1912-02-15

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

Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Does the government know that accusations of extreme gravitv are said to have been brought, at the time of the last elections, against Judge Tourigny, one of the judges of the Superior Court?
2.	Does the government also know that Judge Tourigny has not replied directly to those alleged accusations and has not taken any proceeding whatever against his accuser?
3.	In face of such a situation and the apparent unconcern on the part of a man thus publicly accused, does the government intend to take measures to assure itself of the truth or falsity of the accusations brought against Judge Tourigny?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1 and 2. The government has no know-, ledge.
3.	The government has before it no accusations in any form that would justify it in taking cognizance of, or action upon them.


THE FARMERS' BANK.
Mr. MURPHY asked:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been directed to a speech delivered by lion. T. W. Crothers, Minister of Labour, at Kerwood, Ontario, on September 1, 1911, in which ho is reported by the London ' Free Press ' of September 2, 1911, to have said:-
I am in favour of indemnifying every man who lost a dollar by the operations of the management of the Farmers' Bank. Some people have said that tho depositors only should have their losses made good, but I hold that others are in the same posit ion as the depositors. . . .
We intend to see that every man who lost will be recouped.
2.	Has the attention of the government been directed to a further speech delivered by said Minister of Labour at Fingal, Ontario, on September 4, 1911, in which he is reported by the St. Thomas ' Times1 of September 5, 1911 to have said:-
I am in favour of indemnifying every man who lost a dollar by the operations of the management of the Farmers Bank. Somo people have said that only the losses of the depositors should be made good, but I hold that others are in the same position as the depositors. . . .
We intend to 6ee that every man who lost shall be reimbursed.
3.	Did the Minister of Labour repudiate the said reports of his speeches as published in


Mr. BORDEN.: the London ' Free Press ' and the St. Thomas 'Times'? If so, when and where?
4.	If no such repudiation has been made, is it the intention of the government to carry out the promises of the Minister of Labour?


Right Hon.   R.@: I,. BORDEN (Prime Minister) :
It was suggested to me yesterday that this question is not in proper form, as it sets out allegations of fact. I would likle to have it amended or dropped


POSTMASTER AT COLDBROOK, N.S.
Mt. KYTE:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Coldbrook, Kings county, N.S., and when was he appointed?
2 Does he live at Coldbrook? If not, where does he live?
3.	Is the department aware that Kentville is distant from Coldbrook post office several miles?
4.	What is the postmaster's business?
5.	Is it the policy of the department to appoint postmasters who do not reside where the post office is, hut who live and transact business in other localities several miles distant?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	There is no post office named Coldbrook in the county of Kings, N. S. There is a post office called Cold Brook Station, of which Mr. W. E. Porter is postmaster. He was appointed on the 17th November, 1911.
2.	The department lias, no specific information as to his place of residence.
3.	The map of Canada shows that. The department has not been called upon to look into it.
4.	The department has no other information than that the man is postmaster.
5.	As a rule, no. It depends upon circumstances.


UNITED SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY.
Mr. MACLEAN (South York):: 1.	Is tho taking of testimony still in progress before the Board of Investigation under the Anti-Combines Act of 1910 in the United Shoe Machinery case?
2.	What legal counsel, if any, are following the investigation in the public interest, and employed by the government of Canada or any department thereof?
3.	Was any application made at any time to the Minister of Justice by the Minister of Labour for the employment of counsel in the United Shoe Machinery case under section 30 of the Anti-Combines Act or otherwise ?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Testimony was taken before the Board of Investigation at sessions held in Quebec on February 6 and 7, 1912. It is understood to be the intention of the board to
3X49

sit in Toronto on or about February 20, 1912. The government is not aware whether it is the intention of the board to take further testimony.
2.	No counsel has 'been instructed by the government of Canada or any department of the government to take any part in the proceedings before the board.
3.	No application has been made to the Minister of Justice by the present Minister of Labour for the employment of counsel or otherwise, and, so far as the present minister is aware, no such application was made by the former minister.


EDUCATION IN KEEWATIN.
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	Did the government or one of its members receive towards the end of November or December last, or at any time, since, a petition signed by Messrs. Arthur Larose, Mastai Poirier and Joseph Smith, residents of Le Pas, district of Keewatin, Northwest Territories, asking for the creation of a council to assist the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories in the administration of the Territories, clause 6 of chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, the authority for the commissioners in council to enact ordinances in matters of education; the creation hy competent authority and in the manner desired, of a school district at Le Pas, in the district of Keewatin, Northwest Territories?
2.	Was this petition addressed to His Royal Highness, the Governor General in Council? If not, to whom?
3.	Who received it, and when?
4.	What reply has it produced?
5.	To whom was the reply communicated, and when?
6.	If no reply has yet been given, what does the government, intend to do in the matter, and will it reply to the petitioners ? If so, in what way?
7.	Whatever reply the government may have given or intend to give to the petition of Messrs. Larose, Poirier and Smith, is it its intention to avail itself of the law regulating the Northwest Territories, to appoint immediately, by virtue of clause 6 of chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, a council to assist the Commissioners of the Northwest Territories in the administration of these Territories, and to permit in favour of those who ask it, the regular working of the administrative machinery which parliament has foreseen and for which it has provided statutory provision?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	It was referred to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories towards the end of December for report.
4.	None.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6 and 7. The report of the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories will be given full consideration by the government when received.


TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: What have been the travelling expenses paid to the Deputy Minister of Justice from 1905 to 1911, inclusive?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In	1905-6	
$1,295	55In	1906-7	
48	70'In	1907-8	
1,144	05In	1908-9	
1,181	53III	1909-10	
1,213	38In	1910-11	
1,821	53


WHARF AND DREDGING AT FRASER-VILLE.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Referring to the sum of $70,000 mentioned in tho estimates of 1912-1913, for wharf and dredging at Fraserville, Quebec, and lately voted, is it the intention of the Minister of Public Works to ask for immediate tenders in order that the projected works may he constructed as soon as possible, in the interest of the general public and especially in that of the Intercolonial railway, which could discharge its coal at Fraserville, instead of Levis, thus saving fifteen or twenty thousand dollars on its annual expenses?
2.	If so, will the honourable Minister of Public Works make use of the plans and specifications now existing in the department, and on which the preceding government was ready to ask for tenders at the time of the dissolution of parliament?
3.	If not, what does he propose to do for the port of Fraserville?


Mr. MONK.: It seems to me this question contains allegations of fact; however, I will endeavour to answer it.
1.	It is the intention of the government, as soon as the appropriation of $70,000 referred to lias been passed *by parliament, to take the necessary steps to execute the work referred to in that appropriation.
2.	The plans and specifications prepared already will no doubt be used by the department when the appropriation is at its disposal.
3.	Answered by 1 and 2.


JUDGE BLAISE LETELLIER.
Mr. LAVALLEE:: 1.	At what place is the fixed residence of the Honourable Judge Blaise Letellier, one of the judges of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec?
2.	Is it within or without the judicial district of Chicoutimi, for which he was appointed?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to favour the interests of the honourable judge in permitting him to continue to reside in Bruce, or will it, in the interests of the pub-lio, require the honourable judge to reside in the midst of those wrho could utilize his services?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	His residence was fixed by order in council, in accordance with the Quebec statute, at Chicoutimi.
2.	Within.
3.	The government is not aware that Mr. Justice Letellier resides elsewhere than at Chicoutimi, but the attention of the honourable judge will be drawn, to this question.


COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS AT PASPEBIAC.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Was Mr. Notary Beauchesne, of Paspe-biae, county of Bonaventure, dismissed as collector of customs, who has been collector at the same place since 1905? If so, what was the exact date?
2.	For what reason and who requested his dismissal?
3.	Is the collector of customs at Paspebiac, Mr. Marcil, a brother or a relative of the member for Bonaventure?
1.	Who recommended the appointment of the present collector of customs at Paspebiac and on what grounds?


Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	P. C. Beauchesne, collector of customs at Paspebiac, Quebec, was superannuated from 15th November, 1910, on his application for retirement.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Thos. H. Marcil, the present collector of customs at Paspebiac, is a brother of the member of parliament for Bonaventure.
4.	His appointment was recommended by the Hon. Wm. Paterson, Minister of Customs, on the grounds that the position was made vacant by the superannuation of Mr. Beauchesne.


LEASE OP LAND AT BRONTE.
Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	Has the government, or the Department of Marine and Fisheries, entered into an agreement at any time with the Police Village of Bronte, in the county of Halton, for a lease of a parcel of land in said village, hounded by Lake Ontario on the south, the lands of one Joyce on the west, Chisholm street on the north and, the Twelve Mile creek on the east, for a public park or playgrounds?
2.	Has a lease for such purpose been at any time drafted?
3.	Has such lease been executed by the government and the trustees of said village?
i. If not, is it intended to have such lease completed? If not, why not?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	This is receiving consideration.


Mr. LAVALLEE.: 


MR. J. P. THERRIEN.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has J. F. Therrien, Inland Revenue Officer of Nicolet, P.Q., been dismissed?
2.	If so, on what grounds and at whose request ?


Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	Mr. J. F. Therrien, Assistant Inspector of Weights and Measures, residing at Nicolet, has been dismissed.
2.	His dismissal was on the grounds of political partisanship, and was the result of charges brought against him by the member for the riding of Nicolet.


IMMIGRATION FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. TURRIFF.: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), and to make the question plain it will be necessary for me to read a letter:.
Winnipeg, February 12, 1912.
Re Wm. Pearson Co., Ltd.
As yon are no doubt aware, the above mentioned company, of which I am vicepresident, is conducting an extensive colonization business. During the years 1910 and 1911 we have paid out in actual cash something in excess of $600,000 in the business of bringing in settlers, and we have met with a large measure of success. During the past year we have sold some 60,000 acres in quarter and half sections to actual settlers, and we will have three train loads of settlers effects coming in this spring to settle on the lands disposed of last season.
Naturally the attitude of the Dominion government towards American immigration is of great importance to us, in view of the fact that we have still some 200,000 acres to settle.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I beg to say to the hon. member that it is not permissible to bring in documents of a controversial character like that, and read them in the House for the purpose of founding a question upon them, I gave that ruling only yesterday.


Mr. ROGERS.: It is all right.


John Gillanders Turriff: I submitted this to the Minister of the Interior, and it is necessary to make public the information in order to let the minister know


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have only to say that the ruling I gave is in accordance with the rules of he House.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is not a controversial matter; there is nothing of controversy in it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.
NA PIERVILiLE POST OFFICE SITE.


Right Hon.   R.@: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I have already ruled, the introduction of any controversial matter to be read in the House for the purpose of basing a question on it at this stage is against the rules of the House. An infraction of that rule cannot be tolerated on the plea of asking a question. I call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Lanctot) to that lule. I trust that the hon. member, speaking in a language with which he thinks I am not familiar, would not assume to himself rights, which under other circumstances, would not be granted.


SOUTH AFRICAN BOUNTY SCRIP.
Mr. KNOWLES.: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior, and also to call his attention to what I think is a matter of grave importance. I wish to ask the hon. gentleman when we may expect to know the action of the government in respect to the South African Volunteer Bounty Act and to call his attention to the fact that his delay is causing a great deal of incom'enienee and suspense to the people who are waiting the decision of the 100
government with respect to the extension of the South African Bounty Scrip.


Robert Rogers: I am fully conscious of the delay that has taken place and I hope to be able to bring the Bill down early next week.


IMMIGRATION FROM THE UNITED STATES.
John Gillanders Turriff: I wish to put a question to the Minister of the Interior. It is generally reported through the American press that the present government is oj>-posed to American immigrants coming into Canada, and that report has been circulated in a manner to do a great deal of harm to Canadian interests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The hon. member is quite out of order in trying to discuss a question like that at this stage, or to place before the House any subject that may be of controversial character, and which may lead to discussion.


John Gillanders Turriff: I shall not transgress any further, but I think I am entitled to ask a question, and I want to ask whether the government is opposed to immigrants coming in from the United States. l"could have put the matter a great deal plainer, if I had been allowed to explain it a little.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Robert Rogers: This is a very important question and in case it might be misunderstood, I hope I will be allowed to answer the question put by my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) I may say in the first place that I regret to learn from him that the American newspapers have given expression to the statement that this government is opposed to American immigrants coming into Canada. We want to get as many settlers from the United States as we can, believing as we do, Mr. Speaker, that we will get a class of immigrants from the United States who will make highly desirable settlers in this country, because, as we know, they have a knowledge of the conditions prevailing here. I want to say to my hon. friend that we will continue in that course in the hope that we may bring about a very large immigration from the United States, feeling as we do that these immigrants will better their conditions in this country as have those who have already come to us.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act by providing-
(a)	for the temporary employment of railway mail clerks fop a period of not more than
[Stage Direction]


one year, at a salary of $500 and mileage allowance;
(b)	for the appointment of temporary railway mail clerks as permanent clerks, with salaries not exceeding that which they received as such temporary clerks, but who shall not be eligible for an increase of salary until they have passed the necessary examination. -Mr. Pelletier.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. PELLETIER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 105) to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House went 'into committee on the following proposed resolution:
Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask the Postmaster General if he would be kind enough to have prepared a tabulated statement showing the number of offices affected, the number of employees and the amount involved annually by the changes which are brought about by this legislation? At first sight I am quite favourable to the principle, 'but I would like to see a tabulated statement showing the number of offices and the amount involved by this legislation. I think the minister will find in the department forms covering that information because formerly, when similar legislation was introduced, tabulated statements were furnished.


Mr. PELLETIER.: I have had a memorandum prepared for my own information and when the matter is taken up in the committee I will be pleased to supply the information.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act by- .	.
(a) changing the classification of the clerks in the city post offices, offices of the post office inspectors, office of superintendent of railway mail service, and in the money order exchange offices by abolishing the stampers and sorters class and fourth-class clerkships, and substituting therefor third-class clerkships, ranging from $500 to $1,000, and divided into two classes known as third-class * A * and ' B.'
(h) abolishing the junior and senior second-class clerkships and substituting therefor classes ' A ' and ' B ' of the second-class, and increasing the maximum of the class formerly known as junior second, and now known as class ' B/ to $1,200, and increasing the maximum of class * A,' corresponding with the former senior second-class, to $1,400.
(c)	dividing the first-class clerkships into
division ' A ' and ' B ' with maximum salaries of $1,800 and $1,600, respectively, and increasing the minimum of the first-class clerkships from $1,200 to $1,400, and creating a new class of clerks, to he known as chief clerks, in the city post offices, subject to certan .restrictions;	. .
(d)	improving the position of office superintendent in city offices, and changing what was formerly a fixed salary of $1,800 to a minimum of $1,800 and a maximum of $2,500;
(e)	providing for the employment of temporary clerks in the above named offices for a period of not more than one year, at a fixed salary of $500, and temporary helpers to meet the exigencies of the service at a salary not exceeding $2.50 a day;	.
(f)	increasing the salaries of certain inspectors, assistant inspectors and superintendents of railway mail service in recognition of years
of service;	. .	.
(g) increasing the minimum of the salaries of inspectors and superintendents of the railway mail service from $1,600 to $1,800.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. PELLETIER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 106) to amend the Civil Service Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I just want the figures with reference to the various classes affected.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am afraid that it might take some little time. I might let the hon. gentleman have my copy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the minister will send me his copy I will be very glad.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting grain-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
On section 46:

fees for examination.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto.. That is a clause upon which there was a little discussion and it was allowed to stand over. After looking into it I cannot see any way of making' a change in it that would be more satisfactory. There are eight or ten examiners, there are not many who go up for examination, the maximum fee is $20 and with travelling expenses, secretarial fees and whatever is necessary there is not much left to be distributed and these examiners get nothing else except what they get from fees. There are no statistics in the department, with reference to the matter at all. It is arranged by themselves and as far as .1 know there has never been any complaint in regard to it.
Mr. OLIVER.: My hon. friend is responsible for the Bill and its amendment and I would not delay the committee at all to discuss this provision further than to state that I entirely disagree with the position he takes and I think that what has occurred in the past and the. fact that there is no information about it in the


Robert Rogers: department is no evidence as to what course should be pursued in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 48. subsection 3:-standards.
Frank Oliver: In section 48 there was a subclause added. We had a subsequent discussion on that subclause. Has the minister reached any further conclusion in regard to it or does he still stand by the subsection?
Mr. FOSTER I think there was an addition made to that clause.


Frank Oliver: Yes, there was an adthe minister's attention J 1-r- f , ,tbat it was possible that the addition had been made under some misapprehension and I asked for his further consideration on it. The point considered unbthiu1,SHSe*t10n *WaS, that the Srade established by the standards board would be su ject to aipproval by the commissioners. These grades are fixed by a board of experts and then their decision is made sulb-ject by this provision to review :by the ports* ^ommiss'oners who are not ex-


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I gave further consideration to that and probably under the circumstances it is best to leave it with the standards boards- itself.
There seems to be no reason why the words 'en route to points to the east thereof should -be considered in that section. All grain has to be inspected which passes through the Winnipeg district. It may be routed to Fort William or any point in Eastern Canada, but it may also be routed south, or, when the Hudson Bay railway is opened up, it may be routed north. I move that these words be struck out.


Frank Oliver: Where is the grain inspected, that goes by the Great Northern line from southern Manitoba to Duluth.?


George Eulas Foster: At Duluth,
by one of our inspectors.


Frank Oliver: Does not all this grain originate in the Winnipeg district, and it passes out of the Winnipeg district.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Where does the Winnipeg district extend to?


Frank Oliver: It is indefinite, 'but it certainly extends just as far as Portage la Prairie.
On section 96-regulations as to binning and cleaning,


George Eulas Foster: I move that the following he added as subelause 2:


Frank Oliver: I would think so.


George Eulas Foster: 
Mr FOSTER (North Toronto).: We made an adition to that clause, adding a third to the two already existing exceptions to the general rule. Further investigation shows that the number of cases of that kind so tar nave beenvery few, and there is a possibility that if the person who is re-ceivmg the grain, having bought it some time before, finds that the price has gone down in the meantime, there is an incen-tlve to raise the question and to try to get out of his obligations. I therefore move that section 80 be reconsidered, and that the amendments placed there the other day be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to,.
2. In any terminal elevator where facilities do not exist to permit of the inspecting officer securing proper samples of grain which is being shipped from such elevator, the board may order the warehouseman of such elevator to immediately supply such additional facilities as in its judgment will secure the desired results. Any terminal warehouse man neglecting to comply within thirty days with the order of the board as aforesaid shall be guilty of an offence and punishable upon summary conviction with a fine of not less than five hundred dollars for each such offence.
In some elevators the light is so defective that the inspector is unable to obtain a good view of the grain as it passes. He has to reach away down in a rather dark place to take his sample, and while he is doing that things may happen. This provision simply lays on the warehouseman the duty of -providing fair facilities for the inspection, and imposes upon him a penalty if he does not comply with the request of the board.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 91,
George Eulas Foster: Section 91 now reads:
All grain produced in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and in the Northwest Territories, passing through the Winnipeg district en route to points to the east thereof shall be inspected.
100J	*


Frank Oliver: The amendment is probably necessary, but it is fairly long and cumbersome. Would the minister have any objection to let it stand ur.tii we have the opportunity of seeing it in print tomorrow?


