1914-05-04

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT.

Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: The resolutions which I introduced on the occasion of my Budget speech were yesterday approved by the Committee of Ways and Means, and afterwards concurred in by the House. I now beg leave to introduce a Bill No. 169, entitled an Act to amend the Customs tariff, 1907, founded upon those resolutions.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. MACDONELL:: I desire to rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member for North York (Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong) yesterday brought to the attention of the House an article in the Toronto Globe of Wednesday, the 29th April, asserting that certain members of the Government were outspoken in their opposition to the Canadian Northern railway deal as announced by the Government. I was not in the House when the matter was brought up by the hon. member for Brant, otherwise I would have joined him in denying the accuracy of that statement. My own name was mentioned among others, and I take this first opportunity of denying that there is any reason or foundation for such a statement. On the contrary, I think the transaction has been handled in a most businesslike and thorough manner by the Government, and in the only manner in which it could be properly handled. The agreement will have my most cordial support.



THE DUTY ON STRUCTURAL STEEL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
William Thomas White: My attention has been called to a report in to-day's issue of the Montreal Gazette and in certain other newspapers By inadvertence an erroneous impression has been created as to what I said yesterday during the discussion of certain steel items in the tariff. The report is as follows :
That there may he some further revision of steel duties required to meet the existing conditions in Canada, particularly as regards structural steel, was intimated by Hon. W. T. White to-night, during the discussion of the steel items in the tariff schedules. Mr. White said that the bridge manufacturers and allied interests in particular were naturally deeply interested in this question, and would have representations to make which might result in some further changes. The nature of these he did not indicate.
I shall read from ' Hansard ' what I said. I was speaking of the resolution under which the Governor in Council is authorized, when satisfied that rolled iron or steel angles, beams, channels, and other rolled shapes or sections of iron or steel weighing 120 pounds and less per lineal yard are manufactured in substantial quantities in Canada from steel made in Canada, to direct that there be substituted for tariff item 379 in schedule A to the customs tariff, 1907, the following:

379. Rolled iron or steel angles, beams, channels, and other rolled shapes or sections, of Iron or steel, not punched, drilled or further manufactured than rolled, weighing over one hundred and twenty pounds per lineal yard, n.o.p. not being square, flat, oval or round shapes, and not being railway bars or rails per ton-British preferential, $2; intermediate, $3 ; general, $3.
I explained to the House that the effect would be that on structural steel, from 35 pounds per lineal yard up to 120 pounds per lineal yard, the general rate of $7 per ton would be imposed. That is now the Tate on structural steel up to 35 pounds per lineal yard. The item which I have read will not become effective until the Governor in Council so directs, after being satisfied that rolled iron or steel angles and the other products mentioned are manufactured in substantial quantities in Canada. What 1 said, in answer to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), was:
X am in hopes that within the next year and a half or two years plants will be established at the Sault, and possibly at New Glasgow, Sydney and Hamilton, capable of manufacturing structural steel up to 120 pounds per lineal yard. As soon as the Government is satisfied that structural steel up to that weight can be manufactured in Canada, the increased duty will come into effect. It is possible that some other adjustments of the tariff may have to be made by reason of that change when it comes into effect. For instance, the manufacturers of bridges are interested in this duty upon structural steel.
Of course, it was not in my mind that a change would be made in the $7 per ton duty which this item imposes. I said that when the change comes into effect it is possible that some other adjustments of the tariff will have to be made in consequence of that change. Not, of course, upon these products, but upon other products; or, in other words, what are known as consequential changes. I desire, therefore, to make it plain that the adjustment which I had in mind did not relate to these products. I may say, in order that there may be no doubt whatever about the matter, that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce any further tariff changes at this session of Parliament.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: But to keep
an open mind for the future.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend knows that my distinguishing characteristic is an open mind.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, that is so, but not always in the right way.


William Thomas White: I am glad that my right
hon. friend and I agree upon the main point.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. George E. Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 27, of the Statutes of 1912, and to provide that advances to an amount not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars may be made to the minister out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada for the payment of freight charges and weighing and inspection fees on grain received into or shipped from elevators operated and managed by His Majesty, and that such payments shall be subject to all the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, and when the amounts so paid are refunded to His Majesty they shall be paid to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada for deposit to the credit of the said Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Mr. OLIVER:: Before the resolution is
adopted, I am sure the Minister o.f Trade and Commerce will give the committee some information that was asked for on a previous occasion in regard to the operation of the Canadian terminal elevators, to facilitate which operation this resolution is to be be passed.


Mr. FOSTER:: Perhaps my hon. friend
would be just as well pleased to take that up when we come to the Bill. This is simply a resolution, and the information that he requires I shall then be prepared with. If my hon. friend will kindly indicate what particular information he desires to have, I shall be ready with it when we take up the Bill, probably on Monday or Tuesday.


Frank Oliver: The information requested of the minister was as to the rates that were to be charged for services in connection with the interior elevators and the system under which business would be transacted.


George Eulas Foster: I shall be prepared with any information relating to that.


Frank Oliver: We would like to have the fullest possible information in regard to how the Government intends to operate those elevators, pending their completion, and in regard to the handling of the coming crop. There may be further information required in regard to the terminal elevator at Fort William.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will recollect that, in Committee of Supply, we passed the Estimates referring to elevators, and I

said that when we were on the Estimates referring to steamship subsidies, any questions that had not been asked with reference to the elevators or their operation could be asked and would be answered when we took up those,Estimates. There is still an item remaining in the Estimates on which that could be brought up.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Agriculture), the House went into Committee on Bill No. 112, to regulate the Manufacture and iSale of Dairy Pro-' ducts, and to prohibit the Manufacture or Sale of Butter Substitutes, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 4-quality of milk to be delivered to manufacturers or shippers:
Mr. BURRELL:: This is the same as the section in the existing Act, except that the words milk powder or casein manufactory, or to a milk or cream shipping station, or to a milk bottling establishment or other premises where milk or cream is collected for sale or shipment, axe added, in order to cover new processes introduced since the old Act was brought into force.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to delay
the progress of the Bill, but the dairy industry is a very important industry in the part of the country I represent. While it may be that no trouble has arisen in the past, it strikes me that there is a great deal of room for trouble under .sub-section (b) which reads:
(b) Milk from which any portion of that part of the milk known as strippings has been retained;
I do not know how far the lion. Minister of Agriculture is familiar with the practical operation of dairying, but I think this is a provision that is not practical, and that under it a dairyman might be made the

subject of proceedings when such proceedings were not at all warranted. I quite agree that there should be punishment for putting in impure or diluted milk, but to say that a farmer must put all the milk he gets from each cow into the product he sends to the factory is, in my opinion, and with all due respect to former legislators, absurd.


Martin Burrell: I do not know that
there has been any trouble under the old Act which included these words. And, of course, this is one of the causes that call for only minor penalties. But as the hon. gentleman knows, because he probably, like the rest of us, has milked a good many cow, the richest part of the milk is in what is known as the strippings, and there may be a temptation to a fraudulent keeping back of that part of the milk. I do not think there would be any harm in leaving the subsection in.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman does not want to improve the legislation, all right.


Martin Burrell: I think it better to leave it in.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-butter substitutes and remanufacture of butter prohibited:
Mr. BURNHAM:: What are people to do who wish to purchase an absolutely healthy substance, labelled as what it is, and not purporting to be butter?


Martin Burrell: This matter has been discussed very thoroughly not only by the dairy associations but also in the Agricultural Committee of this House, where this clause was carefully considered. I am not disputing that oleomargarine might be made of perfectly healthy substances and be wholesome as food; but, on the other hand, this is the oldest piece of dairy legislation on our statute book, passed in 1886; and though there have been occasional criticisms, I do not think that any Government has thought it wise to change it, nor, I confess, do I. Although oleomargarine may be wholesome, yet, unfortunately, in practise, where the byproduct of carcases of animals can be made up into a product resembling butter, although it may be sold by the merchant on its merits as oleomargarine, yet, by the time it gets to the table of the second-rate hotel or restaurant, it is sold to the customer who pays for butter. In the United

States, where they have had some such provision as the hon. member would indicate, they found it almost impossible to work it out in practise, and it has given endless trouble.
I must say that in the interests of the dairymen as well as of the general public it would be very unwise to alter this section.


John Hampden Burnham: I cannot agree that
this legislation is in the interests of the general public. Public inspectors may well Ihe appointed, but the assertion that poor people should not have the privilege of buying a perfectly wholesome product is, on its face, untenable. I do not say for one moment that in the dairy interests this legislation is inadvisable, but it cannot be in the interests of all the public.


Martin Burrell: Of the majority of the
public.


