1912-03-11

Mr. EMMERSON.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if the contracts for the harbour works at Courtenay bay have been signed.


Mr. MONK.: They have not been signed yet, but they are being prepared for signature.



ST. JOHN VALLEY RAILWAY.

Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, whether the contract with regard to the St. John Valley railway has been signed ?


Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: The Minister of Railways and Canals was asked that question a few days ago. He said it had been signed by one of the parties, and not by the other, as far as I remember.



THE NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE.

Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not it has been decided by the government to increase the pay of the Northwest Mounted Police ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, the necessary order in council has been passed for that purpose.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: That order will be brought down immediately, I suppose.


Robert Laird Borden: It will be brought down at once.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska).: I desire to ask the hon. Postmaster General when I may expect the various returns from his department which were ordered by the House at my request. One of these orders was made on the 22nd of January. As I intend to discuss the matter referred to in these papers before the session closes, I would be very glad if the minister would see that the papers are brought down.


Mr. PELLETIER.: I will take a note of the question of my hon. friend. I may say that there are so many papers asked for that the department


Wilfrid Laurier: So many dismissals.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, there are not many papers asking for dismissals, but there are many on other matters.



THE GRAIN ACT.

Mr. KNOWLES.: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in order to do so I will read the following telegram from the secretary of the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan.
Moosejaw, Saak., March 9, 1912. W. E. Knowles, M.P., Ottawa.
Whilst fullest discussion was afforded before Senate committee last year, farmers are fearful that through the influence of elevator and transportation companies at Ottawa farmers' friends will be handicapped and their interests sacrificed. Our association is ready to send delegation if in your opinion their cause may be assisted.
FRED. W. GREEN, Secretary, Saskatchewan G.G.A.,
Moosejaw.
I wish to ask the hon. minister whether he will give me an assurance or an intimation that the progress of the Grain Bill will be delayed for a sufficient length of time to give the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association an opportunity to send this delegation here. I should think it could be here by the end of this week. I understand that the Bill has now been waiting for a week, and I submit that the matter is of sufficient urgency that it might be further delayed till they arrive. I hope the hon. minister can give me that intimation so that I may answer this telegram.


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I think my hon. friend may rest assured that the interest of the farmers is perfectly safe in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: The farmers do not think so.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: The farmers do not all think one way. There are a great many farmers in the Northwest, and I fear that comparatively few of them have been represented here. However, I think it is not necessary to delay the passage of the Grain Bill through this House. If these or any other gentlemen wish to come here, they will have an opportunity of conferring with me or with the leader of the Upper House or with their friends, and if anything is put before the department or the government which they consider to be vital in the matter, a change could be made in the Bill in the Senate just as well as in the House. I would not like at this stage of the session to delay the third reading of the Bill in this House.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 68) respecting the Queen's College at Kingston, and to change its name to Queen's University at Kingston.-Mr. Nickle.
Mr. NICKLE.: The last time the Bill was before the Committee of the Whole the bon. member for the St. Lawrence Division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), moved that the committee now rise, and said:
I do not wish to kill the Bill, but I have endeavoured on three occasions to get the opinion of the Justice Department on this question. My hon. friend from Kingston states that the Private Bills Committee has had that opinion. I am not a member of that committee, and I think we are entitled to have that opinion laid on the table of this House. There are some clauses in the Bill that we have pleaded with the promoters to leave out, because they are insulting to a large number of people. As long as clause 20 remains in the Bill, I will take every chance to defeat it. I stated to the promotor of the Bill that if that clause were struck out. I would not raise the question of jurisdiction.
From the utterances of the hon. gentleman, it is perfectly clear that he admits the general principle of the Bill, but finds fault with certain of its clauses.. Under these circumstances, it seems radically unfair that he should place before the House a motion that the committee now rise, the effect of which would be that the Bill would be killed so far as this House is concerned. Perhaps it would be only fair, as the personnel of the committee to-day is not exactly the same as that of ten days' ago, that I should outline briefly the history of this legislation and the position of its promoters with regard to it. As I stated on a previous occasion, Queen's University was incorporated in 1841 by royal charter, and the preamble is as follows-
151i
Whereas the establishment of a college within the province of Upper Canada, in North America, in connection with the Church of Scotland, for the education of youth in the principles of the Christian religion; and for their instruction in the various branches of science and literature, would greatly conduce to the welfare of our said province.
Provision is made in the cnarter that the university shall be managed by 27 trustees, 15 of whom shall be laymen in full connection with the church of Scotland, and 12 shall be ministers of the Presbyterian church, the Principal of the university to be a minister of the Presbyterian church. On the occasion of the union of the Free church with the bid church of Scotland in Canada, legislation was sought in the Ontario legislature and also in this parliament, with the result that the control of the university was then vested in 27 trustees, who were given authority to elect their successors when a vacancy occurred on the board.
The whole spirit of Queen's from its inception has been against religious intolerance. It was founded as a protest against the restriction of King's College,. Toronto, now Toronto university, where a student was bound to take a test oath before he could have the advantage of that institution. At no time has Queen's required a student to take a test oath. In 1902 the late Rev. G. M. Grant, then Principal of the university, had before the General Assembly of Canada, a measure for the cutting away from Queen's of her Presbyterian control, and in 1903 a Bill was introduced in parliament to that effect. Unfortunately the reverend gentleman died shortly after the Bill was introduced, and from 1903 until 1911 nothing was done in regard to the subject. However in 1911 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in Canada consented to the university becoming separated from the Presbyterian church, but laid down as a condition precedent to that separation, that the distinctively Christian character of the university should be maintained, and at that time appointed two committees, one/ of which was to co-operate with the trustees of the university in securing legislation, the other to watch the interests of the theological faculty. In the Bill of 1903, as presented by the late Principal Grant, clause No. 26 was identical with clause 20 as it appears in the present Bill, but in the Bill of 1910, as originally drafted by the trustees, the words:
-save the profession of Christianity.
as they now appear in clause 20 of the present Bill, were omitted. When the two committees of the Presbyterian church and the committee of the university came together to confer on the terms of this Bill,.

those who had the responsibility of protecting the rights of the Theological Faculty of the Presbyterian church objected to clause 20 standing as it was then drawn, and insisted that the words,
*	save the profession of Christianity,' be introduced. The Presbyterian church, as I outlined a moment ago, gave consent to this separation on certain terms, and, bowing to the judgment of the Theological Committee of the Presbyterian church, the trustees and the co-operating committee of the ehurch agreed to these words being reinstated, and it is in that way that the words now appear in the Bill. Perhaps it is only fair that I should place before the House my views on this question, because the Bill, as I have already pointed out, is private legislation. It is not a Bill for which I am primarily responsible. The Bill that I introduced in this House relates to an institution that is domiciled in Kingston. I might say that my personal views are that the incorporation of the words
*	save the profession of Christianity,' is a mistake from the point of view of the university and from the point of view of the church. It is a mistake because, in my Judgment, it will cut off the university from taking advantage of the intellect of certain of the Jewish people who display great aptitude in matters, legal, literary, and scientific. It will be a stumbling block in the way of the university when application is made to the government of Ontario for assistance, because the government may then feel justified in saying: ' You are not national in spirit because your restrictions exclude from your trustee board and professional chairs, certain representative Canadian citizens. I think also it is a retrograde movement, because is puts restrictions on Queen's that are not now there, and furthermore, I doubt if the movement is one in the right direction. But, Sir, there is another question that I have to consider, and it is one that has caused me great worry and anxiety. The question is this: How far am I justified in setting up my views as against the views contained in this Bill, which represent the wisdom of the Presbyterian church and the wisdom of the trustee board of Queen's university? The only ground on which I would be justified as a member of parliament, in voting against this Bill, is that within its four corners are inconsistencies and improprieties from a national point of view. I have listened to the arguments advanced by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike), and of those whom he contends he primarily represents, and I have been struck with the fact that only on one ground can he hope to succeed in having either clause 3 or clause 20 amended or altered in any way. If I interpret correctly the argument of the


William Folger Nickle: member for St. Lawrence, it is that there is an inconsistency in having in the Bill clauses 3 and 20. If the members of the House will follow me they will see that clause 3 of Bill (No. 68) reads as follows :
The management and discipline of the university shall he in every_ respect freed from all denominational restrictions, and it shall be national and non-denominational in its character and management;
Clause 20 is to the following effect:
The university shall continue distinctively Christian, but no religious test or qualification save the profession of Christianity shall be required of or appointed for any officer, trustee, member of council, or official of the university. Laymen shall be eligible to any position therein.
The argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence is that there is an inconsistency in the Bill in saying that a university shall be national, and at the same time saying that it shall be distinctly Christian. The promoters of this Bill answer those objections by referring to cases decided in the courts in England and in Ontario. In the case of the Crown versus Milburn, which is reported in the Law Beports, Exchequer Court Cases, 1867, volume 2, page 230 (234) Baron Kelly enunciated the doctrine that ' Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land.'
They also draw my attention to a case that was decided in Ontario, in 1879, Pringle versus Napanee, in which the Divisional Court held that Christianity in general and not simply the tenets of a particular sect is part of the recognized law of the province.
In Shirley's Leading Cases, fifth edition, at page 155 to 158, the same principle is enunciated: that Christianity is part of the common law of England. The argument might be advanced that while Christianity was part of the law of England, yet parliament with plenary jurisdiction could vary in any way the desire to enact a law of this sort. But then the promoters of the Bill estop me still further by drawing my attention to ' Hansard ' of 1896, page 5623, in which the late Minister of Justice spoke as follows when the Lord's Day Act was before this House for discussion:
The general scope of this Bill is indicated by its title, an Act respecting the Lord's Day, an Act intended to secure the better observance of the Christian Sunday, throughout the whole of Canada. Christianity, I need scarcely say, is recognized as constituting part of the law of Canada, as it is of the law of the British Empire, and statutes declaring certain things to he offences because they profane the sanctity of the Chritian Sabbath have been frequent upon the statute books of the imperial parliament and of this parliament and of its predecessors.

As a member of parliament, in the face of such decisions and of the statements of the late Minister of Justice is it correct t-o say that Christianity is not a part of the law of this land, and that a Bill is inconsistent which states in one clause that a university shall' be National and in another that it shall be distinctly Christian? After giving the matter the mosit careful consideration that I have been able, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing necessarily inharmonious in this Bill. To say that a university is National and to say that a university is distinctly Christian, is practically saying legally one and the same thing, but in different terms. I might say for the enlightenment of my hon. friend (Mr. Bick-erdike) that when this clause was drafted it was never thought for one moment that it would be offensive to the Hebrew citizens of this country.
Queen's is at all times willing to open her doors to men of other faiths, and I trust the time will never come when Queen's will feel that she need shut her doors in the face of any man who comes seeking for instruction. This university was founded by the Presbyterian Church and has been endowed with Presbyterian money; and it would seem that these people are within the sphere of their right when they ask this parliament to ratify legislation that widens the scope of her operations. Some people might object that a clear severance should be made between education and the state; and, I think, when they try to put on the term ' National ' as used a narrow meaning, and say that because the university is declared to be a National university, therefore it becomes the ward, so to speak of the state, they do not give to the word its true and direct meaning. The idea that the trustees had in the use of that word was that ' National ' meant that Queen's is a free institution to which every student could freely come, that it was geographically National; and, while certain restrictions were put on the staff, and on the trustee board, she was National in this, that she offered free opportunity to those who seek an education, who desire to take advantage of the opportunities she possesses. And I think that when my hon. friend from St. Lawrence, Montreal, (Mr. Bick-erdike), considers the matter he will see the propriety of allowing the preamble of this Bill to pass, and that we should discuss in committee the modifications he desires, when it may be possible, that some solution of a very vexed question may be reached. It would be radically unfair that because certain terms are objectionable to him, and to those whom he purports to represent the whole Bill should be killed. The principle of the Bill was settled on its second reading, and it is not unfair to ask
that the committee pass the preamble, and proceed to the consideration of the various clauses.
On section 3,
3. The management and discipline of the university shall he in every respect freed from all denominational restrictions, and it shall be national and undenominational in its character and management.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the excuses given by my hon. friend (Mr. Nickle), for being the champion of the persecutors of the Jews to-day, and I am sorry he did not make a better hand at it. I am pleased to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), in his place, because I intend to raise again the question of jurisdiction. The Bill came before this House, and had its first and second reading with clause 2 in it stating1 ' the university is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.' But at the request of the promoters of the Bill, that clause was withdrawn so that the Bill no longer stands as declaring the university to be for the general advantage of Canada. Well, if it is not for the general advantage of Canada, this becojnes merely an educational Bill; and I would ask on what ground this parliament of Canada is asked to deal with it. I submit respectfully that this Bill should be referred to the Department of Justice, as there is a question of doubt, and a very-grave doubt, whether this House has jurisdiction to deal with it or not. The very-fact that the Ontario authorities sent a representative to the committee to enter a protest against this House taking up this Bill, against our usurping their jurisdiction in educational matters, is surely a reason why we should pause before going on with this measure. Though the clause, has been eliminated declaring it a work? for the general advantage of Canada, yet we have section 3 declaring that the university shall be * National and undenominational.'
If it is undenominational, then section 20 is a direct contradiction. As to the question of jurisdiction, a man does not need to be a lawyer to understand the British North America Act on this subject. That Act states distinctly and defines exactly what this parliament can do, and what the legislatures of the provinces can do. This House has no more constitutional right to deal with an educational matter than the legislatures of Ontario or Quebec would have to gTant a bank charter. So, I move that we do not proceed further with the consideration of the Bill, but that the Bill be referred to the Department of Justice to get their opinion as tf>
whether we have or have not jurisdiction.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The motion is not in order in that form. I think the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike) had better move to report progress. .


Robert Bickerdike: Yes, the suggestion
is that progress should be reported for the purpose of referring the matter to the Department of Justice. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I think the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) labours, to some extent at all events, under a misapprehension, when he sets forth the view that the proper method of determining whether this Bill is constitutional or not, and whether this House should proceed to deal with it or not on the question of its constitutionality, is to refer the matter to the Department of Justice-as I understand him, for deoision. I understand that the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice are not the advisers of this House. As I understand it. the Minister of Justice is the adviser of the Crown and the different departments of government; but I do not understand that it is part of his functions to advise this House, still less do I understand that he has any privilege, or prerogative, or power, to decide for this House whether or no it shall proceed to pass certain legislation upon the consideration of its constitutionality. I think the question of constitutionality of a particular piece of legislation submitted to this House is to toe determined by the House like any other question that arises in connection with the proposed measure. And yet, while all that is perfectly true in my judgment, I, of course, am quite willing to put myself at the service of any member of this House who thinks my opinion upon a question may be useful to him; but I wish to point out that any opinion I express would be only the opinion of a member of this (House, and would be entitled to such weight only as might properly belong to my personal opinion.


Robert Bickerdike: We will abide by It.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is true, the private Bills committee did send this Bill to the department, submitting to it this question of constitutionality, and one of the officers of the department did wait upon the committee and express to them, in the first place, the view I have just set forth, that it was not, perhaps, the proper function of the department to advise the committee, but, nevertheless the department, like its head, was at the service of this House or of any committee of this House that might consider that its opinion could be useful. Now, with Tegard to the question of the constitutionality of legislation concerning Mr. BICKERDIKE.
education, and more particularly concerning this particular educational corporation, I think it is well that we should bear in mind that we are not approaching a perfectly new question. We should have present to our minds the fact that this House has already three times assumed jurisdiction over this particular corporation, and acted on the assumption that it had jurisdiction to enact legislation with regard to this university. Now that creates a situation where, no doubt, things have been done in virtue of that legislation, very possibly, and very probably rights have been acquired under that legislation. I think that in that condition of affairs it behoves us to be very careful indeed before we undertake to pronounce, as we would impliedly pronounce by rejecting this legislation purely on the ground that we have no constitutional power to deal with the matter, that the previous legislation was unconstitutional. As I have said, that legislation has been enacted and rights have been created under it, and that being true, I think we must recognize that it is much more proper that the question of the constitutionality of that legislation should be left to be determined by the courts, than that we should take it upon ourselves, by saying now that on this new legislation we have no jurisdiction whatever, practically to declare that the previous legislation was unconstitutional.


Robert Bickerdike: But I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that legislation similar to that of Bill (No. 68) has never been before this House; the three times that he refers to were on an entirely different Bill. Bill (No. 69) at present is the theological Bill. Bill (No. 68) is purely an educational Bill, a Bill the like of which has never been before this House.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But the hon. gentleman does not deny that there has been before this House legislation with respect to Queen's College at Kingston.


Robert Bickerdike: That was the theological college.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whether it was or was not, the purpose of this Bill is to modify that particular corporation, that is the corporation concerning which we are asked to legislate. I think the fact itself that parliament has already assumed jurisdiction with regard to this corporation to legislate on three different occasions, is sufficient reason why this House should deal with the Bill upon its merits, and determine whether or not, looking at it from the point of the merits or demerits of its provisions, they should pass it or not. After all, it is private legislation, and the parties promoting this Bill are those who will run the greatest and most serious risks if it should be passed and be subsequently determined to be unconstitutional. I think it is fair

for us to assume that they have been advised upon that question. That being so, if it be my proper function to advise this House, as far as any member may be disposed to ask for my advice, I would suggest that the Bill be allowed to pass upon a consideration of its merits or demerits, without regard to the constitutional question. I may say that the same matter was brought up in connection with the legislation of 1889 and on that .occasion Sir John Thompson, 1 think, expressed substantially the view that I have now submitted upon the question of the constitutionality of the legislation. I do not think it would be proper for this House to go back to the position as it stood before that legislation, and undertake now to treat the question of our jurisdiction over this situation just as if that legislation had never taken place. That being so, I think it would be unfair that we should put on record an opinion that might even throw doubt upon the validity of the legislation which has been enacted in the past. For my part, I would be disposed to think that the proper line of action for this House to take would be to deal with the Bill upon its merits, and I would not at all accept the position, if it were thrown upon me, of expressing an opinion which in any sense this House should accept as decisive in determining this question under the present circumstances.