George Eulas Foster: Not at all.
Motion allowed to stand.

On section 104-offices in Winnipeg.


George Eulas Foster: For some time past there has been a demand more or less strong, and gradually growing more strong, for the establishment of a grain survey in the Calgary district; and in view of its geographical position and of the outlet to the west at the head of which Calgary stands, it is proposed to make provision in the Act for the establishment of a Survey Board and fcr placing Calgary in that respect in the same position as Winnipeg in the eastern part of the western division. Therefore, I move | that the following section be added immediately after clause 104:
104A. An additional Survey Board shall be established appointed for the Disitript of Calgary in the western inspection division, with such powers and under such special regulations and restrictions as the board may from time to time determine.
2.	The said Surrey Board shall consist ot six persons, to be nominated by the Board of Trade of the city of Calgary, the competency of the persons so nominated to be approved by the board.
3.	The provisions of section 101, s>msec-tion 3 of section 102 and section 103 of this Act shall apply to any such Survey Board.
I propose to move this, and then allow it to stand ior the consideration of the committee. It involves looking into some sections, and it involves an amendment to another section which I intend to introduce.


Frank Oliver: I would ask the minister to take into consideration the advisability of distributing to some degree the right of nomination to this board. I do not wish at this moment to suggest anything definite; but I think that in the case of the standard board certain other important and responsible bodies are given the right of nomination. I think it would be well to apply that principle to this Survey Board at Calgary.


George Eulas Foster: I have paid some attention to that, discussing the matter with my officers. The governments practically of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, had the right of nominating one half the Survey Board as it at present exists. The question that my hon. friend has raised is, as to whether similar procedure should not toe carried out with reference to the Calgary board.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: 
Mr. NEELY.: Would that mean that all grain going east of Calgary as well as grain going* west, would be inspected at Calgary?


George Eulas Foster: It is inspected in Calgary now.


Frank Oliver: Grain going west?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: By government inspectors? I wanted to ask the minister if he would take into consideration the question of amplifying this amendment so that it would if necessary operate in other places.
It is not necessary to describe Calgary, or any other town, at present, in the Act, to recognize the principle that it is possibly in the development of trade to have one not only at Calgary, as it seems now, but at other points from where, in course of time, the grain may eventually be found to be moving in large quantities. I Would ask- the minister to take into consideration the drafting of a clause such as this: That the board and the Governor in Council, if sometimes they found the necessity to arise, may have power to establish at o1he>' places what we are in the Act proposing to do and establish at Calgary. In this way every precaution would be provided. The Governor in Council would have to approve of it, and the board, and there would then be permanency in our legislation, and we would not have to go back to parliament any time a change was suggested.


George Eulas Foster: 
Frank Oliver: Is it proposed to make provision for constituting Calgary an order point?


George Eulas Foster: I will come to that a little later.


William Erskine Knowles: I would ask the minister if within the subdivisions the grain is already inspected and gets the regular government certificate as to its grade the same as at Winnipeg?


George Eulas Foster: If a subdivision was made and a district constituted, it would then carry with it the inspection of the grain, and the inspection of the grain would carry with it the grade. But my hon. friend will see that it is inadvisable to amplify this unless there is some real necessity for it for various reasons.
Section allowed to stand.


George Eulas Foster: We now come to the matter of the standards which were left off the other day. In section 105 some changes were made in the definitions under oats, barley and peas. That necessitated the placing of a clause in section 105 to prevent confusion as between the time of the passing of this Act and the first of next season. The law clerk has looked over the amendment which was proposed and has come to the conclusion that it does not quite meet the case and is not quite in legal phraseology, and he has drawn a clause which I will move to substitute for subsection 2. of clause 105. It reads:
2. This section shall not come into force until the 1st day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twelve, and until the said date such provisions of the Acts mentioned itn section 247 of this Act as relate to matters dealt with by this section shall continue in force.
That I suppose is plain enough. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) want this to stand as well or shall we substitute it?


Frank Oliver: I think it would be as well to let it stand.
Section allowed to stand.


George Eulas Foster: In the case of section 107 the same remark applies and the same procedure will be carried out -the clause prepared by the law clerk will be substituted. I move to substitute it for the present standing subsection 2. The clause reads as follows:
2. This section shall not come into force until the 1st day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twelve, and until the said date such provisions of the Acts mentioned in section 247 of this Act as relate to matters dealt with by this section shall continue in force.
Section allowed to stand.


George Eulas Foster: We next come to the matter cf changing the names of the grades, which was pretty fully discussed in committee on a previous occasion. Two things are apparent-that the committee is not all agreed upon either one or the other names. The proposition I made was to eliminate ' Manitoba ' and substitute the words either ' Canada ' or ' Canada Western I have not particularly changed my views with reference to it. But I never like trouble in the family, and some of the younger members of the family are very tenacious of the old name. I do not like to inflict any unnecessary pain upon good members of the family by withdrawing from them a name which has been dear to them from their youth up. They seem to have been cradled on Manitoba wheat, brought up on Manitoba Hard or No. 1 Northern, and it has gone to the very root and fibre of their being. I am not so hard hearted as to try to pull it up. However, there is another consideration that has been presented to me that although it would not make much confusion in the matter of wheat. I am told by exporters of flour that to change the name from ' Manitoba ' might have a far-reaching effect in the matter of flour, it would not have so much effect in respect of wheat. The flour which is made from wheat is sold in countries to which it is exported under 'Manitoba* of different grades, and the fear has been expressed by large exporters of flour that some confusion and possibly loss might ensue if the names were changed. Under these considerations I think it would be just as well for us to leave the matter stand as at present.


Frank Oliver: In regard to all the different grades?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, so far as wheat is concerned.


Frank Oliver: I hope the committee will pardon me for saying that I think this is a case where second thoughts are not the best. I think the committee came practically to a certain conclusion on the previous occasion. The committee accepted the minster's suggestion, but added somewhat to it; it was the suggestion, at any rate, upon which the majority of the committee would have agreed, I think. I would strongly urge that if there is any difficulty about changing these names

that difficulty will increase year after year, and not diminish. There is no doubt at all that the names at present are an anomaly I venture to express the opinion that the reason given by tbe exporters of flour has absolutelj no foundation. They are at liberty to call their flour by whatever name they please; as a matter of fact any change we would make in this Grain Act would net prevent them from doing so still. I cannot think that there is any warrant for their position in this matter. They would be, by all the laws of right and reason and morality, perfectly entitled to name their flour ' Manitoba ', although it was made from northwestern wheat, or wheat that carried the name ' Canada Western.' They would surely have just as much warrant in giving their flour the name * Manitoba ' as thev have to-day in giving their flour that name, although the wheat from which it is made never saw Manitoba. I pre same that is exactly what is done. We will suppose that flour ground at Moosejaw carries the name ' Manitoba ' but it never saw Manitoba. There is in that no moral wrong, that I know of. There is a certain quality expressed by the name, and that quality would be expressed by the same name just as well, though the wheat was marketed under a different name. I would urge this upon the minister, who I am sure takes a deep interest in this Bill, and I have no doubt he is taking a pardonable pride from his connection with it. But there are many others of us also who feel an interest in having legislation passed in such a shape that it would reflect credit upon us, and not condemn our judgment, not to say our common sense, if we allowed legislation to go through that, on the face of it, was not reasonable, and did not convey the idea that it purported to convey. Particularly is that the case now when we are submitting a new Act such as this, and under existing conditions it would be scarcely creditable to us if we did not. at as early a stage as possible, correct the anomaly that I have mentioned. We have no fault to find with those who in the first place gave these names to those grades, but conditions have changed since that time.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would like to emphasize if possible the line of argument taken by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). Whatever difficulties exist now must become greater and greater each year as the proportion of wheat grown in Manitoba to the total wheat grown in the three prairie provinces, becomes less and less. I am sure the members for Manitoba will realize that we are not asking anything unreasonable. We are not asking for a name that will designate Saskatchewan as the producer of that wheat, or designate M. OLIVER.
Alberta as the producer; we are only asking for a name that will be as satisfactory tc Manitoba as to the other two provinces. Since this matter was up for discussion the other day I have had an opportunity of talking with a member of a large milling concern, and he says that if the change is made as proposed by the minister, that is, to bracket the former name, with that protection the millers cannot suffer any injustice. I am sure that if this name is not -changed at the present time, it will be a continual source of more or less irritation, it cannot be otherwise As the hon. member for Edmonton says, we are revising this Bill from one end to the other and we ought now to make this change, especially as we are not suggesting anything that anybody in Manitoba would have any good ground to object to.


William Erskine Knowles: 
Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Mr. Chairman, I spoke on this question the other day, and I said then that the wheat that was grown in southern Manitoba was the best wheat in the world. Som-e hon. gentleman took exception to that. I looked up the proof in the meantime -and I wish to give the evidence in connection with this matter. We had Dr. C. E. Saunders giving his evidence in the Agricultural Committee in 1910 and on that occasion he said:
By Mr. Sharpe (Lisgar):
Q. What reason do you give for the quality of wheat in Manitoba being better than the quality in other districts?-A. A m-ore favourable ripening season; warmer weathe)'.
Q. Superior to Saskatchewan?-A. Yes, I think, from my baking tests.
These were actual tests in baking.
Q. If you were a miller would you pay more for Manitoba wheat than Saskatchewan wheat? A. I think probably I should be willing to pay a little more especially in an unfavourable season, provided the Manitoba wheat was of the same grade and equally good in appearance.
Here we have the statement of the best qualified man we have in Canada, a man who has gone into this question fully and made actual tests by baking the flour, and ihis -evidence goes to show conclusively that the wheat coming from southern Manitoba is the best wheat gro-wn in the world to-day. As for this change that is proposed by my good friends from the west from * Manitoba ' to ' Western ' or ' Canada ' wheat, as far as ' Canada ' wheat is concerned, I do not think we should consider that for a moment, and as far as making it ' Western ' wheat is concerned, I do not think we should -consider that either, because, as I stated the other day, Manitoba was the first province to go into the growing of wheat in western Canada, and I think that Manitoba is entitled to have the name -of the wheat remain as it is.


William Erskine Knowles: Why has she any more right 'than the rest?


William Henry Sharpe: Because the
name is there and it is established all over the world. There is no reason for the change.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. gentleman surely will not say that because a person has had a favour he is entitled to a continuance of that favour?


William Henry Sharpe: it is not a
favour at all; it is a name that is established all over the world, and why change it?.


William Erskine Knowles: We might let you keep it if you said it was a favour, but when you say that you have a right to it, that is different.


John Gillanders Turriff: If the grain grown in southern Manitoba is the best that is grown, how does my hon. friend account for the fact that last year, when there was a prize given of $1,000 in cash for the best wheat, the wheat that won that prize was produced not in southern Manitoba and not in southern Saskatchewan, but in the more northern portion of the province of Saskatchewan. I have no doubt but that you can take samples of wheat from southern Manitoba, which -grows fine wheat- I cannot complain of the quality of wheat in southern Manitoba-compare that with wheat from some parts of Saskatchewan and the Manitoba wheat may be found to be better. But what I claim is that wheat on the average grown throughout southern Manitoba is not any better than wheat grown throughout southern Saskatchewan, because it is practically the same class of wheat, and I know as a matter of fact that the millers, who are better judges than

anybody else, keep their analysts there every day to test every car load of wheat having reference to where it comes from, and they say that the wheat of southern Saskatchewan is equal in every respect to wheat from any other part of the west. A great many portions of northern Saskatchewan also produce equally as good wheat for milling purposes; so that the claim that Manitoba wheat is better cannot be made good if you go to the men who buy wheat for grinding purposes and pay for it, because they pay just as much tor wheat grown west of Manitoba as they do for wheat grown in Manitoba.


William Henry Sharpe: The hon. gentleman asked me how I accounted loi wheat in Saskatchewan winning the thousand dollar prize. That brings us to the question of the grading of wheat m western Canada, and, in my humble opinion the grading of wheat in western Canada is on a wrong basis.	,
I consider that all wheat should be tested, and graded according to the test and that the system should not be as .it is at the present time. In the grading rooms in Winnipeg, you find a long table with hundreds of samples, and they will look at each sample and they will grade it according to its appearance as JNo. 1, No 2 and No. 3 and so on, while, as a matter of fact, if you would test each of these samples, as has been done in some cases, vou would very often find that No. 3 would make just as good flour, as No. 1 or No. 2. I consider that the system should be changed, and the wheat graded according to actual tests.


Mr. BRAIN.: When the matter was considered before by the committee, I expressed myself in favour of the change proposed by the minister to call it ' Canada Wheat/ I still! hold the same opinion, . but I have strong objections to the proposition of my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) because that name would make the distinction between one part of Canada and the other even more pronounced than the original name ' Manitoba.' I say this for fear I may be misunderstood. If the alternative is between calling it ' Canada West ' or ' Manitoba ' for my part I would prefer to make no change and all the more so because the name ' Manitoba ' has earned a distinction in the markets of the world for which the Province of Manitoba is entitled to credit.


Mr. ROBB.: When the question was before the committee at its last sitting, I took the position that the word ' Manitoba ' should rerhain. I am glad to know that the minister has repented and decided that he is not going to unduly interfere with the trade of Canada in the markets of the world by changing the name from ' Manitoba.' It is quite reasonable that our friends in Alberta and Saskatchewan should each stand up for the name which iconieerns his particular province, but I trust these hon. gentlemen will take a wider view of the question. Remember, that Canada has built up a large trade throughout the world on the word ' Manitoba ' not only in wheat but in flour.
We might in this respect, take a leaf out of the book of our American friends under whose system all the wheat grown in the hard wheat belt of the United States northwest is practically recognized on the markets of the world as ' Duluth.' The mills in Minneapolis and Duluth grind millions of bushels of Kansas wheat, but thev shin that flour out branded ' Minnesota,' and they do that because that name has earned a world-wide reputation. In the same way the word ' Manitoba ' on our wheat to-day is worth millions of dollars to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. These other provinces will gain nothing by changing that name. Manitoba has a reputation in the wheat -markets ot the world, and it is worth more to the -province of Saskatchewan than it is to the province of Manitoba, because Saskatchewan now produces more wheat than the older -province. The hon. gentleman from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) made reference to the methods of inspecting wheat which -he thought were wrong, and he gave as an instance that No. 3 wheat sometimes made better flour than No. 1, but he -did not tell the House that No. 3 did not make as much flour as No. 1, and in that respect the grading is not too^ far wrong. I am glad the minister has decided not to interfere with the trade and commerce of the country by changing the name of our wheat. The hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) told us of a conversation he had with one of the large millers who said to him that our trade would not suffer any if the name were changed. Well, I have had -conversations with large millers, and they expressed the opinion that if the government unduly interfered with the business of the country in attempting to change this name, there would be a great loss to the whole Dominion, and I fancy that the opinion of these millers has had something to do with the change of heart which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has experienced.


Mr. STAPLES.: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) stated that we had practically agreed at the last sitting of the committee that we should change the name.


John Gillanders Turriff: No.


William D. Staples: Well, the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) certainly did make that statement.


Frank Oliver: I have no recollection of having made it.


John Gillanders Turriff: 


William D. Staples: My recollection is that nearly every man who spoke on the opposite side of the House stated that we on this side were agreed, to change the name.


Frank Oliver: I want to say right here now that I absolve the hon. member (Mr. Staples) from having agreed, because I remember very distinctly his request for a different name.


William D. Staples: That is just the point l want to come to, because I thought the hon. member (Mr. Oliver), hud me in his mind when he made that statement. 1 was very careful to say that in case of a change I would prefer the name ' Prairie,' and I agreed to that only on condition that the word ' Manitoba ' was to be changed at all. Of course, I would rather have the word ' Manitoba ' remain. The hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) who is a practical miller, has told r.s the' other millers in this country have stated to him that there would be a material commercial loss if we changed the name, and there is no doubt about that. I trust this committee will vote to retain the name ' Manitoba ' which has done so much to establish throughout the world the high quality of wheat we are able to grow in Canada.


Mr. BRODER.: We should consider the matter very carefully before we attempt to change this name. It is my opinion that whether you change it or not, the buyers on the markets of the world, who know the brand, will continue to call it ' Manitoba.' My advice is: let well enough alone.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, bean


Andrew Broder: We are often told that there is a broad spirit throughout the west, but some of the representatives of the west are very provincial when they get ('own here. The people of the other provinces were glad to call their wheat ' Manitoba Wheat ' at one time, and that, name has made a reputation -well-deserved. Anybody who has experience of the markets of England, knows that there is great danger in changing a trade-mark, if that trademark has been satisfactory to the market, and that applies to wheat as it. does to anything else. I believe we should retain the name ' Manitoba Hard 1 until we find something better.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Broder), has told us that no matter what name we apply to this wheat the millers will continue to call it by the present name.


Andrew Broder: The change of the name would lead to confusion.


Frank Oliver: I do not think so, then is no confusion when they grind Kansas
wheat and call it ' Duluth,' and the hon. member (Mr. Broder), has said that the millers give the name ' Manitoba ' to wheat that never saw Manitoba.


Andrew Broder: I did not mention a word about the millers.


Frank Oliver: There is one point that I want to submit to the committee to show the absolutfe unfairness and injustice of the use of the name 'Manitoba' as applied to wheat. The higher grades are called .Manitoba; the lower grades are not called Manitoba. So far then as the name goes as an advertisement, it is a notice to the world that the only high grade wheat is grown in Manitoba, and that wheat not of a high grade	comes from	other provinces.
That is an absolute injustice to the other	provinces. I produced here
the other day the market quotations in the Manitoba 'Free Press,' and in these quotations _ the word 'Manitoba' was not used, because it happened, the grades that would call for that name were not on the market. I would like it to be thoroughly understood that this is not a mere matter of whim or caprice; I should think it is a case in which a very serious and grave injustice is done to three-quarters of the prairie area at the demand of one-quarter. That is not legislation that should commend itself to this parliament.
Mr.HENDERSON. As I stated the other day, I am not a resident of any of the prairie provinces and, therefore, I am not prejudiced in favour of one or of the other. I can quite understand that Iron, members from Alberta and Saskatchewan may be prejudiced against the use of the name 'Manitoba.' The class of wheat and flour-branded as 'Manitoba' has attained a high name in the markets of the world. I simply regard this name 'Manitoba Hard' as a name for a certain kind of wheat and I do not think it has anything to do with the particular part of the country in which it is grown. I believe that the western country would lose heavily if the name is changed. I think that people in Great Britain, and even Ontario, where they ask for 'Manitoba Hard' and are sent wheat called by another name, will have their suspicions aroused and will not pay the high price for it they otherwise would. I am conservative enough to stick to the old name and I do not think it is going to injure any of the other provinces. On the contrary, I believe it will be for the general benefit of the Dominion. I am glad the Minister of Trade and Commerce Has decided to leave the matter where it was, where it is, and where I hope it will -emain. For example, Indian corn is -ailed Indian corn, no matter whether it 's grown in Japan, or in Asia, or in The 'rgpntine, and the giving it of the name Indian corn does not in any way injure

the corn grown in the states of the American union. Indian corn is simply the name of a certain grain, and so it is that 'Manitoba Hard' has come to be the name of a certain species of grain, irrespective of where it is grown. We should leave it as it is and not take any chances.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived.
Yeas, 38; Nays, 72.