John Hampden Burnham: Surely the object of
legislation is to legislate for the people.


Martin Burrell: My' hon. friend knows
that you cannot get absolute unanimity of opinion.


John Hampden Burnham: I maintain that that
portion of the public which is the least able to buy food and the least able to maintain its own rights should have every facility for the obtaining of food and should be allowed to purchase cheap food so long as it is good and wnoiesome. There is no denying that oleomargarine, if properly made, is good food, and to take any action to prohibit its use is to do something in the interests of the dairy people, but not in the interests of the public who would like to buy it.


Mr. BRODER:: The real object of this
legislation is to do away with imitations of real butter. People may eat lard and tallow if they wish to do so, but it should not be coloured and sold to the public as butter. The genuine article ought to be protected.


Mr. NESBITT:: The hon. member for
Dundas says that if the people want to eat lard they can, but lard is not oleomargarine; it is a different thing altogether. Oleomargarine is a perfectly wholesome product, probably just as wholesome as butter. Of course, the Bill has been passed by the Agricultural Committee and, as the minister thinks that this legislation is in the interests of the country at large, I do not intend to say
anything against it, but I share in a measure the views of the hon. member for West Peterborough.


Frank Oliver: Has the minister or the
Government any information as to any infractions of the law?


Martin Burrell: I could not give my
hon. friend any specific instances. We are continually enforcing our Butter Act; so far as oleomargarine is concerned, I think the law has been pretty well lived up to, because it is known that the department will strongly attack any attempt to contravene the law. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for West Peterborough says, I have no doubt that if we eliminate this section and allow the production of butter substitutes, it would take a whole army of inspectors to prevent fraud.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the minister know of any oleomargerine having been sold in Canada ?


Martin Burrell: I could not answer my hon. friend on the spur of the moment; I shall be glad to get him that information.


Frank Oliver: What is the minimum amount of water permitted in butter ?


Martin Burrell: Sixteen per cent.


Frank Oliver: Is subsection (c) a new provision ?


Martin Burrell: Perhaps I can make the matter clear by reading section 299 of the old Act:
No person shail mix with butter any acid, alkali, chemical or any substance whatever, which is introduced or used for the purpose or with the effect of causing the butter to absorb water or any part of milk or cream; or manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell, expose or have in his possession fob sale any such mixed butter, any renovated butter or process butter.
Subsection (c) of section 5 of the present Bill makes it quite plain that we can prosecute those who undertake commercially what is known as the process of renovating butter by re-churning and adding more water.


Frank Oliver: There is a difference between grading, mixing the butter and putting it into merchantable shape, and reworking it for the purpose of introducing an extra amount of water. The big dairying establishments have out-stations at which they buy cream and butter from the farmers. The butter is made up into different forms and qualities, but is probably perfectly good butter, though not in mer-

charitable shape. It is brought to the central factory, graded, re-worked, put into merchantable shape and sold. I know that that is a legitimate part of the business of large dairy interests in Edmonton. I have never heard any objection to its being done; it always struck me as being a very proper proceeding.


Mr. BRADBURY:: They closed a factory in Winnipeg for doing the very same thing.


Frank Oliver: Possibly; but it seems to me to be a method strictly in line with the best interests of all parties concerned. It enables the farmer to get a cash price for his butter and enables the dealer to dispose of it to the satisfaction of his customers.


Andrew Broder: Re-churned?


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether it is re-churned, but it is re-worked.


Martin Burrell: I think that would be
all right. I understand what my hon. friend means. The trouble is that there has been a definite commercial process of absolute fraud in renovating butter, absolutely rechurning poor butter and adding water, the result being that it would keep for only a couple of days, while the water has been sold for the price of butter so that firms are making hundreds of dollars a day. There would be no desire to interfere with any legitimate process of re-working butter. The desire is to stop the fraud that is now being practised.


Frank Oliver: This section does not
prevent the legitimate re-working of butter? I met a gentleman from Winnipeg who told me that he had been interested in some such enterprise and he had been put out of business.


George Henry Bradbury: A firm in Winnipeg composed of men from my own town had a factory in which they invested $15,000. They were buying the cheaper grades of butter and re-working it. I do not know what the process was, but they were not making it out of any other substances than butter made by farmers in the surrounding district. They were put out of business by the late Minister of Agriculture and lost all the money invested. A claim was put in by Mr. D. P. Reid, of Selkirk, who had invested a lot of money, and the late Government promised to compensate him for putting him out of business because when he went into business there was no Act against it. I have always thought that the firm was treated in a very harsh manner, and that

the Government of Canada owe these people about $10,000.


Mr. WEBSTER:: The re-working of butter is permitted. A merchant goes through selections he has gathered, picks out the colour that suits best, puts it into the worker and makes up two or three tubs of the butter. The Bill does not interfere with that practice, but it does interfere with a man who melts butter and adds fresh milk and acid to give it a peculiar flavour which will last for three or four days. I have considered this Bill very carefully, and believe it cannot be improved upon in the interest of the public.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The wording of the section, I think, would prohibit that. The butter the hon. member speaks about would be a process butter, re-worked butter.


John Webster: Process butter is homogenized milk.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not agree that
re-working butter would not come under this section.


John Webster: You must consider the difference between re-working and re-churning.	,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You cannot re-churn
butter; that is a farce.


John Webster: My dear man, allow me to inform you that I can take you to a factory in Canada where they have been trying to do that for two years,
4 p.m. and in some cases they have succeeded so well that they have sold two hundred pounds of water at the price of butter.


Mr. MORPHY:: Coming from a county
largely interested in dairying, I would urge that section 5 be extended to prohibit the sale of such butter. Probably, however, section 6 would sufficiently cover that.


Frank Oliver: I would like to have a
definite statement as to whether these big dairy establishments in Edmonton are to be allowed to re-work butter in a legitimate way. I would read this section that they are not, but if the minister says it is the intention of the department to administer the law so as to permit the legitimate re-working of butter I would be satisfied with that; otherwise I would certainly have to protest against the section.


Martin Burrell: While I do not know
the circumstances of the firms to which my hon. friend refers, I do not think there will

be any attempt to stop the legitimate re-working of butter.


Mr. KNOWLES:: But might not some
private individual set in motion the machinery of the law? The enforcement of the federal law does not always come under federal authority. Things would be in a pretty mess if we would be safe in handing out reckless legislation on the country because we ourselves are so wise and prudent as not to take advantage of it. I think the minister's .suggestion does not answer the objection raised by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mt. Oliver).


Mr. BURE ELL:: I do not think my hon. friend need be alarmed about that. So far as I know, there has never been an attempt by any government to impose the slightest hardship in this regard, but it is very difficult to cover all cases in the dairying business without phraseology seeming to cover something that may be illegitimate. The Act will be interpreted by the officers of the department so as not to interfere with anybody carrying on a reasonably proper business.


William Erskine Knowles: Might there not be private prosecutions under this Act?
Mr. iBURRELL: It has never been done, so far as I know.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think that is any answer. There might be private prosecutions, and if there were would it be any reply on the part of the accused to say that the Minister of Agriculture had said in the House of Commons that such and such was not the intention of the Act.


Martin Burrell: This Bill has been
given the most deep .and careful consideration, and is believed to be in the interests of the country as well as the dairying industry. I think its provisions will have to stand as they are. If a man is doing *something deliberately illegitimate he would certainly have to take his chances.


William Erskine Knowles: If the minister continues to take the stand .that he has taken up to the present and will not listen to argument, .saying that the Bill is wise legislation and will have to stand as it is, I, for one, wish to register my protest against passing legislation in that way. He might as well not bring it to the House at all.


Martin Burrell: The practice in this
House, o| course, has been to refer Bills to committees composed of members of both sides of the House, who thresh out
200	l
the details and report to the House. I have had a fairly long experience in the House, but I can only remember one instance-and that was a very extraordinary one-where the House did not accept the findings of the committee. I am not saying that the House is necessarily bound .to accept their findings, because we know it is not. In this case, a great many members from both .sides of the House gave this danse the most careful consideration in the committee and they passed it unanimously. I am only pointing that out to show that it has not been carelessly drawn up.


William Erskine Knowles: A fair argument, but
not final. It does not close the matter.


Mr. HANNA:: If the hon. member has
any objection to this Bill why does he not state it?


William Erskine Knowles: That finishes me.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I think the hon. member has stated his objection; but I wish to refer to a point on which I think the hon. member for Brockville can put us right. I gather from what the hon. member said a little while ago that butter that has been re-worked would not be known as process or renovated butter. If the hon. member is sure about that there is no difficulty.


John Webster: You have grasped the
situation exactly.


