1913-04-29

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 183, respecting the city of Ottawa.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: I draw the attention of
the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to the fact that the Vancouver papers report that Attorney General Bowser is taking the same or similar steps in regard to the Capilano Indian reserve at North Vancouver as he has already successfully taken in regard to the Kitsilano Indian reserve in Vancouver city.



QUESTIONS.

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

Air. GRAHAM:: 1.	Is D. Beyter in the employ of the Government as lighthouse keeper at Little Current ?
2.	If not, -when did he cease to be so employed ?
3.	Was he dismissed or did he resign?
4.	If the former, why?
5.	Who has been appointed to succeed him, and what is his age?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	April 19, 1913.
3.	Dismissed.
4.	Offensive partisanship.
5.	(a) Mr. Islam Allan; (b) No information with regard to his age is at present available, but will be obtained and supplied later.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-THE BRANCH TOBIN.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Since October, 191.1, up to iMay, 1912, how many day labourers or gangs were employed to work on the branch Tobin of the Intercolonial railway at the river of Trois Pistoles?
2.	How many were employed each year before 1911, 'by the chief of the road labourers, M. Desjardins, or the department, for the repair of the road?
3.	Is the department aware that a man had been dismissed from work on this branch in November, 1912, but after an interview with the chief of the Bleus of Trois Pistoles, this man was re-appointed?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Twelve.
2.	The number of men employed each
year before 1911, was as follows:	1908,
sixteen; 1909, eleven; 1910, five.
3.	No.


PICTOU-WEST -RIVEIR MAIL.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is now carrying the mail on the mail route from Pictou to West River, county of Pictou ?
2.	What amount is being paid for this service?


Mr. PELLETIER:: John Meagher, under a temporary arrangement for the month of April, until the rural mail routes from Salt Springs and West River are established. When this service has been arranged particulars can be given without inconvenience to the public interest.


POLSON IRON WORKS.
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	What contracts have been received by the Poison Iron Works of Toronto, from the Government in the last two years?
2.	What wages or schedule of wages has been paid on contracts that have or are being fulfilled by this firm?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Department of the Naval Service.- Repairs to C.G.S. La Canadienne in June, 1912: Amount, $3,855.
Department of Public Works.-One 80-foot single screw steel tug, and machinery for a three and a half-yard dipper dredge.
Department of Railways and Canals.- Contract signed by Poison Iron Works, Limited, on August 19, 1912, for one steel tug for the Sault Ste. Marie canal.
. 2. Department of the Naval Service-No information in the department.	[DOT]
Department of Public Works.-No information; contracts did not contain fair wage schedule.
Department of Railways and Canals.- Per day of 10 hours: Boiler makers, $2.75; boiler makers' helpers, $1.75; rivetters, $2.75; blacksmiths, $3; blacksmiths' helpers, $2; pipe fitters, $3.75; machinists, $3; carpenters, $3; labourers, $2.


ESQUIMALT DRY-DOCK.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to construct a dry-dock at Esquimau, B.C.?
2.	If so, will provision be made for same in the estimates this year?


Mr. ROGERS:: Matter under consideration.


RIVER ST. CHARLES LOCKS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works determined what lands should be expropriated in view of the lockage of the river St. Charles at Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the approximate cost of such expropriation?
3.	Who are the proprietors of the said lands ?
4.	What is the extent of the lands expropriated ?
5.	When are the works to be commenced?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No estimate made.
3.	Not known in the Department of Public Works.
4.	Land required, 2,619,565 square feet.
5.	17th March, 1913, contract was signed. Work to begin immediately after signing.


COTE'S BAND OF INDIANS.
Mr. BRADBURY:: 1.	When did Cote's band of Indians in Saskatchewan surrender a portion of their
reserve for sale?
2.	How many acres were surrendered?
3.	What were the terms as to the manner in which the land was to sold, as agreed! upon at the time of the surrender?
4.	What was the name of the official who secured the surrender ?
5.	How many acres were sold at public auction ?
6.	What was the highest price per acre obtained at public auction sale, and whait was the average price per acre at this sale?<
7.	What were the upset prices placed on the land offered for sale at public auction, and by whom?
8.	Were any of the lands unsold at the auction sale sold afterwards by private sale? If so, how many acres, to whom, when, at what price in each case, by whose authority, and was the land re-valued?
9.	Who made application to the department to have these lands sold by private sale?
10.	Was any protest made by any officer of the department against selling these lands m any other way than by public auction? It so, by whom and when?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	December 14, 1905, and June 20, 1907.
2.	Thirty-two sections in surrender of 1905 and 10,740 acres in surrender of 1907.
3.	Terms of surrender in 1905: 1. We are willing to exchange with the department certain areas of our reserve for that portion of country situated to the west and contiguous to our reserve described as situated in the forks between the Assiniboine and White Sand rivers, containing approximately some six thousand acres, more or less; (2) that portion of our reserve which may be in excess in acreage of that exchanged we desire to have sold by the department at the minimum price of $10 per acre; (3) that our equity, being one-tenth of the whole amount and being calculated on the above basis, be paid to us as follows: (a) five per cent or half of our equity as above stated, be paid to us within two days from the date of this surren-

der; (b) that the balance, being five per cent as above stated, be paid to us within thirty days after date of sale of said lands.
4.	That payment of ten per cent, as above stated in first and second instance, as above described, be paid to us on the per capita basis, each soul in our band sharing equally with the other in these payments.
5.	That the per capita payments described above both in regard to our equity in lands above described and the interest moneys thereon shall be made without withholding such from any of the members of our band resident on our reserve, or in any of the schools we may have the franchise of, excepting in the case of bona fide orphans, on whose behalf it is desired that the department continue as previously as guardians thereunto.
6.	That in case of any of our people having made or holding any improvements of any of the lands hereby surrendered, we feel justified in leaving the arrangement as to disposition thereof in the hands of the department.
7.	That the interest accruing from the remaining ninety per cent of the proceeds of the total sales to be apportioned amongst the Indians at each yearly treaty payment also in cash on a per capita basis, after deducting the usual proportion for expenses of management.
Terms in surrender of 1907:
1.	That payment shall be made at time of taking surrender of eighty-seven dollars, per head, being one-fifth of the purchase
price, more or less, estimated at the rate of ten dollars per acre.
2.	Owners of improved land to be compensated therefore at the rate of five dollars per acre on estimated areas, payment to be made within four months from date.
3.	Owners of buildings to be compensated therefore within four months from date, at values to be fixed by an officer of the department, provided that any Indian may, if he sees fit, remove his buildings.
4.	Indian children between the ages of twelve and eighteen to have their interest money funded for them.
5.	That the land shall be properly advertised and sold in due time by public auction in parcels of one quarter-section or under.
4.	Hon. David Laird and Rev. John Mc-Dougall secured the surrender of 1905, and W. M. Graham, inspector of Indian agencies, Balcarres, Sask., secured the surrender of 1907.
5.	12,239.38 acres were sold at public
auction:	On December, 19, 1906, 2,048 50
acres; on June 24, 1908, 8,759-88 acres; on June 7,	1911,	1,431 00 acres; total of
12,239-38.
6.	Forty-five dollars, highest price; ten dollars and sixty-seven cents, average price.
7.	An upset price was placed on each quarter section by J. Lestock Reid, the surveyor who surveyed and valued the land, ranging from five dollars to fifteen dollars per acre.
8.	Yes.
Purchaser.
Date of sale.
Land.
W. Simpson, Jr.... J. I. Wallace, M.D
D. A. Mawhinney
J. G. Hallson
Philippe Pinault Frank D. Craig. A. T. Kinnear.
E. C. Lawrence.
H. Harvey	
A. T. Kinnear.
W. McWhinney
J. R. Dickson... J no. Dickson.... Jesse Dickson...
Mrs. P. Pinault.
May 19, 1909	
II	It
Sept. 17, 1909	
Mar. 12. 1910	
Mar. 19, 1910....
Oct. 23, 1909....
May 27, 1910	
June 13,1910	
Aug. 4, 1910	
Aug. 4, 1910	
Sept. 12, 1910...
Oct. 10, 1910....
Nov. 2, 1910....
Nov. 2, 1910 ....
Mch. 17, 1911. ..
S.	E. + 2-30-32	
Fr. N.W. I 24 &1
Fr. N.E. i 23	V	
T. 29, R. 32	j N.E. 1 24-29-32 &1
N.W. J 29-29.31 }	
S.E. i 26-29-32 j
Pts. N.W. i 23 &


N.E. 1 22
[Stage Direction]
E. & N. of Assiniboine R.
S.	W. 4 28-29-31	
N.E. 126-29-32	
N.W. 28 &	1
Fr. N.E. J 28, >
T.	29, R. 31 J
N.W. J 7-30-31	
S.W. J 25-29-32	
S.E. 1 29-29-31	
Fr. N. i &	1
Fr. S. E. i 33 V

[Stage Direction]
N. W. i 31-29-31	
N. W. I 32.29-31	
S.	E. 1 32-29-31	
Fr. S. E. i 28,1
T.	29, R. 31 ... /	
Acres.
Price.
1G0

[Stage Direction]
960 00 80o 640
98
By ministerial authority : the land was not re-valued. Mr. CROTHERS.
88 8

9.	Dr. E. L. Cash.
10.	No.

*Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Was or is Maurice Areand in the employ of the Department of Public Works in connection with the construction of the coal dock at the city of Three Rivers, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is or was the nature of his
employment and what salary was or is he paid ?	*
3.	Is it the intention of the department to dispense with the services of the said Maurice Areand? If so, has he been notified to that effect ?
4	If his services are dispensed with, will his successor be one Edmond Michelin, of Three Rivers?
5	If so, what is Michelin's age, and what has his former occupation or trade been?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes, was employed last season.
2.	(a) Inspector; (b) $100 a month.
3.	The services of Mr. Areand and others were dispensed with at the end of last season when the work closed down.
4.	Mr. Edmond Michelin is appointed as inspector of this season's work.
5.	(a) 76 years of age; (b) was freight checker on Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company's wharf for twenty years.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY OPERATING RULES.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Why has J. A. Michaud, engineer employed on the Intercolonial railway at Rivifere du Loup, been suspended seven months after having been suspended once and put hack to work, for the same offence, in connection with an accident at Carrier ?
2.	Was he proved guilty? If so, who by?
3.	How many witnesses swore that the semaphore was down, and how many swore that it was up, after having seen it themselves?
4.	Has a regular train with a schedule time got to make tha,t time, and is the line supposed to he clear for him ? If so, how long before?
5.	Why was that man, as alleged, blamed for going too fast when he was not going fast enough to make that time?
6.	On whose recommendation was he punished the first and second time?
7.	When the main line is obstructed is the superior train or any other train leaving a terminal or any other station, supposed to be advised of it? If so, why was not this man advised of it?
8.	Is the minister prepared to go through the records of the accident at Carrier the 8th January, 1913, so that he may see for himself that the investigation was conducted according to the usual rule, and the punishment given such as conclusions would guarantee, in order that the poor employee with a family shall not stay seven months without employment?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The first suspension was until his case had been decided; the suspension of seven
months is the punishment adjudged in his case. The whole time of his suspension including the first is counted in, as part of the seven months.
He was punished for approaching a semaphore at a rate of speed, so fast, that he could not stop within his vision, and for passing a semaphore standing at danger,, and for accepting a clearance order at Chaudiere Junction, not properly made out.
2.	Yes, by the investigation held by Superintendent McDonald and confirmed by the General Superintendent.
3.	Three swore it was down and eight, swore it was up.
4.	A regular train is expected to make its schedule time having due regard to weather and other conditions, and the engineer and others in charge of the train are expected to observe all the rules of the railway, made to insure the safe operation of trains. The line cannot always be kept clear and the rules of the railway provide that the engineer and others in charge of trains have to observe care and look out for signals, for obstructions which may be in the track. There is usuallv an interval of from ten to twenty minutes maintained between trains iollowing one another excepting when thev are closing up at stations. Rule 17 of the time table says ' Special ana working trains must be kept, at least, ten minutes clear of the time of all regular trains.'
5.	The engineer is ordered and expected to regulate the speed of his train according to the place and circumstances, and J. A. Michaud was shown to be going at too great a rate of speed, approaching Carrier Junction, so that he could not stop train but ran .past the semaphore which was standing at danger.
6.	J. A. Michaud was only punished once, his first suspension being pending decision [DOT] in his case, and the time being counted as part of the seven months' suspension. The punishment being decided by the General Superintendent, upon the evidence.
7.	Whenever it is possible trains are notified of an obstruction on the track, but the want of notice does not relieve the official of the train from keeping the proper lookout and running trains in accordance with the rules. J. A. Michaud ran past the semaphore, which was standing at danger, in violation of the rules. The clearance order, which he received at Chaudiere Junction, told him that the train he ran into had not reached Carrier Junction, and he should have ueen keeping a very careful lookout for it.
8.	The investigation was conducted according to the usual rules and the punishment given was such as the evidence and the circumstances and conditions required in 'the opinion of the officers of the railway, who are responsible for the train service.


EMPLOYMENT OF ARTHUR DAVID ROSENFELDT.
Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Is Arthur David Rosenfeldt, of Winnipeg, in the employment of the Government?
2.	If so, what is his salary, when was he appointed and what are his duties?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$75 per month; appointed on August 18, 1912; clerk in Department of the Interior.


HANTS COUNTY (STRIKE.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness):: 1.	Has the attention of the hon. the Minister of Labour, been called to the following despatch contained in the Ottawa Morning Citizen of the 23rd instant:-
' Hants County (Strike.	_
' Halifax, April 22.-Word was received here this morning that the quarry workers at Avondale, Sweet's Corner and Wentworth, Hants county, had gone on strike for an increase of about ten per cent. Between 300 and 400 men are affected, including engine drivers, blacksmiths, quarrymen and labourers.'	.
2.	Has the Department of Labour any infer mation regarding this strike?
3.	What steps, if any, does the department intend to take to enable the men to secure their demand for increased wages?
4.	Has the department any information as to the wages that are being received by the blacksmiths, engine drivers, quarrymen and laoburers in question?
5.	Has the department any information as to whether the men who are alleged to be on strike, are members of a trade union? If so, to what trade union do (they belong?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The department is taking the customary steps to learn the precise situation. The action taken will depend on the information received.
4.	The department has information as to wages paid the various classes of labour in the district.
5.	Yes. Quarry Workers' Internationa] Union of North America.


QUEBEC MARINE AGENCY.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to remove the marine agency and buildings from Quebec to Levis?
2.	If so, has any site been secured at Levis and from whom?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The question of moving the agency of the Marine Department to Levis has not been considered.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. COCHRANE:: 


BONAVENIT'URE MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Department of the Postmaster General given notice to Sylvester Bernard, of Bonaventure, Quebec, that his contract for the carrying of mails between Bonaventure post office and the railway station would be cancelled on three months' notice?
2.	What was the figure and terms of such
contract, and how long had it been in existence ?	,
3.	Had it been awarded after the calling of
tenders, and was the said Bernard the lowest tenderer ?	.
4.	Have tenders been called for the new
contract, and has the contract been awarded to the lowest tenderer ?	.
5.	What is the figure of the new contract, what is the name of the new contractor and the names of his sureties?
6.	If tenders were, not called for, who recommended the new contractor?
7.	Were there any complaints against Bernard? If so, what were they, were they investigated, and was Bernard given an opportunity of meeting the said charges? _
8.	Who conducted the investigation, if any was held, and what witnesses were heard?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $250 per annum for twelve trips per week; (b) From 1st July, 1910.
3.	Bernard was the only person who made an offer.
" 41" 5 and 6. Tenders are now being invited but will not be opened until the 30th of May, 1913.
7 and 8. On information received by the Postmaster General from reliable sources that the contractor, had violated the conditions of his contract by carrying intoxicating liquors with the mails and for delaying the mails while attending to his passenger business, it was decided to carry out the condition of the contract which provided for the termination of the contract on three months' notice. It was not considered necessary to hold an investigation


THE QUEBEC ARSENAL.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is it true, as reported in the press, that a large quantity of rounds of small arm ammunition manufactured in the arsenal of Quebec, was lately found defective?
2.	Has an investigation been ordered?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	The whole question of the ammunition at the Dominion arsenal, Quebec, is being investigated.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: If it is a secret I will not insist, but that is no answer to my first question.


Mr. HUGHES:: Until I get the result of the investigation, I do not wish to make any report.
Mr. LEM1EUX: All right.


MAIL BAG METAL BARS.
[Stage Direction]
*M/r. CARVELL:
1.	Was there a lot of 3,000 disc pattern metal bars delivered at the Post Office Department during the months of February and March, 1913?
2.	Were said metal bars ordered from Edouard Lapointe, in connection with old padlocks for mail hags ?
Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


MAIL BAG PADLOCKS.
*Mr. SINCLAIR:: Is the Postmaster General aware that Aime Dion and Doctor Faucher receive a royalty of 40 per cent on each padlock for mail bags sold by the Ontario Equipment Company to the Post Office Department?


Mr. CODERRE:: No.


SEED GRAIN FOR QUEBEC.
Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	Has the Government taken special measures to prevent the introduction into the province of Quebec of oats from frozen seed?
2.	If so, what are these measures?
3.	Who are the grain merchants recommended by the seed commissioners to the delegation of the county of Rimouski, who come to ask the assistance of the Government for the purchase of good seed grain?
4.	Where and from whom has this county purchased the greater part of its seed grain?
5.	What firms were recommended by the seed commissioner?
6.	What is the germination of this seed grain, in four days and in ten days?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The staff of seed inspectors has been increased in order to inspect more thoroughly the grain being offered for sale throughout the province; and, in the case of a large shipment of seed oats being sent to the Agricultural Co-operative Society at Rimouski, a seed inspector was sent to the point of shipment to examine the oats as loaded and to take samples for germination tests.
3 and 5. The Rimouski Agricultural Cooperative Society were already negotiating with Joseph Read & Company, Summerside, P.E.I., when the department was interviewed. It was suggested that, while negotiations with the Read Company were pending, the society should get quotations from the following firms: Hogg & Lytle, Oakwood, Ont.; James Richardson & Sons, Kingston, Ont;
Am


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
Harris McFayden, Chambers of Oommerfe, Winnipeg; A. E. McKenzie & Company, Brandon, Man.; Grain Growers' Grain Company, Winnipeg, Man.; Alexander Cross & Company, Glasgow, Scotland.
4.	So far as the Co-operative Society is concerned, from Jos. Read & Company, Summerside, P.E.I.
6.	Samples from nine carlots gave an average germination of ninety-three per cent in soil test, the highest being ninety-seven per cent and the lowest eighty-eight per cent. The preliminary count in six days showed an average of eighty-seven per cent with ninety-four per cent the highest and seventy-nine per cent the lowest.
Mr. BOURA.SSA:
1.	Has the seed commissioner taken the necessary measures this season to favour the introduction into the province of Quebec of seed grain of good quality, and what are these measures?
2.	Who are the new inspectors appointed this season?
3.	Where did they acquire the knowledge and special experience necessary for the inspection of seeds?
4.	By whom were they recommended?
Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes, in so far as the Seed Control Act gives authority. More seed inspectors have been employed than ever before who call on seed dealers throughout the province to see that the law governing the sale of seeds is being observed.
2.	Mr. J. A. Simard, Baie St. Paul, Quebec, permanent district representative of the seed branch for the French-speaking counties of Quebec, and Messrs. J. M. Le-clair, St.-Celestin, Quebec, and C. Hamilton, Iroquois, Ontario, temporary seed inspectors.
3.	Mr. Simard is a graduate of the Macdonald College, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, and spent several months in the Field Husbandry department of that institution after graiuating. He has had considerable experience in field crop competition and seed fair work and spent about two months in the Seed Laboratory at Ottawa grading seed before starting on inspection work.
Mr. Leelair is an undergraduate of the Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, and the Macdonald Agricultural College. He speaks both French and English and has had experience in judging field crop competitions. Before starting on inspection work he was in training under the permanent district representative of the seed branch.
Mr. Hamilton is an undergraduate of the Ontario Agricultural College and has had special opportunity to become familiar with the needs of agriculture and the seed trade through farmers" institute work. He received special training in the Ottawa Seed


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
8651*
[Stage Direction]
Laboratory before starting as a seed inspector.
4.	The seed commissioner.

*Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Has the agricultural branch of the Conservation Commission any representative of the French language in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, how many and who are they?
3.	What work does it intend to carry out this year in the province of Quebec?


Mr. BURREIL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Committee an Agriculture of the
Commission of Conservation includes the following French-speaking members representing Quebec: (a) Mgr. C. P. Choquette, -superior, seminary of St. Hyaeinthe ana Member of Faculty, Laval University: (b) Mr. Edouard Gohier, St. Laurent, Que.; (c) Hon. Jules ..Allard, Minister of Lands and Forests, Quebec. '	...
3.	During the summer of 1913, illustration farnis will be carried on in six localities and neighbourhood improvement associations will be formed near each farm. Agricultural surveys, similar to those carried on in previous years will be conducted in five counties.


STE. ANNE DE LA POCATIERE EXPERIMENTAL FARM-.
*Mr. LAFORTUNE:: 1.	Who has been appointed superintendent of the experimental farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere ?
2.	Has he the practical and theoretical knowledge to fill this position?
3.	Where did he obtain his knowledge?
<k Was he a defeated candidate at the elections of 1911?
5.	By whom was he recommended?
6.	Are there French irstructors in the province of Quebec for the Department of Animal Industry, as in the other provinces?
7.	If so, who are they, and what are their qualifications?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Joseph Begin.
2.	Yes.
3.	From agricultural works and publications and by carrying on his own farm in the county of Levis.
4.	Yes.
5.	Minister of Agriculture.
6.	No. The Dominion Government has not adopted a policy of employing instructors in the various provinces.
7.	Answered by No. 6.


AGRICULTURAL LECTURERS FOR QUEBEC.
*Mr. MARCILE:: 1.	How many agricultural lecturers have been appointed for the province of Quebec?
Mr. BURRELL.
2.	How many of them were qualified?
3.	What were their qualifications and where did they acquire their experience?
4.	By whom were 'the new lecturers recommended?	.
5.	For what reason has Messrs. Louis La-vallee, of St. Guillaume D'Upton, Arsene Denis, of St. Nobert, Luc Dupuis, of Village des Aulnaies, and Gedeon Garceau, of Trois Rivieres, been dismissed?
6.	How many lectures has the manager of the experimental farm at Cap Rouge given since last autumn?
7.	At how many other meetings of farmers did he take part for the purpose of discussing agricultural problems?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No agricultural lecturers have been appointed, but such lecturers are engaged from time to time as their services may be required. During the fiscal year 1912-1913 there were eight engaged.
2.	All of them.
3.	Practical knowledge of live stock and agriculture generally.
4.	By officers of the department and by persons considered competent to express an opinion by the Minister of Agriculture.
5.	Messrs. Louis Lavallee, St. Guillaume; Arsene Denis, St. Nobert; Luc Dupuis, Village des Aulnaies; and Gedeon Garceau, Three Rivers, have never been permanently in the employ of the live stock branch and have, consequently, never been dismissed.
6.	None.
7.	None.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTY.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness):: 1.	Has any person been appointed or authorized by the Government, or the Department of Militia, to receive applications under the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act in the county of Inverness?
2.	If so, who are the persons so authorized?
3.	What remuneration, if any, is allowed them?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1. Not by the Militia Department.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


NOVA SCOTIA RURAL MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: 1.	Was John S. F. McLeod, clerk of the railway mail service in Nova Scotia, recently appointed to take charge of the rural mail delivery service in Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, by whom was he recommended for such position?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1. No, but he was transferred to the office of the post office inspector at Halifax, who is in charge of Rural Mail Delivery for the division, to assist the inspector in that work.

2. By the controller of railway mail service, to the superintendent of rural mail delivery, for his efficiency.


LORNE VALLEY MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: 1.	How many tenders have been received by the Postmaster General for the conveyance of the mails from Lome Valley post office, Prince Edward Island, to the railway station at 48 Road?
2.	What are the names of the tenderers, the amount of each tender, and which tender has been accepted?


Louis Coderre: The contract for this service has not yet been awarded. The information asked for will be given later.


PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERS IN PRINCE EDWARD INSLAND.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: 1.	Who is the chief resident engineer of the Public Works Department in Prince Edward Island at present and what salary does he receive?
2.	Who is the assistant resident engineer of the Public Works Department in Prince Edward Island and what salary does he receive ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Consulting engineer, J. B. Hegan; $2,800 per annum.
2.	Acting district engineer, W. E. Hynd-man; $1,900 per annum.
Old rates.
The commissions on money orders issued in Canada for payment in Canada, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Guiana, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guam, Hawaii, Isle of Pines, Jamaica, Montserrat, Nevis, Newfoundland! Panama Canal Zone, Philippine Islands Porto Rico, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Tobago, Trinidad, Turks Islands, Tutuila (Samoa), Virgin Islands and the United States, are as follows:
$5 and under, 3 cents; over $5 and up to $10, 6 cents; over $10 and up to $30, 10 cents; over $30 and up to $50, 15 cents; over $50 and up to $75, 25 cents; over $75 and up to $100, 30 cents.
New rates.
For sums up to $10, 5 cents; over $10 and up to $30, 10 cents; over $30 and up to $50, 15 cents; over $50 and up to $60, 20 cents; over $60 and up to $100, 25 cents.


THREE RIVERS MAIL SERVICE
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	How many people are employed for the service of carrying the mails between the post office and Canadian Pacific railway station at Three Rivers, and putting the mail on board trains, and also for the collection of the mails in the various parts of the city?
2.	What is the name of each employee, and the amount of salary paid each?


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DREDGING.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: 1.	Did the Government dredge do any dredging for private parties or firms in Prince Edward Island last year ?
2.	If so, how much, and what did the Government charge for said dredging?
3.	Has the Government collected any money from Messrs. George A- Pool & Co., Lower Montague, Prince Edward Island, for the private dredging done for this firm some few years ago?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Dredging for McDonald Bros., Georgetown, was commenced, but dredge broke down.
2.	The district engineer reported that the
amount of dredging was of little or no value; in view of this it was considered expedient to make no charge.	.
3.	No.


TARIFF ON POSTAL ORDERS.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Ls there a change of tariff on postal orders?
2.	If so, what is the difference between the new and the old?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The following changes were made, dating from the 1st of April, 1913:
274J


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Thirteen.
2.	Adjutor Savard, contractor for mail service between Three Rivers and Canadian Pacific railway station, $547 per annum; Thomas Chevalier, contractor for mail service between Three Rivers and street letter boxes, $451.43 per annum; Jos. A. Savard and L. Massicotte, mail transfer agents, each $1.75 per day; T. Morrissette, Elizee Boland and C. E. Vallieres, letter carriers, each $2.25 per day; L. J. F. Fournier, Georges Pleau, Donat Teasdale, Donat Verrette, J. F. Verrette, and Emile Panne-ton, letter carriers, each $2 per day. In addition to their services as mail transfer agents, these men are partly employed in the Three Rivers post office.


EMPLOYMENT OF ARTHUR COUSINS.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Has Arthur Cousins been appointed to an office in the Customs Department at Digby, N.S.?
2.	If so, what are his duties?
3.	What salary is he paid?


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: 1.	Yes.
2.	His duties are to act as preventive officer of customs at Digby, and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him

from time to time by the collector of customs at that port.
*3. $600 a year.


EUREKA CHIEF ENGINEER.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has Joseph Guay, called Gendreau, of Bienville de Levis, employed as chief engineer on hoard the Eureka, been dismissed?
2.	If so, at whose request, what reasons were alleged, and why?
3.	Was an inquiry granted him? If so, what is the name of the inquiring commissioner?
4.	Does the Government know that, last autumn, Joseph Guay is said to have left his position as second engineer on hoard the Montcalm, to go on hoard the Eureka, at the request of the officers of the Government?
5.	What is the name of the person who replaced Guay, and on whose recommendation?
6.	Were complaints against Guay produced relating to his competence as engineer and as to his conduct?
2.	If nut, when was he dismissed, and why ?
3.	Who recommended his dismissal?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Contract was cancelled on the 10th of April, 1913, owing to the failure of the contractor to maintain the service satisfactorily.
3.	Responsible officers of the department.


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Is James F. Brennan still lockmaster at the first lock east of Merricksville ?
2.	If not, when was he dismissed, and why?
3.	Who recommended his dismissal?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	April 27, 1913, for active political partisanship.
3.	He was dismissed upon sworn evidence sent in to the minister.


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No. He was retired from the position on the recommendation of the departmental officers, as it was found that he did not possess the necessary qualifying certificate. He was offered other employment by the department, for which he [DOT]was qualified, but did not accept same.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Yes.
5.	Edgar Samson, on the recommendation of Alphonse Bernier, M.P.P.
6.	Answered by No. 1.


DISMISSALS.
*Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has the caretaker of the Intercolonial railway station at St. Jean tfhrysostome, county of Levis, been dismissed since the 21st September, 1911?
2.	If so, why, and at whose request?
3 Did the Government grant him an in-<quiry? If so, what was the result?
4.	If this caretaker has been reinstated, has
he been paid for all the time he was not employed?	,
5.	If he has been paid, by whom and what amount was paid him?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No, he was not dismissed, but he was suspended from May 9, 1912, until June 23, 1912.
2.	He was suspended on a charge of political partisanship at the request of Mr. A. Bernier, M.L.A.
3.	Yes, and the charges were not proven.
4.	He was immediately reinstated and [DOT]paid for all time lost.
5.	By D. McDonald; $16.33.


Mr. GRAHAM:: 3.	Is Byron McGraw, who had a three years' [DOT]contract for lighting lamps on the Rideau between Hutton's locks and Merricksville, still in the employ of the Government?
Mr. REID (GrenvilUl


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence, reports and recommendations since 1st January, 1912. from Rev. R. L. Macdonald, Indian agent, at Salmon river reserve, Richmond county, N.S., relating to the Indian school in said reserve; and of all correspondence and instructions from the Department of Indian Affairs to the said Indian agent, relating to the same; also a copy of all complaints, charges and reports against Miss Charlotte M. Devereux, teacher of the said school, and of all correspondence and recommendations relating to the appointment of Ernest McNeil to succeed her.-Mr. Kyte.
For a copy of all papers, documents, pay rolls receipts, accounts, correspondence, &c., relating to repairs made upon the breakwater at Petite Riviere, Lunenburg county, N.S., in the year 1912.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
Copy of all letters, and telegrams exchanged between the Government and Messrs. Arch. Macdonald, Biz. Monpetit and others, on the subject of the appointment of caretakers of the post office at Rigaud, Messrs. Jean Baptiste Charlebois and Napoleon Vallee.-Mr. Boyer.
For a copy of all complaints or charges against Fred. R. Irish, postmaster at Afton, Anti-gonish county, N.S., and of all correspondence cn tile in reference thereto.-Mr. Chisholm (Antigonisb)
For a copy of all petitions, complaints, and correspondence containing any charges against Alexander Fraser, postmaster at Fraser's Grant, Antigonish county, N.S., and of all other documents and correspondence on file in relation thereto.-Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish).
For a return showing a list of all the newspapers in Canada in which advertisements have been inserted by the Government, or any minister, officer or department thereof, between October 10, 1911, and the present date, together with a statement of the gross amount paid therefor between the above dates to each of said newspapers or to the proprietors of the same.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all memorials, petitions, letters* and other documents submitted to the Board of

Railway Commissioners from January 1, 1913, to date, by any party whatsoever regardirg the service of the Quebec and Oriental railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway, as to freight, passengers and express matters, with a copy of all orders and rulings issued by such board and of all correspondence in connection therewith.-Mr. Marcil.
For a copy of all memorials, petitions anl letters, addressed to or sent by the Minister of Agriculture, or on his behalf, in connection witli the establishment of an agricultural school, model farm or demonstration station at New Carlisle, Quebec.-Mt. Marcil.
For a copy of all correspondence, memorials, petitions and other documents forwarded by any party to the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Public Works, or either or both, with any replies thereto, in connection with a projected railway or highway bridge, or both combined, ov.t the Restigouehe river between Campbellton, N.B., and any point in Bor.aventure county, Quebec.-Mr. Marcil.
For a copy of all charges, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents relative to the dismissal of John P. McKinnon, section foreman on the Intercolonial railway at Shunacadie, in the riding of North Cape Breton and Victoria, N.tS.-Mr. McKenzie.
For a copy of all charges, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents relative to the dismissal of Archibald McDonald, bridge tender on the Intercolonial railway at Grand Narrows, Iona, riding of North Cape Breton and Victoria, N.iS.-Mr. McKenzie.
For a copy of all complaints, accusations, correspondence, petitions, and telegrams respecting the dismissal of Joseph Verault, postmaster at Levis, county of Levis, of the evidence and report made following the inquiries held by the inquiring commissioner .Smith and the inquiring commissioner Jolicceur in this matter; also the .names of the witnesses summoned and heard, with a copy of the evidence heard at each inquiry, the names of those who represented the Government at these inquiries, and a detailed statement of the expenses caused by these inquiries, with a copy of all documents respecting the appointment of bis successor, such as petitions, letters of recommendation, &c.-Mr. Bonrassa.
For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports, telegrams and all other documents whatsoever having reference to the dismissal of L. Philippe Carignan, lighthouse keeper at Champlain, county of Champlain.- Mr. Bureau.
For a return showing all employees of the Dominion dismissed in the county of Three Rivers and St. Maurice since October 15, 1911, to date, the date of dismissal, the employment of each man, the salary he was receiving at the time of his dismissal, the reason for dismissals, whether there has been an investigation or not, with the names and places of residence of the men appointed to replace them.-Mr. Bureau.
For a return showing all those who have been holding investigations within the judicial district of Three Rivers, since October 15, 1911, to date,, in reference to the conduct of men holding offices from the Dominion* Government, the place where each investigation was held, the amount paid to each investigator in each case; the names of the solicitors employed in each case, the post office addresses, and the amount ipaid in each case to-the solicitor.-Mr. Bureau.
For a return showing all employees dismissed in the county of Maskinonge, since October 15, 1911, to date, the date of dismissal, the employment of each man, the salary he was receiving at the time of his dismissal, the reasons for dismissal, whether there has been investigation or not, and the names and places of residence of the men appointed to replace them.-Mr. Bureau.
For a return showing all employees dismissed in the county of Nicolet since October 15, 1911, to date, the date of dismissal, the employment of each man, the salary he was receiving at the time of his dismissal, the reasons for his dismissal, whether there has been investigation or not, with the names and places of residence of the men appointed to replace them.-Mr. Bureau.
For a return showing all employees dismissed in the county of Champlain since October 15, 1911, to date, the employment of each man, the salary each was receiving at the time of his dismissal, the reasons for dismissals, whether there has been- any investigations or not, with the names and .places of residence of the men appointed to replace them.-Mr. Bureau.
For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports, 'telegrams, and of all documents whatsoever, in connection with and having relation to the dismissal of Arthur Dumont and Alfred Bettez, letter carriers at the post office of the city of Three Rivers, and of the report of J. G. H. Bergeron concerning same.-Mr. Bureau.
For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports, telegrams and of all documents whatsoever, in connection with and having relation to the dismissal of William Brunelle, lighthouse keeper at Pointe a Citrouille, county of Champlain, province of Quebec.-Mr. Bureau.
For a copy of all letters, papers, memoranda and other documents relating to the northeast quarter of il4-75-15J5, during the years 1911, 1912 and 1913 to date.-.Mr. Oliver.
For a copy of all documents, tenders, contracts, correspondence, Orders in Council, &e., in reference to the mail service between Bridgetown, Port Lome and Hampton, Parker's Cove, Annapolis county, N.<S., for which service tenders were recently solicited.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, returns, &c., between the Department of Agriculture, and any other person or persons, requesting, recently, that the Veterinary Director General of Canada visit Nova Scotia.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for an increase, from a sum not exceeding $75,000 to a sum not exceeding $110,000, of the annual amount payable out of tbe Consolidated Revenue Fund for the maintenance of the Ottawa branch of the Royal^ Mint and the refinery forming part thereof.'
[Stage Direction]
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. WHITE:: The abject of this resolution and of the Bill founded upon it which I shall ask leave to introduce is to increase the amount of the annuity payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the [DOT]Ottawa branch of the Royal Mint in connection with its operations. When the establishment of a branch at Ottawa was under consideration in 1901, it was arranged with the Imperial authorities that statutory provision should be made for its upkeep, nnd in consequence of that understanding the Ottawa Mint Act of 1901 was passed. By section 2 of that Act it was provided that:
A sum or sums not exceeding in the whole in any year seventy-five thousand dollars, for defraying the salaries, contingencies, retiring and other allowances and expenses connected with the maintenance of the Ottawa branch of the Royal Mint

Should be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In course of time that sum was found to be inadequate, and since the year 1910 a,n additional amount of $25,000 has been provided in the estimates, making a total appropriation of $100,000 to defray the expense of the maintenance of the Mint. Of that sum, there was expended last year about $95,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many employees
are there?


William Thomas White: I do not think I have that information at the present time, but I can get it later.. The work of the Royal Mint has been increasing steadily during the past, few years, and no doubt it will increase in the same or a greater ratio in the future. Of course the refinery has been added since the mint was originally established, and its expenses have been considerably increased. At the present time there is no place in Canada, except Vancouver, where manufacturers and others can have an authoritative assay of precious metals, and it is the intention now that the refinery here shall do that work, of course charging fees therefor. At the present time, if any manufacturer desires to have an assay of precious metals, he is obliged to send them to New York. I may say that the fees charged for that and other services of the mint are very small. It is also necessary to increase to some extent the staff of the mint proper, and the *deputy minister has asked us to introduce legislation which will give assurance, as was done in the year 1901, that statutory provision will be made for the increased expenditure. It is estimated that the sum will not exceed $110,000. They may not use that amount entirely; in fact I do not anticipate that they will for some time, ' otherwise the amount to be inserted in the
Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
statutes should be larger. The sum of $110,000 is intended to be provision which will satisfy the requirements of the mint for some time to come. I have not full particulars as to the number of the staff at the present time, but I have some figures here which I thought might be of some interest to the House, as showing the increase in the work which has been done by the mint. In the year 1908 5,000,000 pieces were struck. In 1909 that had grown to 9,000,000 pieces, in 1910 to 19,000,000 pieces, in 1911 to 13,000,000 pieces, and in 1912 to 17,000,000 pieces; so that during a period of five years the number of pieces struck by the mint has been doubled. For the year 1912 they handled worn silver coin to the amount of $88,000, of a coinage value of $83,000. The total Canadian coinage struck for 1912 was about $3,000,000, or, to be accurate, $2,910,000. The revenue derived from fees and charges is of course very small, but there is a very substantial profit upon the operations of the mint in the sense that the Dominion obtains the seigniorage upon the silver. Last year that amounted to a profit of about $800,000. That is to say, out of a coinage of silver of $1,383,000 there was a profit of $801,000. or between 50 and 60 per cent. Possibly that may be all the information that is required by the committee, but on the second reading I shall be glad to give anv further information that may be desired.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: What_is the regulation or the practice of the mint affecting the handling of old coins? Are they purchased from the holder at face value, or at silver value5


William Thomas White: They are purchased at face value, that is to say they are redeemed. Silver that is worn is redeemed at par value, hut of course it must be worn. Then it is recoined, and there is a loss on that operation, as I think the figures I have given will indicate. For example, the worn coin handled in 1912, was $88,000 at par value, while the coinage value was $83,000.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: There is some information which my hon. friend might give, if not now, later on. I would like to know how many of the 19,000,000 pieces coined were of gold, silver and copper, respectively. I would like also to know where the metal is procured, the sources from which we get our raw material, gold, silver and copper, and what price is paid to the miners. Where, for instance, is the principal source of supply of our gold? Does any of it come from the Yukon?
Mr. W7HITE: Most of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: And does the silver come from Cobalt? The public would be interested to know the sources of sup-

ply, and what is the price paid by the Government for the raw material which comes annually to the mint. I suppose that at the present time the output of gold from the Yukon goes principally to the United States, and only a small portion comes to the mint in Ottawa. One would also like to know what was the total production of gold in the Yukon last year, how much came to the mint, and how much went outside of Canada. The same information respecting silver would be interesting. I do not remember having seen anywhere the total output of silver last year from the Cobalt district, and it would be interesting to know how much came to the mint and how much went to the United States. If this information could be given in concrete form, it would he interesting to the general public.


William Thomas White: I shall toe very glad to
get, as fully as possible, the information that my right hon. friend desires. I think I can get it without difficulty. In regard to his first question. I have here the reply which I gave recently to a question of an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House as to the amount of Canadian gold, silver, and bronze money coined at the Ottawa mint from January 2, 1908, to March 31, 1913. My hon. friend will remember that the mint has been in operation practically since 1908, so that these figures are complete. The figures are as follows:
Calendar Year.	Gold.	Silver.	Bronze.1908 .. ..	$ 313,338 35	$23,290 951909 .. ..	673,043 65	39,441 681910 .. ..	1,979,671 10	51,619 251911 .. ..	985,678 50	46,599 471912 .. ..	.. $1,477,710	1,383,832 '95	51,095 991913*.. ..	.. 323,020	375,480 00	10,754 36$1,800,730	$5,710,944 55 $222,801 70	
JL lYLtll UIl OX.
* Estimated amount for year: Gold, $1,200,000; silver, $1,500,000; bronze, $40,000.
As to the source of our gold supply in the mint, I think I can say accurately that the greater part is obtained from the Yukon, but we have received some gold from Nova Scotia and Ontario. I shall endeavour to get the information as accurately as possible before the second reading of the Bill, so that my hon. friend will be in possession of all the facts. My hon. friend also spoke of the gold of the Yukon going to American cities for the purpose of assay and naturally also to be coined. I think 1 am correct in stating-the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Thompson) will be able to put me right if I am not- that the great bulk of the gold of the Yukon has gone to the United States to be assayed. During the past year, on representations made to me by the hon. member for the Yukon, we changed the
regulation by which fees were payable for assaying in the assaying plant or refinery at Vancouver, the expectation being that that would cause the gold of the Yukon to be detained there for that purpose and that there would be a corresponding increase in trade by reason of that between Vancouver and the Yukon. I have not had an opportunity yet of studying what the effect of that 'change in the regulation has been.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was
the change?


William Thomas White: It was arranged that gold should be assayed without payment of a fee. In the United States, where the gold of the Yukon is coined, there is no fee charged for assaying and in consequence the city of Vancouver was at a disadvantage as compared with the American cities by reason of the charges which were made. They were comparatively small charges, but they were still of some consequence in connection with the assaying of gold. That has been changed and we hope in consequence that the gold of the Yukon may go to Vancouver instead of Seattle and San Francisco. As far as the other information required by my hon. friend is concerned, I will undertake to obtain it before the second reading of the Bill.


Mr. MACLEAN (South York):: I would
like to point out that we have in Canada two metals which are characteristic of this country, namely, cobalt and nickel, both of -which are splendidly adapted to subsidiary coinage. Two years ago I brought this matter up in the House. I pointed out that, inasmuch as we had a national mint in this country, we ought to give preference to the metals that were characteristic of the country and that were adapted to coinage purposes. Canada has the leadership of the world in the_ matter of the production of nickel and nickel is the best metal, outside of cobalt, for a 'subsidiary coinage. Why not, if we are to have a national policy in this country, and if we are to have a national mint, make our subsidiary coinage out of either nickel or cobalt, perhaps out of cobalt, and in that way advertise the fact to the world that Canada can supply enough cobalt and nickel for subsidiary coinage? May I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance wliat is the capital investment up to date on account of the branch of the national mint in Canada?


William Thomas White: About $700,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would observe to my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) that if we were to have the additional coinage of nickel, for instance, in this country, it would not dispose of

one-tenth, or one-hundredth part of the nickel which we produce. We would have a better way -still of disposing of our nickel if we built our own ships in this country.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, if we were to do
that; but we .have to take control of the production of nickel in this country and see that it is refined in Canada under our national policy and not sent out of the country.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you mean the
Nationalist policy?