Robert Bickerdike: Under the circumstances, I will withdraw my motion, I always take the advice of the Minister of Justice in this House, on whichever side of the House he may be sitting. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to clause 3. I think he will agree with me this time that that clause is in contradiction with clause 20.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not see that there is any question of law involved in section 3. I think it is a section that any layman is just as competent to deal with as a lawyer; therefore, I do not see that there is any reason why the Minister of Justice should be called upon to express an opinion. But if I were to express an opinion, I would say, speaking only_ for myself, I think that it is very undesirable that we should attach the name ' National ' to any institution that is going to be governed, controlled and directed by any private individuals, or any corporation of the nature of this one. Without going into the consideration of the question whether there be or be not anything inconsistent in the terms of section 3 with those of section 20, I think the word ' National ' as applied to an institution of this kind is very undesirable, because the word ' National ' is susceptible of more than one meaning. The word ' National ' may properly be attributed to an institution of any kind that was
under the control and direction of the nation, or an institution which the nation chose to select and dignify, and set forth as its conception of what a national institution ought to be.
I do not want to say a word derogatory to this very great institution and to the great work it has done and is doing, and of course we must all join in approval of its aspirations to give to that work in the future a National character in the sense of making of it an institution open to the whole nation and conducted from the point of view of conducing most effectively to the spread of education throughout the whole nation. But while I feel that way about it, I do not think we should by an Act of parliament attach this designation of ' National ' to the institution. I quite understand that the promoters of the Bill do not intend to have that designation attached to it as conveying any idea of connection between the institution and the nation, and I fully sympathize with their desire to affirm that their purpose is to carry on an institution which shall enure to the benefit of the whole nation, and to carry it on upon lines that will make it acceptable to the whole nation. But that is the sentiment that inspired those who control all of our great educational bodies; there are other great universities in this country whose motive and desire is to prove these institutions of National use and benefit, and I am sure the gentlemen of Queen's themselves would admit this desire to be quite as sincere as their own. That being so, if we enact in this parliament a declaration that this university shall be National in its character, then there is no reason why we should not enact the same thing for every one of these universities, and if this epithet or description is to be common to all universities it ceases to have any distinguishing meaning at all. Thus no matter how anxious we may be to recognize this desire of Queen's University to be so described at least from the point of view of being an institution desirous of doing good work for the nation, I sympathize with the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) that the word ' National ' should not appear in this description of the university or of its proposed character and management as set forth in clause 3.


William Folger Nickle: What would you use?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I ,think we require nothing beyond what is in the clause:
The management and discipline of the university shall be in every respect freed from all denominational restrictions.


William Folger Nickle: As I understand the difficulty lies here. Under the charter the university was particularly and peculiarly limited to the provinces of Ontario and

Quebec, Upper and Lower Canada. The promoters wish to incorporate in the Bill some expression that will clearly convey to the people of Canada that that restriction has been deleted and that the university is now as wide as the bounds of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is it contemplated that the operations of the university should be carried on in more than one province?


William Folger Nickle: At present it draws students from every province in Canada and in fact from all over the world. The idea they want to impress on the people is that the university has ceased to be provincial in respect to Upper and Lower Canada and has taken on itself a wider and more significant prospect.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If I understood the Minister of Justice his idea is that all of this section after the word * restrictions ' should be omitted. That would appear to_ me to be more correct legislation. Admitted that this parliament has power to deal with this Bill in common with the rights of the local legislature, it would be wiser if such legislation were referred to the provincial legislatures. I do not quite understand the purport of this Bill. I have got an impression from some source that this legislation has in view a participation in a fund established by a philanthropist the restrictions of which are that no educational institution controlled by any denomination shall participate in the benefit of that fund. It may be that this particular Bill has no relation to that fund, but I know that some universities in Canada have sought to free themselves from denominational influences with a view to securing the monetary advantages which would accrue by reason of such freedom. It would be improper for us to continue in this Bill the words ' and it shall be National and1 undenominational in its character and management1 if we intend at the same time to enact section 20, which clearly and unequivocally places a religious test upon all those who seek admittance.


William Folger Nickle: The test is applied solely to the management and there is no test in regard to those who seek admittance as students and there never has been from 1841 down to to-day. The test is on the controlling body.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Therefore, it is not undenominational. The moment you require such a test with respect to any officer, professor or president, it ceases to be undenominational.


William Folger Nickle: Oh, no.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I submit that would be the logical result.


William Folger Nickle: 


William Folger Nickle: I was very careful to look that up. The word ' denominational ' refers to the divisions within the Christian church itself and Queen's is nondenominational in this, that it in no way prevents any person who professes Christianity taking advantage of it. But it is not non-racial; it would prevent a Buddhist or a Japanese. It certainly does place restriction on a number of people. The word ' denominational ' refers only to divisions within the Christian Church.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Section 20 clearly narrows and restricts the terms of section 3. Let us look at the Bill from a broad standpoint. This is a private corporation, religious in a sense, and it has control and management within itself, and they can make any one an officer or a professor. Why should the parliament of Canada be called upon to require that there shall be a religious test with respect to any such officer or professor. It seems to me to be an invidious declaration and one not in harmony with the declaration of the third section of the Bill, and certainly not in harmony with the National aspirations of the university. I am heartily in accord with the remarks of the Minister of Justice and of the hon. member for St. Lawrence Division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike). It seems to me the third section should be amended by striking out all the words after the word ' restriction,' and that subsequently when we deal, with section 20 we should eliminate all religious tests with respect to the officers or professors. If we give that power to the managing board we enable them to narrow the character of the faculty, and to make it entirely inconsistent with the aims and aspirations set out in the preceding sections of the Bill.
Sections 3 and 20 allowed to stand.
On section 22,


William Folger Nickle: This Bill has been before the law clerk since it passed the Private Bills Committee and he suggested the following amendment as more clearly carrying out the intention of the Bill. I move that section 22 be amended by striking out the first two lines thereof and the following be substituted therefor:
In order to provide for the maintenance of Queen's Theological College, the university shall form an incorporation of said college, and upon its being declared to be a successor of the faculty of theology of Queen's College at Kingston, pay to the said college.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That amendment brings up the question with respect to Bill (No. 69) on the order paper. Whatever reason may be advanced in support of Bill (No. 68) because of previous legislation, no such reason can be given with respect to

Bill (No. 69). It seems to me that Bill (No. 69) is clearly within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature and while, as a matter of expediency, this parliament may be willing to set aside its usual procedure, it should not, without very grave reasons, interfere with the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature in such a matter.
I have opposed the legislation on general principles, with a view to having correct legislation, and with a view to this parliament not interfering in any way with the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. I think you can range over the whole history of the legislation of this character, and you will not find any university or college established in any of the provinces except under the authority of a provincial Act. To seize upon this particular institution, and take it out from all the rest seems to me to be a strange procedure, and I think that as members of this committee we are entitled to have advanced very strong reasons for such a course.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that whatever consideration applies to the present Bill would apply to the other. Parliament has already legislated twice with regard to this institution, and I suppose that those who are coming to us now for legislation might very well say that inasmuch as that legislation has not been questioned from the time it was enacted by this parliament up to the present, they are justified in coining to us for legislation which manifestly does aiter the status of the university as established by two previous Acts of this parliament. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has submitted considerations on account of which he considers that we are justified in proceeding with this legislation, and it seems to me we shall be equally entitled to deal with the other measure in the same way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3,
Robert Bickerdike: With a view to meeting the view's of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), I would suggest that sections 3 and 20 stand over in order that we may try to agree on something that will not be offensive or insulting to any of the minorities in this country and w'ill at the same time carry out the wishes of the university.


William Folger Nickle: 
Robert Bickerdike: I would much prefer to have the word ' National ' struck out
and leave the word ' non-denoininational' in.


William Folger Nickle: The clause would then read as follows:
The management and discipline of the university shall be in every respect free from denominational restrictions.
Would that meet the hon. member's approval ?


Robert Bickerdike: It will satisfy me as far as section 3 is concerned.


William Folger Nickle: Will it satisfy you in toto?


Robert Bickerdike: I might say, Mr. Chairman, it does not satisfy the hon. member from Kingston.


William Folger Nickle: I have tried to make myself perfectly clear to the House and to the hon. gentleman. I have told him that clause 20 did not meet with my approval-


Robert Bickerdike: Then withdraw it.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. gentleman terms me a persecutor of the Jews. I want to again make my position perfectly clear, I am not in favour of that test clause.


Robert Bickerdike: Strike it out then.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. gentleman says strike it out. This is Private Bill legislation, which has the ratification of the Presbyterian church and Queen's university, Kingston, and I have no more right to strike that provision out, or to change even a comma, than I have to change the constitution of Canada.


Robert Bickerdike: I W'ant to correct the hon. gentleman. When he states this legislation has the endorsation of the Presbyterian church, he is going a little too far. It has nothing of the kind.


William Folger Nickle: This Bill has been endorsed by three committees. First, a committee of Queen's university; second a cooperating committee of the Presbyterian church, nominated by the Moderator at the general assembly held either at Halifax or Ottawa, I forget which; and third, a committee nominated by the Moderator, with the concurrence and sanction of the General Assembly of the church to look after the interests of the Theological Faculty. The Chairman of the first church committee is Dr. Ramsay, of Ottawa. The chairman of the university committee, is Mr. D. B. McLennan, of Cornwall, and the name of the chairman of the third committee, is Dr. Love, of Quebec. These committees were duly appointed, they have placed this Bill in my hands, and they tell me that as member for Kingston, I cannot vary it one jot or tittle. I have told this House, and I have told the

member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) in private conversation, that I do not believe in test oaths. I believe the effect of this Bill will be that the scamp may have access to the professoriate of Queen's university, and the scholar may be excluded. I believe the man who has no principle may say he is a Christian, while the man of integrity, who may happen to be a Jew, will say, that even for the sake of the professorial chair, he will not abandon his religious convictions. When the men who have drafted this Bill tell me that I cannot change one jot or one tittle, I say it is unfair for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) to brand me as a persecutor of the Jews. The Jews of my own constituency know where I _stand in this matter. It is not a question of politics, it is a big question which touches Canada from one end to the other, and which the Presbyterian church feels, touches her to the very foundation. The men who control the destinies of the Presbyterian church maintain that Christianity is the foundation of the common law of this country, and if the issue has been raised, they, as the representatives of that church, insist that that great principle be maintained, that Christianity is part of the common law of Canada, part of the common law of England, and they rely on the enunciation of that principle by the late Minister of Justice. What right have I as a commoner of this House, and as a young lawyer without power and without reputation, to set my judgment up as against the judgment of men who sit on the Bench in England and who occupy the Woolsack in Canada, and have represented this Canada of ours as Ministers of Justice in former parliaments? Why should I be branded as a persecutor of the Jews because I take this stand? It is not fair politics and I resent it. I do not want to read the member for St. Lawrence a lecture, but we have heard1 enough about the east as against the west, about Roman Catholic as against Protestant. Are v/e going to set Jew against Gentile in this country by striking at the very foundation of the Christianity we revere?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall clause 3 be adopted?
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto.) I move that the section be amended by dropping all the words after the word 'restrictions.'


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think notice should be given of such an amendment.


Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario).: When this Bill was being considered in the Private Bills Committee, as has been so very ably and lucidly pointed out by the member for Kingston, representatives of the different bodies composing the Presbyterian Mr. NICKLE.
church, appeared before that committee and presented this measure as the basis of their agreement. In other words the present Bill represents the conclusions come to by the various bodies in the Presbyterian church, and one of the statements made by them was rather than have the measure changed they would prefer to have it withdrawn. Looking at it in that light to my mind it seems a small matter to not allow this institution to be called National and undenominational. Its operations will extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific by the way of extension lectures; it draws its students from the various provinces; and what harm is there in calling it a National institution, I think it would be in the nature of a breach of trust on the part of this parliament to change the provisions of the Bill in any vital way. I hope the Bill will pass in the way in which it has been presented by the representatives of the Presbyterian church. The Presbyterian church and its members are handing over this private property to the nation as a National asset. Why then should we do anything to diminish the rights and privileges which they possess? I do not think we have any right when they are giving that National asset to this country to vary the terms upon which these interests had agreed in the past. In other words it would be a breach of agreement as between these various parties if we vary or change in any way the restrictions and rights which the Bill provides for, and therefore I hope that the Bill will be passed in the condition in which it now is.


Robert Laird Borden: I move that we proceed to clause 20.


Robert Bickerdike: I cannot agree to clause 3 standing unless clause 20 stands also. Both clauses should stand together, seeing that one is a direct contradiction of the other. If these two clauses are allowed to stand we may get a section drafted that will be satisfactory both to the persecuted and to the persecutors. I throw out that suggestion to my good friend the Minister of Justice.


William Folger Nickle: Where is the contradiction between clause 3, as amended, and clause 20?


Robert Bickerdike: You say it is not amended, and that it stands.


Robert Laird Borden: It cannot be amended without notice.


Robert Bickerdike: Then assuming that clause 3 stands, clause 20 should stand as well. I still entertain the hope that the Minister of Justice will draft some clause that will satisfy the Jews as well as the university authorities.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the hon. gentleman think that if clause 3 were amended by striking out everything after the word ' restrictions,' the ground of objection to clause 20 disappears?


Robert Bickerdike: No, I think still that clause 20 should be amended.
I think that section 20 should be amendL ed. The amending of section 3 does not have the same effect. Even with section 3 amended, there should be an amendment in section 20, unless you wish


Robert Laird Borden: What amendment is suggested in section 20?


Robert Bickerdike: To strike out the words ' save the profession of Christianity.' The section would then read:
The university shall continue distinctively Christian, but no religious test or qualification shall be required of or appointed for any officer, trustee, member of council, or official of the university. Laymen shall be eligible to any position therein.
I think that the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), would1 probably agree to that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I could quite understand the objection to these words in section 20, if we had left section 3 to stand as it was. But now that section 3 has been amended, it simply comes down to a question of whether parliament shall incorporate a Christian university.


Robert Bickerdike: You are legalizing a test.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Robert Bickerdike: Perhaps I am taking up too much time, but I want to point out that you are making a law that will not allow this university to employ a Jew in any capacity, even as a janitor. Why pass a law declaring that the great Queen's University shall be debarred from employing a Hebrew in any capacity?


George Eulas Foster: If the university wants it that way, what is the objection ?


William Folger Nickle: Let me tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) this: You are a Presbyterian; so am I. The committee of your church say to the university:	We
have a string around your waist, -and we will not cut the string and free you, unless you agree to certain conditions. The university must agree to the conditions. I have told the House frankly that the university as such did not want these words, but that the church, which is the master of the situation, says that unless these words go in you cannot be free. And the university wants freedom.


Robert Bickerdike: -Then, I say, take out the words. I will not be dictated to even by the Presbyterian church.


Mr. STEELE.: Not many minutes ago the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) stated that notwithstanding this Bill was arranged jointly by three committees one of which was selected by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, it did not represent the Presbyterian church. Yet we have the suggestion that he and two or three of this House should get together and amend this Bill and arrange it to suit their ideas, upon the basis, I assume, that they represent the Presbyterian church.


Robert Bickerdike: I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) does not represent the Presbyterian church.


Michael Steele: I believe that the expressions of the Minister of Justice represent the opinion of the Presbyterian church much closer than do those of the hon. member for St. Lawrence. I think we should consider this Bill as a far more important matter than the promotion of the political interests of any hon. member of this House, and that this Bill, which is made not with a view to furthering a political purpose, should not be treated by any member in that way. This is a Bill brought in at the request of the Presbyterian church to deal with one of the great educational institutions of this country. And whether we leave in the word * National ' or not, every Canadian must admit that the great Queen's University is national in its scope, its efforts and the work it is doing. We may ask that the word ' National ' be deleted, but we cannot delete the sentiment which prevails regarding this university. We cannot destroy the National influence which the university is having in Canada. We must not forget that this university, ever since its incorporation has been under the control of the Presbyterian church; and if the churoh is willing at this time to broaden it and to have its charter amended

in such a way as to remove it from the direct influence of the Presbyterian church, I think We should readily assent, on the ground that the Presbyterian church has some right to say on what terms the university shall be handed over to an independent body.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Steele) mean by saying ' remove it from the direct influence of *the Presbyterian Church '?


Michael Steele: It has been under the direct control of the Presbyterian Church; it has been a Presbyterian body


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Where is it going now?


Michael Steele: It is now being put in the hands of a body that is undenominational.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: In which no church will have control?


Michael Steele: No one church. A vote was taken of the graduates of this university, and out of 1,562 voting on the question, 1,430 voted in favour of the change. And on the strength of that vote this broad Bill is brought in. I say we must not forget that, that church has had, in the past, full control of it. They are willing that it should be handed over to an undenominational body to be controlled in the future. But because they are willing to do that, I do not know that we should demand that the church should assent to all reference to Christianity being cut out of the Bill.


Robert Bickerdike: Will the hon. gentleman excuse me a moment? Is it not the intention to make this an entirely state institution?


Michael Steele: No. It is the intention of the churcn, I have no doubt, simply to carry out the practice in the past, that the intention is that the students attending the university shall be under Christian influences, that there shall be no professor of the university who is not a professed Christian, i It is simply the desire of the church that the university shall uphold the great Christian religion, and that it shall not get into the hands of those who are opponents of the Christian religion. The university has been supported largely by the members of the Presbyterian church; they have endowed it in the past; and I think it is a very slight request that they make when they ask that _ the university shall continue distinctively Christian and that every teacher in it shall be a professor of Christianity.


Robert Bickerdike: I hope my suggestion will be adopted in the spirit in which Mr. STEELE.	.
it has been offered, otherwise I should strongly oppose the adoption of section 20. My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) the other day quoted largely from Sir John Thompson, a man whose memory we all respect. But the hon. gentleman forgot to say that Sir John Thompson was the man who declared that wherever minorities were found they should be treated not only justly but generously. Now, I ask him if it is just or generous to some half a million good, loyal inhabitants of this country, loyal to the Union Jack, to pass section 20 of this Bill, which is an insult to them, and specially to single them out as unworthy to enjoy equal rights with their fellow citizens in Canada. And here we are asked to legalize that insult. I hope this House will never agree to adopt section 20. We should be very careful in this country how we deal with minorities. Although these men are Jews, they have souls just as well as my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, and why should we single them out for unfair treatment? Why, even a negro, much to his credit, can be a professor in Queen's College, while a Jew cannot. A Jew cannot even be a janitor, cannot even be an employee in that institution; and here you are asking us to pass a law that for all time to come will exclude Jews from Queen's University. A Jew may be one of the best educated men in this country, he may have all the qualifications requisite to make an excellent professor, and yet you impose upon him here a test that he cannot take. England, at a former time, made just such unjust distinctions against Jews. My hon. friend has the evidence by him, and he knows that three universities combined to strike out those religious tests. I think that the secret of England's greatness is the fact that she has always dealt justly and generously by minorities. Is Canada going to do any less? Why should Canada pass a law shutting Jews out from any university in this country? Why should Canada pass a law that would prevent a Jew even from sweeping the streets in front of this university? I think it is an outrage, and on reflection I do not think this House will consent to it. I acquiesced in the opinion of the Minister of Justice on the constitutional question, because he was the Minister of Justice, and believed he was right, although I think he was wrong. I have always taken the ground that educational matters belong exclusively to provincial jurisdiction. Why should this Bill undertake to say that we have jurisdiction here under the British North America Act? I think I have heard my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) argue several times that educational matters belong specially to the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures. For my part, I am strongly opposed to section 20,

and I move in amendment to strike out these words ' save the profession of Christianity.' I want to strike out this religious test, and I appeal to hon. members of this House to assist me. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) suggested that a man who wants to become a professor could easily profess the doctrine of Christianity; he said that some men might do so, but he did not think the Jews would, I suppose he meant that they could not. What harm will it do to strike out these words, which are an insult to a large number of loyal Canadians? I see no necessity for them whatever. The hon. member for Kingston himself admits that it would be right to strike them out, but he does not wish to do so because the university authorities wish them to remain in. I think, however, that we should follow our own judgment and strike out these words.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I do not, as a rule,
agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrence Division, Montreal '(Mr. Bickerdike), but on this occasion I am obliged to agree with him. It seems to me this amendment he has offered ought to be adopted by this committee. I cannot approach this matter without reminding myself that this House might properly be called Caesar's court. We have no business, as I understand our constitution, to make any distinction between one man and another on the ground of his religion. We are called upon in parliament to legislate only for the welfare of loyal British subjects, and I cannot understand why we should indirectly insult a man who is a good, loyal British subject, as this Bill would do without this amendment. On the other hand, I cannot understand why we should put a premium upon any man joining the Christian religion. I do not think Christianity would be served by exercising any such compulsory powers. This is coercion, and this House ought not to exercise coercion on anybody, no matter to what church or sect he may belong, so long as he is a loyal subject to King George. We are here asked to give sanction to this legislation. We must do it either because the institution is denominational or because it is national. If this is a denominational institution, which has certain rights as such, that is one thing; but to say here that we are going to exclude by Act of parliament, or to sanction the exclusion of certain people from this university because they are not Christians, it seems to me is striking a blow at their citizenship which we ought not to do. Let me remind this House that an atheist, who is further removed from Christianity than a Jew, is perfectly competent to sit in this House, he is just as competent to exercise the franchise as a Christian or anybody else. He has all
rights co-equal with any one of us, whether we are Jews or Christians. Why, Sir, under our constitution the Prime Minister of this country might be an atheist, and competent to advise His Excellency on all matters, and an atheist is even further removed from Christianity than a Jew. We cannot forget that a former Prime Minister of Great Britain Benjamin Disraeli, who became Lord Beaconsfield, was a Jew. I personally feel that I ought not to give a silent vote on this matter or allow the measure to pass without some such amendment as that moved by the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike). To properly- represent my constituency I must declare for full rights of citizenship for every one without putting any impediment in the way of any citizen, without any attempt to restrict his liberties either by persuasion or coercion in any legislation and I cannot vote that any institution wanting state legislation should be allowed to pick or choose between Jew and Christian.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The last speaker (Mr. Lancaster) and also the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) are apparently arguing on the assumption that this is public legislation; on the contrary it is private legislation, asked by private individuals. I agree with the hon. member for Lincoln that we should not place a bann upon any one by any public legislation, but we have here certain private individuals asking us to pass an Act that is private legislation. They ask for this legislation which is the result of an agreement. The amendment proposed would destroy 'that agreement among the parties. We would be guilty of breach of faith if we accepted this amendment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where is the difference in our function? It matters not whether it be a public or a private Bill, parliament is asked to sanction this. If we adopt it we advise His Royal Highness the Governor General to approve a certain Act of parliament and I see no difference in regard to our function between a public and a private Bill. For my part I cannot advise His Royal Highness to sanction any such Bill as this.