Frank Oliver: Subsection (a) of clause 3 says that no person shall sell or offer for sale butter that is not in a certain shape, but the last sentence says:
Nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps, of indiscriminate weight, as sold by farmers.
If the farmers sells to anybody but the consumer, the person who buys from him has in turn to sell again, and it seems to me that the section as drafted can scarcely convey the intent that its framers had. There must be some way of permitting the merchant to sell the rolled butter that he has bought from the farmer without reworking it the shape that the first part of the clause calls for.


Martin Burrell: The first part of the
clause applies to creameries and other large establishments who make a practice of selling butter in certain shapes, but it is not meant to apply to the ordinary farmer who may go into a store and offer a lot of rolls weighing either half a pound, three-quarters of a pound, or a pound, which are sold by total weight. The clause is designed to give



to the public full weight from all the great butter-making establishments.


Frank Oliver: I quite agree with that.
But does not my hon. friend see that this clause is mandatory? A merchant who buys butter from a farmer must have it in a certain shape before he can sell it again. It seems to me that that clause should be amended in some way.


John Webster: The clause reads:
Nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps, of indiscriminate weight, as sold by farmers.
Therefore, it is in a merchant's hands to sell any size and any shape of butter.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend did not
read the whole sentence.


John Webster: I do not think there is any danger of a merchant buying butter from a farmer without weighing it up.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know about that. I have had something to do with that business myself.


John Webster: I would risk you.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I know many merchants who buy round pats of butter supposed to weigh a pound, and they only count them, and the same with pound squares.
I think that many times I have seen the honest yeomanry in po-ssesion of pats and squares of butter, not as flush in weight as they might be.


George Henry Bradbury: This section says that no person shall sell butter, moulded or cut into prints, blocks, squares or pats, unless they are of the full weight of one-quarter of a pound, one-half pound, one pound, or two pounds, at the time they are moulded or cut. A consumer goes into a store to get a pound of butter, and finding the butter has shrunk in the meantime he takes objection, but the merchant tells him it was of the proper weight when moulded, and there is no recourse for the purchaser. It seems to me that a person who buys a pound of butter should get a pound of butter, whether it has shrunk or not. Again it says that nothing in this section shall apply to rolls or lumps, but it [DOT]seems to me that butter sold in rolls or lumps should be of a defined weight, and that everything should be sold by the pound. The consumers of Canada are being robbed by legislation of this kind. This section would enable the merchant, or the farmer if you will, to sell butter under weight, and to say it was all right when it

was moulded. I think the law should be made plain that if a man buys a one pound print of butter he must get one pound.


John Webster: When a pound package of butter has stood for two or three days, the paper around it will absorb possibly one-tquarter of an ounce of the water, and most of the dairymen make allowance for that by putting in an extra ounce or three-quarters of an ounce.


George Henry Bradbury: Why not say, then, in this act that the butter when sold shall be of the weight it purports to be?


John Webster: If a man ordered one
hundred boxes of butter in pound packages in the fall of the year, and stored it for a few months, he would have to go over every package and add one-quarter of an ounce to it to make up for the shrinkage, which would not be fair.


George Henry Bradbury: What about the consumer who pays for the pound of butter; is he not to be protected?


John Webster: That is unavoidable
shrinkage.


Frank Oliver: It looks as if the dairymen were strong on the committee that drafted this Bill.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: The objection raised
by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), as pointed out by the hon. member for Broekville (Mr. Webster), is not reasonable. You may ship one thousand pounds of butter, having ample weight when you shipped it, but when you store it the water evaporates and actually you get the same amoimt of butter, but you get a little less water. It was pointed out before the committee that certain persons in Montreal had been buying butter, rechurning it and remoulding it, and that samples were actually discovered which contained fifteen per cent of water. The object of this clause is to prevent anything like that, and I think it is perfectly clear.


George Henry Bradbury: That may seem fair
to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sexsmith), but is it fair to the consumers? For example, if one light-weight loaf is found in the establishment of a baker, his whole supply of bread is confiscated.	,


John Webster: But bread does not get to be three months old.


George Henry Bradbury: Bread shrinks in
weight very rapidly, and the baker has to make allowance for that when he is making up the loaf, and quite properly so in the

interests of the consumer. If the dairyman knows that his 'butter is going to shrink, why should he not be compelled to put in the extra half ounce in the same way as the baker has to? A great necessity to-day is that we should have some proper law governing weights of commodities which are sold to the consumer. A man buys a pound of tea and he has to pay for the weight of the paper and the lead around the tea, which is absolutely unfair.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is there anything in
the law that regulates the percentage of moisture in bread?


Frank Oliver: Every one knows that
bread shrinks in weight.


John Albert Sexsmith: Yes, but there is nothing in the law to say that there shall only be a certain percentage of moisture in it, and the law provides for the percentage of moisture in the case of butter.


Levi Thomson: Bread and butter go together, but they are not parallel examples in this case. A baker can tell fairly well how long the bread will be on his hands, and what percentage to allow for shrinkage, but the butter-maker does not know whether the butter will be consumed in three months, or twelve months, or the day after it is made. I agree with the member for Brockville that it would be almost impossible to lay down a rule as to the allowance that should be made for shrinkage in butter. The last part of this clause reads:
Nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps, of indiscriminate weight, as sold by farmers.
I think that provision is all right, and it would Ibe very difficult to get over the necessity for it. Many farmers make their butter up in lumps of indiscriminate weight, and if we do not prevent that practice altogether we will have to leave this section as it is. I do not think we have yet reached a stage at which it would be wise to prevent farmers making their butter up in rolls or lumps.


John Webster: To illustrate, I might
say that last June a gentleman in the West ordered from me 1,000 boxes of fancy June butter which was put up for him and placed in one of the best storage houses in Montreal. On the 1st of September one carload was shipped to him, find it held its weight pretty well, but when the second lot was shipped to him in January some
aooi	1
of the blocks were half an ounce light. How are you going to prevent that? The merchant bought at June prices, put the butter in storage at his own risk, and I would like any hon. gentleman to tell me how the natural shrinkage could be prevented.	-


John Albert Sexsmith: Thu percentage of
water was reduced in it?


John Webster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: It seems clear that the
hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and myself will have to form ourselves into a consumers' union, with regard to this matter; the dairymen seem to have control of the situation.


John Webster: Well, we get our bread from you.


Frank Oliver: If the contention of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) is right, with reference to the sale of butter in rolls and lumps, then the consumer has no protection at all, because, if a dealer has light-weight butter in his store, all he has to do is to say that he got it from a farmer, and he is free from any penalty. Again the unfortunate consumer gets the worst of the bargain.


Levi Thomson: I think the hon. member for Edmonton misunderstands the position. This is where there is no pretence of a discriminate weight.	The
farmers often bring to the country stores butter of indiscriminate weight.	The
farmer's wife, or whoever makes up the butter, makes it up into a lump of five pounds three ounces or five pounds five ounces or some other odd weight. The-merchant pays the farmer for the weight of butter in the roll or lump; the farmer does-not pretend to give any particular weight. It is in a different position from the other, in which there is a pretence of a certain weight, the butter being apparently in quarter-pound or half-pound or one pound prints. The butter referred to in this paragraph is not of any specified weight at all, and is weighed just as a load of wheat or a quantity of nails is weighed. As I understand it, the Bill does not pretend to guard people in such a case; it only attempts to guard where one has the right to assume that a certain article is of a certain weight. It requires that an article which pretends to be of a certain weight shall be of the weight which it pretends to be.


John Webster: In many cases where a merchant purchases a roll or a lump of butter, he does not sell it en bloc; he cuts it up to suit his customers, giving one customer two pounds, another one pound, and so on. When he purchases it, he weighs it and pays the farmer for the weight that he gets.


John Albert Sexsmith: Supposing a creamery man puts up a thousand pounds of butter in prints with fifteen per cent of water, as he is compelled to keep within the percentage of water designated in this Bill, namely sixteen per cent. He sells that butter; it is placed in cold storage for perhaps six months, and the retail merchants sell it again. The butter was in legitimate prints when it was put into cold storage; but, according to the statements of some hon. members, when the retailer-sells these prints, if the prints are under weight, say by half an ounce, the retailer should be liable. I think that is entirely wrong, because if we analysed that butter we would find a less percentage of water in it. If the retailer were to be held liable, butter could not be stored at all.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think, after a careful consideration of this section, that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) will be found to be right in his contention, at least to have a strong ground for it. The section is just a little hard to construe.


Frank Oliver: I appreciate the difficulty of it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member's point appeals to me. It is unfortunate that the following words are inserted:
Nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps of indiscriminate weight, as sold by farmers.
I think the section is sufficient without these words to apply to persons selling butter in pats, prints, blocks, or squares. The section could be read in this way with the same meaning:
Nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter in roll or lumps of indiscriminate weight, as bought from farmers.