William Erskine Knowles: The other day there was a diversity of opinion as to whether, in case a change was made, we would adopt the term ' Canada Western ' or the term ' Canada.' My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffnei) on that occasion was so convinced that ' Canada Western ' was the proper term that he made a motion to that effect. I find on page 2831 of ' Hansard ':


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I move that it be amended to read ' Canada Western.'
I had an idea that the hon. gentleman's views would remain in a certain consistency for this length of time, but the Bill has been deferred longer than we -expected, and his views have evidently changed. I do not know what view he would have taken if the Bill had gone over to the week end. Probably he would have come back to the view which he held on February 9. Of course, he is entitled to his	views after the question had
been discussed, as the minister said, in the family; and I congratulate him on the fact that the family gathered in a good sized audience without any desertions. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) the other day spoke with considerable emphasis in favour of the word ' Canada;' and hoping that he has not had the same experience as my hon. friend from Souris of getting lame in his views, I am going to move:
That section 107 be amended by striking out, in line 18, the word ' Manitoba ' and inserting in -place thereof the word ' Canada.'
This was the view which the hon. member for Peel held when we last discussed this matter, and I am sure he will second the motion.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not think any member on the other side besides the hon. member for Moosejaw was not aware that I stood strongly for the word ' Manitoba ' and I gave my reasons. I was the first man to speak in favour of the word ' Manitoba ' being retained. I am not at all fond of post mortems. I wanted a name that would designate our wheat as a western wheat, and if the word ' Manitoba ' was to be changed, I was sn favour of ' Western Canada ' or ' Canada Western.' But first and last and all the time I was in favour of ' Manitoba ' if it was possible to retain that name.


Mr. HENDERSON.: 


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is hardly fair to myself, who promptly seconded the motion he made. I think he should in fairness have consulted his seconder before he changed his views.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That would perhaps have been more parliamentary, but I like the word ' Manitoba ' better.
Committee divided on amendment of Mr. Knowles:	Yeas, 31; nays, 43.
Amendment negatived.


Frank Oliver: I notice that the hon. member for Peel did not vote, and I would ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to that.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I have no ruling to make.


George Eulas Foster: With regard to barley, I move that after the word ' grain ' in the 32nd line be added the words * and shall weigh not less than 48 pounds to the bushel.'


Frank Oliver: I do not want to delay the committee, but I think really that in this particular case the name ' Manitoba ' is so utterly preposterous that it might-very well be -changed. 1 think even the Manitoba millers woulcl consent to that change, because Manitoba is not the barley growing part of the west; that province has no prominence in barley. Not that it -makes any serious difference, but still for the sake of appearance in the Act I would respectfully suggest that a -change should be made. I should think th-ere ought to be no objection w giving it the name which was given t-o the oats in the immediately preceding part of the section, * Canadian Western,' or ' Canada Western.'


George Eulas Foster: This is a matter entirely for the committee so far as I am concerned. We have a general list already adopted and under that, eastern barley has been already dealt with.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: This deals with nothing but -barley in the western division. Perhaps my hon. friend did not think of that.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to press it, but still it seems to me really so absurd that we could afford to make the -change here so as to be conforming to the oats. The oats are -classed as ' Canadian Western,' and it really -seems to -be very proper if the barley were -classed in the same way, -either ' Canadian Western,' or ' Canada Western.'


George Eulas Foster: Then if the committee will consider this:	'No. 1
Canada Western Barley.'


Frank Oliver: ' Canada Western/ I think would be better. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we make the designation ' Canada Western ' in the case of both oats and barley.


George Eulas Foster: It is so in oats.


Frank Oliver: ' Canadian West,' as it is in oats.


George Eulas Foster: I have it changed in my notes.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps the minister will explain to us what is the difference between the barley in the eastern division and the barley in the western division. I can see no difference, excepting in No. 4 grade, it is practically the same specifications.


George Eulas Foster: I find the same weight.


James Alexander Robb: Excepting in No. 4 grade. In the eastern division it is 44 pounds and in the western 45 pounds.


George Eulas Foster: I am not going to change the western. I find that although I made the suggestion and marked it in my notes, that in reference to oats, the title was left * 'Canadian ' instead of ' Canada.' I move to substitute * Canada ' for ' Canadian.' ' Extra No. 1 Canada Western Oats,' and the same in the other divisions 1, 2 and 3.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: I move the same with regard to the items under the barley schedule. ' Canada Western Barely.' I oiove that the word 'Manitoba' be struck out in sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, and that the words * Canada Western ' be substituted. * No. 3 Extra Canada Western Barley ' shall be in all respects the same as No. 2 barley, except in colour, weighing not less than 46 pounds to the bushel.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: I propose to make a little more change in the nomenclature or description of No. 3. Instead of No. 3, I propose to substitute the following:
No. 3 Manitoba barley shall be reasonably clean and reasonably free from all other grain and shall include weather stained and slightly shrunken or sound barley free from frost, and weighing not less than 44 pounds to the bushel.
And in No. 4 after the word ' All,' insert the word 'damaged.' The damaged barley comes down then from No. 3 to No. 4, and 45 pounds becomes 44.


James Alexander Robb: Would the minister explain what barley will come under No. 4? He says:	' All damaged barley.' Supposing
that barley was so wet it would not be fit to ship, would it get the grade of No. 4?


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will refer to section 115 under all grains he will see where that was dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: Now at the top of page 30. We are going to be consistent and move that the word ' Manitoba,' in those two sections he struck out and ' Canada Western ' substituted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: With reference to the next schedule, that of flaxseed. A conference was held by all the different interests represented, the growers of flaxseed, our inspectors, and the linseed oil men who manufacture from flaxseed, and some changes were unanimously agreed upon. I will give them, if members of the committee will follow the changes. No. 1 Canada Northwestern flaxseed should be mature, sound, dry and sweet, and contain not more than twelve and a half per cent of damaged seed, and weigh not less than 51 lbs. to the bushel of commercially pure seed. That is, 51 is substituted instead of 53, the idea being that flaxseed dries out rapidly. Instead of 52 pounds substitute 50, for the same reason. Then the third paragraph will read in this way:	'No. 2 Manitoba Flaxseed,'
dropping out the word ' all ' beginning the clause. Then it will read:
No. 2 Manitoba flaxseed should he flaxseed which is immature, or musty, or which contains more than twenty-five per cent, of damaged seed, and is fit for warehousing, and testing not less than 47 pounds to the bushel of commercially pure seed.


John Gillanders Turriff: AVould that mean that it all had to be commercially pure seed?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, * it has to be commercially pure seed.


Frank Oliver: Would not my hon. friend make that name ' Canada Western ' ?


George Eulas Foster: That is what I proposed.


Frank Oliver: Would not my hon. friend consent to make the name ' Canada Western ' the same as in the case of oats and barley? I think it would be better to have it uniform,


George Eulas Foster: There is no objection. It is suggested that the first section should read as follows:	'No. 1
Northwestern Canada flaxseed.' Then the second one to read: 'No. 2 Canada Western flaxseed.' That makes it the same as oats except the first one.


Frank Oliver: I thought it would be well to make them all ' Canada Western.'

There is no possible significance in the words ' Northwestern Canada.'


George Eulas Foster: The commissioner thinks that it will be very much better to keep in the word ' Northwestern ' because it is very well known.


Frank Oliver: I am informed that the proportion of western flax that is grown in Manitoba, and particularly Northwestern Manitoba, is infinitesimal. I do not think that Northwestern Manitoba is a flax growing country at all and I know that northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan are not.


George Eulas Foster: That is a grade that is widely arid well known in the United States.


Frank Oliver: Having assented to one absurdity there is no reason why we should not assent to another. It is only for the sake of the credit of the grade and of the Act that I call the minister's attention to it.


George Eulas Foster: If absurdities get deeply rooted in the market, whatever we may think of their getting into the law, I suppose they will have to stay.


Frank Oliver: I am informed that the whole of the exported product of northwestern Manitoba for one year is about one car load. There is no doubt that most of the flax grown in Manitoba is grown in southern Manitoba.


George Eulas Foster: It has that name no matter where it is grown.


Frank Oliver: Well, my hon. friend is privileged to keep the name. I would like to ask the minister the reason for making the weight so far below the standard weight of flax as stated in section 58. In section 58 the standard weight of flax is placed at 56 pounds and we are making the maximum weight under this section 5! pounds. Would the minister give us the reasons for making that difference?


George Eulas Foster: The weights under these grade standards are not put according to the weights in the section to which my hon. friend has referred: The section says:
08. In contracts for the sale and delivery of any of the undermentioned articles, the bushel shall be determined by weighing, unless a bushel by measure is specially agreed upon and the weight equivalent to a' bushel shall, except as hereinafter provided, be'as follows:_
Barley, forty-eight pounds;
Buckwheat, forty-eight pounds;
Flax-seed, fifty-six pounds;
Indian corn, fifty-six pounds;
Oats, thirty-four pounds;
Peas, sixty pounds;
Rye, fifty-six pounds;
Wheat, sixty pounds.


Frank Oliver: -

* ...
the present standard is 53 pounds in the first case, 52 pounds in the second and 40 in the third, all of them, as my hon. friend will see, several pounds lower than the standard. These are lowered again as the result of a conference between the different interests on account of shrinkage by drying.


Frank Oliver: The matter comes with particular force because with all other grains we adopt a standard for the higher qualities which is higher than the weight laid down in the Act and I am afraid it will be argued that our flax seed is inferior on account of the lighter weight allowed notwithstanding the fact that we claim it is higher. That is a claim we make with respect to other grains for the higher qualities of which we prescribe a weight, heavier than the standard!


George Eulas Foster: It is a matter that is more technical than my knowledge goes. I find that in the Minnesota grades in the United States the same disparity exists


Frank Oliver: What is their maximum?


George Eulas Foster: Fifty-one pounds for No. 1 North Western flax seed. The others are exactly the same weight as ours.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think it is very advisable that our standard of flax especially should not be any higher than the standard in Minneapolis.
On section 115: no grade; condemned; rejected; scoured grain,


George Eulas Foster: It is proposed to remodel clause 115. The remodelling of the clause really brings things into parity with that which is now, and has been for years, the practice in the inspection followed by all the inspectors. I. therefore, propose that the' clause shall read:
All good grain that has an excessive moisture, being tough, damp, or wet. or otherwise unfit for warehousing, shall he entered on the inspecting officer's books as 'No Grade ' with his notations as to quality and condition.
Subsection 2 stands as it is in the present Bill. It is proposed that subsection 3 shall read as follows:
All grain which is unsound, musty, dirty, smutty, sprouted, or contains a large admixture of other kinds of grain, seeds and wild oats, or from any other cause is unfit to be classed under any of the recognized grades, shall be classed as 'Rejected,' with the inspector's notations as to quality and condition.
Subsection 4 and 5 stand as they are. As this is a change which is a little radical, although in accordance exactly with

the practice of the inspection, I will move that, and let it stand for. consideration.


Frank Oliver: When this section was considered before there was some suggestion with regard to hospital elevators, and it was suggested that some provision be made in this section. Has the minister made provision further on for preventing the mixing of good grain with inferior grain in hospital elevators?


George Eulas Foster: No, we will come to that in section 124.
On section 120: receipt and investigation of complaints,


George Eulas Foster: The subsections there are (a), (b) and (c). It is proposed to add (d) and (e), and the purpose of the addition will be seen when I read the clauses:
(d)	Of any violation of the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations in pursuance thereof.
(e)	For ihe purpose of any such investigation, the board shall have power to summon witnesses, tO administer an oath, to examine such witnesses under oath, and to compel production of all books and documents relating in any way to the matter complained of.
In the preceding investigations, it was t: und that they were much more difficult and in some cases, that they fell through for lack of these powers.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 124.
George Eulas Foster: There was an opinion expressed against the mixing of grain in hospital elevators, and I understand the suggestion was carried so far as to say that no good grain should be taken into these hospital elevators at all. If that were done, I am told that the existence of these hospital elevators would be jeopardized, as it would leave little chance for them doing any work in seasons when there is not much damaged grain. The hospital elevator has been in existence for some years and it has given added value to a great deal of grain that would be otherwise valueless. I am informed that the hospital elevator has been caried on in a satisfactory manner so far as our officials know.


Frank Oliver: I am aware of the difficulty *of preventing the mixing of good grain "with the treated grain, once it is allowed into an hospital elevator, but, at the same time, I would urge on the minister that it is desirable to declare in the Act that such mixing shall not take place and then we would have to trust to the administration of the commission to ensure that mixing did not take place.


George Eulas Foster: The Act now expressly forbids any mixing of grain ir. an hospital elevator.


Frank Oliver: I do not think it is explicit in that.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, it prohibits mixing in a terminal elevator, and a terminal elevator is interpreted to include an hospital elevator.


William Erskine Knowles: The restriction says that hospital elevators can only be at terminal points. I can conceive that there would be a possibility that an hospital elevator might be required at some other place. There is at present an agitation for the establishment of internal storage elevators and a concomitant of this is an hospital elevator. I believe the railways are regarding, with very considerable favour, the proposition to establish these internal storage elevators at different places. This past season has shown, as never before how it would have been profitable to have internal storage elevators to take grain away from the prairies to some railway centre where it could be stored and treated. If this plan were adoipted by the railways at their own expense-I am not leaving out for the present the question of the government financing such internal storage elevators-there would be a necessity for hospital elevators in connection with them. A gieat many prominent farmers in the west are of the opinion that this, question should be taken into serious consideration by the transportation companies and the government. _ If we had had such a system this year it would have meant the saving of millions of dollars to the farmers of the west. I would suggest that the restriction of confining hospital elevators to terminal points be omitted. Then again, the Minister of Trade and Commerce informed me some time ago that it was possible inspection might be arranged for at different internal places, calling them subdistricts within the inspection division. It is possible for the ib-oard, with or without the concurrence of the Governor in Council, to establish machinery, at points such as Saskatoon, Brandon and Moosejaw, for instance, without coming to parliament for further authority.


George Eulas Foster: So far as it appears to me now, I see no reason in the world why an hospital elevator should not be at at any other place as well as at Fort William or Port Arthur. In any case, there is no reason why at say an important place like Calgary, which may have a large storage elevator, there should not be an hospital elevator. If internal storage elevators are to be established throughout the west, it would be of the Very greatest benefit that there should be hospital elevators in connection with them. While this sec-

tion would not permit it, and while I do not see any reason why it should not be done, I will not make any change without further consideration. As to whether the board has authority to establish complete inspection districts, within inspection divisions, and to equip them as order points and the like of 'that, I think my hon. friend will come to the conclusion, when he studies the question, that the lesser the number of these subdivisions the better for the general working of the Act. My information is that they should be extended Very conservatively and not without great public necessity.
Mr.-KNOWLES. Suppose in the town of Moosejaw an. internal storage elevator were to be constructed, and there would be an hospital elevator in connection with it, one of the advantages which is spoken of a.s being a strong one if that were done is, thai the farmers would toe able to get certificates showing the amount of grain they have there and the grading of it, and then be able to finance as .now, when they have it in the ordinary elevators. Would this Act give power for the appointment of such necessary government officials as would grade that wheat and give such a certificate, without coining back to parliament to get the Act changed?


George Eulas Foster: Sections 18 and 20 give full power to the board and the Governor in Council to establish inspection divisions for the inspection of grain, and therefore for the granting of certificates.


William Erskine Knowles: That is satisfactory.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has promised to consider the advisability of permitting other hospital elevators throughout the country. I would point out to him that one of the functions of an hospital elevator is to remove certain small seeds from the wheat, and perhaps the best market we have for these screenings is in Montana where they feed sheep. If an hospital elevator were permitted at a point like Moose-jaw, there would be a considerable saving of grain, for instead of shipping this stuff out to and back from Fort William, it could go in a direct line to the consumer south. Then again, when the Grand Trunk Pacific is ready to do business, no doubt they will have terminal elevators at Superior Junction or some point there for all their rail business in winter, 'and the grain may have to go into an hospital elevator for treatment, so that it would' be necessary to establish one there. I would like the minister to take that into consideration.


George Eulas Foster: That seems very reasonable.
On section 126, subsection 8-grades not to be mixed- [DOT]
Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto.)


Frank Oliver: Should not Ihe word ' public ' be inserted in the first line of this subsection, before the -word ' terminal,' so that the prohibition against mixing would apply to public elevators as well as to terminal elevators in the Western division? If there is mixing to be done, it would be done in these elevators.


George Eulas Foster: I will look into that.
On section 133-delivery of grain on return of receipt-


George Eulas Foster: 
George Eulas Foster: I want to make provision for seed elevators, of which I think there are two or three at present in operation. The seed elevator men want to be relieved from the obligation of storing grain, as they contend that indiscriminate storage of grain brought in interferes with their selection of seeds. I propose to add the following as 151a:
Any country elevator which is used exclusively for the purpose of receiving, preparing and shipping seed grain, which is the property of the owner or the property of such elevator, shall not be obliged to store the grain therein for any other person or persons than themselves.
' They should not be obliged,' they may if they choose. Then the following sections should apply to any such elevator namely, 152, 153, except subsection 4, 154 155 and 178. That brings them under the operations of the Act for statistical purposes and for bonding purposes, and for t.he inspection of their books. I move that addition, but as hon. gentlemen opposite would perhaps like to consider the question, I will allow it to stand.
On s.ection 153, owners to be licensed.


George Eulas Foster: The drafting of this section is objectionable, and the law clerk has given me a clause which reads better. I propose an amended clause to read as follows:
No owner &r lessee of a country elevator shall receive, ship, store or handle any grain in or for such elevator unless he has first procured from the Board a license for such purpose.


William Erskine Knowles: Are you going to leave the rest of 153 as it is?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: I think there is need of re-drafting there. Clause (b) says the license shall specify the name of the person owning or operating such elevator. This would give to the applicant the alternative of giving the name of either the owner or the operator of such elevator. Supposing he wanted to suppress the name of the person operating, and to give only the name of the owner, he might do so. If it is important enough to have either one given, it should be necessary that the name of the person operating should always be given. If they give the name of the person operating, that is the person who would be the licensee.


George Eulas Foster: The board will have that entirely in its own option. If it wants the name of the owner it can get it.