William Findlay Maclean: No, I mean the national policy. Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) does not see the significance of that term. But it is high time that we let the world know how much nickel we have, and, by the national policy, compelled its refinement- in this country. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition says that we would not use it all in coinage. Perhaps we could use some of it in coinage and we could induce other countries to buy nickel from us in the market, but certainly we ought to set the example ourselves by using it at home.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax!: I would like to ask -my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to explain the method by which a profit is made to the country in the operation of minting.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend, no doubt refers to how the profit accrues from the seigniorage on the silver. The mint- coins from silver five, ten, twenty-five and fifty-cent pieces. A twenty-five cent piece is only worth intrinsically, say, ten, or twelve cents, and if the mint buys 'silver at current prices, mints it into coinage and it is worth twice the cost of the metal intrinsically in the coin, of course, it is a fairly profitable business for the mint -and for the country. The silver coinage, when it leaves the -mint, goes to the several offices of the Receiver General and is there paid out to the banks as they require it for Dominion notes. These notes are only issued as against gold. The result is that we get in Dominion notes which are secured against gold in exchange for this silver at its par value and the profit to the Dominion by way of seigniorage comes from that operation.


Mr. GRAHAM:: A kind of gold brick.


William Thomas White: It is better than a gold
brick. The profit to the Dominion by way of seigniorage on the issue of this silver really comes to it from the amount of gold that is in the vaults of the Receiver General throughout the country over and above Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the .amount of the Dominion notes outstanding. I am not quite sure that I make that clear. There are Dominion notes outstanding against gold. We issue silver and get in Dominion notes. These notes, when they come in. may be cancelled and the Dominion will own the resultant amount of gold that it holds in the vaults over and above the amount of the Dominion note circulation that is outstanding. In that- way it is an automatic process. That is the way the Government obtains the reserve which it holds against its government savings banks and post office savings banks deposits. We are obliged to carry a ten per cent reserve.


Wilfrid Laurier: The coin has a value fixed by law; it is not the actual value of the metal in it. I asked the minister if he could tell me what is the actual price paid to the Mint for gold, for silver and for other metals. The minister told me that the business of the mint had increased and would continue to increase. On what basis does he assume that the business of the Mint will increase? Is it because of an extra demand for bullion or for coin? The bank note is the chief medium of circulation in Canada, whereas in Europe the circulating medium is gold. Does the minister expect we shall export our bars of silver to Europe? I do not know that we can export gold, but surely we ought to be able to export silver.


William Thomas White: I
shall endeavour to obtain that information from my right hon. friend. I have figures here as to the staff; but it would probably be advisable to present the information in a more comprehensive form, having regard to the questions asked. I may say that the weights and values of gold dejjosits received at the mint for treatment since its opening were:
1908	
219 ozs. $	3,8231909	
5,779	"	95,5381910	
65,009	"	1,079,2231911	
89,974	"	1,478,2151912	
105,568	"	1,688,823
This of course shows a great increase.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is meant when you say the gold was received for ' treatment.'


William Thomas White: To be refined.


Wilfrid Laurier: For private
individuals or to be turned into coin?


William Thomas White: It may be turned into coin, and it may be sold as bullion. The value of gold bars prepared for and sold to various manufacturing companies and banking institutions, has increased from $9,410 in 1910 to $296,592 in 1912. Hitherto the whole of such gold bullion has been obtained from

the United States. The Mint in other words is quite equipped for refining the gold, stamping it and selling it to bankers or manufacturers who may desire the precious metals refined and authoratively stamped. I took up the question with the master of [DOT] the Mint a short time ago and he quite acquiesced in the view that it is very desirable that Canadian manufacturers instead of sending the gold to New York to be assayed, with all the attendant troubles of customs and transportation, should have the work done here. It is the intention to do so and that is one of the reasons why we are asking for an increase from $75,000 to $100,000, or really from $100,000 to $110,000 because during the last three years an additional appropriation of $25,000 has been taken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the seigniorage; is it the royalty?


William Thomas White: It is the royalty the Government takes by reason of the value of the coin as a coin being greater than the intrinsic value of the metal. It does not apply in the case of gold because the intrinsic value of gold is supposed to be equal to the coin value.


William Findlay Maclean: It may be remarked that the profit coming to us is not because we have established a mint but because we have established the seigniorage which is independent of the Mint. If we had no Mint at all we would have the seigniorage or profit but the fact that the mint is gradually extending its usefulness is probably justification for its maintenance.


Mr. DEVLIN:: The circulation of large
quantities of American silver in Canada must be a loss to the country. Has the Government taken any steps to stop the circulation of American silver?


William Thomas White: My predecessor, Mr. Fielding, made an arrangement, which continues, by which the banks are given a small percentage-I think three-eights of one per cent commission-together with the cost of expressage, in order to encourage the return of American silver to the United States and obtain there its equivalent in gold.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has that system been
effective?


William Thomas White: I think so.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is the purchase of the
precious metal and the sale of the coin done at the mint or through the Finance Department?


William Thomas White: It is done at the mint. I am informed that tenders are called for the supply of the precious metals and they aTe
purchased at their market values. On account of the situation of the Mint at Ottawa I am not sure whether we shall be able to overcome the advantage the American refiners, have for the reason of being closer to the Yukon.


Charles Murphy: Are the new coins supplied directly through the mint?


William Thomas White: The Mint supplies the new coins to the Department of Finance.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: If a defence were ever required for the establishment of a mint in this country, it has been given this afternoon by the Minister of Finance when he informed us that the capital invested in the mint is $700,000 and the profit for one year is $800,000. That strikes me as a very direct result and as a rather profitable investment for the country.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition asked how much gold the Yukon has produced and what percentage of that gold came to the mint. The output of gold in the Yukon is increasing. Last year we produced a little over $5,000,000. Some three or four years ago the production was between two and three million dollars. Of that $5,000,000 about a million and a quarter came to the Mint at Ottawa. The Minister of Finance informed the House that $1,470,000 was minted here in 1911, of which amount about one and a quarter millions was composed of Yukon gold. I am sorry to say that gold from the Yukon has not come to Canada to a very large extent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why is that?


Alfred Thompson: Because the United
States Government realized before our Government did the value of getting Yukon gold. Although the state of Washington and the Pacific coast states north of California were not gold-producing states, the United States Government established in the city of Beattie a purchasing assay office, while we had no purchasing assay office, nor in fact any assay office at all, in our Pacific cities. As a result, gold from the Yukon was shipped to the Seattle assay office and no charge was made for assaying it. As we had no assay office on the Pacific coast, Yukon gold to a large extent went to United States cities on the Pacific coast and passed our own. The Dominion Government placed an assay office in Vancouver where any man might bring his gold and have it assayed, and the assay office would give him a certificate which he would take to the bank and receive legal tender. When the Government established that office, they permitted a discriminatory charge over the assay office which was

established at the mint here; that is to say, until last fall any man who took his gold to the assay office in Vancouver had to pay one-eighth of one per cent more than was charged in Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or in Ottawa. The result was that, while we had in Vancouver a magnificent assay office, properly equipped and well manned, we did not get the gold. I brought that fact to the attention of the Minister of Finance, as did some of the other members for British Columbia, and he removed that discriminatory tax so that at the present time the assay office in Vancouver is on the same basis as the assay office in the mint at Ottawa. Therefore, gold coming from the Yukon can be sent to the assay office in Vancouver and it will bring the same price as at any other place. We want all that Yukon gold to come here. We do not want even five or ten per cent of that gold to go to the United States.
A very interesting phase of this question developed recently in the Banking Committee. I asked some of the witnesses who testified there why our banks should not use our own gold. Opinions differed. One gentleman testified that it could not be used in our banks because the gold reserves were sometimes sent to New York on call loans. Gold seems to be in a state of flux. He said that our coin would not circulate in the United State because it was not considered as legal tender there; that the British gold coins and the American gold coins were the only ones that circulated there. Another gentleman, high up in banking circles, testified to the opposite effect. He said that there was no reason why the gold reserves of our banks should not be in our own coin. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition. As to the amount of gold which we have in our reserves, I am informed by gentlemen of the banking profession who testified before the Banking Committee that we have about $37,000,000 in gold coins in our banks. Seven millions of that is composed of British sovereigns and therefore $30,000,000 of the gold which rests to-day in the vaults of our banks is American gold. That state of affairs should not exist when we are producing from the Yukon, from Porcupine, from British Columbia and from Nova Scotia gold in very large quantities?


Rodolphe Lemieux: How would you remedy it?
Mr. THOMPSON': By doing the same thing with American gold coins as has been done with their silver coins, namely: ship them out of the country and replace them with our own coins. We have a Mint here to manufacture the gold. There is no reason why in the interests of our country as a whole we should not do this. When the Bank Bill is up for consideration, I am going to submit to the Minister of Finance a proposition to that end. Take the Government reserves. The argument which was advanced by one gentleman that Canadian gold could not be used by our banks certainly does not apply to our Government reserves, because they are kept here and do not go to New York. I fail to see why those reserves should not be altogether composed of Canadian gold.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Thompson), on the increasing production of gold in his district. I should like, however, to tell the House that in one little camp in the province of Ontario, in Porcupine, the production of gold next year will be at least $8,000,000, probably $12,000,000, and the production is steadily increasing. For the first time the province of Ontario has proved to be gold producing so that the output of Porcupine is almost phenomenal. As long as the world is engaged in the pursuit of gold, there is no more promising field than in the new country of Ontario now known as Cobalt. It ought to he a matter of satisfaction to the people of this country to know that Canada, so rich in other natural products, is now proved to be rich in precious imetals.


William Thomas White: I wish to put on 'Hansard' the figures which my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), desired as to the production of gold in Canada and as to the sources of supply of our Mint. The following shows the produc
tion of gold in	Canada: Fine oz.	Value.1907	.. .. 405,517	$ 8,382,7801908	.. .. 476,112	9,842,1051909	.. .. 453,865	9,382,2301910	.. .. 493,707	10,205,8351911	.. .. 473,159	9,781,077
Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon).


PRODUCTION OF GOLD BY PROVINCES.
[Stage Direction]
-	1909.	1910.	1911.	Fine Oz.	VT alue.	Fine Oz.	Value.	Fine Oz.	Value.Nova Scotia	
Quebec	10-193 193 1-569 25 250-32C 1191-565	$ 210,711 3.990 32,425 525 5,174,579 3,960,000	7-928 124 3-089 89 261386 221-091	$ 163,891 2,565 63,849 1,850 5,403,318 4,570,362	7-781 613 2-062 10 238 u96 224-197	$ 160,854 12,672 42,625 207 4,930,145 4,6:14,574British Columbia	
Yukon	
Totals	453-865	9,382,230	493-707	10,205,835	473 159	9,781,077
Gold Received at the Ottawa Mint for Refining.
1911	1912
Gross oz. Gross oz.
Nova Scotia	
4,144	3,259Ontario	
4,569	11,666Yukon	
78,526	85,800Quebec	
-	91187,239	101,636
Pine gold bars were sold by the mint during 1911 to the value of $141,488.36, and during 1912 to the extent of $296,592. The estimated amount of gold used in Canada in the Industrial Arts during 1912 was 120,050 fine ounces, valued at $2,479,032, and it is estimated that $1,096,546 of this amount was imported. The exports of gold-bearing dust, nuggets, gold in ore, &c., during the, same period were valued at $10,014,654.
In answer to my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Thompson), I may say that at his request I gave very careful consideration to the question as to whether the Dominion could put itself in a position to hold Canadian gold as reserves against the deposits in the post office savings banks and the Government savings banks. I am afraid there are considerable difficulties in the way. My hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) touched upon one which had occurred to me and which I investigated rather fully. At the present time, tire gold reserve in the offices of the Assistant Receiver General represents the amount of gold deposited by the chartered banks of Canada in exchange for Dominion notes, either the 9mall notes or those of large denomiations -' legals ' as they are called. In other words, these reserves of the banks are practically carried in the offices of the Receiver General. The total gold so held is in excess of $100,000,000, and of this $90,000,000, I am informed by the controller of the treasury, is in American gold. The reason for thi3 is obvious. It is only within
recent years that we have minted Canadian gold. New York, being like London an international money market, a centre of exchange for America, it is very natural that the gold held by the banks should be principally American gold rather than British sovereigns. American gold is legal tender in Canada, though Canadian gold is not legal tender in the United States. So, 'the advantage tq tha bank in holding American gold is that it is legal tender here and can be exchanged for Dominion notes, and it is legal tender a'so in New York and can be used to meet their obligation® there. That gold is of the same fineness as British sovereigns. To meet the point raised by my hon. friend from Yukon, we should have to melt that gold down and recoin it into Canadian coin. For, if you send it to the United States to exchange, what do you get back? You cannot go any further; gold is the ultimate. You could only get back exchange or else get other American gold coin-you could not get Canadian coin. The cost of recoining this gold would run into large sums of money. I had the controller of the currency go into that and give me the figures. Those figures I have not here, but I wilt ask the House to accept what I say, that a very heavy .sum would be expended in recoining these American coins into Canadian coins. So, even if the banks could make as good use of the gold in this other form, there would be difficulties in the way. And they could not in every case make as good use as they can of the American gold, for the reason I have given, that our coinage is not legal tender in the United States while American co,inage is legal tender here as well as in New York.
Alfred Thompson: Could the minister make an arrangement with the United States to make the coinage interchangeable?
8G71


Wilfrid Laurier: Reciprocity.
Of course, that is the only salvation.


Alfred Thompson: Many of the articles
which were covered by the famous agreement were of different value on our side of the line from that on the other side. But as gold is of the same intrinsic value in Ottawa, in New York, in London and in Paris; the only difference is in the cost of transportation. Gold of the same fineness is of the same value here as in Ceylon; for instance, and in order to know the difference in value we have only to consider the cost of .shipping to Ceylon. But, as the minister says, gold is the ultimate, and gold of the same fineness will be of the same value except the cost of transportation. That toeing so, could we not make an arrangement whereby Canadian gold can circulate in the United States as the United States gold circulates heTe?


William Thomas White: I
have turned that over in my mind. I suppose we cannot ascertain without taking up the matter by way of negotiations. It might be possible, but I incline to the view that it is not probable that we can bring it about.


Alfred Thompson: Are our coins of the same fineness as theirs?


William Thomas White: Yes, the same weight and fineness. The United States gold is legal tender here only by reason of our Dominion legislation. Of course it was a great convenience that it should be so before our mint began to turn out Canadian gold coins.


Wilfrid Laurier: The difficulty is not there, in my judgment.


William Thomas White: I shall be glad to hear
the right hon. gentleman's views.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is only in
recent years that gold has been produced in our country. Almost up to this very day we have received our precious metals from the United States. Everybody remembers how fifty or sixty years ago all the silver *circulated in Canada was in American coins. But, as time went on, we had our own silver coinage. The object of my hon. friend from Yukon is a very laudable one; I quite agree with him that we ought to have our gold coins and the reserve of our banks should be kept in Canadian coin. But that will come later. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has said that the Porcupine will produce this year $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 of gold. That gold must find a market. At the present time all the gold of the Porcupine and all the silver of Cobalt goes to the United States.
always be so; we shall find a market for it in this country. The Americans have always been chary of accepting our circulation. Every bank-note in Canada to-day is worth a hundred cents on the dollar, and our bank-notes are better than those, of the United States. Still, you find great difficulty in circulating our bank-notes in that country. Some states accept them, especially those on the border, like New York, Michigan and others. The circulation of our notes in the United States will increase, no doubt. And, in the same way, as we produce more gold and put out a larger quantity of Canadian gold coins, these coins will be recognized as being worth as much as the American or British coins. Then, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance can go to Washington, as we did, and as he is sure to do some day, and negotiate a reciprocity treaty and gold will be included.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: I would suggest to the Minister of Finance, who is always very courteous in listening to my suggestions, that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) returns, he should bring this matter before that hon. gentleman, and endeavour to induce him, while the travelling fit is on, to go to Washington with him and look into this matter. It would be an interesting trip, to the Minister of Finance, especially as he is one of the ministers who stay in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am astonished to hear that the Minister of Finance has in the Dominion vaults no less a sum than $90,000,000 of American legal tender, and to hear further that this American gold was brought through exchange for paper by the banks-the banks that opposed so strongly the extension of trade with the United States.


Mr. AIKINS:: I understand that American gold coin is legal tender in Canada. There is no reciprocity on the part of the United States, they do not allow Canadian gold coin to be legal tender in the United States. I think there should be reciprocity in this matter. In times past it may have been necessary that American gold coin should be legal tender in Canada but I think that necessity has ceased and we should make our own coinage legal tender in Canada instead.


Alfred Thompson: While the gold production of the Porcupine is as yet in the future-


William Findlay Maclean: This year it is producing between three hundred and four hundred thousand dollars.


William Findlay Maclean: Not all.


Wilfrid Laurier: If not all,
seventy-five per cent or more. It will not Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon).


Alfred Thompson: What I say is that in the Klondike and in the Yukon we have produced about $200,000,000 and the sur-

face of the country is hardly scratched yet. The area of the territory which has been explored, compared with the total area of the territory, is about like a postage stamp on a post-card and the future of the gold industry in the Yukon is assured. We have probably invested in the gold industry m the Yukon nearly $20,000,000 of New lork and English money. As I understand it we have about $30,000,000 of Dominion notes against which we place 25 per cent of that amount in gold in the vault, that is seven and a half million dollars. Is there any reason why that seven million dollars should not be Canadian rather than m American currency?


William Thomas White: 
Wilfrid Laurier: When we have more trade with the Americans the Americans wiH be glad to take our gold coin and R" . U their reserve fund just as we put tbeir gold in our reserve fund.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Have any representations been made by the minister or by the Government to the American Government as to their accepting our gold in the wav of [DOT]currency?


William Thomas White: Not to my knowledge;
there has been no correspondence.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there provision by
which a prospector, the most important man in the mining industry, who finds a sample of ore which he thinks is of value, may send that to the Royal Mint at Ottawa t-o be tested?


William Thomas White: That is not done under
the Mint, that is under the Mines Depart' ment.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Perhaps it might be wise for the minister to inform the Government at Washington that we are now refining our own gold and coining it and possibly the American Government might be ready to accept it as legal tender in the sense
pointed out by the hon. member for the Yukon.


Charles Murphy: Are the staff at the Mint under the control of this or of the Imperial Government -and how are appointments made?


William Thomas White: They are entirely under
the master of the Royal Mint, that is under Imperial authority.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But the Government's
recommendations are accepted?


William Thomas White: No.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.
Mr. WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 184, to amend the Ottawa Mint Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Geo. H. Perley, Bill No. 108, respecting the Manufacture, Marking and Sale of Articles composed of Gold or Silver and of Gold-plated or Silver-plated Ware was read the second time and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. PERLEY:: This matter has been under the consideration of the House and of the Senate during the last ten years. The object of the legislation is to protect the public from fraud and misrepresentation and also to protect honest manufacturers. The first Bill introduced in the Senate some years ago was suggested by the manufacturers and passed the Senate but representations were made by wholesale and retail dealers that there" were objectionable clauses in that Bill and it was withdrawn. Afterwards it was brought up again by the late Government; in both the Senate and the House of Commons the public were given an opportunity of being heard and eventually an Act was passed in 1908 which is now on the statute-book. In order that provisions of this Act might be carried out an inspector was appointed, a practical man, familiar with the technical details involved in this question. In a prosecution in Toronto not long ago, the judges of the Court of Appeal pointed out that some of the wording in the Act was defective, and that the meaning was not plain. The Bill now before the House does not differ substantially from the present Act. I think I am safe in saying that the principles of this Bill are exactly the same as those of the Act at present in force, but in certain cases the wording has been changed, and the Bill has been redrafted in order to place things in clearer

light, and to put it in better shape to protect the public and the manufacturers and dealers in those articles.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the
minister please explain which sections are modified by this Bill?


George Halsey Perley: I thought perhaps it
would be better to explain as we go along. Section 3 has been inserted to give a clearer definition of the articles to which the Bill applies, and to make the other provisions of the Bill simpler in language.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there any change in section 2 ?


George Halsey Perley: There is a slight change in the description. Gold and silver are both made to include the alloy of gold and silver. That is not in the present Act. Then the word ' mark ' is interpreted m a slightly different way from the present Act, but I do not think there is any practical difference. It simply makes it plainer.
On section 2-definition:


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand
that this is a change from the present Act, and that ' gold ' now includes alloy of gold. Can mv hon. friend give us the reason of the changep


George Halsey Perley: The reason, as I understand it, is that section 10, which refers to gold in the present Act, reads in such a way that it refers to both gold and alloy of gold. If an article of jewellery is 16 Karat gold, it is 16-24 of pure gold, and that is an alloy of gold.


Mr. BORDEN:: In commerce, they do
not use absolutely pure gold, they use alloys.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see in the
Bill that there is no definition of gold.


Robert Laird Borden: If my right hon. friend will look at sections 10 and 11 of the original Act lie will find that the alloys were dealt with in those sections. As I understand the change made in section 2, it is to obviate the necessity of dealing with that specially in the Act.


George Halsey Perley: All the articles of jewellery in which gold is used are alloys.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-articles to which Act applies :
George Halsey Perley: This is a new clause to give a definite description of the various articles to which the Act applies, to make the language clearer, and to make it easier to describe the articles in the other sections of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Mr. PERLEY.
On section 5-parts requiring adaptation to trade use:
Wilfrid Laurier: This Bill is
highly technical, and one would require some information to enable him to follow it clearly. As I understand it, this provision will apply only to dealers in jewellery.


George Halsey Perley: It applies to manufacturers and dealers. Sub-section (f) of the interpretation clause describes what a ' dealer 5 is, a person who is a manufacturer, seller, or dealer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-marks correctly indicating quality of article:
Wilfrid Laurier: In other words, this means simply that no dealer can expose for sale an article of gold or silver unless it shows on the face of it the amount of gold or silver there is in it?


George Halsey Perley: If he marks it at all he must mark it honestly and in a way that will not deceive. Paragraph (b) of the section requires that if an article has applied to it any mark, it must have applied to it.
(b) A mark or marks truly and correctly
indicating, in the manner required by this Act, the quality of the gold or silver, hereinafter called 'quality mark.'
A manufacturer may make articles of gold or silver without putting any marks on them at all, but if he does put marks on them, he must follow out this subsection in order that the buyer may know what the marks mean.


Wilfrid Laurier: Can he sell
an article without having any mark on it at all?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, he can sell without having any mark on it at all if he wishes to do so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is no protection to the public.


Mr PERLEY:: The main object of this section is to prevent manufacturers from putting on marks which will deceive. Cheap goods are often brought into Canada bearing well known English hall marks which never saw Great Britain. Ihis Bill will make it plain that these goods cannot be sold in this country with these marks on them.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand it a dealer can sell an article without any marks on it and the purchaser takes his chance as to what is in it, but if there is a mark on it the purchaser will be certain that he is not deceived.


George Halsey Perley: That is as I understand it.


Robert Laird Borden: It is the same principle as that embodied in the previous Act in that respect.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Have there been any objections to this Bill by any class of people? Why did it not pass through Parliament in former sessions?


George Halsey Perley: The existing Act was passed in 1908 after having been fully considered by a committee representing the manufacturers and wholesale and retail dealers. It was found that the wording of the Act was somewhat defective in cases which came before the court, and a committee composed of representative men in the business reconsidered the wording, and the present amendments are in accordance with their suggestion. The only objection I have had came from a firm of lawyers in Toronto. I wrote I would he glad to see them and listen to what they nad to say on the subject but they did not come. Apparently the public are well satisfied with the Bill as it stands.


John Howard Sinclair: Has an opportunity been given to the trade to know what the proposed changes are? A great deal of interest was taken in this measure in 1908. When_ the matter was before the Senate committee were these dealers informed of the fact and given a chance to make representation?


George Halsey Perley: The Bill was introduced in the Senate in the form recommended by the committee of the manufacturers, the wholesale dealers, the retail dealers, and on that committee were many representative men of the business.
I move that the following be added as section 21:
This Act shell come into force on January 1, 1914.
He said: It has been represented to me that it might cause some trouble to dealers in these articles, if this Bill came into force immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 20
repeals the Gold and Silver Marking Act of 1908. By section 21 this Bill shall not come into force until January, 1914. Will there not be a period when we have no legislation at all on this subject?


George Halsey Perley: This Bill will not come
into force until the 1st of January, 1914, therefore the repeal of the present Act does not take effect until then.


Robert Laird Borden: The operation of section 20 would be postponed the same as every other section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Premier received any protests against this legislation? at the time when it was introduced in the Senate, I remember having read in the press somewhat harsh criticisms of this measure. It was stated that it was favouring a monopoly.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no recollection of having received any protests, but I will make inquiries.


George Halsey Perley: In the Department of
lrade and Commerce we had a letter from a firm of lawyers in Toronto with regard to this legislation.
self?	But from the trade it-
Mr. fERLEY: I stated that this Bill was supported by a joint committee of the manufacturers and wholesale and retail dealers m the trade.
Bill reported.


CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. George H. Perley, House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statutes ot 1912, and to provide in connection with Bill Y-2, intituled, An Act to amend the Canada Gram Ac:, passed by the Senate and now fcetore this House, that whenever application is made to the board to arrange for the inspection of grain, or the weighing of grain, or both at a place which is not a terminal point ot an inspection division or of an inspection district, the board, if satisfied that such an arrangement should be made and that the applicant is a responsible person, may order such airangement as it deems proper on condi. ion that, besides the fees payable, the excess, if any, of the costs of carrying ou-sr.ch arrangement over the amount of such fees, shall be paid by the applicant in such manner and at such times as the board may determine; and that the provisions as to the inspection and weighing of grain, aud as to the appointment of inspectors and weigh-masters, and of any rules and regulations made under the said provisions, shall apply at every place with respect to which such an arrangement has been made; and also that the annual license fee payable by the pro-pi ietor, lessee or manager of any terminal elevator shall be twenty-five dollars; the annual license fee payable by the owner of an elevator engaged in the manufacture of grain I'loduets in the western division shall be five dollars; the annual license fee payable by the owner or lessee of a country elevator shall be five dollars; the annual license fee payable by an applicant to carry on the business of grain commission merchant in the western division, shall he five dollars; and the annual
[Stage Direction]
license fee payable by any person to carry on the business of a track buyer shall be live *dollars.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
George Halsey Perley: There appears on the
Order Paper:
Order No. 18-Second reading of Bill No. 163 (Letter Y-2 of the Senate), An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
I moved this resolution for the purpose of bringing the Senate Bill within the rules of this House, as the Bill provides for an increase of fees in certain cases in connection with elevators and track buyers of grain, and also provides that the gram board may, when requested, send a special inspector to a mill; and, if the ordinary fees are not sufficient to pay the salary of the inspector, then the mill in question has to pay the difference between the fees and his salary.


Frank Oliver: This provides for something more than for sending an inspector to a mill.


George Halsey Perley: The first part of the
resolution provides:
Whenever application is made to the board to arrange for the inspection of grain, or the weighing of grain, or both, at a place which is not a terminal point of an inspection division or of an inspection district, the board, it satisfied that such an arrangement should be made and that the applicant is a responsible person, may order such arrangement as it deems proper, on condition that, besides the fees payable, the excess, if any, of the costs of carrying out such arrangement over the amount of such fees, shall be paid by the applicant.
That is to enable the board to grant requests for an inspector to be sent to a mill and the applicants to pay the expenses. Under the present .act they do not seem to have that power.


Frank Oliver: If the intention of the
Government is that this provision applies only to mills where it is desired to buy crrain, I would understand what the minister has said, but I do not see in this resolution any restriction of the application of it to mills. I should read the resolution as evidencing an intent to establish and making provision for the establishment of interior terminal points. If that is not the intention, of course, we should take the statement of the minister on the point. Otherwise, of course, it is a very large question and one that would require more .explanation than the minister has given us.


George Halsey Perley: It is not the intention
in this resolution to raise the question of interior terminal elevators, which will come up for discussion later on in the session. If the hon. member will refer to the
on the Order Paper he will find that it refers to a place which is flow a terminal point. The object of this clause is simply to give the grain commissioners power, should they think it proper to do so,^ to allow an inspector to give his whole time to a certain mill, and if the ordinary fees are not sufficient to pay the salary in that case, the mill owner on application shall pay the difference.


Mr. McCRANEY:: I think I am correct
in saying that the grain commissioners met in the city of Saskatoon within the last few weeks 'and that a discussion took place with regard to the advisability of making Saskatoon a terminal point for grain inspection, and that, while nothing definite was stated by the commission, they seemed to be favourably disposed towards recommending that it should be made a terminal point. I thought, when the minister gave notice of the resolution, that it was perhaps to carry into effect some such purpose in regard to Saskatoon and other large grain centres of the West. But I understand the minister now to say that that is not the purport.


George Halsey Perley: This Bill was prepared
by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr Foster) before he went away, and was introduced in the Senate and passed by that House a couple of months ago. It has been on our Order Paper for second reading in this House for quite a long time. I introduced this resolution in order to bring the matter strictly within the rules of the House. It is true the grain commissioners have been in the West, and I expect to get from them a supplementary report on the subject of various matters, and regarding interior terminal elevators; but this Bill is not intended in any way to deal with that subject.
Sion, xi	.	

fifth line of this resolution as it appears | Mr. PERLEY.


George Ewan McCraney: The minister stated
that at a subsequent time there would be an opportunity to discuss the question of terminal elevators. What has he in mind? We are dealing with the Grain Act; I should have thought this_ would be the occasion for such a discussion.


George Halsey Perley: If the members of the
House are satisfied, the arrangement I had in mind wias that when the estimates come up in connection with the grain board and the carrying out of the Grain Act, I would arrange to have Dr. Magill here, and we could go into a discussion of these matters in any way my hon. friend might like.


Frank Oliver: I should not have thought the provision for internal terminals would be made simply by a sum in the estimates, but that the legislation now before us would be the legislation under which that

sum would be granted and the terminals would be operated.


George Halsey Perley: There is a section in the Grain Act, section 13, which provides for the building of terminal elevators; and if it were decided to build interior terminals, an item would have to appear in the estimates, and the money would have to be spent in accordance with section 13. The matter could come up for discussion in this House on that item, and, as I have said, I should Joe glad to have Dr. Magill here, and to give all the information that could be given. But this particular resolution was not intended in any way to deal with the question of terminals.


Frank Oliver: This is a somewhat important matter, and I wish to have an understanding of it before the resolution passes. If the resolution and the Bill are intended to apply only to the case my hon. friend has mentioned, I see no serious objection to both going through without further discussion. But, if this resolution and Bill are to constitute the amendments io the Grain Act under which hereafter interior terminal facilities shall be established and conducted, then I should wish to say there is a feature of it which I could wish to criticise very strongly, and in fact take very serious objection to. If it were possible for my hon. friend to insert such words in this resolution and Bill as would restrict its operation to the case of a mill, there would be no objection to it; but if the Bill and the resolution remain as they are, applicable, according to my reading, to the establishment of an interior terminal, then I would wish to bring to the .attention of the committee the objection I have to the principle contained. It will only take a few minutes, and I might as well mention the matter now. My reasoning would be entirely out of place if the section is only applicable to the case of a mill. My reasoning is based entirely upon a supposition, which I gather from the reading of the section, that it would be legislation that would be applicable to the establishment of an interior terminal elevator. Assuming that to be the case, the section says that where this provision takes effect the ordinary charges shall be paid there as elsewhere, but the extra cost of administration of what I would take to be an interior terminal would have to be paid by those who apply for the establishment of that interior terminal. That, I think, would be entirely objectionable, and yet, as I read this section, both of the Bill and of the resolution, I would take it that its application is not restricted to the case my hon. friend has mentioned. If words that would express that restriction were inserted in the resolution and the Bill

that is to say, if it should only be applicable to the case of a mill-that would be perfectly right; I quite agree that the miller who wants a special inspection at his mill should pay ithe extra cost. But if it is a case in which a general business is being transacted, that general business should not be specially burdened, but should only pay the ordinary fees, and the extra burden of transacting the business at that terminal should be part of the general charge to be carried by the country, if necessary, by a general increase in the fees and tolls, but not by special impost upon that particular locality.


George Halsey Perley: I quite agree. My hon. friend knows the Grain Act better than I do, but there are special clauses referring to terminals, and provision is made for weighing and inspecting the grain in and out, which would, of course, apply to interior terminal elevators if they were built.


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression that the actual conditions existing in the interior differ very materially from those at what are now considered to be terminal or shipping points and there would require to be amending legislation to provide for those interior terminal points. I supposed that this Bill was intended to meet that condition.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether
I rightly understand the hon. gentleman's objection and I hesitate to embark in this debate with my very imperfect knowledge of the Grain Act. If, however, the hon. gentleman suggests that this provision would control the situation in respect of [DOT]interior terminal elevators after they have been established, I would not agree because the language seems to be very distinctly to the contrary. The hon. gentleman no doubt observed in the amendment that whenever application is made to the board to arrange for the inspection of grain or the weighing of grain or both at a place which is not a terminal point oi an inspection division or an inspection district the board then can take certain steps which involve a certain charge upon the person making the application. If interior terminal elevators were established this proposed amendment would not have application because the exception contained in the statute would prevent any such application of these provisions.


Frank Oliver: My idea was that this provision was a condition of the establishment of such elevators.


Robert Laird Borden: No. A statute speaks all the time and when those interior terminal elevators have been established then this statute, speaking as of that time, would by its very terms exclude such terminal elevators from its operation.


James Albert Manning Aikins: In addition to what the Premier has now mentioned, the resolution applies, as I understand, only to a place which is not a terminal point. If the hon. member from Edmonton would refer to section (y) of the interpretation clause he would see what a terminal is:
A terminal elevator includes every elevator or warehouse which receives or ships grain and is located at any point declared by the Governor in Council to be a terminal point.
Then section 13:
The Governor in Council may authorize the minister to construct, acquire, lease or expropriate for His Majesty any terminal elevator if Parliament has granted money for that purpose.
So that if at any time a point is declared to be a terminal point, then the provisions in this resolution will not apply.


George Ewan McCraney: Certain penalties are
prescribed in section 245 of the Act and these penalties apply to farmers who sell their right to get cars or who take possession of cars wrongfully. I have some correspondence from tile Grain Growers' Association of Aberdeen, in my riding, in which it is alleged that the railway employees have been placing cars at the disposal of farmers at another station near there or at a siding on payment of a sum of money by a farmer to the railroad men. My correspondents seem to be satisfied that that is the case. They say on the other hand, that it is difficult to get evidence which they can present to the railway company, which has asked for the evidence, because the farmer himself, under the law as it stands at present, would likely be liable to the penalty of the section and they have asked that some legislation be passed amending this penalty clause so that it would punish any employee of a railway company who committed an offence of that kind but that the punishment should not be imposed. on the informer. They make the following suggestions:
That the following be added to the Canada Grain Act of 1912, section 245:
(e)	An employee of any railroad who either directly or indirectly sells the right of loading a car, whether in or out of turn, shall upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine of from $50 to $1,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
(f)	The purchaser or informant in such cases to be judged not guilty of a misdemeanor.


George Halsey Perley: Is the suggestion that the farmer who buys the right from the railway employee should not he punished for it?
Mr. MeCRANEY:	For the purpose
of getting evidence against these railway Mi-. BORDEN.
men they say it will be necessary to exempt the farmer who gives the money, otherwise you will never get the evidence.


George Halsey Perley: If my hon. friend will
write a letter to the department on the subject we will see that it is taken up with the Grain Commission.
Mr. MeCRANEY:	Has the Government
under contemplation the establishment of a terminal elevator system under Government control? We have had this matter before the House on previous occasions and we in the West have had reason to believe that when the present Government came into power they would take immediate steps to operate elevators at Port Arthur, Fort William and the transfer points between those ports and the Atlantic seaboard. I would like to know from the hon. minister whether that policy is the policy of the Government, and whether they purpose carrying it out.


George Halsey Perley: We are building a large
elevator at Port Aithur at the present time for the purpose of controlling the rates, to a certain extent at all events, and so on. The further construction of elevators at Fort William has not been considered up to the present time.


Frank Oliver: I would like to know the reason for the increase in the fees mentioned in this resolution. Naturally, as the fees are a burden on the trade, it is our business to know why they are being increased.


George Halsey Perley: The increased fees suggested for the elevators and for the track buyers are for the purpose of paying the cost of printing the licenses, keeping up the office, distributiug the licenses, and so on. Under the present Act the fee is $2, but that has not yielded enough to pay for the cost of printing the licenses, and rules and regulations, and for the keeping of a proper record of them in the office. Hitherto the revenues have been administered through the Warehouse Commissioner's office, and the license fees were the only source of revenue. The result has been a large deficit every year, and it was thought that if the grain department is to pay its way, the license fees must be increased, or else the fees for the inspection and weighing of grain must be increased, and the Government do not think it would lie wise to increase the fees for weighing and inspection. It was thought that the elevators and the dealers in grain could pay this small increase without feeling it.


Frank Oliver: Is it the policy of the
Government, or of the department, to fix the fees at such a figure as shall carry the whole cost of the administration of the

Grain Act, or are the fees merely an incident in the provision for the cost?


George Halsey Perley: So far as the Government are concerned, we do not propose to fix the fees with the intention of entirely meeting the expenses of the Grain Commission. But the Grain Commissioners would like, as far as possible, to have their board placed on a self-sustaining basis, and as the $2 fee for licenses for country elevators and terminal elevators, and so on, seemed to be very small considering the large amount of business done, the board recommended that this -small increase be made.


Frank Oliver: Is it considered that these fees will be a substantial contribution towards the cost of administration?


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


Frank Oliver: What is the capacity of
the elevator that, is under construction at Fort William, and how soon will it be completed?


George Halsey Perley: I think the capacity is
three and a quarter million or three and a half million bushels, and under the contract-it is to be completed by the 15th or the 30th of September next. Speaking from memory, I think these aTe the terms of the contract.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I understood the minister to say that there was a provision in this Bill that if the fees did not amount to a sum sufficient to pay for the upkeep of the office, the person who owned the grain would pay the difference. Am I correct?


George Halsey Perley: Not exactly. If the
owners of a mill wish to get an inspector for themselves, the new provision is that the applicants shall make up the difference between the ordinary fees and the salary of that inspector whose services are required entirely for the use -of that mill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who has the authority to fit that difference?


George Halsey Perley: Application would be
made to the Board of Grain Commissioners, and if they thought the application was a reasonable one, they would allot a certain inspector to the mill on condition that the applicants would pay his ordinary salary.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and concurred in.


George Halsey Perley: I beg to move that this resolution be referred to the committee appointed to consider Bill No. 163, to amend the Canada Grain Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend think that he can proceed in this way with a resolution containing a money
275J
clause? It seems to me to be contrary to all the rules.


George Halsey Perley: That Bill came from the Senate, and I referred to the law offices of this House the question whether it was necessary to move by way of resolution in this House. They gave the opinion that it should be done in this way, and I moved, the resolution in accordance with that advice.


Wilfrid Laurier: The point I
raise for your consideration is this:	No
doubt this money clause has to be moved by resolution, but to refer it to a committee dealing with a Bill which has already passed the Senate seems to me to be rather against the rules.


Mr. SPEAKER:: My attention not having. been drawn to the matter, I would not be prepared to say offhand that this procedure is quite regular. If I had further time to look into the matter I would reach a conclusion.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Halsey Perley: I beg leave to withdraw
the motion I made to refer the resolution in connection with the Grain Bill to the committee which has been asked to deal with Bill No. 163.
Motion withdrawn.


RADIOTELEGRAPHY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 26, respecting Radiotelegraphy.-Mr. Hazen.
On section 4-certain passenger steamers to be equipped with apparatus; exceptions:
Wilfrid Laurier: I was not in the House when my hon. friend brought up this Bill. I understand it is simply to control of this radiotelegraphy.


Mr. HAZEN:: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
meaning of this exception?


John Douglas Hazen: I intend to propose an
amendment to the first line of this section, which reads ' from and after the first day of July, 1913.' I am going to ask that it be amended so as to read, ' from and after the first day of January, 1914.' It will be impossible for these vessels to get equipped with wireless before the first day of July next and it is proposed to extend the time until the first of January, 1914. When this Bill was introduced in November last we supposed that there would be very little delay in getting it through the House and under those circumstances we thought that the 1st of January, 1913, would be sufficient.

There was considerable discussion on two occasions on this Bill, it was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries and after a good deal of consideration they agreed to recommend the Bill in its present form.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the principal object of the Bill?


John Douglas Hazen: The Bill is made necessary in consequence of the increasing part that wireless telegraphy is playing everywhere. We have an Act now regarding radiotelegraphy, under which licenses are granted by the Minister of the Naval Service, and the provisions of which still remain in this Bill. The principal provision of the Bill is the compulsory equipment with wireless apparatus of three different classes of passsenger steamers. That is what the section now under consideration refers to. It provides that three classes of steamers shall be equipped with wireless: First, passenger steamers licensed to carry fifty or more persons that ply between ports more than two hundred miles apart; second, passenger steamers licensed to carry 250 or more persons plying betweeen ports more than ninety miles apart; and, third, passenger steamers that are licensed to carry 500 or more persons and plying between ports more than twenty miles apart. Another provision has reference to the forwarding and delivery of radio-telegrams by Canadian land lines and the employment of British subjects as operators at land stations. There is a penalty for the trans-misssion of a false distress call or for wilful interference. The Governor in Council is given power to fix the fee to be paid for licenses, to accede to any international convention with respect to wireless telegraphy and to make regulations to carry out the same. He is also empowered to make regulations for the censorship of radio-telegraph signals and messages. Power is given to the minister to classify stations and to specify what equipment the stations in each classification must have; to issue licenses for stations and to fix the period for which they shall be valid; to prescribe the form of the licenses and the conditions and restrictions they shall contain; to examine persons for operators' certificates, to prescribe the form of the examinations for these certificates and to prescribe what class of operator will be required to work at the different classes of stations; to specify the -watches to be kept at the different stations and the number of operators which shall comprise their staff; to make regulations for the inspection of all stations; to make regulations to govern the working of installations on ships within the territorial waters and to make regulations to govern the working of all stations in the Dominion with reference to Mr. HAZEN.
intercommunications. Power is given to His Majesty to assume possession of a station at any time and to work the same in the public service. Adequate penalties are prescribed for any violation of the different provisions of the new Act. With regard to the question of my right hon. friend as to the exceptions, I may say that that was fully considered by the committee. The exceptions aTe as to steamers calling at Canadian ports for bunker coal, provisions, or repairs, or from stress of weather. The reason for that exemption is obvious. Steamers plying on the rivers or inland waters other than the great lakes are also exempt. It is felt that steamers plying on rivers and being at all times practically within sight of land, could if an accident should occur, run ashore and provide for the safety of passengers. There is not the same necessity for these steamers being equipped with radio-telegraphy as oceangoing ships. Then steamers plying on Northumberland straits are exempt. They hardly ever lose sight of land; the land on each side is inhabited, there is not much fog as a rule, and the committee thought they should be exempted. Then steamers plying on the Georgian bay are exempt.


Wilfrid Laurier: For what
reason?


John Douglas Hazen: It was represented to the committee that boats plying on these waters are not financially able to bear the expense of this equipment. Most of them do not carry any passengers, and the boats, which do never go any great distance from land. Vessels plying on the lakes of Canada other than the great lakes are excepted. The steamers running along the shore from Toronto to Hamilton would be exempt, also the steamers from Toronto to Niagara which practically go round the shore and are never more than seven miles out. The shore i3 inhabited, and the committee felt there was little danger in allowing these boats to operate without having wireless telegraphy.
On section 7-penalty for sending false messages:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The penalty provided is not exceeding $500 in costs and six months' imprisonment. Is not that drastic?


John Douglas Hazen: It is very mild compared with the penalty in the United States, which is not exceeding $2,000 or five years' in-prisonment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, but the word is ' and ' in this case, and there is no alternative but fine and imprisonment.


John Douglas Hazen: That word should be ' or.' My hon. friend is quite right; we will amend it "by substituting the -word 'or' for 'and.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to call
the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to section 4 read in connection with section 9. The precaution is taken in section 9 that no proceedings can be taken under that section except by order of the minister. The criminal proceedings under section 4 are even more serious than those covered by section 9. I would suggest that the same_ provision be made with regard to this section as in section 9,-no proceedings to be taken except by order of the minister.


John Douglas Hazen: I think it would be almost better to strike it out of section 9. For, after all, if these proceedings are only to _ be taken under the approval of the minister, the person who violates one of these provisions will resort to all sorts of expedients to have political pressure brought to bear upon the minister to prevent the order being given for the taking of proceedings. It would be better to let each case stand on its merits.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to see
some discretion left with the minister, because circumstances might arise where this discretion might be very important. When the Quebec Centenary came off, a regular fleet of steamers came in from the United States with passengers desiring to see the sights. Steamers making such a trip might often have apparatus not in accordance with our law, and so they could not leave port until they paid a fine. I am only pointing out that there may be cases in which it would be well that the minister should have discretion in these matters.