Mr. DEVLIN.: As I shall be called upon to vote on this amendment, I do not wish to give a silent vote and shall explain briefly why I propose to support the amendment of the hon. member for St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike). I am of opinion first that this legislation should come under the provincial legislature, that section 93 of the British North America Act without doubt places educational matters under the legislatures, and that is tne -reason why 1 do not see that this

educational Act should be asked from this parliament. But there is another and a graver reason. The-hon. member for St. Lawrence is perfectly right in saying that this is offering an insult to a religious sect in this country. The Jews are very, very respectable people and as was pointed out a moment ago by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) Benjamin Disraeli, one of the ablest men in the history of Great Britain, -belonged to the Jewish faith. I know from experience that McGill, one of the greatest universities in Canada, does not exclude any man of any faith from a chair in that university. I know that the Minister of Justice, who does not profess the Presbyterian faith with which McGill is very closely allied, occupied for a great many years a professor's chair in that university, in fact I had the honour to be a student of the university when the minister was giving a course of lectures. I speak in favour of the Jews being recognized in this country not from any political point of view, because, to the best of my knowledge, I have not a Jewish voter in Wright. I think if we are going to lay it down as a principle in this country that there shall be no coercion, the Presbyterians should not ask us to sanction an Act which will involve coercion of the Jews, any more than the members of any other faith should ask us to coerce, for instance, the province of Manitoba.
I hardly think it can be argued in this House, that any particular religious body can ask the Canadian parliament to establish any set rule in the educational system, we will say again, in the province of Manitoba, which would exclude either Protestants or Roman Catholics. If we are not going to recognize any established church in this country, and if the universities we charter are to be undenominational, why should not Jews, who believe in God, be recognized just as well as any other religious body? I am very sorry to have to take part in a discussion which does not concern the religious family to which I belong, but since it becomes my duty to vote on this measure, I want to say that I recognize no established church in Canada, and I cannot vote to insult a most respectable element in our community, namely the Jews.


Mr. OLIVER.: I generally like to agree with my friends, but I must say that I believe a word should be said on behalf of the Presbyterian church in connection with this matter. I happen to be an adherent of that church, and I must protest most strongly against the idea that the Presbyterian church, in connection with this university, has any intention of insulting anybody or doing anything to interfere with Mr. DEVLIN.
anybody's religion. If there is one religious body in the world, against whom that charge cannot be successfully maintained, it is the Presbyterian body, for, if the Presbyterian church has ever stood for anything in this world, it is for toleration, and for education. I am absolutely unable to appreciate the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike), when- he suggests that the legislation before the House is an insult, or is intended to be an insult to any section of the people of Canada. I protest against such an assertion. There is no such intention on the face of the legislation and there is no such intention behind the legislation, in any way, shape or manner. I am not responsible for the legislation in any way, but I cannot sit silent and hear such suggestions mad'e in this House. My understanding of the matter is that the adherents of the Presbyterian church have at stupendous cost and sacrifice to themselves established an educational institution known as Queen's University, which has done great work in the cause of education, and, if you like, in the cause of Christianity. I do not know that the time has yet come when anybody needs to apologize for his adherence to the Christian creed; at any rate I do not feel like doing so. I do not think that the Presbyterian body, or the body that is behind-Queen's university, has any reason to apologise for the fact that they have established this educational institution as a Christian institution. The adherents of the Presbyterian church in Canada have, as I said, at great cost and sacrifice to themselves, built up an educational establishment, which, for some reason, they now desire to have declared undenominational. They come to this parliament for legislation, perhaps they should have gone to some other legislative body. I do not know anything about that. However, it seems to me, that if there is to be any transfer of property or of jurisdiction or of authority of any kind, surely the people at whose cost the establishment has been created and maintained, are the people to say under what conditions that transfer of autlfbrity or of jurisdiction shall be made. I say that if the Presbyterian church, having come to this parliament and asked for this legislation, this parliament does not see fit to grant the legislation as asked for, on the terms asked for, -then, let parliament refuse to sanction the proposal, and let the condition remain as it is. But, as an adherent of the Presbyterian church, and having some slight interest in the welfare of that body, and the educational organizations under it, I would certainly protest against this parliament amending the proposal that has come from the owners of that property. The duty of this House is either to accept the proposal

as it is made, or to refuse it, for reasons which should be given. I understand there is some difference of opinion in the Presbyterian church itself as to the advisability of this step, but, it would be absolutely unfair to amend this legislation, without giving the Presbyterian body who applied for it, an opportunity to say whether they would agree to the amendment or not.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I wish to make my position clear on this question. If this university is to continue under the Presbyterian church, I can understand that they might object to any religious denominations having the right to occupy a chair in the university, but if it is going to be undenominational, I do not think they should impose such a restriction as is here suggested. For instance, if a body of Catholics, sold a Catholic church to a body of Presbyterians, the Catholics would not have the right to put in a clause that the Methodists should be excluded from worship in that church. That is the view I take. I do not want to interfere in the domestic matters of the Presbyterian church, but if the Presbyterians are handing over this university as an undenominational institution, I say this par-hament cannot sanction a clause excluding any religious sect.


Frank Oliver: I quite agree that if the institution is to become national, it certainly should not be in any sense sectarian, but the point I am trying to submit is that assuming the Presbyterian church to be the proprietor of this university, if they wish to have a change of status with respect to it, then let the House accord in the change asked for, or else absolutely refuse, but do not let us amend it so that the Presbyterian church, in dealing with this valuable educational institution, shall be forced by the supreme authority of this parliament, to accept legislation that the Presbyterian church does not want.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I confess that I can not see what my hon. friend (Mr. Bicker-dike) finds in this Bill to insult the Jews. It has often happened that we have found it necessary to incorporate an institution connected with some particular church, and this legislation is going only a little wider and incorporating an institution connected with all the Christian churches of the country. I find on the order paper Bill No. 70, which is entitled ' An Act to Incorporate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Keewatin,' and in that Bill it is provided that all property, real and personal, churches, schools, colleges and so on, possessed or enjoyed by the Right Rev. D. Charlebois, or the church in communion with the Church of Rome, are declared to be vested in a corporation. Well, there is
no one who would take any objection to that.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is denominational.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, but it is not an insult to the Jews, although it excludes them, and it is not an insult to the Presbyterians or the Methodists, although it excludes them also. In this Bill, respecting Queen's university, the applicants are applying for legislation that will apply to all Christian churches alike. We are not excluding anybody, but we are providing for the education of people belonging to all the Christian churches of this country, and I do not think there is any ground whatever for saying that that is an insult to anybody. The Jews do not pretend that they have put any of their money in this institution.
I have not heard that the public are going to put any money into it. The money is contributed, by private individuals who are interested in education; and should it not be in the power of these people to say, we want our money devoted to Christian education-not to Jewish, pagan or any other than Christian education? I think that is a fair proposition in a free country like this, and I do not see any good reason for the attitude taken by my hon. friend from Montreal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does my hon. friend think that we in parliament have any right to say that because a man has not in the past put money into an institution, he shall not avail himself of it to get an education, be he Jew or Christian?


William Folger Nickle: This does not stop him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It indirectly stops him by putting a ban upon him, by making him believe that he is going where he is not wanted. I suppose I am as much wedded to the Christian religion as any other man in this House, but I consider that anyone who tries to convert a Jew by depriving him of his state rights is doing a very un-Christian thing. We have no right to put a mark against a Jew, or even an atheist, in this matter. It is not entirely a matter of the Presbyterian church. The Presbyterian church is not able to do what it wants to do without the legislation of this parliament, and it comes here and asks us to approve of what it is doing, and to give it a greater strength than it could have without that legislation; and it wants us to draw a line between the Jew and the Christian as to education. This is a place where we render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. We have no business here to do anything towards the salvation of souls. The man who says that he is in this House for the purpose of doing the work of the churches is mistaken upon the constitution and is very nearly a hypocrite. We have no

business to attempt to affect prejudicially or otherwise the religion or_ non-religion of anyone who is a loyal citizen of King George. Therefore, I cannot vote for this, and I think we ought to be very careful before we establish any such precedent.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member for Lincoln evidently misapprehends the scope of the measure." The original charter of the university made it distinctly clear that no religious test should be required of any student who entered the walls of Queen's, vested the control of the university in 27 trustees, of whom 12 were to be ministers of the Presbyterian church and 15 laymen in full communion with such church. In 1889 and again in 1906 a widening power was obtained from this parliament, by which the graduates and the members of the council obtained the right of electing ten members to the board of trustees. The attitude of the church at the present moment is as follows :	They say that the Presbyterian
church through our 27 trustees have control of the university and of its funds. The church says tve raised $800,000 as an endowment of that university, and we are quite willing to turn it over to the board of trustees of the university to be elected by the benefactors and! the graduates. We desire that those who are going to fill the professors' chairs shall be men who profess Christianity. As I have explained to the House, I do not agree with the Presbyterian church or that branch of it which contends for this provision; but I do agree with the contention that t'he Presbyterian church, in handing over $800,000 and a university has a right to say into what hands that work shall be entrusted. I do not think it ever crossed the mind of the Presbyterian church or the representatives of the university that this would give offence to the Jews. If I catch correctly the spirit of the Presbyterian church, this was aimed not at the Jew, but at the agnostic and the atheist, because the Presbyterian church desires to maintain this great educational institution Christian, require those set to educate the youth of Canada to be Christians, to believe in the divinity of Christ. It is ridiculous to construe this as an insult to the Jews or to any other class of people. If the Jews came to-morrow and desired to incorporate a university confined to the adherents of their faith, I would vote for it as readily as I do for this Bill, recognizing as I do the right of all religious sects to educate their people in the faith of their fathers. The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) will see that the word ' non-denominational ' is used. That word is not us broad as * non-sectarian.' ' Nondenominational ' includes the branches of Mr. LANCASTER.
the Christian churches. ' Non-sectarian ' would be inconsistent, with the purpose of the Bill. Under the Bill, all branches of the Christian church are welcomed to its board, and to its professors' chairs, but only those who profess Christianity shall be entitled to occupy those positions; and, as the ex-Minister of the Interior says, why should not the Presbyterian church be allowed to give this great gift to the nation, and to widen the sphere of its influence?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman say that we are justified in being sectarian and not in being denominational?


William Folger Nickle: I think it is within the sphere of parliament, so far as the objects are good, to incorporate any body of men to carry out a benevolent or charitable purpose, and in the carrying out of that work, it has a right to say that the members of the board of management shall be members of their own faith. That is the principle on which this legislation is founded. It is non-sectarian, it offers no insult to any person, but it says you cannot take advantage of our gifts unless you are members of our faith. I say that it is consistent on the part of the Presbyterian church, although I do not agree with the premises from which they reason.


Robert Bickerdike: My hon. friend the ex-Minister of the Interior stood up very strongly for the Presbyterian church, and I was very pleased to see him get so religious all of a sudden.
Now my hon. friend from Guysborough said it was really Christianity versus something else. In my opinion that is not a correct statement. The other denominations are opposing this legislation as well as the Jews.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What denominations?


Robert Bickerdike: The Baptists are opposing it. Let me read what the official organ of the Baptists says about this Bill. I am about to quote from the 'Canadian Baptist,' which is the mouthpiece of the Baptish Church of Canada. The article says:
There was passed, without amendment, by the Private Bills Committee of the House of Commons at Ottawa, on Friday last, the Queen's College Bill, and it will now come before the House itself. Before the Private Bills Committee, a strenuous protest was made by certain Hebrew bodies, who feel that the Bill as proposed shuts them out from privileges which should be theirs as citizens of the Dominion of Canada.
I would like my hon. friend the exMinister of the Interior to remember that the Jews are citizens of Canada, that
[DOT]4773

they are decent people, and loyal British subjects.


Frank Oliver: I would like the hon. member for St. Lawrence to remember that I have suggested no idea that the people of the Jewish race are any other than he has said, and the Presbyterian body has never had any such idea in mind as he suggests, in bringing forward this legislation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Now get the hon. gentleman	(Mr.	Oliver) to	admit	thatthey have	rights	as citizens.Mr.	BICKERDIKE.	Will you admit
the Jews have rights as citizen?


Frank Oliver: The hon.	gentleman's
question is absolutely uncalled for, and I object entirely to the suggestion contained in his remarks.
Mr.	BICKERDIKE.	I have not	yet
made any remarks on the question.


Frank Oliver: I object entirely to such a question. There	has been	nosuggestion	made to the House	by
myself, or any other member, that any person of the Jewish religion or race, is any other than the equal of any person of another race or religion, and I object to the hon. gentleman making it and coupling my name with it.
Mr.	BICKERDIKE.	I think we	will
get the hon. gentleman right after a little while. Now I want to let my hon. friend know a little more as to what the Baptists say:
And we believe that the Hebrews are in the right in their protest, and that they should be joined in their contention by Baptists and others who believe that a ' National ' university foregoes the right to place a religious test on any citizen who may seek to have entrance into' its halls or into its professoriate. If Queen's College, now becoming Queen's University, cuts itself loose from the bonds of denomdnationalism, and of its own accord beomes a National or State institution, it should be willing to shoulder any supposed disabilities, and not seek legislation that contravenes either in spirit or fact the democratic position of separation of Church and State.
That is what the Baptists say, and I think they are men of very broad views. I do not think the Baptists would -want to have any such clause enacted as the one in question as regards any of their universities. Neither is this proposed legislation in accord with Anglicanism; the Anglicans are too broad-minded to adopt such a position. I cannot say that it is even Presbyterianism, for I believe many Presbyterians in this country are opposed tc any such legislation as is here proposed.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I understand that up to this time the Presbyterian Board had had the sole directorate and management of Queen's University. Is it the hon. gentleman's argument or opinion that that has constituted an insult to the Jewish faith?


Robert Bickerdike: No. Clause 20 is the one that I have in mind.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It seems to me that the amendment is of a most important nature, and under the rules notice of it must be given.


Robert Bickerdike: If the Chairman says that I must give notice then clause 20 will have to stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Rule 112 says:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private Bill in Committee of the Whole House, or at the third reading of the Bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
Now it seems to me that this proposed amendment is quite important.


Robert Bickerdike: I quite agree with you, Mr. Chairman, but when you accept amendments moved by the other side, and allow them to go through, I felt I was justified in moving an amendment also.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think in all fairness that the Bill should stand in order that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) may give notice of his amendment, as it would be very unfair under the circumstances to prevent the hon. gentleman from having a vote on that amendment. The Bill should stand and come up again to-morrow.


William Folger Nickle: As far as I am concerned I am perfectly willing that the Bill should stand, because I do not want any snap verdict. I would rather have the hon. gentleman feel that he had received the fairest possible treatment from the committee. I willingly agree so far as I am concerned to the amendment being moved and the matter threshed out now.


Robert Bickerdike: If the hon. gentleman is willing to accept the amendment I think we might get through with the Bill.


William Folger Nickle: I consent to the amendment being moved now, but that is not exactly the hon. gentleman's construction of my statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I still feel that I am going against rule 112.


Robert Laird Borden: A vote can be taken on the amendment with the unanimous consent of the House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Very well then, if the committee is unanimous.
Amendment (Mr. Bickerdike) negatived. Yeas 7; Nays 70.


Robert Bickerdike: I understand that clause 3 stands.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but we will take the amendment now if the hon. gentleman has no objection.


Robert Bickerdike: I have no objection.


Frank Oliver: Is this amendment in accordance with the expressed wish of the authorities who are supporting the college or university?


William Folger Nickle: It is not in accordance with the expressed wish of those who are promoting this Bill, but it removes from the measure the sting that the Jews are singled out as not being part of the nation. If the committee passes the amendment, as seems to be its spirit now, I will write to the promoters of the Bill setting out how the matter stands, and if they object to the Bill going on in that form it will have to be withdrawn.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate Queen's Theological College-(Mr. Nickle)-was considered in committee and reported as amended.



ROYAL ASSENT.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication from the secretary of His Royal Highness the Governor General:
Ottawa, March 11, 1912.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. the Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber on the 12th instant at four o'clock for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills which have passed the Senate and the House of Commons during the present session.
I have the honour, to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, (Signed) H. C. LOWTHER,
Lieut.-Col.
Governor General's Secretary. To the Hon. the Speaker
of the House of Commons.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Yes, I believe that is first for consideration to-morrow and then we will go on with the other Bills and afterwards Supply.']
Robert Laird Borden: 



[Stage Direction]
* Mr. BELLEMARE:
1.	Have the election expenses of the county
of Maskinonge been settled?	,
2.	If not, will the government see to it as soon as possible?
Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	The election expenses for the county of Maskinonge were settled by a cheque dated the 17th of October last.
2.	A certain portion of the claims for services of constables, rent of polling booths and mileage of the deputies and clerks were put in suspense, owing to the fact that the returning officer did not supply vouchers signed by the persons to whom the money was due, and apparently, appointed deputies and clerks in his own home town and sent them to distant parts of the county, when there does not appear to have been any reason why suitable persons could not have been obtained in the various polling places.
Explanations have been received from the returning officer, but as they were not accompanied by the vouchers asked for, and did not satisfactorily explain why he caused so much mileage for the deputies and clerks, no further payment has been made.