William Erskine Knowles: I think it- ought to be obligatory to give the name of the person operating, because that is the person who would be transgressing, if anybody did.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: The important matter in this section is to get the name of the person operating the elevator in the license. I do not think it matters who owns the elevator, because the lessee would be the licensee, and he must be responsible. I would suggest to strike out the words * owning ' altogether, that would make it obligatory.


George Eulas Foster: We will strike out the words ' owning or ' in (b).
On section 159, warehouse receipts.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) proposed that subsection 4 of section 159

be struck out and suggested a substitution which appears to be very satisfactory. I would move that subsection 4 be struck out and that there be substituted therefor the following:
Notwithstanding anything in this section the owner of such grain upon payment of all lawful charges as set out in subsection 2 hereof, may at any time within 48 hours after delivery of such grain at such country elevator, or at any time before such grain is shipped to a terminal elevator, require it to he shipped to any other terminal elevator herein provided, or to any railway station of the line of the railway on which the receiving country elevator is situated or on any line connecting therewith, unless the owner of such grain waives in writing his rights under the section.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 164, shipments out of elevators.


George Eulas Foster: I would move to insert aftei; the word 'mayd the words ' upon giving twenty-four hours' notice to the owner or his local agent appointed in writing.' Also to strike out the words ' at any ' in line twenty-four and the word ' town ' in line thirty-four, and to insert after the word ' therewith ' the words * and on the Great Northern railway.'


William Melville Martin: I fear that subsection 4 of section 159 will conflict with section 164. You have in section 159 forty-eight hours' notice while section 164 states that he may ship it at any time on giving twenty-four hours' notice. Twenty-four hours' notice is too short to be of any service in the Northwest Territories, certainly in the portion of the country from which I come. If section 164 were made to read ' subject always to the provisions of subsection 4 of section 159,' you would have something reasonable.


George Eulas Foster: I thought that clause 159 was. more general, but I see that it refers to the shipper. They both appear to have about the same range. The object of the amendments in both cases is to give the owner of the grain a little longer absolute control so that if in that time he wishes to transfer it to any other place differently from the original intention, or to the far-off terminals, he shall have the privilege of a change in his mind or in conditions. Section 164 does not appear to differ very much, except that it refers chiefly to the elevator man. I think that in order to make them consistent we will have to make this 48 hours instead of 24, so that there will be no clash between the two, and it is not of so much importance to the elevator people whether it is 24 or 48 hours.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not want to oppose this because I have no doubt it is done Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
with the good intention of helping the owner of the grain. Personally, I cannot see how it is going to help him. 1 think that in the country elevators their clerical work will get all balled up if they have to give notice to the owner before they ship any grain. They are busy men, they are working where a gasolene engine is going all the time, and there is a considerable amount of noise. They remember the quotation of wheat that they get by wire every day and that is about all they keep in their heads more than running the concern. If you are going to make a rule that the elevator man has to notify the farmer 24 hours ahead of time as to what wheat is going out and that he has to post up the notice I think you will get these men into such a condition that they will not be able to do their work well. What the farmers themselves want is good service. The farmer wants to get his grain out. The one nightmare that troubles him is the difficulty of getting his -wheat to the terminals. You are putting a brake on the machinery that is not necessary. Although the farmers have asked for this I cannot see why the farmers are going to object if their wheat is sent on after it has remained in the elevator 24 hours. This provision is not of very much use to the average farmer. He probably gets his mail three times .a week and lie may not -get it as often as that. If this were simply left with the operator and were made subject to subsection 4 of section 159 it would serve the farmer fully as well. I think this other would lead to confusion and put a brake on the machinery for getting the wheat to the terminals.


George Eulas Foster: 'This other,' as my hon. friend terms it, gives a wider leeway and just as much leeway as is given by the amended section 159.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think the minister is correct in that.


George Eulas Foster: The object of the request and the practical agreement we came to the other day with reference to it was to give to the owner of the grain, after he had put it in the elevator, a short period of control to enable him, if he wished, to direct it to some other place than that which he had in his mind when he first put his grain in there. You cannot give too much leeway in that respect; otherwise you ball up the elevator in the matter of delivering itself of the grain which is in store for others and the only way in which it can be practically worked out is to have the farmer, who does not live in the town, have somebody there to represent him. This is not a difficult matter at all. Every farmer has a friend in town. I suppose a great many of them

make the elevator man their agent or ask the agent -of the railway, or some friend, to become their agent. If you insist on a letter notice, registered or otherwise, you cannot give anything that will help the farmer and at the same time be fair to the transport and elevator interests. The simplest way seems to be that you should give notice to the agent of the farmer. The farmer can easily appoint in writing a friend, the elevator man, the station agent, or any one he pleases, as his agent. The agent can be notified and he will get word to the farmer if he thinks it is right to do so. I do not think that there will be any difficulty in the matter. As to balling up the elevator men about keeping track of their operations, I think they are quite able to keep track of their operations; in fact, the general impression out there among certain classes of people seems to be that they are quite too well able.


William Erskine Knowles: I am not aware that the elevator men claim to be experts in clerical work. I do not think the minister has studied this matter as fully as he should have done. Subsection 4 of section 159 says that in any event after the wheat is put in the elevator it will remain 48 hours, unless the right to have it held is waived in writing. In any event it stays for that time. This clause has in contemplation to leave that wheat after it has been there probably a week or a month. The effect of subsection 4 of-section 159 entirely ceases after the wheat has been there 48 hours. It has no more possible effect upon that wheat. This piece of legislation would have reference to wheat that has been there a month or three months. It will work out in this way. These elevator men do not know when the cars are going to come. My hon. friends on the other side of the House who live in the west know that nobody knows when cars will come. They will wait perhaps a week, when somebody gets busy down in the superintendent's office and then cars will be shooting in at the rate of eight or ten a day.
These men want to start loading as quickly as possible and they don't want to hang up everything until they write a dozen notices and mail them and wait twenty-four hours. If the minister is going to insist upon putting this provision in I am not going to protest against it any further, but I would ask him to insert in it the provision we have in subsection 4 of section 159, so that the man may waive the right to this in writing. I believe that when the farmers once understand it they will all waive their right and let their wheat go ahead.


George Eulas Foster: Under subsection 4 of section 159 the man has to put his grain in the elevator and has 101
his certificate and in that section the privilege is give a to the owner and not to the elevatorman. That provision does not compel the elevator man to keep it there for forty-eight hours.


William Erskine Knowles: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: Not at ail. This is a privilege granted to the owner provided his grain still remains there for that length of time and most of it remains longer than he wants it to remain. The owner has that length of time to change the consignment of the grain. If it is not previously shipped, he has that right unless he waives it. On the other hand section 164 deals not with the owner ef the grain but with the operator of the elevator whose business is to store grain and also to get it forwarded. You should put no undue shackles upon him which will hamper him in getting the grain quickly away from his elevators and to the terminals. It was thought, especially by gentlemen on the other side, that to give the elevator operator the right to immediately without any notice at all ship the grain out, in a manner not contemplated by the owner of the' grain, was a little arbitrary, and that the owner of the grain ought as far as possible, and to a degree which would not interfere with free transport, be warned or notified before his grain was shipped out by the operator to the terminal elevator. Then the difficulty arose as to how ycu were going to give a notice to a farmer living at a distance, and it was thought that the farmer should appoint an agent near the elevator to whom the elevator man would give notice. The two sections refer to different things,


William Erskine Knowles: I cannot agree with the interpretation the minister puts on section 159. The minister interprets it to mean that a person may ship it where he likes only if it still happens to be in the country elevator, but I think the purpose of the amendment is that it must be in that elevator forty-eight hours unless the owner has waived that right in writing. There is no question in my mind but that the amendment gives to the person forty-eight hours absolutely, and he has the right to order that grain to be sent to any of these respective places within forty-eight hours, and he has a longer time if the grain happens to be there. However, I will let it go at that.


William Henry Sharpe: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) mean to say that the grain must remain there for forty-eight hours? What is the object of providing that the grain will have to stay there for forty-eight hours?


William Erskine Knowles: I will state wdiat was the idea in our minds. Suppose grain is



put in at Swift Current, and the man wants to send it to Moosejaw mills, (which before they were burned down consumed a large quantity of grain, and which, when rebuilt, wall require twice as much as they formerly did) and supposing these elevator people for some reason should endeavour to prejudice the business of another mill, they can tell the man the day after the wheat was put there that it had been sent to the terminal. This provision is to prevent that occurring. The elevators are sometimes owned by those who have interests in milling concerns and this provision is intended to prevent them in any way hampering the business of their competitors if they should think of doing so.


Mr.   POSTER@North Toronto: The man who stores his grain in the elevator with the idea of consigning it to a certain place can within 48 hours change his mind and 'consign it to another place. If he does not make up his mind within 48 hours, and makes it up later, if his grain remains there more than 48 hours, he will still have the same right. That is all that the section seems to me to convey. It imposes no obligation on the elevator iman to hold the grain after the man's car comes.


William Erskine Knowles: I would like the minister to ask his law clerk about that. It is a question of the interpretation of a statute.


William D. Staples: (Why should not the farmer have the right to order his grain where he sees fit so long as it is in the elevator, on giving due notice to the operator what lie intends to do with it? As a farmer I have put wheat into an elevator, and before I could turn around it was forwarded to the terminals, when I could to my material advantage direct it to some other place. When I place my wheat in the elevator, I place it under the law that governs the charges. I am charged If cents a bushel for storing it for 15 days, and after that in proportion to the time it is there, and I do not think the operator has a right to send my wheat out without giving me notice. If I happen to be 10 or 15 miles away from the elevator, and the cats come, the elevator operator has a right to be protected. He may reach me by telephone if I happen to have one, but if he has to wait until he notifies me by letter, that takes a considerable time. If I want to protect myself as a farmer, the least I can do to facilitate the forwarding of that grain is to appoint an agent in town. I think the Bill as it stands covers the ground very fully.


William Erskine Knowles: The wheat is tied up for 48 hours. I do not think the provision makes for the speedy handling of the grain if the ear comes.


William Erskine Knowles: 


William D. Staples: There could be difficulty only if the elevator were full and every man had to be notified; but there is always somebody whose grain is to go out without notice. It is a very extreme case that my hon. friend has in mind.


George Eulas Foster: 1 suppose the operator of an elevator is not very much surprised when a car comes to his elevator. He keeps track of his orders, and knows pretty well whether he is to have a car or a couple of cars within a certain day. It seems to me there is no hardship to he apprehended on either side from the clause as it stands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
On section 191-loading platforms, location and dimensions-
William D. Staples: I asked to have this section stand. The only suggestion I wish to make is that the railway company be compelled to make their loading platforms at least 24 feet wide. I ask for this not altogether for the convenience of the farmers in loading, but also for other reasons. It is found very inconvenient to unload such machinery as threshing outfits, separators, engines, etc., onto these loading platforms which are only 18 feet wide. The railway companies do not make them any wider or longer than the Act compels them to do. Therefore I ask that the width be made 24 feet instead of 18 feet.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to hear the opinion of the committee about that. These dimensions must have been fixed as being thought to be in the main satisfactory. Perhaps some other members of the committee would state their views,


William D. Staples: I can speak from practical experience.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William D. Staples: I have loaded considerable grain on a loading platform and according to the way in which they are now constructed they are only 18 feet wide. You can only approach that car by driving alongside it, consequently you must build a spout from your wagon box in the car to slide your grain over. But I also have k aded off a platform that was some 20 feet in width. I discovered that I could drive on to that platform direct my horses as I thought fit, and back u*p to the door, and I was right up close to my work.. I also found that two or three farmers utilized that very same platform, which is 54 feet long, and they could come up and do likewise. Three or four cars can be loaded from the same platform by extending the width just as you can load one from an 18 foot platform. Now the other point is

this: When you get in heavy machinery such as threshing outfits you can unload off a flat car on to an 18 feet platform. You have got to use all kind of appliances, to get it shifted over and to run your machinery off. But if you have the 24 feet you sinuply cramp your front wheels when you draw it off on to the platform, and go cn about your business. These are points I have in mind and I think they are worthy of a good deal of consideration.


Mr. CRUISE.: As a farmer I have loaded considerable grain off the platform, and I have loaded it aiso off the ground, and I must agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) who has just sat down. We have had gieat inconvenience with our platforms in Dauphin owing to their being too narrow. We have two platforms there and when you get two cars alongside of these platforms it is almost impossible to load them at the same time, whereas if they were extended to a width of 24 feet-and you might double that, but 24 feet is sufficient-[DOT] that would be wide enough to back up to the car. I believe that i*f a platform is made 24 feet wide, so that the farmer can back up without any trouble there will be no trouble in loading the two cars off one platform. Of course there the platform is long enough to have three, but in the case of our (platforms at Dauphin they are only long enough to load two cars, and it is very hard to load two cars when your teams have to be placed sideways to the ear. My hon. friend (Mr. Staples) spoke of unloading traction engines. That recalled to my mind an incident that occurred a few years ago. We were unloading engines off the car on to one of these platforms, and owing to the narrowness of the platform the engineer, when he started the engine off the flat ears on to the platfoim, went right over the platform with the front wheels. He broke his collar bone-in fact was very nearly killed-and was in the hospital for three or four weeks. This is certainly a very important, question, and in my opinion the platform ought to be at least 24 feet wide.


James Alexander Robb: Does the hon. member from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) claim that he can load three or four cars at the same time from a 54 feet platform?


William D. Staples: I say that under the present conditions we can only load one practically, but you can load two, and if the farmers ware agreeable and got their cars placed in the most convenient points, three cars could be loaded off the one platform.


James Alexander Robb: Off a 54 feet platform?


William D. Staples: I never measured the platform, but I would say offhand that you can certainly load two.


George Eulas Foster: To give the Board of Grain Commissioners a right 101i
to say to a railway what the dimensions of their loading platforms and sidings should be, goes a long distance. I would rather not say positively in an Act that every loading platform should be 24 feet wide. At the same time, I would like to give some leeway to advice by the board. To say that the loading platform should be of such dimensions as may be prescribed by the board goes a little too far. You put into the hands of the. hoard absolute power to make these loading platforms any length and width they please, and cause the transporting companies to build them and pay for them. They might make it very onerous for the transportation company.


Mr. CASH.: These platforms are for loading grain on the car, not for loading machinery.


William D. Staples: I wouiu not tike to extend to the board the powers the minister has just mentioned. I do not want to exact too much from railway corporations, and I do not think we are asking too much when we ask them to make these platforms at least 24 feet wide. -


George Eulas Foster: We will
let 191 stand as it is; we will not get through the Bill for a few days.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would like to draw attention to section 169, which I think is mixed up. It mixes up both the country elevator and-the flat warehouse. It reads as follows:
Nothing in this part shall be construed as permitting the owner or operator of any country elevator to allot special bins to any buyer beyond the time allowed by the provisions of this part, or for purposes other than as stated in the provisions of this part as to flat warehouses, or shall require the owner of a flat warehouse to insure grain while in his warehouse.
Now, the provision for leasing bins in a flat warehouse provides that a farmer can have a bin in a flat wareiiouse for six days, and then one day to load the car, or whatever time is necessary. I was talking to one of the senators about this matter. This clause is exactly as it was in Bill Q last year, but this senator, who is pretty well posted, said that it got in by mistake. I think that clause should be separated, and the part referring to flat warehouses should go into section 185. In the first part of the clause we are dealing with country elevators, in the last part we are dealing with the insurance of wheat in the flat warehouse.


George Eulas Foster: I will make a note of that.
On section 207: equitable distribution of cars during car shortage,


George Eulas Foster: This relates to special powers given to the warehouse commissioner under the present Act, and to be given to the board under this Bill, giving them discretion to interfere with or make other disposition of cars in certain cases which seem to call for it. The two cases in which this can now be done are, -first, the case of an elevator which is in danger of collapse; and, second, *where the operator of any country elevator reports in writing under oath that, some portion of the grain in such elevator is heated, and that" it is necessary that the grain should be shipped for treatment in order to save it. The House also passed, and the Senate has to-day passed, a Bill to extend that discretion to two other cases, one for the purpose of distributing seed grain to any point in the western division, and to other places where the grain is damp, and thereby liable to become damaged. I propose to reconstruct that clause to include the provisions of the special Act just passed and to add thereto the following subsection:
Whenever after due examination the hoard considers it necessary and advisable in order to relieve congestion and facilitate the dispatch of grain.
I propose to have this added to the sections in the old Act and in the special Act, giving this further discretion to the board. As this is new matter I propose to leave the section in order that it may be printed-and take it up at the next sitting of the committee.


William Erskine Knowles: Has the minister had representations from the Credit _ Men's Association with regard to the legislation on the distribution of cars?


George Eulas Foster: We have received a large number of petitions from this .association. The prayer of the petition was that in order to effect the more speedy and economical transportation of grain, and, as it alleged, with' the view of opening avenues for sates to farmers who have less than car lots to dispose of, the part of the Act relating to car distribution should be suspended. We have also received many petitions contrary to that from all parts of the country, and they are still coming in. At present there is a mild bombardment of opposing petitions, filling up the vacant spaces in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Western members will realize that the legislation on car distribution is very important and the prayer of the petition in that regard is not considered by myself to be one that can be complied with. In 1902 and 1905 the legislation was undoubtedly necessary, and 1 do not believe that it should now be suspended; but I believe that the commission may be trusted, in the case of great con-Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
gestion or of .unforeseen difficulties, to grant a further distribution of cars. _ It is a discretion which I believe a commission conversant with the conditions and disposed to do everything they can to improve those conditions would use with wisdom and possibly with very great advantage.


William Erskine Knowles: I am in receipt of different communications, one a night telegram from Mr. F. W. Green, secretary of the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan, who says that he has received many letters from, people who had signed the circular petition of the Credit Association under a misapprehension and had asked to have their names removed, but the request had been refused, and from farmers generally denouncing the Credit Association's underhand trick. Could we have 'a copy of the petition?