John Douglas Hazen: This Bill was before a
committee of which both my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) and my hon. friend from Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) were members, and was fully discussed by that committee, lit may be that the suggestion of the last speaker was made there. For my own part, I should be opposed to that suggestion. I do not think the proceedings should be taken without good reason, and I do not think discretionary power should be left with the minister. The question whether a man should be subject to a penalty under this law should be decided by a magistrate. I would far sooner see the Bill left in its present state. If, after we get working under the Bill we find reason for varying this provision, I would not hesitate to come back to Parliament and ask that the change be made. I would leave it as it is, especially as it has been gone into by a special committee.
Bill, as amended, reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Customs-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports of the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $3,125,000.
['I handed in the departmental answer. I will make inquiries as to how the mistake was made.']
Wilfrid Laurier: There is an
increase of $600,000 in this item.


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: Owing to the unprecedented increase in the revenue last year, it was found necessary to employ very many new officers at the different ports throughout the Dominion. The total number of new officers thus employed was 477, at salaries aggregating $405,985. The increases of salary to deserving officers amounted to $152,110; the number of officials receiving these increases being 1,355. The increase in payments for overtime amounted to $12,340, and the increase in contingencies, cartage, &o., $49,085. This makes a total increase of $619,520.


Wilfrid Laurier: These additional officers, I imagine, were chiefly in the larger ports ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many in Montreal ?


John Dowsley Reid: There were forty-eight in
Montreal. Though the greater number of the increases were in the large ports, the smaller ports had to have additional officers in many cases.


Mr. PARDEE:: What class of small
ports ?


John Dowsley Reid: For instance, there was one at Berlin, one at Bowmanville, six at Brantford, one at Brockville, one at Fort William, seven at Hamilton, three at Kingston, five at London, one at Midland, thirteen at Niagara Falls, one .at Sudbury, sub-port to North Bay, one at Huntsville, sub-port to Orillia, twelve at Ottawa.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. member appointed seven new men at Hamilton, six at Brantford and thirteen at Niagara Falls. What is the increase in revenue at these points which necessitated that increase in stall?


John Dowsley Reid: At Brantford in the fiscal
year 1911-12 the revenue was $529,787. In the last fiscal year it was $604,618, an increase of $74,829. In Hamilton there was an increase of $628,204 in the last fiscal year, and at Niagara Falls an increase of $146,848, that is, from $318,505 in 1911-12 to $465,353 in the last fiscal year.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would the men at Niagara Palls have the same duties to perform in the last year as they had in the year when they collected $318,000?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a manifesting port
and owing to the general increase in business throughout the country there would be much more work to be done in the manifesting branch and of course there was a great increase in the revenue throughout the Dominion.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: How many men had you there in 1911-12?


John Dowsley Reid: We had thirty-three in the
previous year anu now we have forty-six.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What was the increase in the amount of manifesting?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say that unless I had the books of the port before me.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think the fact is that
some few holes have been filled up with people who wanted positions at Niagara 'Falls. It is extraordinary that thirty-three men could collect $318,000 in 1911-12 and that forty-six men were required in 1913-14 when there was only $120,000 additional revenue. It looks as if the minister was taking more care to make new appointments than to look after the collection of the revenue.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not appoint a man at any port without a recommendation from the inspector or from the collector in case the inspector had not visited the port.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What were the names and salaries of the thirteen men appointed at Niagara Falls?


John Dowsley Reid: The names of the officers
are:	Burton, $800; Byers, $1,200; Chamberlain, $800; Day, $80u; Emery, $800; Fisher, $800; Gardiner, $750; Hanna, $800; Hern, $700; Pattison, $800; Prest, $800; Shriner, $800; Thompson, $800.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many officers were appointed to replace that old Grit at Marie-ville, whom my hon. friend dismissed?


John Dowsley Reid: Just one man.


Frank Oliver: Have customs ports been established at Athabaska Landing and at Eason?


John Dowsley Reid: At Athabaska Landing, not
at Edson.


Frank Oliver: When was it established
at Athabaska Landing?


John Dowsley Reid: An Order in Council was
passed some time ago to take effect on the 1st of May. No one has yet been appointed to the position but an officer of the department is there now prepared to open the [DOT]office.
Mr. REID (Grenville)


Frank Oliver: What will the salary be?


John Dowsley Reid: The relieving officer who is
going there gets $1,200 per annum, I think.


Frank Oliver: What will be the salary
of the officer to be appointed?


John Dowsley Reid: That has not been determined yet. We are simply sending a relieving officer to open the port.


Frank Oliver: Will buildings be erected?


John Dowsley Reid: We are sending an inspector there to rent a building that will be suitable.


Frank Oliver: I am very glad that a
port is being opened there, as it is a very important shipping point. It is the point to which practically all the traffic to Peace river, Athabaska, and Mackenzie river now goes. It goes to Athabaska Landing by rail, and is there transferred to steamers, and since the railroad has been completed to that point customs accommodation has become very desirable. There should be facilities in the way of buildings, for the officer who may be appointed will certainly have a considerable amount of work, and he should receive reasonable remuneration. I want to impress upon the minister the fact that it is not by any means an ordinary outport, but an extraordinary one, and one which will call for a good deal of service. It is very desirable that there should be no delay in passing goods through the customs there. Part of the freight which leaves Athabaska Landing goes nearly to the Arctic ocean. Only one trip is made in the year, and it is in every way desirable that the freight reaching the landing should leave on its long journey with the least possible delay. The same remark applies to Peace river, where the freight is taken up stream by steamers and over portages, and some times a little delay, in the fall particularly, means a very great handicap to the people.	_	.
I wish to draw the ministers attention to the desirability of establishing a customs outport at Edson, which is on the Grand Trunk Pacific and is a divisional point west of Edmonton. The particular need for accommodation at Edson is that at that point there is a direct waggon and sleigh road to Peace river, and while the freight generally goes by way of Athabaska Landing, there is a great deal of settlers' traffic which leaves the road at Edson, particularly in the winter time. Edson is practically the railway point for the Grand Prairie settlement, distant about 200 miles, and as people from the States shipping right through would ship by rail to Edson, and take their goods off there, it would be very desirable if they could get customs accommodation. In addition there are tributary to Edson a nnm-

ber of coal mines. There is a branch railroad fifty miles in length [DOT]which leaves the Grand Trunk railway at Biekerdike, a few stations west of Edson. There are three or four mines in operation on that branch now, and another mine is in full operation about fifty miles further west, on the main line. Edson is the nearest business point to these coal mines. In view of these facts, that Edson is the starting point for the Grand Prairie settlement, both in summer and winteT, but particularly in winter, that it is the business point nearest the coal mines, that it is a divisional point on the Grand Trunk Pacific and very close to that will be a divisional point on the Canadian Northern railway as well, I would urge very strongly that the facilities of a customs outport be given to Edson. I do not say it is less important than Athabaska Landing, possibly it is less important, but it is much more important than many other points, which have been given facilities for a customs service.


John Dowsley Reid: I realize that Athabaska
Landing is likely to be a very important port, and for that reason, we sent an officer who had had considerable experience to open it up in order that every facility would be given to the importers. I am under the impression that before very long we will need another officer there. With reference to Edson, I shall make a note of what the non. member said and look into it. My hon. friend will remember that we have opened several offices in that district during the last year. We are trying to open as many as we can with the amount voted. We have opened several around Edmonton, and I feel that if another office were to be opened, it would probably be further west of Edmonton, on the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Frank Oliver: I am sure that if the hon. minister chooses to make inquiry he will find that what I have said in regard to Edson is absolutely correct. It is a stategic point which renders customs facilities more desirable in the public interest than at many of the other points I have mentioned, although the facilities granted at these points are very acceptable. In regard to the Athabaska Landing. I am glad to know that the minister is posted as to the necessities there, and I would simply urge upon him that it is not in the same class as the ordinary country customs outport.


John Dowsley Reid: I realize that.


Frank Oliver: It is a place at which he might very well give ample accommodation because the necessity for it is there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister decided anything with reference to the rental claimed by the officer at Marieville about
which I spoke to him some time ago. My hon. friend from Chambly-Verchkres (Mr. Rainville) knows that the old gentleman at Marieville is a highly respected citizen who left his own place to discharge the duties of customs officer at Marieville. He has been subject to some expense, and I would like to know if the hon. minister has reached any decision in regard to his claim for rental.
Mr. RE'ID: I looked into that matter as soon as the hon. memlber brought it to my attention, and I found that the claim was for five years' rental, I do not see how we can pay five years' rental. We are paying rental now at Marieville. If the gentleman would send in an account for the last year, I would recommend that it be paid. I do not see how I could very well go back farther than the year during which I have been in office.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P. E. I.):: I wish to ask the minister on what basis or principle the officers at the different ports are paid.


John Dowsley Reid: We pay some of them on the basis of revenue, and at other places where there is no revenue and Where we have officers for the preventive service the salaries are fixed in accordance with the work done.


Samuel Hughes: -Then the salaries are based unon revenue and partly upon the work that is done?


John Dowsley Reid: In the preventive service
there may be no revenue at all. There will be an officer for the entry and clearance of vessels.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister give me the particulars in regard to two or three places?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: What is the amount of
revenue at Montague?


John Dowsley Reid: $385.94 for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 1912.


Samuel Hughes: The number of vessels
entering and clearing?


John Dowsley Reid: Inwards 130; outwards 3;
railway reports inwards 91, outwards 5; sea-going vessels arrived 3, departed 3; coasting and inland navigation vessels, 199 arrived and 198 departed.


Samuel Hughes: Does that include the steamer that calls two or three times a week?


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose so, as that boat
would require a clearance.


Samuel Hughes: What are the salaries
there?


John Dowsley Reid: There is one officer, Sam
Mutch, sub-collector who receives $400.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister give me the same particulars with respect to Souris?


John Dowsley Reid: Eevenue $2,470.88; vessels
inwards 144, outwards 15; railway reports inwards 152, outwards 3; sea-going vessels arrived 42, departed 43; coasting and inland navigation, arrive 254, departed 261; salary paid to the officer, A. O. Currie, $700.


Samuel Hughes: What does the preventive officer receive?


John Dowsley Reid: $200.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister give me the same particulars in regard to Georgetown?


John Dowsley Reid: Eevenue $220.43; vessels
entered inwards 82, outwards 8; railway reports inwards 72, outwards 13; sea-going vessels 17 arrived, 11 departed; coasting and inland navigation, 320 arrived and 326 departed.


Samuel Hughes: There must be some
mistake about that.
M*r. EEID: These figures are taken from the official report. The salary of the officer, Charles Owen, is $700.


Samuel Hughes: How many officers are
there at that port?


John Dowsley Reid: There is Charles Owen, the
sub-collector. Then, T. G. Hession was employed as preventive officer for twelve days at $12 and A. H. McLeod for .sixty-eight days at $68.


Samuel Hughes: Has there been any
change during the present year?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I do not know of any change unless it has taken place lately.
Mr. HUGHES. There has been a change made.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no memorandum
just now indicating a change but if my hon. friend has any information he might tell me if there has been one.
Mr. Thomas W. Morrissey has been appointed collector of customs.


John Dowsley Reid: Instead of Mr. Owen?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: That may have happened
since I have had this memorandum prepared.


Samuel Hughes: I know that Mr. Morrissey has been appointed and I understand that Mr. Owen has been superannuated.


John Dowsley Reid: It may have been done
within a few days.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings. P.E.I.).


Samuel Hughes: I wanted to know really what it was costing you to collect the revenue there. I think there must be some mistake in the number of vessel given. They must be fishing boats.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the official report
that I have here.


Samuel Hughes: I do not doubt the minister's word at all but the report is not up to date. When was that report prepared?	.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the report which was sent in by the collector at Georgetown.


Samuel Hughes: At what time?


John Dowsley Reid: Up to the end of the fiscal year 1912.


Samuel Hughes: Can I get that information?
Mr. EElt): I will get whatever information the hon. gentleman wants to-morrow.


Samuel Hughes: What salaries are paid
the customs officers at Georgetown; what is Mr. Owen's superannuation allowance, and what is Mr. Morrissey's salary?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What salary is paid the officer appointed about fifteen months ago at Spry Bay, Halifax county?


John Dowsley Reid: $900 a year.


William Findlay Maclean: What is he supposed to do?


John Dowsley Reid: He is a special officer to look after smuggling.


William Findlay Maclean: What district?


John Dowsley Reid: Along the coast for quite a distance.


William Findlay Maclean: To whom does he
report what work he does?


John Dowsley Reid: To Mr. Wilson, the chief preventive officer.


William Findlay Maclean: Has he done any work?


John Dowsley Reid: He made some seizures; he has made his salary already.


William Findlay Maclean: What seizures?


John Dowsley Reid: I remember it coming to my attention that he had made a seizure when I was called upon to sign some papers.


William Findlay Maclean: Do you say a seizure
was made by this officer?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: With all due deference
to the minister, 1 do not see on what ground he can justify the appointment of this official. A new office was created for him. He lives in a place where it would be impossible almost for him to perform any service

in the way of prevention which could possibly he a return for his salary. The minister will find that if he made any seizure he was associated with some superior officer. I cannot help but think that the creation of this office and the appointment of this official was a purely political move. There was no necessity for it in the ordinary course of business, and I say the man cannot earn his salary, will not earn it, and does not propose to.


Mr. LAW:: Two appointments have been made at the port of Yarmouth by the minister, one to replace an official who died and the other to replace an official who had been superannuated. The former officials had discharged their duty faithfully for many years and the new appointees are Mr. J. W. Boyd and Mr. Arthur Rogers. I have nothing to say against the appointment of these gentlemen, particularly Mr. Rogers who has been a business man in the community for a number of years and will no doubt make a first-class official. Neither do I find fault with the salary of $1,000 a year paid these gentlemen, which in my opinion is little enough. But there are three other preventive officers at the port who have given yeais of faithful service: Mr. H. C. Churchill, Mr. Andrew Kirk, and Mr. J. B. Pot'aier and two of them are receiving only $800 a year and the other $850. Does the minister intend to raise the salary of these gentlemen to the same amount as that of the r.ew appointees?


John Dowsley Reid: The gentlemen mentioned are receiving extra pay; Mr. Churchill receives $850 a year, and he was paid extra $139.20, while Kirk receives fp800 a year, and got $170 extra pay.


Bowman Brown Law: In reply to a question of
mine on the 18th December the minister stated that Mr. Cann was paid a salary of $1,150. Mr. Cann is a clerk in the office; he is a fir.st-class man; you will never get a better man there. Mr. Churchill's salary the minister told me was $850. Mr. Kirk's $800, Mr. Boyd's $1,000, Mr. Rogers' $1,000 and Mr. Pothier's $800. Messrs. Rogers and Boyd wifi no doubt receive extra pay for overtime the same as Messrs. Pothier and Kirk. Mr. Thomas Bowen the former officer has died, and Mr. William McGill has been superannuated.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Bowen was receiving
$1,150 and the officer appointed in his place only gets $1,000; Mr. McGill was receiving $1,200 and the officer appointed in his place only gets $1,000.


Bowman Brown Law: Yes, hut Mr. Bowen was in the department for thirty years and Mr. McGill for thirty-four years. I am not finding fault with the salaries paid the new officials for I think $1,000 a year is little
enough, but I leave it to the fair play of the Minister of Customs to say whether these three gentlemen who nave had long service should not be placed at least on the same footing as the new officials. I hope the minister is not making that difference because the new men are political friends of his and the others have been Liberals in the past.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the Liberal
officials in the Customs Department all over Canada will agree that I have treated them fairly in the matter of increases last year. There is supposed to be a uniform salary for landing waiter's work and the clerks in the office get slightly higher salaries, but they do not get overtime. For that reason it is very difficult to increase the salaries of the landing waiters, say at Yarmouth, and not do it throughout the Dominion. I have been trying to increase the salaries wherever I can, but the hon. gentleman knows that it takes a lot of money to increase them throughout the Dominion. I personally have _ always taken the ground that the salaries everywhere are very small. Last year we gave increases to the extent of $152,000. So far as we can, we want to give some more increases this year. I shall be very glad to give increases where they are deserved, and where we have the money to do so.


Bowman Brown Law: I have' been trying to get
into the minister's head that Mr. Boyd is a preventive officer who attends on the boats as they come in from Boston twice a week, or every day in the summer time. He receives extra pay the same as Mr. Kirk and Mr. Pothier. I maintain that the Minister of Customs should put these three gentlemen on the same footing as the others. He will not be overpaying these two new officials and will only be doing justice to the old and efficient servants.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Bowen, the officer who
died, was receiving pay for over-time too, so that Mr. Rogers who was appointed in his place was appointed at $50 a year less than Mr. Bowen was getting, and he is doing the same work. I do not see that it is unfair to appoint him at a salary of$l,000.


Bowman Brown Law: I am not complaining that
it is unfair. I maintain that the salaries that the Minister of Customs is paying Mr. Boyd and Mr. Rogers are not too high but, when Mr. Boyd is getting $1,000 and other preventive officers who have held their positions for some years are only getting $800 or $850,1 think that the minister should put them all on the same basis.


John Dowsley Reid: Their salaries will be considered with the other increases which we are giving.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will the minister give me the total customs receipts for the last fiscal year?


John Dowsley Reid: I have only the unofficial statement here. The commissioner tells me that the official figures will be a little larger. The total revenue up to March 31, 1913 was $113,817,578.29; for the previous year it was $86,397,943.70; showing an increase of $27,419,634.59.


Mr GUTHRIE:: 
John Dowsley Reid: The additional officers in the inside service are twelve.


Hugh Guthrie: Is Mr. Breadner one of these?


John Dowsley Reid: No, Mr. Breadner is in the outside service.


Hugh Guthrie: Are these twelve for the inside service appointed by Civil Service examination?


John Dowsley Reid: They are appointed through the Civil Service Commission. The Commissioner of Customs goes to the Civil Service Commission and gets those to be appointed to the inside service.


Hugh Guthrie: Then, their salaries are not part of this increase of $600,000?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Hugh Guthrie: That makes this increase all the more glaring.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman was present when I explained that this was for officers appointed throughout the whole Dominion.

Mr.'GUTHRIE: I was here. But I cannot see why it should take 477 new officers to collect $27,000,000 of additional revenue. I can understand that by following the plan he seems to have adopted in Welland and Niagara Falls the minister could spend a good deal more than $600,000 throughout the Dominion. But the minister's experience in this House, for he has had a long career as a member of Parliament, and also as a professional man and businessman,, for I believe he has been actively engaged in business, must have shown him that there is no justification for any increased expenditure as he now proposes. As I have stated, the percentage of cost ought to go down, and as a matter of fact it is going up. That shows there is something radically wrong about the system. I submit that the difficulty is that the minister has over-manned his department very largely with what I think we may call political heelers. I have no doubt he has been hard pressed to find places for the many applicants who have thronged about him. He has given way, and so has increased the cost of collecting the customs revenue. Unless he can give some assurance that in the future he is going to restore the old proportion and revive the old descending scale as between revenue and cost of collection, I do not think this House should agree to such an increase unless more justification is forthcoming. This increase, I contend, is largely due to the making of political appointments and providing jobs for political heelers at the expense of the Government.


John Howard Sinclair: I have a case in a small way in my own constituency that may explain the system the minister has adopted. In the little town of Mulgrave there was a preventive officer by the name of Hattie, who was receiving $75 a year for duties that were practically nominal. The minister dismissed Mr. Hattie and appointed in his place a very worthy old gentleman who has been a faithful friend of his party for many years Mr. David Murray, at a salary of $400, to do, I presume, the same work that Mr. Hattie was doing, and was glad to do, for $75. I have no doubt that appointment is political-it cannot be anything else. I have no complaint to make about Mr. Murray getting the appointment. He is a fine old gentleman, and a friend of my own. But there can be no reason that I can see for the increase from $75 to $400 for almost nominal duties. I would like to know from the minister if other small preventive officers in little harbours along the coast who are now being paid from $75 to $150 a year are to be increased to $400, as in the case of Mr. Murray. If my hon. friend intended to give a general increase, I could understand why he should give $400 to Mr. Murray; but, if
the others are to be kept at the same salary, the only explanation that can be given of such a case is that it is political.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Murray was dismissed
some years ago when the Liberals came into power, and, as far as I can understand, without cause, and we simply appointed him on the same salary as he was receiving when he was dismissed.


John Howard Sinclair: That is not the case.
Mr. Keating is the customs officer at Mulgrave who was appointed to Mr. Murray's place and he is still in the same position. Mr. Hattie, preventive officer at Mulgrave, was getting $75 and he was dismissed and Mr. Murray put in his place at a salary of $400.


John Dowsley Reid: The case of Mr. Hattie was
investigated by Mr. Duchemin, who found him guilty of political partisanship. I suppose they should have dismissed Mr. Keating also and put Mr. Murray back in his old position.


John Howard Sinclair: No, I do not think so, because you could not get any evidence of political partisanship against Mr. Keating. Mr. Keating is a good officer who has filled his position very well and cannot be accused of political partisanship. If you could have found any case against Mr. Keating probably this would not have happened. I mention this as a sample of the way the minister is conducting the business on the coast and the only explanation I can find of his action in asking such a large increase in the amount for salaries is that he desires to reward his political friends.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: As I understand, Mr. Murray fifteen or sixteen years ago occupied the position of collector of customs. He was dismissed by the Liberal Government after investigation. He was in receipt of $400. Since this Government came into power, they investigated the case of a minor official, Mr. Hattie, who was receiving $75. I suppose that salary was quite sufficient for the work he was performing. He was dismissed and Mr. Murray was put in his place to do his work, but instead of getting the same salary as Mr. Hattie was getting Mr. Murray was given the salary which attached to the position of collector of customs which he held fifteen years ago. Is that what the minister said?


John Dowsley Reid: I said Mr. Murray was
forced to resign, and he could not get his superannuation.


John Howard Sinclair: I did not think that
Mr. Murray was very fairly treated at the time. I tried to get his superannuation allowances arranged for.


John Dowsley Reid: He was on the superannua-
. tion list and I think the people in the vicinity felt that he was hardly fairly treated and the salary of $75 for an official there is really


William Pugsley: That is all Mr. Hattie
got.


John Dowsley Reid: But it was too small for an existence and Mr. Murray was re-appointed at probably a little higher salary than Mr. Hattie had but he had been unfairly treated, he had lost his superannuation for fifteen or sixteen years and he is getting up in years.


William Pugsley: He got a salary five
times what Mr. Hattie had been getting.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member would feel that $75 is not a fair salary to any man doing preventive service. At all events, Mr. Murray really had a fair claim against the Government for having lost his superannuation and we felt that we should give him probably a little more salary than we could have got another officer for in order to try to do justice to him for losing his superannuation.
Mr. SINCLA-lR:	It would have been
better to give him his superannuation than to take the course that has been taken. If there was any injustice done in the old case and he was entitled to superannuation, he should have got his superannuation.


John Dowsley Reid: It was impossible to grant
the super annua uon when his resignation was in.
With reference to the situation at Niagara Falls, I may say to my hon. friend that we had no person in the county of Welland asking that officials in Welland county or at Niagara Falls should be dismissed. No investigations were held there.


Hugh Guthrie: Were there no dismissals there?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is there anything new in this.


John Dowsley Reid: With new country being opened up we require more officers.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. minister makes up this item on a basis of $494,000 for contingencies.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year we employed 477 new officers at an aggregate salary of $205,985. Then, the increase of salaries to deserving officers amounted to $152,110. That was distributed among 1,355 officers. The increase in payments for overtime service to additional officers was $12,340. The increase in contingencies rent, &c., at various ports amounted to $49,085, making a total of $619,520.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is all for last year?


John Dowsley Reid: For the fiscal year ending Alarch last.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then is the $600,000 to be voted for next year additional?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is aware that we had a vote last year, and the supplementaries for this year amount to $600,000, so that the $600,000 we ask for is what the salaries were last year up to March 31.


William Pugsley: The item $2,525,000
covers supplementaries as well does it not? If you are right, there is an increase of $1,200,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: There is a great deal more than $600,000.


William Pugsley: That item should certainly embrace the supplementaries as

well as the main estimates for last year. You are adding $600,000 this year in addition to what you had last year.


John Dowsley Reid: The officers that we have added account for $619,000, and the increase last year amounted to $600,000.


William Pugsley: The total last year, as appears in the first column, which includes supplementaries, was $2,525,000. This year what is asked for is $3,125,000, which is an increase of $600,000. Does it mean that since this Government has come into office there has been an increase of 50 per cent in the cost of collecting customs?


John Dowsley Reid: We had $200,000 in the supplementaries that we passed a few days ago.


William Pugsley: That is all in the first column.


John Dowsley Reid: No, the supplementaries were passed only a short time ago.


William Pugsley: It should be in that column.
. Mr. REID: These estimates were prepared last November, and the supplementary estimates for 1913 were passed only a short time ago.


William Pugsley: Then this item leaves an entirely erroneous impression. The first column is intended to show to the committee the total expenditure under this item last year in the main estimates, the supplementaries and the extra supplementaries, so that the committee can make a comparison between the cost of running that particular branch of that department last year and the estimated cost for the current year. If the first column does not show the total expenditure for last year we ought to have some explanation.


John Dowsley Reid: These estimates were prepared last October. They were estimates of the expenditure expected up to March 31, 1913. Then we brought down the supplementary estimates for 1912-13, which included the item of $200,000.	.


William Pugsley: We ought to have an
explanation in respect to each item. Unless we have a memorandum in each case, we can form no accurate judgment as to the increased cost.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that has always
been the case when estimates have been brought down early in the session and supplementary estimates for the previous year have been subsequently brought down. I had occasion to call attention to this very matter. We had to take the supplementary estimates and make a computation ourselves in order to come to a proper conclusion as to what comparison should be made.


William Pugsley: The difficulty would be obviated if the minister would give us accurately the amount of each item.


Robert Laird Borden: I think he can do that.


Hugh Guthrie: On page 92 of last year's estimates, in the column headed 1912-13, it is stated that the main estimates were $2,425,000. Then in the supplementary estimates, which were recently passed, the Customs item for salaries, contingencies &c., was $285,000.


John Dowsley Reid: The $100,000 in the supplementaries of last year makes up the $2,525,000.


William Pugsley: The	item $2,525,000
does not include everything for last year.


John Dowsley Reid: It includes the supplementary estimates that were voted a month ago.


William Pugsley: Where does the minister get the $100,000?


John Dowsley Reid: In the main estimates there was $2,425,000 and in the supplementaries $100,000, making $2,525,000. Then, this year we have $200,000 for salaries, contingencies and so on, which makes $2,725,000.


William Pugsley: What was the amount
in 1910-11?


William Pugsley: You are asking for
nearly $900,000 more than was asked in the estimates for 1911-12.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman looks at the revenue for the year 1911-12 he will find that it amounted to $73,000,000.


William Pugsley: I am not talking about the revenue; let us get the facts with regard to the expense first.


John Dowsley Reid: Take each year; in the first year $73,000,000 was the revenue.


William Pugsley: Am I right in the
figures that the cost during the current year is nearly $900,000 greater than it was in 1911-12 ?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know; I have not the figures before me.


William Pugsley: If that is not the case the minister should be able to tell us.


John Dowsley Reid: I can get the information
for the hon. gentleman. I have only the information here for the	two
years 1912-13 and 1913-14. The hon. member asked me for the figures for the year previous and I will be glad to get the information. In the year about which the hon. gentleman was speaking the revenue was $73,000,000, and in the year following it was $86,000,000. There waS an increase

of $27,000,000 last year. If the revenue is going to increase we must have a larger staff and the cost of collection will be greater.


William Pugsley: Not in the same proportion.


John Dowsley Reid: The officers are all asking
for increases, and the increases granted each year are added to the cost of collection.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a small item,
only about $150,000.


John Dowsley Reid: There has been increases
during two or three years, and the hon. gentleman will have to add these increases when comparing the cost of collecting the revenue of to-day with what it was three years ago. We must give larger salaries to customs officers and to officers on the staff if we are going to keep them. Some of our best officers have left the service during the past year on account of the salaries that we were paying. I think that the cost of collection is being kept as low as it possibly can be, taking into consideration the increased revenue that is coming in.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does the hon. gentleman admit that there is an increase of $900,000?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I will not admit it unless I have the figures.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Will the minister undertake to look up the figures and let us have them ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we can take
the report of the Department of Customs for some of the figures, anyway. I find on page 12 of the Report of the Department of Customs that the total amount of the revenue for the year ended March 31, 1911, was $73,312,367.59. For the same year, in the estimates which I have in my hand, page 88, the expenditure was $1,950,000, or the percentage of expense of collection of the customs revenue was 2-98 per cent. Take the next year from the same authority. For the year ended March 31, 1912, the total revenue from customs was $87,576,036.52. The appropriation for the year was $2,225,000, and the percentage of cost of collection was 2 -78 per cent. Then, for last year the appropriation was $2,425,000, with a supplementary estimate of $100,000, which I do not happen to have, and a further supplementary estimate, which is shown on page 9 of last year's supplementaries, of $285,000. The point I made at the outset was that in the present year the total customs revenue is about $113,000,000, and the percentage of cost of collection is about 31 or 3i per cent.


John Dowsley Reid: The revenue was $115,039,602.
Mr. REID (Grenville)


Hugh Guthrie: I took it down as

Mr. REID I said that was not quite official but I nave had the figure handed to rae since.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, the percentage of cost will be about three and one-quarter per cent. The increase is very marked when you look at the amount and, if these figures show anything, they show that m the last few years the cost of collection, salaries, contingencies and expenses, has gone up over $900,000, or $1,200,000. I cannot quite figure out in my own mind how these supplementaries are worked in. I thought they all showed in these estimates before me now. If they do not I do not know why they do not. This statement before us only shows that in 1912-1913 there was an appropriation of $2,525,000, but as the minister says, there was a supplementary of $285,000. Then he proposes for this year an appropriation of $3,125,000 for the same item or an increase of $600,000. Are we to have more supplementaries in addition to the vote proposed for this year and if so that would make the increase still greater. Would the minister say whether this would be final or whether there would be supplementaries?


John Dowsley Reid: If we have to give any more increases there will have to be supplementaries.


William Pugsley: Or appoint more officials.


John Dowsley Reid: Or appoint more officials.
We are opening more ports, the revenue has increased from the time of hon. gentlemen opposite by sixty per cent.


William Pugsley: And the pressure to appoint becomes greater.


John Dowsley Reid: No, we are not appointing
officials unless the inspectors report that we must have more officials to collect the revenue and do the necessary work at the different ports.


Hugh Guthrie: I understood the minister to say that he had 477 additional officers last year. Were they not paid out of the appropriation of $2,525,000 and the supplementary vote of $285,000?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, they were paid out of
those votes.


Mr GUTHRIE:: What are you going to
do with this $600,000 additional that you are asking for now?


John Dowsley Reid: More ports, more salaries,
more officers.


Hugh Guthrie: We have no particulars of that so far.


John Dowsley Reid: There have been very much larger increase than we expected, and this year, if these increases go on, we will certainly require even more than we have now. If the revenue continues to increase and if we .grant increases to deserving officers, we must have a larger vote in order to pay the staff necessary to perform the duty.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not object to the moderate increases made last year by the minister in the salaries of officials, I think they were very proper and they would be proper again this year, but it only took about $150,000 to do that. Another increase of salaries may take $175,000, but how he makes up a total of $600,000 on that single item I cannot see. He may guess at it, but surely he must have some data.


John Dowsley Reid: We had 470 new officials last year.


Hugh Guthrie: Their pay was included in the $2,525,000 and the $285,000 supple-entaries voted last year.


John Dowsley Reid: Some of these officers have
only been on for a month or two months or three months and so on.


Hugh Guthrie: It still is a fact that in two years you have increased the cost of collecting the customs revenue about $900,000. It looks like an extraordinary increase when it should be a decrease.


Mr. ARTHURS:: According to the figures given by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) himself, there was $40,000,000 more collected for an increased expenditure of $900,000.


Mr. HEPBURN:: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Guthrie) is mixed in his figures. He says that in 1910 the total revenue collected was $87,776,000 and the customs staff cost that year $2,225,000 or 2.7 per cent of the collection. Now, last year the customs revenue collected amounted to $115,000,000 and it cost $2,800,000 to collect. If the hon. member figures on that he will find that there is a decrease in the percentage of cost of collection rather than an increase.


Mr. KYTE:: Who is the present preventive officer at Red Island, Richmond county, N.S.?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no officer there.


Hugh Guthrie: Last year the total on which the percentage is figured (estimates, page 95) was $3,070,000, in addition to which there was $285,000 in the supplementary estimates. This year the total is $3,830,000, or an increase of $760,000. Last year the percentage was 2.78 and this year it is 3.24 if computed upon receipts of $115,000,000.


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman is mistaken; he is taking the figures for this year at $115,000,000, and he should charge against that sum the estimates of last year, $2,070,000.


Hugh Guthrie: I have been figuring on the $115,000,000, which was collected up to the 31st of March last; I can only take the figures before me. The greater the revenue the more cheaply it should be collected proportionately. That has been the rule since Confederation with the exception of two or three years. It decreased from six per cent to 2.78, and now it is going up again under this new Conservative Administration. If the minister would assure the Houise that there will be no supplementaries this year, his statement may be correct, but will he give such an assurance as that?


George Perry Graham: I hardly think he will.


John Howard Sinclair: What change has been made at New Glasgow, N.S.?


John Dowsley Reid: We have appointed J. M. Bailey, salary $1,200 and C. A. Cameron, salary $900.


John Howard Sinclair: You dismissed an officer named Kavanagh.


John Dowsley Reid: He was appointed after
September 21, 1911.


John Howard Sinclair: The reason given for
the dismissal of Kavanagh was that there was not sufficient employment for him. But after dismissing Kavanagh who was getting much smaller salary than either of the new appointees, the minister appointed Cameron at $900 a year and Bailey at $1,200 a year, although there was not enough work for Kavanagh to do. That is another explanation why we are asked for such a large amount of expenditure in the Customs Department.


John Dowsley Reid: Kavanagh was dismissed because he was appointed some time after the Government was defeated on September 21.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister is not correct in that. Mr. Kavanagh was in the office months prior to that date. I do not know whether or not his appointment was by Order in Council. If the minister will look over the documents relating to Kavanagh, I am sure he will find the statement that Kavanagh was relieved from duty because there was not sufficient employment for him in the office. Why it takes two men to do the work that was not sufficient for one, puzzles me,


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the minister consider it a sufficient ground for dismissal
8711 .

that a man was appointed after the elections of 1911 and before the present Government came into power?


John Dowsley Reid: That was what was done by my predecessor in 1896.


William F. Carroll: Is that the policy of
the present Government?


John Dowsley Reid: When I do not consider a
man's services satisfactory, I let him go.


William F. Carroll: I would like to ask the minister why he dismissed Mr. Joseph Macdonald, customs officer at Sydney?


John Dowsley Reid: He was appointed the day
before the former Government went out of office. That is the reason why he was dismissed.


William F. Carroll: Had the minister anything against the services of Mr. Macdonald?


John Dowsley Reid: He was not in the department long enough for me to know much about him.


William F. Carroll: This man could not be accused of offensive partisanship, because he was appointed subsequent to the 21st-of September, 1911, and before the present Government came into power.


John Dowsley Reid: He was appointed acting
officer during the pleasure of the minister.


William F. Carroll: It must be the policy
of the (Government to dismiss persons who were appointed subsequent to the 21st of September, 1911, and before the present Government came into power. Is that correct in Mr. Macdonald's case?
Mr.' REID:	He was an acting officer
appointed during the pleasure of the minister.


William F. Carroll: The minister had better look up his files and verify that, because I think he will find that Mr. Macdonald was appointed by Order in Council.


John Dowsley Reid: No, he was not.


Mr. HENDERSON:: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) dwelt for a considerable time on a statement which he made that the percentage of cost for collection of revenue in 1912 was 2.78, and he asserted that the percentage had increased in the next year to about 3.25 per cent. I am not able to discuss that because I have not the official reports on which we can rely and without which we are almost always apt to get into trouble. I do not know how the hon. member made up his figures, and I do not dispute his calculations. I have the official returns for 1909,1910,1911 and 1912. In 1908, the percentage of cost for collection of revenue was 3.30; in 1909, under the Mr. CARROLL.
same Government, the percentage had increased to 4.15, a very material difference. How does the hon. gentleman explain that? There are circumstances that we do not know that possibly affect those figures, and, unless we have all the information before us, it is impossible to discuss them with any fairness. The hon. member will see that there was an increase of .85 per cent m one year, whereas the contention is that the increase from 1912 to 1913 is only .47, or the difference between 2.78 and his figure of 3.25.


John Dowsley Reid: My official tells me that the percentage last year was 2.92 and the previous year 2.78.


David Henderson: That is not a very large difference. The hon. minister has opened a great many ports. These ports have been necessary. There is room for difference of opinion on that _ point. The Hon. Mr. Paterson, when Minister of Customs, stated plainly that customs houses were not opened for the public convenience; that they were opened for the purpose of collecting revenue. I do not think he was always right in his policy.
I think he should have taken into consideration the public convenience as well as the collection of revenue. There has been a demand during the last two years for opening more customs houses for public convenience. I am one of the guilty parties in that regard. A customs house was opened in my own county. I have not the figures before me; but the last time that I was in conversation with the collector after the expiration of nine months from the opening of the office, the imports amounted to a figure which would indicate for twelve months about a million and a quarter dollars, whereas in the previous year there were no imports at all. I admit that a great many of the imports were free goods; but the opening of the port was of immense advantage to the people doing business there, and saved them the necessity of entering their goods through Guelph, Georgetown or Toronto. The minister is perfectly right in taking into consideration the public convenience as well as the collection of revenue in opening these additional ports. I do not see any reason for complaint as the difference is so slight, in comparison with the great convenience to the public. The minister has given us a very fair statement and there i3 nothing in the contention of the hon. member for South Wellington. I think he must have got astray in his figures. I would suggest that he revise them because I have no doubt that the commissioner of customs, a very careful man, who had charge of such matters for a great many years, is absolutely correct in the statement that he has given us.


George William Kyte: In reply to my question a few minutes ago, the hon. minister stated that there was no preventive officer at Red Islands. The late preventive officer was dismissed on the 29th of March, 1912. Will the minister please state why he was dismissed?


John Dowsley Reid: Because his services were not thought necessary.


George William Kyte: Is the minister sure that is the reason he was dismissed?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the information I have at the present time.


George William Kyte: What salary was he drawing?


John Dowsley Reid: The officer's name was Mr. Johnston, and his salary was $100 a year.


George William Kyte: Has a preventive officer been appointed at Irish Cove since that date?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George William Kyte: What is his name?


John Dowsley Reid: I believe his name is Gillies.


George William Kyte: At what salary was he employed?


John Dowsley Reid: He was only appointed lately. I have not before me information as to his salary.


George William Kyte: Will the hon. minister be good enough to get that information?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I will furnish the information the hon. gentleman desires.


George William Kyte: 

dismissed. Subsequently Mr. M. E. Gillies, a brother of the defeated candidate, was appointed preventive officer. The Minister of Custom states that no appointment was made in place of Mr. Johnston. It is true that no resident of Red Islands was appointed, but Irish Cove is a village three or four miles away, in which the brother of the defeated candidate lives. He was appointed preventive officer in place of Mr. Johnston, and I am informed that he was appointed at an increase of salary.


John Dowsley Reid: We found that Mr. Johnston's services were not required at this place.


George William Kyte: Why did the minister appoint Mr. Gillies?


John Dowsley Reid: He is at another place. Irish Cove is on the mainland.


George William Kyte: And where is Red Islands?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that it is an island three or four miles out


George William Kyte: No, it is on the mainland, on the same shore, and three miles from Irish Cove.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may tell the minister that Red Islands are two small islands where nobody lives.


George William Kyte: I understand the minister will bring down the information. May I ask who is collector of customs at Des-couse at the present time?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the name of the officer here. There has been a change there.


George William Kyte: Will the minister say why the change was made?


John Dowsley Reid: The officer there was dismissed on the 25th of May, after an investigation made by Mr. H. P. Duchemin. The place was filled by the appointment of Mr. Felix Landry, at the same salary, $250 a year.


George William Kyte: The next letter reads:
18th May, 1912.
Mr. Paschal Poirier,
Acting Preventive Officer of Customs, Descouse, NjS.
Sir,-I am directed hy the hon. the Minister of Customs to inform you that your employment in the customs service terminates on the 25th May, 1912, on account of political partisanship.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Your obedient servant,
John McDougald, Commissioner of Customs.
To the Collector of Customs,
Arichat, N.S.
In reply to that the following letter was
sent:	,,	_
Ottawa, 17th April, 1912.
P. Poirier, Esq.,
Sub-collector of Customs,
Descouse, N.S.
Dear Sir,-The Minister of Customs has directed me to acknowledge receipt of year letter 'to hand to-day, and _ to state that the representations made therein will receive his careful consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Private Secretary.
I submit that there is not a particle of evidence in the report which I have read which would justify the Minister of Customs in dismissing Captain Paschal Poirier on the ground of offensive partisanship. I call your attention to the nature of the charge made by Mr. Gillies, the Conservative candidate, in which he extravagantly asserted that Poirier was guilty of very offensive political partisanship, not only in discussing politics but in driving voters to the poll. There is no evidence of that and the only evidence against him is that he took passage on a steamer to the nominating convention. But there^ is the further inconsistent act of the Minister of Customs in dismissing Captain Poirier for political partisanship and appointing a more offensive partisan in his place, a man who since his appointment has been selected to fill the position of vice-president of the Conservative Association of Richmond county. He is still there, and, in addition to being collector of Customs, he was appointed postmaster at the port of Descouse. I also find he was appointed inspector of the breakwater that is being constructed by the Department. of Public Works a few miles from Descouse. I submit that that man should he dismissed from office for offensive partisanship. It ought not to make any difference in the estimation of the Minister of Customs, whether he is an offensive Liberal partisan or an offensive Conservative partisan. I submit that the present holder of the position of Customs 'collector at Descouse ought to be dismissed because he is actually an offensive partisan and not a partisan in the sense that Mr. Poirier was proved to be in the investigation held by Mr. KYTE.
Mr. Duchemin. In regard to what rights public officials have with respect to the discussion of public questions, I beg to refer to the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in the session of 1896. It will be found on page 338 of ' Hansard ' of that year, and is ae follows:
The fact that these officials work for either party; so long as they work openly, honourably, and fairly, ought not to weigh against them, if at the same time they do not neglect their duty as public officers. It seems to me that those gentlemen who are in the civil service of this country ought to have the same rights as other electors, not only to vote, but to work during elections, subject to certain limitations which I shall endeavour to submit to the House.
Again he said:
It does not seem to me that a public officer discussing in an honourable and straightforward manner a public question of absorbing interest with a gentleman who afterwards succeeds to office as a minister hf the Crown, ought necessarily on that account to lose his office.
I have no doubt in my mind that the right hon. the Prime Minister was absolutely sincere when he subscribed to that doctrine in the House of Commons in 1896. He stated that a public officer had the right not only to attend public meetings, but to discuss political matters, provided he did so honourably and without giving offence to any person. In the case of Captain Paschal Poirier the late collector of Customs at Descouse, there is no evidence whatever that he ever was a partisan. There is his own statement that in twenty-seven years he polled only two votes, one vote for a Conservative candidate, and the ether for a Liberal candidate, that he did not canvass in public, that he did not drive anybody to the polls, that he did not attend any public meeting for the purpose of taking part in public discussion. He took passage on a steamer from Descouse to St. Peters and went to the meeting where there was a strange speaker, and the moment that the strange speaker concluded his remarks, he left the meeting. If, in the judgment of the right hon. the Prime Minister a public official has the right not only to attend public meetings, but to discuss public questions with the electors, without forfeiting his office, surely there is no justification in the world for the dismissal of Captain Paschal Poirier, on the ground of political partisanship.


Mr. MORPHY:: My hon. friend referred to this being half of Mr. Poirier's living. What is his other occupation?


George William Kyte: He has a little bit of a farm that he works on, and at one time he was a sea captain.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like to understand exactly what the standards are which govern in the neighbourhood referred to by my hon. friend. In the province of Ontario, the standards are somewhat different, if those described by my hon. friend are to be taken as the standards which exist throughout his province. In the province of Ontario poll clerks are usually appointed because of their well known political proclivities.