Frank Oliver: I think that would be better.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Under that wording of the section, if a man bought fifty or a hundred pounds of butter from a farmer, and put it into rolls or prints, he could say: I do not have to have the weight, because I bought it from a farmer.
IMr. L. Thomson. 1


Mr. DEVLIN:: What about butter in
tubs?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The same thing would
apply.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Why put in the words
' rolls and lumps '? Why not have it read in this way:
Nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter of indiscriminate weight, as sold by farmers.


John Webster: After the careful consideration given by the committee to this Bill when last before them, I think it will be found to be very difficult to improve upon it. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) has grasped the situation as a practical man. One who has not had everyday practical experience has very little knowledge of the quantity of water sold illegally to the people of this country. I myself have bought what was called packed solid butter from a creamery and have weighed it the same night; I have set it out in a low temperature of say twenty degrees below zero, and the next day that same quantity of butter had shrunk three pounds per box. In some cases you will see the -cloths in which the farmers- have brought butter to market so wet that they will wet the paper and the basket through. That is owing to the temperature at which the butter has been worked, the butter having absorbed so much water. When the temperature is reduced the butter becomes solid and the water comes out. The hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) says he has given the question careful consideration; I have talked it over with the butter manufacturers, both wholesale and retail, in the country, and they tell me that this Bill covers the ground as well as it can possibly be done.


John Albert Sexsmith: The reason of these
words:
Nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps of indiscriminate weight, as sold by farmers.
-isbecausebuttereoldinthis way is weighed by the customers; but butter put up in prints by a creamery or by a farmer in the -little patent arrangement used for making a print is not weighed by the merchant when bought by a customer, if put up in a standard quarter-pound or half-pound or pound print. The object of this Bill is to protect the public from light weight in butter put up in this way. A grocer assumes that a pound of butter bought

from a 0168111617 is a pound of butter. If the public is protected to the extent that the creamery must put up the butter in that shape with a certain percentage of water, and that when it is put up it must not have less than that weight, I think that is ample protection.


Mr.   DEVON@: I would like to ask the
minister for information as to what a lump of butter really is. Supposing a man is charged with having sold butter underweight, he says: I bought this from a farmer as a lump of butter. What is a lump of butter? Every square block of butter is a lump of butter.


Martin Burrell: Not in the trade.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: There is nothing in the
Bill to define a lump of butter.


Levi Thomson: The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) is hardly clear on that. The Bill says:
Nothing in this paragraph shall he held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps of indiscriminate weight.
My hon. friend raised an objection before in regard to butter in tubs. I do not think that this would apply to butter in tubs. When a farmer puts up a tub of butter it seems to me he does not require to make it a specific weight. I think tubs should also be allowed to be sold by weight.


John Webster: That is what is done.


Martin Burrell: The clause covers everything. It it were not in lump or roll, it would have to be in blocks or moulds. If it were in a crock, I should think it would be the same.


Levi Thomson: If the minister did not put in that last clause, his argument would be good. But when he states his exceptions, those exceptions would make quite a difference in the decision of the court. He evidently intends to define the sort of butter that shall not be covered by the main part of the section. It would be better to leave it out entirely or put in something that will cover it definitely.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would not a 'lump' of butter be covered by the expression ' pail of butter ' ?


Levi Thomson: No, I do not think it would.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Suppose you took the butter out of the pail, what would you call it?


Levi Thomson: Butter is often sold in a pail or firkin.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But suppose you were before a court of justice, charged with violation of this section, and you could show that you took the butter out of a pail, it would be a ' lump ' of butter, would it not?


Frank Oliver: I agree with the suggestion of my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy), and I think my criticism of the section would be met if his suggestion were adopted. As it is, it makes the merchant who buys from the farmer subject to the final responsibility of sale to the consumer. The section should be made to read:
Nothing in this paragraph shall he held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps of indiscriminate weight, as bought from the farmer.
This would protect dealers and would not interfere with the intent of the section.


George Henry Bradbury: It would protect the dealer, but it would not protect the consumer. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) was making an argument with regard to the tub of butter. If one buys a pound of butter out of a tub, it is weighed, and he gets sixteen ounces if the scale is right. But a print of butter, though sold as a pound print, may contain only fourteen or fifteen ounces. Why should not the consumer be protected? Why should the merchant be allowed to sell what purports to be a pound of butter or of anything else when he really gives only fourteen or fifteen ounces?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think that if the section were to read as follows, we should get over the difficulty:
Nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter in rolls, blocks, tubs or other receptacles as bought from farmers.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does not the farmer sell butter in lumps?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That would not be a happy expression as applied to my district. It has a meaning of its own.


Frank Oliver: I think I would leave in the words ' of indiscriminate weight.'


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, and widen the
clause so as to make it read ' bought from farmers,' instead of ' sold by farmers.'


Martin Burrell: I do not see any particular objection to that; but I do not think it would make much difference.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. member is only enlarging it; I think the clause is all right-


Martin Burrell: If hon. members insist on pressing the point, I cannot see objection to the change. But really, I think the Bill covers the point and will work out all right. We threshed out these points in the preparation of the Bill.


John Albert Sexsmith: I think that the clause is plain. We do not have to protect the public if they buy from the crock or lump, for in that case the butter is weighed, but only in the case of prints which the dealer is not supposed to weigh.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-penalties:
Frank Oliver: I want to put in one final word on behalf of the farmer who is liable to be fined not less than $10 if he does not include the strippings with the rest of the milk. It .seems to me that a maximum fine of $10 is rather extreme under the circumstances.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend may be assured that there would not be the slightest likelihood of a man being condemned under this unless for a very gross and deliberate violation.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend will
harden his heart in that way, I do not know that I can do any more.


Levi Thomson: I think the minister
should come down off his high horse in this matter, for he is entirely wrong. The department does not administer the law nor decide what it is. Any country magistrate has far more power in administering it than the minister has, and it should be in such shape as to be enforced.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister will not be there to tell the magistrate what is what.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-publication of regulations :
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I believe that not one
Canadian farmer in ten thousand ever sees the Canada Gazette. I have had under my own observation a case in which great expense was incurred by the withdrawal of one section from the statute regarding tuberculosis by Order in Council published only in the Canada Gazette. I readily appreciate the difficulty which is incurred in giving public notice of such changes to every individual in this country, but I do think that notice of the coming into force or the withdrawal by Order in Council of
fMr. Nesbitt.]
any section of the statutes should be given in some wider and more public way. Surely with all the printing we do; with all the millions that are spent every year on blue books, many of which are never read by those who receive them, some means can be devised whereby notices of changes in the law can be given to the public. Notice of any change could be inserted in the small local daily paper for, perhaps, fifty cents. The amount would run in the aggregate to a considerable sum of money, but I think the expenditure would be justified. I would ask the minister to give this matter his consideration.


Martin Burrell: So far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned, my hon. friend, being a lawyer, appreciates the difficulty of having for this purpose anything but an official gazette. I may say that any regulations that are put in force by the department are published in pamphlet form, and as we have a mailing list of about 180,000 persons and firms interested in dairying and farming, the regulations are made more or less generally known.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think that the departmental literature to which my hon. friend refers goes into every home in this country. Nothing would as efficiently give public notice of changes in the law as items in the local newspapers published in the various municipalities.


Frank Oliver: Modesty prevents me from urging too strongly the suggestion of my hon. friend, but I must say that it certainly appeals to me as being an adequate means of reaching the public.


Martin Burrell: The department will be very glad, of course, to do that.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Will the minister include in his list all organized societies of farmers ? I am sure that if copies of these regulations are sent to the United Farmers of the province of Alberta they will be well distributed amongst their members.


Martin Burrell: We do send through our department to the press all over the country from time to time copies of any new regulations and matters of that kind, in order that they may be given wide publicity. I quite agree with hon. gentlemen as to the desirability of publicity.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would ask the minister to remember that a good many people in

this country do not read the Grit newspapers; he should make sure, therefore, that these notices are sent to the Conservative organs. In case he should overlook the matter, I would suggest that he should send a few of them to the Grit newspapers as well.


Martin Burrell: We are very impartial.


Mr. MAECIL:: I was glancing through a list of newspapers submitted by the Secretary of State the other day. I am an old newspaper man, and I am sure that not ten members in this House ever see some of the newspapers mentioned in that list, many of which are published solely for the purpose of getting Government advertising. I would advise the minister to have that list looked over by some newspaper men and reduced1 by about 25 per cent.