PELAGIC SEALING.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to provide a sufficient sum during the present session to compensate those engaged in the sealing industry of British Columbia for the cessation of sealing under the recent treaty?
2.	Will the government appoint a commissioner to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to each Canadian sealer, in consequence of the discontinuance of that industry, by virtue of the treaty prohibiting pelagic sealing for fifteen years?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No. The Pelagic Sealing Treaty of July 7, 1911, provides for an advance payment of $200,000 by the United States! to Great Britain on account of fur seal skins it will be entitled to under the treaty. When this money is received it may be used in such connection.
2.	As the advance payment has not yet been received, the method of dealing with claims has not 'been decided upon.


RATES ON PARCEL POST.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: What is the rate on parcel post from Montreal to Paris, France, from Montreal to London, England, and from Montreal to Toronto, Canada ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
REPAIRING MAIL BAGS.
Rodolphe Lemieux: What persons or firms are engaged in repairing mail bags, and at what places and the rates?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: (a)	At Montreal, Quebec, Martel & Dumouchel, Montreal Tent and Awning Company; at Quebec, Quebec, E. Tremblay, Beauport, C. Gingras, Indian Lorette; at Ottawa, Ontario, A. W. Chester, J. B. & E Roy, F. Montgomery, D. Choquette, Wm. Morel; at Toronto, Geo. Lugsdin & Company; Wm. Hanna, Hector McLean; at Newmarket, Ontario, Thos. Fardy; at King, Ontario, Jas, McClement, Walter Rolling; at Aurora, Ontario, Wm. Hastings, A. E. Conover; at London, Ontario. J. Jones, J. Dun.
(b)	The rates are as follows: For repairing, inclusive of furnishing and attaching fittings to letter bags, 42c. each; for fitting metal bars to letter bags, 5c. each; for fitting metal rings to letter bags, 5c. each; for patching, only, letter bags and newspaper sacks, 25c. each; for repairing newspaper sacks and fitting with cords, &c., 41c. each; for fitting cords only to newspaper sacks, 9c. each.


GOVERNMENT LOANS.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: 1.	What is the amount of the last Canadian government loan, the rate of interest, the amount realized, and where placed?
2.	If the said sum was a refund of an outstanding debt or loan, what was the amount of the same and the date of borrowing?


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: 
TENDERS FOR ENGRAVING DOMINION NOTES.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many tenders did the government receive for engraving, printing, furnishing and delivering Dominion notes, postal and Inland Revenue supplies, and what were the prices in each case?
2.	Who is the lowest tenderer?
3.	Has the contract been awarded? If so. to whom?


William Thomas White: Tenders have been received and are now under consideration by the government. Until the matter is finally dealt with no statement can be made.


MAIL CONTRACT, VAL DES EBOULIS AND R1GADD.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	On what date was granted to William Robert the contract for carrying the mail between Val des Eboulis and Rigaud?
2.	What was the amount of this contract?
3.	When was the contract annulled?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1, 2 and 3. The department has never granted a contract to William Robert.
DRAINAGE AT POINT AUX ANGLAIS. Mr. ETHIER:
1.	Does the government intend to do drainage work at Point aux Anglais, on the River Ottawa, for the purpose of facilitating the access of boats to the wharf at that place?
2.	If so, what amount will be expended to that end?


Mr. MONK.: 1.	There is no application for drainage work at Point aux Anglais, but there is an application for dredging. The distribution of work under the dredging appropriation has not yet been made.
2.	This work would cost $3,973.


ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION.
Mr. STEVENS:: 1. What is the total number of Chinese that have entered Canada through ports of British Columbia up to date?

2.	How many Japanese?
3.	How many Chinese during last year?
4.	How many Japanese during last year.
5.	How many Hindus have entered Canada ?
*6. How many Hindus during last year?
7.	Has the department any record of the arrival of Dr. Sundar Singh?
8.	Was any order issued for his deportation? If so, was it executed?	.
9.	Did the said Sundar Singh comply with the immigration regulations?


Mr. ROGERS.: 1. 16,902.
2 13 764.
3.	(Fiscal year), 5,254.
4.	(Fiscal year), 436.
5.	5,142.	.
*6. (Fiscal year), 1.
7.	Record. shows that Dr. Sundar Singh arrived at Halifax, N.S., March 12th, 1909, per S.S. ' Virginian ' of the Allan line.
8.	Yes, not yet executed. Still pending.
9.	No.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Has Mr. Alfred Lalonde, warehouseman in the government yards at St. Joseph de Sorel, been dismissed?
2.	If so, why, and who asked for liis dismissal?
3.	Were complaints made against Mr. Lalonde? If so, by whom?
4.	Has proof been given in support of these complaints? If so, by whom?
5.	Who is Mr. Lalonde's successor, and who recommended him?


Air. MONK:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. Charges of political partisanship were preferred against him by J. A. Barrette, M.P..
5. Hylas Yergeau, Messrs. Barrette and Mondou.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has Mr. Yule, customs house officer at Aurora, been dismissed? If so, for what rea-'son?


Mr. REID (Grenville).: On the report of the inspectors, Mr. Andrew Yule, sub-collector of Customs at Aurora, has been granted leave of absence, with pay until July 1, 1812, after which his case will be considered. The reports show him to be in bad health and it is necessary to have an officer in charge able to perform the duties of the office.


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Have complaints been made against William Brown, postmaster at Point Fortune?
2.	If so, what is the nature of these complaints and by whom were they made?
3.	Who asked for his dismissal?
4.	Who is to be his successor, and by whom is he recommended?


Mr. STEVENS.: 


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1, 2 and 3. Charges were made and proved, on investigation, to be well founded.
4. His successor has not yet been recommended.


Air. BOYER:: 1.	Have any complaints against the postmaster at Alont Oscar been made to the government?	.
2.	Who asked for the dismissal of Isidore Chevrier, the postmaster of that place?
3.	Who is to be bis successor and by whom was lie recommended?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1, 2 and 3. The
postmaster has to be dismissed as a result of the investigation held about this case.


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has D. I. Mundle been dismissed from the office of sub-collector of customs at Richi-bucto, N.B. ?
2.	If so, for what reasons, on whose recommendations, and was the charge against him, if any, investigated, and by whom?
3.	What was his salary, when was he actually dismissed from the position, and to what date was he paid?	.
4.	Will the amount which he has paid into the superannuation fund be repaid him?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 and 2. D. I. Mundle, preventive officer of customs at Richibucto, has been dismissed from the customs service for political partisanship, by order in council on the g-ecommendation of the Minister of Customs, based on charges made in the usual course by the member of parliament for the constituency.
2. Air. Alundle's salary was $400 a year. The notice of dismissal was mailed on 26t.h February, 1912. His salary has been or will be paid up to the time when he received notice of dismissal.
. 3. The amount contributed by him to the retirement fund will be repaid. He did not contribute to the superannuation fund.


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has W. S. McLean, acting preventive officer at L'Etang, Charlotte county, N.B., been dismissed from office?
2.	If so, for what reason, on whose recommendation, and was he accorded an investigation?	.
3.	Was George Chubb appointed in his place?
4.	Is this the same George Chubb who was said to have been dismissed from office in 1906 for a violation of the Canada Temperance Act?
5.	What is his age and salary at the present time?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 and 2. The services of Mr. W. S. Ale-Lean, acting preventive officer of customs at L'Etang or Back Bay, New Brunswick,

have been dispensed with on jiccount of political partisanship, by order of the Minister of Customs, based upon charges made in the usual course by the member of parliament for the constituency.
3.	Yes.
4.	This is the same George Chubb who was dismissed from office in 1906 and deprived of his superannuation contributions to make room for Mr. W. S. McLean, a political partisan. It appears that Mr. Chubb did pay a fine under the Scott Act, on account of three bottles of whisky ordered by_ his son about Christmas time for some neighbours, one of whom describes himself as a Liberal.
5.	His age is 70 years. His salary is $150 a year, as this is a preventive station only, with little revenue collected.


MOTION AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
oi' a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence, &c., between the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway, or any other railway, and the government, or any minister thereof, in reference -to the guarantee of se-ourities, and to the time and manner of the issue of such guaranteed, securities, made under chapter 6 of the Statutes of Canada, 1911.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other papers in connection with complaints of whatever nature against commission agents for placing farm labourers in Ontario, also officials connected with any agency in Ontario, during the year 1910 and 1911-Mr. Sutherland.
For a copy of all documents, letters, petitions, requests or reports, respecting the dismissal of L. Treffle Ddlisle of Trois Pistoles, as captain of the lighthouse boat of lie Rouge; and, of all documents, letters, petitions1, requests and reports respecting the request to reinstate Mr. L. Treffle Deli si e in his former position.-Mr. Gauvrean.
For a copy of all charges against Arthur Brymer, fishery officer at L'Ardoise, N.S., and of all telegrams and other communications between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or any other officer of his department, and any other persons having reference to the same and in relation to the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Kyie.
For a opy of all charges against Lawrence G. Power, superintendent of the lobster hatchery at Arichat, N.S., and of all letters, telegrams and other communications between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or any offioer in his department, and any other person having referene to the same and in relation to ithe appointment of his successor.- Mr. Kyte.
For a copy of all papers, telegram®, letters, petitions, &c., concerning the proposed construction of a public building at Weedon, Quebec.-Mr. Tobin.
For a copy of all documents, letters, papers, requests, inquiries and reports respecting the dismissal of Mr. Joseph Cloutier, postmaster of St. Adolphe de Dudswell.-Mr. Tobin.
For a copy of all papers, letters, requests, resolutions of municipal councils, &c., asking
for the construction of a wharf at Grathby, on Lake Aylmer, from 19M-5 to this date.- Mr. Tobin.
For a copy of all letters, requests, complaints, depositions, reports of inquiry and of every other document in the possession of the Post Office Department relating to the dismissal of Doctor H. Dupre as postmaster of St. Robert, county of Richelieu, and to the appointment of a new postmaster.-Mr.. Cardin.
For a copy of all letters, requests, complaints, depositions, reports of inquiry and of every other document in the possession of the Post Office Department relating to the dismissal of Madam, the widow of Antome St. Martin as postmistress at St. Louis de Bonseoours, county of Richelieu, and to the-appointment' of a new postmaster.-Mr. Cardin.
For a co-py of all letters requests, complaints, depositions, reports of inquiry and every other document whatever, relating to the dismissal of Mr. J. O. Dauphinais as postmaster of Sorel, county of Richelieu, and also of all letters, requests, or other documents relating to the appointment of the new postmaster at Sorel.-Mr. Cardin.
For a copy of all letters, requests, memorandums, tenders and ether documents in the possession of the Post Office Department relating to the calling for tenders and the granting of the contract now in force for the carrying of the mail between Soretl and Ste. Victorie, county of Richelieu-Mr. Cardin.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 106) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Pelletier-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 1,
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman please explain?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The general tenor of this clause is to deal with the classifications in the post office outside service. It dispenses with senior and junior, and created classes with Grade A and B. It does away with the class known as stampers and sorters; with what was known as the fourth class and also with the junior third class. The stampers and sorters, the fourth -class, and the junior third class, become third class. Grade B stampers and sorters under the existing law receive $500 and go up to $600 with increments of $50 a year. The fourth class commences with $500 and goes to $700 with increases of $100 a year; the junior third class goes from $700 to $800. All these are replaced by third class Grade B, and the officers in this class will receive $500 on appointment, and will go to $800 with annual increases

of $100. What is now the senior third class and the junior second will become third class Grade A. At present a senior third class clerk receives from $800 to $900, increasing by $50 a year, and the junior second commences s,t $900 and goes to $1,000 by two increases of $50 a year each. These two become third class Grade B with a salary of $800 to begin at and the maximum will be $1,000 by increases of $50 per annum. Senior second class clerks now receive $1,000 per year and they will in future have $1,200 as a maximum. It is divided into two grades: second class Grade B, the salary of which begins at $1,000 and goes to $1,200, and second class Grade A, the salary of which begins at $1,200 and goes to $1,400, which is $200 more than the present maximum of the second class. The first class, which at present ranges in salary from $1,200 to $1,500, and in which there was no junior or senior grade, will be subdivided into two grades: one, class Grade B beginning at $1,400 and going to $1,600, and the other class Grade A, beginning at $1,600 and going to $1,800; an increase of $200 on the minimum and $300 on the present maximum. This Bill introduces a class called chief clerks in post offices with an annual revenue of $500,000 or over, and there will be one chief clerk for every two hundred employees.
This will for the moment apply solelv to the three largest post offices-Toronto, Montreal -and Winnipeg. The salary of the chief clerk will begin at $1,800 and go to $2,200. The salary of the superintendent will begin at $1,800, the present salary, and will go up to $2,500. This is the general purport of the Bill. Most of these clauses were in the Bi'll which was presented to the House last year by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), but which was prevented from passing by the arrival of the Sergeant-at-Arms at the door; therefore, I suppose my hon. friend will concur with me in finding this a good measure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On general lines I commend this legislation. The Bill is similar to the one which was introduced last year, and which was on the eve of receiving consideration from this House, but was unfortunately prevented from passing on account of the visit of the Black Bod. The increases and changes- which are made are certainly most desirable. I can only emphasize the fact that the time has come I believe, when we should dispense with all this phraseology, and as far as possible bring the outside service under the Civil Service Act. In fact, the Bill of last year was prepared with that end in view, and I suppose the amounts mentioned in this Bill have reference to the classification which w-e find in the inside service, so that Mr. PELLETIER.
when the change takes place and the outside service is brought under the Commission, there will be no difficulty in classifying the various offices.
On section 7-limitation in employment temporary clerks,


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I propose that this clause be dropped entirely, because this matter is provided for in the other clauses.


Mr. BELAND.: I see that temporary clerks are to be paid $2.50. What salary are these employees receiving now?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: $1.60. The cost of living has very much increased.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is all right, I do not object to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 8-eligibility for employment,
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is proposed to drop from the section the words ' or box collector.' In many cases the box collections are made by a company, and there might be some difficulty with the Auditor General in regard to this.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is the box collector at Quebec?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A Mr. Gagnier.
On section 9-permanent appointment temporary employees,


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The words ' for an increase ' in the last line do not carry the idea sufficiently well. I have been over this clause with the staff of the department, and they have come to the conclusion that the words mentioned ought to be replaced by the words ' a higher salary than the maximum of the class in which he may be placed under this Act.' This means that the employees referred to can go up to $1,000.
Section as amended agreed t-o.
On section 11-mileage to sorters,


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I propose to add after the words ' railway mail clerks ' in the first line of the paragraph the words ' and other post office employees when employed as sorters in the postal cars.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 12-salaries of inspector, assistant inspector or superintendent.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister explain in how many cases this increase will be given?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This will affect inspectors and superintendents of the railway mail service as follows:	Mr. W. E.
Maclellan, Nova Scotia, will get $200; at

present he is receiving $2,800. Mr. Colter of New Brunswick, if the Governor in Council consents, may get as. high an increase as $700. He is now receiving $2,800.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The $700 would bring him up to the maximum.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes,
_ Mr. LEMIEUX. And the minister will judge according to circumstances in granting the increases?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The increase will be granted on merit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He might receive an increase of $300, or $400, or $500, or $700?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Governor in Council will decide that. I am sorry to say that we cannot take advantage of this provision in the case of Mr. Green, of Quebec, but we are going to try and provide for him in some other way! Mr. Green has been moved here and there, in order_ that his services might be made effective, and that fact has caused his appointment to date only from the 4th of May. 1910.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the maximum now?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: And this gentleman cannot get any higher at present? I think the minister would be warranted in granting an increase.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that because Mr. Green is a most efficient officer.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will Mr. Larue get the increase?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. Mr. Goudet of Montreal is in the same position as Mr. Green. Mr. Bolduc may receive $700, if the Governor in Council so decides, like Mr. Colter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The ablest man you have in the service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is Mr. Bolduc's salary?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is $2,800. I will recommend that he get his maximum at once. As the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) says, he is perhaps the best inspector we have in the department.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Certainly a first-class man.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Now we come to Mr. Merrick of Kingston. He is in the same position as Mr. Bolduc. Then there is Mr. Limoges of North Bay, whose present salary is $2,600; Mr. Sutherland, of Toronto,
who is in the same position as Mr. Greene of Quebec. Mr. Campbell, of London now receives $2,800, and by virtue of this Bill he can get an increase up to $200. Mr. McLeod, of Winnipeg was in a position to get the increase of $700 but he has Ur-tired since this Bill was prepared. Mir. Wilson, of Moosejaw has recently deceased and has been succeeded by Mr. McNaugh-ton, who has made his .mark sufficiently to take charge of the new position. Mr. Chamard, of Saskatoon, now receives $2,600, and may get an increase up to $200, Mr. Bruce, of Calgary, who now receives $2,600, will receive an increase up to $200. He is a good officer. Mr. Cairns, of Edmonton, now receives $2,800, and he may receive an increase under the Bill up to $300. At Vancouver, is Mr. Greenfield, whose salary is $2,800, and who may also receive an increase up to $300. Mr. Fletcher, of Victoria, is one of those who may receive an increase as high as $700. I have the details here, with regard to the inferior officers, but I will not go into that unless the hon. gentleman desires it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would like to know about Mr. Larue, assistant inspector at Quebec.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: His salary at present is $1,700, and his increase may go to $400.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am glad to hear it, he is a very good officer, and has been long in the service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I desire to read a letter I have received.
In looking over Bill No. 106 that has been introduced in the House of Commons, I find that so far as second-class clerks in the post office are concerned, it contains a very unfair discrimination. Frequent representations have been made, as you know, for a general increase in the salaries of post office clerks without the least suggestion of political discrimination. But the Bill that has -been introduced makes discrimination in favour of those who were appointed by Conservative governments.
In referring to the second-class clerks, page 3, line 25, you will see that those who have had less than 15 years service, temporary or permanent, are placed in grade B; again at line 32 on the same page, any one who has had fifteen years' service or over, whether temporary or permanent, goes into grade A. This practically means that there will be no increase in salary for second-class clerks appointed during the Liberal term of office. While the Bill does not say that these differ-erences shall date -from July of 1896, by putting the period at twelve years, it practically and very effectively gives the preference to those who were appointed by a Conservative government as against those who have been appointed since. I am satisfied that a question in the House as to the number of persons that were affected as appointees before and after the fifteen years' limit with the dates of their appointment, would show the large

preponderance of Conservatives whom this Act will beneficially affect.
I am told that employees who were letter carriers from Conservative appointment prior to 1896 were in many cases advanced to clerkships with a large increase in salary. This Bill would displace clerks at present (from seniors by reason of the efficient discharge of their duties) who have not had fifteen years' service, but who held clerkships before the others reached that rank in the service. In addition to the matter to which I refer, it is suggested that the fair application of the benefits of the Bill to all parties will be obtained by striking out in line 28, page 3 the following words: ' and he was a senior second-class prior to the 1st day of October, 1909 "; and in the 33rd line by striking ont the words 1 temporary and permanent " and substituting the words ' in that case.'
My hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) will read these remarks in ' Hansard ' and I am sure he will give them .consideration. This is a private matter, but I will hand it to my hon. friend; I am sure he means to be fair to every one. I hope he will ' look into this matter fully.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will consider it.
Bill reported.


THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Civil Service (Mr. Pelletier) read the second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.
Bill (No. 116) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Reid (Grenville).

[Stage Direction]
On order for third reading of Bill (No. 32) respecting grain.
George Eulas Foster: I move that the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to Committee of the Whole in order to make certain amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went again into committee on the Bill.
George Eulas Foster: The chief reason for taking this Bill back into Committee of the Whole is because that, in the printing of it, certain omissions have been made, and some inconsistencies remain to be cleared up. In section 230 I move to insert the words ' upon the recommendation of the board.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: In section 107, after the words ' No. 1 Canada Western barley shall be plump, bright, sound, clean and free from other grain.' I move to add after the word * grain,' ' and Mr. LEMIETJX.
shall weigh not less than 48 pounds to the bushel.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: Then in the last line but one-we had some discussion over the weight of No. 3 Canada western barley, the weight of which we reduced from 45 pounds to 44 pounds. I propose to change the weight back to 45 pounds. It was put down at 44 chiefly from representations from the west; but subsequent representations led me to believe that if we made it as low as 44 pounds it would destroy its value as a malting barley. 45 pounds puts it on a par with the nomenclature in the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: Section 121-when we went over this section, we changed (a) (b) by putting in ' in the western and eastern inspection divisions,' so as to include both divisions. However these do not appear in the re-print, and I now propose to make it of the same sense as before.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 156, rules and regulations,
George Eulas Foster: I beg to move the addition of subsection 4. This was really agreed to in committee but seems not to have been embodied in the bill:
Such rules and regulations shall be laid before both Houses of parliament within 30 days from commencement of each session.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. CRUISE.: 
Airdrie G.  G. A.@: , Shadeland G. G. A., Stephenfield G. G. A., Franklin G. G. A., Reston G. G. A., Carroll G. G. A., Lenore G.	G.	A., Havelock	G.	G.	A., BaycentreG.	G.	A., Minitonas	G.	G.	A., Benito	G.
G. A., Barnsley G. G. A., Edwin G. G. A., Holmfield G. G. A., Beaver G. G. A., Valley River, Ashville, Ochre River, Gilbert Plains, Dauphin, Sunnydale, Macleod-Howe Branch W. F. A.
These are all grain growers' associa-ciations, and they strongly protest against any change being made in the car-distribution clause. They have asked different members of this House to insist on subsection E of section 207 being struck out. We are told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this subsection was inserted purely and simply to assist the small farmers. I have given this matter a great deal of study, and in my humble judgment it is not going to be of any benefit whatever to the small farmer, but is going to put him practically where he was ten years ago. For that reason I object to this clause and move this amendment.


Mr. DAVID WARNOCK (Macleod).: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the motion of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise), I wish again to register my protest against the passing of section 207. These amendments have created a widespread alarm in the west, and meetings have been held day after day to register protests against the proposal to deprive the farmers of the privileges they have enjoyed for a number of years under the provisions of the Manitoba Grain Act. In my opinion section 207 as now amended is completely emasculated in so far as affording any protection to the farmers; and this is the opinion of a great many farmers in the west. I wish to read a letter which has been written by Mr. E. J. Fream, secretary of the United Farmers' Association of Alberta to the hon. member for Edmonton:
Calgary, Alta., Feb. 27, 1912. The Hon. F. Oliver,
House of Commons,
Ottawa,
Sir,-At the annual meeting of the Can-

adian Council of Agriculture held a few days ago, the question of the new Grain Bill was up for discussion and the following resolution was unanimously adopted:-
That this council endorse the action of the delegates to Ottawa, representing the three western provinces and consisting of Messrs. Renders, McKenzie, Hopkins, Green and Bream, and the views submitted by them to the government, and again place on record our firm belief that nothing: short of government operation and control, either by lease or purchase, of all terminal and transfer elevator facilities through an independent commission will ever relieve the adverse conditions now existing; further that it is essential that no change" shall be made in the clauses of the Grain Bill relating to the distribution of cars as any tampering with the rights pertaining to the producers in this direction will work a great hardship upon these producers and will not tend to relieve the car shortage, which shortage can be traced to the inability of the railway companies to handle business consigned to them; further it is our opinion that if any change is contemplated in this direction it will be better to dropt the Grain Bill entirely and continue to administer the grain business through the provisions ot the Manitoba Grain Act as it now reads.
We have viewed with alarm the proposals made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the Grain Bill, ana we can only see calamity in sight if same becomes law with all the proposed amendments as is now proposed.
We are convinced that nothing short ot government operation and control of all terminal facilities will ever give us what we require, and think that the proposal to take over two or three of the terminals as an experiment is nothing more or less than a desire to ruin the whole plan of government ownership, as such a scheme must of necessity he dependent on the private interests, and will therefore he at their mercy when the grain is
handled.	'
We are greatly alarmed at the proposed amendments to section 207 and are appealing . to you to assist us in protecting our rights and retaining that which we won only after the hardest kind of a battle. You are fully conversant with all these details, and we are therefore simply asking you to assist us as far as possible and to remind you that we would prefer to see the whole Grain Bill defeated rather than to have our rights interfered with by the destruction through many amendments of the saving principles embodied in the car distribution clauses of the Grain Act.
Thanking you in anticipation of your favourable consideration and assistance.
Yours truly,
EDWARD J. FREAM, Secretary.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is inclined to think that the makers of the resolutions which have been 'sent to members on both sides of the House do not represent a very large proportion of the grain growers of the west; but I know that in southern Alberta they Veprescnt 100 per cent of the grain-grow-Mr. WARNOCK.
ing farmers. Of course, there are some 'farmers not largely interested in grain to whom the matter is of very little importance; hut the grain-growing farmers are united on this question. Resolutions along these lines have come from grain-growers' associations at Strathcona, Pincher Creek, Wheatland Centre, Sullivan lake, Botha, Gadsby, Cairns, Granum, Iron springs, Agricola, Trout creek, Oxoway, Chauvin, Lewisville, Warner, Acme, Galahad, Fairgrove, Spruce grove, Sunnydale and Macleod (Howe Branch). These resolutions are arriving by every mail, and in a few days we shall have a great many more of them. Most of the resolutions embody another resolution to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This is one from the Howe Branch of the United Farmers' Association at Macleod:
Resolved that the western outlet for our grain should be taken up immediately, a no that the Dominion government should provide terminal elevator facilities at the Pacific coast at once.
I should like to recommend that to the consideration of the hon. minister.
I protest against the passing of section 207 as amended, and would ask that it be passed as it stood in the Manitoba Grain Act.
House divided on amendment of Mr Cruise.
YEAS;
Messieurs
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Boivdn,
Brouillard,
Brown,
Carroll,
Cash,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Cruise,
Demers,
Douglas,
Ethier,
Fortier,
Gauthier
(St. Hyacinthe), I Gauvreau,
Hughes (King's,


P.E.I.),
[Stage Direction]
Kay,
Knowles,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
MacNutt,
McCraney,
McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Marcil (Bonaventure), .Marcile (Bagot), .Martin (Regina), Michaud,
Molloy,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Robb,
Scliaffner,
Seguin,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sinclair,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tobin,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Warnock and White (Victoria, Alta.)-47.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Acbim,
Alguire,
Lennox,
Lesperance, i

Ames,	Lewis,
Armstrong (Lambton),Macdonell, Armstrong (York, O.),McKay,
Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball,
Barker,
Barnard,
Barrette,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Binder,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Clare,
Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Cockshutt,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Eiiiot,	:
McLean (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Meighen,
Merner,
Mondou,
Monk,
Morphy,
Munson,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Osier (Sir Edmund), faquet,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Porter,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Roche,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Staples,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg) Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thaburn,
Fisher,	Thompson (Yukon),
Foster (Toronto,	N.), Thornton,
Guilbault,	Walker,
Hartt,	W allace,
Hazen,	Webster,
Henderson,	Weichel,
Jameson,	White (Renfrew),
Kidd,	Wilcox and
Lancaster,	Wilson
Lavall6e,	(Wentworth).-89. PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition. Messieurs
Stanfield,	Pardee,
Car rick,	Lapointe (Montreal),
White (Leeds),	Enimerson,
naggart,	G ordon,
Rhodes,	Macdonald,
Fowler,	I'ugsley,
Bristol,	Charlton,
McCurdy,	McLean Halifax),
Smyth,	Clarke (Essex),
Middlebro,	Nesbitt,
Robidoux,	Carvell,
Edwards,	Turriff,
Marshall,	McCoig,
Rogers,	Oliver,
Goodeve,	Ross,
Perley,	McKenzie,
Kemp,	Boyer,
Tremain,	Buchanan,
Aitkins,	Bureau,
Boyce,	Richards,
Cochrane,	Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Hughes,	Proulx,
Lamarche,	Champagne,
Foster (Kings),	Kyte,
Currie,	Neely,
Ben ttie,	Guthrie,
Donnelly,
Hepburn,
Lalor,
Northrup.
Forget
Sevigny
McCrea, German, 1 Devlin, Murphy.
Wilson (Laval) Lachance
Amendment (Mr. Cruise) negatived.
Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) I wish to move:
That the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred baok to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amendment by striking out subsection 2 of seotion 57 and substituting therefore the following :
Notwithstanding any provisions in this Aot that may conflict therewith, sample markets may be established under such rules and regulations as shall be recommended by the board and approved by the Governor in Council, in the city of Winnipeg, and such other point or points as shall be selected by the board with the approval of the Governor in Council.
The. change which would be effected by this amendment, if adopted, would be in the first place, that instead of as at present providing for three points for sample markets-that is Winnipeg, Fort William and Calgary-a market would be established at Winnipeg and such other point or points as shall be selected by the board, with the approval of the Governor in Council. At present, 1 believe, the only place at which people generally appear to have asked for a sample market is Winnipeg. There is no objection, to a sample market being established there, but I think it would be necessary to have sample markets at other points. I do not think it is well to limit the places at which these markets may be established. They may be necessary at Calgary and Fort William, but they are just as likely to be necessary at other points. This is a matter which might well be left in the hands of the board with the approval of the Governor in Council, because circumstances may arise which might make it advisable to establish sample markets at other points. For instance, a considerable quantity of grain is being shipped to the United States. The grain from the western part of Saskatchewan, and parts of Alberta is being shipped to that country, and it will go over the Soo line. Therefore, it would be advisable to have a sample market at Moosejaw or North Portal or some such place. This amendment will leave the board free to select such points as they may deem advisable. My chief reason for moving this amendment is because of the provision which permits the mixing of grain. There are two or three things that seem to the farmers of the west to Be very important in connection with the grain trade. One of these has been dealt with in connection with car distribution. Another equally im-
[Stage Direction]
portant question is that of the mixing of grain. The western farmers rightly or wrongly, and I believe rightly, deem it to be very important to them that mixing should not be allowed.^ I do not think they would seriously object to mixing provided all terminal elevators were operated by the government. But we must remember that we have not any positive promise from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that such a policy will be carried out. He merely says that he proposes to try the experiment with one or two elevators, or possibly more, and there is no reason to suppose government control of terminal elevators generally will be carried out. On that account, the western farmers are utterly dissatisfied with the provision to which I have referred. I fear the Minister looks on the grain growers as spoiled^ children who have had too much of their* own way in the past. It is true that a great many amendments have been made to the Manitoba Grain Act at their request since it was first put in force, but I think if the Minister of Trade and Commerce will look into the recommendations of the western grain growers asking for amendment to that Act, he will find that they have been for the benefit of the country at large, and not merely in the interest of the grain growers themselves. Everybody must recognize that the great growth of Canada in late years, has been caused by the development of the west and the increase in the amount of grain which has been grown and exported from that country. To allow mixing to take place is bound to be one of the most serious blows that can be struck at the western farmer. .
Mr. DOUGLAS.: In seconding the amendment, I merely wish to state that the amendment is in the interest of the grain crowers of the west to a large extent. Since this Bill first came before the House I in common with other members, have received a great many communications dealing with this Bill in its various stages, and among the clauses which have received the condemnation of the grain growers as a whole, is the one which allows the mixing of grain in terminal elevators. That section has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among grain growers. In my judgment the clause has been inserted largely for the benefit of the grain dealers, as against the interest of the grain growers. The object of the latter in past years has been to prevent the bad practice of mixing, which has prevailed at the terminal elevators. If these elevators were owned and operated by the government, I believe this evil might be controlled to a very large extent, but under the provisions of the Bill only one or two such elevators are going to be run by the government. Consequently the farmers view with a great


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).: deal of alarm the fact that other elevators which are privately owned, may continue to go on mixing the grain in the same nefarious manner in which it has been done in the past, which practice it has been the object of the Manitoba Grain Act to overcome in every possible way. For these reasons I very gladly second the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want hon. gentlemen opposite to think that because I did not answer the arguments of the gentlemen who moved and seconded the former amendment that I treated that amendment otherwise than it should have been treated. I did not make any answer because the arguments advanced, so far as I can judge, were practicaly the arguments that had been already adduced, and that were thoroughly threshed out as we went through committee, and I did not consider it necessary to take up the time of the House in repeating arguments in rebuttal. The same thing applies to the present amendment, and yet I think it is well for me to take a moment or two in dealing with this amendment especially. There is not, I think, very much difference between the mover of this amendment and myself as the sponsor for the Bill. He argues, and wishes to make effective, that the selection of sample markets shall be left with the Board of Commissioners and subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. The Bill states three principal places at which sample markets, not necessarily shall, but may be established. It does not seem to me that sample markets in the west, or anywhere else, are, like the measles and smal'l-pox, breaking out at unexpected moments.
We meet here every year and we have a chance to legislate each year, and I think that no interest will suffer in the interim between sessions, and no sudden and unexpected development is likely to take place which would mark out a certain place -which had not been provided for in the Act as a necessary place for a sample market. I think we should go gradually in fixing sample market places in the west and that the growth should not be over rapid. When you make your provision for Calgary for a sample market, for instance, that does not say that it will be a sample market this year, or next year, or the year after. This Bill, when it becomes law, does not establish a sample market anywhere, but simply makes it possible for a sample market to be established at that place; but the co-operation of other factors than the government and other conditions than those for which the government can be responsible, are necessary before a sample market can be established. Now, as the spot upon which

we are all agreed for a sample market if there is one at all, we take Winnipeg. There is no cavil about that. I think that it has been demonstrated that Fort William is another place where a fairly good sample market could be established. It is unique in its position at the head of lake navigation and in connection with the rail transport of grain; and, with the press of cars from Winnipeg and the time that elapses between their being sampled and graded at Winnipeg and their arrival at Fort William, there are conditions that may arise that will make Fort William a good place for a sample market. It is not improbable, also, that Fort William will become a large milling centre in the course of time. It has a good location in that respect. For these reasons it is a likely place for a sample market. The same is true of Calgary, far remote from these other two. If it ever does become a sample market, it will be because of the western export of the grain by the Pacific ocean. That may develop pretty rapidly. I would not take the responsibility of saying that we should not make provision this year for Calgary as a point for a sample market, because, with the great production of grain and the necessary congestion which is physically unmovable towards the east, it is not out of probability that next year may see a very large efflux of grain from the prairie provinces, especially from Alberta and part of Saskatchewan, towards the Pacific ocean; if not next year, then certainly the year after.
So that, I think, we have covered all the present possible points for a successful sample market in the three places we have named in the Act. If, when we come here next year, it is found that Edmonton, or Prince Rupert, or Moosejaw, or some other place has developed towards the point where successful markets can be established, we can make provision therefor. But I think we shall all agree that to endeavour to have a large number of small sample markets, would be rather against having a successful sample market at all. The success of the sample market depends on the large number of buyers and the large aggregation of sellers, coming together in a certain place, together with other conditions which Winnipeg and Fort William at present, and Calgary in the near future, pretty well fulfil. So, I do not think there is much difference in fact and in reality between my hon, friend (Mr. Thomson, Qu'Appelle) and my-self.
Now, with reference to mixing: What is it that the farmers dreaded and dread to day, in mixing? I have had the pleasure of reading about it in the Grain Growers' Guide-and I read that journal very regularly, and have appreciated much that it
contains, though I do not agree with everything it says. It is not for me to offer advice to the grain growers on the conduct of their paper; but if I were running a paper in the west, on agricultural lines, I would try to be more hopeful, I would try to inculcate through the columns of the paper some friendly advice, some kindly suggestion, some enumeration of the advantages of the country, some suggestions of the better and newer methods. I would not paint the whole situation black; I would have a reasonable portion of clear and lively colour. But I am not running the ' Grain Growers' Guide.' The grain growers who run the ' Grain Growers' Guide ' put one leg upon the mixing and another leg upon the government-owned elevators, and they say: Mixing is horrible, but we are willing to embrace it if we have only honest conduct of the elevators.	Well, honest conduct of the elevators is what this government is going to see is carried out. It is going to do it by the added machinery, which this Bill is to put into their hands. It is going to do it by the nomination of a first-class grain commission which has no interested sympathy with elevator companies or with railroad corporations, but which has first and mainly the farmers' interest in view and will use both elevators and railway companies as very helpful means to aid the farmers in quick and proper despatch of their grain to the markets of the world. Now, I defy any one to read the discussion in the Grain Growers' Guide upon the sample market without coming to the conclusion that if there is not a preponderance of sentiment in favour of the sample market with mixing, there is at least a fairly even division of opinion. I would invite my hon. friend to read the last, or the next to the last, number of the Grain Growers' Guide and the resolutions and discussions upon these resolutions, and he, will see that they are in favour of a sample market absolutely, provided they have honest conduct of the elevators at the terminal points. These gentlemen want,-they ask for, and have a right to ask for,-a certain thing, and the government is in duty bound to give what they ask for. But, the government and the House have a perfect right to use .its judgment as to how that thing shall be brought about. Mr. Fream and Mr. McKenzie say it cannot be brought about except by government-owned elevators. The government believe that with the machinery that is provided in this Bill, they can bring it about; and I am willing to stake my reputation and the reputation of the government on the fact that it will be brought about in the administration of this Act during this and the succeeding years. If they get the thing they want, honest mixing with a sample market, what

is the trouble that they need fear. I do not find fault with the farmers in the west for fearing. But that which they fear is based upon suspicion and not upon actual facts. ' Once bitten, twice shy.' The farmers in olden times were bitten, bitten by the elevator men and bitten by the railroad men. But the legislation of 1905-6 revolutionized the matter of transportation of grain in that country. This Act and the administration of this Act, and the government behind this Act, does not mean to take away one iota of the privileges which the farmers of the west have for the proper disposal of their grain. If they can help them in any way they will do it. Why should I, or why should the government, collude with the elevator men or with the railroad men as against the farmers of the west ?
The whole argument of my hon. friends opposite sink to the ground, disappear utterly, unless you can prove that there would be collusion between three parties; the elevator men, the railway men and the grain commission. Now, I do not believe that the grain commission is going to collude with either the elevator men or the railroad men to the detriment of the farmers; it is going to aid both the elevators and the railroad companies, and I believe, with their consent and with their co-operation, to do everything that possibly can be done for the speedy marketing of the farmers' grain. Now, I would not ask that this Bill be passed if I thought it was going to do what Mr. Fream fears it will do. He says: You had better knock the Bill out entirely rather than have these going to have that effect I would be just added clauses in it. If I thought it was as much against that clause as Mr. Fream or Mr. McKenzie. We all have a right to cur opinions. I do not judge any one as not being honest and straight in the opinion he holds of what might take place. But it cannot be a well based opinion yet, it is nothing more than a fear or a suspicion; and I think he will find that the fear is groundless, and that the suspicion will not eventuate in fact.