George William Kyte: Are they sworn to discharge their duties faithfully?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I presume they are, but that is not the point. As a rule they are not appointed from the official class. I think it inconceivable that such appointments should be made. I have never heard of such a case in the province of Ontario, and I can speak for that province so far as my knowledge goes. To see a member of the Customs staff in the province of Ontario going to a political convention would be shocking to the people of that province, but it seems to be quite common glace and regular from the point of view of the member for Richmond. .


George William Kyte: What does the hon. member say about the present collector of Customs at Descouse, who is vice-president of the Conservative association.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is probably a sign
that he is a very capable man. My hon. friend has referred to Mr. Poirier giving some evidence of his going from home on a vessel, and he has stated that he did not pay his own fare. It would be interesting to know who did pay it. I did not hear my hon. friend say whether it was in his interest that Mr. Poirier went, but there is a very strong suspicion that he went to see that the hon. member for Richmond had fair play at that convention.


George William Kyte: That is no justification for
dismissal, according to the Prime Minister.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Not being a delegate why did he go?


George William Kyte: To listen to the speaker.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Some strange speaker
without a name. Had he ever heard of the hon. gentleman before? He was not a delegate, and he went to the convention without any reason, and in going in office hours, I fancy he would come under the definition of the right hon. the leader of this House, and that if could be said that he was neglecting his duties in attending that convention. The coolness with which the hon. member for Richmond has attempted to justify such flagrant conduct as this man has been guilty of, is quite shocking to me, coming as I do from Ontario where such things would not be permitted for a moment.


George Perry Graham: I do not know how it
is in the experience of my hon. friend, but in a good many cases in Ontario men under age are appointed poll clerks if they are bright young fellows.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Customs officers?


George Perry Graham: No, hut their appointment would not be a sign of political partisanship because a good many are not of age. The hon. minister has laid down a very strong rule that if a customs officer goes to a convention and takes no part in the discussion, but listens to a speech, he is guilty of offensive partisanship and of neglect of duty. If it be true that this officer at Descouse has been appointed an officer of the Conservative Association, and that he is an active officer of that association, does the minister propose to permit him to hold office in his department? If he does, this talk of political partisanship is all rubbish.


Samuel Hughes: Is there any evidence that he has been appointed an officer of the Conservative Association?


George Perry Graham: I say if it be true that he is now an active officer of the Conservative Association, does the minister propose to allow 'him to hold a position in the department and still hold office in the Conservative Association?


John Dowsley Reid: I have no evidence that he has 'been appointed an officer of the Conservative Association.


George Perry Graham: But if he has been?


John Dowsley Reid: He may have been vice-president and may have resigned. If he has not resigned-


William Pugsley: The hon. member for
Richmond says he has been appointed since he got the position of collector.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no doubt that he has resigned since he got the appointment of collector.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for
Richmond says he has been appointed an officer of the Conservative Association since he was appointed customs collector.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member would not likely know the members of the Conservative Association there.


George Perry Graham: If it is shown that he is now an offcer of thq Conservative Association, will the minister see that he is retired from that position or retired from his department.


John Dowsley Reid: He will have to retire from the position of officer in the Conservative Association or else retire from the office of collector.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: I was out of the House for a few moments during- which I understand the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) made some remarks. He seems to have said that my calculation as to the percentage of the cost of collection was wrong and he has pointed out, as I understand, that in the year 1909, according to the returns of the Customs Department, the percentage of the cost of collection was 4-15 while in 1912 it was 2-78. It is true that in 1909 the proportion was high but there was a reason for it; 1909 was the year of the financial panic.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 1907.


Hugh Guthrie: 
John Dowsley Reid: I do not think the hon. gentleman put that quite fairly. In the year 1911-12 the cost of collection was 2.78 per cent. For the year 1912-13 the appropriation was $3,070,000 in the main estimates and $285,000 in the supplementaries, or a total appropriation of $3,355,000 on a collection of $115,000,000 or 2.92 as against 2.78 per cent for the previous fiscal year. For the present fiscal year we have $3,830,000 in the estimates and, of course, we cannot foretell what the revenue for the fiscal year ending on the 31st March next will be.


William Pugsley: Does the minister anticipate that the supplementaries will be any less this year than last?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the supplementaries will be very much smaller.


William Pugsley: What is it estimated they will be?
Mr. RE>ID: I have not that with me. There will be some supplementary estimates but they will not be as large as they were last year.


William Pugsley: The assistant commissioner could no doubt tell the hon. gentlemen.


John Dowsley Reid: They will probably be $200,000 as against $285,000 last year.


James Arthurs: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made the statement that during the past two years the increase in the estimates had amounted to $900,000. During the same period the receipts of the Department of Customs increased by $42,000,000 or, in other words, this $42,000,000 has been collected ati an average cost of 2.13 per cent. He also contrasted the estimates for the years 1913-14 with the cost of collection for the previous year. Since then I find that the hon. member was absolutely incorrect and that the returns made by the Customs Department are for the actual expenditure for the current year, thus corroborating the statement made by the minister. I have in my riding a couple of officers who were appointed since the change of Government and who do not collect a cent of revenue, but who are yet absolutely necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: That has been so at
other points even since Confederation.


James Arthurs: One of the officers is
at a point whence the ore from the Canadian Northern mines is exported and he has to be there as a preventive officer, and to make the returns; the other has charge of bonded baggage for American tourists, and neither collects any revenue, although they cost the department $600 a year. Many such cases must occur throughout the Dominion in this growing time.


Hugh Guthrie: My contention was that the percentage of cost of collection should decrease rather than increase.


James Arthurs: It has not increased.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister admits it
has increased from 2-78 last year to 2-92, and the supplementaries will certainly increase it further. Estimating it on the returns to the 31st of March, the cost of collecting is 3-33 without taking into consideration what may be asked in the supplementaries. If the minister is going to increase his staff by 470 a year and have thirteen officials tumbling over themselves at Niagara Falls, the revenue is bound to increase.


James Arthurs: Does the hon. gentleman say the salaries of the customs officers should not have been increased ?


Hugh Guthrie: I have commended the minister for increasing the salaries, and I think another increase should be granted this year, but before we vote these lump sums we should have some explanation.


Bernard Rickart Hepburn: I am sure the hon.
member (Mr. Guthrie) wants to be fair and I cannot see how he says the cost of collection is 3-33 when the minister tells us it is only 2-92. The minister is not going to run away with the $400,000 increase and hide it; if it fs not spent it will not be taken out of the treasury.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, he will spend it,
do not have any doubt of that; he will appoint a lot of fellows in your county.


Bernard Rickart Hepburn: There is a collector of customs in Picton who is the son of an ex-Lib-eral member of this House, and he work, ed for twenty-one years- m the summer months, from five o'clock in the morning until midnight, for a salary of $1,400 a year. I asked the present Minister of -Customs to give him an assistant and he did so. The customs officer had to apply for sick-leave because -of over-work. I can tell my hon. 'friend (Mr. Guthrie) that we do not propose 'to work our men like that. If we are to judge other counties in the past by what has taken place in my county, then I say that it is a crying shame the way customs officers have been treated.


Mr. TURGEON:: Can the Minister of
Customs give me a definition of ' offensive partisanship '? Edouard Chiasson, a collector in my county, was dismissed last year on the ground of offensive partisanship. The minister first held an investigation at which no evidence was given against Mr. Chiasson, and he was not dismissed. Not long after my generous friend the Minister of Marine wrote to the Minister of Customs asking him to hold another investigation, as he thought some evidence might be brought up which would prove active partisanship. The second investigation was held. One of the witnesses deposed:
I reside at L'Amecque; I am a voter; Mr: Edouard Chiasson resides at L'Amecque; T remember the federal election in 1908 and I do not Temem-ber that Mr. Chiasson took part; do not remember his taking part in the' election of 1911. I was at the Turgeon meeting at the Catholic Mutual Benefit Associa-' tion hall at L'Amecque. Mr. Chiasson was on the platform; I do not remember that he spoke; he applauded Mr. Turgeon's speech; I was at the polls on election day; did not notice Mr. Chiasson; did not notice his canvassing during the campaign; know nothing further; I am a Conservative; hard to say what side Chiasson was on.

-Five or six witnesses gave' similar evidence. Mr. Chiasson was appointed collector of customs in 1903 on the ground of his ability. He was one of the best educated men in the locality; he had been a school teacher and had given satisfaction; he belonged to one of the most respectable families. I did not know with what political party he was affiliated; he was recommended by me on account of his qualifications for the position and his high standing in the community, and witnesses have deposed that they never heard of him taking part in politics when he held office. In the elections of 1911, they did not know whether he was a Conservative or a Liberal. There was a meeting in that .municipal district held by myself, only a few hundred yards from his own residence. He came to my meeting. I have been addressing meetings throughout the county of Gloucester for the last forty years. He ap-lauded some of my remarks. Even if he ad applauded something that I might have said on a Canadian navy, I do not think that constitutes offensive partisanship. His dismissal would signify that a man appointed by a Liberal Government must be dismissed. The Prime Minister stated here a few years ago that a man who did not take an active part but who merely expressed his opinion should not be dismissed. The hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) will remember that, when he was on this side of the House, he said that no official Should be dismissed except for neglect of duty. I made no complaint when the Minister of Customs dismissed the official at Bathurst, because I knew that he had been taking part in an election. In this case, however, the evidence shows that the only possible fault of the man was that he had attended a public meeting in his own district without saying a word. Nobody saw him at the poll on polling day. He canvassed no one; he expressed his opinion on political piat-ters to no one. Yet, because he was appointed by the Liberal Government, he was dismissed. I would ask the Minister of Customs if he places that in the category of active or offensive partisanship.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. E. D. C. Knowles, the commissipner appointed to hold these investigations, found against Mr. Girroir. He reported that he had been guilty of political partisanship.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I would ask the Minister of Customs to look over the evidence. It amounts to what I have stated, and was given by men who belong to the Conservative party. The gentleman who has been appointed in his place was at the time one of the most active men on Conservative committees, still belongs to those commit-Mir. TURGEON.
tees, and has been active in making recommendations since his appointment.


John Dowsley Reid: If he has done anything of the kind, I will certainly see that he discontinues it.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I would like to ask
the minister whether any change has been made in the position of sub-collector at the sub-port of Raie-Verte, and incidentally whether representations have 'been made to him as to the necessity of establishing a port of entry or the placing of an official at Cape Tormentine. For a number of years there has been an agitation to change tire office from Baie-Verte, which was one of the first settlements in that section of the 'country, but which has now gone down materially, the business having been transferred to the town of Port Elgin, which is a very active and thriving community. The distance between those two places is about two and a half miles. At that time there was a very strong movement on the part of the people of Cape Tormentine which is a port for the shipment of deals, to have an officer at that point. In fact, they wanted to have a sub-office established there. There is a larger export business done at Cape Tormentine than perhaps at any other port along that north shore, with the exception of Shediao, and I believe that more lumber i.s shipped from Cape Tormentine than from Shediac. Have any applications been made with respect to closing the Baie Verte office and opening one at Port Elgin, and also with respect to establishing an additional office at Cape Tormentine? It would be a great convenience to the shipping interests at Cape Tormentine, as many large steamers come there to load. It is the nearest point to Prince Edward Island along that strait. Steamers ply between Cape Tormentine and Prince" Edward Island. The tea captains and shippers find it very inconvenient to travel twenty odd miles from Cape Tormentine to Baie Verte in order to attend to their customs business. This agitation has been going on for a number of years. 1 have received during the past five or six years a number of petitions, end I have brought them to the notice of my hon. friend's predecessor, but no change has so far been made.


John Dowsley Reid: If I remember rightly, there have been , some communications with respect to changing the office from Baie Verte to Port Elgin and superannuating the old gentleman who is now at Baie Verte. Nothing has been done so far, as the matter is only under consideration. With reference to Cape Tormentine, nothing has been done. The difficulty is that many hon. members are asking for new offices, which would be a great convenience to the public. If I were to carry out their wishes and those of

other gentlemen who have been applying for offices, I would have to ask for much more than I am asking in the estimates. The hon. member for South Wellington is grumbling because I am increasing the cost of collecting the revenue on account of opening new offices. I would like to open very many more than I am able to do with the estimates that I have here to-night. I think there are a great many ports That should have officers, and yet I have not felt quite justified in coming to the House and asking for a large enough estimate to provide for these places. Take Tormentine, for instance, there is no doubt that it would be a great convenience to the vessels going there and to the public also but I have not made an appointment there. In all places where officers have been appointed on account of increase of revenue, it is on the report of inspectors and collectors that appointments have been made. The main part of the increase in cost of collection is in the large offices.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman tell me how many new officers have been appointed in Montreal, and how many in Three Rivers?


David Henderson: While the minister is looking up the figures, I desire to occupy a few minutes. I think the minister has misunderstood the hon. member for South Wellington. I understood that hon. gentleman to advocate the principle of increasing the number of outports. He complained that in his own county there were two important places which had not either port or outport. I think the hon. gentleman is quite right; I often wondered how it was that- during the fifteen years of Libera] rule the hon. gentleman did not do more for his county in the way of securing accommodation for the people. The Minister of Customs of the late Administration held to the principle that customs ports were opened for the collection of revenue and not for the convenience of the public. He told me that time and again when I made appeal to him for a customs house in my own town, and I assume that that is the reason the hon. gentleman from South Wellington did not get the increased accommodation for his people of the lack of which he now complains. But the peculiar part of the hon. gentleman's remarks is that he complained of the increased cost of collecting the revenue, yet urged on the minister to open more ports or outports, and so, of necessity, increase the cost of collection.


Hugh Guthrie: Not necessarily.


David Henderson: That is a new theory to me. If it would not, then I say the minister is justified in every way in doing what he has done, increasing the number of officers for the collection of revenue. Nor
do I say he has overdone it, for I fancy in no place has he opened a port or outport where it was not required for the public convenience. I repeat that the Minister of Customs in the late Administration made a mistake in insisting that the ports should only be open for the collection of revenue and not for the convenience of the public. I hope the hon. member for South Wellington will get the new offices. Both Elora and Fergus are important towns and would justify an extension of customs accommodation, and possibly Erin Village also. In the county of Wellington are also the towns of Palmerston and Harriston that need increased accommodation. In my own county after a new outport was opened the people were delighted, and none more so than some	of the friends of the
hon. gentleman who has been decrying the increased cost of collecting the revenue. In my town amongst the chief importers were Liberals who voted against me. But notwithstanding that fact, it was a matter of public convenience. I thought the Minister of Customs did right in acceding to the request which, I confess, I made to him regardless of how it could affect the cost of the collecting of revenue. I had appealed to the minister's predecessor, but was turned down. I said then that the Liberals were not going to be in power for ever, and the time would come when my grievance would be redressed. I did not know I was so good a prophet, for in six or eight months my grievance was redressed, a Government having come into power which believes in dealing with the public on the lines of public convenience and not merely on the lines of what money they can get out of them. I heartily justify the action of the minister in opening these ports for the public convenience, even though it may have the effect of increasing the 'cost of collection.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not object to the opening of these ports, and I think my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) ought to know that. He says I advocated it.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman advocated both ways-a decrease in the revenue and an increase in the ports.


Hugh Guthrie: The villages that I
mentioned-and I hope now that I have the support of the hon. gentleman I may have the arrangement completed-both have substantial Government buildings. So, there will be no cost for accommodation, nor need a new civil servant be appointed, but a man can be sent from Guelph when goods are to be passed. It is a short railway trip with a fare of about 75 cents.


John Dowsley Reid: A man could not do that
and attend to his duties in Guelph.


Hugh Guthrie: I think he could. I
have watched the government officials. It would take perhaps an hour and a half and the trip would only have to be taken perhaps once a week. So, the expense would be small.


John Dowsley Reid: But it is not a question of
expenses only. I understand that the officers now are so busy that I have been requested to send them another officer.


Hugh Guthrie: No doubt about that.
That is what I object to. We have 477 additional men put on the pay roll at the instance of the present minister. That is where the money has gone. I have not objected and do not object to new offices, nor do I object to the increase of the staff necessary to carry on the work. But I think such cases as I have mentioned before account for this great increase. ^ I think there is no justification for the increase at Niagara Falls. I do not think there is any justification for the increase at Hamilton or at Brantford. I do not know about Ottawa. The customs returns have increased largely in my own city and there has been no increase in the staffs. Berlin and Waterloo have also shown large increases, with the appointment of only one man. But at Niagara Falls they have simply tumbled the men in to satisfy their political friends. That is what has increased the cost of collection.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: The
minister is evidently disposed to deal generously with the public and provide foi their convenience according to the assurances of himself and the member for Hal-ton.	He	has	started a	new	policy,	that	of	consulting	the	convenience of the public in deciding these offices, and not merely the collection of revenue. That is what governments are for. That being the case-and he has carried out that policy to a considerable extent, judging from the number of people he has appointed in the last year or two and from the fact that he wants this large amount of money now to establish new offices-I would remind him of a petition which has been sent to this office from the district of Tracadie asking for a sub-collector there. This would cost a trifle and would afford a great convenience to a large section of the people of the county of Antigonish as well as of a considerable portion of the county of Guysborough.	The fact3 setforth'in that petition and the correspondence I have had with the minister myself must strike the minister as indicating	a condition	wnich would
justify a sub-collector of customs at that port. There would be no difficulty in get-Mr. GUTHRIE
ting an officer with * the proper qualifications and the man recommended for the position is a good 'loyal Conservative. That I suppose, is in his favour and he is a good man in other respects. I am sure that such an appointment would be viewed with favour by both Liberals and Conservatives in that community. Such an office^ is really a necessity and I hope the minister will find it in his power to establish it.


Mr. CLARKE (North Wellington):: I
was pleased to hear the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) speak as. he has in regard to the advantages of subofficers in Fergus and Elora. He also m-terjected a remark that there had been established an office in Harriston. That is not the case. I would say for the information of the minister, if for nothing else, that to my knowledge there is not a customs office in Wellington apart from the one in the city in which the hon. member for South Wellington resides; and, as the hon fnember for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has stated, I am surprised that he did not take this matter into consideration when he was in a better position to have offices established in the riding which he represents. We have at least three better towns in the north riding than either of the villages to which he referred:	The Minister of
Customs has seen fit to establish offices in those towns which are much more deserving than these villages. I am quite agreeable to assist him in establishing customs offices in the south riding of the county which the hon. member has the privilege of representing.


George Perry Graham: About the time of appointment, if the minister will look into it I think he will find that in a good many cases appointments which were made after September 21 were simply confirmations of the appointments of officials who had been temporarily appointed but whose appointments had not been made by Order in Council. Some of these officials had been there for years.


John Dowsley Reid: No, not at all. All the officers who had been there for years in that way are still there.


George Perry Graham: I hope that is the case. I have a complaint to make with regard to the dismissal of a man in Colborne. My information from two sources is that he was dismissed without any notification except what was handed to him on the day of his dismissal. There was no investigation and he denied the charge or political partisanship. If that is the case it can hardly be justified on any grounds. He denies that he took any part in politics, he was not given any investigation; _ nothing was proven against him. That is treat-

ment such as the minister would not offer to the most menial servant in his own employment. He would hardly dismiss any man or woman without giving at least a few days' notice or some reason that was a real reason.


John Dowsley Reid: The officer at Colborne was dismissed for political partisanship on the evidence of the member sitting for that riding. The hon. member knows that the rule has been followed by the House that if the member representing a riding assures the minister that an officer is an active partisan, that officer is to be dismissed; after that evidence has been submitted to the Governor in Council an Order in Council is passed and the officer notified. The officer at Colborne was not treated any differently from all other officers who were dismissed in that way.


George Perry Graham: I pity the others.


William Pugsley: The member for the
county to that extent becomes minister.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that has been the rule for years. That was the rule carried out by the Liberal Government since 1896.


William Pugsley: Against which the
House unanimously passed a rule.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the rule followed in case a defeated candidate having the patronage of a county recommends a dismissal?


John Dowsley Reid: If there is a vacancy in the
county I follow my own judgment.


John Howard Sinclair: Shortly after the minister took office he was asked by the junior member for Halifax what rule he would adopt in case of a recommendation by a defeated candidate. At page 1076 Mr. Maclean said:
Mr. Maclean (Halifax): If a customs officer is charged with .partisanship is he given an opportunity to defend himself?
Mr. Reid (Grenville): I am following the policy laid down by the House. When a member charges that an official has been an active partisan in his constituency I ask for ffiis dismissal. But in the case of another constituency where there is not a member to represent the constituency, if a charge is *made, I have an investigation, and if it is proven that the official has been an active partisan, of course he is dismissed.
That was the rule laid down by the minister very shortly after he assumed office. I find that in my own constituency the minister has not been carrying out that rule.


John Dowsley Reid: To what case do you refer?


John Howard Sinclair: To the dismissal of W. A. Girrior, on a complaint made against
him by G. A. Rowlings, the defeated candidate in that constituency. The letter is dated Sydney, N. S'., November 6, 1911:
Hon. J. D. Reid,
Minister of Customs,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-I beg to request the dismissal of W. A. Girrior, preventive officer, of customs at Larry's river, county of Guys-borough. I regret to say that' this official' displayed offensive partisanship towards myself by interrupting me .in my address at' Larry's river, during the recent compaign. I would recommend the immediate appointment of William J. Murphy of Larry's river in his place.	<
Yours very truly,
(Sgil.) G. A. Rowlings, Liberal-Conservative candidate, Guysborough County, September Election.'
Then the minister's commissioner addressed a letter to Mr. Girrior, dated Ottawa, November 10, 1911:
Mr. A. Girrior,
Customs Officer,
Larry's River, N.S.
Sir,

Representations have been made to" this department to the effect that you have displayed offensive partisanship towards Mr.-Rowlings, a candidate during the recentj campaign, interrupting him at Larry's river, -your action being thus in contravention of the regulations respecting the interference of customs officers in political questions. I am therefore directed to ask for your statement as to whether these representations are correct or not. An early reply is requested.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) John McDougald, [DOT] Commissioner of Customs.
Mr. Girrior replied to that letter under date November 15, 1911:
John McDougald, Esq.,
Commissioner of Customs,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-You favour of the 10th to hand, to the effect that I had displayed offensive artisanship towards Mr. Rowlings, a can-idate during the recent campaign. He, Mr. Rowlings, said in his speech that if reciprocity would take place that our fishing bounties would be excluded and cut off. I was at his meeting when he said so, and I only said that I would bet $20 it would not interfere with the fishing bounties, and I can bring proof that was the only word I said. I then left the meeting and got home without saying one word more, so I fail to see* how Mr. Rowlings can claim that I interrupted him. As I have been to all meetings of Conservatives and never did interrupt any, I think Mr. Rowlings should pardon such a small offence, which in the future might do him no hurt. Still, I am at their disposal. Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) William A. Girrior, Preventive Officer.
The next document is one from the minister to His Royal Highness the Governor General in Council:

The undersigned, Minister Customs, has the
honour to recommend that Mr. William A. Girrior, preventive officer of customs at Larry's river, N.S., be dismissed from the customs service for active political partisanship during the late Dominion election. The evidence as to such partisanship appears on customs file No. 77333 herewith.
Respectfully submitted,
(Sgd.) J. D. Reid, Minister of Customs.
Then we have on record a letter from the commissioner of customs addressed to Mr. Girrior notifying him of his dismissal. You will note Mr. Chairman that the only partisanship charged against this man was the remark which he made in the meeting in the sehoolhouse of his native village, when Mr. Rowlings had made a statement which everybody of any intelligence knew was not correct. He said that if reciprocity was passed, there would be no further fishing bounty. That was not true. Anyone -who has read the correspondence that led up to the reciprocity agreement knows that there is no foundation whatever for that statement. This man Girrior made the innocent remark that he would bet $20 that the fishing bounty would continue. I would not call that a very serious matter especially when the statement made by the candidate was without the slightest foundation in fact. I think it was the duty of this man to make some protest. At all events it was a case in which the minister ought to have had an investigation. If he had had all the facts investigated, he would not have dismissed that officer, but he has not carried oiit the principle which he laid down in this House. Even at this late date, he ought to give Mr, Girrior a chance to establish his innocence for I have no doubt he could do so. I would like to know if the minister intends in the future to adhere to the principle which he laid down during last session in this House that in a case where complaint was made by the defeated candidate, he will order an investigation.


John Dowsley Reid: I think in almost every case where a complaint has been made by a defeated candidate we have had an investigation. There have been a few exceptions, but very few. In cases such as that mentioned by the hon. member where an official admits that he took part in politics one way^ or another, we have not held an investigation, but I do not suppose that these oases amount to more than four or five. In this case where an officer admits that he attended a meeting, interrupted the speaker and found fault with what he was saying, we considered that the evidence was sufficient to justify dismissal without holding an investigation. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) asked me a question about the number of extra officers at Quebec and Montreal. The number is Mr. SINCLAIR.
twenty at Quebec and forty-eight at Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many at Three
Rivers?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think there were
any.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many had you before at Quebec? The number seems extraordinary.


John Dowsley Reid: The revenue has increased
very much.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can understand a
reasonable increase being necessary for tne port of Montreal, but twenty new officers for the port of Quebec seem a large number.


Mr REID:: We have not appointed extra men at Montreal or Quebec, or any other place, except where the inspectors and collectors urged that they were absolutely necessary on account of the increased revenue.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the revenue for the port of Quebec compared with last year?


John Dowsley Reid: For 1911-12 it was $1,799,373, and this year $2,033,452, or an increase of $274,079.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you many extra
officers there?


John Dowsley Reid: Twenty extra; I will give the hon. member a memorandum to-morrow with regard to these officers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the collector of customs at Quebec has been retired. I am informed that besides the pension which he receives from the department he receives another amount from a different source in the department which makes up for the whole of his original salary. I would like the minister to explain that. How can a gentleman who is pensioned receive a salary besides his pension? If he is considered to be a proper subject for retirement, he should not receive a salary.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman knows that a man who is superannuated can be re-employed if there is work for him. That has been done many times before and, in fact when I took office I found that there were men employed who had been superannuated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about this case?


John Dowsley Reid: In this case Mr. Forsyth is a very old man. He was not able to perform the whole of the duties of collector. The revenue was increasing and it was necessary to have -a more active man in charge of the port. Mr. Forsyth did not wish to give up his duties altogether. He

is still in the service in Quebec and performing such duties as he can. We could not appoint two collectors, so we superannuated him and we have him assisting the collector. That is the only way in which we could employ him? We have put Mr. Carter in charge. Mr. Carter is a younger man and he has had very many years experience in the customs service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
John Dowsley Reid: I have not heard of it, but it is not the policy of the department to have an officer who is an importer himself. 1 shall make inquiries into the matter.
.Mr. REID: Yes, he is employed performing such duties as he can.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was rather abruptly shunted off my discussion with regard to Cape Tonmentine and Baie Verte as I wanted to follow the matter up a little further. I also wanted to follow it up with reference to Shediac. I understand this item will still be open for further discussion and on that understanding I shall not resume my inquiries now.


George Perry Graham: Some information that non. gentlemen have asked for, the minister has promised to bring down to-morrow. Suppose we allow this $3,125,000 item to go through with the understanding that the discussion to-morrow can refer to this item, and then go home.


John Dowsley Reid: I would suggest that on the understanding that hon. members may discuss anything included in the $3,125,000 item.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, if this item goes through hon. members will be perfectly within their right, on any other item, in going back and discussing anything with regard to it.


William Pugsley: The minister will bring down the information asked for?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would suggest
that the minister bring down the papers with respect to Cape Tormentine, Baie Verte and Shediac with reference to any new appointments that have been made at these ports.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I will bring down everything.


William F. Carroll: An order of the House was passed some time ago for two returns with regard to the dismissal of Mr. McKinnon, the collector at Glace Bay and Captain Wilcox, the collector at Louisburg. I intend to discussion these dismissals and, to discussion them intelligently, I would like to have the papers.


John Dowsley Reid: I will bring them down tomorrow.


William F. Carroll: There is another matter I _ would like to discuss with regard to Whitney Pier. I have had several letters from business men at Whitney Pier stating that Mr. McDonald, the gentleman who has been appointed instead of Mr. Fitzgerald, is engaged in mercantile business, is an importer and operates three stores in the vicinity. They wanted me to find out if it was the intention of the department to allow a man who was carrying on such a business to be collector of customs. I do not wish to be misunderstood with respect


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There will be some information required to-morrow in connection with thi3 item. I understand that there is an increase in the staff at Sydney Mines and that it was made on the report of the inspector of customs. 1 would like, to have that report and also his report in regard to the increases of salaries. I think the minister might also bring down the information with respect to Glace Bay in the same connection. I will ask the minister when I have the chance, about- the change made in the customs house at New Campbellton in my county. The customs house officer there, a very excellent and efficient officer, was dismissed without any reason whatever and a new man was appointed who lives quite a distance away from the port. The office of the late customs officer was quite close to the port. The minister, without making any inquiry, dismissed that officer and appointed another officer who lives a mile and a half away from the port. I would like the minister to inform me why a customs officer has been appointed who lives a mile and a half away from the port, thus compelling sea captains to travel 'three miles, one and a half miles each way to clear.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness):: While the minister is getting that information he might inform me why in the district of Cheticamp, the former collector of customs was dismissed because he lived one mile and a half from the port. He attended to his office during office hours, discharged his duties to the satisfaction of everyone and after spending three months trying to get a charge against him they discovered that he lived a mile and a half from the

port. I want an explanation as to that. Then I want to know why Mr. Bourinot, special officer at Port Hawkesbury, was dismissed, who is his successor and what is his salary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish the names of
the officers who have been dismissed in the county of Gaspe and the reasons for their dismissals; a summary statement in each case will do.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I want the minister to
bring down the papers relating to the resignation of Mr. Miner, collector of customs at Granby and the appointment _ of his successor. I also want information concerning appointments in the county of Brome.


William Pugsley: Would the minister
bring down the names of the additional 470 officers appointed, their salaries, and the ports to which they have been appointed.


John Dowsley Reid: I have the list here, and I
will hand it over to my hon. friend to keep until to-morrow.
Progress reported.

Tuesday, April 29, 1913.
The SPEAKER took, the Chair at three o'clock.
ASCENSION DAY ADJOURNMENT.*


Robert Laird Borden: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday next, 30th instant, it stands adjourned to Friday next, 2nd May.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: That on and from Wednesday, the SO.th instant, and until the end of the session, the House shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock, p.m., there shall also he an intermission from one to three o'clock, p.m.


Wilfrid Laurier: I submit to
my right hon. friend that this motion is altogether premature. It seems to me that the House has not reached that period of the session when morning sittings would Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness!.
be justifiable. First of all, as I am informed, the committees have not yet completed their labours. Meetings of four of the committees are called for to-day [DOT] Banking and Commerce, Public Accounts, Old Age Pensions and Railways, Canals, and Telegraph Lines. Then, to-morrow the Banking and Commerce Committee and the Special Committee on Old Age Pensions are to meet. As I understand, the Committee on Banking and Commerce will not have completed its labours by to-morrow and may require some more sittings. If this motion as moved is agreed to, the Committee on Banking and Commerce would have to sit during the sittings of the House in order to complete its labours.
I do not know when the Committee on Railways, Canals, and Telegraph Lines and the Special Committee on Old Age Pensions are likely to complete their labours. It is important to know whether or not all the committees will have finished their labours before we commence morning sittings. The Government has not yet informed us whether or not it has any new legislation to bring down. It is usual, when we commence morning sittings, that all the legislation of the Government has been introduced, with the possible exception of railway subsidies, which are generally brought down at a late period. When my right hon. friend was in opposition, he found fault with us in that respect, but I do not know that he has improved on the former order of things. If we were not to commence morning sittings until the railway resolutions were ready, we would have to sit very late in the summer and perhaps in the fall. Before we adopt this motion, we should have this information from the Government. The business of the House, as shown by the Order Paper, is not sufficiently advanced to justify this premature motion. The most important measures of the session have not been disposed of. We have not yet had the budget speech. We should have the budget speech during the ordinary sittings and not after we are compelled to sit in the mornings. The fact that we are sitting in the mornings is an admission on all sides that the House is approaching prorogation, and I am sorry to say that I do not see that we have yet reached that desirable period.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines is concerned, I understand that it has almost completed its labours. The Committee on Banking and Commerce has been engaged for a long time in the consideration of a very important measure; but I believe that it will complete its labours at a reasonably early date. With respect to further legislation, I have already privately given my right hon. friend some

indication of what it might be; but it is also desirable that it should be stated in the House. I would suggest that under the circumstances we might amend the motion so as to make it take effect on Monday next. In the meantime, I shall endeavour to give the information for which my right hon. friend has asked. That will give two more days for committees, which, under the circumstances, may be regarded as reasonable.


Wilfrid Laurier: The motion
had better stand; let it be called again on Friday.


Robert Laird Borden: Let it stand.
Motion stands.


NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
' On motion of Mr. Rogers, it was ordered that the House to-morrow go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient (a) to provide for the incorporation of the National Gallery of Canada, and to transfer its property to and vest it in a board of trustees for the Government of Canada; (b) to authorize the board to acquire pictures, statuary, works of art and other property; and (c) to provide for the 'remuneration of such officers and servants as may be required, and for the reasonable travelling and other expenses of the board.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Frank Oliver: I wish to draw the attention of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to the fact, as reported in the press, that the Indian houses on the Kitsilano Indian reserve have been burned down.


THREE RIVERS COAL DOCK.
Mr. BUREAU:: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the answer given yesterday to certain questions, I asked*. These questions related to the employment of Maurice Arcand, and one was as follows:
Is it the intention of the department to dispense with the services of the said Maurice Arcand? If so, has he been notified to that effect ?
The answer to that question was as follows:
The services of Mr. Arcand and others were dispensed with at the end of last season, when the work closed down.
Mr. BORDEN.
I was in Three Rivers yesterday and saw the letter addressed to Mr. Arcand, stating that on the 1st of May, 1913, his service? would be dispensed with. So he is still in the employ of the Government, and has been since the beginning of the season. I would like that rectified.


Robert Rogers: I handed in the departmental answer. I will make inquiries as to how the mistake was made.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
E. PAQUET (l'lslet): (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. During the sitting of April 24 inst., the hon. member for Kamouraska, speaking of the meeting held at the annual exposition of the agricultural and horticultural associations of the county of l'lslet, at St. Roch des Auinaies, said:
The hon. member for LTslet was not present at that meeting and took no part in that exposition of two important associations ot his county. The only motive of his abstention was the fact that the directors of those associations had decided to hold the exposition at St. Roch des Auinaies, whereas the hon. member wished that the parish of St. Jean Port-Joli should be preferred.
Those words are of such a character as to do me harm in the county which I have the honour to represent here.
Jacques Bureau: That is not all.


Mr. PAQUET:: Those words axe absolutely untrue, file people who have informed the hon. member for Kamouraska have invidiously deceived him. In fact I have not uttered a single word as to chos-ing St. Roch des Auinaies. Moreover, I was going to the exposition with pleasure, when I was called upon to assist a lady patient. In fine, I have taken all the interest possible in that exposition, by giving prizes, as is usual, to the effect of encouraging the members of our associations.



THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 108, respecting the Manufacture, Marking and Sale of Articles composed of Gold or Silver, and of Gold-plated or Silver-plated Ware.-Mr. Perley.
Bill No. 26, respecting Radiotelegraphv -Mr. Hazen.	v J

[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. H. PERLEY moved the third reading of Bill No. 28, respecting an agreement between Canada and certain of the West Indian colonies. He said: We have had word from all the West Indian colonies, except one, that this Act has
[Stage Direction]
been confirmed and would be brought into operation on proclamation, as provided in their several ordinances and Acts. The only colony from which we have had no definite assurance yet is British Guiana. However, I have no doubt that they have considered the matter, and a cable was sent yesterday making inquiries. We had a cable from the Island of Grenada on April 20, which says:
At a meeting of Grenada Legislative Council to-day resolution passed to join Canadian reciprocity agreement.
This is one of the islands which was not represented last year at the conference held in Ottawa, and which was given the option under our statute of taking advantage of this agreement.
Mr. F. B. CAEVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: Before this Bill passes I desire to call the attention of the House to one phase of the matter which in my judgment requires further consideration, and in respect of which I hope the Government will see their way clear to accept an amendment which I intend to propose. I refer particularly to those clauses of the Bill which have reference to transportation. I think hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House are agreed as to the advisability of passing this legislation; it will be an advantage to Canada and, I think, to the British West Indies. Any steps taken to increase the trade of this country cannot but be a benefit to the country as a whole. If I were to blame the Government at all in regard to this matter, I would charge them with being niggardly in their treatment of these colonies. I think that instead of making a reduction of twenty per cent in the duty upon certain imports, many of these things might have been admitted free, thus increasing largely the trade between Canada and the West Indian colonies and, to some extent, reducing the cost of living to the Canadian consumer. I think that practically everything coming from the West Indian colonies to Canada should be admitted free, because, viewing the matter from the standpoint of the protectionist, the articles which we would import from the West Indies are not produced in Canada, and die re would be no competition in that respect; and, viewing it from the standpoint of the consumer, we would be getting a cheaper living. I believe that the only way we can make this proposal a success and justify the course being taken is to work up a direct line of business between Canada and the West Indies; in other words, the benefits which we hope to obtain by this agreement would be better secured by establishing a means of direct communication. We have not done much business with the West Indian islands during the last ten or fifteen years; the figures are so small that I think the Minister of Finance must be surprised when he realizes how infinitesimal has been the Mr. PERLEY.
business between Canada and the West Indies as compared with that between Canada and other countries of the world. I think, therefore, that whatever we do should be done along the line of stimulating the trade between Canada and the West Indian colonies. In the Maritime provinces we have had, along certain lines-particularly in fish-a large business with the West Indies for a great many years. I might mention that the Maritime provinces have tried to carry on a business, not so much with the British West Indian islands as with Cuba, in respect of potatoes, and I think ihat in this regard a special subsidy was given-and I believe it is still in force-to a steamship line running direct between the port of St. John and the Island of Cuba. The result has been that a market has been found for a very large quantity of potatoes which under other conditions would not have been marketed. I notice in the press that only within the last week a ten-thousand barrel shipment of .potatoes was sent from St. John to Cuba; this was no doubt due to the subsidy to which I have referred. If you want to stimulate trade between Canada and the West Indian Islands, you must have direct steamship communication between Canada and those colonies, otherwise, if the steamships call at United States ports, you will establish a trade between the United States and the West Indies rather than between Canada and the West Indies. The articles exported from Canada -hay, oats, flour, and general farm produce-almost invariably go to the West Indies through United States ports. In some cases these might be Canadian goods trans-shipped through United States ports, but it will be found that three-fourths, and probably nine tenths, of all such goods as are produced by Canada and shipped to the West Indian markets go through United States ports, simply because in the United States they have splendid transportation facilities It is true that they have the transportation facilities because they have the business; they carry on not only an export but an import trade in the way of fruit, sugar, and the other tropical products of the West Indies. We can work up a large business between Canada and the West Indian Islands, just as they are doing in the United States, but we can do it only by means of a direct steamship service. A statement was made by one of the delegates of the Ottawa conference-I speak now from memory-that the rates were about four cents a hundred pounds less via New York to Montreal or Toronto than via the direct route. If that be the case, this business, unless something is done, will find its outlet through United States ports, and not through Canadian maritime ports. If the Canadian Government is going to subsidize

these steamship lines-and I think they are -I contend that these steamships should be compelled to ply direct between Canadian and West Indian ports. The Government will be able to control the rates by means of a subsidy contract; they can make the rates as cheap as they are via United States ports; they can drive the business through our Canadian ports, and will not only work up,a trade betweerathe producers of the respective countries, but will encourage the development of ,all the activities incidental to navigation and railway transportation. This is a very important matter indeed as affecting all of Canada, and, if we are desirous of obtaining the full benefit of this treaty, I think this business should be done through our own and not through United States ports. I believe also that the subsidies must be sufficiently large to make the work attractive to a big steamship company, and one that will give us an up-to-date service. If I have any objection to offer to the subsidies we have been granting in the past to Cuba and -the West Indies, it is that they have been too small; certainly tbev have not produced the results that should have been obtained, and we have had a very inefficient service. When I say that, I think I am using as mild language as a man could use who knows anything about it. I know something about the service between St. John and Halifax and the West Indies in the past, and I have no hesitation in saying that it has been entirely unworthy of Canada, one which has been almost a disgrace to Canada, and certainly of no benefit to the Dominion from the point of view of transportation, or from any other standpoint. The service was so bad that no person has been known to take advantage of it a second time. It might be said that this is pretty strong language, and I admit it is, but I think I have reasons for making the statement. Possibly the subsidy was not large enough to justify any better service. If that was the case, then give a bigger subsidy, but if the subsidy was large ' enough to justify a better service, then I think the department has been remiss in its duty. I am not applying my remarks to the present minister so much as to previous ministers. Whatever may have been the cause, the result has been a very inferior service, which has been of no benefit to Canada from any standpoint whatever. If I am right in my statement, I think the service requires a much larger subsidy. I do not believe that we shall ever get satisfactory results from a service of steamships starting at Halifax, calling at St. John, and thence proceeding to the West Indies, or calling at St. John on the way back and then proceeding to Halifax. Such a service is too slow. We are living in an age of progress, and there is no use of talk-277
ing about a steamship service which takes about a week to get started. The vessel is partly loaded at Halifax, and then it goes 1 to St. John to finish the loading, which usually takes about a week. That is too slow for this progressive age. In my judgment, the service should either he from St. John alone or from Halifax alone; or, if there is jealousy between the two ports- and I am afraid my hon. friend from St. John would not agree to the service being from Halifax alone-and if we cannot have a single service, let there be two services. The service should be of some benefit to the people of Canada, and should stimulate trade between Canada and the West Indies, and I am afraid that the present service has done neither the one thing nor the other. We have simply been paying out large sums of money to transportation companies and getting no benefit. I do not say that the transportation companies have not given as good a service as they could afford in the circumstances, hut there should be a service that would be of benefit to exporters and to Canadian commerce in general.
I believe that the contract should be made with a real transportation company and not with some local company which might organize itself into a transportation company, hire steamers, and do what I might almost call a tramp business. I do not wish to pass any reflections on the service we have had in the past, but I know there has been at least one service between the Maritime provinces and a portion of the West Indies that has not been the success it might have been simply because the company who were carrying it on did not own vessels. They were not a real transportation company, and consequently were not in a position to give the people the benefit they were entitled to receive. I am satisfied that those gentlemen gave all the service they could afford to give; the difficulty was that they were not a transportation company. They hired a vessel here and a vessel there, paid big prices for rentals and had little or nothing left for themselves, with the result that the *exporters had to pay bigger freight rates than the business justified. I do not know what ideas the minister may have. We have heard reports about the Government entering into a contract with the Elder-Dempster Line and also with the Canadian Pacific railway. I believe there is no company in Canada in such a good position to undertake this service as the Canadian Pacific railway. I hold no brief for the Canadian Pacific railway. When the elections come round they are about the hardest competitors I have, but they are a good transportation company, and whatever they do they do well. If the Canadian Pacific railway entered into a contract with the Government to give a fortnightly service.



or a three weeks' service, or a monthly service, they would carry it out loyally and from a business standpoint. They would be able to give a through bill of lading from any point in Canada to any point in the British West Indies because they would have a continuous service both by rail and water. For these reasons, I think they are in a better position to carry on this service than any other company. I repeat ithart I am casting no reflections upon any company which has been carrying on business between Canada and the West Indies, or which may intend to do so in the future. I merely mention this to support my original proposition that if this service is to be a success we must (tarry it on through Canadian ports, and we must be able to give a service as cheap as or cheaper than the service through American ports. If there is a difference of four cents in one hundred pounds in favour of the New York route, that is almost prohibitive against Canadian traffic, but if we gave a sufficiently large subsidy, and the business was carried on by a Canadian company which had a through service, from a point we will say in the Rocky mountains to Trinidad, we would have a service which would be a real competitor with that from New York and Boston. We all know that if we have the transportation facilities we will get the business. I do not have to argue to this House that good transportation facilities always produce a paying business, and the better and cheaper the transportation facilities are, the more business we will secure. Therefore, I submit it is important in the interests of the trade of the West Indies and of Canada that we should have a service between either St. John and the West Indies, or between Halifax and the West Indies, or from both St. John and Halifax, and that it should be carried on by a company who would own and operate their own boats and be able to give a service up-to-date, so that the shipper would know exactly what to figure on. That service should be from Canadian ports and Canadian ports alone. Therefore, I move,
That the said Bill No. 28 he not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend the same, by adding to section 5 thereof the following sub-section, namely:
(3) All steamships so subsidized shall be required to ply direct between Canadian port or ports and the said British West Indian colonies.