Martin Burrell: I may add that these changes and regulations are published in the Agricultural Gazette, which is sent to every paper in Canada, regardless of politics.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-proof in deteriorated milk prosecutions:
Frank Oliver: This section provides that the owner of the milk may be prosecuted without a definite statement as to the defect in the milk supplied. That seems very unfair as he might expect to he attacked on one point and in court find that he was being attacked on another point.


John Webster: The charge is generally either skimming the milk or adulterating it with water. When the farmer comes up he is charged with one of these offences and it is up to him to defend himself. As a matter of fact, when a charge is made conviction generally follows.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-evidence:
Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there anything in the meaning given to pure milk represented by a standard or percentage of butter fat? I have seen many prosecutions against men who I think were honest. They would be sending in milk to a factory from a cow that would give a percentage of butter fat of perhaps only two per cent. Thus their dealings were honest but suspicious. I wondered if the standard was fixed under the Act.


Martin Burrell: That point was not raised in the committee.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the standard?


Martin Burrell: A standard is fixed in the Inland Eevenue Department for another purpose.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would it not be wise to define pure milk in the interpretation clause?


John Webster: The percentage of
butter fat of course varies with the season of the year. The percentage is not nearly so high in April as in September and that would cause difficulty with a rigid standard. Then too some breeds of cows give a small quantity of milk with a high percentage of butter fat and others give a large quantity of milk with a small percentage of butter fat. Either one of these would be a quality of pure milk.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What would be classed
as 'inferior to pure milk?'


Frank Oliver: The difficulty is to define what is pure milk. The hon. member for Brockville says that pure milk in the fall is of a higher standard than in the spring and therefore a man might be convicted of an offence who was supplying pure milk of a standard up to the spring standard but less than the fall standard.


Martin Burrell: He would be judged by a comparison of the milk supplied with milk taken from a cow at the particular time of the year.


Frank Oliver: Looking at the matter
from the standpoint of the liberty of the subject, it seems that with a sliding scale like that the producer of milk does not stand much chance.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would the milk from the Jersey and Holstein be qualified as inferior under this section?


Martin Burrell: Not at all. The criterion of whether it was pure milk or not would be a comparison with the milk as it comes from the cow.


John Albert Sexsmith: The difficulty in defining pure milk in Ontario has been that a lot of milk is collected on the pooling system. Some factories buy by the Babcock test. Some cows of one breed 5 p.m. might produce milk with not more than two and one-half per cent of butter fat and others might run up to five or six per cent. If you set a certain standard it will make it very difficult to continue that system.


Levi Thomson: As I understand it, the penalty would not be inflicted unless a person had mixed something with milk.


Martin Burrell: Or skimmed it.


Levi Thomson: How is the test
applied? I do not pretend to be an expert, and I would like to know how you can tell whether anything has been mixed with the milk or not. For instance, take the milk of a cow that tests at 3J, and suppose sufficient water was put in to make it test at only 3, is it possible to tell that it is not pure milk?


John Webster: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Frank Oliver: It would seem from the last few sentences of this Act that the only way for a man to preserve his liberty is to sell his cows.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to ask the minister, or the Chairman of the Agricultural Committee, why, in the interpretation clause, a dairy is described as a place where the milk or cream of less than fifty cows is manufactured into butter. Why do they not call a dairyman a man who manufactures into butter the milk of his own cows only, and the place where he manufactures it a dairy? Why should a man with seventy or a hundred cows not be allowed to call his place a dairy, providing he does not take in outside milk? With us there a great many men with more than fifty cows, but their establishments are dairies, not creameries, as they manufacture no milk but what their own cows produce. My idea of a creamery is where they manufacture milk outside of their own production. I would like to know why the definition of a dairy stiplates for less than fifty cows, and why it was not on the basis I have suggested.


Martin Burrell: It is rather arbitrary, but it is difficult to define the difference between a dairy and a creamery, You have to draw the line somewhere. New Zealand has placed it exactly at fifty, I understand.
I do not think there is any great object in having the definition altered.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am not asking for that. Our farmers call their places dairies so long as they manufacture the milk from their own cows only; and call places that take in outside milk creameries. My hon. friend from Brockville is an experienced man, and I will ask him why a man should not be allowed to call his place a dairy so

long as he manufactures his own milk only?


John Albert Sexsmith: I think that if a farmer had the requisite number of cows to bring his place under the heading of a creamery, he would be very glad to do it. He would prefer to have it called a creamery because, as you will have noticed in the papers, creamery butter is dearer than dairy butter. In the committee, I took the ground that it was unfair to the farmer that we should designate a certain class of butter, dairy butter; and another class, creamery butter; so we decided on the fifty cows. There are a great many people making butter with less than fifty cows, w'hose product is as good as or better than the creamery product. We could not come to any other solution of the difficulty of distinguishing the two.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would you mind my
saying that with our farmers the old policy of putting ' creamery ' on their wrappers is rapidly passing away, if it has not already passed. The idea in the public mind is that a creamery is more of a wholesale factory, taking in milk from various people. The word ' dairy ' with us carries more weight than the word ' creamery ' for the simple reason that if a man running his own dairy has cleanly habits his butter is likely to be more valuable than creamery butter made from milk from different farms, which may not be cleanly.


John Webster: I was present when this Bill was before the committee, and we discussed each of the clauses thoroughly. On the majority of farms in Ontario you will find less than fifty cows to a dairy, and for that reason we thought it right and just to say fifty in the Bill. A man with only fifty cows is very often not able to work up the milk on his own farm and has to send it to a creamery. There is a good deal of difference between creamery and dairy butter. One is the product of separated milk, and the other is not. My hon. friend would intimate that dairy butter is superior to creamery. From my own personal experience I can say that during what little time the Lord will allow me to live I want to eat creamery butter.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: With us, any farmer with six or ten cows uses a separator.


John Webster: Not necessarily.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They are not forced to,
but as a matter of practice they do. I do

not know of anybody with more than six cows who does not use a separator in his dairy.


John Webster: I know some farmers
following the deep water setting system.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am glad to say that is not the case with us; we have advanced in the art. I know, as my hon. friend says, that the great majority of farmers have less than fifty cows There are a great many who want to call their butter ' dairy butter.'


John Webster: With us, they all want to call it ' creamery butter.'


John Albert Sexsmith: The manufacture of
butter in the old way is gradually diminishing. In my district a farmer who has only three or four cows uses a separator. I am surprised at the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) saying they want to call it dairy butter, because all over the Dominion the creamery butter is selling at a higher price.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There are dairymen in
my riding who sell their butter at a higher price than any. creamery ibutter will fetch. They sell it all the year around and they call it dairy butter, and any one who visits their dairies and sees how they conduct their business would pay more for their butter than for any creamery butter made from the milk of cows from the public.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SECOND READINGS OF BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 146, to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Pelletier.
Bill No. 147, to amend the Post Office Act.-Mr. Pelletier.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Agriculture-health of animals, $500,000.
["The United States\nauthorities told us for many years that we were wrong and that they did not have it, but the chief inspector told me not long ago that they had some eight or ten thousand cases.\nAt six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock."]
Frank Oliver: What proportion of this
vote would be for service, and what proportion for compensation for animals slaughtered?


Martin Burrell: The heaviest expense is for
the inspectors, of whom we have about 131, counting the riders in the mange district and including their assistants.


William Erskine Knowles: Is the mange decreasing?


Martin Burrell: There are some areas
that have been relieved in Alberta, and we have wiped out the whole of the mange district in British Columbia. In the mange districts we have certain herds which are quarantined and under special inspection. From the whole of the mange area animals are not allowed to be moved outside of the area unless they are ^dipped, but those not quarantined can be moved within the area. The only execeptions are animals consigned for slaughter to the abattoirs, in which case some are inspected at Winnipeg and some go straight to the abattoirs on the Pacific coast, or to places in the mountain districts where there are no agricultural areas. The outlook is more hopeful.


William Erskine Knowles: Does dipping mean
two immersions?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Frank Oliver: What is the situation in regard to hog cholera ?


Martin Burrell: We have this year paid out more for hog cholera than we did last year. I will give my hon. friend the comparative figures. In 1911-12 we paid out $23,446; in 1912-13, $52,785, and in 1913-14, for ten months, $46,860. There has been some increase in that, noticeably in parts of Saskatchewan and Ontario, but on the whole nothing like what we had to contend with during the first year or two after the Act came into force. Although it is costing a good deal, I do not think we can adopt any other method than the one we are following now. In the United States they have an entirely different system, whereby they immunize the hogs from cholera. It has been found, however, that a particular hog may be immunized and still be a carrier of the disease. Their system costs them millions of dollars as compared with our thousands. We passed a regulation prohibiting the introduction of virus for this particular form of inoculation. We think the best system we can adopt is the system we are carrying out at the present time.
There is no doubt that many cases of hog cholera have been spread from points where uncooked garbage containing infected meat has been brought in from the other side, or even from hogs on this side. In regard to that, not only are we urging better sanitary precautions on the part of the local municipalities who should ob-

serve them, but we have passed an Order in Council stating positively that the Government will not undertake to pay compensation to people who deliberately feed uncooked garbage to their hogs. I think that is in the public interest.