George Eulas Foster: Certainly.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am glad the minister proposes to allow this clause to stand over. When he comes to consider what, if any, amendments shall be made, I hope he will bear in mind that this petition of the Canadian Credit Association is probably engineered by the elevator companies. II there is one clause in the Grain Act that has been satisfactory to the farmers of the country it is the clause governing the distribution of cars, and while there may be certain odd cases where a small farmer may have been put to some little disadvantage, generally speaking it has worked extremely well and the farmers generally engaged in growing wheat in the west are very jealous of any change being made in that clause, as they feel that if any change whatever is made, it will work to their disadvantage. I .am sure that every member from the prairies has received many circulars and letters from farmers and Grain Growers' Associations all urging that on no account should any change be allowed in the clauses of the Bill relating to car distribution.
I am merely mentioning that now, so that the minister will consider very, very carefully before he decides to make any change that would give .any latitude more than there is at the present time on that particular subject. _


George Eulas Foster: I think the remarks I have just made will satisfy my hon. friend and the committee of the way in which I regard that section of the Act. I am not going to hunt around for any motive behind the petitions that have been circulated by the Credit Men's Association. Everybody has the right to petition, and these gentlemen, whoever they are, whether they are elevator men or business men-and I should scarcely be inclined to believe that it was entirely engineered by elevator men-but whether

it be so or whether it be not so, the petition will be judged by the justice of its prayer rather than by how the petition was engineered or who got the names to be signed. I am quite aware of the importance of this clause to the farmers who wish to do their own shipping in car lots, or less than car lots. At the same time, I believe that in the hands of the commission a limited discretion may be vested and that it will be found to work well in the general administration and for the purpose at which this Act is aimed-the quick -and speedy transportation of grain. The matter will stand, the amendment will be printed, and I invite members on both sides of the House to think this matter out and to help us to come to what will be the best conclusion in regard to it. Now, there is one other clause that I want to put upon the record. It is in regard to the completion of the Calgary district. In order to make the amendment which I gave notice of to-day, and which is upon the records, effective, something more has to be done and we are doing that in clause 208. It is as follows:
208. In line 35 strike out the words ' east of Winnipeg/
Subsection fi. lines 17 and 18, strike out the words 'east of Winnipeg.'
Strike out paragraph (9) and substitute therefor the following:-
2.	To the extent to which any provisions of subsection 1 of this section are stated therein to apply to Winnipeg or St. Boniface, such provisions shall also, to the like extent, apply to Calgary, and in every such case wherever the words ' Winnipeg,' ' Winnipeg-St. Boniface,' or Winnipeg or St. Boniface' occur, the said subsection shall he read as if the word ' Calgary ' were inserted instead of the words 'Winnipeg' or 'Winnipeg-St. Boniface,' or ' Winnipeg or St. Boniface.'
3.	The provisions of subsection 1 of this section shall have effect only from the 15th day of December in any year to the first of September in the following year.
The effect of this, when enacted, will be to erect Calgary into a point of inspection with a survey board and .an order point as well, and to allow it to conduct operations from there as they are conducted in Winnipeg, in the eastern part of the division.
Section allowed to stand.


George Eulas Foster: Then I propose the following amendment to section 247:
Insert at commencement of clause 247 the following:-
247. ' Except as regards the matters dealt with by section 105 and section 107 of this Act.'
And add the following to the end of the clause:-	_
' And as regards the matters dealt with hv section 105 and section 107 of this Act, the said enactments shall be repealed on the first day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twelve.'
Section allowed to stand.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply-
John Gillanders Turriff: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, in accordance with a notice I gave the other night, I wish to discuss for a short time the question of freight rates in Canada, and more particularly as they relate to the west. I wish to point out to the House the discrimination which exists not only as regards the freight rates paid by the people in the west as compared with the rates paid by the people in the eastern part of Canada, but also the great difference there is in the freight rates in the Canadian west as compared with the rates in the American west in those states immediately to the south of the Canadian boundary line, the rates in the Canadian west being much higher than those charged in the adjoining states. This matter has been up once or twice in the House during this session, but it is a matter of such immense importance, not only to the people of the west but to the people of Canada as a whole, that I feel I am quite justified in taking up a little of the time of the House to discuss it and to show in a practical form the great difference that exists. On a previous occasion when this matter came up for discussion I was asked by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, how came it that during all these years nothing had been done either by myself or other hon. members on this side of the House, and the hon. gentlemen opposite took it for granted that no effort had been made to bring this matter before the attention of the Railway Commission until the matter was brought to the attention of that body by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Coehrane). I want to tell these hon. gentlemen such is an absolutely erroneous impression, because, in so far as I am personally concerned, many months ago I went to the Railway Commission, took statements of the difference in freight rates, put them before the member of the commission who was particularly dealing with this subject and pointed out to him, oil behalf of the people I represent in Assiniboia, that 1 complained of every overcharge that was specified in those papers.
I left these papers with him for over a week, and he pointed out to me that this was a very large question, that it would take a great deal of information to come to a decision, that there was the Vancouver rate case already before them, and that they hoped later on thev would be able to give a decision that would be satis-

mse
factory generally. Therefore, the Chairman of the Railway Board was speaking without full knowledge of the facts, when he said that the case had not been brought to the attention of the commission until the Minister of Railways submitted it. Iu addition to that, I also brought this matter to the attention of Mr. Graham, the late Minister of Railways, and of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I had the promise of Sir Wilfrid that if the matter were not dealt with before this, present session-at that dime he thought he would be in office still -he would end the discrimination against the west by action taken in this parliament.


William D. Staples: Did the hon. gentleman ever bring up the question on the floor of the House?


John Gillanders Turriff: I brought it before the Railway Commission, where gentlemen opposite have told me time and again was the proper place to bring it. 1 gave Mr. Graham, then Minister of Railways, notice that I intended to bring it up last session, but the obstruction tactics of the gentlemen now in power who were bound to prevent a vote being taken on reciprocity, precluded any possibility of my carrying out my intention then.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is a poor reason.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, the hon. gentleman from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), and his friends are now in power, and I intend to show them to-night the extent of the discrimination we are suffering under in the west, and it will be for them to remedy the existing evil.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We will do it as you never did. You never brought the question before the House when your friends were in power.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am willing to admit that the late government did not do as much as they might have done, and perhaps were derelict in their duty in that respect, but they have been punished for their sins. Now that gentleman opposite are in office they have the power to give a remedy. Is there any hon. gentleman in this House who will defend the principle that the people of the western provinces should pay from fifty to one hundred, and in some cases one hundred and fifty per cent higher for the same service than is paid by the people of the east? Will any one defend that state, of things in face of the testimony of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company themselves that it costs very much less to operate the railways in the west than it does in the east. This is not a political matter; Liberal and Conservative alike have to pay the freight rates. The Mr. TURRIFF.
question is what remedy shall be applied, and in my judgment the best remedy is for this House to express the opinion that the time has come when the discrimination that exists against the west in the matter of freight rates shall be put an end to. The only thing that would justify that discrimination against the west would be if the cost of building railroads there and operating them were greater than in the east, but we have the testimony of the Canadian Pacific railway, as I have said, that the reverse is the case. I purpose to-night moving an amendment which is practically in the words of the resolution adopted by the Winnipeg Board of Trade, a body of business men largely interested in the welfare of the west, a body composed of men on both sides of politics, and that board has come to the conclusion that there should be no further discrimination against the west. I want to give credit, where credit is due, and I say here that a very large part of the information I purpose putting before the House to-night was obtained by me from the articles in the Manitoba ' Free Press ' on this subject. The particular editor of the Manitoba ' Free Press ' who had charge of this work, has done more in the last Year to help us to get a change in these freight rates than did the late government, or this government, or the Railway Commission, or any other body. I admit, with regret, that before the publication in the' Free Press ' I did not know one-tenth of the extent of the discrimination against the west, and I do not believe that the former government, or this government, ever realized it. The man in charge of that particular work for the Manitoba* Free Press ', has I say, done more to bring about a change in the existing conditions than all the rest of us in Canada put together. Why, if the Board of Railway Commissioners had appointed one man like this gentleman on the ' Free Press ' to do the work, they could get all the necessary information to enable them to take hold of the question and to deal with it- The chairman of the Railway Commission wrote to the Minister of Railways that no specific case has been brought to his attention, but if wrong-doing exists on the part of the railways, it is not necessary, and it ought not to be necessary, for some one to lay a specific complaint before that board.
The Board of Railway Commissioners is appointed for the express purpose of deaii'ng with these matters, and in the Act appointing them they are given special powers to act on their own initiative. For such a board to say that there was any amount of wrong-doing going on, but that nobody had brought it to their attention, is to my mind only begging the question. They are there for the purpose of finding it out, and they have or

should have a staff of experts to give them the necessary information. I do not '.rant to say anything in criticism of that board. As I have said in this House before, I believe its chairman is the best man for the position in the Dominion of Canada. There are other good men on the board. But they have been crowded with work, much of it of a trivial character. They have been kept busy by the railway companies on one pretext or another, so that they have not had time to give, or at least have not given, the attention that should have been given to the subject of freight rates.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: If they have not had time, what are you censuring them for?


John Gillanders Turriff: There are plenty of good men to be engaged. How did the Manitoba ' Free Press ' get all the information? I do not suppose that its chief editor had time either, but he had the common sense to hire a man who could get it.


John Dowsley Reid: Why didn't you have the common sense to advocate what you are doing now when you were on this side of the House six months ago?


John Gillanders Turriff: I did go to the Rail. way Commissioners six months ago, and if I sat on the other side of the House, with my friends in power, I would have brought the matter up before this time, and just as strongly and earnestly as I am doing now. This is not a matter of party politics at all There is an injustice to be rectified, and our hon. friends opposite are in a position to be able to rectify it. We on this side of the House can only bring it to their notice. But I think my hon. friend the Minister of Customs wiil have enough to do if he rectifies everything that is wrong in his own department. He may have trouble enough on his hands without trying to take the -weight off the shoulders of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, who, I am sure, is quite able to look after his own department, and will be quite willing, when he sees the extent of the injustice, to relieve the people of the west. In order that the Board of Railway Commissioners may be enabled to handle this work, I am satisfied that that board must either be enlarged in number or be given more money and more help. They are not able, with the help they now have, to handle properly the business that comes before them. This House for the last three or four years has been placing one thing and another on the shoulders of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I think they bare more than they can do. My judgment is that the board should not be divided into an eastern and
a western section. I do not think that is necessary. I have no doubt there are injustices in the matter of freight rates existing in the east as well as in the west. My view is that or.e of these sections should deal solely with freight matters from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and that there should be on it representatives not merely of the east or -west but of both. If this parliament expects the board to do the best work that is possible, it must supply it with the necessary amount of money to enable it to engage the proper kind of staff, so that it may be able to attend to the business. Suppose it did cost $50,000 or $100,000 per annum more than it costs to-day to bring that board up to the point of efficiency, it would be the best spent money this House could vote. Why, if you take the extra rates that have been for years imposed on the people of the west over and above the rates charged in other parts of the country for the same services, you would not count it by hundreds of thousands, but by millions and tens of millions. We are not going, to argue that we in the west should be given cheaper freight rates than obtain in the east; but we think the time has come when the railways should not be allowed any longer to charge more in the west than in the east for the same service, unless they can prove that it costs them more to handle the business, which I am satisfied they cannot do, because they have already proven that it costs less. Some years ago a change was made in the passenger rates. Up to four or five years ago there were different rates charged all over the country. One branch of a railway would charge one rate, and another branch a short distance away would charge a higher rate. The matter was brought up in the House, and the rates were made equal from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic ocean-a flat rate of three cents a mile. If the railways can carry passengers at the same rate in the lower provinces, the centre provinces and the western provinces, why should they not cany a ton of freight at the same rate in the western provinces as they carry it in the eastern provinces?


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Would it be inconvenient for the hon. member at this stage fo give us his amendment?


John Gillanders Turriff: No. I will be most pleased to do that. It is as follows:-
Moved by Mr. Turriff, seconded by Mr. Martin: That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when the government of the Dominion should, by legislation, lay down the principle that the rates to be charged by the railways in the western provinces shall not exceed those charged in Ontario and Quebec for a similar service, to a greater

extent than, necessary to cover any excess there may be in the cost of operation in the west over that in Ontario and Quebec.
As I stated in the beginning of my remarks, this resolution was adopted by the Winnipeg Board of Trade, practically in its entirety. Now, Mr. Speaker* I think it goes without saying that if we are to have anything like unity of feeling throughout this Dominion, if we are to have the good feeling that should exist between one end of the country and the other, you cannot possibly bring that about if the people at one end of Canada feel that every cay, from the first day of January to the last day of December, they are being deliberately robbed by the railway companies charging them from 50 to 150 per cent higher freight for the same service, that is given in eastern Canada. Nobody will say for a moment that the railways are not getting _ a good paying price for the freight they' are carrying in this part of the country. We had evidence of that when a strike occurred a year or two ago on the Grand Trunk railway in eastern Canada. That company refused, or objected, to pay the same rate of wages that was being paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. And what was their plea? That the Canadian Pacific railway had a large traffic in the west, where they got a very much higher rate of freight for the service rendered than either railway received here, and that the Grand Trunk, under those circumstances, could not really pay their men as high wages as the Canadian Pacific paid; but as soon as the railway to the west was completed, and they were able to get into that part of the country and obtain the high rates that the Canadian Pacific railway were then getting, they would be able to give their men better pay. I have not the slightest doubt that when the Grand Trunk Pacific railway is completed, that company will, if allowed, charge just as high rates of freight as the Canadian Pacific railway is getting now. And the Canadian Northern will do exactly the same thing. But it is for this House to say whether the time has come, or whether it has not, when we should lay down the principle that unless it costs the railway companies more to handle the freight and to build their lines, they should not be allowed to charge more in one part of the country than in another. We thought at one time than when the Canadian Northern commenced to operate in the west they would reduce the freight rates. Well the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific railway in some places run into the same town, from Winnipeg say, and thus we have the peculiar fact that in places where the two railways are operating the freight is higher for the same mileage in the Canadian Pacific railway. That is one of the things bo man, appar-Mr. TURRIFF.
cntly, can understand. That is one of the things, it appears to me, that the railway commission should look into and settle, without waiting for somebody to make a specific complaint. That is their duty, that is their work, that is what they were created for, and they should carry out that principle and see that ther'e are fair and even rates in existence all over the country. Another matter that I might bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker-


David Henderson: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me a moment?


John Gillanders Turriff: Certainty.


David Henderson: Will the hon. gentleman tell us at what point this difference in rates becomes apparent between the east and the west?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes. If my hon. friend will just wait about five minutes I will reach that branch of my subject. There is one other thing, Mr. Speaker, that we in the west have to complain of, and it is this: In the eastern part of Canada the weight for a carload on which yon can get carload rates is much less than it is in the west, and, therefore, it costs the western shipper just that much more to ship his product.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Can you give us the difference, what the weight is in each case?


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not sure that I can give that to-night to the hon. minister, but I will look the information up and hand it to him to-morrow. There is another matter of complaint. If a shipper here in Ottawa, for instance, wanted to ship a carload of goods to Windsor, Ontario, or Port Arthur, Ontario, or to Montreal, St. John or Halifax, he can put in one part of that carload as fifth-class goods and the other part as fourth-class goods, and then he can get that carload rate by paying on the fourth-class a carload rate on fourth-class goods. But if he ships that car one station west of Port Arthur he cannot do it; he has got' to pay by the 100 pounds on the whole lot because there is not a carload of it. If he has half a carload of fourth-class goods and half a carload of fifth-class goods, and he ships to any station west of Port Arthur he has to pay by the hundred pounds and cannot take advantage of the carload rate, and pay that rate on the highest class. If he ships out of Winnipeg to Vancouver, or out of Winnipeg to Calgary, or out of Winnipeg to Port Arthur it is the same thing; he has to pay by the hundred pounds. Why should there be-and I ask the Minister of Railways to think that over-why should there be this discrimination against the west? Is there any leason for it?_ Is there any common sense in it? It is just simply that when the railways started out

there was hut the one line, and as a matter of fact there is still but the one through-line to eastern Canada. They have practically done as they wished in spite of, or irrespective of the Board of Railway Commissioners and they have done anything and everything. They are doing just as they like to-day and they are charging us up to 150 per cent higher, for the service rendered out there, than they charge for the same service in the east. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the one way to deal with this matter is for parliament to lay down the principle enunciated in my resolution, and in future to make the railways disclose to the Board of Railway Commissioners exactly what it costs them tc handle the traffic. The Interstate Commerce Commission in the United States make the statement in one of their reports that you can ascertain the cost of carrying freight on a railway as exactly as you can the" cost of manufacturing nails, it is merely a matter of compelling the railway companies to give.this information. In the past these companies have hedged around this matter of freight traffic, freight rates and railway operations as if it were something sacred, something mysterious that the ordinary man knew nothing about, and that nobody but one well versed in railway work could speak on, or give any statement regarding the cost of operating. But as I pointed "out a few minutes ago an enterprising newspaper in the west has, by the expenditure prob ably of a thousand or two dollars, placed an expert at work and gathered informa tion that has been a surprise to everybody who perused it.
Here let me read again what the Canadian Pacific Railway Company stated as to the respective cost of handling freight in the east and in the west. You will remember that a year or two ago the city of Vancouver entered a case before the Railway Commission complaining of the high tells that Wire charged by the Canadian Pacific railway for carrying freight to that city. The company, in order to justify the freight tolls they were exacting, produced 'before the commission evidence as to how much it cost them to handle the traffic in British Columbia, and also what it cost them to handle the traffic on other parts of their road. This is the information they gave the Railway Commission:
In the Vancouver case, which has been before the Dominion Railway Commission for a considerable time, application was made for an order by the Commission that tiie C.P.R. should furnish the figures of the cost of operation in each of the divisions of its system.
The order was made, and the statement that has been furnished to the Commission by the C.P.R. shows that the actual cost of hauling one thousand tons of freight one mile (exclusive of interest or fixed charges) is as follows, for each division of the C.P.R. system:
Eastern division-Montreal to Chalk _
River, Ont., and branches	$5.45
Lake Superior division- Chalk River to
Port Arthur	  3.70
Central division-Port Arthur to Swift
Current, and branches	 3.73
Western division-Swift Current to Field,
and branches	 4-71
Pacific division-Field to Vancouver, and
branches	 7.12
So you see, that while	it	costs $5.45 tocarry a thousand tons of	freight one	mile
m the province of Ontario, or the eastern part of the province as far west as Chalk River, and in the province of Quebec, it only costs about $3.75 to carry a thousand tons of freight one mile in places between Chalk River and the Rocky Mountains.


Mr. LABOR.: Does the hon. gentleman think that the freight rates are higher in the west, proportionately, than they are in the older provinces?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I would like to read an extract of his own speech last session, in which he takes an entirely different stand. On page 105 of ' Hansard ' of last session, in speaking upon freight rates, the hon. member for Assiniboia makes this statement :
The freight rates charged by the railways in the west are practically on the same basis as the rates charged in Ontario and Quebec. I think my hon. friend will find there are as many overcharges for freight on the C.P.R. and G.T. and the C.N.R. in Quebec and Ontario as there are in the west, so that the hon. gentleman does not need to put all the blame on the west. If there is such work to be done lie can commence in Ontario.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, I remember very well making that statement, as I said a while ago, I acknowledged when I began my address that I did not know more about
the subject, and it was only


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is all right, I am quite willing to acknowledge when I am in the wrong, and that is more than some hon. gentlemen I am looking at are willing to do. I stated I regretted that 1 did not know more about the subject, and I pointed out that it was not until this expert was put at work by the Manitoba ' Free Press ' that either I or anybody else had any idea of the extent of the difference in the rates that were charged. I said a little while ago that I had no doubt there were overcharges made in the east as well as in the west, and I still have no doubt. So my hon. friend who thought he was doing something very smart in reading that out was doing nothing of the kind. I had already stated that I had not realized, until this information came out from the * Free Press,' how bad the situation was in the west.