William Pugsley: Before the Minister of Trade and Commerce left for Australia, he made the statement that when this Bill came up for third reading, he would inform the House as to the conditions of the West Indian service and also would give informa-Mr. CARVELL.
tion as to the tenders and contract which would be made, if such contract should be made. We have had a good many rumours in the newspapers and we would like the acting minister to give us full information upon the subject.


George Halsey Perley: I have listened with
a great deal of interest to the observations of my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Car-veil), with regard to the steamship service between Canada and the West Indies. We are all anxious to carry out our understanding with our West Indian friends in good faith and in a way that will accomplish the best results from this trade agreement. There is, and has been, a great deal of difficulty about arranging a proper fast service with the West Indian islands. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) gave much time to the matter before he went away and I havd given considerable tinie to it since then. Before I give to the House the details of this contract that we have entered into_ for this service between the lower province ports and the West Indies, I will say a few words in regard to some of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Carleton. He advocates a direct steamship service between our ports and the West Indian islands and moves an amendment to the Bill now under discussion which embodies that idea. The Government never seriously considered subsidizing any service except a direct one between the West Indian islands and Canada. One of the tenders that was put in provided that the steamers should be allowed to stop at American ports under certain conditions. This matter was discussed 'by the Government and we felt that it would be a mistake to subsidize a steamship service of that kind. As I think I stated in the House before, in answer to a question by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), we have not made a contract which permits stopping at American ports, nor have we any idea of making a contract of that kind. This agreement which we are considering to-day on the third reading is one that was entered into with the West India delegates and it seems to me that it does not permit of amendment in this shape. The policy of the Government is that the steamers shall run direct from the British ports in the West Indies and in Bermuda to Canadian ports and I think we will all agree in this House that it is a wise thing to do in -the national and imperial interests.
My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) says that our trade largely comes through United States ports. As a matter of fact, I do not agree with that statement made by my hon. friend to the extent to which he makes it, but I do know that we have a good deal of trade from the West Indies coming through

United States ports. The main reason for that is that there are in the United States, and particularly in New York, large business firms which have been carrying on trade with the West Indies for a number of years and who control that trade and it suits them better to ship flour from our Northwest through New York," through the port where their business house is situated, than it does to ship it through Halifax. I know it has been stated that the rate by New York to Montreal is less than by Halifax, but I would like to sue that substantiated more than by mere statement, because I am assured by the contractors for the service from Halifax and St. John to the West Indies that such is not the case. There is in the contract a very carefully drawn clause which distinctly prevents anything of the kind. In the contract which exists to-day, and which is an extension of one made by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in power, and in this new contract which we have made, this provision is there in carefully drawn language. If it can be shown that goods coming from Barbados, for instance, to Montreal are brought more cheaply via New York than via St. John or Halifax, we have the power, and it is in the agreement, to rectify that.


William Pugsley: Would the minister
read that clause?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: May I be permitted to say that I spoke, of course, without knowing the contents of the agreement. Perhaps the minister would give the House the agreement, and then we would be able to more intelligently understand what we are referring to.


George Halsey Perley: An order of the House
has been passed, on a motion of the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), for certain papers, in connection with this service, and if my hon. friend would put in a supplementary motion, I would be glad to bring down the papers up to date, including the contract and the Order in Council authorizing it. I will try to expedite the return so that the papers will be brought down as soon as possible.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister might give all the particulars of the arrangement now.


George Halsey Perley: I would be very glad to do so, but it would hardly be wise to read the whole contract at the present moment.


William Pugsley: Is the minister reading from the new agreement now?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, this is the new
agreement. I will just read the portion that has particular reference to the point that we were discussing.
277i
It is agreed and understood that the freight rates on south-bound trips, sailing from Halifax or St. John as hereinbefore provided, on through bills of lading from any places in the provinces of Ontario or Quebec or from any Canadian points farther* west, shall in no case be greater than from the same place via any United States routes or ports; and on north-hound trips the rates from any port in the British West Indies to any place in Ontario or Quebec or other Canadian points farther west, shall be as favourable as via any United States route or port to the same place.


William Pugsley: I would like to ask the minister if there is any clause in the agreement which provides that the rates from the West Indies to Halifax and St. John shall be as low as the rates from the West Indies to New York. I am informed that on certain classes of goods the rates to St. John are nearly double what they are to New York and there is no possibility of getting the grievance remedied. The people interested feel that it is a very great hardship.-


George Halsey Perley: If the hon. gentleman
will permit me, I will leave that question for the moment. I may say that there is in all these contracts a general provision that the minister has authority over the freight and passenger rates and if they are found to be unreasonable, he has, nominally and technically, at all events, the right to see that they are reduced. I do not think there is anything that definitely covers the point mentioned toy the hon. member for St. John.


William Pugsley: Does the minister think there ought to be?


George Halsey Perley: I believe the rate to St. John ought not to be greater than the rate to New York. I discussed the matter with Mr. Black and I understood from him the rates were the same. No doubt complaints were made in certain cases that the rates now charged are higher than those of last year, but as my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) knows, all the steamship rates have gone up somewhat, and in speaking with Mr. Black he simply -told me they charged to Halifax and St. John the same rate that was charged to New York. If there is any discrimination it should be carefully looked into. After considering carefully this new contract we have entered into for the West Indian service, endeavouring to get a contract for a term of years which would be satisfactory, we decided to make the contract for merely one year. The present contract expires on the last day of June and the new contract made with the present contractors, runs for twelve months, to expire on the 30th of June, 1914. These contractors have undertaken to join with others, and Mr. Black is now in England

with that end in view. Our arrangement with Messrs. Pickford and Black is that this contract shall be transferred to a new company with other people in it and these other people are to be approved by the department. The boats are to run every twelve days and it will take four boats to perform the service. Two of these boats are to be the same as the contractors have been using under their present contract and the other two are to be modern boats of a high class. These new boats are to be of British register one hundred 'A 1' Lloyds, of not less than 4,500 tons gross register and 5,000 tons dead weight capacity, with refrigerator chambers, electric light, and al! modern conveniences, capable of steaming twelve knots per hour, with passenger accommodation of fifty first-class, forty second-class, and a hundred steerage.


William Pugsley: When will these new
boats be put on?


George Halsey Perley: The contract starts the
1st of July.


William Pugsley: They will be secondhand boats, they will be bought in the Old Country?


George Halsey Perley: I am unable to say as to that. They may be chartered boats.


William Pugsley: They cannot be new boats.


George Halsey Perley: I quite understand that, but Mr. Black had in mind to discuss the matter with the Royal Mail and Elder-Dempster people. For the two new boats we are to pay $75,000 each per year. After considering the matter for a long time it seemed to me this was a reasonable temporary solution of a problem which presents a great many difficulties. As I view it, the heavier part of the cost is because we are trying to get a good passenger service. I believe that a freight service could be profitably run to the West Indies without very much subsidy, provided it was understood the Government would not subsidize some other line, but when we endeavour to get modern passenger boats to compete with the vessels running from New York and Boston, we find it costs so much to run these ships that the steamship .men ask very heavy subsidies. Under this plan we will be able to see whether these good passenger ships will get reasonable patronage from Halifax and St. John.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The subsidy you pay is $300,000 a year.


George Halsey Perley: It comes to $200,000-
$150,000 per annum for the two better-class boats and $50,000, or one-half the present subsidy, which we give to the two other boats.
Mr. PERLEY


William Pugsley: Is not the present subsidy more than $50,000?


George Halsey Perley: The present subsidy is
$100,000 for four boats, and we are paying half of it for two of the present boats, and $150,000 for the two better boats.
To my mind this is a passenger problem. Can we by putting on first-class boats get enough passengers to make these boats pay, because we can get a good freight service for much less money-in fact, for a comparatively small sum, if we eliminate the question of passengers? By this method, the problem is settled for this year and we shall know a little better whether these boats will attract to themselves the passengers necessary to make them pay.
My hon. friend has referred to the reports about certain tenders that were put in. I will give a short resume of what happened when these tenders were asked for and of what offers we got. In the first place, the present contractors, Messrs. Pickford and Black, put in tenders for services of varying frequency and vessels of different speeds. One was for a twelve-knot service every twelve days for a subsidy of $315,000 per annum. None of these tenders provided for cold storage in the vessels, and the itinerary was to remain as it is at present; that is to say, a boat comes from the West Indies to St. John, discharges its cargo, takes on board cargo for the West Indies, then goes to Halifax and sails from there. We did not consider it wise to enter into a long contract on these terms. If my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) would arrange that either Halifax or St. John would give way to the other port, and have the ships sail from one port only-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is impossible.


George Halsey Perley: -it seem3 to me it would be a fairly easy task to arrange, but the present itinerary does not seem to be very satisfactory.
The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company did not put in a regular tender; but they afterwards made proposals to provide next July a fortnightly service of eleven-knot steamers for two years for $300,000 per annum. with the condition that the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company would have the option of declaring at the expiration of one year whether they would continue the contract for a further period of ten years with steamers of an average speed of twelve knots at sea. The Government did not consider it advisable to enter into a two-year contract with any company on these terms. We offered to arrange with them for a two-year service on the understanding that we would get together afterwards and try to arrange for a ten-year service; but we did not consider it advisable to give them the option, and I [DOT]TO sure that the hon. mem-

bexs will feel that we were justified in our action.
Another tender came from the Canada-West Indies Syndicate for a fortnightly service to commence in eighteen months with vessels capable of steaming fifteen knots, for a subsidy of $300,000 per annum for fifteen years. This was coupled with a condition that they should receive a further sum of $150,000 per annum from the governments of the British West Indies and British Guiana. The Government did not consider it wise to accept their tender with a condition of that kind attached to it. My hon. friend has said some nice words about the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and I quite agree with him that anything that that company undertakes is well done. This tender, however, was not received from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company but from the Canada-West Indies Syndicate, composed of prominent gentlemen in Montreal some of them are affiliated with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; but that company would not have been responsible for this contract. The connection was that the Canada-West Indies Syndicate had a traffic arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any mention in that tender about a call at tbe port of Boston?


George Halsey Perley: The original offer made
by the syndicate provided for a call at Boston; but the Government refused to entertain such a suggestion, and afterwards the syndicate withdrew that condition. The present contract into which we have entered with Messrs. Piekford and Black is improved, as I said, with regard to the class of vessels that are to be put on, and in one or two other ways. For instance, clause 5 of tbe contract says:
It is declared to be the intention of the contractors, and the contractors undertake to associate with themselves certain other responsible persons and with them to form a new steamship company for the purpose of carrying out this contract in a thoroughly satisfactory way and the minister agrees to consent to such assignment of this contract,1 provided it is shown to his satisfaction that such company is able to fulfil all the obligations of this agreement.
In order to help out the difficulty in St. John, I have inserted clause 7, which reads as follows:
It is further understood and agreed that the contractors shall at all times, when so required by consignors and at the expense of the contractors, pay the freight charges by rail from St. John to Halifax on all perishable goods intended for shipment by their steamers.


William Pugsley: The same provision has been in tbe contracts for some years.


Mr.   PERELY@: I have been told that it
has been done in certain cases, but it has never been in any of the contracts.


William Pugsley: That does not help out the difficulty.


George Halsey Perley: I quite understand that the matter is full of difficulty, but my hon. friend will agree with me that it will make some difference to the people of St. John.


William Pugsley: What is the date of the agreement?


George Halsey Perley: It is dated the 14th day of April, and is made between the present contractors, Messrs. Pickfo-rd and Black, Limited, and tire Government, for one year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to
say a few words on the third reading of this Bill, particularly in reference to the treaty as it may be affected by the steamship service carried on between Canada and the British West Indies. In some respects I agree with the observations made by my hon. friend from Carleton (Air. Carvell) in regard to the value of an efficient steamship service between Canada and the West Indies and its effect in developing trade. But I am not disposed to agree with him in hig views respecting the decree of efficiency in the past years nor with what I think are probably his views as to the kind of service we want between Canada and the West Indies. A feeling prevails that if we had a very high-class steamship service between Canada and the West Indies it would do a great deal for Canadian trade. To some extent that is true; but there is a point at which the increase of efficiency must cease, a time when contractors, to be practical and successful in their operations, must cease raising the standard of the service. I think there is altogether an absurd idea as to the character of the steamship service that we should have between Canada and the West Indies; and I do not think anybody has been more mistaken in this respect than the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster). I gather from the proceedings of the West Indian Conference and from returns I have perused that that hon. gentleman was under the impression that the main thing was to have a first-class steamship passenger service between the two countries. There is nothing whatever to warrant an expensive and high-class passenger service between Canada and the West Indies. If we are to develop and increase our trade there it must be by paying more attention to an efficient commercial service. For many years to come the number of passengers travelling between Canada and

the West Indies must necessarily be small. It is small to-day, between the United States and the West Indies, with the exception of a few months in the winter, and during that time the extra passenger ^service is carried on by special boats placed on the West Indian route. I assume that the greater portion of Canadians desiring to travel to the West Indies during the winter season will do so via American ports, largely the port of New York. If it is desirable to have a corresponding passenger service from a Canadian port it would be far sounder and more businesslike for Canada to pay a special subsidy for a special service for two or three months during the winter season. In the very nature of things there cannot be a great deal of passenger travel between Canada and the West Indies, or between the United States and the West Indies, on account of climatic conditions. One reason why the Pickford and Mack services operating from Halifax have not been able Ito meet the demands- of some of the travelling public is that for nine months in the year /practically nobody travels from Canada to the West Indies, nor do they desire to travel; and it would be a great burden upon any contractors-


John Douglas Hazen: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that no Canadians go to the West Indies during nine months of the year ? Is it not a fact that a large number of Canadians go to the West Indies but that they go by American lines.


William Findlay Maclean: Not all the year round. They go only in the winter season. But during the summer season, of course, business men, and especially commercial agents, have occasion to go to the West Indies, and they might go there via American ports, but the number going to the West Indies during the summer season must be small, because nobody desires to go to the West Indies during the summer months unless it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, in considering what should be the character of the steamship service between Canada and the West^ Indies, too much stress should not be laid upon the consideration of providing a service that would equal, say, the boats sailing from the port of New York during the winter months-. It would be an unfair imposition upon the contractors and no good service would be performed for the country.
My hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., complains about the character of the service now being performed between Canada and the West Indies, and I have no doubt that in many respects his criticism is justified. The service, perhaps, was not what it should have been, but there are a good many reasons for that. I think that if my hon. friend from Carleton and my hon.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
friend from St. John would agree, I could suggest a very cheap and easy remedy for many of the defects in the steamship service now operating between the Maritime provinces and the West Indies. In the first place, this service, perhaps, has not been what it should be because the term of the contract between the Government and the company has not been sufficiently long. I regret that the agreement recently entered into between Pickford and Black and the Government is not for a longer period of time. It is hardly fair to the contractor, and hardly fair to the publio who are interested, to have a contract covering so short a time. One could hardly expect a contractor to make the investment necessary to put desirable steamships upon this route unless there is some certainty as to a long tenure of the contract. I submit to the Government that unless they very shortly enter into a contract covering a considerable number of years with some contractor, they will hardly get the service which we deserve. There is this further to be said in reference to the criticisms directed against the Pickford and Black service from Halifax, and that is that these steamers are obliged to call at two ports, St. John and Halifax. If that can possibly be avoided by the selection of one port, which, I would suggest, is the proper course, or by the establishment of two services, one from St. John and the other from Halifax, many of the objections to this service would be removed. >Some hon. members well know that the trade between the West Indies and the Maritime provinces ports a great deal of sugar cargo is carried. That is considered by ship-owners a very dirty cargo. It has a bad effect upon other cargo carried in the ship, and I have noticed myself that on these West Indian boats on arriving at Halifax with a cargo of sugar, considerable of the woodwork would be turned to a leaden colour owing to the escape of gas from the sugar. Then, owing to the fact that these steamers must go to St. John, and from St. John to Halifax, little time is left for cleaning the steamer between the trips. This lenders the ships less desirable for passenger and freight traffic; the contractors realize the force of the objection and its effect upon the ships and their business, but owing to the loss of time incurred in calling at the two ports, practically no time is left for the cleaning of the steamers. When I say it is in the interests of Canada generally that the ships of the West Indian steamship service should leave the port of Halifax, I know that I shall be charged with sectionalism and undue interest in the constituency which I represent. However, if the facts support the contention that there should be but one port of departure, namely Halifax; then, even were I anima-

ted by sectional motives, that would count for nothing in the end. I believe that a service amply sufficient and efficient for all Canadian trade interests can be obtained
by a service, sailing from Halifax to the West Indies throughout the whole year.


George Halsey Perley: Would the hon. gentleman tell us what kind of boat would be the most useful in connection with this service?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not presume to
offer an opinion on the strength of the assumption that my knowledge of the matter is sufficiently great to ask hon. gentlemen to accept it, but I have frequently discussed this matter with importers and exporters at Halifax, and it is generally considered that a twelve-knot boat will meet the demands of the Canadian trade. It should be remembered that only steamers drawing a limited depth of water can enter some of the West Indian ports. For instance, at Bermuda, steamers drawing a certain depth of water only can enter the harbour there, and it would be useless to subsidize large and expensive steamship lines if the steamers could not enter the harbours of the respective ports.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They do not go to the
wharves, do they?


William Findlay Maclean: They do at Bermuda.
In the West Indian Islands it rarely happens outside of Bermuda, that steamers have access to wharves to load and unload; the loading and unloading is performed by lighterage. These islands are not very far apart, and the practice is to load and unload during the day and sail from port to port during the night, and therefore a twelve-knot service or even one in which the ships attain a lesser speed, will meet the demands of all these islands. As I have said, I have discussed this matter with a great number of exporters and importers in the city of Halifax who know this trade better than any other people in Canada; who have been connected with it for a great number of years and who are familiar with every detail of it. I think it could.be demonstrated that a twelve-knot service is amply sufficient for the needs of this country, and if a faster service is required for passenger trade, possibly some other plan can be worked out, particularly for the winter service. I believe that an efficient service can be operated between Halifax and the West Indies which for a great number of years will meet the demands of this country, and I believe that that service can be carried on just as well by the present contractors or by other Canadian companies as it can be done by the Canadian Pacific railway. I do not know of any reason why
the Canadian Pacific railway can perform that service better than any other people. The rail freight rate from all Canadian ports to Halifax and St. John is as good as it is to New York; it must of necessity be so, otherwise our exporters could not engage in, nor would Canadian steamships get any of that trade.
I have frequently heard the argument made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) respecting the supposed differential rate in favour of New York as against Canadian ports. I have not carefully investigated the matter, but I did about a year ago, and the impression I then formed was that there was not such a differential rate as my hon. friend from Carleton stated.
I think that with a service operating between Halifax and the West Indies all the year round, the company would be very glad to absord the differential rate, if any, for the privilege of entering and departing from one Canadian port all the year round, just as they have agreed to absorb the differential railway freight rate between St. John and Halifax in order to catch the departing steamer from Halifax, having regard to perishable products, which I understood the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce to mention as being a part of the new contract.
It was rumoured a few months ago that one of the companies tendering for this West Indian service desired to call at the port of Boston. The minister assures that that proposal did not meet with favour on the part of the Government; I am glad to have that assurance, although I am inclined to believe that the Government was very much impressed with the proposal at that time. I am glad however, that they have abandoned that idea, and I trust that they will not again return to it.
Representations were also made, according to the press, by business interests in Montreal, urging the establishment of a service between that port and the West Indies. I do not know what grounds were urged by the Montreal business interests in favour of the establishment of such a service, but I would be very much surprised if they could make out half a case in favour of their contention. I would say that for a great number of years it would be impossible for a steamship service between Montreal and the West Indies to obtain sufficient cargoes to pay any r.ppreciable portion of the cost.
A very foolish opinion obtains to some extent in Canada as to the volume of trade between Canada and the West Indies and the possible extension of this trade. It is true that we have a gross volume of import and export trade with the West Indies amounting to probably twelve or thirteen millions of dollars, but our ex-

ports to the islands mentioned in the convention with the West Indies, amount to only $2,145,000, and this consists largely of the natural products of this country. The export of fish alone amounts to about $800,000 a year, and the item next to that in amount is flour. All the articles produced or manufactured in the western provinces of Canada, including Ontario and Quebec, can be forwarded as cheaply to the West Indian islands, via Halifax or St. John as they could be from Montreal if there were a steamship service from that port direct. I also think that some of our Canadian business men are in error when they assume there is an opportunity for a great development of trade in manufactured products with the West Indies. Under this treaty Great Britain obtains the same preference as Canada. Several splendid lines of steamships ply between Great Britain and the West Indies, and a very considerable trade is done between the two countries, the freight rates being extremely light. In manufactured articles I see no possibility of Canadian manufacturers successfully competing with British manufacturers, in many lines at all events. It is quite true that a considerable part of the trade done by the United States with the West Indies might be captured by Canada. For instance, whereas we export to the West Indies about $700,000 worth of flour, the United States exports about $2,000,000 worth. Our exports of meats again are rather a negligible quantity, whereas from the United States the export of meats, amounts to considerably over $1,000,000. Respecting the last item. I do not think there would by any possibility of Canada obtaining that trade. However, the point I wish to make is that with a Canadian-West Indies steamship service operating from one Canadian port, all Canadian exporters would obtain just as great advantages as they would if there were a steamship service operating from Montreal.
I made a suggestion a moment ago, and I wish to amplify it very briefly, in favour of the proposition that in this service there should be one Canadian port of departure and call, and I say that it should be Halifax.
I say so because you can obtain companies to perform that service for a lesser sum of money from the port of Halifax than from the port of St. John. On looking over a return tabled at my instance, and referring to the tenders asked for some months ago for the West Indies steamship service I find that when tenders were first solicited, nobody except Messrs. Pickford and Black, of Halifax, put in any tender. There was a tender,
I think from some company in St. John, who apparently were not steamship owners or who were not in the steamship business, and their tender was disregarded by the Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
department. I find that Messrs. Pickford and Black made four distinct offers, and I wish to give them to the House for the purpose of showing what in their judgment would be the difference if they were permitted to operate from the port of Halifax as against a two-port service, from Halifax and St. John. The first offer was a twelve day service by four steamers of ten knots, the price being $225,000 per annum. From Halifax the price was $195,000. The second offer was a twelve-day service by four ships of twelve knots the price being $315,000. From the port of Halifax alone the price was $285,000. The third offer was a ten day service by five ships of ten knots. The price mentioned was $360,000, but from Halifax it was $324,000.


George Halsey Perley: I think my hon. friend
will find that there is just $1,000 a trip extra for calling at the second port.


William Findlay Maclean: At any rate it is quite apparent that if any steamship company were permitted by the Government to use but one port of departure and call, the services could be performed for a considerably less sum of money annually by way of subsidy, while the efficiency would be increased. I do not wish to labour this point too much. I could show that this West Indies steamship service was begun at the port of Halifax, and that it could scarcely have had a beginning if it had not been for the Nova Scotia trade.


William Pugsley: When was that? My
impression is it was started at St. John.


William Findlay Maclean: The trade between the Maritime provinces and the West Indies was established many years ago. I find that by far the greater proportion, of trade carried between the West Indies and Canada to-day originates at the port of Halifax. The amount of local trade originating at St. John is considerably less than at Halifax. It cannot be said that any western interests w-ouild suffer by reason of the selection of one port, because I assume that arrangements could readily be made between the steamship company and the railway companies for a satisfactory export rate. If that were done, as I have already said, a more efficient service could be given to the public, and one which would meet the passenger traffic demands. However, I do not want to be accused of approaching this matter in a sectional way. It is quite true that in the event of the selection of Halifax as the one port, some disadvantage might accrue to the business interests of St. John, and rather than have the combined two-port service, as it now exists, I think it would be preferable to have two separate services. At any rate, I think it will always be found that froln either St. John or Halifax, or from the combined ports, a West Indies steamship service can

always be obtained to meet Canadian requirements, and that there never will be any necessity for the establishment of another service from the p-ort of Montreal which could have only one ending, a division of the traffic with great injury to both services, and a very considerable lessening of the efficiency of both. I am very glad to learn from the minister that he has entered into an arrangement for a continued service. I think it is extremely unfortunate that the agreement is for a period of one year. It is hardly fair to the public or the contractor, and I think the department might as well make up its mind to enter into a long term contract and thus insure a better service and one which will better meet the Canadian requirements, than will a contract for such a short term as one year.


Mr. J. A. ROBB (Huntingdon):: Mr. Speaker, before the representative of the other rival port speaks, I would like to make a few observations on the treaty now before us. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), continued negotiations where they had been left off by his predecessor with the result that an arrangement has been made which at the very best can represent but a petty cash business for Canada. A people are only able to buy and sell in proportion to their earnings. A year and a half ago we refused to trade with 90,000,000 people whose earnings are probably greater per capita than those of any other people on this continent and to-day we are trying to make ourselves believe that Canada has made a fair bargain because we have negotiated a treaty with about 1,250,000 people living in the West Indian islands, where the head of a family earns from sixpence to a shilling and sixpence per day, and is satisfied if he works four days in the week. The West Indies is a country so rich in vegetation and favoured in climate that the native lies down under a tree and, if hungry, opens his mouth and the fruit falls into it. These are the people with whom we have completed this trade arrangement.
It has already been pointed out that our two chief items of trade under this arrangement are flour and fish. I am sure that we all must admire the unanimity with which our friends from the Maritime provinces agree with the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Perley), that either Halifax or St. John must be the starting point of the steamship service. I hope the members of the House will keep in mind, in connection with the flour business that, whatever may be the profits from the fish business, flour is handled at an average profit of about ten cents a barrel and sometimes less. Under this trade arrangement, while we have a preference of twenty-five cents a barrel, let us not
forget that we are coming into competition with the southern and southwestern states which are tributary to the Gulf of Mexico and the south Atlantic ports where they have vessels going out every second day, and sometimes every day. Let us not forget that the people of the West Indies are not buyers of the same quality of flour as the people of Canada or of the United States. At the very best they take but a moderate quality of flour. In our country we handle flour in barrels and bags. Down in the West Indies, flour is sold on the market place by women in cup measures of about a pint. It is wholesaled largely by Chinamen. We are coming into competition with millers who are tributary to the large corn-growing states which grow a quality of wheat which is not suited for northern and United States markets. While we have an advantage of twenty-five cents a barrel we must take care that we are not going to lose that advantage by establishing a freight rate which will give our United States competitors an advantage over us. The minister, some moments ago, said that he had not been offered any evidence that Halifax and St. John were at a disadvantage as against New York in the matter of freight rates. I would like to point out to the minister that the freight rate from Fort William to New York, via Buffalo is twenty-one and a half cents per hundred, and from Fort William to St John twenty-five cents. To Halifax the rate is twenty-seven cents, or two cents over that of St, John. From New York to the West Indian ports the rate is twenty-two cents per hundred pounds. That is the competition that we are up against in so far as the northern states and Canada are concerned. But, when you go down into the southwestern states, which have their outlet by way of the ports of the Gtuif of Mexico, you find another condition of affairs. While the people of New Yorlr complain that we are taking away a part of their business, let me explain that the business may be handled through a New York commission house, but the flour goes out from New Orleans or Galveston at the rate of seventeen and a half cents per hundred from New Orleans and twenty-two cents from Galveston to West Indian ports. If we cripple the flour trade by compelling it to pay freight from Montreal to St. John or Halifax, we are either going to drive the Canadian business down to New York or we are going to allow the United States people, who have that business now, to keep it. I would point out that while St. John and Halifax are splendid shipping points for fish, as far as flour and cereals are concerned, there are no mills of any capacity east of Montreal and it will be much cheaper for the western Ontario and Manitoba miller to route his stuff via New

York than to route it by way of St. John of Halifax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think it is.


James Alexander Robb: Well, I have the quotations here. I would also call the attention of the House to other rates. Take, for instance, the second and fourth-class rate, which includes dairy products, textiles, &c.; the car load rate on dairy products over Montreal to St. John is thirty-six cents per hundred and to Halifax thirty-eight cents;, while on textiles, it is fifty-one cents to St. John and fifty-three cents to Halifax. These are not local, but export rates. The first and third class rate, which includes boots and shoes, is forty-four cents per hundred for carload shipments to St. John and fifty-eight cents for less than carload. The carload rate to Halifax is forty-five cents and the less than carload rate iar sixty cents. The fifth-class carload rate is twenty-nine cents to St. John and thirty cents to Halifax. I want to point out to the minister that he is proposing to hand over all this ' business to the Maritime provinces. While I admire the hon. member for standing up for Halifax, I must say that the general complaint is that the contractors for the service in the past have had a general monopoly of the Canadian business with the West Indian islands, and that when shippers applied for freight rates they were generally met with the reply that the space was all taken. It is said that, this firm which had a subsidy from the Government were both merchants and shippers, and in that way controlled the Canadian business with the West Indies.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that statement?


James Alexander Robb: I am told they had a merchant business in connection with their steamship business. I have no practical evidence of that; I am simply voicing the complaint I have heard. Another complaint is that when a ship is going out and a man gets an order to put goods on that ship he must see to it that the goods arrive in time for the sailing, and the difficulty about that is that when a carload of goods starts from Toronto or any point West it can be traced as far as Montreal, but as soon as it gets on to the Intercolonial, it is lost track of entirely. You can go to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's offices and ask where a car is that left Winnipeg on a certain day and they will tell you where it was the day before yesterday, but as soon as that ear gets on the Intercolonial it is sometimes put on a siding and is lost track of, and the shipper who is sending the goods to Mr. ROBB.
Halifax for export is at the disadvantage that he cannot trace it and have it forwarded in time for the West Indian boat.
The hon. member foT Carleton (Mr. Carvel!) found fault with the Government because they did not give greater concession to the West Indian islands under this treaty. I am quite in sympathy with that view, the more so that had the Government treated the West Indian people more generously they perhaps might have obtained more from the West Indies in return. The people of the West Indian islands on account of the climate, find cotton the most satisfactory fabric for clothing, and cf the total imports of the different islands, about one-third to one-fifth are imports of cotton. I have been wondering why the Government, in these negotiations, neglected the cotton industry of Canada. I notice they took care of the boot and shoe people and allowed them to deal with the people of the West Indies who go practically barefooted. But, these people do require to wear clothing, and I submit the Government has lost a splendid opportunity to provide larger and wider markets for the cotton people of Canada. It seems to me it is a very unfair return to the cotton industry of this country, that in the very first treaty which this Government negotiated they neglected the very people who stood loyally by them during their fifteen years in opposition and who made every effort to get them back to power. I hope that if negotiations are re-opened, the Government will make an attempt to let our cotton industries share in the business of the West Indian islands. I trust the rival interests of the ports of Halifax and St. John will not have such influence with the Government when they give a larger steamship subsidy for .a tehm of years, as to cripple the trade of Canada.
1 am in sympathy with the hon. .member for Halifax when he says that the passenger business is comparatively of very little importance so far as the West Indian tourist trade is concerned, and that the freight business is the real business that we should ic-ok to. I submit that the Government should take into consideration the ports of Montreal ami Quebec, which are open for seven months in the year and which are most central for the export of the general products of this country affected by the treaty.


Bowman Brown Law: I wish to ask the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce if it would not be possible for these boats in running to St. John to stop at the port of Yarmouth. On their way to St. John these steamers pass and repass Yarmouth, which is at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, so close to the shore that they can be seen with the naked eye. The de-

lay caused by their coming in and going out of Yarmouth would be very short, and I think they would get sufficient freight there to pay them for the stop. Many years ago the trade between Yarmouth and the West Indies amounted to a considerable sum, and in fact it was the largest business of the port, being carried on by brigantines and schooners. That is out of date now and our West Indian trade to-day is very small. A large quantity of molasses is used in the western part of the province and Yarmouth is the natural distributing centre for that trade. Occasionally a cargo of molasses comes to Yarmouth by sailing vessel, but it mostly goes to St. John and Halifax and has to be reshipped, which adds to the cost. I respectfully suggest to the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce that in making this new contract he should consider the proposal to have these boats stop at Yarmouth. As to the existing service, I have no doubt that Messrs. Pickford & Black give as good a service as they are' paid for but there is no doubt that the service has not been up-to-date. I trust that under the new contract a better class of boats will be put on. Two years ago a friend of mine went to the West Indies from Halifax and this ear he wanted to return with his family; ut his previous experience deterred him from taking that route, which no doubt applies to a great many who travel between Nova Scotia and the West Indian islands. I might mention that a twelve-knot boat is not a fast boat for this age, not much faster than the usual tramp freight boat, but with the increased subsidy which the Government is paying, and to which I have no objection, trust the service will be improved. I repeat that the time occupied by the stop at Yarmouth would be very short and if provision was made for the steamers calling there, it would help to revive the old time trade between Yarmouth and the West Indies.


William Pugsley: There is some explanation due to
the House as to why the goods which are to be admitted under this preference, small though it is, are so limited. Why, for instance, are cottons not admitted at a preferential rate? That is a very important-point raised by my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). It seems to me that, if there is one class of goods which would naturally attract the attention of anyone seeking to develop trade with the West Indies, it would be cotton goods which we so largely manufacture in Canada and for which there is such a demand in the West Indies. Yet there is not one word in the agreement with reference to that. What is the reason? It seems to me that the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce ought to tell us why the Minister of Trade and Commerce in negotiating this agreement has so limited the scope of the trade development which he has sought to bring about. I only mention this as one instance.
The more you examine this much lauded agreement, the less you will think of it. It really gives to the West Indies nothing whatever, and to Canada very little. As far as the exports from Canada to the West Indies are concerned, it gives only the small preference of twenty per cent of the duty which is imposed against other countries. That is not large enough to turn trade from United States channels into Canadian channels. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce really had in mind the negotiating of a treaty which would be of benefit to Canada and to the West Indies, he would have adopted a much more liberal policy. What has he given to the West Indies? It is no wonder they do not give us much because he gives them so little. He does not give them anything but what they have to-day and what they have enjoyed for fifteen years, namely, the British preference of thirty-three and one-third per cent without giving anything in return. Under this agreement they get the British preference of thirty-three and one-third per cent as long as that preference continues. If for any reason it should be discontinued, the preference which they get is reduced from thirty-three and one-third to twenty per cent. There is absolutely no advantage given to the British West Indies in this agreement over what other British colonies, which are not parties to it, now enjoy. It is rather a travesty on the agreement that we should have found, only a short time after the House was called upon to consider this Bill, that an Order in Council was passed extending the British preference to many of the British possessions. This is the list of countries to which the Government has extended the British preference by an Order in Council which was passed only a few months ago:
Switzerland, Basutoland, Beehuanaland Protectorate, Northern Rhodesia, Navasaland Protectorate, Unganda Protectorate, East Africa Protectorate, Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, 'Colony and Protectorate of iSouthern Nigeria, Gold Coast, Sierra Leonne, Gambia, Somaliland Protectorate, Federated Malay States,

I can understand extending the British preference to the Malay states, because this Government is linking itself up with the Malay states in other particulars

-British North Borneo, Mauritius -and Dependencies thereof, Seyshelles, St. Helena, Ascension, Friendly or Tonga Islands, Fiji, Falkland Islands, British Honduras.
I do not know why the Government has done that, but it is giving to many comparatively unknown portions of the world identically the same benefits as are being extended to the West Indian colonies, under what some are pleased to call an agree-

merit conferring great benefits upon oui brethren there.
The list of articles which we can send to the West Indies under this twenty per cent preference is also exceedingly limited in its extent.
With regard to the steamship service, I would like to ask the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the subsidy to the steamship lines is to be paid entirely by Canada, or whether any part if it is to be . paid by the British West Indies.


George Halsey Perley: The entire subsidy is to be paid by Canada. There is a clause in the ontract which says that the contractors shall not receive any subsidy from the West Indies.


William Pugsley: Has the arrangement,
which was approved by the commissioners, that there should be a service from Halifax all the year round and a service between Montreal and St. John and the West Indies, to which the British Government was to contribute, been abandoned?


George Halsey Perley: The British Government have definitely decided, and have so communicated to this Government, that they will not consider paying any portion of a subsidy for a service between Canada and the West Indies. The British subsidy was discontinued about two years ago. We asked them if they would care to consider giving some help towards this service, and they replied that they did not see their way to do so.


William Pugsley: So that it is a matter entirely for Canada to deal with, in so far as the steamship subsidy is concerned.
The acting minister, I presume with the view of showing that there was no necessity for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), has made the statement that the Government had never thought of allowing subsidized steamers to go to Boston. It is within my own knowledge that not many months ago, the boards of trade of St. John and Halifax-St. John at all events, and I was informed that the same was true of Halifax-were requested to send delegates to Ottawa for a consultation in regard to the service. After they came here and had interviews with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and possibly with other members of the Government, they returned home and one of the most influential delegates from St. John gave an interview in the papers in which he made the positive announcement that the Government had decided to give the subsidy to a steamship line which intended to make Boston a port of call. That was announced publicly by this delegate and apparently with all the authority which would be attached to the position of a delegate who had come to Ottawa for the purpose of consulting the Government at its request.
Mr. PUGSLEY.
I am, however, very glad to have the positive assurance of the minister that the contract provides against these steamers calling at an American port. We fought out that question in St. John many years ago, and the principle was pretty well established that it was in the interest of Canada that no subsidized steamers should be allowed to call at ports in the United States. I am disappointed that the minister has not given us assurance that in the immediate future the provisions of the treaty under which the preference is to be allowed only upon goods coming direct from the West Indies to Canadian seaports may be brought into operation. That provision is to be brought into operation by Order in Council. Is it intended that the present arrangement shall go on indefinitely and that goods coming through the ports of Portland, Boston, and New York, to points in Ontario and Quebec and the other Provinces shall enjoy the same advantage as though coming direct through Canadian ports? Surely when we are taking this new departure, making arrangements with the West Indies-our West Indian brothers being satisfied that the preference shall be restricted to goods coming direct-this is the time when we should take a determined stand and make a patriotic effort to turn the trade into Canadian channels; this is the time to act vigorously; this is the time to make sacrifices by giving larger steamship subsidies if necessary to bring the goods to Canadian ports. But, instead of that, it is contemplated that the imports from the West Indies shall still be made through American ports and that no advantage shall be given on goods brought through Canadian ports. This is to go on indefinitely and Canada is not to get the benefit she might get if this preference were limited to goods coming through Canadian ports. I know that there are some importers in Ontario and the West who say that they ought to be allowed to get their goods through American ports if they wish to do so, and that no preference should be given to the Canadian ports. But I think that is not the view of the great majority of the people of Canada. In order to build up this country it is necessary, owing to the fact that these great ports of Boston and New York are nearer to Canadian commercial centres than are the ports of the St. Lawrence and the maritime provinces, that some sacrifices should be made to build up the trade through Canadian channels. Whenever the people of Canada have been appealed to, they have taken strong patriotic ground, and have been willing to make sacrifices in order to bring about such a result. If the Government had said at once to the stea.rn.ship owners and to the railways companies such as the

Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Pacific railway who might be disposed to engage in the steamship business: 'Now, it is our intention to avail ourselves of the provisions contained in this agreement and to provide that the preference shall only be given to goods going direct from the West Indies through Canadian ports, and in order to obtain that object we are willing to give larger subsidies to the steamship line; 1 I believe that they would have been able to secure the establishment of such a line. Because we know that if, in addition to a first-class steamship service, there is a preference on goods, the effect must be to enlarge the irrofits through Canadian ports to which these steamships would come, and so in a few years, to make the steamship business more profitable than it can be so long as the bulk of our goods come from the West Indies into American ports. But, as I have said, we have no hope, so far as any statement of the Government is concerned, that in the near future this preference is to be limited to goods coming through Canadian ports. The view 1 have expressed now with regard to the West Indian agreement, I hold also with regard to the preference with Great Britain. I believe that the Government should take a firm stand and make the announcement that at a certain time in the near future, the British preference will be limited to goods brought direct through Canadian ports. We should take a firm, patriotic stand, and say we are determined, as far as it can be done by preferential tariffs or steamship subsidy, that the trade shall be brought to Canadian ports.
Now, a word with regard to a very interesting statement of my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) as to the advantages which would accrue from making Halifax the one port for import and export from and to the West Indies. I do not think my hon. friend has demonstrated very clearly that Halifax has any very great advantage over ports in New Brunswick in this particular. I could name two or three ports in New Brunswick which would have considerable advantage, in my judgment, over the port of Halifax, or at least would be at no disadvantage as compared with that port. There is the port of St. John, the port of L'Etang, and the poit of St. Andrews, all of which are very much nearer Canadian centers, so far as the railway haul is concerned, than the port of Halifax. And it must never be forgotten that, while it is of enormous advantage to have a natural harbour like the harbour of Halifax, we can always create a harbour if necessary. The ability of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to utilize modern. engineering skill and appliances would give a harbour any depth of water
you like or any protection you like in places where, perhaps, there are not the natural advantages; but you can never annihilate distance. And so it will always be an advantage to a port that the rail haul is less than from some other port that may have other advantages. Therefore, the fact that St. John and other ports in New Brunswick are nearer the commercial centres than is Halifax will always be to a certain extent in favour of those ports. I do not wish to say a word against the port of Halifax, as a very considerable West Indian business can be done through that port. But what I do wish to contend against is the continuance of the policy of having steamers call at both ports. With the remarks my hon. friend made in that respect, I entirely agree. But the remedy is not to take out either St. John or Halifax. The remedy is to give an independent service to each port-one week or fortnight to Halifax and the next week or fortnight to St. John; but let each service be a direct and independent service. In that way, you would give far greater satisfaction and would be able to do a very much better business. It is the trip around the Nova Scotia coast from St. John to Halifax or Halifax to St. John that is the great handicap. The same is true of the Atlantic liners. If I had my way, I would divide the steamers into classes, let one class call at Halifax, direct call, and depart for Great Britain direct from Halifax, not making a call at the port of St. John. I would let the other class of steamers go direct to St. John and depart direct from St. John. There is no reason in the world why that should not be done, and in that way we would enable the people to develop a freight and passenger traffic through each of these ports.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Upon what principle
of freedom of trade does my hon. friend base his argument in favour of legislative interference?