Frank Oliver: Under what circumstances have the outbreaks of hog cholera taken place recently ? Have most of them been owing to garbage-fed hogs, or have they occurred outside of such conditions ?


Martin Burrell: I think most of the cases have occurred as my hon. friend has stated. We think we have been able to trace them to garbage-fed hogs. In some cases the disease has been brought in from the other side, although our regulations are pretty strict. This year we contemplate putting two or three special men to do educational work in regard to cleaning up garbage and seeing that it is properly cooked, especially wherever hog cholera has already been prevalent, so as to drive into the public mind the great importance of feeding properly cooked garbage.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There was hog cholera
last year amongst my hogs, although they never saw garbage of any kind. They were all fed on good, clean, second-grade flour, and shorts and oil cakes. They ran in pens that were what we call gravel-loam soil, and the inside pen was just as clean as this chamber. Every condition that was possible to surround them with was perfect, even with regard to running water. I think the Lord sent the cholera. I do not know where they got it.


Frank Oliver: As my hon. friend the
minister knows, I am asking for definite information for very definite reasons. How far can the department go in the matter of preventing this disease, having regard to the conditions surrounding the keeping and feeding of hogs?


Martin Burrell: I would not like to
answer that question offhand, because it is in the nature of a legal question. I suppose we can go pretty far, but I imagine there will be still ample power in the municipal and provincial authorities to deal with some phases of the matter. I do not know how far we can interfere locally with sanitary questions such as my hon. friend has mentioned. We could plainly say that if they do not live up to certain conditions, we shall refuse to pay any compensation in that district. I would not, however, like to express any opinion offhand.


Frank Oliver: What is the action that
the department is permitted to take and, as a matter of fact, does take, as regards the measure of responsibility assumed by the Government under the law as it stands at present, in case of an outbreak of cholera?


Martin Burrell: Directly we are informed of an outbreak or discover it in any place, we send an inspector there. The place is immediately quarantined and the hogs are slaughtered. In some cases, where there is a holding of a large number of hogs and where there has been very slight contact, it may possibly be necessary to slaughter all the hogs; but we are coming very fast to the conclusion that it is dangerous to exempt any, and that it is better to slaughter all the hogs that have come in contact with hogs infected with the disease. I think we ought, before another session, to consider the raising of the valuation of hogs, because they have increased very much in price during the last two years. Last year we took up the increased valuation of horses, and I am not sure that we should not go into the question with regard to hogs. Some people will argue that you should not pay compensation for any of these things, because it is in the owner's interest and in the public interest to stamp out these diseases; but if you do not compensate, you will have people concealing these diseases, and you will never be able to stamp them out.


William Erskine Knowles: Where a man owns an animal and another man has a lien note or a chattel mortgage on it and the animal is killed, to whom does the Government pay the money?


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is better able to answer that question than I am, because he is a lawyer. I think the owner of the animal would get the money.


William Erskine Knowles: I have seen the point come up, and it is very embarrassing.


Martin Burrell: I am afraid I cannot speak offhand in regard to it.


William Erskine Knowles: I would like an answer in regard to it, because I understand that the ruling of the department is that they will not give anything to the lien holder. That works an injustice, because if a man of straw owns a pig and another man has a lien on it, the luckiest thing the owner can do is to give the pig hog cholera.


Martin Burrell: I will make a note of the matter.


Frank Oliver: There has been a substantial increase in the valuation of hogs in recent years, so that the valuation that was perfectly good a few years ago is not so now. Therefore I think there should be a measurable increase in the valuation.


Martin Burrell: I agree with my hon. friend. We shall have to deal with that matter before long.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister local inspectors in the district of Quebec, or are they all grouped in the city of Quebec.?


Martin Burrell: We do not have such things as local inspectors. Our inspectors are liable to be transferred to any point throughout the country. Some of them, of course, have a very wide range 'of territory. When they enter the service, they do so on the distinct understanding that they are liable to be transferred from one point to another. The late Government found and we have found it a bad thing to keep one man in a locality for a long time, because he gets to know a large number of people and is swayed by personal interest, and it is just as well that he be transferred from place to place.


Charles Marcil: How many inspectors are there for the province of Quebec?


Martin Burrell: I have forgotten. The
chief inspector is Dr. Couture, at Quebec.


Charles Marcil: In the case of a district
many miles removed from the residence of an inspector, when an inspector is sent for sometimes he comes, and sometimes he does not. I think a certain route should be marked out and periodical visits made.


Martin Burrell: We do not undertake to do the local work. We do the work at boundary points. We do not undertake to have local inspectors at all points throughout the country, but we try to cover the ground we are supposed to occupy.


Charles Marcil: How about a case where an animal is diseased?


Martin Burrell: That is a private business, and the owner calls in a local veterinarian.


Charles Marcil: But how about the case
of a contagious disease?
Mr. BURRELL. Of course, if it is one of the diseases scheduled by the Act, that is different. But there are very few such diseases-hog cholera, glanders and dourine are the only ones at present.


Charles Marcil: Is there any glanders in
Quebec?


Martin Burrell: Very slight. Our greatest trouble is in Saskatchewan.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the minister not yet
able to enlarge his field to cover tuberculosis in cattle?


Martin Burrell: We have that under consideration, and in fact, the increase in the Estimate for this year was partly made in order that, if we decided to take a step in that direction, we could do so. I am sorry I am not in .a position to make a definite statement on the subject. I hope to be able to make a start in the matter, though, as the hon. gentleman knows it is a very difficult question, and the more it is looked into the more difficult it becomes.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: Does the
minister intend to take steps to eradicate the weed which, as he knows, produces what is known as 'cattle disease'? The minister reached the conclusion that it wa3 not a contagious disease, and therefore no compensation was allowed for losses. But as the Government has undertaken to act in co-operation with the local governments, I think it should take steps to prevent the spread of the disease, and to that end to destroy this weed which, by causing this disease, has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia.


Martin Burrell: We reached the definite conclusion that the disease was due to the weed in question and that it is not contagious. So far as cleaning up the area infested by that weed is concerned, that is a matter for the local authorities. Anything that we cam do to co-operate with them, of course, we shall be glad to do.


William Chisholm: But the minister has
not decided to act in co-operation with the local government to eradicate the cause of the disease!


Martin Burrell: I cannot say that we
have entered into any arrangement with a [DOT]local government as to the eradication of weeds in their district. I cannot tell at this moment what may have taken place lately as between the local authorities and the officials of the department.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I lately received a
letter from a clergyman in the eastern part

of my county, which adjoins that of my hon. friend. This -clergyman sent me statistics that were absolutely astonishing as to the losses going on, through this disease. It is extending eastward and in some cases to the Island of Cape Breton. It seems to me that some investigation ought to be made with the view to ascertaining whether some cure could not be effected. A careful diagnosis of the symptoms might lead to such a result. Apparently, when a veterinary is called in to attend a sick animal, if he diagnoses it as a case of ' cattle disease 5 that is the end of it-he seems to regard it as a hopeless case. It seems to me that the finding of a remedy is a subject to which the department might well direct its energies. Of course, in Nova Scotia, the eradication of weeds and matters of that kind have been for a long time vested in the municipalities, and many local efforts have been made for the eradication of this weed. Notwithstanding these efforts, however, the disease still pursues its destroying course. Now, the question of following up the good work that has been done in ascertaining the cause, by ascertaining also the cure, seems to me one that might well deserve the minister's attention. I would ask him if he would consider having an investigation as to whether some remedy could be found. By some combination with municipal authorities or the provincial government, and, as I understand it, the minister's department works cordially with Professor Cummings the head of the Nova Scotia department- the minister might try to assist in stopping what has become a terrible plague among the farmers of eastern Nova Scotia.


Martin Burrell: I can only repeat that the disease is directly traceable to the weed referred to, and the question involved is simply one of the eradication of that weed. What the hon. gentleman says concerning Nova Scotia is true also of Ontario-the control of weeds is a matter for the municipality. It would seem a local question. However, I will look into it.