George Eulas Foster: Is the hon. gentleman sure he is right now?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, quite sure. I can assures the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), that I am right now.


Francis Cochrane: According to the ' Free .Press '?


John Gillanders Turriff: That I am right now according to the ' Free Press,' and there has not been one railway man on the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway or one member of this government, or any member supporting them, who has . been able to put their hand on one single item the ' Free Press ' has brought out, and show that it was wTong, and what is more, they cannot do it. If any hon. gentleman thinks he can, it is open to him to do so. But I say now that I am right, and it is for the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), to show if he can that 1 am not.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does the hon. gentleman think that his resolution can have any possible effect unless he amends the
Railway Act in about 25 or 30 different sections?


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, I have great respect for tlie legal opinion of my learned friend (Mr. Lancaster). At the same time if this House realized, as I do, that an injustice exists, and should be remedied, and if this House expresses an opinion to that effect, I have not the slightest doubt that the Railway Commission can issue an order that will remedy all these matters. The Board of Railway Commissioners have it in their power to say what the freight rates shall be, and if this House expresses an opinion, the Board of Railway Commissioners should take that stand, and should put an end at once to the existing discrimination.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Notwithstanding what the Railway Act says?


John Gillanders Turriff: This parliament is in session and can amend the Railway Act if it is necessary, and my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), knows that very well. I do not think, possibly, that he is very anxious to have it amended.
Tho following are the rates for the first five classes of freight for corresponding mileages east and west.
						
Miles.	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5thClass.	Class.	Class.	Class.	Class.Montreal to Cardinal, Ont	105	$ cts. 0 30	S cts. 0 26	$ cts. 0 23	$ cts. 0 19	$ cts. 0 15Winnipeg to Carberry, Man	100	0 42	0 36	0 29	0 23	0 2030 p.c. 0 36	27 p.c. 0 32	11 p.c. 0 27	5 p.c. 0 23	20 p.e. 0 18Montreal to Collins Bay, Ont	181	Winnipeg to Virden, Man	181	0 57	0 48	0 39	0 30	0 2750 p.c. 0 41	40 p.c. 0 39	33 p.c. 0 33	16 p.c. 0 28	40 p.c. 0 22Montreal to Oshawa Junction, Ont	300	Winnipeg to Wolseley, Sask	296	0 83	0 70	0 57	0 43	0 3882 p.c. 0 46	72 p.c. 0 40	63 p.c. 0 35	43 p.c. 0 29	64 p.c. 0 23Montreal to Brampton, Ont	356	Winnipeg to Kegina, Sask	358	0 93	0 78	0 63	0 48	0 42Western rate higher by . . .	98 p.c.	87 p.c.	71 p.c.	55 p.c.	74 p-c.Montreal to Berlin, Ont	397	0 50	0 44	0 38	0 31	0 25Winnipeg to Moosejaw, Sask	
Western rate higher by	400	0 99	0 83	0 67	0 51	0 4592 p.c.	82 p.c.	70 p.c.	55 p.c.	70 p.c.Montreal to Stratford, Ont 	423	0 52	0 46	0 39	0 33	0 26Winnipeg to Mortlach, Sask 	426	1 03	0 86	0 69	0 53	0 47Western rate higher by	
Mont'l to Hyde P'k Jet., Ont.	460	92 p.c. 0 56	80 p.c. 0 49	70 p.c. 0 42	51 p.c. 0 35	73 p.c. 0 28Winnipeg to Caplin, Sask	453	1 08	0 91	0 73	0 50	0 49Western rate higher by ... 	
Montreal to Northwood, Ont	513	87 p.c. 0 58	79 p.c. 0 51	66 p.c. 0 44	51 p.c. 0 36	68 p.c. 0 29Winnipeg to Swift Current	510	1 18	0 99	0 79	0 61	0 54Western rate higher by	
Montreal to Windsor, Ont	
....	556	100 p.c. 0 58	90 p. c. 0 51	73 p.c. 0 44	61 p.c. 0 35	79 p.c. 0 29W'p'g to Crane Lake, Sask	574	1 26	1 05	0 85	0 65	0 58Western rate higher bv	
Quebec to London, Ont	626	112 p.c. 0 G4	100 p.c. 0 50	80 p.c. 0 48	72 p.c. 0 40	93 p.c. 0 32P't A.th'r to FoxwVn, Man	
Western rate higher by	
Quebec to Cold well, Ont	625	1 42	1 19	0 94	0 71	0 63869	120 p.c. 1 05	112 p.e. 0 80	96 p.c. 0 70	77 p.c. 0 50	97 p,c. 0 42P't Arthur to Parkbeg, Sask	864	1 88	1 57	1 25	0 93	0 84Western rate higher by	
Windsor to Jackfish, Ont	995	79 p.c. 1 05	82 p.c. 0 86	78 p.c. 0 70	86 p.c. 0 50	100 p.c. 0 42P't A'th'r to St. Alphege, Sask.	998	2 11	1 76	1 40	1 05	0 95100 p.c. 0 79	110 p.c. 0 58	126 p. c. 0 48Quebec to Rossport, Ont	1,050	1 i6	0 97	Port Arthur to Senlac, Sask 	
Western rate higher by	1,047	2 19	1 83	1 46	1 09	0 9889 p.c.	89 p.c	85 p.c.	88 p.c.	104 p.c.


John Gillanders Turriff: I ask you, Sir, I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals, I ask any hon. gentleman in this House whether he thinks that that is a reasonable condition of affairs. I ask any hon. member if he thinks it possible to have a happy and contented people when one section of the country is being robbed to that extent, because there is no other word that expresses it. That *Condition has existed for a long time and I ask this House if the time has not come when this matter should be remedied once and for all.
Let me give you a comparison of rates between the rates in the western prairie country and the prairie country on the south side of the line. The Canadian Pacific railway is operating on the American side just as it is on the Canadian side of the line. On the Canadian side, in connection with the Soo road, the Canadian government gave the Canadian Pacific railway a large cash subsidy to build their line from North Portal in my own constituency, up to connect with the main line a few miles from Moosejaw. On the American side of the line they received no assistance from anybody, they had to put into the line every dollar that went into it, yet the Canadian Pacific Soo line on the American side of the boundary is hauling freight for the American settlers for about two-thirds or less of what it charges the Canadian farmers on the Canadian side of the line.
Let me give you a few examples. I beg to submit a table contrasting the rates for varying distances for different classes of goods on the Canadian and American side' of the line in the west.
Implements re-shipped from Kirkella, Man., and from Fargo, N.D., carloads.
Western Canada rates higher by .	...
Binder twine re-shipped from Kirkella and from Fargo, carloads, each car stopped in transit to unload 10,000 lbs.
Western Canada rates higher by	
Cement Building blocks, dimension stone, carloads.
Manitoba rates higher by	
Saskatchewan rates higher by	
Brain or sewer tile, building tile, fire bricks, fire clay, carloads.
Manitoba rates higher by	
Saskatchewan rates higher by	
100 miles.	200 miles.	300 miles.	400 miles.140 p.c	55 p.c	44 p.c	43 p.c.82 p.c	
118 p.c		100 p.c....	82 p.c		92 p.c.
			108 p.c.
			
Is there any justification for that state of affairs? I feel sure that I need only call it to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals in order that he may see that this is an absolute injustice to a large section of Canada, a notable injustice that if continued is bound to cause dissatisfaction and trouble. It is so manifestly unfair that I aim sure I need only bring it to his attention to have him take the matter up and have it remedied.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman want us to understand that the Railway Commission are refusing to deal with the state of affairs which he has described as such an injustice?


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not going to say that the Railway Commission have refused to decline or deal with it. My statement is simply that this state of affairs has existed for the last 10, 20 or 30 years and that the Railway Commission have not dealt with it.
But that is the proper body to deal with it and there is no doubt that it will deal
with it especially if this House expresses the opinion that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and that it is a state of affairs that ought to be remedied without unnecessary delay. It has always been stated that the grain rates of the west were very moderate. I am free to confess again that I was under the impression that the grain rates in the west were very reasonable, but when you come to compare the grain rates we are paying in the west with the rates that are paid in Ontario and Quebec for the same service you will find how very unreasonable the western rates are. I find that we have been overcharged in the past and that we are being overcharged at the present time, and I say that that condition of affairs should be put a stop to, and that the rates should be reduced in the west to the same level as they are in the east. I have here a comparative statement showing the rates on grain in carload lots charged by the railways in the eastern part of Canada and in the west per 100 pounds:


Mr. BURNHAM.: I would like to usk the hon. gentleman if the late government was a party to this outrageous extortion?


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) asks if the late government wras a party to this. I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the late government was a party to it. I say it is to their discredit that they did not remedy it. I will say further that it was never brought to the attention of the House. I brought it to the attention of the late Prime Minister; I asked him if he had read these statements and 'he said he had. He said further that it was the most damnable state of affairs that he had ever heard of and that if the matter was not remedied by the railways themselves before the House assembled after the election, if he was in power, as he expected to be then., and as I expected he would be then, he would take the matter up in the House and put an end to that state of affairs. The question of the hon. member for Peterborough was a fair question and I do not object to it. I do not believe that there was a man in Canada, except the railway people themselves, who knew how bad the state of affairs w>as. 1 am satisfied in my


John Gillanders Turriff: own mind that had my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), been in power to-day he would have remedied it, and I am satisfied that the right hon. gentleman who leads this House (Mr. Borden), with the assistance of his Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), * of his genial Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), who is as much interested in this matter as any one can be, and of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White), will remedy this matter now that it has been brought to his attention. I am not going to say that I have no confidence that these gentlemen will rectify this evil. I know that, as one of the supporters of the government the hon. member for Peterborough agrees with me, that it is an unfair condition; all we have to do is to bring it to the attention of these hon. gentlemen and they will rectify it, and rectify it thoroughly. I will be very much disappointed if they do not.
It has been stated by the railway people -I have heard them state it time and again-that every time they haul a train load of grain they lose money, but that they make it up on package freight. According to their statement it Iras been figured out that the net profit on a train

load of fifty cars from Brandon to Lake Superior is $2,674. For this result we take their own sworn figures that they have returned to the government. It is no further use for any railway company, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk railway, the Canadian Northern or any other, to go before the Railway Commissioners or before the government and make the statement that they are not making any money hauling grain at the present rate. There are a great many figures in this hook which I hold in my hand that I am not going to give now, but there are one or two other points that I want to touch [DOT]on for a moment. I 'have heard it stated by the railway authorities that they have to charge higher rates for tire short haul than for the long haul because the cost is very imuch less per ton per mile for the long haul than for the short haul. Everybody who knows anything about railways realizes that. If you load up a train with goods, haul it a hundred miles and then unload it, it will cost yon more per ton per mile than if you send that train 1,000 or 2,000 'miles. That is the excuse the railway companies always 'make when they give very low through rates where they have a long haul of 1,000 or 2,000 miles, net us see how our friends the Canadian Pacific railway have worked that business. They have just simply reversed the position and they charge the low rates for the short haul while for the long haul of the goods which come out into our country they charge high rates. I am sure that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who represent Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are particularly interested in this matter, because thousands of carloads of goods go out from this country to the west. Let me give you some of the Canadian Pacific railway rates for the short and the long haul.
The following table shows the all-rail ear load rate in cents per 100 pounds on the fifth-class freight, and shows also the same rate figured out on the per ton per mile basis and the same rate figured out for a carload, from Montreal to Port Arthur (or Fort William), from Montreal to Winnipeg, and from Montreal to each of the divisional points on the Canadian Pacific railway, west of Winnipeg as far as Calgary, Portage la Prairie and Regina, which are not divisional points, being included in th* table for the sake of making the showing full and fair:
From Montreal to-	Per
Per Per ton car-Miles. 100 lbs. per mile. load.
Port Arthur...	.. 991	$ 42	*847c.	$126Winnipeg.. ..	.. 1414	0 71	[DOT]97Ge.	213Portage la Prairie	.. 1470	0 75	1.020c.	225Brandon.. ..	.. 1547	0 82	l-060c.	246Broadview.. ..	.. 1679	1 02	l-210c.	306
Per
Per Per ton car-
Miles. 100 lbs. per mile. load.
Regina	
1772	$1	04	147c.	$312Moose] aw	
1813	1	07	1480c.	321Swift Current	..	1924	1	21	1 -240c.	363Medicine Hat.	..	2071	1	31	l-260c.	393Calgary	
2251	1	35	l-200c.	405
It was once stated by Sir William Van Horne that as soon as the Canadian Pacific railway had their traffic properly organized, the Canadian Pacific railway would see to it that the longer the haul the cheaper the rate, but the Canadian Pacific railway has done exactly the opposite, and now the longer the haul is the greater the price per ton per mile. It was stated here the other night that the Canadian Pacific railway were anxious to lower their freight rates and that they were willing to do so, but that they could not do so because, while they could stand it, the other railways could not stand it. I want to tell the Minister of Railways and the House that on many lines of freight the Canadian Pacific railway are charging much higher rates than they charged four or five years ago. -In spite of the Railway Commission and right under the nose of the Railway Commission the Canadian Pacific railway raised its freight rates in many respects. Several glaring instances of that will be found in the following table which shows how much higher the freights levied on a carload of oats-00,000 pounds-are now than they were on September 14, 1907, from the points named to Winnipeg:
From. Sept. It, 1907.		Present.	Increase.


Moosomin .. ..: $ 96 [DOT]	$108	$ 12Regina	108	132	24Mooseiaw	108	' 150	42Swift Current..	120	186	66


Medicine Hat ..: 132	222	90Calgary	144	246	102Red Deer [DOT] * [DOT] [DOT]	162	252	90Stratlicona	168	240	72Just imagine the farmer at Calgary, or at	Red Deer, or at	Edmonton, who	raises a
car of oats and ships it to Winnipeg, where there are hundreds and, I suppose, thousands of cars used, paying from ninety dollars to one hundred and two dollars a car more than he paid five years ago. The farmer is just bled that much extra over the rates charged five years ago. Will any one say that is a satisfactory state of affairs; will any one say that during all the years prior to the 14th September, 1907, the Canadian Pacific railway was not charging a paying rate to haul oats from Calgary, or Edmonton, or Moosejaw, to Regina or Winnipeg. Nobody would believe such a thing; everybody in the west knows that the Canadian Pacific railway were charging high rates even previous to that. Were not the old rates high enough? Certainly, they were, and the Canadian Pacific railway raised them right under the nose of the Railway Commission of Can-

ad a. I say again that the Railway Commission has apparently lui been able to handle their work. They have too much work to do, and what they want is a man, or two or three men, or a half-dozen men on the job, men of the calibre of the man who prepared that information for the Winnipeg ' Free Press.' Let them get a man of that description and they will soon be able to get the facts. It is not necessary that the Railway Commission should have furnished to them a special complaint by the people who are suffering and suffering every day. Time and again, when the excessive coal rates have been brought to my attention and I have asked: Do you want the matter brought up, the answer was: No, we don't want to get into any fight with the railway companies. The fact is that the shippers prefer to be bled rather than to_ get into a fight with the railway companies. The Railway Commission should not wait for anybody to make a complaint. What are wTe paying them for? Pay them $50,000 a year more if necessary to get the commission up to the mark. The men themselves are all right; give them the experts they require and give them the duty of finding out what is wrong throughout the country and then let them dictate that the excessive freight rates of the west shall be brought down to the level of the freight rates in the east.
I tell the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Railways that until you do that you will never have contentment and peace and satisfaction in the western part of Capada. We have suffered long enough, and the time has come when this state of affairs should be remedied, and I believe I have only to bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways and tire Minister of the Interior.


Richard Blain: I understood the ex-Minister of Railways at the last session of parliament to state that the freight rates to the farmers in western Canada were cheaper than the freight Tates to the farmers in the western part of the United States.


John Gillanders Turriff: I heard the ex-Minister of Railways make that statement, exactly as my hon. friend from Peel has said. I think he spoke of the freight rates on grain; I would not be sure. But whether he referred to the freight rates on grain or anything else, he was absolutely mistaken. I have quoted figures to-night to show that the rates on the Canadian side of the boundary line are much higher than those on the American side.


Richard Blain: I quote the following from page 5247 of ' Hansard ' for 1910-11:


Mr. GRAHAM.: My honourable friend (Mr. Maclean) has referred to rates in western Mr. TURRIFF.
Canada. During a recent trip in the west, I had prepared for me a comparative table of rotes on farm products from the interior of Western Canada to Port Arthur and Fort William, and of rates from the interior of the western states to Duluth, and these were the rates I was discussing in the House when I said that the farmers of the Canadian west had cheaper rates on their products to the Great Lakes than had the farmers of the western states, and I have no reason to change my mind on that.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend is perfectly right. I was in the House when that statement was made, and it just goes to prove what I have said, that apparently nobody, either the late ex-Minister of Railways or the late government or the Board of Railway Commissioners knew the facts of the case, and it remained for the man whom the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' put on the job to get at the exact facts of the case and to show how much more we were paying in the west than the people of the east were paying, or than the people of the States immediately south of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were paying. I think a great deal of credit is due to the Manitoba ' Free Press ' for the information it has brought out on this subject, and I feel satisfied that it will have a very good effect. I believe that the very fact of the people of Canada understanding the condition of affairs will bring about a remedy, because it is too extreme to be allowed to continue. Now, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and to the House for taking up so much time, but I felt that the subject was worthy of the time and attention of parliament, and I trust that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will see his way clear to do something in the near future to put an end to this state of affairs.