William Erskine Knowles: I must congratulate my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) on having succeeded in waking up the minister at last. During the last day or so that we have been dealing with this Bill the minister has either ignored our criticisms, or given them scant courtesy. He has entered into a more or less general discussion of the matter, defending the commission that is going to be appointed. Now he has one great advantage over us, he has some sort of an idea whom he is going to appoint on the commission, whereas we do not know at all what men the government have in their minds. Nor do we know, when they come to bring down sup-Mir. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
plementary estimates, how much money they will ask parliament to vote for the purpose of securing the control and operation of government elevators at the head of the lakes. . The minister's whole _ argument is that he would not ask parliament to put this measure through if he did not believe it was a good one. He speaks of ' My commission' and says it is going to be so immaculate and perfect that it should have the confidence of every member of this committee, as if we ought to vote without hesitation any legislation the minister proposes. For my part I do not propose to accept any legislation merely because the minister asks us to do so. We might just as well go home if we are going to vote for a certain piece of legislation just because the minister says he would not present it to the House if his motives were not good in proposing it. I think the minister will see that while we are not reflecting upon his bona fides in the_ matter, he cannot bring us to the conviction by simply saying that he would not do it if he did not think he was perfectly right. But he has gone beyond the mere amendment in your hands, and has spoken about the Bill being so satisfactory, and when it is passed there are going to be such safeguards surrounding the handling of grain at the head of the lakes, and such a fine commission to handle it, that he has no doubt at all everything will be satisfactory to the farmers. It is a remarkable thing that when this Bill was before the House last May, hon. gentlemen opposite declared they could not support it because it did not suit them, and now we find them throwing up their hats in support of a Bill of the very same tenor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would1 remind the hon.
gentleman that, under a similar ruling, it is scarcely permissible to refer to anything that is not before the House. I do not think it would be wise to wander far away from the present amendment.


William Erskine Knowles: When I rose to my feet I proposed to speak particularly on that part of my hon. friend's amendment, and to his suggestion that the minister might take to the board power to establish sample markets at any place that the government or the board might deem proper. I think 'that is a suggestion the minister might take into consideration, even at this late hour. I speak of this more particularly from' the view point of the town I have the honour to represent. From the city of Moosejaw there have gone south this year, into the American market, car load1 after car load, train load after train load, of wheat, after paying the duty. I have seen reports from the Minneapolis, St. Pau' and Sault Ste. Marie railroad saying that their traffic was congested with wheat from the Canadian west. That is an illustration of

what may occur which would make it de-! sirable that the government should have in its hands power to adjust the administration of this Act according to changing circumstances from time to time. There have gone from the city of Moosejaw possibly millions of bushels of wheat, going down south by the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie railway, which leaves the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway at Moosejaw. Another year some other set of circumstances might arise. We have been told during the late election campaign that we should not encourage reciprocity, because the Americans would take off the duty anyway. Let us suppose that they did remove their duty from our cereals and admit the product of our soil free of duty, there would be such a demand from the United States that our cereals would go south in immense quantities. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the American people prefer to purchase in a .sample market. Practically all their buying is done in Minnesota and other places by sample in a sample market, and if a sample market would be popular for any purchasers it would be with American purchasers. Therefore I suggest that the minister should take to himself power in this Act to establish sample markets wherever the government and the board might think it well to do so. More than that, one of the important customers of the sample market is the mill. We know that the great mills of Minneapolis are the greatest customers of the sample market in Minnesota. In the city of Moosejaw there is a greater demand for wheat for milling purposes than there is in the city of Calgary; there are more milling facilities in the city of Moosejaw than in the city of Calgary. Therefore, I say there is a much stronger reason for making Moosejaw a sample market than Calgary. I do not propose that the name of Moosejaw be put in the Bill, but I propose that the minister take power to establish as many sample markets as circumstances may render desirable.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yeas and nays.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the ' Nays ' have it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Same division.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: I would not like to have the same division recorded. If this division should take place I would vote against the amendment. I do not wish to be recorded as voting the same way.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Thomson, Qu'Appelle.).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Bel and,	Lemieux,
Bickerdike,	Loggie,
Boivin,	Lovell,
Brouillard,	Maclean (Halifax),
Brown,	MaoNutt,
Carroll,	McOraney,
Cash,	McLean (Surbury),
Chisholm (Antigomsh), McMillan,	
Chisholm (Inverness),	, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Clark (Red Deer),	Mareile (Bagot),
Cruise,	Martin (Regina),
Demers,	Michaud,
Douglas,	Molloy,
Ethier,	Pacaud,
Fortier,	Papineau,
Gauthier	Robb,
(St. Hyacinthe),	Seguin,
Gauvreau,	Sinclair,
Hughes	Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
(King's, P.E.I.),	Tobin,
Kay,	Turgeon
Knowles,	Verville,
Lanctot,	Warnock and
Lapointe	Wh;te
(Kamouraska),	(Victoria, Alta.)-Ifi
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Achim,	Lennox,
Alguire,	Lesperance,
Ames,	Lewis,
Armstrong (Lambton), Macdonnell, Armstrong (York), O), McCurdy, McKay,
Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball,
Barker,
Barnard,
Barrette,
Bennett (Calgary;,
Bennett (Simcoe)
Best,
Blain,
Blondin,	[DOT]
Borden,
Bowman,
Boyce,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Clare,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington)
Clements,
Cockshutt,
Coderre,
Crocket,
Cromwell,
Oroth ers,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Elliot,
Elson,
Fisher,	_
Foster	(Toronto, N.), Thornton,
Guilbault,	Walker,
Hartt,	Wallace,
Hazen,	Webster,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Merner,
Mondou,
Monk,
Morphy,
Munson,
Nantel,
N icholson,
N ickle,
Osier (Sir Edmund),
Paquet,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Porter,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Roche,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Shepherd,
Staples,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon)

Henderson,
Jameson,
Kidd,
Lamarclie,
Lancaster,
Ministerial.
Weichel,
White (Renfrew). Wilcox and Wilson
(Wentworth).-92. PAIRS:
Opposition.
Messieurs
Stanfield,
Carrick,
White (Leeds), Haggart,
Rhodes,
Fowler,
Bristol,
Smyth,
MidUlebro,
Robidoux,
Edwards.
Marshall,
Rogers '
Goodeve,
Perlev,
Kemp,
Tremain,
Aikins,
Cochrane,
Hughes,
Lamarche,
Foster,
(Kings, P.E.I.), Currie,
Beattie.
Donnelly,
Hepburn,
Lalor,
Northrup,
1'iipp.
Forget,
Sevigny,
Iardee,
Lapointe (Montreal), Emmerson,
Gordon,
Macdonald,
Pugsley,
Charlton.
Clarke (Essex), Nesbitt,
Carvell,
Turriff,
McCoig,
Oliver,
Ross,
McKenzie,
Boyer,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Proulx,
Champagne,
Kyte,
Neely,
Guthrie,
McCrea,
German,
Devlin,
Murphy,
Richards.
Wilson (Laval), Lachance,
Amendment (Mr. Thomson, Qu'Appelle), negatived.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) did not vote.	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: I am paired with the Minister of the Interior, otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McCRANEY (Saskatoon).: I move, seconded by Mr. MacNutt:
That the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions to amend sub-olause 2 of clause 57 by inserting after the words ' in connection therewith' the words following:	' in elevators operated hy the
hoard.'
The effect of this amendment if passed would permit the mixing of grain to be carried on only in government owned elevators. The clause would then read as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act that may conflict therewith, sample markets may be erected in the cities of Winnipeg, Fort William and Calgary, and the mixing of grain permitted in connection therewith in elevators operated by the hoard under such Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).
rules and regulations as are recommended by the board and approved by the Governor in Council.
Amendment, (Mr. McCraney) negatived on the same division as the last.


William Erskine Knowles: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Martin, of Regina [DOT]
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of amendment by striking out section 121, and substituting therefor the following:-
123. No -person owning, managing, operating, or in any way interested in, any public or terminal elevator, shall buy or sell or be in any way interested in, the buying or selling of grain, at any point in the western inspection division.
(2)	Subsection 1 hereof shall not apply to any person who owns or is in any way interested in the ownership of any terminal elevator.
(a) Which with the approval of the Governor in Council has been leased to the board for operation, or has been leased to any person for operation with the approval of the board.
(b) Which is used or operated in connection with any flour mill, situate at the same terminal point as such elevator, provided, however, that such elevator shall -be subject to such restrictions and regulations as are imposed by the board with the approval of the Governor in Council.
(3)	Subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person hy reason only of the fact that he is the owner or holder of stock or shares in a railway company, which owns or operates a terminal elevator which does not as a business buy or sell grain.
(4)	If the person mentioned in subsection 2 hereof owns, manages, operates or is in any way interested in any terminal elevator other than a terminal elevator or elevators coming under the provisions of subsection 2 hereof, he shall not be exempt from the provisions of subsection 1 hereof.
In proposing this amendment, I do so for the purpose of placing before the House in this formal way, the same issue which I placed before the Committee of the Whole some two weeks agp. My contention is that the Bill as proposed by the government has absolutely no meaning, and is absolutely ineffective. This Bill, more or less makes a pretense of forbidding men who operate terminal elevators, from, at the same time, buying and selling grain, but, when it comes to be studied, it makes only a pretense of that because it does not in any way effectively attain that result. It distinctly says that any person who manages a leased elevator, where the lease is approved by the board, may buy or sell grain. I need not go further into the question than to show that that one feature of it makes the section absolutely useless. If a person wishes to be put in possession of an elevator and to have control, of the management

and operation of it, all he has to do is to become a lessee of it or to become a member of a company which is a lessee of it, or be in any way associated with the leasing of such an elevator, and then he may buy and sell grain to his heart's content. I submit that once the Minister of Trade and Commerce grants that, and he cannot deny it, he must agree with me that the whole clause is absolutely useless. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in reply to a question I put him this afternoon, assured me that the farmers were safe in the hands of the government. That is a fragile basis to put this legislation on. The farmers do not hold that view. The Minister of Trade and Commerce implied, although he did not say it, that the representations that have been read in this chamber coming from the Association of Grain Growers, and coming from the secretaries of the different provincial associations which group together the district associations; that they did not represent the people in any fuli measure. The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not use these words, but he made the remark that there was a great part of the farming community that was not making its voice heard when we spoke, and when we read these resolutions that we have read in the House from time to time. I read to him, and I will place it again on ' Hansard a telegram I received this morning from Mr. Fred. W. Greene, secretary of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, a gentleman holding the very responsible position of secretary for a group of all the Grain Growers' Associations of the greatest grain growing province in the Dominion. If you could concentrate in the expression of one man anything that is worthy of attention, I say the attention of the House and of the minister should be given to a communication from the Secretary of the Grain Growers' Association in the great wheat province of Saskatchewan. This is what he says:
Farmers are fearful that through the influence of elevator and transportation companies at Ottawa, farmers' friends will be handicapped and their interests sacrificed. Our association is ready to send delegation if in vour opinion their cause may he assisted.
(Sgd.) F. W. GREENE.
Secretary Grain Growers' Association.
I was in hopes there might be time given to these men to come down here and state their case, and they can state it better than any of us in this House can state it, try as we may and repeat ais we may at times, our arguments to the wearying of the minister and of hon. gentlemen opposite, a great many of whom do not belong to the west and do not understand details. I say now, and I pledge my word, that the farmers of the west are not satisfied with this legislation. They feel they aire getting 153
a gold brick from the government, in this present Grain Act; that it is not bringing about any improvement in their position, but that on the contrary they would be better with things as they are now. The minister has great confidence in the Bill. I asked him the other day to follow me in my remarks with regard to section 123, and he never took the trouble to so much as say whether he saw the point I tried to make or not, and if he did see it, to try and explain it away. I do not think he can deny what I have said with regard to the flimsiness and the inefficiency of _ section 123. The farmers are afraid of this legislation on a great many scores and there is nothing they are more afraid of than the manipulating of the grades. We have heard the accusation in the House and on the hustings and in the press and in the lesolutions of the Grain Growers' Associations everywhere, that the manipulation of our grain is being affected in the terminal elevators at Fort William.
The minister has not yet taken the trouble to show us how this most important clause is going to stop the lessee of an elevator from buying and selling grain and still going scot free. If he admits that it is not intended to do that, we shall know how to deal with it; but if he admits that does not stop that practice, he admits that it is a farce. I hope the minister will even at this late hour, take into consideration the people most concerned in this matter, will see the error of his ways, and agree to admit what I suggest.
Amendment negatived on the same division as the last.


Frank Oliver: I beg to move
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but be referred hack to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amendment by striking out section 216.
This section reads as follows:
The expenses of the administration of this Act shall be paid by the imposition of such fees as are necessary for that purpose, and the board, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may fix such fees and determine how and by whom they shall he paid.
In support of the amendment I desire to say, that in my humble judgment, the purport of this section is to authorize the board, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to levy taxation and to make expenditure without the vote of parliament, and that the first part of the section authorizes the board, with title approval of the Governor in Council, to incur expenditure at their own will. Such a provision, I submit, is objectionable under our system of government, and does not make for good government or economical or efficient administration.


George Eulas Foster: 
George Eulas Foster: Parliament has in the ultimate analysis the power.
Mr. MARTIN ^(Regina). I submit not according to this" Bill.


George Eulas Foster: Parliament delegates that authority to the Board of Grain Commissioners and to the Governor in Council, which is * the executive whilst parliament is out of session. It is done only and by virtue of an Act which parliament in both Houses approves.
Amendment (Mr. Oliver) negatived on the same division as the last.


Mr. CASH moved:: That the Bill he not now read a third time, hut that it he read this day six months.
He said:	My reason for making this
motion is that the western Liberal members have honestly tried to have this Bill put in such shape that it would accomplish that for which the grain growers have been striving for years, and which I think is essential to an honest and fair conduct of the grain business, and they have tried to do this without regard to politics. I cannot say as much for the Conservative members from the west, as it seems to me that their efforts have been directed more towards supporting the minister than to advancing the interests of the grain growers. The House was assured early in this debate by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that his endeavours would be along
4i09

the same lines as outlined above, but what has developed? Why that the minister is playing the game in the interests of the manipulators and not in the interests of the grain growers? I do not think it will take many words to demonstrate this. There are three very essential things the farmers contend it is necessary_ to have in this Bill in order for them to get a square deal. These are: complete separation of the interests of the grain dealers from that of the terminal and transfer elevators. No mixing of grain whatever after government grading, and equal distribution of cars; and third, the distribution of cars.
I am aware that Bill (Q) of the Senate had its origin with the late government. We all recognized, however, that it was a long way from being perfect and required amendment, which we proposed to make when in Committee of the Whole. The opposition at that time, however, refused to allow us to get into committee with the Bill.
The most objectionable features of that Bill are embodied in the present Bill, and yet the minister refuses to allow us to amend the measure. I refer now to clauses 57, 123 and 207. Amendments to these three sections were suggested by the hon. members from Qu'Appeile, Moose jaw and Dauphin. I am particularly afraid of this Bill, as so much depends upon the sentiment of those who administer the law. We had a sample of this in the case of lumber. A government that is friendly to the grain growers interests would probably interpret this Bill so that it would not injure the grain growers, but in the case of lumber, we find that where there was any excuse to interpret that Bill to benefit the western settler, that it was so interpreted by the Liberal government, but now that the Conservative government is in power, we find that interpretation changed so that at present it is construed and administered in favour of the lumbermen. Therefore I think we should be very careful as to the form in which the Bill is allowed to pass, more especially as the present Bill is so full of opportunities to construe it in favour of the manipulator of grain. I think that it would be safer for the grain growers to have the former Act in force than the present one. I think this Bill should have been made short, plain and effective to protect the interests of the grain growers, upon whose success the prosperity of Canada depends, instead of being cumbersome, ambiguous, and in some instances plainly in favour of the manipulator.


Arthur Meighen: Order


Edward L. Cash: I therefore am compelled to move this amendment. If this Bill were to be placed in the hands of a Liberal 1531
government to administer, we should not be so much afraid of it. Western grain growers and that class of people, feel that a Liberal government would treat them in a liberal manner and would administer the law with a view to the protection of their interests.


Arthur Meighen: Do I understand that hon. member (Mr. Cash) to say that if this Bill were being put through by a Liberal government the Grain Growers' Association would favour it?


Edward L. Cash: 1 have stated the case as I see it, and I think hon. members should have no difficulty in understanding what I say. This Bill is full of opportunities for the kind of thing I have indicated. It is an ambiguous Bill, full of imperfections. I think the Bill should have been made much shorter so that an ordinary man reading it could understand it. But you take a Bill so long as this and with one clause leading to and depending upon another, the ordinary main cannot understand it. It requires very careful handling. It has been brought down prematurely; it should not have been placed before the House until it had been made more perfect than it is. I believe that is the view of the grain growers of the west -that this Bill is not what they want or what they ought to have. Therefore, I am constrained to move the six months' hoist.


