we had the money, they also found that we did not have to go to the United States to get the money, but we went to the dear old land to get it to build our railways and our canals and our public works throughout Canada.
They have realized that while Canada may be small in their eyes, still she is great in the financial world, able to stand alone, and do splendidly without their assistance, they also realized that the natural products of this country are" far in excess of the resources of their country and colonies put together, and they realize that in the paper industry, and many other industries they are absolutely dependent on Canada for the material to carry on their business. They are also dependent on Canada for their nickel. It is a well known fact that near the district I represent we have the greatest nickel mines in the world. It is also a well known fact that every one of these mines is owned by Americans. No doubt these gentlemen would be very glad to see us annexed to the United States.
As I said, Canada is greater in the eyes of the United States to-day than they ever dreamt she would be. They see our natural resources, our nickel, our timber, our wheat and everything else, and they are most anxious now to trade with us. I think if the hon. gentlemen who went down there had one ounce of pluck in their breasts, when they were invited to go they would have said: Nay. We want none of you. You turned us back many a time.


William Ross Smyth: Now we will turn you back.' Instead of that they hobnobbed with these American gentlemen and had the wool pulled over their eyes. The result is that to-day they want to bind Canada hard and fast to the United States, which will be nothing more or less than the forerunner of annexation. In this reciprocity agreement I see the danger of the United States having control of our markets, and of our industries, and I see that their eye single is to-day on Canada. They have turned our ministers back in years gone by and when they did so the Liberal party was very jubilant in its criticism of the manner in which the gentlemen from Canada went over to the United States. Would it not be just nice, when Canada is big in the eyes of the United States, and when she is in a position to give them some of their own medicine, that they should get it just when they asked our ministers to go over there? There was some excuse for our ministers in years gone by asking to have a little trade with their big brother, the United States, but there was no excuse for this government interfering with the w'heels of commerce, or interfering with every financial interest throughout the length and breadth of this country by hanging over our heads a pact which is disagreeable, offensive, and I think, unconstitutional.
We, on this side of the House, ask you, Sir, to give us an opportunity to show that the people of Canada endorse the doctrine we have been preaching along that line. There cannot be anything fairer or more reasonable than that we should go to the people who elected us on that question. I do not think we are in any less position as regards a mandate than the right hon. gentleman and the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches, leading this government. The votes of the people were not given at the last election or the election previous on a question such as this at all. It was not before them, and they did not know anything about it.
I think we must give some weight to the sayings of the gentlemen who occupy the positions of senators and representatives in the United States. What do we find? We find these gentlemen saying that one of the advantages to be derived by the United States if this pact went through, would be that it would lead to greater things, along the line of annexation. We have been told that these gentlemen were not serious. Well, we might just as well say that the hon. gentleman who introduced this pact to the House was not serious.
President Taft knew something about our forests. He took the pains to educate himself and find out all about them, and a great deal about our other industries as well. While this government does not