William Pugsley: I was not aware that
my hon. friend belonged to a party strongly in favour of freedom of trade. I do not sufficiently understand my hon. friend's question to reply with any advantage to him, but I do think it is the duty of public men in a country situated as Canada is to endeavour, by legislation and by subsidies, to turn Canadian trade into Canadian channels. At the time of Confederation, Portland, in the state of Maine, was the winter port of Canada. We had no railway connection between Montreal and St. John and Montreal and Halifax, and the Grand Trunk was extended to Portland with a view to giving to Canada a winter outlet. But the efforts of public men were turned in the direction of creating Canadian winter ports. This has cost a good

deal of money and has required a great deal of effort, but everyone will admit that the country has been fairly successful in that direction. I desire to move the following as am amendment or addition to that proposed by my hon. friend the hon. member for Canleton (Mr. Carveil).
And also to amend the same by inserting the following as sub-section 2 to section 3 thereof:
2. Provided that if and whenever, during the term of said agreement, the said colonies shall agree with the Government of Canada to admit into any of the said respective colonies the goods enumerated in schedule A to said agreement, being the produce or manufacture of Canada, at rates of customs duties not exceeding fifty per cent of the duties imposed in the colony on similar goods when imported from any foreign country, the goods enumerated in schedule B being the produce or manufacture of any of the colonies, parties thereto, when such goods are imported direct from any of the said colonies, shall, so long as said agreement as so midified remains in force, be admitted into Canada free of customs duties.
The effect of this sub-amendment would be to place upon the statute books a standing offer to these West Indian colonies that whenever they increase their preference to fifty per cent, all the goods enumerated in schedule B shall come into Canada free of duty. These goods are all enumerated in schedule B, and instead of some of them, as at present, coming in free, and being subject to duty, they would all come in free. I think that in considering this agreement we are apt to forget the interests of the consumer. We ask ourselves what the West Indies is giving to Canada and what Canada is giving to the West Indies, but we do not ask ourselves what benefit the consumer of Canada gets from this arrangement. I think it is just as important as the matter of finding a market for our manufacturers and our producers. Here was an opportunity for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say to our friends of the. British West Indies: * Give us not a mere preference of twenty per cent, which will not have any material effect, but give us a substantial preference of fifty per cent, and we will allow the goods mentioned in this schedule to come into Canada free of duty.' Here was a splendid opportunity to confer a substantial benefit upon the West Indies and at the same time to confer a substantial benefit upon the consumers of Canada. Why should we not do that? Today we have such a revenue that we surely do not need to increase it. The hon. the Minister of Customs said yesterday that during the year ending March 31, last, the customs revenue alone amounted to $115,000,000. What does that mean? It means that the consumers-the workingmen of Canada, the farmers, the miners, the fishermen, the millions of hard-working people of
Mr. PUGSLEY
Canada-have been obliged to put their hands in their pockets and pay in taxes this enormous amount of money. Anyone who observed the satisfied air of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs when it was stated that this huge amount was collected in customs duties might have thought that by means of some magic wand they were bringing this great sum of money into the treasury, and that in some way they were entitled to credit for its receipt. But one must not forget that the people of Canada are paying this large amount of money; in customs revenue alone for every mail, woman and child in this country there was paid in taxes last year the sum of $14. And yet the Government neglected the opportunity of providing for the free admission of West Indian products into the country-products which do not compete or unduly compete with those of Canada-and for the sake of getting a mere pittance by reason of the trade of our people with the West Indies, they have made this arrangement whereby they give them in return nothing whatever beyond what they have enjoyed for ,Jhe past fifteen years. What are the products enumerated in schedule B? Let me enumerate them, and ask hon. gentlemen why they should not come in free; why that offer should not have been made to the West Indies. Listen to this list:
Sugar, molasses and syrups; shredded sugar eane; fresh fruits of all kinds; cocoanuts; asphalt and manjak; coffee; cotton, raw, cotton seed and cotton seed meal; cotton seed oil; rice, uncleaned, rice cleaned, and rice flour and rice meal, and rice bran; petroleum, crude; oils, coal and kerosene, distilled, purified, or refined petroleum; copra and eo-cocanut oil; rubber, raw and batata; bulbs; logwood and logwood extract; annatto; turtle shell, unmanufactured; ginger, nutmegs, and spices, unground; arrowroot; salt; sponges; vegetables, fresh, of all kinds; tapioca and cassava; tapioca and cassava flour; honey and beeswax; oils, essential, including bay oil and otto of limes; tamarinds, fresh or preserved; cattle food containing molasses; peanuts and kola nuts; diamonds, uncut; timber or lumber of wood not further manufactured than sawn or split; timber or lumber of wood, dressed; vanilla beans; bay leaves; papaine; lime juice, fruit syrups and fruit juices, non-alcoholic.
I am aware that, aside from this arrangement, some of these products come in free of duty. But, in consideration of getting a substantial preference in the markets of the West Indies, why should not the Government have agreed that all those articles should come into Canada free of duty, thus, as I have said, securing greater benefit in the West Indian markets, and at the same time lightening the burden of taxation on the consuming public of Canada. So far from looking towards the benefit of the consumer, the Government has actually raised the duty on one or two articles of

consumption, so far as other countries are concerned, and in that way they are giving a preference to the British West Indies. But it seems to me that that was a narrow position to take, and that the minister ought to have taken a broad view, and ought to have dealt in a broad and generous spirit with these West Indian colonies. The Government ought to have given them a substantial benefit by admitting their goods free of duty into Canada, and in that way induce the Islands to give to Canada a substantial benefit in the way of preference in their markets. We ought to have protected the interests of the consumer. We talk about our great and growing revenue as if that were something to be proud of. I saw it stated in the newspapers that the Minister of Finance will bring down his budget in a few days and will say that Canada is to-day enjoying the most prosperous year in her history. That is not true, Sir. It is true that the Government is wringing a greater amount of money from the pockets of the people of this country than any government ever did before, but the condition of affairs in Canada to-day is not one which ought to be satisfactory to the Government. The financial condition in Canada to-day is serious, but it is not different from what might be expected when the imports are so enormous compared with the exports. No country can continue to be prosperous so long as its imports are so vastly greater than its exports. Here was a small opportunity, not a, large one I admit, for the Government to deal with the question of the increase of our exports in a generous spirit, and at the same time to reduce the tariff on goods from the West Indies, thus lightening the taxation of our own people. Instead of doing that, all they seem to have had in view was to make a sort of picayune arrangement with our brethren in the West Indies which we could boast of, but which would confer no substantial benefit, either upon the people of Canada, or upon the people of the West Indies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With reference to the amendment to the amendment, I do not think it is permissible for the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) who seconded the first amendment to move this amendment.
.Mr. PUGSLEY: I thought of that, but did not suppose there would be any objection to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is irregular for the seconder of one amendment to move another amendment.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) will move it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will move this
amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not rise so much
for the purpose of discussing the amendment to the amendment originally proposed by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) as for the purpose of saying a few words on the question which was presented to the House this afternoon in a very reasonable way by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvel!), in the amendment which he proposed. My hon. friend from St. John has experienced a very sudden change of heart, even for him, when he comes to the conclusion that within the period which elapsed between the speech of my hon. friend from Carleton and his own remarks, the amendment which he had seconded ought itself to be amended. However, I am not disposed to dwell upon that, nor do I intend to touch very much on what my hon. friend from St. John said except in one or two respects.
My hon. friend has desired us to take a very firm and patriotic stand upon the preference to the British West Indies, and I gather from his remarks that the only firm and patriotic stand that can be taken, according to his conception, is to provide that the preference shall not have effect unless goods are shipped through Canadian ports. It seems to me remarkable that for fifteen years my hon. friend was never conscious that that, firm and patriotic stand was one which should have had the consideration of the late Government, for during the years from 1908 to 1911, it would have been perfectly possible for the Government, of which for many years he was a member, to have taken that particular stand, to the importance of which he seems to have suddenly awakened this afternoon. It would have been well for my hon. friend to have explained to the House why it was that the importance of such a course so suddently dawned upon him, and why, to a man of his remarkably acute mentality, such a plain conception as he regards it to-day, should never have presented itself before.
My hon. friend also deplored the existence of surpluses in this country. But I have seen him year after year vigorously applaud in this House when the predecessor of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was announcing those very surpluses. _ No one was more active than my hon. friend in giving .his acquiescence to that condition of affairs in those days, although now he explains that such a condition outrages every fine feeling which he possesses. It occurs to me that during the period of fifteen years, to which I have alluded, and certainly in the ten years during which my hon. friend was a member of the late Government, it would have been perfectly proper JEor him to have urged upon the then Minister of Finance


William Pugsley: I have a letter from an importer in St. John in which he states that the rate on scrap iron to St. John is nearly double what it is to New York.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will
be good enough to olaoe that information before the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am [DOT] sure it will receive his careful attention and will be brought to the notice of the contractors, who will be asked for an explanation. Any course which is open to the Government under the contract will be taken to remedy discrimination of that kind.
This contract is not before the House either for ratification or approval at the present time; it has come incidentally and very properly so, into this discussion; but I repeat that the course which the Government took had a dual purpose: in the first place, to provide during the ensuing year a service that to some extent at least would be worthy of the purpose for which it is designed; a service which will have some educational value as to how far passenger traffic can be developed between



Canada and the West Indies. This course has also been taken to enable the Government during the six or eight months at their disposal before it will be necessary to call for tenders again, to study the question more thoroughly and carefully than has been possible up to the present, and to present to this House, next year 1 hope, a contract for a longer term, and possibly for a still more improved service. Under these circumstances, the Government have taken, in my opinion, the best course possible.
future, will tend very greatly to encourage and develop that trade.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL-SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 183, respecting the city of Ottawa. -Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
As to the service furnished by Messrs. Pickford & Black, I agree entirely with what the bon. members for Halifax and Carleton have said. For the past six or eight years the contract with Messrs. Pick-ford & Black has been renewed only from year to year, and I do not think it would be possible to expect very good value to the country under such a condition. Much criticism has been directed against the service but it is doubtful whether we could expect anything more effective on a subsidy granted only from year to year. In the future it will be possible, I hope, under a more permanent system, to have a much improved service, not only with respect to passenger accommodation, but also in respect to freight facilities in view of the refrigerator and cold storage systems which are provided. I hope this service will give more satisfaction than it has in the past.
My hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) was rather despondent as _ to the possibility of developing trade with the British West Indies. I would point out to him, for example, that the export in cereals from Canada to the West Indies, has, developed very much of recent years. In 1908 Canada exported wheat flour to the British West Indies to the value of 8334,948, and in 1912 we exported $1,595,000 worth, or nearly 400 per cent more. I would not be at all so pessimistic as the hon. gentleman as to the possibilities of this trade; I think we may look forward to the trade of Canada with the West Indies developing not only in cereals but in fish and various articles of agricultural produce. Sir William Van Horne, who is thoroughly familiar with the conditions in the British West Indies and the other West Indian islands, is of the opinion that for agricultural produce which can be raised in abundance in the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada, there is a much better market in the West Indies than we have at present any idea of. I not only hope but believe that our trade with the West Indies will, in the near future, develop very greatly indeed; I trust the service which is now being provided, and even a better service in the
Mr. WHITE (Minister of Finance! [DOT] When I rose at six o'clock to speak on the third reading of the Bill vaadating the agreement between the Government and the West Indian colonies, I was under the impression that no other hon. gentleman opposite desired to speak. I was informed subsequently that my non. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and possibly some others desired to speak, so I am very glad to yield the floor.
Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). In doing so, I wish with all respect to refer to the criticism of tiie hon member and of _his amendment by the right hon. the Premier. If I remember correctly, that criticism was that the hon. member for St. John was not eligible to discuss the desirability of reducing the cost to the consumer and at the same time of reducing the burden of taxation on the citizen because, during the term of office of the Government of which he was a mem ter, means had not been taken such as he suggested should he taken on this occasion. This is a line of argument that my right hon. friend invariably uses. In my humble judgment, it is invariably futile and ineffective as argument. If our appreciation of our business is that we are' sent here to consider what the governments of years ago did, I do not think it is the appreciation of the people who sent us here. Our business here is to deal with questions, as they exist and as they have arisen, on their merits. The question of what somebody did on a presumably similar occasion at some past date is not really to the point.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend perhaps
misunderstood me. I said that I was not going to deal with that phase of the hon. gentleman's speech; that it would be dealt with later on by the hon. Minister of Finance. I simply alluded to it in passing, saying that these ideas had not occurred to him in past years.


Frank Oliver: That is exactly what I am dealing with. If the right hon. the Premier meant his remarks as criticism, and I take
Mr. BORDEN.

it that is what he did mean, I am arguing that his contention was not well based.


Robert Laird Borden: I was merely calling attention to a phenomenon.


Frank Oliver: I am taking the liberty
of calling attention to the fact, which is known to hon. members, that the Premier and his colleagues, on every occasion when any question arises as to a matter of administration or policy on their part, answer that the Government of some previous day had taken similar or somewhat similar action. This is just as good an occasion as any for dealing with that particular line of argument. The statement that circumstances are similar to-day is no evidence whatever that they are similar. It is in the nature of things that conditions have changed as time has passed. Surely there is a vast difference between a condition that arises under the circumstances of a trade treaty being negotiated and circumstances that existed without any such consideration. When the Government of the day undertakes to negotiate a trade treaty and claims before the public great credit for doing so, then surely is the time for it to defend the merits of that agreement: and the question of previous conditions or previous actions by anybody else is no defence whatever. Am I going too far when I say that, when no defence is offered, when the only defence that is pretended is an attack upon previous actions, the logic of the case is that no defence is possible, and that as a matter of fact, when the treaty is criticised in the terms of the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John, the Government has nothing whatever to say in defence of its treaty or of the position which it has taken?
Now, I have no immediate interest in this particular treaty; but as a member of this House I have a veTy deep interest in the principles which are involved in it; and it is to those principles that I wish to draw the attention of the House. This is called a reciprocity treaty, and it expresses, I have no doubt, the ideas of this Government in regard to reciprocity. If it can be taken as doing so, I want to express my dissatisfaction with the views of the Government in that regard. It will be remembered that the attempt to carry into effect the reciprocity arrangement between Canada and the United States met with very strong and successful criticisms at the hands of some of our friends on the other side who now occupy the treasury benches. That arrangement for reciprocity with the United States expressed Liberal principles with regard to reciprocity. The principles of Liberalism as manifested in the reciprocity arrangement with the United States involved a reduction in the cost to the consumer; that is to say, food
278J
products, speaking at large, were made free of duty on both sides of the line. By the application of that treaty the burden of taxation would have been correspondingly reduced. Therefore the principle of the treaty of reciprocity as embodied in the action of the Liberal Government meant reduced taxation and free trade in food, reducing at once the cost of living and the burden of taxation. I dwell on that point for a moment because my right hon. friend in his criticism of my hon. friend from St. John suggested that that hon. gentleman, or the Government of which he was a member, had done nothing to reduce the burden of taxation upon the people of Canada. The Government of which the hon. member for St. John was a member went out of power, let it be distinctly understood, on a question of the reduction of the taxation on the people of this country. They went out of power on the question of reducing the cost of living and the burden of taxation. It is because they embodied that principle in legislation and stood by that principle in this House and before the country that they are in opposition to-day; it is because of that that our friends opposite are in office to-day. And, speaking as one of that party which has upheld that principle, and which went out of office because of it, I want to say on my own behalf-and I believe I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House-we have absolutely nothing to regret in the advocacy of the principle that we stood for.
Now, what is the principle embodied in the treaty before the House? If I were to undertake to describe the merits of this treaty, and the principles involved as they appear to my mind, I am afraid I should be ruled out of order. But first of all we find this principle, that by schedule (c) of the agreement the cost of living to the Canadian consumer is specifically increased. It is true, the amount is not much, but the principle is there, and it is a leading feature of this trade arrangement. By schedule (a) the cost of living is not reduced to the Canadian consumer. I do not suppose that the people of Canada realize that to-day the Canadian consumer enjoys the benefit of a preference of thirty-three and one-third per cent, speaking generally, on goods imported into Canada from the West Indies. And this remarkable reciprocity treaty provides for a preference of twenty per cent-that is, this grave and- and I was going to say reverend, but I will not say that-this grave and supposedly earnest Parliament is ratifying to-day in the name of reciprocity of trade an arrangement which provides for less preference on goods coming from the West Indies than actually exists at the present time. I was sure, that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order if I expressed my opinion of such a position, but I will risk this so far

as to say that, to speak of this as a trade arrangement or as a reciprocity arrangement, having'in mind the idea of reducing the cost of living to the consumer, is simply humbugging the people, or an attempt to humbug the people; neither more nor less. If Canada is to increase the cost of living in order to get this treaty and does not in any case decrease the cost of living by these provisions, we must receive the benefit that we are going to receive from it through the expansion of trade we shall get under its terms. Our trade is to get a preference in the markets of the West Indies. So, if the consumers of Canada do not get anything by a reduction of the cost of living, the producers of Canada are expecting to gain something because of the preference we receive in the markets of the West Indies.
For what purpose are we negotiating this treaty unless it is to secure a market in the West Indies? I have already shown that it is of no benefit to the Canadian consumer; unless, therefore, it is a benefit to the Canadian producer it is of no benefit at all. Why do we want a trade treaty with the West Indies? Because their trade has already been captured by the United States. For one reason or another, whether it be greater proximity, better transportation, or greater enterprise, the trade of the West Indies desired by Canada is to-day held by the United States, and the whole purpose of this treaty, if it has any purpose, is to enable Canada to get that trade with the West Indies which to-day is being held and carried on by the United States. Are we going to get that trade by reason of a twenty per cent preference for our goods in the West Indian markets? We have found by experience that we have to give the West Indies a thirty-three and one-third per cent preference in our markets, or no good to them will result; yet we expect to get a benefit in their markets because of a twenty per cent preference, against the fact that this trade is all absolutely held by the commercial interests of the United States. It is absurd on the face of it. Unless we are to have a greater preference than twenty per cent we cannot expect to overcome the advantage that the dealers of the United States have to-day by reason of transportation facilities and proximity. If the islands of the West Indies had a high tariff, a reduction of twenty per cent might be of some value, but everybody knows that the West Indian islands have low tariffs, and the lower the tariff the smaller the value of a trifling reduction. Assuming that the duty on a barrel of flour is $1, a twenty per cent reduction would make the duty eighty cents; if the duty were $5, a reduction of twenty per cent would be an important one. The lower the duty the smaller the value of a preference, and of course the smaller the preference, the less the value. We are Mr. OLIVER.
entering into a treaty with the West Indies under which we give no benefit to our consumers, and by which we hope to benefit our producers by a reduction of twenty per cent on a tariff that is already very low, as against the competition of the people who at the present time control the market, and who have the facilities for controlling it in the future.
Under these circumstances, can any person who favours reduced cost of living and reduction of taxation do other than support the amendment of the hon. member for St. John, which declares that upon the West Indies giving us a fifty per cent reduction we will give them free entry into our markets for their products? Certainly by that means we would reduce the cost to our consumers, and we might reasonably expect to confer some benefit upon our producers in the increase of trade by the substantial cut of fifty per cent in the tariff of the West Indies. If we are not to confer any benefit upon either our consumers or our producers, why put ourselves before the world as negotiating a treaty which has no value?
Following upon this treaty is an arrangement whereby Canada is to provide better steamship accommodation between this country and the West Indies. It strikes me that the acquiring of a more efficient steamship accommodation, lower rates and better transportation, is the true method of securing trade as between Canada and the West Indies; but if we are to depend on improved steamship communication, why go through the farce of negotiating a treaty, professing to the people of Canada that a reciprocity agreement has been negotiated when, as a matter of fact, that treaty under no circumstances can benefit either the consumer or the producer of Canada? if that is merely an excuse for doubling the amount of the steamship subsidy without increasing the efficiency of the service, I must say that the whole transaction is one that does not appeal to me either as economic or advantageous; neither does it appear to be one that will tend to the progress or welfare of Canada or to the increase of trade between this country and the islands of the West Indies. It would have been better for the Government to have passed a pious resolution that there ought to be increased taade with the West Indies, and let the matter go at that. It would have cost less and would probably have been productive of as good results. I wish to support the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John, the terms of which call for a substantial reduction in the cost of living to the consumer and hold out a reasonable prospect of increasing and widening the market to the Canadian producer.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, we have had a delightful little lecture from my hon. friend the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as to the impropriety of the Prime Minister's references to the advocacy on the part of my hon. friend from St. John, when the previous Government was in power of different opinions from what he advocates here to-day. My hon. friend from Edmonton has stated that we should deal with questions as they are, and not with the policy that hon. gentlemen may have advocated some time ago. He says, using his own words, that what the previous Government did under circumstances said to be similar is not to the point, and he insists that all questions of this kind should be dealt with on their merits. I entirely agree with my hon. friend that they should be dealt with on their merits, and I can assure him that this particular amendment will be dealt with by myself, entirely, I hope, on its merits. But my hon. friend misses the view that some of us have on this side of the House, that when hon. gentlemen opposite oppose measures that we are introducing, it is a proper method of testing their consistency to call attention to the fact that they took a diametrically opposite view when they were in power, a comparatively short time ago. It is not that we decline to discuss these matters on their merits, but that we desire to point out the inconsistency of hon. gentlemen opposite in opposing them. That is the reason why my right hon. friend the Prime Minister referred to the position taken previously by tne hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) with regard to a matter which I shall mention a little later. My hon. friend from Edmonton has been inconsistent in many ways in his political career. I understand that a few years ago he was a free trader.


Frank Oliver: I have always been a protectionist.


William Thomas White: He is a protectionist today and he belonged to a protectionist government.


Frank Oliver: I believe in protecting the people.


William Thomas White: Let us understand what
my hon. friend means, because I am advised ihat he was a free trader, and he was afterwards a member of a protectionist government. Is that correct, or not?


Frank Oliver: It is not correct.


William Thomas White: There is no question that
the late Government was a protectionist government, is there?


Frank Oliver: I think there is very great question. My hon. friend will admit thai the late Government went out on a policy of ducing the tariff.


William Thomas White: Let us see how far my
hon. friend is correct in that. He says it was not a protectionist government in any degree at all and that it went out on a free trade issue. Let me read a few remarks of my predecessor, the late Minister of Finance whom he followed, from his budget speech of 1909. I happen to have them here:
Those who refine sugar in all forms, the eastern refiners, and those on the Pacific coast, will import their raw sugar under the preferential tariff, paying only the preferential rates, and the duty on the British refined sugar is adjusted accordingly, so that our refiners may have what is deemed a moderate degree of protection.
So if my hon. friend did not know it, there is no doubt at all that the late Finance Minister believed in a moderate degree of protection. I do not suppose that anybody ever heard my hon. friend protest in this House against the views held by the late Minister of Finance with regard to tariff matters. So I say it is in order to test the consistency of hon. gentlemen opposite, when they rise in their places and oppose measures as my hon. friend does, that we recall what they did on other occasions when they happened to be^on this side of the House.
Then my hon. friend has also become an economist. He has suddenly become possessed of views of economy that he did not hold some years ago, and which the Government to which he belonged did not hold. I have heard a great deal of criticism of hon. gentlemen when they were in power, but I never heard that they were commended particularly for the economy which my hon. friend now puts forward as the most desirable thing imaginable in government policy. He will hardly say that they were economical in connection with the construction of the National Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, which cost about three times what it was originally estimated to cost. I am merely calling attention to this to test his consistency by referring to statements which he, or other hon. gentlemen opposite, made on previous occasions, and not with the view of avoiding discussion of these questions upon their merits. My hon. friend has referred to reciprocity. 1 have a sort of tacit agreement with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that we should not discuss the question of reciprocity any more than we are absolutely obliged to.


Michael Clark: I have not
understood that agreement to exist, Mr. Speaker.


William Thomas White: I accept entirely what my hon. friend from Red Deer has said, from his standpoint, but at any rate I have an understanding on my part that I will not discuss it any more than is necessary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Because, as I said before, it is a dead issue, and we do not like to say anything but what is good of the dead. My hon. friend from Edmonton has said that he has nothing to regret in his advocacy of reciprocity. He has said that so often that I think sometimes of Shake' speare's line, slightly changed: ' He doth protest too much.' I think perhaps he does sometimes regret his advocacy of it, unconsciously, because, of course, I do not believe he is making a mis-statement when he says that lie has not regretted it. My hon. friend has referred to the cost of living, and one of his strong points against this agreement is that he says we are increasing the cost of living. Look at schedule ' C ' he says, you are increasing the cost of living to the people of Canada. One of the principal items in schedule ' C ' is fresh limes. We are giving to the West Indies a preference of not less than 10 per cent ad valorem on limes. I do not know how the cost of living is going to be increased under that item, unless in connection with gin rickeys. It seems that limes are used-in the concoction of what we call gin rickeys, but I do not think my hon. friend from Edmonton is specially interested in fancy drinks, and therefore I do not believe that the cost of living is going to be increased to him by reason of that item.
So much for my hon. friend from Edmonton, and now I come to the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I shall say nothing on the amendment of my hon. friend from Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) except that we are entirely in accord that it is extremely desirable that the best steamship facilities possible should be provided in connection with the trade between Canada and the West Indies, and especially in view of the completion of the agreement which we have now under consideration. The matter has been very fully discussed this afternoon, aind I do not think I can add anything to the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. friend the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Perley) and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. With regard to the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), it is a very curious thing that hon. gentlemen opposite should take such diverse views as to the character and nature of this agreement. My hon. friend from Carleton, New Brunswick, said that it was a niggardly agreement, that we do not give enough to the West Indian colonies. On the other hand my hon. friend from St. John complains that we do not secure the admission under preferential rates of more articles to the West Indian colonies. In other words my hon.
Mr. WHITE (Leeds*
friend from St. John takes the view that we do not get enough, and my hon. friend from Carleton, New Brunswick, takes the view that we do not give enough. It is fairly difficult to please all our hon. friends opposite in the views that they take in regard to this matter. The hon. member for St. John is disposed to regard this agreement from a very hard, commercial standpoint. There was a very great deal of goodwill in connection with the negotiation of this agreement on both sides, and let me commend to my hon. friend the example of my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, in dealing with this question of the British preference and its extension to the British West Indies. Mr. Fielding, and the Government of which he was a member, extended the benefits of the British preference to the British West Indies without getting anything whatsoever in return and it was properly counted to them for righteousness in the Empire.


Frank Oliver: That was reducing the
tariff, was it not ?


William Thomas White: It was reducing the tariff, but my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has not followed my argument. This afternoon the agreement has been subjected to criticism because, on the one hand, Canada did not obtain a preference on certain articles not included in schedule 'A' in the West Indian market, and I am pointing out that for many years the late Government, of which both my hon. friends were distinguished members, extended the British preference to the West-Indies without getting any consideration at all, and that act was imputed to them for righteousness. In that they showed that they were not disposed to look at this matter in the hard, commercial way that the hon. member for St. John was looking at it this afternoon. They said they would like to assist the British West Indies and they felt a sense of obligation towards them having regard to the languishing condition of the trade in the colonies ten or twelve years ago-I think in 1898 and 1899. The result which followed was an increased demand in the markets of Canada for products of the West Indies, and particularly sugar. This matter had never been approached by the two parties, the Canadian Government and the West Indian colonies, in any hard, commercial way. We sat down together at the convention in Ottawa in April last in no huckstering spirit, but in a very friendly fashion, all as members of the same great family, with the view of -reaching an agreement which would be beneficial from the standpoint of mutual trade in both countries and also from the standpoint of Imperial unity and solidarity. I cheerfully testify that I never met a more genial and agreeable lot of men in my life than the

representatives of the West Indian colonies. I cannot imagine anything more pleasant and agreeable than our convention, and both the representatives of Canada and the British West Indies were entirely satisfied at its conclusion.
The only regret I have heard expressed, the only criticism that I have heard made of this agreement, has been from a few hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon and previously in connection with the discussion of this Bill in the House. My hon. friend from St. John said: What did we give to the British West Indies more than they had before ? He said that they had the benefit of the British preference. With all due respect and with a great regard for the industry of my hon. friend from St. John, I do not believe that he has gone into this question as thoroughly as he should have. I do not blame him very much because, to have gone into it, he should have read over all the proceedings of the Imperial Commission and the proceedings of the convention here, and he should have posted himself with regard to the sugar tariff of Canada. That he has not done, as I propose to show very conclusively before I conclude. If he had consulted with the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) he would have been in a better position to deal with this question in connection with the amendment which he has proposed; in fact, I think that, if he had consulted with the hon. junior member for Halifax, in all probability he would not have moved the amendment at all. Let me say to the hon. member for St. John that my predecessor, Mr. Fielding, under circumstances which I shall detail at length a little later on in the course of my remarks, gave to the sugar refineries of Canada a twenty per cent preferential rate upon foreign grown raw sugar. The hon. gentleman will observe by the agreement that the privilege has been terminated; in other words, that the British West Indies obtain an exclusive preferential market in Canada for their raw sugar and sugar is the commodity in which they are principally interested. Nine-tenths of the imports into Canada from the British West Indies are composed of sugar and the principal advantage which the West Indies were desirous of obtaining was the advantage of an exclusive market in Canada at a preferential rate as against all non-British raw sugar.


Frank Oliver: Does that mean that in addition to the items included in schedule 'C' we are to have an increase in the cost of sugar as the result of this treaty?


William Thomas White: It would be a very long discussion at the present stage which would be necessary to make my hon.
friend acquainted with the intricacies of the sugar tariff and with all due respect I do not propose to discuss that question tonight. If my hon. friend will look at the provisions of the Bill-I think it is section 3-he will see what is there provided and I shall deal with it a little later on. I shall try not to overlook the point. As I have pointed out to my hon. friend from St. John, the object of the British West Indian colonies was to obtain a preference in the growing market of Canada for their raw sugar as opposed to non-British or foreign raw sugar and as a result of that it is provided that the so-called twenty per cent privilege of the refiners of Canada shall be taken away by tariff change. In addition to that my hon. friend knows that there was a certain privilege which comes to an end at the end of next year to the beet sugar refiners of Canada. That privilege we have agreed not to renew by the express terms of the trade agreement so that there is a very decided advantage to the British West Indian colonies in that agreement as it now stands over and above the position they enjoyed before the agreement was negotiated. The hon. members for St. John and Edmonton have both referred to the twenty per cent preference, but I would call attention


William Pugsley: Before the minister departs from this, would he tell me whether or not he would consider it desirable to make sugar free and whether or not there is any difficulty about it for the reason that he has mentioned?


William Thomas White: Before I conclude I will
show my hon. friend that his amendment precludes the possibility of making sugar free.


William Pugsley: I would be very glad
if my hon. friend would show that.


William Thomas White: I shall not overlook it. I intend to take the matter up fully, I have it in my notes and I will show that it ofiers an insuperable objection to the amendment of my hon. friend. But, let me call the attention of niy hon. friends from Edmonton and St. John to section 3 of the Bill, which says that:
There shall be levied, collected and paid, after the said agreement is in accordance with its terms brought into operation, and so long as it remains in force, on all goods enumerated in schedule f B J to the said agreement being the produce or manufacture of any of the colonies parties thereto, when such goods are imported direct from, any British country into Canada or taken out of warehouse for consumption therein if imported as aforesaid, duties of customs-
(a)	at the rate of four-fifths of the several rates of duties, if any, imposed on similar goods when imported from any foreign country ; or
(b)	at the several rates of duty, if any, set opposite to each tariff item respectively in

the column ' British Preferential Tariff ' in schedule A of the Customs Tariff, 1907, and in any amendment thereof, whichever shall be the lower rate.
We are not taking away from the British West Indies the benefits of the British preferential tariff if it happens to be the lower rate as it would be on substantially all the articles that are not on the free list. That being so we come to this advantage to the British West Indies-in the first place this provision as to giving them an exclusive market, with the preference as against any foreign-grown raw sugar, involves the abolition of the twenty per cent, clause in favour of the refiners. Then under schedule ' C,' in order to meet the case of the important colony of Trinidad chiefly, we have provided that 'cocoa beans, not roasted, crushed or ground,' which are now on the free list, shall continue to come in free from the British West Indies, but that iso far as foreign countries are concerned there shall be a duty of not less than seventy-five cents per hundred pounds.


William Pugsley: Do they make gin rickeys out of that?


William Thomas White: As I understand it, they
do not make gin rickeys out of cccoa. My hon. friend may have drinks of that kind in his private recipe-book, but I never heard of them.


William Pugsley: The reason I asked my hon. friend was that, in referring to the remarks of the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), lie said the only articles as to which there was an increase in the cost of living was that out of which gin rickeys were made, but now there is an increase on cocoa beans.


William Thomas White: I am afraid my hon. friend was guilty of a wilful mis-hearing.


Frank Oliver: In that I want to support the hon. member for St. John; I understood it exactly as he did.


William Thomas White: I never knew my hon.
friend to fail to support anything that came from his side of the House. I mentioned that there were three items, one of which was limes, and another of which was ' cocoa beans, not roasted, crushed or ground,' and these are on the free list and will continue to be there so far as the British West Indies are concerned. The British West Indies claim they can produce all the cocoa beans Canada can consume, but it would not be fair to leave it at that because our manufacturers who use the raw cocoa beans require different blends, and the cocoa bean of the West Indies being of a dark colour our cocoa manufacturers will require blends to make their jiroduct of lighter colour, and on foreign-grown cocoa beans there will be a duty imposed of not less than seventy-five Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
cents per hundred pounds. Trinidad would not come into the agreement if that concession had not been made, these being the instructions to its representative, and Trinidad is one of the most important colonies in the West Indies. Then, we have ' lime juice, raw and concentrated, not refined,' which comes chiefly from Montserrat, and there is to be a duty on foreign ' lime juice, raw and concentrated, not refined,' of not less than five cents per gallon.
What do hon. gentlemen now think of the contention that by this inoffensive little schedule ' C ' to which so much reference has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, we have increased the cost of living to the people of Canada? My hon. friend in his amendment admits that it is not of course in any way necessary to validate this agreement. The Bill before the House is for the purpose of giving effect to the agreement which was entered into by the Convention of April, 1912. My hon. friend said this afternoon that his desire is simply to insert in the Bill what would be a standing offer to the British West India colonies so that when they gave us a fifty per cent, preference upon the articles in schedule ' A '-which are the articles on which Canada enjoyed a twenty per cent preference in the British West India colonies-then the articles mentioned in schedule ' B ' shall come into Canada free. I have no doubt my hon. friend thought he was doing a most commendable thing in that; he did it in his offhand jovian way, and he said: Oh, let them give us fifty per cent preference and we will admit all these articles free. That sounds very well; the only difficulty about it is that it is absolutely not feasible. In the first place, if there is anything abundantly made clear by the evidence taken by the Imperial Commission and by their findings, and the evidence of the representatives of the West Indies at the convention in Ottawa, it is that the people of the West Indies cannot stand more than the twenty per cent preferential rate already provided for in this agreement. So that when my hon. friend says: wait till they give us fifty per cent before the articles are to come in here free, he would know had he read all the proceedings, that would mean never, because they would never be in a position to give us a fifty per cent preference. I should like to read from part VII. of the report of the Royal Commission on the trade relations between Canada and the West Indies. My hon. friend from Edmonton apparently does not know that his Government was a party to the report of the Imperial Commission upon which this agreement is founded, and, that (except that we have added articles to schedules ' A ' and ' B ' and inserted schedule ' C ') this identical agreement was recommended by

the Imperial Commission, the report of which is signed, among others, by his colleagues in the late Government, the Hon. W. S. Fielding and the Hon. William Paterson. My hon. friend should know, if he does not, that the commission prosecuted extensive inquiries in Canada and in the British West Indies in order to make themselves acquainted with the situation.


Frank Oliver: Does the recommendation made by Messrs. Fielding and Paterson include this preference with regard to sugar?


William Thomas White: That is the point exactly. My hon. friend lias not read the sugar tariff; it is the most intricate part of the tariff and I do not blame him for not having read it; but had he read it and the report of the Imperial conference he would have realized that the sugar question is the question in connection with this agreement. The Imperial Commission had in its membership the Hon. Mr. Fielding and the Hon. Mr. Paterson, and this agreement now before the House-extended as to the articles in schedule ' A ' and ' B '-was recommended in the report of the Imperial Commission.


Frank Oliver: Did the recommendations of Messrs. Fielding and Paterson include those readjustments of the Canadian tariff in regard to sugar?


William Thomas White: They recommended the fifteen cents preference on sugar and for the reason which I shall give later.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister is wrong there; they did not recommend fifteen -cents.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from Halifax knows that a combine was alleged among these planters, the contention put forward being that they took the whole or the greater part of the preference of thirty-one cents existing between the British preferential rate and the foreign rate on raw sugar, and if my hon. friend will read over the proceedings of the commission, he will find that they concluded that they would not be in a position to take that advantage, which would be serious so far as the refiners in Canada are concerned, if instead of that thirty-one cents a preference of fifteen cents were granted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The difference is trivial; I thought it was stated in the draft to be twenty cents per hundred pounds.


William Thomas White: It was about half of the thirty-one cents, as my hon. friend knows, although perhaps other hon. gentlemen opposite do not know it.
Let us deal with the question raised by my hon. friend from St. John, of giving
the West Indies a fifty per cent preference. The people of the West Indies are poor. They will have to impose additional taxation upon foodstuffs in order to make up the loss of revenue by reason of this twenty per cent preference which they are giving us. Yet my hon. friend from St. John, deploring the poverty of these people and saying that we have been unfair in making such a bargain with them-my hon. friend from Carleton calls it a niggardly bargain-says:	Let us give them
fifty per cent. They might say:	Thank
you for nothing; we are absolutely unable to do it. I propose to read part VII of the report of the Roval Commission, section 109.


Frank Oliver: Is it because these people are poor that they are not able to reduce the taxes?


William Thomas White: I have answered my hon. friend a number of times. With all due respect to him, I propose to make my speech in my own way. (Reading):
The preference, as stated elsewhere, might be established either by reduction of duties on imports from Canada and the United Kingdom, or by adopting the existing rates on such products and higher rates on similar articles of foreign origin, or by a combination of these measures. A proposal for reducing the existing duties by 10 per cent in favour of Canada and the United Kingdom, and increasing them against foreign countries by an equal amount was put before us. We thought it well worth careful consideration, where the finances do not permit of an immediate reduction of the full 20 per cent on Canadian and British goods. We suggested it to a considerable number of representative witnesses, and we found it received with a large amount of favour. If it were understood that a preference would in all cases have to be created by an increase of existing duties there would undoubtedly be strong op-osition to the movement. It must be remem-ered that the mass of the people inhabiting the West Indian colonies are poor and therefore unable to bear any considerable burden of taxation. Their sources of public income being limited, a considerable portion of the revenue has to be raised by taxation on imported food. An increase of the duties on such articles would naturally meet with much objection.
Not only does this note run through all the proceedings of the Royal Commission and the evidence taken by it, but it is the note running through the proceedings of the convention held here. It was repeatedly brought to our attention that the people of the West Indies could not give more than the preferential rate of twenty per cent to Canada. If my hon. friend from St. John had read the evidence taken by the commission and had carefully considered the proceedings of the convention, he would have realized that it is useless to talk of the British West Indian colonies giving us a preference of fifty per cent.


William Pugsley: Was any offer made to
the British West Indian colonies to admit the articles in schedule B into Canada free of duty?


William Thomas White: No such offer was made
to them because we were rational men, acquainted with the evidence taken before the Imperial Commission. Does my hon. friend mean in return for fifty per cent preference?


William Pugsley: Was any offer suggested to the delegates that they should proceed to negotiate upon the basis of free entry into Canada of the products of the West Indies?


William Thomas White: Most certainly not, as I
shall show my hon. friend in a moment. In the convention, Mr. Chandler, repeatedly pointed out that a very large proportion of the revenue of the West Indian colonies was derived from the duties on fish, lumber, soap, boots and shoes. It was also pointed out to' what an extent the twenty per cent preference would embarrass their revenues. I think it may be taken as conclusive that there would be no chance whatever of inducing the British West Indian colonies to give a fifty per cent preference or indeed any greater preference than the twenty per cent which had been found by the Imperial Commission, which was appointed for the very purpose of investigating it, as a reasonable preference for the British West Indian colonies to give.
As I have pointed out, sugar from the British West Indies is 9/10 of the value of their importations into Canada. The British West Indian colonies are not concerned about free raw sugar as far as Canada is concerned. What the British West Indian colonies are concerned about is preferential raw sugar. In other words, it makes no difference to them whether their raw sugar comes in here free or subject to a duty, as long as they enjoy the preference. That is a point which was entirely overlooked by my hon. friend from St. John, As long as Canada takes their sugar and gives them a preference, they are mot concerned whether the duty against them is high or low. A preference is what they want and that is what they have obtained by this agreement. My hon. friend asked me some time ago if this necessarily meant dearer sugar. It does not. We have the adjustment of our tariff in our own hands, only we must give them this minimum preference of twenty per cent. Let us take it from the standpoint of Canada. In order to deal with the objection to this .amendment which makes it wholly impossible of acceptance by this House, I desire to call attention to what transpired in connection with the British preference upon raw sugar. In his budget Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
speech of 1909, my predecessor the Hon. Mr. Fielding, called attention to the fact that the preference of thirty-one cents upon raw sugar was being largely taken by a combination of planters in the_West Indies. Consequently, instead of being of advantage to our refineries, it was a disadvantage, because the duty on refined sugar was fixed having regard to the amount of the preference upon raw sugar. Therefore in his budget speech of that year, he provided that the sugar refiners of Canada should be entitled to import foreign-grown raw sugar at British preferential rates in order to meet a situation created by the combination of the planters. The Imperial Commission, of which I have spoken and of which the Hon. Mr. Fielding and the Hon. Mr. Paterson were members, investigated that question thoroughly and their report shows without question that that combination existed among the planters and that they took in some causes the whole and in most oases a substantial part of the preference. In the report they recommended practically a cutting down of the preference upon raw sugar from the West Indies in order that such a combination might not be as effectual as it had been in the past to the detriment of our sugar refiners. If any hon. gentleman desires to take up this question, he will find by the most incontrovertible evidence taken before the Imperial Commission, and in their findings, that such a combination existed. Mr. Parker admitted that he thought it was quite proper to take the preference; that the preference was for the West Indian planter and not to mure to the benefit of the Canadian refiner or the Canadian public. What was the result of that ? Here is the point to which I want my hon. friend from 8t. John to have regard in connection with his amendment. The ex-Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, pointed out that the duty upon refined sugar in this country was fixed having regard to the preference upon raw sugar used by the refiners at Halifax and Montreal. My hon. friend, I believe, expects a sugar refinery to be established at St. John; and I want to show him how seriously his amendment would affect that sugar refinery-in fact, prevent its establishment. Now, bear this in mind, this is an agreement to afford the British West Indies a preference on raw sugar in the markets of this country. That is to say, there must be a duty in accordance with the terms of this agreement upon all foreign-grown raw sugar imported into Canada. That is to say, when sugar refiners, during the period of this agreement buy raw sugar, they must buy it, so far as the amount they take from any other producers is concerned.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not twenty
per cent.


William Thomas White: Yes, twenty per cent
preference.


William Findlay Maclean: Fifteen cents per hundred pounds.


William Thomas White: It is the twenty per cent I am using.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not understand
that.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman will
find that it is twenty per cent, and not less than fifteen cents.


William Findlay Maclean: I have not read it that way.


William Thomas White: That is the trouble. The
hon. gentleman has not read the agreement. The hon. gentleman is better informed than the others, but apparently he has not read it. This is a technical question. In the future the Canadian sugar refiner must buy his raw sugar under a preferential rate. It has been shown conclusively that the planter in the West Indies will take a certain considerable proportion, if not all that preference, at certain seasons. Our Canadian sugar refiners are in competition with the Greenock sugar refiners, who are subject to no preferential rate. Now, in drafting his amendment, the hon. member for St. John has overlooked the fact that sugar includes raw as well as refined sugar. He proposes that sugar admitted from the British West Indian islands should be free. He knows that whatever concessions are given to the West Indies aTe given to the United Kingdom. That is an unbroken usage which I think he would not controvert. Therefore we must give the same advantage to the United Kingdom which we give to the British West Indies.


William Pugsley: I do not see that.


William Thomas White: Does the hon. gentleman
say that we are not to give to the United Kingdom preference equal to that which we are to give to any other country or colony? Can he find a precedent for such a view?


William Pugsley: I say it is quite open
to the Canadian Parliament, if they think it desirable, to make a preferential arrangement with sister colonies by which we give a preference on raw sugar. There is no raw sugar imported from Great Britain. It would be quite open to us to make an arrangement, so far as that is concerned, that would not apply to Great Britain.


William Thomas White: Does he know of any precedent for that?


William Pugsley: I know of no objection to it.


William Thomas White: In the report of the Imperial Commission are these words:
It is, of course, a cardinal point in the policy of Your Majesty's Government that any concession which is made to imports from the Dominion would also he extended to like products of the United Kingdom. We were glad to find that this principle obtained practically universal recognition in the West Indies, and we need hardly add that it has never been disputed in the Dominion.
If the hon. gentleman is desirous to be critical from a legal standpoint, I take up the Bill-and his amendment relates to the Bill-and I find that it provides:
The advantages or concession granted by this Act to the colonies parties to the said agreement shall extend to the United Kingdom and such of the other British colonies and possessions as may be admitted thereto by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette so long as the colonies parties to the agreement continue to be entitled to such advantages or concessions.
I do not know of any case in the history of this country in which this Parliament has given a concession to any other country or coloiw which has not been extended to the Unified Kingdom.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask another question? He says that the term 1 sugar ' includes the refined sugar. Grant that that is correct, it would be easy for my hon. friend to make a change. Suppose it were limited to raw sugar, and that applied to the United Kingdom, it would have no effect, because they do not produce raw sugar.


William Thomas White: That is rather a late repentance after all this discussion. Perhaps the hon. gentleman now begins to see my point that his amendment would put the sugar refiner in Canada in this position, that he would have to pay higher than the market price at which the British refiner can buy raw sugar in the world's markets, because no combination of West India planters could affect him. The Greenock refiner would not be subject to the combination which would raise the price to the refiner in Canada, and yet his refined sugar would come in free. So, the hon. gentleman has moved an amendment which would prevent the establishment of a refinery in St. John and would close up our sugar refineries generally.


William Pugsley: It would give the people cheaper sugar.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman means well, but I fear he has not looked into this tariff question.


William Pugsley: We want cheaper sugar.


William Thomas White: He wants cheaper sugar. It- is impossible to please the hon. gentleman. He was finding fault with me because I am going to be able to show in my annual statement an abounding revenue.

But he would be the first to raise his voice to high heaven if we had a deficit. Good management of the country's affairs on this side of the House has-


George Perry Graham: You are not going to
make a budget speech now?