Mr. MACNUTT.: I have no hesitation in seconding the motion of the hon. member for McKenzie (Mr. Cash), believing with him that the Bill, as amended, is not so perfect as the old Bill 2 or Bill 32. The farmers for many years have been agitating for government ownership and operation which, they believe, is the only method to prevent fixing prices on the minimum quality of certain grades rather than on the average quality. And until recently hon. members on the other side, including the Prime Minister, believed in the same thing. Let me read a resolution brought down on the 13th of February last by the ho.n. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) bearing out this idea. The hon. gentleman on that occasion made some remarks, in the course of which he said:
I do not think there is any diversity of opinion among the grain growers as to how the terminal elevators should he operated in the best interests of the producers. Other methods have been tried but we have all come to the conclusion that the warehousemen must not have an interest in grain.
The hon. gentleman also said:
I have already said that we had been trying to solve problems connected with the line elevators. But even if we solved those problems in the most successful manner, of what advantage would it be to us if the terminal elevators are left in the hands of people who treat the producer unfairly, who, in fact,

for the last number of years-and the term is none too strong-have been stealing their wheat? (There is absolutely no question about it, because it has 'been proven by government officers.)
About the time this resolution was before the House, the 'Bill known as No. Q was going through the Senate. The Bill was distributed among the members and came before this House. It was violently opposed because there was a clause in it with regard to government ownership which was not mandatory. It was found in Bill *32 as -section 16 and -appears in this Bill as section 13, copied without change. There is nothing in it to indicate that the government intends to operate the terminal elevators. We have had a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce on which we rely- rely to a greater extent than the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) appears to have -relied upon a -statement made by the then iMini-ster of -the Interior last summer-that he will experiment with one, two or three of the terminal elevators. That, however, is not government ownership and operation. Let me read some further remarks of the hon. member for Souris, aud remarks of other hon. members as well. Hon. gentlemen opposite were blocking Bill No. Q. The -hon. member for Souris said:


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I say the chief demand of our farmers is that the government should operate these terminal elevators, and that is denied them. Hon,, gentlemen opposite who want to assist the government in getting out of a hole and in neglecting their duty, and the ' Grain Growers' Guide,' -may be satisfied with this Bill, but I aim not; and if the ' Grain Growers' Guide,' -is satisfied then it is not true to the arguments it has used in the last few years in connection with terminal elevators. The farmers of the west have asked for government operation principally; they have asked for government ownership, but to my mind it is not so important who owns the terminal elevators as it is who operates them, and there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that grants government operation. Will the Minister of the Interior answer this straight question; Is it the intention of the government at this session to provide in the estimates for money to buy or -lease these terminal elevators and to operate them entirely by the government? If the Minister of the Interior answers that question in the affirmative I will admit there is something in clause 16 of the Bill to meet the demands of the farmers.
The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), then Minister of the Interior said :


Frank Oliver: I am not authorized to speak for the government, but I would like to make the bargain with my hon. friend, that if he will let this Bill pass now we may possibly be able to get a sum in the estimates to enable the Bill to be operated in that way.
This, -be it remembered, was the second reading of the Bill. The House was not Mr MACNUTT
then considering estimat-es. The hon. member for Edmonton said further:


Frank Oliver: I said that if the hon. gentleman and his friends will allow the Bill to pass there would be some object in the government providing a sum in the estimates, but until the Bill passes there is no -warrant for the government putting a sum in the estimates.
Another remark of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) was as follows:
If the minister and the government want to meet the demands of the farmers they have it in their power to do so. This commission business has been on trial for a great many years

And is evidently going to continue to be on trial for years to come.
-and the farmers have come to the conclusion that it does not -meet the case. The farmers refuse to accept or experiment with that system any longer. I shall oppose this Bill until I have some promise from the government that they will this session place in the estimates a sum of money for the acquisition or control of these elevators.
And Mr. Campbell, then member for Dauphin, had this to say:
The farmers for years and years have been asking a certain thing. They sent a large deputation here, and the most important thing they asked for was the government control of terminal elevators. That request was the most strongly urged of any. The -matter was discussed at that meeting by tli-e farmers, the grain buyers and the millers, all of whom voiced the opinion that it was an absolute necessity for the grain trade of -the west that the government should control the terminal elevators.
And the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) said:
The question is whether the government should own these elevators or not. I hold that they should. I would therefore urge the Minister of the Interior to consult his colleagues and see if it is not -possible for him to make a definite statement to-day to the effect that he will provide the means for the government to take the absolute control of these -elevators. . . This Bill does not meet t.hp demands of the farmers.
Mr. Lake, then the member for Qu'Ap-pelle, spoke along the same lines. Practically all the Conservative members were in favour of complete government ownership and operation. I allude also to the absolute promises made by the Prime Minister last summer to the farmers of the west. He did not say that they would experiment with Tegard to government-owmed and operated terminal elevators, he said that the time for experiment had passed, and he pledged his government if returned to power to complete ownership and control of the terminal elevators. We do not find in this Bill anything dif-

farent from the Bill of last year in this respect; >we have to rely entirely upon the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there will be something in the estimates to purchase one, or two, or possibly three, terminal elevators; but I think he means that is to be an experiment. It is more necessary than ever now that the government should operate these terminal elevators, because the government is actually, under certain rules and conditions of which we know nothing, allowing mixing to take place after inspection, the very thing the farmers have been protesting against for all these years, and almost -the only reason why they desire government operation and control. Many Conservative votes were given in the west last year on the strength of the promise made by the Prime Minister, there is no donbt about that. There is another feature that renders the Bill very objectionable, and that is the clause referring to the distribution of cars. This is something that the farmers have been fighting for during many years, and they have now obtained a fair system of distributing cars. Under this Bill, however, as amended -and reprinted- because the Bill as it -came down in the first place was not so objectionable-it -says that the board may in its discretion, order cars to be supplied wherever, after due examination, the board considers it necessary and advisable in order to relieve congestion and facilitate the dispatch of grain. It is left entirely to the option of the eo'mmission where the cars shall be sent. Let me give an example to show how it might work out. We will suppose there are half-a-dozen farmers who apply for a car each.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is going a little too far into an analysis of the working of the Act. I think it is permissible only to give reasons why the Bill should be read this day six months instead of now.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask that my hon. friend be allowed to give reasons why he does not wish to vote for the third reading of the Bill? He is explaining how the Act as amended does not work in the interest that it was supoosed to serve.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is going over the Bill again, and giving examples of what may happen; I do not think it is permissible to go into an analysis of the Bill in that way on a motion to read the Bill this day six months. But it is permissible to give direct reasons why it should be read this this day six months instead of now.


Thomas MacNutt: I would like with your permission to read some opinions with regard to this Bill, because the people are taking a great interest in it -and are watching it in the west. This is what I find in one of -the local papers:
A change in the Grain Act fathered -by the Hon. Geo. E. Foster will not meet with much favour in the west. It stipulates that the car distribution he placed in the hands of the Railway Commission instead of as present when cars must be allotted by the agent in order as the names are placed1 on the order book, except the warehouse commissioner order otherwise in case of emergency.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman not say that he knows the quotation he is reading is absolutely false when it says that the car distribution is left in the hands of the Railway Commission?


Thomas MacNutt: I am reading what I find in one of the local papers, I am not reading my opinion.


Arthur Meighen: It is untrue to say that the -car distribution is placed in the hands of the Railway Commission.


Frank Oliver: Is the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) in order when he suggests that my hon-. friend from Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt) is reading some thing that he knows to be false? I submit that is not according to the rules of parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not according to the rules of parliament to say that an hon. member is reading something which he knows to be false or untrue.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


Thomas MacNutt: I do not know that this ig false.


Arthur Meighen: It is not the BoaTd of Railway Commissioners who has the distribution of cars, -the hon. gentleman knows that, but that is what the quotation says.


Thomas MacNutt: No doubt that is a misprint, it means the Grain Commission instead of the Railway Commission. I will continue reading:
The change will mean that the elevators, railways and banks, in other words the big interests, are given at one swoop all the advantage that -the farmers have gained through years of endeavour, and that these said interests working through their agent the Railway Commission

Here again, there is a mis-print, it should be the Grain Commission.
-will secure concessions to the disadvantage of -the producing farmer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. gentleman state what he is Teading from? I think we axe entitled to know what paper he is reading from.
4S15


Thomas MacNutt: It is from a paper called the ' Abernethan,' .printed in Abernethy, in the district of Saltcoats, and dated the 28th of February last. It has evidently made a couple of misprints, mentioning the Railway Commission instead of the Grain Commission.
The sum total of grain moved will be no greater, but the advantages will be in favour of the interests. Of the western members Sharpe voted with the opposition and Schaffner absented himself.
I think this Bill ought to be read this day six months becouse it is a retrograde measure. Had the Bill gone through as it appeared in the first place, with some minor amendments, I think we would have supported it on this side of the House; but it has been mangled and mutilated so much in committee that I, for one, will not feel like supporting it. It is only a half-hearted measure with regard to government ownership, which is only to be adopted under certain conditions. It permits mixing after inspection. It is also objectionable in regard to the very important matter of car distribution.	,


George Ewan McCraney: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) spoke as though there was quite a division of opinion throughout the west with regard to this Bill, and I understood him to say, this with reference to section 207, subsection (e), giving discretion to the Grain Board with regard to the distribution of cars.


George Eulas Foster: I think my hon. friend mistook the point of my remark. I did not hazard an opinion as to whether there was unanimity on that; but I did say that with reference to the sample market there was this division of opinion.


George Ewan McCraney: There is no doubt that
the farmers of the west were convinced that when this government came into power they were going to get government-owned elevators. They had a right to rely on the promises of the Prime Minister, and I hope they will not be disappointed. With government-owned elevators this question of the mixing of grain would not be important because the conditions under wihich mixing would be permitted would be the most favourable possible. As my hon. friend from Saltcoats has pointed out


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. gentleman is starting- on an argument that would carry him a long way from the point. It would be arguing the question oyer again. I think it would be permissible to argue that on account of provisions with regard to the providing of cars or the mixing of grain being in the Bill, the six months' hoist should be moved, but that would not justify the hon. member in going ->ver the arguments already placed before Mr. STEVENS
the House, and on which the House has already expressed its judgment more than once.


George Ewan McCraney: I, of course, bow to your ruling. One of .my reasons for wishing to vote for the six months' hoist is that there is no provision for government ownership, and there is a provision for the mixing of grain at the discretion of the board which is appointed under the Bill. There is also in this Bill no protection against the very point which has been prominent before the grain growers for so many years, namely the unity of interest on the part of those who are interested in line or interior elevators and in terminal elevators. Government ownership would dispose of that question which is a most important one, and I think the greatest danger in this Bill is the provision with regard to the distribution of cars. I have received a number of letters and resolutions from different portions of my riding none of them favouring such provisions as are in the Bill giving the board discretionary powers; they are all opposed to it. I think the farmers of the west believed that this question had been settled some years ago, and now they will be surprised to find that this parliament has practically revoked the protection which they formerly had and has given a discretion which may be very much abused by the board. I have letters from grain growers' associations in my riding at Hanley, Elbow, Aber deen, War man, Hawarden, Haleyonia, Ardath >and Floral. I believe they represent the .sentiments of the grain growers, and it would be their wish, as it is my judgment, that this Bill should be defeated rather than put into force, and that they rely on the provision of the Manitoba Grain Act as it now stands.


William Melville Martin: One thing occurs to me in connection with the matter. For the last two or three years, in the House of Commons and throughout western Canada we were promised by the Conservative party government ownership and operation of terminal elevators, and were also promised the control of our natural resources if the Conservative party got into power. In fact the only thing that saved the Conservative party in Saskatchewan and Alberta from complete extinction was the promise made to the electors of government ownership and the return of the natural resources to these provinces. The government has had an opportunity to restore the natural resources to one province, but they have not fulfilled this promise. They had an opportunity to-day when dealing with the Grain Act to give us government ownership and operation of terminal elevators, but we have now in this Bill absolutely nothing more than was in Bill (Q) of the Senate, which was before

the House of Commons in 1910-11. When I look at the hon. members from Manitoba, the member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples), the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), the member for Souris (Mr. SchafEner), the member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe)-I do not think the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) committed himself to government ownership and operation of terminal elevators-and read their speeches of last year I begin to wonder if they are the same men who were here last session. The resolution moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) on February 13, 1911, which has already been read to the House by the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt.) favoured government ownership and operation of terminal elevators. The hon. member for Souris said this was absolutely the only remedy. If I had time I could read quotations from the speeches of the hon. member for Macdonald last year in which he said he would not allow this Grain Bill to go through because it did not provide for government ownership and operation of terminal elevators. The hon. members for Selkirk and Lisgar said the same thine, yet what do we find to-day, every one of these gentlemen is supporting practically every clause of the Bill as brought forward by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) and not one provision beyond what was contained in Bill (Q) of last year, in favour of government ownership. How do they reconcile their position of to-day with that of the last few years?


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. member vote for or against that resolution himself?


William Melville Martin: The Secretary of State was in Regina last summer and addressing a meeting in the interest of the Conservative candidate said that I voted against government ownership and operation of terminal elevators. He knows, that if he made that statement it was absolutely untrue. I did not vote against government ownership and operation of terminal elevators in this House. My position was stated on a resolution moved by the hon. member for Souris in March or April, 1909. That resolution favoured government ownership. I said then, if I remember correctly, that legislation had been passed in 1908 which had not yet been given a fair trial, and I favoured giving it a fair trial until we could determine whether it was effective or not. In 1911 I took the position when I moved a resolution that that legislation had been given a fair trial and had proved a failure and that some other legislation was desirable. I expressed the opinion then as now that no system other than government ownership would eventually prove effective in handling the grain of the western producer.


Arthur Meighen: But you voted against a resolution.


William Melville Martin: I did not vote against government ownership and operation of terminal elevators in this House.


Arthur Meighen: Did not you vote against the resolution of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner)?


William Melville Martin: The hon. member need not imagine that he is crossquestioning a witness. I told the hon. member I did not vote against the government ownership and operation of terminal elevators. If he wishes by means of quibbles, to say I did, he is quite welcome to his opinion; no one else will say it, except himself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It' is permissible for the hon. member to give reasons why he is in favour of the six months' hoist, but it is not in order that he should branch off from the subject before the Chair as he is now doing.


William Melville Martin: The only reason I digressed was because the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) asked me questions, and if I cannot answer them, then do not allow the hon. member to ask them. One of my reasons for voting for the six months' hoist is, that the Bill does not give what the farmers of western Canada want, with regard to government ownership of the terminal elevators.


William Henry Sharpe: Where do you stand on that now?


William Melville Martin: If the hon. member (Mr. Sharpe) has not grasped the situation, I cannot enlighten him. I would like to know where he and some hon. members opposite stand on that question now. When I was interrupted in such an unkind way, I was about to refer to what was said by the present leader of the government in respect to that -matter, not longer ago than the month of May, 1911, as reported in Volume V. * Hansard,' 1910-11, page 9515. I presume the right hon. gentleman spoke for the Conservative party, when he then said:
The declaration of the Minister of the Interior is contained in a very long sentence which is accompanied with a great many qualifications. It does not seem to be very direct or to the point. He speaks of further information. Considering the extent to which these grievances have prevailed in the past and that the government has been informed of these grievances, not only through the public press, and through actions in court, but through inquiry after inquiry, and by delegation after delegation of these men from the west who have come here to press their claims-and I know that delegations were here four or five years ago urging exactly the same thing-it would seem quite reason-

able, quite possible, quite necessary, that the government should have made itself acquainted with the facts and have come to its own conclusion upon these matters long ago. Why is it necessary, after all this investigation, after all these inquiries, after all these delegations, to appoint a board for the purpose of coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the facts are such that the government should embark on a certain policy.
In view of this language, will the hon. the Prime Minister tell me why it is necessary for him now to appoint a board in exactly the same way as the late government proposed to appoint a board in Bill letter Q of the Senate, to investigate whether it was necessary or not, in the interests of western Canada, to enter upon a system of government ownership and operation of terminal elevators. If the right hon. gentleman's argument was good then, it is much better now, because the government of this country have had a year longer to discover what the farmers in western Canada want. I wish to be guided by what the farmers in western Canada do want. I am not going to tell them, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has told them, what kind of farming they should undertake, when they probably know better than the minister himself wherein their interests lie, and if they say they want the terminal elevators to be handled in a certain way, then, of course, they are the most deepiy interested in the question, and we must be guided by the men who use these elevators, and who are producing from the soil of western Canada the miliions of bushels of wheat that are exported every year.
I could refer also, to what was said last year when Bill letter Q of the iSenate came before the House, by Mr. Haggart, then member for Winnipeg, by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sehaff-ner) by the hon. member for Selkirk


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must again remind the hon. member that he is wandering from the question at issue and it is not permissible for him under the rules to do so. The hon. member is directing his remarks to the past utterances of hon. members instead of giving direct reasons why he proposes voting in favour of this Bill being read six months hence.


William Melville Martin: It seems to me that the reasons given by these hon. members in favour of government ownership should have some weight in considering this question now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The reasons which actuated hon. members last year, to a certain conclusion, have, in my opinion, Mr. MARTIN (Regina).
nothing to do with the question now before the House.


William Melville Martin: I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not further dwell on the inconsistency of the conduct of these hon. members last year as compared with their conduct this- year. I believe this Bill, as it at present stands, will deprive the farmers of western Canada of many of the provisions which were contained in the former Bill for their protection. I need only refer to the change in the car distribution system, and to the provision which renders entirely inoperative the prohibition to elevator men to engage in the buying and selling of grain. The object of clause 123 in Bill (Q) of the Senate, was to divorce the warehouse business from the business of buying and selling grain, so as to give the farmers a square deal. But section 123 as it stands now, will not have that effect and it is only a pretence, in so far as it is alleged to have such an effect. As that clause is worded now the prohibition is inoperative, and it defeats the purpose of the Bill. Then, the provision to mix grain is also considered very detrimental to the producers of western Canada. In conclusion, I wish to say that there is so much power given to the Grain Commission, that you might just as well do away with this Grain Act altogether and pass a statue creating the same commission and giving them full power to do anything they like with the grain of western Canada'. For these reasons, I will vote for the six months' hoist.
Mr.- OLIVER. There is no doubt as to the very great importance of the motion now before the House. It is a most serious matter to move against the passage of a Bill which is an amendment to an Act that has been on the statute-book for a number of years, an Act which relates to the operation of the grain trade, which grain trade amounts to tens of millions of dollars a year, and the increase of which trade is the true foundation of Canada's wealth and prosperity ait the present time, and its absolute hope for the future. When a number of the members of this House propose to vote against the passage of this Bill, it is a serious position to take, and, for my own part, it is not taken without due and full consideration. When the Bill was first submitted to the House this session, it was practically the Bill that was passed by the Senate and brought down to this House last session.
That Bill as it came before the House embodied a certain principle. That principle was the protection given by legislative authority to the rights and interests of the grain producer. It is because that principle of the Bill has been reversed by the amendments which have been made to

it- during its passage through the committee, that it is desirable in the interest of the producers of grain, in the interest of those for whom the Act was framed, and for whom the Bill as it came before this House was framed, that this Bill should not now become law. It makes all the difference in the world which interest the Bill is intended to conserve. I listened with great attention to the lecture or sermon that was preached by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the second reading of the Bill, or when it went into committee, when he told us of the desire which filled his bosom to have all classes of people who were interested in grain view each other's transactions with confidence, his idea being to promote harmony amongst all the different interests. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all like to see harmony; we all like to see everybody's interests protected; but, as I had occasion to say to him then, I take the liberty to repeat now, it has not yet been possible, in the history of this world, to protect at once the interest of the buyer and the interest of the seller, and it is 'Simply a question of which side this legislation and this government are to be on. Are they going to protect the interest of the producer or the interest of the dealer in the product? That is the question, and it is the whole question; ancl the Bill as it is now before the House answers that- question beyond any doubt. My hon. friend, by the amendments which he has introduced to this Bill} in committee, has established the fact that from this' time forward this Grain Act is to be in the interest of the grain dealer and in the interest of the grain transporter, and not in the interest of the grain producer. I wish to emphasize the shock and surprise that will be felt by the producers of the west when they Tealize the action which my hon. friend has seen fit to take. They have with great labour and pains, with the assistance of their representatives on both sides of the House, been successful in building up an Act which to them was satisfactory in large measure. Of course, there is nothing perfect in this world; there is nothing so good but it may be bettered; and in a country where conditions are changing from day to day, that which is perfect to-day may very easily be imperfect to-morrow. Therefore, the producers of grain in the west were asking from time to time for further amendments of the Grain Act and for further and further consideration of their interests, always believing that the mind of parliament on both sides was to give them adequate protection. >But in the process of .this Bill passing through committee, without due warning at the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the principle of the Bill has been reversed, and to-day the Bill,
instead of standing in the interest of the producer, is standing distinctly in the interests of the grain, dealer and the era in transporter. It is in the last degree regrettable that this should be the case. It is elementary that every cent that can be added in the value of the farmers' product to the farmer is a distinct gain to the business community of Canada in every line and in every section of the country. The same is not true in regard to the gain made out of the farmer's product by any of those who handle that product. The legislation that is to be placed on the statute book distinctly withdraws protection from the producer, distinctly and intentionally gives the advantage to the dealer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must remind the hon. member that he is wandering from the question before the House. Abstract reasoning on economic principles I do not think, applies to the question before the House, which is whether this Bill shall be read to-night or six months hence.