know anything about our forests, the Americans can give us all the information we want about them. They know more about our natural resources than we ever dreamt of knowing.
As you know President Taft is a very large man in the United States-nearly as big a man in his country as the right hon. the leader of the House is here. Surely, we must give him credit for being serious in what he said-surely President Taft is not trying to jolly somebody all the time, as he did our ministers. He said:
Should we not then arrange a commercial agreement with Canada, if we can, by which we will have direct access to her great supply of natural products?
And here is something further. Shortly afterwards the president spoke at Columbus, Ohio, and said:
The greatest reason for adopting this agreement is the fact that it i5 going to unite two countries with kindred people, and lying together across a wide continent in a commercial and social union.
Next Mr. Taft went to Atlanta, and while there he developed his idea of commercial union. This is what he said:
When we entered upon the negotiations X asked the Secretary of State and his commissioners to offer free trade in everything, but this Canada could not grant us, because she has a protected system'and she was atraid of the competition of our better organized industries. Canada is at the parting of the
Of course, this has been referred to a great many times, and I am reading something which has been read before, but I purpose reading it even if it is disagreeable to my hon. friends on the other side of the House.
Ought we not, then, to arrange a commercial agreement with Canada if we can, by which we shall have direct access to her great supi>ly of natural products? They are coming. They are coming to the parting of the ways. Should we not now, therefore, before their policy has become too crystallized and fixed for change. . . greatly increase the natural resources available to our people?. . . by giving our people access to Canadian forests, we shall reduce the consumption of our own, which, in the hands of comparatively few owners, now have a value that requires the enlargement of our available timber resources.
He knew very well of our timber resources and that the time was not far distant when the United States would be compelled to pay practically whatever price we asked, and accept whatever terms we dictated for access to our natural resources. We are told by the Liberal party that the farmer will get more for his wheat under reciprocity, and that the lumberman will get fbore for his lumber. That may look very nice on the face of it. The lumberman will get more for his lumber this year- perhaps. I know some who have sold their year's cut, and they are going to divide $1.25 if this pact goes through. But in future years will it be our lumbermen on this side who will get the beneiit? Will it be the consumer who will get the benefit? No, it will be the great lumber interests that absolutely control the market in the United States, for, when they have control, they will pay us what they please.
I have wandered from the question of annexation, but here is something of President Taft's that brings me back to it:
The reduction in the . duties imposed by Canada will give us even a larger share of her market than we now enjoy, great as that is.
ways.
He still kept telling them that Canada was at the parting of the ways.
If we now neglect this opportunity to bring about closer business and trade relations, and insist upon the continuance of an artificial wall between the two countries, which differ no more in conditions of labour and production than do Kentucky and Tennessee or Georgia and Alabama, we shall throw away an opportunity for mutual benefit not likely to recur.
Finally, President Taft at New York at the end of April urged the editors, of the United States to support the agreement and used these words as the crowning reason why they should do it.
He went on the principle to strike while the iron was hot. He had these gentlemen on the run, and wanted to keep them on the run, and here is another thing he said:
X have said that this was a critical time in
the solution of the question of reciprocity. It is critical because, unless it is now decided, favourably to reciprocity, it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States. The forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate her by a Chinese wall from the United States, and to make her part ot an imperial commercial band reaching from England around the world to England again, by a system of preferential tariffs, will derive an impetus from the rejection of this treaty, and if we would have reciprocity, with all the advantages that I have described and that 1 earnestly and sincerely believe will follow its adoption, we must take it now or give it up for ever.
He seems to think he can do more with the gentlemen in Canada who have charge of this pact than with his own people. But he is going to miss his mark if we are able to hold out, and I think we can. We are not going to let it pass, without an awful struggle; make no mistake about that. And when the hon, gentleman who leads the House (Mr. Fielding) makes us sit up to all hours of the night, makes us weary


COMMOJNS
[Stage Direction]
of ourselves and of them, we will stay at it. And I hope that the people of Canada will give us credit for being earnest in our endeavours to keep from them this iniquitous pact that the government is trying to foist upon us. We have a right, and I do not suppose the hon. gentleman would deny it, to express our opinions upon the subject.
Another peculiar thing ia seen in this situation. I have had some parliamentary experience, but never, in any House that I have sat in, has a great measure been discussed without those who were responsible for it being in their places' all the time. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to make relays of their numbers to come and go. But they must not forget that they are responsible for the issue, and responsible for the waste of time since last November, and especially since last January, all because of the determination of two gentlemen who occupy the same position, plus the salary, that other members of the House do. It is all very well for them to tell us that they will freeze us out-or smoke us out, I do not know which-because they have their monthly allowance whereas we poor fellows will be at the end of onr tether soon. But we replenished our girmals before we left our homes. We have plenty to eat and drink, our families are not suffering because of the fact that we are here battling in the interests of the people of Canada. Now it is getting late, and I know that the hon. gentleman who leads the" House is weary, and I would ask him to consent to an adjournment.
William Stevens Fielding: I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 24, 1911.