William John Macdonald: But the practical
difficulty is this:	The farmers interested
have taken great care to prevent the growth of the weed. But where there is a vacant farm, or one that nobody is looking after, that becomes a plague spot that will spoil the whole community. Should not the minister, through his officials, attempt to find some eure for the disease. When the symptoms are known, why should there not be
[Mr. Macdonald.!	!
some attempt to check or control the disease? But, as I have said, that is not done -when the veterinary diagnoses it as ' cattle disease,' that is the end of it.


Martin Burrell: If an antidote can be
found we shall be very glad of it.


Mr. WARNOCK:: This weed exists in
New South Wales.


Martin Burrell: And in Africa too.
Mr. WARNOCK-The Chief Inspector in New South Wales has been experimenting for a number of years, and I think it wa's found that there was no remedy except to eradicate the weed.


Martin Burrell: That is my information.


David Warnock: And that can only toe done toy grazing sheep on the land.


William Chisholm: But I believe it has toeen found that sheep also may be affected by the weed under certain conditions-i'f they are allowed to run at large in the fall of the year. They nibble this weed-rag-weed, it is called-and a number of them have been lost. Of course, they are not affected to the same extent as cattle or horses.


David Warnock: May I ask the minister if there is any chance of getting a -modifi-cation of shipping regulations respecting cattle from points in Alberta to British Columbia?


Martin Burrell: I do not know. Does the hon. gentleman think they are too onerous?
Mr. WARNOCK-Yes. It has been so represented to me, and I think the minister has had the same representations from local shippers.


Martin Burrell: I think the department has been exercising a good deal of moderation. It is hard to go further in modifying restrictions. The hon. gentleman knows some of the difficulties. We had -mange imported into British Columbia in shipments from Alberta, and great expense was involved in exterminating it. The shippers turned the animals out in various districts to graze. At the present time, as the hon. member knows, those that go for immediate slaughter get the inspection before they are started, and in the Crowsnest, they are followed up a little -more carefully, as there are no abattoirs, but are delivered to butchers. We made that concession.
In fact, we made that concession at Crowsnest Pass primarily for the benefit of

southern Alberta, and in view of the conditions I do not think that we should assent to any relaxing of restrictions.


David Warnock: The point is that these cattle have to be dipped immediately before they are shipped. This is a great hardship, because the butcher does not want cattle that have been knocked about and bruised by dipping almost immediately before they are slaughtered. One of the large companies that violated the mange regulation is greatly benefited by the regulations now in force. They are permitted to ship their cattle to Vancouver and other points on the coast for slaughter, while the small man who ships to Nelson, Fernie, or other points iin the iQrowsnest Pass must dip his cattle once before shipment. The consequence is that, because of the dipping regulation, the butchers along the Crowsnest Pass would rather buy from the large packers in Calgary or Edmonton than buy live cattle in southern Alberta.


Martin Burrell: I will look into the
matter and see what can be done.


Frank Oliver: I understand that if a portion of a herd of hogs is found diseased, the whole herd is destroyed. Is compensation paid for those that are slaughtered, but are not found to be diseased?


Martin Burrell: Yes, compensation is
paid for all.


Frank Oliver: Is it permitted to dispose of the carcases of those animals which are slaughtered but not found to be diseased?


Martin Burrell: Under the regulations, the whole herd may be killed and no use permitted of any of the animals destroyed. In some cases in the past animals which have been in contact with the diseased herd, but which have not shown symptoms of the disease, have been used for food. But the difficulty is that while no lesion^ might be apparent, on account of the disease being in its early stages, the virus might nevertheless be there, and if the meat were left around uncooked it could actually transfer hog cholera to another district. On account of this danger the regulations provide for our dealing with the matter in a most drastic way, and paying compensation accordingly.


Frank Oliver: Has compensation been paid in the case of the outbreak of hog cholera at Edmonton ?


Martin Burrell: I think so.


Frank Oliver: There was a question as to whether the garbage was cooked or not; some think it was not cooked.


Martin Burrell: Before the Order in Council to which I have referred was passed, the people were informed that if they did this unknowingly or unwittingly they would be compensated, but if a man, after being warned, deliberately fed uncooked garbage to the animals with the result that hog cholera was contracted, he would not be entitled to compensation. Although some discretion has been used-in the enforcement of the Order in Councils I think we shall have to educate the public to understand that if they feed uncooked garbage to the animals and hog cholera results, they will not be entitled to compensation.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister been made aware of the development of the horse meat industry in the county of Chambly ?


Martin Burrell: The matter has come to the attention of the department. This horse flesh is being supplied, I believe, to the city of Montreal. We were asked to appoint an inspector to see that the meat was not diseased, but we did not feel that it came under our department. I must say that we have taken no steps to encourage that particular industry.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does it not come under the Department of Agriculture ?


Martin Burrell: No.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What about the inspection of the meat ?


Martin Burrell: We inspect only those shipments which are concerned with inter-provimcial trade. I understand that this industry is confined to the province of Quebec, Montreal being the only city in which horse flesh is being eaten at the present time.


Charles Marcil: The newspapers have announced that a laffge portion of this product is sent to Sweden. Would not shipments in. that case come under the control of the minister?


Martin Burrell: I have not the Act before me, but I think that its provisions would not permit us to deal with horse flesh.


Charles Marcil: For export?


Martin Burrell: I do not think the Act covers the inspection of horse meat..


Charles Marcil: As this is. a rather important question foe the city of Montreal, perhaps the minister would look into it.


Martin Burrell: I will give it careful
consideration.


David Warnock: Has the minister any information with regard to a serious outbreak of dourine at Raymond, Alberta?


Martin Burrell: We are paying a very heavy compensation there, and hope to get the situation under hand before very long. As my hon. friend may know, through the excellent work of Dr. Watson at Lethbridge we have adopted the complement fixation test which enables us to detect almost without any doubt the existence of dourine. We have tested several hundreds of these horses and the chances are that before we are through it will cost us $40,000, or more but we hope to wipe out the disease.


David Warnock: I understand that some of these animals were recently imported.


Martin Burrell: I think so; I know that some of them were pure bred. The area is a comparatively restricted one. We are not having half as much trouble as they have in the United States, where it is cost. ing a great deal more, and I think by going after it in this drastic way we shall be able to control it.	.


David Warnock: The United States
authorities told us for many years that we were wrong and that they did not have it, but the chief inspector told me not long ago that they had some eight or ten thousand cases.
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 161, respecting the Western Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Bradbury.
Bill No. 162, respecting Saskatoon and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Carvell.
Bill No. 163, to incorporate the North American Accident Insurance Company.- Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 164, respecting the Berlin, Waterloo, Wellesley and Lake Huron Railway Company.-Mr. Weichel.
Bill No. 165, respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company and the

Alberta Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. R.
B.	Bennett.
Bill No. 166, to incorporate the Farnham and Granby Railway Company of Canada. -Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 167, to incorporate the Cornwall and Hawkesbury Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Alguire.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Intercolonial railway-air brakes, to improve triple valves, $7,150.
['They agreed with me, so far as .I could tell.']
Hon. J. D. REID (acting Minister of Railways):: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Have all these cars been fitted with the same kind of valve?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The total amount expended to date is $49,450, leaving $10,554 to be expended in fitting the balance of the cars with this valve. We are taking exactly the same vote this year as has been taken in the last seven years, namely, $7,150.
IntencofoniaK railway-Amherst-additional facilities $16,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This is for improving the
sidings and for general work around the yard at Amherst, necessary on account of the increased traffic. The estimated cost is $16,000.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Will it be done by contract or by day labour?


John Dowsley Reid: Day labour.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I should think the conditions at Amherst would lend themselves to the work being done by contract.


John Dowsley Reid: The improvements are going on right in the yard where they are working all the time, and I understand that it is customary to do such work by day labour.