Frank Oliver: I am, of course, willing, Mr. Speaker, to sit down, but I was desirous of putting as strongly as I could, the reasons for such an important vote being given, and it does seem to me that the fact that the principle of the Bill has been absolutely reversed in its progress through committee, is a reason sufficient to justify the vote that we propose to give. But I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House, and particularly I do not wish to do otherwise than submit to your ruling.


Arthur Meighen: As the hon. member for Regina, not in the best of temper, referred to myself, when I asked him a question, I crave the indulgence of the House for a very few minutes, even at this late hour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am afraid the hon. member is about to start a discussion on a subject which cannot be discussed on the motion. I think it would be better to keep strictly within the rule of order.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not criticise your ruling as applied to our hon. friends opposite, although I did not invoke it in any way; but inasmuch as a great degree of latitude, in the fact of your ruling, was accorded to them, it seems unfair that we are not to be allowed to reply to the extent to which we are attacked.


Frank Oliver: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to say that he precipitated any attack made upon him by his question?


William Melville Martin: I made no attack on the hon. member at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have only to say that 1 called the hon. member to order two or three times during the debate, in the

endeavour to bring him back to the subject, and I am only doing the same on both sides of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Then perhaps I might ask the Chair to define the limits within which one may discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my judgment this Bill contains certain provisions, and there are other provisions which may not be in it but which it may be considered ought to have been there. The citation of provisions which some hon. gentlemen may think the Bill should have contained, but which are not embodied in it, would be a justifiable ground for speaking and voting against the Bill being read a third time now, or it would be in order giving reasons with respect to provisions which are in the Bill, but which do not fulfil the expectations that were entertained with regard, for instance, to the distribution of cars, the mixing of grain, or the ownership of terminal elevators. If it is considered that these are not proper provisions, that would be justifiable ground upon which to argue for voting for the six months' hoist, any remarks along the lines which I have mentioned would be quite in order and appropriate.


Arthur Meighen: I appreciate the limits which you have laid down, Mr. Speaker, and I conceive them to be quite wide enough for my purpose. The Bill may be criticised and that criticism, I understand, may be made in respect to what the Bill contains and what it does not contain. I am sure no hon. member can complain of that latitude. Hon. gentlemen opposite ask that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that the third reading be given six months from now. They have advanced their reasons. They have been listened to by the hon. member for iSt. Lawrence division, by {he hon. member from one of the constituencies of Quebec who is now asleep, and by the hon. member for Cape Breton, and I have wondered as I have sat and waited, what reason it was that most appealed to these hon. gentlemen from eastern Canada. It is criticised in the first place because it does not, to the satisfaction of hon. gentlemen opposite, provide for the total government operation of all the elevators at Fort William. Is that correct or is it not F It has been criticised by hon. gentlemen opposite from that point of view, and in support of their criticism they have referred to conduct in this House on the 13th of February last. The hon. gentlemen who now criticise this Bill because it does not go far enough to suit them, are the same hon. gentlemen who voted against the proposition which they are now advancing. I rise in my place to warn hon. members


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


William Melville Martin: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. gentleman within the rules of the House in making this reference, when I was ruled out of order for doing exactly the same a few minutes ago?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. gentleman's introductory remarks would naturally lead him too far. To present to the House discussions which took place last year is, I think, going too far, and the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) was violating the rules along the same line.


Arthur Meighen: I bow to your ruling again, Mr. Speaker, and while I do not criticise the hon. members so much for violating the rules of order of this House as I do for violating the terms of * Hansard ' on the 13th of February, I will abandon the issue on this question. The issue so far raised, then, is whether or not this government is fulfilling its pledges to the people of Canada, by moving fairly, and in justice and equity, toward their fulfilment, sufficiently to warrant us in passing this Bill. In the first place, coming from the source whence it does, I do not think that this criticism will carry much weight among our western people. I think the plain ordinary western farmer looking fairly at this issue, as he does at all issues, will come to the conclusion that he will trust its solution to the party that went substantially towards the fulfilment of its pledges, the first session, rather than to the party that for fifteen years never moved at ail to fulfil its pledges. What is the situation at Fort William? The seconder of the amendment endeavoured to show that unless we absolutely take over and own and operate all the elevators at Fort William we were violating our pledge. Now to my mind a pledge is best fulfilled that is fulfilled sanely.


Frank Oliver: Was that an insane pledge that was made?


Arthur Meighen: No. A sane pledge is fulfilled sanely; an insane pledge is better not fulfilled at all.


Frank Oliver: I ask again was that an insane pledge that was made?


Arthur Meighen: No. If the hon. member has an insane pledge in his mind he must be endeavouring to write an autobiography.


Frank Oliver: If that was a sane pledge it should have been fulfilled. If it was an insane pledge its fulfilment was not necessary.


Arthur Meighen: The pledge was a sane one. and will be fulfilled in a sane way. When Bill letter Q was before the House in the last session of the last par-

liament, on the very day before parliament dissolved, it was urged to be put through by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) who opposed


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will have to be veracious. It was not the day before parliament dissolved.


Arthur Meighen: On the day before parliament dissolved


Frank Oliver: No.


Arthur Meighen: I understand it was.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It was the very last day we sat in this House.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the very last day we sat in this House.


William Erskine Knowles: 
Arthur Meighen: I maintain I am distinctly in order according to your ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have just been listening to discover how far the hon. gentleman would continue on this line. I am very much afraid that if the hon. gentleman continues in his present course, he will be out of order.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I meant 1o check myself before transgressing. The Bill is criticised because there is not in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, sufficient mandatory provision for government operation, but when a similar Bill was before this House, containing the same provision, it was asked t-o be rammed through on the last day that parliament sat before dissolution


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Arthur Meighen: By the same hon. gentleman. Now the hon. member who seconded the amendment read from the speech made at that time by the present hon. member from Edmonton, then the Minister of the Interior, in which that hon. gentleman distinctly refused to commit the then government to government operation on any scale whatever. In that speech in answer to the challenge of the hon. member from Souris, he stated that he had no authority to commit the government of the day to government operation on any scale at all, and yet notwithstanding that statement, he wanted the Bill rammed through this House. In contradistinction to this position is the one taken by the government of the day on this
occasion. And the hon. member for Edmonton supported his position, by arguing strongly on the previous day against the resolution of the hon. member for Souris, and against government operation. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) did the same, and all asked that the House wait and not launch itself upon the principle so aibly argued for by the hon. member for Souris.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to read an extract from what I said on that occasion which will substantiate his statement?


Arthur Meighen: With the utmost pleasure; I was afraid I would be out of order.
In my opinion

says the Hon. Frank Oliver, who was then the Minister of the Interior:
-the government would he ill advised to rush unwittingly and slightly into such a responsibility as this resolution demands.
The hon. gentleman did not want to rush into the responsibility that this resolution demanded. What did the resolution demand?
That in the opinion of this House the present system of operating terminal and transfer elevators is detrimental to the interests of the western grain producers, and that the government should take immediate steps to operate terminal elevators at Fort William Port Arthur, and the transfer elevators between those terminals and the Atlantic seaboard.
To operate terminal elevators is the principle against which the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) called upon this House to vote; and the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) obediently stood and voted.


Frank Oliver: The quotation read by the hon. member (Mr. Meighen) does not bear out his statement.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman went on to state-and this is an answer to his question:
It is already pointed out that the system of government which has been followed so far, had not proved a failure, hut rather a success.
That is what he was in favour of.
The fact that improprieties have been located and those guilty punished, is evidence that inspection does inspect and that the law is being enforced; and I have no doubt that that inspection and enforcement of the law will have due effect in the future management of elevators. However, the government is fully aware of the importance of the question and of the necessity to deal with it thoroughly; and the fact that legislation is I in the course of preparation which will em-
482V

body, as far as possible, every means for settling this question, is surely evidence that the government is willing and able to deal with it ,to the satisfaction of all interests concerned. The government, therefore, ask the support of the House to the policy which is embodied in the measure brought down.
And a part of the policy was to deny to this House that there should be government operation on any scale whatever. In contradistinction to that position, this government comes forward, and through its Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) declares for the government operation of terminal elevators in terms of the resolution of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), and states that in the first year, to the extent of one, two, or three elevators at Fort William or ,Port Arthur, the government will launch upon this principle and this practice. That is why I support the Bill and think that we had better vote for it now than six months hence as is proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite. I can understand these hon. gentlemen if they are true to the convictions expressed last session in this House, if they are true to their bitter antagonism to government elevators, would ask that this Bill be not read now, but that it be read six months or six years from now. That is because they have harked* back to the first conviction of their souls; they want this defeated or want it delayed.


Frank Oliver: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will he read the section of the Bill that provides for government operation of elevators at Fort William?


Arthur Meighen: I stated, in contradiction to the stand the bon. gentleman took last session, that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce announced as part of the government policy, government operation under the permissive provisions of the Bill. There is all the difference in the world.


William Melville Martin: Did not the hon. gentleman hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) say to-night that the government expect to' properly control the elevators without government ownership and operation?


George Eulas Foster: No, Sir, he did not.


Arthur Meighen: If hon. gentlemen opposite would listen better and read better,
' Hansard' included, than they do, it would save them from many blunders. What is the situation at Fort William and Port Arthur? There are five railway elevators, that is elevators owned by the railway companies. These elevators, as I understand it, have not been altogether operated by these railway companies, but have been leased on occasion. It is the Mr. MEIGHEN.
policy of this government, as I understand it-and I would like to be contradicted if I am wrong-so far as Is possible under existing circumstances to compel the railway companies to operate their own elevators. It is true that the company which is largely the creation of hon. gentlemen opposite, has bound itself by long-distance contracts in defiance of that; and it may be hard, therefore,, to compel complete operation by railways of their own elevators; hut, so far as practicable, it will be done. And there is no need under these circumstances, as I understand the farmers' demands, to ask that the government operate railway elevators.


Frank Oliver: Is that in the Bill?


Arthur Meighen: Surely the hon. gentleman does not suggest that I am out of order.


Frank Oliver: Is it in the Bill?


George Eulas Foster: Is the chicken in the egg?


Frank Oliver: Is the hon. member (Mr. Meighen) talking about the Bill, or is he talking about something else?


Arthur Meighen: I am talking of the government policy to be applied by this Bill.


Frank Oliver: Has that anything to do with the third reading?


Arthur Meighen: Of course it has. The hon. member (Mr. Oliver) is getting more nervous than he usually is at this stage of the night.	.


Frank Oliver: I was compelled to sit down when I had remarks to make as pertinent to the third reading, and more so, than those of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Meighen).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it scarcely proper to discuss the ruling of the Chair. The hon. member (Mr. Meighen) was going on a different line. I listened to several hon. members who gave as a reason why they proposed to vote for the six months hoist that the government would not control the elevators. But the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) was endeavouring to prove that they would control the elevators, or attempt to.


Frank Oliver: Might I suggest that the hon. member has not undertaken to prove that out of the Bill; he was not touching the Bill, when he undertook to say that, but was dealing with what he thought was going to be the policy of the government.


Arthur Meighen: Surely, the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) as an old parliamentarian would not controvert the proposition that in order to decide whether or not we will vote for a measure that covers a policy, we must get light from that policy. Surely,

the principles of the policy are to be taken into consideration when we are asked to vote for or against the instrumentality by which that policy is to be carried into effect.


Frank Oliver: The ruling against me prevented me from making such statements.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. gentleman is correct in that statement. There are at Fort William and Port Arthur, five private elevators. One of these is owned by the Ogilvie Milling company, and operated in connection with their flour mill; and to operate it without the flour mill would not be, to my mind, a business proposition; and I do not understand that hon. gentlemen opposite argue, or that it is argued, that elevators operated in connection with flour mills should be operated by the government. That would leave only four of the elevators at Fort William under private ownership. And this government is committed to purchase and operate in the first year one, two or three of these elevators. Surely, that is a fair and reasonable advance towards the application of this principle which the Conservative party adopted long previous to the election and which they are now proceeding to put into force and effect. It is argued by my hon. friend, who moved the amendment, and who asks us to wait for six months before passing the Bill, that it contains clauses which are hard to understand. I would like to know what those clauses are. They read to me quite clear, and I am sure that to the perspicuous mind of the hon. member, if he will read them, they will seem equally clear. Why does not he particularise and say what is obscure and ambiguous. He says that one clause conflicts with another. But he does not give instances, he does not give the House the benefit of the information in his mind as to what clause conflicts with some other clause. If he would do that, it is not too late even yet, for amendments. And he told the House, as a last resort, that there are too many clauses. But he did not take us into his confidence and say how many clauses he would permit in the Bill. If he would do that, we might undertake to boil it down to dimensions that, to his mind, would be ample. These are all the reasons advanced. We have sat here two hours and have been asked to defeat this great measure of reform for western Canada, to which these very gentlemen opposite committed themselves last parliament.


Bill Q.: which hon. gentlemen opposite brought in themselves last year, we are now asked to defeat, in defiance of a pledge of the government that they are going to put into operation the principle of government owned elevators. We are told that the Bill is not mandatory
enough in the matter of government elevators, that it is too long, that the clauses are ambiguous and conflict with each other; but no instances are given. Now let us put this Bill into effect. As hon. gentlemen, the hon. gentlemen wbn moved the amendment said, while it may not be as welcome as many of the farmers would like, it might have some good points in it. I apprehend that after this Bill has been in operation two years it will be regarded by the western farmers as one of the most popular measures on the statute-book. It may be true that hon. gentlemen opposite are opposing it because it is a Conservative measure. I believe that is the secret of the whole thing, it is because it is not in the hands of their own friends that they are objecting to it. But the farmer of the west as he reads this Bill, and as he receives benefit from it, will give credit to this government who, true to its pledges, has put it into operation. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to give the Bill a fair trial, knowing as they do that the government is responsible for the measure and for its effects.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. gentleman has dealt with certain alleged objections to the acceptance of the amendment of my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Cash), but he has not said a word about the forcible objections against it, which have been raised on this side of the House. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) showed great agility in avoiding the points brought before the House by my hon. friend from Mackenzie. Why did he not tell us that one of the main points was because it would interfere with that very precious thing in the hands of the farmer, namely, a square deal in the distribution of cars? I read this afternoon a telegram saying that the grain growers of Saskatchewan are afraid that the elevator interests and the transportation interests have got the ear of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that he is turning a deaf ear to the interest of the_ farmers. We affirm that any grain legislation along the line of clause (E) of section 207 is made at the bidding of the interests, and is contrary to the desires and interests of hundreds of thousands of farmers. But the member for Portage la Prairie did not touch that point at all. Last session he brought forward a resolution to remove the duty on agricultural implements, but since this government came into power he has maintained an absolute silence on that subject. Why does he not have the fairness to his constituents that the member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) and Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) have shown? They are not afraid to get up and vote against the government, because

they know that their constituents desire that clause (E) should not be in this Bill. All credit to them, and I hope the day will come when we will find them voting with us on every question when we are voicing the views of the farmers. The member for Portage la Prairie says that we voted against government elevators at a certain time, and we are complaining to-day because government elevators are not provided for in this Bill, as if we were inconsistent. Our protest is made against the men who govern this country making promises before election day and then turning their backs on them after election day. I take the stand that when a Prime Minister goes through the country and makes the promise he did, he :s in duty bound to fulfil it. In making that promise he no doubt saved a few seats in the prairie provinces; if he had not made it there would be much fewer bon. gentlemen here from Manitoba sitting-on the government side. If the Prime Minister had not promised control and operation of elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur in the event of his party attaining power-


Mr. BRADBURY.: We will have government ownership and operation of elevators.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. gentleman means to say that he thinks we will have, because I do not think any one else in the House is so foolish as to believe we will have.
Sortie hon. MEMBERS. Order.


William Erskine Knowles: Well, I will say unwise. Let us speak of these elevators, one, two, or at most, three. Let me read what the Prime Minister said while speaking in the district represented by the hon. member who has just taken his seat:
I have arrived at the conclusion that the result can only he attained by state control and operation of the terminal elevators. We propose to carry out that policy without delay if returned to power.
Will my hon. friend say that that promise is carried out by a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there will be a vote in the supplementary estimates, after the government has been in power since the 10th of October? Is that carrying out the promise?
We propose to carry out that policy without delay if returned to power.
What does ' without delay ' mean? It means no delay. But there lias been delay already in carrying out that promise. We have the estimates down here, two sets of them, and a great many things have been done. They brought down their Tariff Commission without delay.


William Erskine Knowles: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Erskine Knowles: I am illustrating what ' without delay ' means. It means in the most speedy manner possible, the speedy attainment of that which has been promised by the Prime Minister. We had some resolution in favour of the speedy establishment of a navy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Erskine Knowles: 
Mr. BOIVIN.: The hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) and the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) were not in the chamber when the amendment was read.


Mr. LAMARCHE.: While, my hon. friend (Mr. Boivin) did not see me, I was on the stairs here and I heard everything of the amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the hon. member for North Lanark hear the question put?


Mr. THOBURN.: I was coming in the door when you put the question.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand the rule of the House to be that an hon. member should be in his seat when the question is put.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the duty of the Speaker to inquire if an hon. member heard the question put. It is for the hon. member to say ' yes ' or ' no '. If he says ' yes ', he has the right to vote.


Frank Oliver: May I inquire if the vote of the hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) is to be counted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said he was within the precincts of the House and heard the question put.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the hon. member for North Lanark hear the question put?


William Thoburn: Yes sir.
Motion agreed to and Bill read a third time and passed.
Mr. BORDEN moved the adjournment of the House.


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


Robert Laird Borden: We will take any of the Bills and resolutions on the order paper that are ready and then Supply.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will the Manitoba Boundary Bill come up to-morrow?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I believe that is first for consideration to-morrow and then we will go on with the other Bills and afterwards Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.40 a. m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 12, 1912.