Robert Rogers: Mr. Speaker, I trust that my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff), who has just taken his seat, will not consider me discourteous when I say that he cannot expect the hon. members of this House or the people of this country to treat any statement or resolution coming from him in regard to the freight rates that prevail in western Canada in any serious manner. If my hon. friend had a desire to be serious, there was a fitting time and place for it. He might have taken that course when the government that he supported sat to the right of the Speaker and had it in their power to remedy the condition of which he complains to-night. But, as has been shown, when this parliament was in session last year, the then Minister of Railways, and even my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) declared that the railway freight rates in western Canada were fair, just and reasonable to the people. Now my hon. friend undertakes by

his resolution to say that nothing but the cost, especially the cost of operation, must be considered. There is more than the cost of operation to be considered in determining the railway freight rates that are charged to the people of this country. We had an exhibition in this House yesterday which I am sure will long be rememberei by every hon. member who was present at the time, when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways laid upon the table a' statement that went to show that, as a result of the incompetency of the late Administration, we have a condition of affairs in the railway life of our country to-day which is most deplorable. I say more: We had presented to the people of this country through that official statement of the Department of Railways and Canals a state of affairs that goes to show not only the incompetence of the gentlemen who had in charge the government of this country, but a state of affairs that should make every member of that government and every gentleman who supported them in this parliament for the past 15 years hang their heads in shame before their fellow countrymen. If the hon. gentlemen who formed that Administration, and the hon. gentlemen1 who supported it, do not feel keenly enough their position to hang their heads in shame, I can tell them that there is not an intelligent citizen in this Dominion of Canada to-day who understands the railway situation and will study that statement as presented by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, who will not blush with shame owing to the fact that we have had in the government of this country for the past eight or ten years men who are so utterly incompetent to discharge the public trust that has been reposed in them.
We had, Mr. Speaker, a statement to show that the eastern division was to cost us $250,000,000-I think that was the amount-and in addition we had the extraordinary statement-
Mr.- GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. My point is that this speech should have been made yesterday. I think the hon. minister ought to speak to the question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think there is any point of order raised. The hon. minister is quite in order.
Mr ROGERS If we are to have an intelligent understanding ox what our railway freight rates are to be, we must take into consideration the cost of construction, and not, as my hon friend (Mr Turriff) said, the cost of operating alone. And it is because of the necessity that arises for us to take into account the cost of construction that I am dealing with the figures I have just quoted. We have in addition the
extraordinary cost of the prairie section, and the very extraordinary cost of the mountain section which, in the case of the two, will amount to over $100,000,000. Therefore, we have, Mr. Speaker, a National Transcontinental railway being built, according to the latest statement, at a cost of something like $350,000,000 to the people of this country, instead of $15,000,000, as was stated. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who now leads the opposition, appealed to this parliament (or its support and endorsation nine years t.go, pointing out, as he pointed out yesterday, that there was then necessity for the construction of such a railway, by reason of the fact that we had in western Canada great development in progress, and that need existed for a reduction in the railway freight rates in this country, and especially western Canada. He appealed for support in the first place in order that he might- be allowed to spend $13,000,000 to accomplish these results. His Finance Minister a few months later, discovering that a mistake had been made by the right hon. gentleman, rose in his place, and pre-si nted a supplementary statement showing that that railway should cost $51,000,000, instead of $13,000,000. And just a day or two ago the official figures were published, showing that the cost will actually amount to $350,000,000. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) has talked of the necessity -of reducing railway freight rates notwithstanding the conditions which his party have created, and with which we, as a new government. have to grapple at the ipresent time. Not only did the right hon. gentleman, at the lime, I speak of, appeal to this House for support and endorsati-on, but he went outside this parliament and appealed to Heaven in order that he might be protected in carrying out this great work, and in order that the railway freight rates should be reduced in the interests of the people. Sir, he was protected in respect to that ipolicy in the elections which followed, and he was similarly protected in the elections of 1908. But last year, when it was discovered that his humbugging policy was not productive of any good results to the country, a change took place, and not only Heaven, apparently, withdrew its support from him, but the great majority of the people in Canada withdrew their support, and relieved him of the high office which he held. Having those conditions to grapple with, nevertheless the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) rises in his place and declares that this parliament should at once dictate what the means of remedy should be. We have a Railway Commission of which we are all proud. We have vested in that commission all the powers necessarv to remedy the evils of which my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) has

complained to-night He lias treated us to a dissertation by the hon. member (Mr. Turriff), but let me contrast it with a statement made about a year ago from his place in the House by the late Minister of Railways. Speaking on the 17th of January, 1911, Mr. Graham said:-
1 am not sure that they are so ready as that. However, the Railway Commission has complete control of rates in Canada. I agree with my hon. friend from South York, and I disagree with him. I believe that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada is the best body, with the widest jurisdiction, of all such bodies in the world. I have had reason lately to make some investigation of this matter. In Germany, though the railways are government roads, the freight rates there do not compare for one moment with the rates in Canada. They are three times as high as our rates. Their hauls are short, it is true, but their rates should be low, because their cars are all loaded. France has not approached the control of rates as we have. England has a board, but in the control of freight rates it does not compare with the Interstate Commerce Commission or with ours, and the control exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission does not for a moment equal with the control exercised by the Canadian Commission. Our commission can take anything they like as a basis for fixing the rates of the Canadian Pacific railway; they can take the dividend paid on the stock or the actual cost of the road, or they can have the company file a tariff, which will be as they see it a fair tariff for the transportation of freight and passengers. Let me call my hon. friend's attention to another point. I am not defending the Canadian Pacific railway. But if you take the rates in the United States-[DOT]

1 want the House to bear this in mind
because one hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) dealt especially with the rates in the United States.
-from the west to Duluth, and take the rates for a corresponding distance in Canada, you will find that our rates are lower in every instance. A statement which I had compiled last summer showed that the people, in the United States were paying higher- freight rates for the same distance than the people on our side. I have no hesitation in saying that, with all the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and with the great population in the United States and the great strength of their western railways, the rates to and from the west are higher than those in this country for the same distances. Being very much interested in this matter, it strikes me that whatever we are to do in this House, we ought to keep clearly in mind this fact, that we have established a board composed of able men. No part of the government of Canada does it more credit than the Board of Railway Commissioners. Their judgments are quoted as my hon. friend quoted them in the case of the express companies, and they have done a great deal of good; and I would not like to see anything done that would have a tendency to take out of their hands the complete jurisdiction we have given them, because they can exercise it better than we


Robert Rogers: could and with more beneficial results to the people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a statement made by the late Minister of Railways and Canals from his place in this House. What does the resolution of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), mean? If it means anything, it means that we are asked to vote want of confidence in the Railway Commission. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this government accept and acknowledge the Board of Railway Commissioners as the only legitimate child of the late government during their whole career. So accepting that Railway Board in that form and in that manner, we are not going now to vote want of confidence in their administration. We are not going to lake the course taken by our predecessors, because they never appealed to that Railway Board, notwithstanding the statement of the late Minister of Railways that the Board of Railway Commissioners have complete control, and that they can exercise that control according to their own judgment. We recognize on this side of the House the conditions in western Canada, not alone with regard to freight rates, but the deplorable conditions that exist in the prairie provinces, conditions for which the late administration are solely and entirely responsible. Now, Sir, recognizing that fact, having the most complete confidence in the Railway Commission, having asked them to take up and consider all complaints with regard to freight rates with a view of dealing with them in a fair and reasonable manner, not alone in western Canada, but throughout the Dominion, having also employed three of the ablest lawyers we could find to present the case of the people before the commission, then I say, having gone that far, it would be treating the commissioners, in whom we have the utmost confidence, with disrespect, it would be showing a lack of confidence in their judgment if we were to pass this resolution. Therefore, I take objection to this resolution on these grounds, and I ask hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to reject it, believing as we do, that it will serve no good purpose, inasmuch as this government have already taken the only legitimate course open to them of securing a remedy of the grievances of which the people complain, in the matter of railway freight rates..


Frank Oliver: I regret that I was not present to hear all the remarks of my hon. friend, but I take it that his remarks apply to one point, namely, the question whether this House should make a declaration as to the authority to be exercised by the Railway Commission over freight rates in western Canada. It is desirable, before we reach a decision as to whether we should pass or reject this motion, fully to
consider the important question that it has raised, and the attitude of the people who are most directly interested. I understand that my hon. friend who opened this discussion moved a resolution which had been adopted by the Winnipeg Board of Trade on November 14. I happen to have in my possession certain correspondence connected with this subject, which will show more fully the position taken by the Winnipeg Board of Trade, that is to say by the business men of western Canada on this matter. The resolution was passed by the board of trade on November 14, and was forwarded, I understand to the Minister of Railways for his consideration. The Minister of Railways referred it to the Chairman of the Board [DOT]of Railway Commissioners, and the Chairman of the board communicated with the Winnipeg Board of Trade under date of November 24, as follows:
The hon. the Minister of Railways has forwarded to me a copy of a resolution parsed at the general meeting of your hoard, held on Nov 14th instant. This is the first complaint that has been made directly to this board regarding freight Tates generally in the west. There is no necessity in eallin" upon the government to deal with the matter, nor is any further legislation required. 1 he powers of the board are ample to deal with not only speeifio rates but those generally. The resolution you have forwarded is of an extremely general charaofer. If you desire the whole subject to be investigated by this board, it would greatly facilitate matters it you would have your traffic officials formulate a specific case. Our rules ere by no means hard and fast, nor do we confine ourselves to the specific case set forth in the complaint but it is a difficult matter to take up in the way it is placed in this resolution. Indeed, strictly speaking, the resolution is not a complaint to this commission at all, but is a request that the government pass legislation. I should be glad to hear your views upon the foregoing.
Yours truly,
J. P. MABEE, Chief Commissioner.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the date of that?


Frank Oliver: It was dated the 24th of November, 1911.
That is the reply which the Minister of Railways did not give to the communication he received from the Board of Trade. He apparently handed the communication of the Board of Trade to the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners and the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners answered.


Francis Cochrane: That was a letter directed to the board and not to me. T had not it in my possession. This letter was in answer to the resolution of the Board of Trade and was not to me, so you
need not lay any charge to me for not producing the letters.


Frank Oliver: I am not making any charge.	.


Mr COCHRANE.: And further, that during the summer now passed the express companies were authorized to put into effect a scale of charges based on $5 per hundred pounds in this territory for a similar servioe for which they were allowed $3 in the east, or an .advance of 66? per cent, over eastern rates. And this board has felt that a grave injustice was done to the western country by the continuance of such a state of affairs and felt that the prairie provinces were entitled to be put on an equal basis with the east except to the extent that it could be shown that the cost of operation in the western country exceeded that in the east.
This principle this Board believed to be a fair, and equitable one, and one that as a matter of public policy should be affirmed and carried out and that the government and parliament of Canada are the right parties to affirm and see to the carrying into effect of the same.
The Board begs to enclose herewith a copy of the letter received from the Chairman of the Railway Commission in which it asks that our traffic officials should formulate a specific case. This is exactly what the Board objects to doing. Their charge is that the whole scale of rates in the prairie provinces is in excess of those charged in the east, They attached to their original resolution a copy of rates covering distances respectively in the east and west and covering from 100 miles to 1,050. showing that in each case the charges in the three prairie provinces were materially in excess of those in the east, the whole averaging an increase of 78 per cent, a copy of which statement is hereto attached, and it is this whole matter of grave injustice in the west that it wishes to have taken up and remedied, and the Board believes that the cost of operating in the three prairie provinces is no greater, if as great, as in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
That if it is the desire of the government that the matter should be relegated to the commission and an investigation held by them and the facts ascertained, under such circumstances this Board would urgently request that under the terms of the Railway Act, the Board of Railway Commissioners be instructed to inquire into the facts regarding the whole scale of charges in the prairie provinces, and their relation to those in the east, and that an investigation held with this object in view, should be held in the city of Winnipeg, and elsewhere in the west, if necessary, and in view of the fact that it is .a matter of public policy in which the whole people of the west are concerned, they would further ask that counsel resident in this city and free from all railway corporation control, bo appointed to act with this Board and other public interests, in establishing the facts complained of, and that further, as soon as such facts are established the railway companies be required to reduce their charges in the west to the basis before alluded to.
To this letter from the Winnipeg Board of Trade the minister replied on December 19, 1911:
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 4, in reference to western freight rates and must apologize for not replying sooner. Your letter was mislaid and hence has not had attention. It seems


Frank Oliver: *
to me that your Board has made out .a pretty strong case and I shall be pleased to go into it with Judge Mabee of the Railway Commission, and shall urge that the Board investigate these charges on the ground.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) F. COCHRANE.
C. N. Bell, Esq., m ,
Secretary Board of Trade,
Winnipeg, Man.
The position so far as this correspondence shows then is that while the Minister cf Railways takes_ the same ground as is taken by the Minister of the Interior that the Railway Commission has full power to make such regulations as the Board of Trade asks, provided the Railway Commission thinks these are fair redactions and decidedly holds out the hope or prospect that the commission will hold an investigation and, if satisfied of the facts, make these reductions. On the other hand, the Board of Tiade points out that a specific request was made in the year 1907 and that the request was ignored or that action as requested was not taken by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and further they point out that when a parallel case, that' of the express rates, was- brought, to the attention of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the Board of Railway Commissioners accepted (he principle that express rates in the western country should, of light, be 60 per cent higher than in the eastern country.
Now, Mr. Speaker. I a,m at a loss to understand how my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, speaking as a representative of the western country, can justi-fv the position which he took here to-night in view of these facts which are unquestionable and which are set forth by such a responsible body as the Winnipeg Board of Trade. It does not matter what llie theoretical authority of the board of Railway Commissioners is; the actual authority rests with this parliament and if the Board of Railway Commissioners, for good reason or bad, did not see fit, or have not yet seen fit, to do substantial justice to the western country in this important matter then the responsibility rests upon this parliament, upon this government, upon the members of this government and, may I sav, particularly upon that member of the government who especially represents the western country, to see that justice is done.
Mr. ME1G HEN. Did not the two cases that the hon. gentleman quoted in which he claims the commission were derelict occur some years ago, one in 1907 and the other the following year?


Air OLIVER.: One occurred in 1907, I do* not know whether the other occurred in the following vear or the year after, but

the fact is that both occurred when the authority of the commission was just the same in that regard as it is now, and if the commission did not do justice then I submit it is the business of parliament to see that it does justice now or that justice is done.


Mr. MIDHLEBRO.: Who was Minister of the Interior at that time?


Frank Oliver: I had the honour of being Minister of the Interior at that time. If I might digress for one moment, I perceive the trend of my hon. friend's question as also that of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) and I would only say this that it never was expected of the late Liberal government, any more than it is expected of the present Conservative government, thait everything that could be done would be done. If any government during any possible term in which it might hold office, could do everything that the country required to be done there would never be any need for any more government. When these gentlemen rise in their places and say: Oh, you should have done that, they make no argument whatever. If any government of any country ever had reason to be proud of what it did the late Liberal government had reason to be proud.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is another joke.
Mi- OLIVER. If that is a joke, I beg to repeat it, and to say that the history of 'bis country written in the last 15 years under the administration of the Liberal government, is the proudest chapter in the histoiy of Canada to date, beyond any question and, certainly, if the chapter that shall be written during the tenure of office of our hon. friends opposite approaches to it, they will have great reason to congratulate themselves and the country will"have to be congratulated as well. There is a condition which, according to the opinion ot the_ business community of western Canada, is a condition of injustice and whether the late government was remiss or v as not remiss, is not the question to-dav The question is: What is this government going to do about that condition of injustice? Is it going to permit it to he perpetuated? Is it going to be a party to the perpetuation of that condition? In order that there shall be no misunderstanding, let me say that I do not wish to throw any discredit upon the Railway Commission, but if it i-s asserted that this question is new to the consideration of the Railway
Commission, I will ask the House to bear with me while I read from a document, which has been placed in my hands, a document which is the rejoinder of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, or a section of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, to the reiply of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway companies to the allegation of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, or a section of that board, made to the Railway Commissioners protesting against the freight rates then in force. This rejoinder is dated November 29, 1911, shortly after the resolution which was presented . to the House and agreed to by the Board.
1 shall take the opportunity of informing the House with regard to the contents of this document, or a portion of them at any rate. It is addressed to A. D. Cartwright, Secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and is the ' answer of shippers'' section of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, and the Winnipeg Exchange to the contention of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian Northern railway companies.'
2.	The contention of the shippers section of the Winnipeg Board of Trade and Winnipeg Grain Exchange was that the local tariffs in the territory west of Lake Superior on grain and grain products are too high (a) Because such rates are higher than similar rates in eastern Canada, and (b) Because they are too high in themselves.
3.	(a) The contention that the rates are higher than the rates in eastern Canada does not mean merely that the rates themselves are higher, but further, that the rates on the commodities mentioned in western Canada are a much higher proportion of the maximum standard rate (flour and grain products classify 8th class) than the rates on the same commodities in eastern Canada are of the maximum standard rate there. A statement was put in by Mr. Carpenter, Traffic Officer Shippers' section Winnipeg Board of Trade, at a sitting of the board held at Montreal, a copy of which is attached thereto.
I would ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House to have this statement embodied in ' Hansard,' without my being required to read it. If I am not granted permission, I will be compelled to read it,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think the Speaker has authority to give permission.
It is the rule of the House that nothing can be inserted in ' Hansard ' except what is read other than official lists and figures given by the ministers. I think that has been the practice.


Frank Oliver: Then. I will give (he House this table as well as I may:
102J


Frank Oliver: 296 300	miles.	20 cents. 11 " It "	82	per	cent less. tt399 400	25 13 13	<.	92	per tt	cent less.||	"	30 15 S 15	if if if	94 100	per	cent less. it594 595	-	34 174 17	it it	94 100	per a	cent less.299 300	20 16 11	25 82	*	457 459	"	28 17 15	it a ft	65 87	a a	it tt565 570	"	33 19 17	74 94	tt	tt tt583 584	34 18 17	89 100	fe	tt


Richard Blain: Have you given the points in eastern Canada?


Frank Oliver: The points in eastern Canada are not given here, but I presume my hon. friend would not question the statement of the Winnipeg Board of Trade on this subject.


Mr. AMES.: Is the quotation between Wapella and Savanne for way-freight rates or through rates?


Frank Oliver: They are way-freight rates.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is no grain stopping at Savanne, Out.


Frank Oliver: This whole question, is a question of local rates and not a question of through rates.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the use of discussing what it -costs to take graiu from Wa-pella to Savanne when in all probability there never has been a bushel of grain left off at Savanne? Tell us what, it costs from Port Arthur or Fort William.


Frank Oliver: We are not discussing through rates; we are discussing local rates.
, Mr. AMES. You are discussing a condition of affairs which never exists.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is at issue with the Winnipeg Board of Trade, which purports to know something of the conditions in western Canada.


Herbert Brown Ames: Even in the face of the declaration of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, one can hardly be expected to put aside his common sense.


Frank Oliver: If it is a question between the common sense of my hon. friend from St. Antoine, and the statement of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, my vote will be with the Board of Trade.


Herbert Brown Ames: It was not with the Winnipeg Board of Trade on reciprocity.


Frank Oliver: It is possible even for the Winnipeg Board of Trade to be mistaken on a question of theory, but not on a question of facts and figures within their knowledge.


Arthur Meighen: Was reciprocity only a theory?


Frank Oliver: It was a theory, and hon. gentlemen opposite prevented it from becoming practical; that is what is the matter with the country .to-day. Now, as having some bearing on the point which my hon. friend has raised, the Board of Trade goes on to say:
While the Canadian Pacific local mileage rates apply on all local shipments west of
Fort William, in U.S.A. territory the terminal rates to Duluth, Superior, etc., apply as a maximum between intermediate poi-nts-In some cases this would mean a reduction m the local rates of almost 94 per cent, and we contend that as a matter of fact that a large volume of local shipments of grain in>
the United State-s territory covered by Mr. Laniaan'e statement is handled under the terminal rate (applying as a maximum), and not the local rate at all.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Are these carload rates, or less than carload rates?