William Thomas White: I can always rely on the
good sense of the hon. member for South Renfrew. But the management of the country's affairs ably, economically, prudently-these are the stock terms-has had its effect. I see no reason why we should not have every advantage we may fairly claim from the fact that we have an abounding revenue and a large surplus. My hon. friend from Carleton, New Bruns-wisk, has moved an amendment, but in view of the statement made by the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, supplemented by the right hon. Prime Minister, it would seem to me inexpedient and unnecessary to add the amendment that he proposes. For, after all, this Bill is simply to confirm and bring into effect an agreement. Why should it be thought advisable to commit ourselves in any way as to the future? It is open to us to do any of these things at any time. These proposals that have been made have not been considered by the other parties to the agreement, they have not been before them and have not been agreed to by them; in other words, they are entirely ex parte. What is proposed here is proposed to be added in the Parliament of Canada. I submit that it is inexpedient to add to the provisions of this validating Bill an offer, whiclr as I have shown in the case of the amendment of the hon. member for St. John would not be acceptable to the people of the British West Indies. All this afternoon we have been discussing matters of inexpediency. I would not say that we have wasted the time of the House, because I suppose that any discussion of this kind is enlightening, but, as was pointed out by the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce and the right hon. Prime Minister, there is no intention in connection with the steamship service of doing what my hon. friend desires to avoid. The amendment of the hon. member for St. John, while specious on the face of it, and seeming to have connected with it some probability of its acceptance, is in reality a provision that could never be accepted by the British West Indian colonies, even if we were disposed to accept it ourselves. It seems, therefore, that it is useless to cumber the legislation that is necessacrv to validate this simple trade agreement with provisions or with offers which probably would not be accepted by the other parties to the agreement. I submit also, quite apart from that, that it is inexpedient to fetter ourselves in anv way Mr. WHITE (Leeds)
in advance. My hon. friend from St. John has referred to the high cost of living. We all know that the cost of living has been very high, but it has not materially increased within the last year or so and I am inclined to think that conditions are better than they were twelve or thirteen months ago. The hon. member for Edmonton referred to what was done when his party was in power. I would remind the hon. gentleman that it is not so very long ago-only eighteen months-since his party was in power. My right hon. friend referred to the zeal of the hon. member for St. John this afternoon in his apparent desire to extend the British preference only to such goods as might be brought without transhipment to Canadian sea or river ports. As pointed out by my right hon. friend, the hon. member for St. John was a member of the Government for many years, and in the customs' tariff of 1907, I find this:
Section 5. On and after a date to be named by the Governor in Council


William Pugsley: That was before I came into the Government.	.


William Thomas White: But it continued in force during the time my hon. friend was in the Government, and I never heard of my hon. friend rising in his place and criticising the Government for not bringing this provision into effect. Let me read it to my hon. friend:
On and after a date to be named by the Governor in Council in a proclamation published in the Canada Gazette, the British
referential tariff shall apply only to goods
rought into Canada by ship direct to a Canadian seaport.
That is the customs tariff of 1907, and it has been there ever since, so that the late Government, by proclamation could have confined the benefits of the British preferential tariff to goods brought into Canada by ship direct to a Canadian sea or river port. But my hon. friend sat still during all that time. Does he mean to say he did not know that was in the customs tariff? I hesitate to call the attention or my hon. friend to the celebrated tale of Rip Van Winkle, who was asleep for so many years that when he woke up he found things very much changed. My hon. friend was slumbering during all the time he was a member of the late Government, at least in connection with section 5 of the customs tariff of 1907, and when he wakes up he chides this Government for not immediately bringing into force that provision. Why did my hon. friend sit still during all those years and not proclaim in the Canada Gazette, as required by this section, that the British preferential tariff was to apply only to goods brought into Canada by ship direct to Canadian seaports? I would call

his attention to some of the debates that took place in this House a few years ago; I think my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition took the view that it was inexpedient to_ carry this provision into effect. He said that the Grand Trunk Pacific was not completed; that the country wanted to get the benefit of the completion of that through route, and my right hon. friend objected at that time to bringing that clause into operation by making the proclamation to which I have referred. The hon. member for St. John cannot deny that. The Grand Trunk Pacific is not yet completed, and if my right hon. friend were sitting on this side of the House I have no doubt he would oppose my hon. friend's suggestion. I would suggest when my hon. friend visits his condemnation upon this Government, that he call to mind the position taken by hon. gentlemen, including himself, when they occupied this side of the House, and that he read the arguments then advanced for and against this proposal of his.


William Pugsley: I do not object to my
hon. friend's referring to my position on the matter of the preference being allowed only to goods coming direct to a Canadian port. As my hon. friend knows, upon matters that may not be regarded as essential members of the Government may entertain different views. Many years ago a resolution was passed, unanimously, I think, in favour of the limitation of British preference to goods coming through a Canadian port. I have taken that ground on the public platform, and on proper occasions I have urged it from time to time upon the favourable consideration of my colleagues I was pleased when the then Prime Minister made the announcement in Parliament that the Governor in Council, at a date which would synchronize with the completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific, would limit the British preference to goods coming direct to Canadian ports. My views to-day are exactly what they were as publicly expressed some fifteen years ago.


William Thomas White: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White), has labored for over an hour to prove to his this House that it would be impossible to accept the proposed amendment of my hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I am in the class of the Opposition opposed to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and I must say that to me the Minister of Finance has made the matter about as clear as mud Possibly to a man'of the intellectual ability and knowledge of the West Indian trade possessed by my hon. friend from Halifax, it may be a little clearer than that, but I know I am voicing the sentiment of every other hon gentlemen on this side of the House. I will not follow my hon. friend in his remarks relating to the transportation problem, because I have already discussed that, and I understand I would be out of order if I did so again. If I followed my hon. friend at all, I understood him to say that he could not adopt this amendment because, if he did so, the whole treaty would fall to the ground, or could not be put through. If he is going to prevent this Parliament and

the people of Canada from changing their tariff so that it will decrease the cost of living, the sooner we know it the better. For all the advantages we are going to get from this one-horse agreement the thing is hardly worth discussing. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has laboured for a year and has brought forth a mouse.^ He wants reciprocal trade with the British West Indies whose total trade, including imports and exports, amounts to something like $13,000,000 while our trade with the rest of the world amounts to a billion dollars. He says we must put our.selves_ in a position where we cannot do anything to reduce the cost of living. Why Sir, I do not think there is anybody in Canada who would lose much sleep, or even a penny to give away to a passing beggar, if this thing did not go through. It is such an infinitesimal thing compared with the trade which Canada does with the rest of the world. It is not worth the time we have taken to discuss it in this House, but as my hon. friends brought it down as the great achievement of their 18 months rule, it was worth the while of the Opposition to discuss it to some little extent. My hon, friend could not resist the temptation to have another fling at what he calls the corpse of reciprocity, to which he refers every time he gets on his feet. He had something to say about reciprocity in the earty part of this session when I took the liberty of giving him some of my views, and I think I convinced a good many people, and raised some suspicion in the mind of my hon. friend himself, that reciprocity is not as dead as he thinks. I want to tell him tonight that it is not half as dead as the naval bill, and I hope that he will have an opportunity of finding that out within the next three or four months. He will find that the naval emergency was buried six months ago, if the people of Canada have a chance of expressing their views, and I hope they will have that opportunity in next few months. However, I am not going to discuss reciprocity now, I shall probably have another opportunity of doing so before the close of the session. I simply wish to tell my hon. friend that where I come from it is a much more active issue than ever it was before, and that it is becoming more active every day, and I think that what is true of my own portion of Canada is true of other portions.
I want to come back to the task oi making it clear that sugar could be admitted from the West Indies free. My hon. friend says that the British West Indies are not concerned about whether the duty on sugar coming into Canada is high or low, but that what they are concerned about Mr. CARVELL.
is that they must have a preference. I think that is exactly what he said.


William Thomas White: I think it is substantially
correct. It is the preference they want.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All right. As I understand it, the duty on raw sugar under the seventy-five standard, amounts to about fifty-two cents on the 100 pounds, or practically one half cent a pound, and under this agreement the British West Indian islands must have a preference of twenty per cent. In no case must it be less than fifteen cents per 100 pounds. All my hon. friend has got to do is to reduce the general duty on sugar coming from the rest of the world, so that there will be fifteen cents per 100 pounds left, and then he can make sugar free from the West Indies to Canada. Is there any objection to that?


William Thomas White: Even if that weTe doneand I do not say it would be advisable to do so- -the point I am making is that the fifteen cent preference would still be taken by the planters.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a point which my hon. friend did not make before. He read extracts from something which Mr. Fielding said three cr four years ago, which may have convinced him, hut which, I am satisfied, did not convince anybody else in this House. When he attempts to tell this House that we cannot make sugar free from the West Indies because of this agreement when he could do so, so long as he left 15 cents per 100 pounds as against the rest of the world, I must say I cannot follow his logic. Under this agreement he could make sugar free so long as he left a duty of fifteen cents per 100 pounds as against the rest of the world. The West Indies would still get a preference.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is misrepresenting entirely what I said. I was dealing with refined sugar which would be included in the sugar in schedule B. The point I was making was that if the refined sugar were admitted free, as it would be under the amendment of the hon. member for St. John, it would have to be admitted free from the United Kingdom, and the sugar refiner in the United Kingdom, having the advantage over the sugar refiner here, would be in a position to cause the latter to give up business. There is no doubt about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the first time I have heard refined sugar mentioned in this debate. I never suggested for a moment that we were dealing with refined sugar. It is raw sugar we are talking about.


William Thomas White: What does it say in
schedule B ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No refined sugar comes from the British West Indies. My hon. friend is quibbling. I do not wish to use harsh language, but there is no other word in my vocabulary which defines his attitude better. We are talking about raw sugar, and my hon. friend knows it. He knows that the duty c.n refined sugar is about one and one quarter cents per pound, and he knows that we are talking about raw sugar, the duty on which is about one-half cent per pound. I could not understand what he meant by saving that if sugar were admitted free into'Canada, the refiner in Canada would be driven out of business. As I have already said, he knows that he could admit raw sugar free from the British West Indies, so long as he left fifteen cents per 100 pounds on the sugar coming from the rest of the world and by doing so he would not affect any sugar refinery in Canada. But if he went so far, he would have to go further for the benefit of the consumer.


William Pugsley: Do they produce refined sugar in the British West Indies ?


Mr. LALOR:: How would that affect the beet sugar industry in Ontario ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If there were any industry to affect, possibly that question would be worth answering, but the industry is so infinitesimal, when you consider the great sugar consuming people of Canada, that it is scarcely worth while discussing at all. If there is such a thing as protection run mad, it is the protection of a few people who raise beets in the province of Ontario, while the people who use the sugar have to pay a big price for it. That may be according to the logic of a high protectionist such as my hon. friend, but it does not appeal to the ordinary business sense of the sugar consumer in Canada.


William Thomas White: Will my hon. friend look at the first item of schedule ' B '-molasses and sugar ? Does my hon. friend mean to say that the word ' sugar ' would include refined as well as raw sugar and that if the benefits of that schedule were extended to the United Kingdom it would not apply to refined sugar ?	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not going to
quibble about it at all.


William Thomas White: It is a matter of interpretation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, it may be a matter of interpretation, but if the amendment is not just right there is no trouble about amending it. The hon. gentleman is trying to get out of a hole by quibbling and nothing else. If the term he refers to in schedule ' B ' means refined sugar all that my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) has to do is to change his amendment so as to say raw sugar, because that is all the amendment is intended to include.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not believe that
there has ever been one hundred pounds of refined sugar produced in the British West Indies. Even if the interpretation did include refined sugar it would not affect the sugar industry in Canada in the least. I submit that this amendment should be adopted, and if it is adopted then let them go a little further and reduce the duty on refined sugar just to the same extent, or a little more possibly, than the duty is reduced on raw sugar because, if you do not reduce the duty on refined sugar the people of Canada will not get any benefit and you will simply be making a present to that extent to the refiners. They will get their raw sugar cheaper but they will charge the same price to the consumer. I hope the hon. Minister of Finance will follow this up by reducing the duty on refined sugar to the same extent. The result will be that the people of Canada will be relieved of nearlv $2,000,000 annually which they are now paying upon molasses and sugar. If you leave a reasonable protection on the refined article-and I am not asking that it shou.d be made free-you protect the Canadian manufacturer against the competition of Greenock and everybody else in the world; we would still have the sugar industry in Canada and the people would their sugar cheaper to the extent of $-,000,000 You may say that that is not. much, but $2,000,000 is quite an item to the consumers. It is not the rich man alone who is a consumer of sugar. The poor consume sugar in greater proportion than do the rich. Therefore, it is quite an item. It is also quite an item from mv hon. friends surplus. My hon. friend from Edmonton referred to the fact that every time an argument on a matter of policy is raised on this side hon. gentlemen opposite always fling back-you did it when you were in power. I would really like to see some important matter of policy brought up in this House when hon members opposite would not fling back to us the answer, 'You did it.' Surely hon gentlemen opposite ought to have sufficient ingenuity to originate some. legislation which could depend upon its merits and not say, if it is bad, ' You did it,' and if it is good, You did it.' I would like to hear some hon. gentleman opposite try to justify the retention of the duty on refined sugar coming into Canada. The Minister of Finance has absolutely failed to justify it. Probably he is in the same class as my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean); they may understand what they are talking about, but if so they are the only two members of the House who do. I would like somebody who does not understand if so

well to explain it in ordinary language so that we could all understand it. _ The Minister of Finance has discussed it along a line that is not intelligible to the rest of us any way. My hon. friend attempted to show that we could not reduce the duty because we would have to give the same preference to the rest of the United Kingdom which we gave to the British West Indies. I presume now that he made use of that argument in reference to the refined article. Of course, if he did, it would not be necessary to make the comments that I intended to make.


William Thomas White: It is in this Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know it is in this Bill. We are not through with this Bill yet. There are lots of opportunities of amendin'* this Bill in order to make it meet the requirements of the people of Canada This is not a matter of the laws of the Medes and Persians which cannot be amended and I hope that my hon. friend will be convinced that it ought to be amended. At any rate, we will do our duty m pointing out desirable amendments and possibly we may succeed in convincing him. We ought *to " be open to conviction when a reasonable line of policy is placed before us but when you mention the word 'reciprocity' to the hon. Minister ot finance it rather gets into his blood and affects his thinking powers. It may he that he is confusing reciprocity with the United States with reciprocity with the West Indies and that may possibly be! the reason for his not being able to think along proper lines as lie does on oidinary occasions. I think that he has got this microbe in his blood, but the people ot Canada, when they get the opportunity, will take it out of his blood or they will put him m a position Where it will not make any difference whether it is there or not. He cannot give us a chance to perform that operation upon his anatomy too soon. _ To show my hon. friend how little tins living of a preference to the rest of the British Empire amounts to, I would quote to the House something from the trade returns. I have not those for the present fiscal year and therefore I am compelled to use those of the former one, but I presume that the proportions would be about the same in the two years. The total amount of raw sugar imported into Canada in 1912, was $13,300,000, on which a duty of $3,000,000 was paid. Of the importation about $9,500,000 came from British Guiana and the British West Indies, or those countries included in this agree-memt. I assume that the words British West Indies ' mean all the British West Indies. Some of these are not parties to this agreement, but they are parties to it Mr. CARVELL.
for the first three years _ and therefore In the compilation I am taking them as being in the agreement. In other words, out of. $13,300,000 worth, $9,500,000 came from countries included in this agreement which leaves only $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 to come from the rest of the world. Of that amount, from British East Africa there came only $240,000 and from British Oceania $192,000. All the rest came from foreign nations. Practically the only raw sugar which we get from abroad comes from the British West Indies and British Guiana, or countries included in this trade agreement. Therefore, the argument that my hon. friend wished to make that we would have to extend this free sugar to the rest of the Empire means nothing at all because, if you give free sugar to the West Indies, you give "it to the whole of the British Empire as far as Canada is concerned. Of course,
I am not applying that to the refined article.


William Thomas White: That is the point.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, my hon. friend
says this agreement does not increase the cost of living to the people of Canada, m contradiction of the statement made by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I cannot read the trade figures without coming to the conclusion that the Minister of Finance has not been paying attention to the facts. Cocoa beans have been free for a great many years past, and if this agreement goes through they will be dutiable from every other country except the British West Indies. Last year we imported from the whole world $691,000 worth of cocoa beans, and of that the magnificent amount of $85,000 came from the British West Indies, from the United Kingdom $79,000, or from the British Empire all told there came $164,000 worth compared with half a million dollars worth from the rest of the world. In order to allow $160,000 worth of cocoa beans to come from the British Empire free, we are imposing a duty of seventy-five cents per hundred pounds, or three-quarters of a cent per pound on the half million dollars' worth that we get elsewhere. And yet the Minister of Finance says this is not increasing the cost of living.


William Thomas White: How much?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Three-quarters of a cent per pound on half a million dollars worth. The same thing applies to limes. Limes and lemons are included together in the trade returns, and therefore I cannot separate them.


William Thomas White: Keep away from the
lemons.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The people of Canada
are getting the biggest lemon to-night they

have ever got since I have been in Parliament. The Minister of Finance has become such an ardent protectionist that everything that increases the duty appeals to his imagination, and it will no doubt be pleasant for him to hear that last year from the United Kingdom we imported, of limes and lemons, $14,981 worth, from Australia and Tasmania $97 worth, from the British West Indies $1,051, from British Oceania $10 worth, or about $16,000 worth in all from the British Empire, whereas from the rest of the world we imported about $730,000 worth


Mr WHITE:: How much from Italy?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: $248,000 worth.


William Thomas White: Of limes and lemons
together.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have already stated that the figures for limes and lemons are not given separately, but under this agreement we will still be able to bring in $16,000 free from the British Empire, and we will have to pay a duty on limes and lemons from the rest of the world. To carry out this little one-horse trade agreement, you are taking limes ofi the free list and putting them on the dutiable list, and increasing the cost of living.


William Thomas White: If it has any effect at all, it will be to advance slightly the cost of gin rickeys?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Minister of Finance has spent a year over this and I do not wonder that he is proud of his child, but I say it is a lemon which he is handing out to the people of this country. We are making a trade agreement with a country which only takes $3,000,000 worth of goods from us in the whole year, and from whom we import $9,000,000 worth at an average of thirty-three and one-third per cent British preference against the rest of the world. Of course they say the British preference shall govern instead of the twenty per cent which they stipulate as an alternative, but what guarantee have we that the British preference will remain if the Conservatives stay in power for a year or two longer? I would not be surprised to see the whole British preference wiped out, if we can believe the statements of their prominent politicians and newspapers. If the Minister of Finance is satisfied with an agreement like that, well and good, but I do not believe the people of Canada will be satisfied with it. The only thing in its favour is that the whole business is so small that the newspapexs will not discuss it, the politicans will not notice it, and I presume if the Bill goes through this Parliament you will never hear of it again. It amounts to nothing to the people of
Canada, and it amounts to very little to the people of the West Indies. If the Minister of Finance accepts the resolution of the hon. member for St. John, and changes it if necessary in order to make it explicit, he will be doing something for the people of Canada. From the trade returns of 1912 I find that we imported the year previously of syrups and molasses, sugar above No. 16 Dutch standard, including all refined sugars of whatever kinds, grades or standards, $814,000 worth, and of that amount we imported from the British West Indies only $2,534 worth. From the United Kingdom we imported $657,000 worth. If if were made free, we would save in duty about $200,000 because practically all our sugar, molasses, and goods of that character come either from the British West Indies or from other parts of the British Empire. Let us take the raw sugar, that is sugar not above the sixteen Dutch standard, which I think means raw sugar; we imported $13,300,000 worth. From British Guiana and the British West Indies alone we imported $9,500,000 worth. From the British Empire we imported somewhere over ten million dollars worth. Therefore practically three-quarters of all the raw sugar which we imported from the whole world came from the British Empire. On that we paid duty of about $2,500,000. If this amendment were adopted, we would save that duty, which would be of some value to the consumers of tnis country. Hon. gentlemen opposite say:	You did not do
it_ when you were in power; when Messrs. Fielding and Paterson were on a commission representing Canada, you did not make any proposition like this. Things are very different to-day in Canada from what they were three years ago. To-day the revenue from customs and excise is about $50,000,000 more than it was in 1910. In other words, this Government has to-day over $50,000,000 more actual hard cash with which to carry on the business of the country than the Minister of Finance had in 1910. A remission of $2,500,000 of duty in 1910 might have been a fairly serious matter from the standpoint of the Minister of Finance; but, with such an enormous revenue as we have to-day, it is a mere bagatelle. I do not think that it is necessary to bleed the people of this country white in order to have a big surplus. I assume that the duty of the Minister of Finance is to raise sufficient revenue to carry on the business of the country. It seems to me to be good politics to give the surplus to the people or to remove from the people any burden of taxation which is not necessary. If there was a case in which the Government would be justified in doing so, it would be in the case of raw material. There is no article which enters



REVISED


[Stage Direction]
[DOT]8811
[Stage Direction]
so much into the ordinary life of the poor people. We have only to look to our friends to the south of us to see what they are doing. Hon. gentlemen opposite want no truck or trade with the United States. You may say: Well, they are a sugar producing country. That is true, but they do not produce more than one-third of what they consume; yet they are making sugar free. They are grading it; they are cutting it down a little now, and they will have it free in three years. My hon. friends opposite might well take a leaf out of their book and attempt to make sugar free in Canada and relieve the people of a certain amount of the burden of life. Tire cost of living has reached a state in Canada when it becomes a menace to the ordinary labouring man and people of small means. There is nothing on which you can reduce the cost of living more easily than on sugar, and I do not know of any better opportunity to do it than by adopting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St.	John. The more	you	lookinto	this	matter, the	plainer it
becomes the duty of the Government, if they want to carry out their pledges and to do something for the common people, to accept this amendment and in some way to relieve the burden imposed on the people at the present time.
I hope my hon. friends opposite will accept the amendment which I proposed at the beginning of the debate this afternoon, and will agree that the amendments shall become a part of the statute. It is all very well for my friends opposite to say:	We
are going to do it anyway; there is no difference of opinion between us and therefore you should take our word for it and not insist on having it put in the form of a statute. That reminds me of an argument which they used in regaTd to another measure before the House. They did not want us to bind them down by a statute. On this side of the House we prefer to have these gentlemen on record in the form of a statute. We have had so many promises of no value at all, promises made only to be broken, that we have become a little suspicious when these gentlemen come offering us gifts. We would like to have these amendments crystallized in the form of a statute. Then we would know that hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere. I know from the serious look of my friend the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, that he is sincere. Therefore I see no reason why he should not be willing to incorporate these amendments in the statutes. If the rumours in the papers are correct that there is going to be a change in the Government, a new set of men will come in who will not be bound by what the present Government say is their intention. We do not know what might happen in Mr. CARVELL.
that ease. As long as my hon. friend the Minister of Railways is in the Government, I know he will stand by his promises, but he may not be here another ye?.r. When the Government come to renew this agreement with another company a year from now, they will say: It is true the promises were made but we were not bound by them. I hope my friends will let my amendment go through without division, and for once we shall be in accord and shall have something which I submit will be of lasting importance to the people of Canada as a whole. We can make this little treaty of any value only by going at it in a wholehearted manner. If we have to force trade through channels which may be a little unnatural, if we cannot trade in natural channels, if we cannot trade with the hundred million people who want to trade with us, let us do it in such a way that the people of Canada will get the benefit of it.
Amendment to amendment (Mr. Emmer-son) lost on division.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Car-veil) :
YEAS:
Messieurs
Boivin,
Boyer,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Cardin,
Carroll,
Carvell,
Charlton,
Chisholm
(Antigoniah),
Chisholm
(Inverness),
Delisle,
Demers,
Emmerson,
Gauthier (St. Hyacinthe), Gauvreau,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Hughes
(King's, P.E.I.), Kay,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Lapointe (Kamouraska), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Boggle,
Macdonald.
Maclean (Halifax!, McCraney,
McCoig,
McKenzie,
McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin
(Montreal, St. Mary's) Martin (Regina), Michaud,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigcucha; Richards,
Sinclair,
Tobin,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Warnock,
White
Victoria, Aaca.), Wilson (LavaD ->52.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Achim,	Lalor,
Alguire,	Lancaster,
Ames,	LespArance,
Armstrong (Lambton), Maedonell, Armstrong (York, O.), McCurdy,
Arthurs,	McKay,
Baker,	McLean
Barnard,	(Queen's, P.E.I.),

Beattie,
Bellemare,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Cochrane,
Cocksliutt,
Coderre,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie,
Davidson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Girard,
Green,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Hughes (Victoria, 0.), Jameson,
Kemp,
Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Mondou,
Morphy,
Munson,
Nan tel,
Nicholson,
Paquet,
Paul,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Robidoux,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Se vigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Steele,
Stewart (Hamilton). Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Tremain,
Walker,
Wallace,
Webster,
Weichel,
White (Leeds),
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-90.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Wilcox,
Pelletier,
Stevens,
Lewis,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Nickle,
Aikins,
Burrell,
Hartt,
Fowler,
Thoburn,
Stanfield,
Roche,
Foster (Toronto), Foster (Kings), Morrison,
Chabot,
Bristol, '
Doherty,	*
Perley,
Clare,
Boyce,
Cromwell,
Marshall,
Ball,
Donnelly,
North I'up,
Elson,
Gauthier (Gaspe), Barrette, Guilbault, Lavallce,
Forget,
Opposition.
Cruise,
Lemieux,
Mdlloy,
Law,
Knowles,
Ross,
Turriff,
Douglas,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle) McLean
(Queens-Sunbu ry), Robb,
Pardee,
Clarke (Essex), Gordon,
Brown,
MacNutt,
Beland,
Biekerdike,
Marcil
(Bonaventure),
Murphy,
Cash,
Champagne,
Lovell,
German,
-McCrea,
Devlin,
Clark (Red Dee. ). Fortier,
Bourassa,
Brouillard,
Lapointe (St. .Tames), Bthier,
Seguin.
Mr. BELAND:: I am paired with the hon. junior member for the city of Ottawa (Mr. Chabot), otherwise I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BURRELL:: I am paired with the
hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas). Had I voted, I should have voted against the amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am paired with the
hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier). Had I voted, I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MORRISON:: I am paired with the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt). Had I voted, I should have voted against the amendment.


George Halsey Perley: I am paired with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted, I should have voted against the amendment.


Bowman Brown Law: I am paired with the hon.
member for West Huron (Mr. Lewis). Had I voted, I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. STANFIELD:: I am paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). Had I voted, I should have voted against the amendment.


Mr. NICKLE:: I am paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Rossi-Had I voted, I should have voted against the amendment.


James Alexander Robb: I am paired with the hon.
member for North Lanark (Mr. Thoburn). Had I voted, I should have voted for the amendment.
Amendment negatived.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BURRELL moved the third reading of Bill No. 103, for the granting of Aid for
the Advancement of Agricultural Instruction in the Provinces.
Mr. OLIVER moved in amendment:
That Bill No. 103 be not now read the third time, but that it be referred to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amendment by striking out the words, ' appropriated ' and where they occur in section 3, line 18 of the Bill as printed, and inserting after ' fourteen * where it occurs in section 3, line 20 of the printed Bill, the words, ' upon appropriation in that behalf from time to time by Parliament and by striking out the proviso at the end of section 3.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Oliver):
[Stage Direction]
YEAS:
Messieurs
Boivin,	Maclean	(Halifax),
Boyer,	MciCraney,
Buchanan,	McCoig,
Bureau,	McKenzie,
Cardin,	McMillan,
Carroll,	Miarcile (Bagot),
Carvell,	Martin	(Montreal,
Charlton,	Ste. Mary's),
Chisholm (Antigonish)Marcile (Bagot), Chisholm (Inverness), Michaud,
Delisle,
Demers,
Emmerson,
Gauthier
(St. Hyacinths), Gauvreau,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Hughes
(King's, P.E.I.), Kay,
Kyte,
Lat'ortune,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Loggie,
Macdonald,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Sinclair,
Tobin,
Turgeon,
Verville,
W arnock,
White
(Victoria, Alta.),
Wilson (Laval),-52.
NAYS:
Messieurs
(Lambton) (York, 0.),
(Calgary),
(Simcoe),
Achim,
Alguire,
Ames,
Armstrong Armstrong Arthurs,
Baker,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Bellemare,
Bennett Bennett Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Clark (Bruce).
Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,	.
Coderre,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie,
Davidson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Fripp,
Garland,
Girard,
Green,
Mr. OLIVER.
Kemp,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
(Lesperance,
Macdonell,
McCurdy,
McKay,
McLean,
(Queen's, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Mondou,
Morphy,
Munson,
Nan tel,
Nicholson,
Paquet,
Paul,
Eainville,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Robidoux,
Rogers,
Sohaffner, .
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Steele,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor, Thompson Thornton, Tremain, Walker,' Wallace,
(Yukon),
Hazen,	Webster,
Henderson,	Weiehel,
Hepburn,	White (Renfrew),
Hughes (Victoria, O.), Wilson (Wentwortn), Jameson,	Wright,-89.
PAIRS:
Ministerial: Wilcox,
Pelletier,
Stevens,
Lewis,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Nickle,
Aikins,
Burrell,
Hartt,
Fowler,
Thoburn,
Stanfield^.
Roche,
Foster (Toronto). Foster (Kings), Morrison,
Chabot,
Bristol,
Doherty,
Perley,'
Clare,
Boyce,
Cromwell,
Marshall,
Ball,
Donnelly,
Northrup,
Elson,
Gauthier (Gasp6), Barrette, Guilbault, Lavallee,
Forget,
Porter,
Opposition: Cruise,
Lemieux,
Molloy,
Law,
Knowles,
Ross,
Turriff,
Douglas,
Thomson (QuAppelle), McLean
(Queen's Sunbury), Robb,
Pardee,
Clarke (Essex), Gordon,
Brown,
MacNutt,
Beland,
Biekerdike,
Marcil (Bonavenfure) Murphy,
Cash,
Champagne,
Lovell,
German,
McCrea,
Devlin,
Clark (Red Deer), Fortier,
, Bourassa.
Brouillard.
Lapointe (St. James Ethier, ,
Seguin,
Lachance,
Henry Robert Emmerson: If I am recorded as voting, I think I should not have done so, as I observe that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is not in his seat.
Amendment negatived.


Jacques Bureau: That Bill No. 103 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 all the words after the word ' act' in the third line of section 7 to the end of the section.
He said: When the Bill was before the House the other night I asked the Minister of Agriculture for his interpretation of this section. Although the hon. minister seemed satisfied that it 'did not mean what I thought it did, I am not convinced. This Bill is for the purpose of encouraging agriculture in the provinces of Canada by instruction in agriculture, and, in the words of the Bill, 'for the purposes authorized by this Act.' The purposes authorized by this Act are very few; in fact there are none. The whole

intent and purpose of the Bill is to encourage agriculture throughout the various provinces-and I may say that I am wholly and heartily in favor of encouraging agriculture. For that purpose there are certain amounts definitely appropriated. The sum of $20,000 is to be paid yearly for the benefit of veterinary colleges and $20,000 is to be paid yearly to each province; these are the only amounts definitely appropriated for each province. My objection to section 7 is this: I have no objection to the provision that the Governor in Council may make such regulations as are deemed advisable for giving effect to the object and purposes of the Act, but I do Object to the proviso that, notwithstanding anything in the Act, the minister may with the approval of the Governor in Council and with the consent of the lieutenant governors of the various provinces, expend in any year the whole or any part of the amount appropriated by the Act. To my mind, this would authorize the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council and the consent of the lieutenant governors of the various provinces, to take the accumulation o(f this stated amount of $20,000, which in 10 years would amount to $200,000, and use it in one year. I know it would be rather difficult to use the other appropriations, because in the case of the veterinary colleges the appropriation depends upon the number of students attending the college, and, with regard to the balance of the money, its distribution depends upon the population of the province; therefore it would be very difficult to be able to say in advance what amount should go to any one province, beca ise an increase in one province would mean a diminution in the amount appropriated to the other. But this specific amount of $20,000 per annum is the amount under which in my mind can be used by the minister either at once or under the authority given by this section. Although it is said that thfe amount shall be appropriated yearly, the words 'notwithstanding anything in this Act ' do away with the provision of section 3, which establishes how the amount shall be voted and appropriated, and give the minister power, with the approval of the Governor in Council and the consent of the lieutenant-governors of the various provinces to use this whole amount at once, and that is the objection I have to this section.


Martin Burrell: If the objection of the hon. member has any force at all, it seems to me that it would hold good as against the rest of the Bill; as against the particular $20,000 to which he refers, I think I explained the other day at least my own *point of view in regard to his suggestion,
and that I could not see that there was any force in his objection. I do not think the Bill as drawn can be interpreted in that way. I am glad my hon. friend is in favour of the Bill, although I must say that he has taken-	,


Jacques Bureau: In favour of the principle of the Bill.


Martin Burrell: Although I must say he has taken a very peculiar way of showing it. I am reminded of the words of an old song:	'It is all very well to dissemble
your love, but why did you kick me down stairs ? ' I do -not think there is very much more to be said in regard to this matter; I do not think the Bill means what my hon. friend has said, and I should not like to accept his amendment.


Jacques Bureau: Can the $200,000 which in ten years will accrue to each province not be used in one or two years, as the hon.
minister see fit?


Martin Burrell: I think there is in the other clauses of the Bill a sufficient safeguard against this; it is absolutely in violation of the spirit of the Act.


Jacques Bureau: Then why not leave out of the Bill the words ' notwithstanding anything in this Act ' ?


Martin Burrell: I explained that tbe
other evening that in case any province lacked the necessary educational machinery, or if there was any delay in utilizing tbe money ior the development of agricultural education, wa should not be justified in seeing that delay occur, and should, therefore, with the consent of tbe provinces, be prepared to formulate a scheme of our own.


Jacques Bureau: If you can do that, you can override the other provisions of the Bill.
Ho-use divided on amendment (Mr. Bureau):
TEAS:	i
Messieurs
Boivin,
Boyer,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Cardin,
Carroll,
Carvell,
Charlton, Chisholm, (Antigonish), Chisholm, (Inverness) , Desiisle,
Demers, Emmerson, Gauthier (Gaspe), Gauthier
(St. Hyacinthe), Graham,
Maclean (Halifax), McCraney,
McCoig,
McKenzie,
McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin
(Montreal (St. Mary's) Martin (Kegina), Michaud,	,
Nesbtt,	*
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,	_ t
88X9

Guthrie,
Hughes
(King's, P.B.I.), Kay,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Loggie,
Macdonald,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Sinclair,
Tobin,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Warnock,
White
(Victoria, Allta.), Wilson (Laval).-53.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Achim,	Lancaster,
A'lguire,	Leeperance,
Ames,	Macdonell,
Armstrong (Lambton), McCurdy, Armstrong (York, O.), McKay, McLean
Arthurs,
Baker,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Bellemare,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington, Clements,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Coderre,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie,
Davidson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Fripp,
Garland,
Girard,
Green,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Hughes (Victoria, O ), Jameson,
Kemp,
Lalor,
(Queen's, P.E.T.), Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Mondou,
Morphy,
Munson,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Northrup,
Paquet,
Paul,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Robidoux,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,	-
Stanfield,
Steele,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Tremain,
Waalker,
Wallace,
W ebster,
Weichel.
White (Leeds),
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-93.
Ministerial:
Wilcox,
Pelletier,
Stevens,
Lewis,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Nickle,	*
Aikins,
Burrell,
Hartt,
Fowler,
Thoburn,
PAMS:
Opposition:
Cruise,
Lemieux,
Molloy,
Law,
Knowles,
Ross,
Turriff,
Douglas,
Thomson (QuAppelle), McLean
(Queen's Sunburj), Robb,
Roche,
Foster (Toronto), Foster (Kings), Morrison,
Chabot,
Bristol,
Doherty,
Perley,
Clare,
Boyce,
Cromwell,
Marshall,
Ball,
Donnelly,
Northrup,
Elson,
Gauthier (Gaspe),
Barrette,
Guilbault,
Lavallee,
Forget,
Porter,
Clarke (Essex),
Gordon,
Brown,
MacNutt,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Jlarcil (ttonaventure), Murphy,
Cash,
Champagne,
Lovell,
German,
MoCrea,
Devlin,
Clark (Red Deer \. Fortier,
'Bourassa,
Brouillard,
Lapointe (St. James), Ethier,
Seguin,
Lachance,
Amendment negatived.	.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK COCHRANE moved the third reading of Bill No. 32, to encourage and assist the Improvement of Highways.
Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Pardee:
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend it in the manner following: (a) by inserting the foU lowing words as sub-section 2 of section 3: The sums of money voted in any year to be expended under this Act shall be apportioned among the different provinces of the Dominion according to the population of the said provinces as established by the last census for the time being.
(b) By striking out clause 6.
I have made the amendment in a form which includes all I have to say and places it before the House in a manner in which I can discuss it with expedition and the House can deal with it conveniently. There are really two points involved in the Bill, and only two points, which seem to divide the parties. So far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, there seems to be no division in the House. We all agree that out of the abundant revenues of the country we can afford to pay to the various provinces of Canada a substantial amount annually to be expended in the work of constructing roads and bridges. We differ, however, as to the application of that expenditure. We do not agree with the Government in its proposal that the money shall he spent as laid out in the sections of the Bill as it came from the committee. I would just like to emphasize the only points of disagreement so far as I understand it.	.
Mr. BUREAF.

In the first place, the Bill provides for an annual appropriation, but it does not provide that the appropriation shall be expended between the various provinces according to population. I think I have heard the Minister of Railways state in the House that it is the intention of the Government that this money shall be expended as subsidy to the various provinces, having regard to the population of the provinces according to the last census. That would be satisfactory if it were so expressed in the Bill, but it is not so expressed in the Bill, and the object of the first sub-section of my amendment is merely to make it plain that the money shall be expended among the provinces of Canada according as they are entitled to receive it proportionately under the last decennial census. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Railways might accept that amendment. The Bill as drawn states that this payment is a subsidy, but the word * subsidy ' does not mean a proportionate payment, and under the Bill as drawn, there is nothing to compel the minister or the Government to make a proportionate distribution as between the provinces of Canada. We disagree upon that point, and a very slight amendment, such as I have proposed, will cure the defect and allow us to agree upon it.
The next proposal in my amendment is to strike out clause 6 in the Bill altogether. The objection to clause 6, in my judgment, is that it gives to the minister and to the Government unlimited, unnecessary and improper power in regard to the expenditure of this money. Those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, believe that this money could best be spent and should be spent by the provincial authorities. Under clause 6 of the Bill, which I now propose to have stricken out by my amendment, the minister has exceedingly large powers, so large that I think he could of his own motion, at all events with the consent of the Government of which he is a member, spend the whole amount, which one province or all the provinces are entitled to receive in any given year on a single work as he might determine, or, if he saw fit, he might refuse altogether to expend it. The clause reads as follows:
The minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council and upon such terms'and conditions as are prescribed by Order in Council, may undertake the construction of any new highway or the improvement of any existing highway in any province, and may expend in such improvement or construction the whole or any part of the sums voted by Parliament for such subsidy to that province: Provided, however, that the minister shall first obtain the necessary authority from the legislature of such province and the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
We on this side of the House believe that this money may best be expended
by the various provinces. I do not see why the Minister of Railways or the Government should insist upon controlling the expenditure of this money which is to be given to the provinces by way of a subsidy special ear-marked for expenditure on roads. The other subsidy which we annually grant to the provinces goes to them with full liberty to expend it as they see fit. Why should this additional subsidy not go to them on the same principle? Why should the Minister of Railways and the Government, engaged in the various works which occupy their attention throughout the Dominion of Canada, charge themselves with the comparatively small matter of expending road money in the various provinces of the Dominion ? Does it not seem reasonable and proper that this money should be granted to the local administrations which, under the British North America Act, are charged with the maintenance and construction and care of roads and bridges, for the purpose of expending it. I do not go so far as to say that the Government should give up all control. The Bill gives the Government or their inspectors the right to inspect and pass upon the work before the money is expended, or even to pass upon it before the work is undertaken at all. Surely that is enough, so far as this Government is concerned. Why not trust the provinces themselves with the actual work; with the laying out of the actual work ? I do not know what knowledge my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has with regard to road work. I fancy he has some knowledge of it in regard to the province of Ontario, but this applies to all the provinces of Canada, east and west. We, on this side of the House, are quite prepared to entrust Ontario's share of this money to the Conservative Government of that province. We believe that proper expenditure in the interest of the province would follow. We are just as prepared to trust the Liberal Administration of Quebec to-day with the expenditure of that money, or the various other provincial governments throughout the Dominion. We believe they are the proper bodies to expend it, and that the Minister of Railways and the Government are not.


Mr. EDWARDS:: When the late Government voted money for the improvement of Ottawa, why did they not hand it over to the city of Ottawa rather than to a commission ?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that the oases are quite parallel. I think the idea of the expenditure in the city of Ottawa largely came from the policy which the United States adopted in the city of Washington. I believe that that was rather an exceptional case. But the frapiers of Confederation had no doubt in their minds as

to what was the proper legislative body to take charge of roads and bridges in this country. They did not hesitate about the matter; they placed the roads and bridges under the provincial Parliaments, and there they have remained with very few slight exceptions ever since. The Minister of Railways pointed out that there have been some exceptions, but they are slight exceptions. Here we are laying down a policy which is to be followed as a settled policy for a number of years. Let us see that we proceed upon proper lines. The provisions of this Bill, and particularly of section 6, would enable an evil-minded minister or an evil-minded government to use the powers given to them as a huge electioneering machine in any province in the Dominion.


George Perry Graham: It has been used to
the limit already.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not say that the
present minister would so use it, but the Bill puts it in the power of the minister or the Government to do so. Why not remove this Government from temptation altogether and place the money in the hands of the proper authorities and not make another exception under the British North America Act as I maintain you are doing?
There is just one other phase of the question thait I would like to mention and I do so because on a former occasion in this House I mentioned something in connection with trunk lines. On two or three occasions since then hon. members have asked me whether I was not joking on the subject. I certainly was not joking. But when I came to look up the pages of ' Hansard ' I found that the Minister of Railways and Canals had expressed a very strong opinion in this House that it would be a ' grand thing ' to establish trunk line roads. He said that there was a great demand for the establishment of such roads and he suggested one might be constructed between Windsor and the city of Quebec. Immediately the thought crossed my mind that the only useful purpose that such a trunk road would serve in this country would be to accommodate the automobile traffic in the summer months and that it would be most largely used by the joy riders of Chicago and Detroit on their way down to the lower provinces. I do not believe that at this period in our history we are called upon to expend this country's money on trunk roads through the older portions of the older provinces of the Dominion of Canada when we have so much to do in the newer and unsettled portions of Canada in giving the settlers ordinary accommodation to get to their markets. I would rather, for that reason, have this money left in the hands of the provincial Mr. GUTHRIE.
legislatures 'to expend than have it placed in the hands of the Minister of Railways who thinks that a trunk road from Windsor to Quebec-as reported in ' Hansard ' at page 8805-will be such a ' grand thing.' That is a matter in the future and in the far, far distant future too.
This money, if it is going to be used to the advantage of Canada at the present day, has to be used largely for agricultural purposes, for the purpose of enabling the agriculturist in the remoter sections of the country to travel to and from his nearest market and in this way help to bring about the settlement and development of Canada. If you allow these provinces to expend the money it is in that manner that they will expend it, but I am afraid, from the language of the minister himself, that it will run rather in another channel and that what appeals to him is the accommodation of the richer portion of the population in the older settled portions of the Dominion-good roads for automobiles! That policy does not commend itself to me and I do not desire to give the minister the power, whoh this section will give him, to expend all the money in any province on a single work, or a particular line of work, as he may see fit. My hon. friend may say that under section 6 he has to get the consent of the Lieutenant Governor of the province before he can make the expenditure. But if he goes to the Government of tlie province of Ontario and says: I propose to expend this money on a trunk line from Windsor to Quebec, and 1 want to get the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to that, they may say: No, we will not consent to that, we want this money spent in New Ontario and in the badly served portions of old Ontario.


William Cameron Edwards: Is my hon. friend
aware that the former Government assumed and took over a considerable portion of the very road to which he is referring?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I am well aware of that but the fact of their having done so does not answer my argument.


William Cameron Edwards: And that they did not even ask the consent of the province?