Frank Oliver: They are carload rates. This is a rejoinder to the statements made by the representatives of the two railway companies. In paragraph 11 they say:
Regarding Mt. Lanigan's statement (page 61(12) that only 12 per cent of the grain crop moves under the rate complained of. The Northwest Grain Dealers' Association estimate of the 1911 grain crop in western Canada, is 304,207,500 bushels. 12 per cent of this would be 36,384,900 bushels, no inconsiderable amount.
Now, if my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) is under the impression that there is no local business doing in that western country, here are the facts given by the Winnipeg Board of Trade on the authority of Mr. Lanigan of the Canadian Pacific railway.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to assert that the whole 300,000,000 bushels moved, and that 12 pe- eent of it ought to move in this particular way?


Frank Oliver: The whole crop does not move,


Herbert Brown Ames: Then, is it not cnly 12 per cent of what does move?


Frank Oliver: Yes, precisely.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then give us what moves.


Frank Oliver: Instead of giving us the-figures given by the Board of Trade, suppose we cut them in two. I suppose that my hon. friend will admit that half the crop does move.


Herbert Brown Ames: No.


Frank Oliver: Then I do not think I need srgue with my hon. friend any more.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not think anybody will admit that 160,000,060 bushels of the grain of the west does move.


Frank Oliver: Then my hon. friend and I do not agree, and I think he had better take his own opportunity of placing his views before the House. When he makes such a statement as that, I would not undertake to argue with him at ail. Suppose we say that only half the crop moves, then, according to Mr. Lanigan's calcuia-

lions, that 12 per cent is carried under local rates and these would affect the handling of 18,000,000 bushels of grain. Again I would say, with all due respect to this honourable House, that this is a matter of sufficient importance to take its attention for a few minutes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did the Railway Commission deal with that complaint?


Frank Oliver: This is a rejoinder to the defence made by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern railways to a con-plaint made by the Winnipeg Board of Trade.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then it is all a part of a case before the Railway Commission -the complaint, the rejoinder and the reply. It is all before the commission still.


Frank Oliver: I cannot say what has become of it; but the expectation of the Winnipeg Boa/d of Trade, as expressed in the letters which have been read, was such that they believed that it was necessity to get an authoritative statement from this House as to what was required in the case. On the basis of the judgment given by the Railway Commission in the *express case, they did not expect substantial justice from the Railway Commission.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did not the Railway Commission tell them in the early part of the proceedings that the law was ample and provided fully for dealing with the ease?


Frank Oliver: Certainly they did.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then why should they want more law?


Frank Oliver: It is not that they ask that the commission should have more authority. The commission has authority, but it has not exercised that authority to remove this stupendous injustice, and the Board of Trade come to this honourable House and asks it to remove the injustice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The commission is trying the ease.


Frank Oliver: Not at all, there is no ease to try.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The case is before the commission still.


Frank Oliver: It may, or may not, I cannot say, but I am taking the liberty of putting the case before this House, if I may, and it is of sufficient importance, both in matter and in principle, to warrant our attention. Speaking of the rejoinder of the railway companies, the Board of Trade says:
Mr. OLIVER,
A comparison 19 made of local mileage rates in Ontario, with rates from western points to Eort William. We submit that this comparison is unjust for the reason that a local mileage rate is compared with a terminal or proportional rate governing a part of a through haul, and necessarily the latter is much lower.
The board goes oil to say:
Regarding paragraphs 5 and 7 of Mr. Shaw's answer of October 12th wherein he contends that the price paid the farmer for his grain is based upon its expert value, and that, therefore, while a reduction in mileage grain rates would not increase the value of the grain to the farmer, it would needlessly reduce the railway's revenue. We contend that for the purpose of this investigation it is immaterial to the commission whether the producer or the consumer suffers as a result of the unduly high local mileage'grain rates. Of necessity it must he one or the other. However, as a matter of fact, the prices paid for feed grain are not m many cases based upon its export value but its value for feed in the locality to which it is consigned. However, in all cases, whether for feed or for export, the freight charges are deducted from the price paid for the grain in making settlement with the farmer. Therefore, the producer pays the freight charges.
The defendants contend that their local mileage grain rates between points in western Canada are reasonable because these rates compare favourably with rates shown in local mileage grain tariffs in the Dakotas and Montana. We submit that in so much 89 it is clearly shown in paragraph 9 of this letter that the local mileage tariffs in Dakota and Montana do not as a matter of practice govern the cost of moving grain and grain products between local points, for instance, between local points and such large centres of consumption a9 St. Paul and Minneapolis, and intermediate points to Duluth, Superior, etc., the unduly high rates charged for the movement of grain and its products between points west of Lake Superior cannot be justified by the comparison made by the defendants.
The defendants further contend that all privileges etc., connected with the milling of grain in eastern and western Canada must be considered in arriving at a reasonable rat** for the carriage of grain and its products between points west of Lake Superior, and endeavour to justify such rates by stating that different privileges are granted western millers than those extended to eastern millers. We submit that because a carrier applies different regulations for the milling of grain in transit is no reason or justification for charging unduly high rates on grain and letter, tlie same regtilations govern the milling of Manitoba grain in eastern Canada as in western Canada. Furthermore, in placing this argument before the commission, the carriers omitted to state that in eastern Canada special less than carload commodity rates are granted on grain products out from the mills, whereas in western Canada full class rates are exacted. For instance:-

Miles	j Eastern Canada C.P.R. Tariff No. E 1520, C.R, C. No. E 1929.	Western Canada C.P.R. Tariff W. No. 50, C.E. C. No. W 2 Manitoba.	C.P.R. Tariff 56, C.R.C. W. 3 Sask. & Alta.100	0	21	23200 	14	31	33300 	17	39	43400 	20	48	52500 	. 23	55	60000 	20	G2	68
Rates in cents per 100 lbs.
The board says further:
We do not request, nor have we ever asked, that rates on grain and grain products between local jroints west of Lake Superior should be on as loir a basis as the terminal rates to Fort William and Port Arthur. These terminal, or proportional rates as they are specified in the tariffs, are simply one charge for part of a through journey, or in other words, part of a through irate, and those terminal rates, as has already been pointed out, were a matter of contract with the Manitoba and Dominion governments where the railways received value for the reductions made. We submit therefore, that it cannot be urged that because these terminal, or proportional, rates are low that local rates between points west of Lake Superior should be unduly high.
At the hearing in Montreal on July 23, 1911, our representative asked that local rates on grain and grain products between points west of Lake Superior should be reduced so as to show no greater difference over rates for similar service in eastern Canada than the 8th class maximum standard rates in western Canada shows over the 8tli class maximum standard in eastern Canada (grain and grain [DOT]products classify 8th class in carloads).
Since that time, however, copy of the evidence in the Vancouver rate case has been received, and the exhibit filed by the Canadian Pacific in that case shows a greater cost to move 1,000 tons of freight one mile in a portion of the territory where the eastern Canadian rates referred to in this answer apply, than in the territory west of Lake Superior where the rates complained of govern. Fo,r instance-
Cost to haul 1,000 tons of freight 1 mile, exclusive of interest or fixed charges.
Exhibit 17. eastern division. Chalk
River to Montreal	, $5 45
Exhibit 7, central division, Port Arthur
to Moosejaw	 3 73
Exhibit 7, western division, Moosejaw
to Field	 4 71
We submit, therefore, that no higher rates
should be charged for the movement of grain and grain products between points west o' Lake Superior to the mountains than i charged on the eastern division of the Cana dian Pacific railway, where the cost of haulage is greater than in the former territory, and we would respectfully urge the commission to order that rates on grain and grain products handled under local mileage tariffs between points west of Lake Superior and the mountains should be reduced to an equivalent of those charged upon the eastern division, or, at least, that rates on grain and grain products handled under local mileage tariffs west of Lake Superior should not exceed the 8th class maximum standard rates in the western Canada by a greater percentage than the local mileage grain rates in eastern Canada exceed the Stli class maximum standard rates in eastern Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have taken the liberty of placing before the House the statement of the Winnipeg Board of Trade in regard to this important matter. The board contends first, that the local rates on grain and grain products in western Canada are higher than the service rendered warrants. They are higher in proportion to tire rates charged for like service in eastern'Canada or in the United States, and they are higher in proportion to the rates charged by the same railway for carrying goods of the same class in western ' Canada than they are in eastern Canada. What they ask, and all they ask, is that the rates be placed on the same level, and made in the same proportion for the like service rendered, west of the lakes as east of the lakes. The conditions which exist in the prairie provinces at the present time makes it a question of more than ordinary importance. We have had the action of the government, taken _ in conjunction with the railway companies, for the purpose of securing the transportation and an outlet for the grain that is blockaded in the western provinces to-day, or a portion of it, to Duluth and Minneapolis. It is proposed to secure that outlet by a reduction in the rates Here is a condition which, according to the showing of the Board of Trade based on the figures given by the railway company, reduced again at the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. Antoine division of Montreal (Mr. Ames), which affects 12,000,000 bushels of that product in reaching its market.	.
It affects the transportation of 12 million bushels of the product, that to-day lies in the fields because it cannot reach the markets of consumers. If it was right *and reasonable that this government should take action with the railway companies, and take action with the United States Commerce Commission in order to secure a reduction of the rates to United States noints, surely it was just as right and reasonable that this government should take action witli our own Railway Com-nission to secure a reduction in the rates vithin our own country. To-day, because the grain cannot be transferred from the

field where it is produced to the local points of consumption, there is a burden on the transportation of that grain of from 40 to 90 per cent more than it should properly bear, according to the value of the service rendered, and the charges made for like service in other places, and on other lines, and even on the very same lines of railway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has not our government taken exactly the same action -with regard to our commission as the United States government have taken with regard to their commission?


Frank Oliver: Not as I understand it, and not as the Winnipeg Board of Trade understands it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We are not responsible for their understanding.


Frank Oliver: If my bon. friend sized himself up with the Winnipeg Board of Trade, he would find that he did not have much advantage over them. They are generally reputed to be able to hold their own, intellectually or otherwise, with other people in this country, and perhaps to have some advantage. Now, is this a case of sufficient importance to warrant the consideration of parliament and of the government ? The contention of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, and the contention which I make, is that the case is of sufficient importance to warrant the consideration of this parliament and government. Then the question is, is this government and parliament to take no action, on the pretext that the matter is one for the Railway Commission and that they are entirely responsible for it? In my judgment on the case, as stated to the Minister of Railways by the Winnipeg Board of Trade, and from the fact that tile Railway Commission decided that a discrimination was proper between the east and the west in the matter of express rates, I think I have made out a strong case why this government should take immediate action in order to relieve the very undesirable conditions that exist in the 'west. This government and this parliament are responsible for the continuation of those conditions, and the people of the west will not cease earnestly to ask them to act without undue delay.


Mr. HEPBURN.: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the Railway Commission has not jurisdiction over rates in western Canada?


Frank Oliver: No, I said repeatedly that the Railway Commission has jurisdiction under the law. But in practice, the Railway Commission has not exercised that jurisdiction in order to bring about a general reduction in the rates such as the resolution asks for.


Frank Oliver: 


Bernard Rickart Hepburn: As I understand it, just as soon as the attention of the Minister of Railways was called to this matter he took up the question with the Railway Commission, and has been assured by them that they will immediately look into the freight rates in western Canada. The chairman of the board asserts that they have full jurisdiction over all rates, and will attend to the matter at once.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver).: I wish to make my position clear in regard to this matter. We have in British Columbia, as the House is aware, a strong grievance, the same as.other sections in the west, and we have been fighting this question before the Railway Commission for a number of years. This week we closed a very long and technical argument on behalf of the Board of Trade of Vancouver before the commission. This whole question is going to be dealt with, and the initial steps were taken on Monday last. It seems to me therefore that the offering of this resolution is simply embarrassing the action of the board, that is, it is placing on the decision of the boardi which is not yet given, the condemnation of this House. We all acknowledge that this Board has been created for the purpose of dealing with just such matters as this, that the board has been constituted in such a way, that its personnel is of such a character as to make it very efficient. This board has done noble service for the people of Canada. Yet lion, gentlemen opposite are asking this government to condemn the board before they have had an opportunity of considering . the question. As I have said, the board have already taken the initial steps to deal with this question, and the present government have appointed counsel to look after the interests of the people on the prairies. I can assure hon. gentlemen that while the question, on the face of it, seems simple, it is one of the most intricate and difficult questions that can possibly be dealt with. Everybody who has had anything to do with traffic questions knows that railway traffic rates, the equalization and adjusting of those rates, is one of the most intricate questions that come before the Railway Commission. * I have taken a deep interest in this matter for a number of years, and I think it would be exceedingly unwise to bring this question to a vote. Hon. gentlemen themselves will acknowledge that this is a political move pure and simple. I will go this far with them, I will agree to a large extent with the statements made by the hon. member for Edimonton (Mr. Oliver), and with the statements made by the Winnipeg Board of Trade. I myself have a mass of figures to substantiate those statements, to a large extent. But what is the use of making arguments of this

kind to the House, and condemning the Railway Commission who are pursuing the only course that they can -pursue? If we take action of that kind, we should logically follow it up by abolishing the Railway Commission, and I do not think that even hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to do that. As I understood it, the Winnipeg Board of Trade is objecting, apparently, to the decision of the commission on express rates. I have not gone through the whole evidence and argument but I venture to say, from the experience I have had, that the board must have had good, sound reasons for the decision they have given. We in British Columbia suffer a great deal more than they do on the prairies, that is the percentage is increased as you go west.	.


John Gillanders Turriff: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But I do feel that we should leave it to the Board of Railway Commissioners to deal with, give them all the assistance we can; I think it is well to air these things once in a while in the House, but I feel that to adopt a resolution of this kind, which must be construed as one of want of confidence in the commission, is inadvisable. The hon. member who moved the amendment (Mr. Turriff), has had the opportunity of getting this mass of information on ' Hansard ' and he might withdraw the motion. I feel that to adopt his amendment, would be to cast a reflection on one of the finest institutions we have in Canada.


Mr.   JAS@: MeKAY (Prince Albert). Mr. Speaker, before making a few remarks on this motion, I would ask the hon. member for Edmonton, if, when the question of express rates was brought before the Railway Commission, the public was represented by counsel?


Frank Oliver: I could not say.


Mr. McKAY.: While I am not in favour of the rates that now prevail in the west, I must say that I cannot supiport the amendment for the following reasons among others:	The trend of the remarks that
have been made by opposition members, who have spoken to this amendment, is. that although the Railway Commission had jurisdiction to deal with this matter, they remained passive, and in a decision given in a previous case somewhat analogous to this, that of the express Tates, the board did not follow the principle which hop. gentlemen endeavour to lay down in this amendment. Consequently, hon. gentlemen fear that in this other case, which is now before the Railway Commission a similar decision may be given.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


James McKay: The hon. members who have spoken, are seriously endeavouring
to redress the grievances that prevail in the west, and I am with them in the statement that such grievances exist with regard to railway rates, but I would remind them that in a case now before the Railway Commission with reference to freight rates, the present government has taken hold of that matter, placed it before the Railway Commission and employed counsel to watch the interests of the public.


John Gillanders Turriff: In connection with the express rate investigation, counsel was employed to represent the public.


James McKay: Even admitting that, the hon. member who moved this motion, himself admitted that on a previous occasion, when he made a speech in this House, he was not in possession of facts with which he is now familiar, and I presume that as these facts had not then become public property, the gentlemen who were conducting the case with regard to express rates, were not in possession of facts of which hon. gent-1 imen and the country at large are now in possession. I submit that the principle which it is endeavoured to lay down in this House, will be followed by the Railway Commission as the facts are now before the members of the Railway Commission and the counsel who will conduct the case for the public. I cannot conceive why that principle should not be followed to a great extent by the Railway Commission when it deals with this case, because it is a just and proper principle. I am against the amendment, for the reason that the Railway Commission now has this case in hand, it is in possession of the facts, and will deal with them in a proper manner. If the case is not dealt with in a proper manner, why then it can be dealt with by this House so as to afford the west relief from the grievances under which they are now suffering.
Amendment (Mr. Turriff) negatived or>
division.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.



SUPPLY.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are two votes at ipage 62, which I wish to dispose of.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have done a good day's work, and I hope my hon. friend will not insist on going on to-night.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There remain only one or two resolutions, and I have been bringing the officers -of my department up here for a Meek. I am anxious to complete the preparation of the supplementary estimates, but that cannot be done until these items are disposed of.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand the hon. the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), has something to say.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have postponed them twice already. I do not think the hon. member fox St. John can have any objection to these two resolutions which are yearly votes, for the lighting and heating, etc., of I'ideal! Hall, and public buildings.


Frank Oliver: I certainly do not wish to delay the passage of the estimates, but the votes that my hon. friend speaks of relate particularly to the city of Ottawa, and I would like to give my hon. friend the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), who is partly representing the city of Ottawa, an opportunity to be heard when the votes are being considered. If my hon. friend will amicably consent to allow these items to stand until to-morrow, so that the hon. member for Russell can be here, I would be very glad, and if the member for Russell is not here I will promise that I will withdraw all objection to the items going through.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not like to be disobliging, although it seems to me that I have been as patient as possible. If it is desired that the hon. member for Russell should be here when we discuss these items having reference to the city of Ottawa, I will consent to what my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) proposes. There remains one item with reference to harbours and rivers in Prince Edward Island which we might pass and then adjourn.
Harbours, rivers -and bridges-generally- repairs and improvements, $10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not think that the hon. gentleman is fair at this hour of the evening in asking us to take up this item, and I would strongly object to passing any more estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I proposed that we should dispose of that item and then leave the items for Ottawa.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.).: I have to ask the minister for some information in regard to this matter. I find that a number of items that were in the estimates passed last year and submitted by the late government have been dropped, particularly in regard to the county I represent. More than fifty per cent of the amount that was voted last year for harbours and rivers in Prince Edward Island has been left out of the estimates this year, and I would ask the minister if he could tell me the reason why.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The main estimates for Prince Edward Island were prepared in a hurry. Parliament was assembling a very short time after the new government took office, and it is intended to restore many of those items in the supplementary estimates. I can give that assurance to my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) right now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


James Joseph Hughes: There are some things I would like to point out to the minister before he prepares the estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would it not be more convenient for my hon. friend to give me a list of the works that he proposes?


James Joseph Hughes: I wrote to the minister giving him a list and asking him if he would give me an interview at any time and place that would suit himself and I would be glad to go over the items with him and point out the reason why I thought they should be put in the supplementary estimates. The minister answered my letter, but he did not reply to that request.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will be glad to meet my hon. friend at any time.


James Joseph Hughes: If the minister would give me that privilege I will meet him in his office at an early date.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, certainly, any time that will suit my hon. friend.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. MONK moved the adjournment of the House.	.


Frank Oliver: What will be the order of business to-morrow?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We will take up the estimates of the Public Works Department to-morrow.	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: That will be the first order?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 1C, 1912.