Hugh Guthrie: There was a reason for that. The road that my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) refers to is the old Toronto and Kingston military road, built by the old province of Canada, always looked on as a government or military road and built for that purpose, and if the Dominion Government did assume control, or partial control over that road, it surely does not give us the ground work to defend this policy and the method by which this expenditure will be made. Under this section the minister has it in his power to say to the province

of Ontario: If you do not consent to the work I propose, you will get no money at all. Accept the amendment that I offer and the minister cannot say that. Then each province will have the right to receive annually its proportionate share according to the last census. If you strike out section 6 tach province will have the right to expend that money as it sees fit and the Dominion Government will have the right te put on its engineers and inspectors, prescribe proper conditions and see that the money is not improperly expended. That will give the power to the province and it will relieve the minister and the Government here of a great deal of anxiety and unnecessary work and trouble.
I suppose that the principle that is going to be urged against my proposal is that, as the Dominion Government owns the money, it must keep control of its expenditure. I submit that such an argument has no force. If you read section 3 you will see that this money is called 'subsidy.' You give subsidy for what purpose at present?-to assist the provinces? Yes, and you allow them to expend that money as they think proper. Therefore, if the argument that this House must keep control of the money it votes has any force, you should keep control of the subsidies that you vote to the different provinces.


Mr. LANCASTER:: Will the hon. gentleman say that in voting a railway subsidy we should give the control of it to the province in which the railway is located?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not put a railway and a highway on the same basis.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the distinction in principle? If we vote railway subsidy, why should we not say to the province: You spend this money because you can spend it better than we can?


Hugh Guthrie: The two are quite distinct. We of right are in control of the railway systems but we are not in control of the highways and bridges in the provinces.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: ' We ought to be in control of our own money, no matter what it is for.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I have made that distinction and if it does not appeal to my hon. friend I cannot do anything more. Nothing could be better settled by the framers of Confederation, and nothing was settled better by the Confederation Act itself, than that roads and bridges belong to the provinces.


Francis Cochrane: We do not take away from that in any sense of the word.


Hugh Guthrie: You are going pretty deeply into the business of making, maintaining, repairing and constructing roads in the provinces when you ask them to consent-


Francis Cochrane: By their consent.


Hugh Guthrie: And if they do not consent to the minister's proposal he can say to them: Very well, I will not give you anything. He is really placing himself in absolute control of the highways and bridges in the different provinces if the Bill goes through in it3 present form. 1 doubt if it is good policy for my hon. friend to adopt such a course. What advantage will the public get out of it?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They will get good roads.


Hugh Guthrie: Does not my hon.
friend think that Sir James Whitney will spend the money properly?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think that if it is our money we should have control of it.


Hugh Guthrie: Then my argument in regard to the subsidy must hold good. We grant a large amount to the provinces each year and although it is our money we still give it to the provinces. If it is our money, and if my hon. friend's argument is a good one, we should keep control of it and spend it. This is the old principle of centralization, while the principle that has been adopted in this House more and more as the years have gone by is one of decentralization. Likewise it is an expenditure to meet the local demand. I know that the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) would trust the Whitney Government absolutely with the expenditure of this money and would consider that it would spend it for the benefit of the province and the advantage of the people. I am also willing to trust them. The British North America Act, our constitution, says that they are the people who should control the highways.


Francis Cochrane: The province does not take hold of the county roads although it supplies the money to be expended upon them.


Hugh Guthrie: That strengthens my argument. The Province of Ontario had adopted the principle in its legislation that the counties and the townships can best say what their local needs are, and instead of assuming control at Toronto of the roads in the County of Carleton for example, they say to the authorities of that county: there is your money; spend it where it is most needed.


Francis Cochrane: Not at all.


Hugh Guthrie: They do in my county.


Francis Cochrane: They do not in your county.


Hugh Guthrie: If it is a provincial road they send an inspector, and I do not know if we have built any of those provincial roads in our county; but the Municipal Act of Ontario gives absolute control of the county roads to the county, the township roads to the township, and the urban roads to the urban municipalities. The title of the land is in the Crown but the sole control, management, and liability for repairs of the road is in the municipality and not in the Province of Ontario.


William Cameron Edwards: In the county of
Wellington do you not get one-third from the Ontario Government under certain restrictions as to supervision and expenditure?


Hugh Guthrie: We get the road grant and it has to be expended according to certain prescribed standards which the Ontario Government has set out.


William Cameron Edwards: And under the supervision of a Provincial Government appointee.


Hugh Guthrie: And nobody would object to such a provision in this Bill. I have said time and again that the minister should have the right to put his engineers on to inspect the road, but he goes further because he controls the expenditure and he can say to a province: you do this or you will get nothing.


William Cameron Edwards: And so says the
Province of Ontario in regard to the roads in the County of Wellington.


Hugh Guthrie: Indeed it does not.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes it does. In nineteen
counties in the province of Ontario that have come under "the good roads system


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend (Mr. Edwards), had better let me go on without interruption. The Province of Ontario pursues what I maintain is the proper system and the system that should be pursued by the Minister of Railways in this case. The Provincial Government has this to say in its favor, that it is the body specially created by the British North America Act to attend to roads, and the Federal Government is not in any way charged with that duty.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it not a fact that
when a county in Ofitario wishes to share in the Ontario grant for good road purposes it lays out a county road system and that system must be submitted to the Ontario Government for its approval and sanction?


Hugh Guthrie: I should think that is
so, and the provincial government is the Mr. COCHRANE.
proper authority to look after roads and the Dominion Government is not. The first difference between us is that we say the provinces should be treated equally and that each province should receive its money annually on the basis of population. .That is what the minister says he intends to do but it is not in the Bill.


George Perry Graham: No he does not.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think you
have any right to make that statement.


George Perry Graham: The Bill is so framed
that he need not do it unless he wants to.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister said in the House that his intention was to treat the provinces according to their population at the last census.


Francis Cochrane: And the money was
so voted last session.


Hugh Guthrie: If that were in the Bill it would do away with my first objection.


George Perry Graham: But it is not in the Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister put
it in the Bill?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Then that is the difference between us.


Francis Cochrane: The vote of money
has to be brought before the House every year.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes but that leaves to the minister power to strike out one province this year and another province next year, and it enables him to refuse to consider the basis of population in the various provinces.


Mr. BLAIN:: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) unwilling to accept the word of the Minister of Railways and the word of the Prime Minister also?


Hugh Guthrie: Just on that point; if
the word of the Prime Minister and of the minister were binding in the interpretation of a statute I would accept it without the slightest hesitation, but my fear is that we may not have the Prime Minister next year, and it is rumoured we are going to lose the Minister of Railways in the near future and we cannot tell who his successor may be. If the Prime Minister were sincere, and I assume he was; if the Minister of Railways were sincere; and I assume he was, when they stated their intention was that each province should be treated on an equal basis according to the population at the last census, why do they object to crystallizing that statement in the legislation? It is much better to have it in

the statute than to depend on the memory of man for it, or on the debates of ' Hansard ' which are not binding. We do not object to your expenditure; we approve of it, and I wish to emphasize that fact in view of the statements that appear day after day in the Conservative newspapers. The Toronto Mail stated recently that the Liberal party was opposing and obstructing this Highways Bill.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The Senate did it last
year surely.


Hugh Guthrie: The Conservative press of the country and Conservative speakers have been most unfair to the Senate in that regard. The Senate made seven proposals by way of amendment and the minister has accepted five of them this year.


Francis Cochrane: I did last year.


Hugh Guthrie: It should be recognized that five of the amendments having been accepted by the minister the Senate did a good work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why did they not
quit at that?


Hugh Guthrie: If the Senate last year took the view that this money should be expended by the provinces the Senate was right, and if the Senate takes the same view this year it would still be right. We want the people of Canada to know that the Opposition in this House does not oppose this money grant, but that we insist that the provinces shall have the control of the expenditure and that they shall have the money distributed to them on the basis of population.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The farmers who are paying the taxes will know all right what they are doing.


Hugh Guthrie: We want the farmers to know that the misrepresentation that has been indulged in during the last twelve months is a slander against the Liberal party because the word has been passed- to the reptile press as the Minister of Public Works would say-to state that the Liberal party opposed the passage of the Highways Bill.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They killed it last session.


George Perry Graham: It was the Government that killed it.


Hugh Guthrie: And if we can kill this proposal as it is in the Bill at present we will kill it, and if we can amend it we will amend it and bring it into conformity, not only with common sense, but with the provisions of the British North America Act, leaving the provinces to expend their own money on the roads as they see fit. I fear that the minister does not feel disposed to accept our amendment.


David Henderson: I do not think he will.


Hugh Guthrie: He should consider that matter very carefully because I believe I am making a reasonable request. All I isk is that he put his own promise in this legislation and then my first objection will have disappeared. The second would stand because that is the question as to whether [DOT] he will spend the money or whether the provinces will do so.


Mr. C. JAMESON (Digby):: By the majority of the inhabitants of rural Canada this Bill to encourage and assist the improvement of highways is, I believe, regarded as the most important measure in the Government's legislative programme, the Naval Bill not excepted. This Bill has been pretty generally discussed during the three several occasions when it has previously been before the House this session. Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the very extraordinary ground that, while they admit that the highways are in need of improvement, they oppose this means by which they might be improved.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in moving his amendment has made two principal points. He says that this money should be apportioned to the various provinces, according to population as disclosed by the last census. It will be remembered that legislation of this character was before the House last session, and in order to provide for the expenditure of the money which was to be appropriated under that legislation, the Government included in the supplementary estimates the necessary sum of money apportioned to the various provinces according to population. The item as it appeared in the supplementary estimates of last year is as follows:
To the province of-
Alberta	 $52,189 90
British Columbia	
54,669	52Manitoba	
63,460	10New Brunswick	
49,019	86Nova Scotia	
68,576	90Ontario	
351,466	64Prince Edward Island .. ..	13,059	70Quebec	
278,964	80Saskatchewan	
68,592	58
Making a total of a million dollars. That was based upon the population of Canada as disclosed at the last census. The purpose was to meet the very object in connection with which the hon. gentleman has moved this amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: Why not put it in the Bill?


Clarence Jameson: Parliament should have the voting of this money. If at some future time it might in the wisdom of Parliament be desirable to depart from that principle

of distribution, there is no reason why that attitude should not be open to Parliament without amending the legislation.
My horn, friend asks that clause 6 of this Bill should be struck out. Clause 6 says:
The minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed by an Order in Council, may undertake the construction of any new highway or bridge, or the improvement of any existing highway in any province, and may expend in such improvement or construction the whole or any part of the sums voted by Parliament for such subsidy to that province:	Provided however
that the minister shall first obtain the necessary authority from the legislature of such provinces and the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
It is to be observed that in every case where the expenditure is made under the direction of the minister, it shall be done by and with the consent of the legislature of such province and the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of such province.
My hon. friend, in asking that this clause be struck out, makes this point. He says: This is in the nature of a subsidy; why not treat it as all other subsidies are treated when payable to the provinces and place it absolutely under the control of the provinces. There is this distinction, that the general subsidies which are payable annually to the provinces are fixed under the terms of the British North America Act. This is a special and additional subsidy, voted by this Parliament for a special purpose, and it seems to me that it is only right and proper that the Parliament which votes the money should retain some control over it.
When the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) spoke on this measure a few days ago, he gave what appeared to me to be a most novel reason for not supporting it. He said that it would be a most unpopular thing for any provincial Government to refuse to accept any money from the federal Government for such an excellent purpose as the improvement of highways. I think the hon. gentleman was right. I think hon. gentlemen oppositj have discovered, since legislation of a similar character introduced by this Government last year was defeated, that it was a most popular measure and that its defeat, as a result of amendments in the Senate, was most unpopular.
The hon. member for Humboldt presented to this House a resolution from the legislature of Saskatchewan, the effect of which, if it were adopted by this Government, would be to postpone indefinitely any legislation or any grant along these lines. He thought that this Government should consent to that proposition, which would defeat the very purpose which they Mr. JAMESON.
have in view. It seems to me that that would be obviously a most unreasonable proposition and contrary to every rule of reason and every principle of common sense. I .have always understood that every legislative body should proceed upon its own authority and that it should be responsible for its own acts. I do not think that the legislature of any province, not excepting the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, has the right to dictate to this Parliament, or to the Government of Canada, how they shall exercise their functions, or what their legislative programme shall be.
This Government will pass this Bill in aid of the highways. It will appropriate one million dollars fox highways, and if the Government of any of the provinces of Canada refuses to enter into an agreement with the minister, for the acceptance and expenditure of that province's share of any sum appropriated under this Act, I believe that the people of that province will deal with such a Government at the earliest opportunity.
My hon. friend the member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney), propounded a most unusual doctrine. He said that if this money were coming from outside of Canada he would approve of the expenditure, but inasmuch as it was coming from the pockets of the people of this country, he did not feel that he could support it. He thought it should rather be applied in the reduction of the cost of living. I do not know how my hon. friend is going to find a better means of decreasing the cost of living than by improving the means of. communication between the producer and the consumer.
I do not know whether my hon. friend really considered where his line of reasoning was going to lead him when he advanced that doctrine. The city of Saskatoon at this time is asking for a very considerable grant for the construction of a public building in that city to meet the requirements of a growing community. But if the doctrine which the hon. gentlemen propounds were carried out, there would be no expenditure of public money for the construction of that building; there would be no publics works; there would, indeed, be no highways. I do not think my hon. friend could have been serious when he put forward that proposition.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) spoke on this Bill a few days ago and he opposed it because of its form. He said the	Bill should
be made satisfactory to hon. gentlemen opposite. I think he has set a pretty difficult proposition to this Government, to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite. If any member of the Government were to seriously contemplate attempting to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite-and I have

sometimes thought that occasionally they make an honest effort to _ do so, more particularly in the case of my hon. friend from Pictou, but with rather indifferent success-I would advise that member of the Government to first sit down, square the circle, and work out the problem of perpetual motion, and after he has disposed of these comparatively easy exercises, he might attempt the more difficult one of satisfying hon. gentlemen opposite.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are not here to be satisfied, they are here to be dissatisfied; the moment they are satisfied their functions as an opposition cease.
My hon. friend from Pictou might have had legislation of a form to satisfy him had he and his party desired it. For sixteen years hon. gentlemen opposite were in nower, and during a part of that time the hon. member for Pictou sat as a supporter of that Government in this House.


William Chisholm: To what extent did they increase the provincial subsidies in that time? [DOT]


Clarence Jameson: Let him tell. During all that time did they bring down any legislation in respect to the highways? No; but now that this Government has brought down this legislation, hon. gentlemen opposite see that they missed . a grand opportunity _of meeting the needs and requirements of the people of this country, and I have no doubt they feel somewhat sore in consequence.
The objections of hon. gentlemen opposite when weighed and sifted), come down to three:	First, partyism, which
prompts them, not unnaturally, perhaps, to oppose everything that this Government proposes; second, remorse, because they did not, when in office, bring down legislation of this character and for this purpose; third, jealousy, because this Government will obtain the credit for this legislation which is, I am sure, meeting the approval of the people of this country.
At the last session of Parliament, hon. gentlemen opposite opposed a Bill along the same lines as this. They moved certain amendments in this Chamber, which amendments were voted down. Having done that they had discharged their duty to the country, as they saw it. The Biil went to the Senate; their political influence followed it, and it was amended, and amended in such a manner that this Government would not accept the amendments and take the responsibility for those amendments.
My hon. friend from South Renfrew referred to what he was pleased to term the ' obstinacy ' of this Government in not accepting the Senate amendment. Sir, I say that while nominally the amendment which was objected to by this Government was a
Senate amendment, in reality it was an amendment of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, and it was an amendment by which he was trying to frame legislation which he could have framed to suit himself at any time prior to the 21st of September of 1911, had he had any desire to do so. But if it were not, Sir, I say the people of this country will not stand to have the action of this, the popular chamber, the chamber elected by and responsible to the people, defeated, hindered, and delayed by the action of a chamber which is not responsible to the people of Canada, but which is responsible to the grim reaper and to the grim reaper alone.
When, some years ago, the proposition to create the Commonwealth of Australia was before the people of the island continent, a cartoon appeared in one of the Sydney papers which illustrated the stand of the anti-federal party. There was a picture of a boy standing on a railway track regardless of a fast approaching express train. Another picture alongside showed the train at a standstill and the engineer down examining the driving wheels; and underneath were these words:
The boy stood on the railway track He heard the whistle squeal-
The engineer got slowly down,
And scraped him off the wheel.
The anti-federal party in Australia was steam-rollered by the people when they went to the polls, and I firmly believe that the political party which opposes this legislation will receive similar treatment from the people of Canada when they go to the polls, and when the real test as to the popularity of this legislation is had.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I am sure the House has listened with interest to the versatile address of the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) who addresses the House all too seldom, and who, when he does claim attention brings to the debate a spice of interest and a touch of humour which is too often lacking in speeches in this House. The hon. gentleman seems oppressed with some feeling of sympathy for hon. gentlemen on tjjis side. I assure him that hon. gentlemen on this side are all very well and very good-humoured, and not worrying about any of these sad policies which in his imagination he attributes to us. The only people who are worrying about whether this legislation will pass or not, are some whom we might call the heelers of the Conservative party who anxiously await the division of the spoils and the use of this million dollars which would be such splendid election material in the hands of these workers for the Conservative party. These are the gentlemen who are worry-



S835 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
ing about this measure; these are the gentlemen who were disappointed last year when this measure was not passed in the form in which hon. gentlemen supported it, and these are the gentlemen who will be disappointed this year if it fails to pass in the form in which it is now proposed. The House is in a peculiar position in respect of this matter. Hon. gentlemen on the other side say: 'We have here a wonderful Bill; nobody ever thought of it before. We charge hon. gentlemen on the left of the Speaker that although they were in power fifteen years, such a brilliant idea never came into their minds as the one which now possesses us. When you analyze the matter, the whole of this wonderful policy consists in the fact that, according to the preamble of the measure, hon. gentlemen propose to take a million dollars out of the treasury and give it to the provinces. There is nothing very mysterious or wonderful about that. The subsidies for the different provinces have been increased at different times, after conferences with the provinces, and the increased amounts which Parliament voted from time to time were for the betterment of the roads of the different provinces of the country and for the betterment of all the institutions which are committed to their care. By this measure hon. gentlemen are taking a million dollars, and, without any regard to subsidies paid in the past, they say they propose to give this sum of money to the provinces for the purpose of having the roads improved. When it is desired to ascertain the alleged intention of hon. gentlemen in proposing a Bill, it is rarely necessary to go to the preamble. They say that the highways of Canada are an important part of the facilities of transportation; everybody agrees with that. Then they say:
And whereas, with the increasing progress and development of the country it is desirable and expedient to improve and extend the existing highway facilities, and for that purpose to give assistance to the various provinces of Canada.
That is the preamble of this Bill, and they go on to provide for the voting of money to ^ive assistance to the various provinces of Canada. Hon. gentlemen
state that as the preamble of their Bill, but they come down with a measure which docs not provide what their preamble states they intend to provide for. My hon. friend the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Railways supplement the preamble of this Bill by saying: 'We intend to give this money to the provinces, we have no intention of doing anything else. Look, for instance, at the verification of our professions in that regard. Last year when we brought down the supplementary estimates, in furtherance of this Bill, w« Mr. MACDONALD
placed in them an amount to be given_ to the provinces, and we divided it according to the basis upon which the subsidies were voted; therefore hon. gentlemen on the other side have no right to question the procedure in the matter at all.' We all know the old saying that the road to Hades is paved with good intentions. Hon. gentlemen appear to be full of good intentions, but when it comes to putting down their real intentions in black and white, certainly they fall short of the ideal. If the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) had any right to believe that in the Bill now before the House there was a crystallization of the professions of the gentlemen whom he follows, there would be no division upon this matter. What a peculiar situation is presented to the House. It is that under this Government we must take the statements of the ministers as to the quality and effect of intended legislation, and then, when we come to look at the document which is to be placed on the statute-book, it does not matter if we find that differs entirely from their statements. When questions are raised as to whether or not the words of the measure which is to be the statute and the law of the country are to be interpreted as indicating the true objects and intentions of the Bill, hon. gentlemen say: ' It is not what you put on the statute-book under this Government that is to be the foundation upon which judges are to base their conception of the law; it is what the hon. the Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister choose to say, even if what they say is diametrically opposed to the words of the Bill. If the hon. the Minister of Railways had put in the Bill what he claims to be his intentions in the matter, then the hon. member for South Wellington would have had no need to present his amendment. Why should the Minister of Railways not put his intentions in the Bill? The hon. minister admits in the preamble of the Bill the purpose of this wonderful measure-this project of statesmanship the like of which has never been seen in this country; the concentration of everything that is wonderful and mysterious, but which, translated into plain English, means nothing more nor less than a proposition to take so much money out of the Dominion treasury and give it to the provinces. We are told that no one should question the qualities of this wonderful Bill, and that anyone who does will get into trouble. With any hon. gentleman who thinks that any hon. members on this side of the House are worrying about their opinion to this measure, I take issue fairly and squarely, and I am prepared to go into my constituency or any other constituency and ask the people of this country whether they believe what hon. gentlemen say or whether

they would rather look to what they do. Actions speak louder than words. Professions are not worth much when you come to deal with legislation; the question is what did you put in the document that is to control the expenditure of the money? Professedly this money is to be given to the provinces; actually hon. gentlemen want to keep it under their own control. They know that the right to deal with roads rests exclusively in each of the provinces, and in section 6 of this Bill they recognize the fact that the provinces own the rights of way of these roads and that no federal parliament or any other authority in the British Empire can interfere with the right of the provinces to deal with them. They admit all that, and yet they say: 'We want to put in this Bill something to give us the right to deal with the money. The issue as between the parties is well defined. The hon. member for Digby need not attempt by any method such as he has suggested so very adroitly to draw the attention of the House, or indeed of the country, from this measure. I may tell my hon. friend that there only as many people, outside of the political partisans who want to control the expenditure of this money, who will be offended by the nonpassage of this Bill, as the hon. gentleman can mislead by the statement that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are opposed to federal assistance to roads, and by the concealment of the fact that we on this side of the House asked the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to put in this document the crystallization of the language which he used in this House as to what his intention is in Tegard to this measure. The statement that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are opposing federal assistance to roads is untrue, and the hon. gentleman who makes it, and who lias heard this discussion, must hereafter know that it is untrue. I venture to say that at no time in the history of this Parliament has a Government ever come before this House and presented a measure under such conditions as those that exist in the present instance, whereby hon. gentlemen declare their avowed purpose and object to be one thing, and admit that the language of the Bill is not in the terms of their intentions, yet decline to put in the document a statement of the views which they allege to be their true convictions. That is the position here. We cannot tell what hon. gentlemen in the other legislative branch of Parliament may do in regard to this question. We know the view they took last year. We know that they recognized the constitutional right of the provinces of this Dominion. It is stated categorically in the preamble of this measure. They I
recognized their constitutional right to deal with the question of the rights of the provinces, and hon. gentlemen on the other side know that they were right in doing so.
Mr. BRADBURY:: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps my hon.
friend will tell me where they were wrong?


George Henry Bradbury: Where were they
right?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They were right because my hon. friends opposite put it in the preamble of the Bill but did not put it in the enacting clauses.


Mr. MACDONELL:: An excellent reason.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I aim surprised that my hon. friend from Toronto, whose partisanship sometimes runs away with his legal judgment, should think that he can put something in the enacting clauses of a Bill which is entirely contrary to what is contained in the preamble. My hon. friend who has had a good deal to do with private Bills, knows that he would not venture to put something in the enacting clauses of a Bill which was contrary to the preamble. That is what this measure does, and it is because of tho absolute anomaly in the drafting of the measure and because of the results that might follow, that those of us on this side of the House have no hesitation in stating that when a government comes before Parliament with a proposition they ought to put in the statute what they mean, and not leave it to the House, or to anyone else, to infer what they mean.


James Joseph Hughes: In view of the fact that many newspapers supporting the Government in my province, and indeed in all the provinces, are grossly misrepresenting the attitude cf the Opposition in regard to this measure, I deem it my duty to say a few words before the Bill is finally disposed of. The idea that seems to run through some of the articles that I have read, and which apparently runs through the minds of the men whe write them, is that the money proposed to be expended under this Bill, is a gift from the Government of this country, from the twelve or fourteen gentlemen who compose the Government, to the provinces, or to the 'people of the country. They do not seem to realize that all the money that is obtained by this Government, or by any government, is first obtained from the people by taxes, and the money that will go to the provinces is first taken from the provinces. It is simply a distribution. It is just as well to be plain and not mince matters in regard ta this measure. The Opposition are really under the impression

that the object of this Bill is to make a pawn for political purposes. That is one of the chief objects of the Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: There is no use in mincing matters.


Mr. SMYTH (Algoma):: That is a farfetched idea.


Samuel Hughes: The Government say that the intention is to expend the money in the provinces according to population, and to expend the portion allowed to each province each year. But they refuse to put that provision in the Bill and they give no reason why they refuse. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) put a straight question to the right hon. the leader of the Government when he asked him in what way the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition would prevent the Government from carrying out what they allege they intend to carry out under this Bill. The Prime Minister did not answer him. Apparently he could not answer him. The only answer he gave was that the amendment was not necessary. There seems to be some reason why the Government refuse to accept any amendment to this Bill with the object of assisting them in carrying out the views which they say they intend to carry out Is the Opposition unreasonable in taking the view that there is a sinister object?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They are in wrong, that
is all.


Samuel Hughes: This Bill had not been
brought down to Parliament last year, it had only been mentioned, when the election in South Renfrew took place and two ministers of the Crown went into that constituency-


George Perry Graham: Five.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for
that riding says that five ministers went into his constituency and tried to influence the electors by telling them of the enormous sums of money that would be spent in that county under this proposal if they voted right. It was only this afternoon that I heard the Minister of Finance inform the hon. member for Halifax that the supplementary estimates were not yet completed, that they were still under consideration; and yet these supplementary estimates were published three months ago in the county of Antigonish to influence a by-eleotion. Is it unreasonable to suppose that a Government which acted in that way in these two instances would not make use of the money voted in this Bill for the purpose of influencing elections ? I do not think that anybody will say that the Opposition are not amply Mr HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.)
justified in taking that view of the matter, having regard to all the circumstances.
Further than that, the tendency of legislation by this Government appears to be to encroach as much as possible upon the rights and privileges of the provinces, and to pass over to the Imperial Parliament, or to some Imperial body, the rights and privileges of this Parliament. The tendency of such legislation is dangerous. Further, the present Government in their legislation appear t-o wish to take away all the power they can from Parliament, to get Parliament to vote large sums of money without particularizing how it is to be expended. The tendency of such legislation is dangerous. For these reasons the Opposition are amply justified in opposing this Bill. We fear the uses that will be made of the money. Why, it was only a few moments ago that the hen. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) said that if the government of any province refused to accept the money under the conditions which this Government would impose, he presumed that the people of that province would take care of that government. Is it not a fair inference to draw from that statement that the conditions that this Government would impose, upon a provincial government in political sympathy with them, would be easily arranged?


George Henry Bradbury: Is that what the late Government did ?


Samuel Hughes: But it might be very
hard and very difficult for a provincial government not in political sympathy with this Government to accept the conditions offered, and the object would be to make that government unpopular with the people of that province. That is what the hon. member for Digby intimated a few moments ago. Look at the measure in what way you will; there must certainly be something behind it when the Government absolutely refuse to accept any amendment whatever, the object of the amendment being to carry out the provision which the Government say they wish to carry out in connection with the Bill. They will retain the power in their own hands to make whatever changes they wish afterwards. We are justified in opposing it in every way we can. It may be worked as the most iniquitous measure that ever passed the Parliament of Canada and we have no assurance that it will not be so worked. Therefore, I repeat, we are justified in opposing it, I intend to record my vote against it, and these are some of the reasons I give for so doing to the people who sent me here.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to give an instance of what my hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), has said, I went down to

my riding at the week end, and I was mot much surprised when I saw a man there, a Conservative and a friend of this Ministry, getting a petition signed by farmers in my riding. He was asking the farmers to sign the petition and for what reason? He would say to a farmer: You need not bother yourself about borrowing money under the law of the province of Quebec because you will have to pay interest on it. We have a Bill now before Parliament and, if it is not killed by the Senate, you will have all the money you want to improve your own roads and highways and it will cost you nothing. That shows you the spirit in which this Bill is regarded in some quarters. I rose only to give the House an instance of what my hon. friend from Kina's has stated. This Bill is nothing but a football to be played with when elections come on.


William Aurelius Clarke: 

absolutely the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I am surprised at the minister refusing to accept the amendment to clause 3. He stated both last year and this that it was his intention to grant aid in the form of a subsidy according to population. Why he refuses to include that in the Bill is something I cannot comprehend. Some of our hon. friends are worrying because the Senate threw this Bill out last year, but I would just like to say that I endorse the Senate's action.
I am quite prepared to discuss it anywhere in the country and I have no apology to make. I think the Senate was absolutely right in trying to force the minister to put into the Bill the protestations he has made in this House as to what he intends to do. My hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) said the subsidies were fixed by the British North America Act, and I will not answer that further than to say there have been a great many subsidies granted by the Dominion to the provinces since the enactment of the British North America Act. This subsidy should be given exactly in the same way as the other - subsidies. I pointed out in committee that clause 6 in my judgment was absolutely unnecessary because clauses 4 and 5 covered the question. I have no objection at all to the granting of subsidies in aid of good roads but I would have objection to the granting of subsidies towards the building of a trunk line at the present time. The probabilities are that if the money is left with the province the province will know how to expend it, and it will be expended on roads that are leading directly to the farmers' market. I repeat that I thoroughly and absolutely endorse all that has been said by the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and said much better than I can say it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is the hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) perfectly satisfied, if the provincial government should get this grant, that it should expend it in the northern parts of Ontario and not in the older parts of the province.


Mr. NESBITT:: I would be perfectly satisfied to abide by the decision of the Ontario Government as to where they thought it wise to expend that money. I would be very pleased to see them expend some of it in my county but I would not object if they would not.


Robert Laird Borden: The attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite towards this Bill seems to have varied very much since it came up for second reading. At that time the right hon. leader of the Opposition used this language:
Let me assure my hon. friend that ve do not approach this measure in any factious
Mr. NESBITT.
spirit; we are willing to give the measure our support.
And then he went on to move an amendment which embodied a certain principle that he thought ought to be applied to the Bill. We now learn from several hon. gentlemen opposite that they are absolutely opposed to the Bill and that they intend to vote against it, and we are perfectly willing that they should do so if they desire. A great many bugbears have been conjured up with regard to this measure. It is said the money is to be utilized for some improper purpose; that these roads are local works within the meaning of the British North America Act, and that the Federal Government should have nothing directly to do with them at all. As a matter of fact highways in the province are not more local works than a great many subjects for which Parliament votes estimates every session. There is just as good warrant for the construction of a road by the Federal Government as there is for the construction of certain docks and roads approaching docks, and for the construction of cer-, tain bridges for which money has been voted over and over again by this Parliament. In the early history of Confederation works of that kind were not undertaken to any great extent by the Federal Government, but the practice began to creep in ten ..r fifteen years after Confederation, and since then it has grown until the present Federal Government are constructing a great many works that perhaps might be more particularly classified among the local works mentioned in section ninety-two of the British North America Act.
My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), was very much disturbed about a road from Quebec to Windsor, and he imagined the Government were introducing this Bill for the purpose of constructing such a road. According to my conception of the British North America Act it would not be necessary at all for the Government of Canada to hand over money to the governments of the provinces for the purpose of constructing a road of that character.


Hugh Guthrie: Not that kind of a
road; that would be an interprovincial road.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend cannot
be serious in his suggestion that the object of a Bill which proposes to hand money over to the provinces is to 'carry out the construction of such a road.


Hugh Guthrie: It does not propose to hand the money over to the provinces; that is my objection.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has not
properly comprehended the Bill. The object is to hand the money over to the pro-

vinces for a particular purpose and to see that that purpose is carried out. The provision of a sum of money under these conditions is absolutely different-one would think any hon. gentleman would understand it without the necessity of such an explanation-is absolutely different from a permanent subsidy which is granted to the provinces with full right to appropriate that subsidy for any purpose whatever. Such general subsidies were granted in the first place by the British North America Act and afterwards by various arrangements which have ensued since Confederation, and they are of an entirely different character from this, because in every instance, so far as I can remember at the moment, such subsidies were moneys handed over to the provinces for their absolute disposition. This is not a subsidy of that kind; this is a subsidy handed over to the province, for the purpose of constructing works which, so far as most of these enterprises are concerned, are works of a local and private nature, and the object is that this subsidy shall be devoted to that particular purpose and no other. That being the object and purpose of the Bill it is manifestly desirable, and further than that it is manifestly necessary that there should be some safeguards in this statute, so that the Government of Canada, responsible to this Parliament, shall see to it that that money is devoted to that particular purpose and to no other. Further than that, it is the duty of this Parliament to see that this money shall be devoted to highways of such a character that they will be of permanent advantage to the people in every province. It is in connection with such a proposal, that all this discussion-a great part of which seems to me to be of rather a trivial character-has been expended on this Bill both last session and this. If the Government had any such idea as seems to be in the minds of hon. gentlemen on the other side, some sinister purpose in connection with this Bill, they would not have gone about it in this way. Hon. gentlemen opposite dwell too much on their own record when they make suggestions of that kind. The object of this Bill is simply to enable the various provinces of Canada to have placed at their disposal for a certain definite and particular purpose, namely, the improvement of the highways of this country, certain sums of money which will be allocated to them in accordance with their respective populations, and it is not only the right but it is the absolute duty of the Government of Canada who are responsible to this Parliament, to bring down that measure with necessary safeguards to ensure that that money shall be applied to that particular purpose and no other, and that it shall be expended in such 2804
a way as to result in permanent benefit and advantage. And, these hon. gentlemen opposite are spending hours and days in opposing that. I venture to think, notwithstanding what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite, that they are reckoning without their host when they set up opposition, as they did last session and as they have done this session, to a proposal for the permanent improvement of the highways of Canada, They have mistaken the attitude and the feeling of Canada in that regard when they suggest to us that some of the provinces are opposed to this measure. I am quite conscious of the fact that the province of Saskatchewan some time ago and latterly the province of Nova Scotia have made a certain suggestion for a delay which would prevent this money from being voted at this session, and from being utilized by the various provinces of Canada during the present fiscal year. I do not think that even the people of these two provinces would support the governments of these provinces in their proposals. It was suggested by one. of these provinces that the governments of two other provinces were of the same opinion. I made an inquiry at once by telegraph and found that that statement was absolutely unfounded.
So far as the autonomy of the provinces is concerned, so far as their rights are concerned, the most absolute safeguards are provided by this Bill. Even in respect of section 6, how can any reasonable or sane man in this House say that the autonomy of any province is trenched upon in the slightest degree when it is absolutely impossible for this IGovernment or the Minister of Railways and Canals to lift one finger under that section without the authority	of the provincial	legislature
and without the consent of the provincial government? It is absolutely useless for any hon. member to make the pretense that there is any violation of provincial rights or powers with that absolute and distinct safeguard staring him in the face in the words of section 6 of the Bill. As hon. gentlemen have seen fit to take the attitude that they have taken with regard to this Bill, to obstruct it from the very first day on which it was presented to this House for second reading, all I have to say is that we are perfectly willing to accept their challenge, to place our attitude with regard to this measure in contrast with theirs before the people of this country and to left the people judge the policies and attitudes of the two parties with regard to this Bill when the propeT time shall come.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) ; Mr. Speaker, if my right hon. friend would put the meaning of his words in the Bill, there would not be much objection.

The trouble -all through this session is that in half the measures "which the Government has proposed, they insist on saying one thing themselves and having their Bills say something else. That is what we object to. If the Minister of Railways would put his attitude so far as his words are concerned, into this statute, he would wipe away one objection of the hon. member for South Wellington. He absolutely refuses to do that.
I refuse to allow even the Prime Minister to tell the people of Canada that, because I, being a victim of corrupt practices on account of this Bill made a few remarks on it, I was obstructing this measure. I want to make myself clear on that point. This Bill had scarcely been presented to Parliament last year When men went from the city of Ottawa to the riding of South Renfrew and scattered over that riding promising men $100 to $500 under the measure before Parliament if they would turn out and attempt to defeat me in that riding.


Francis Cochrane: Where is the proof
of that ?


George Perry Graham: I have met the men
who have been promised it. I do not need to give their names. It only shows what ministers of the Crown did in promising grants to that riding. _ Hon. gentlemen opposite, of course, did not succeed, but they made the attempt just the same. So far as I am concerned, I have the personal experience of knowing that under the terms of this Bill corrupt promises were, made to the electors of the constituency in South Renfrew in a futile effort to defeat me.
The Prime Minister should _ not make any charge of obstruction. This Bill has not been obstructed. Every time we have moved an amendment in this House during this session, we are charged with obstruction, or with doing something wrong. The Government has gone so far as to move a resolution to prevent even the leader of the Opposition from moving an amendment. That spirit runs all through their legislation. If the Prime Minister had been the attempted victim of corrupt promises in the same way as I was, I am sure he would not have sat silent without attempting to dehorn this Bill in such a manner that it could not be used in that way again. I decline to be told even by the Prime Minister that I am opposed to a grant of money for the building of good roads in the provinces. I am in favour of such a grant. Years before I was in this House I made such a proposal to the Government then in power. Although I was not a member of this House, I was a member of the Ontario legislature. I admit that it did not meet with favour, as they took the ground that the work belonged to the provinces.
Mr GRAHAM.
Let me call attention to what happened here the other day. A deputation waited on the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). Their object was to get bridges constructed to connect the Island of Montreal with the mainland. They reported that they had been cordially received. They were told that if they could get the Senate to let the Highways Bill go through, without amendment, they would, have no difficulty in getting their money out of this appropriation.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I was present at the deputation. The bridge in question was an interprovincial bridge across the Ottawa river between the two provinces.


George Perry Graham: I know where the bridges are wanted. I travel over the territory as	many	times	in a	month	asmy hon.	friend	does	in a	year.	Anattempt is being made to have the island of Montreal connected with the mainland on the river road. At the present time automobiles or carriages cannot drive from the city of Montreal west; they have to cross by a rather old-fashioned ferry. I want to point out to	the Minister	ofRailways that if this Bill went through, he would not say that out of the grant given to Quebec according to population it	could	allow	these	bridges	to
be built. The grant would have to be enormous in proportion to the grants given to the other provinces. I am in favour of tnis Government giving a grant to assist in the construction of bridges at these two points, because they are badly needed, but they should not interfere with the Highways Bill, as they are very large works and would not properly come under this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the two points?


George Perry Graham: The two branches of the Ottawa river at Vaudreuii and St. Annes. They connect the island of Montreal with the mainland. A promise w.as held out in order to get this Bill through. I submit to the Minister of Railways that the Minister of Public Works has no right to enter his preserves and to distribute the money of his department.


Francis Cochrane: I will take care of
that.


George Perry Graham: I do not doubt that, but I want to point out some of the uses to which this Bill is being put already.


Francis Cochrane: What election was
that for ?


George Perry Graham: You cannot tell; it is
meant for general results; it is a shot from a scattering musket with the hope that it will hit somewhere. What I object to principally in this Bill is section 6. I am going to point out to my hon. friend one

of the objections I have to it. The others have been pointed' out already. Under this section my hon. friend could select six counties in which he would spend say $20,000 each. If the governments of the provinces did not consent to that, my hon. friend could say: We will give you none at all of that $120,000. Now, that is hardly the intention of Parliament, or even of hon. gentlemen behind the minister, in passing this legislation.
Another point is this: This is along the line of one or two other measures in which the Government propose under certain conditions to take into their hands the expenditure of money without giving this House one iota of information as to how they are going to spend it.


Francis Cochrane: That is what you advocated in Ontario.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman is
harking back to something of years ago, and that is the answer of this Government in everything. Now, I want to make it clear that the case is as I stated. This is taking away the rights of the members of this Parliament to express their opinions on the Supply Bill. Suppose that $100,000 is voted for Ontario-it would be more than that, of course-and the province did not expend the money, or left a portion unspent, the minister and the province of Ontario might come to an agreement as to the expenditure of, say, $50,000, and the Minister of Railways could spend it wherever he likes in Ontario and this Parliament would not have a word to say about it and would not know where it was going to be spent. I submit to the Prime Minister that that is hardly fair to-[DOT]


Francis Cochrane: They would not know if the province spent it.


George Perry Graham: But the provincial government would be responsible to the people of the province.


Francis Cochrane: We are responsible
here.


George Perry Graham: But before the provincial government spent the money they would submit their estimates and explanations.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to follow the argument of my hon. friend* and would like to ask him a question. Suppose this money were handed over without restriction to the province, could not the provincial government do exactly the same thing as he complains of?


George Perry Graham: I should look to the legislature to look after that.


Mr BORDEN:: Why not look to this Parliament?


George Perry Graham: M>
right hon. friend goes further than I do. I do not blame the Government in appropriating this money, ear-marking it to be spent for roads, those roads to be built to a certain standard; I think the Government ought to keep control to that extent. But I take the other ease where the minister himself, under this Act, could spend up to $100,000 under arrangement with any legislature, and the members of this House would not have a word to say about where the money should be expended.


Francis Cochrane: But under your plan
if Ontario spent $1,000,000 this House would not know where it was spent.


George Perry Graham: But the provincial minister pays out $1,000,000 for certain expenditure under certain conditions as provided in a statute which governs the expenditure of the money.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the provincial
statute define the locality in which the money is to be spent?


George Perry Graham: The provincial statute defines it in this way-they apply it under a statute fixing certain conditions under which the .money shall be given to the locality, just as the school grant is given to the locality according to the attendance of pupils and the qualifications of the teacher. I believe it would be better for the minister himself, and I know it would be better for this House, if in any work he is undertaking under the conditions of this clause he would agree that before work was undertaken it should be submitted to members of this House and let them pass upon it.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Guthrie):
YEAS:
Messieurs
Boivin,
Boyer,
Buchanan Bureau,
Cardin,
Carroll,
Carvell,
Chisholm Chisholm Delisle,
Demers,
Gauthier
(St. Hyaeinthe), Gauvreau, Graham,
Guthrie,
Hughes
(King's, P.E.I.), Kay,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Maclean (Halifax), M'cCraney,
M'eCoig,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
Ste. Mary's),
(Antigonish)Martin (Regina), (Inverness), Michaud,
'Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Power,
Proulx,
Richards,
Sinclair,
Tobin,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Warnock,
White
(Victoria, Alta),-13.

NAYS:
Messieurs
Aeliim,	Lancaster,
Ames,	Lesperance,
Armstrong (Lambton),Macdonell,
Baker,
Barker,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Bellemare,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), dements,
Cochrane,	[DOT]
Coderre,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie,
Davidson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Fripp,
Garland,
Girard,
Green,
Hepburn,
Hughes (Victoria, 0.' ,) ameson,
Kemp,
Lalor,
McCurdy,
McKay,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Mandou,
Morphy,
Munson,
Mantel,
Nicholson
Northrup,
Paquet,
Paul,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Robidoux,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmitli,
Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Steele,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Tremain,
Walker,
W allace, i, Webster,
W eichel,
White (Renfrew), Wright,-83.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Hazen,
Wilcox,
Henderson,
Pelletier,
Rogers,
Stevens,
Wilson (Wentworth), Lewis,
Cockshutt,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Nickle,
Aikins,
Burrell,
Hartt,
Fowler,
Thoburn,
Roche,
Foster (Toronto), Foster (Kings), Morrison,
Chabot,
Bristol,
Doherty,
Perley,
Clare,
Boyce,
Mr. GUTHRIE.
Opposition.
Pugsley,
Cruise,
Reid,
Lemieux,
Pardee,
Molloy,
Wilson (Laval),
Law,
Charlton,
Knowles,
Ross.
Turriff,
Douglas,
Thomson (QuAppelle), MdLean
(Queen's Sunibury), Robb,
Clarke (Essex), Gordon,
Brown,
MacNutt,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Marcil (Bona venture), Murphy,
Cash,
Champagne,
Cromwell,
Marshall,
Ball,	,
Donnelly,
Northrup,
Klson,
GauthieT (Gaspe),
Barrette,
Guilbault,
Lavallde,
Forget,
White (Leeds),
Arthurs,
Rhodes,
Sharpe (Ontario),
Alguire,
Armstrong (York),


William Pugsley: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries; had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I desire to withdraw my vote, as I was paired with the hon. Minister of Public Works.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was paired with the hon member for North Ontario, and did not vote, otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Martin Burrell: I was paired with the hon. member for Strathcona; had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Bowman Brown Law: 
William Pugsley: I did not vote because I was paired with the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries; had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Martin Burrell: I was paired with the hon. member for Strathcona; had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Borden, House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 30, 1913.