William Chisholm: Has the
minister received a copy of a resolution passed by the Antigonish Board of Trade, asking the department to make a survey of a railway line, starting at or near Antigonish and running through South River valley to Country Harbour? If the minister has received such resolution, what does he purpose about it?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot remember just now; although I think there was such a resolution received. I shall be able to give the hon. gentleman full information later.
Mr.WILLIAM CHISHOLM (Antigonish): I appreciate, that the hon. gentleman being only acting Minister of Railways, it would hardly be fair to ask him to make a statement on a matter of this kind, but I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to put on record, for the guidance of the Minister of Railways when he returns, the importance of complying with the request of the petition of the Board of Trade of Antigonish. On March 27, 1912, I had occasion to bring the question of this line from Antigonish to Country Harbour to the attention of the House, and I then set out the importance of the road and the desirability of constructing it. The Minister of Railways seemed to realize then that that line was shorter than any of the proposed lines to connect Guysborough county with the main line of the Intercolonial railway. The remarks I made will be found at page 6227 ' Hansard,' March 27, 1912. I asked the minister if he had in contemplation making a survey of that route with the view of building such a railway, and he replied that he would take occasion to investigate the different routes during his tour of inspection and decide which would be the best. Later, on January 30, 1913, I brought the matter up again and put this question (page 2416 ' Hansard,' 1913):
Has a survey been made lor for the proposed railway route between Country Harbour through the South River valley, connecting with the Intercolonial. If so, has a report been made?
Mr. Cochrane:	The department has no
knowledge of any such survey having been made.
This was rather an extraordinary statement for the minister to make, on the 30th of January, 1913, in view of the solemn promise he had given on the 27th of March, 1912, that he would have a
survey made. I was particularly surprised to see such an answer, because there was a by-election in Antigonish for the local Legislature in January, 1913, and during that by-election what purported to be copies of correspondence with the Minister of Railways were exhibited, and it was stated throughout the length and breadth of the district that that part of the country was to be afforded the railway communication asked for. On April 13, 1913, some months after that by-election, I brought the matter up again, and to my great surprise I found the Minister of Railways repudiating the statements made in the county, regarding the construction of this road, by men of responsible position, one of whom was seeking to be a member of the local Legislature, and another was an honourable senator. There were also read letters which purported to have come from the Minister of Railways, but which were afterwards repudiated by the minister of Railways on April 30, 1913. I pressed the minister for an answer to the question why the survey had not been made and what the intention of the Government was in respect to that. As the Minister of Railway was stolid, implacable and impervious to anv appeals for information I made on that occasion, I was obliged, in order to place myself right, to make some further extended remarks with respect to the necessity of building that road. Those remarks will be found, under date of April 30, 1913, at pages 8873 and 8875 of volume 5 of 1 Hansard,' 191213. Therefore, I do not propose to enter into the argument into which I entered on that occasion. Those references will be sufficient to show my position in the matter, and to call the attention of the Minister of Railways, when he returns-which I hope will be in a very short time-to resume the duties of his office, to the reasons why I urge that that road should be built.
I have just one more observation to make. I moved for a return for the correspondence on file with reference to the suggested survey and construction of a line of railway from Country Harbour to Antigonish to connect with the Intercolonial railway. A return was brought down on the 22nd day of January, 1914, but I cannot find in it any reference, or petition, or request from those persons who claimed to be doing so much for the good of the road, and to be endeavouring to secure the accommodation so much desired in that vicinity; nor can I find any suggestion of

any kind urging the building of a line of railway through that section, except letters from myself, which are dated May 14, 1913, March 3, 1910, and January 13, 1911, also a letter from the secretary, Mr. Jones, under date of March 18, 1912, and a letter from Mr. W. C. Milner, under date of January 22, 1912. Mr. Milner was asking for a subsidy for a line of railway in that locality and I was endorsing his application with my humble support. My conduct has been subjected to more or less criticism, by my political opponents, it being alleged that I have not been friendly to this proposition, and that is why I take this opportunity of putting myself on record.
I can only say, in conclusion, that I hope the minister, when he returns, will see that a survey is made, and I would call his attention to the facts expressed by myself to the House on the occasions to which I have referred, particularly on the 27th of March, 1912, and again on the 30th April, 1913. I would urge upon the minister to see that the survey is made as soon as possible.
Let us have something more tangible than pre-election promises by men whose assurances are now very properly discounted in that part of the country, for it is now clear to every one that these pretending friends of the road were after votes, when they needed them, and not the railway. But the people there want the road, and are entitled to it, and it should no longer be denied or delayed to them.


John Dowsley Reid: I will certainly look into
the matter myself and see if I can get any further information, which I will give to the hon. member. I will also draw the remarks made by the hon. member to the attention of the hon. minister on his return, which I hope will .be at a not very distant date.


Mr. KYTE:: Will the hon. minister be
good enough to .say whether or not any move has been made with a view to taking over the branch line owned by the Cape Breton railway between St. Peters and Sydney?


John Dowsley Reid: No move has been made
yet.


George William Kyte: Has any engineer been sent over the road within the last few weeks for the purpose of making a report to the department?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know. ' An engineer may have been sent by the general manager of the Intercolonial, but I know nothing about it. If I understand the situation aright, the Department of Railways or the Government cannot take over any of these branch lines under the present law; that is, without bringing a Bill into Parliament and having it passed. There is no intention, so far as I know, of taking over the road mentioned during the present session.


George William Kyte: When I was at St. Peter's a few weeks ago, I was informed that Dr. Martin Murphy, formerly provincial engineer for the province of Nova Scotia, was to be sent down by the Department of Railways and Canals in a few days for the purpose of making am investigation as to the physical condition of the road, and making a report to the department. I understand from the remarks of the hon. minister that neither Dr. Murphy nor any other engineer has gone over the road for that purpose.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know. Several
gentlemen have suggested to me that there should be .some scheme for developing the Bras d'Or lakes, and that there .should be some hotel system there in connection with the Intercolonial railway. I suggested that perhaps it would be well for the general manager to send an engineer or some -one down to look over the situation and advise me.


William John Macdonald: What does an
engineer know about hotels?


John Dowsley Reid: It would be necessary to
look over the road. It may be for that reason that .an engineer has been sent down. I do not know whether or not there is anything in it.


George William Kyte: No action has been taken by the department to make a survey of the proposed route between St. Peter's and Sydney with a view to extending the 'line in that direction?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


William John Macdonald: Mr. Gutelius has
been doing things that the minister does not know anything about. Did not Mr. Gutelius have an interview within the last two weeks at Halifax with certain gentlemen in (regard to taking over the line between New Glasgow and Thorburn?


John Dowsley Reid: I did not see it in the newspapers.


William John Macdonald: Neither did I, but
did not Mr. Gutelius have an interview with certain gentlemen interested' in the taking over of the line belonging to the Acadia Coal company from New Glasgow to Thorbum?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know whether he met them or not.


William John Macdonald: Did the minister
authorize him to meet them?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I did not.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Speaking of branch lines, I wish to say a word in favour of the Gaspe railway. My hon. friend knows that what is known as the Gaspe railway is made up of two lines: One extending from Matapedia on the Intercolonial railway to New Carlisle, and the other from' New Carlisle up to Gaspe basin in the county of Gaspe. The first section was built thirty or thirty-five years ago and cost the country a very large sum of money. It serves .a, vary rich section of the country, which might be very prosperous if the line were in good order. The first twenty miles of the section, called the Atlantic and lake Superior, was built originally by the Government. It had been intended at first to build it from Matapedia to Gaspe basin, as a branch of the Intercolonial. This decision had been arrived at when Sir Chas. Tupper, I believe, was Minister of Railways and Canals. For some reason or other that idea was abandoned and the road was taken over by Mr. C.	N. Armstrong, a gentleman well known in the railway world; and, by subsidies from the Dominion Government and from the Provincial Government, he succeeded in building the first hundred miles, that is to say, from Matapedia to New Carlisle. It is a beautiful section of country represented by my hon. friend the member for Bona-venture (Mr. Ma/rcil). Unfortunately it seemed that the large fishing establishment known as Robin and Company, later on merged into the Robin-Colas Company, a Jersey firm, was opposed to any railway construction in that country because, forsooth, the railway might induce the fishermen to migrate into other sections of the country, and the fishing establishment would be deprived of the valuable services of that population of fishermen. After many years that first section was finally completed, but it is to-day, as it has been for a long time, in very poor condition indeed. If the hon. member for Bonaven-201
ture were in his seat, he could describe to the committee the very dangerous condition of that road. When I was elected member for the county of Gaspe in 1896 I took up the question of building the second section of the road, extending from New Carlisle to Gaspe Basin. A company was formed, subsidies were voted by this Parliament, a land grant was voted by the legislature of Quebec and the second section of the line was completed in 1910. There is quite a difference between the two lines. The first, >as I have said, is in very poor condition; the second is a really well-built road, upon which trains run regularly from New Carlisle to Gaspe Basin. But in order to connect the Gaspe end with the other parts of the country, the trains have to run on the first section, which is not in tgood condition, and the result is that one* section of the line is in good order and the other is not. As has very often been said, it is an extraordinary thing that the original intention of the present Government has not been carried out; that is to say, that this section of the country has not been connected with branch railway lines as part of the Intercolonial system. To-day, on account of this mishap to the first section of the road, the company cannot prosper. It is true that trains are run both ways, but they are run without profit. If the Government were to make the necessary arrangements with the company and obtain the road upon fair terms, I am sure that they would be really doing something for that most interesting section of the country. For almost half a century that section of the country was deprived of railway communication; yet it is the oldest county in the whole of this Dominion. It is well known that when Jacques Cartier came to Canada in the sixteenth century, he first landed on the shores of the bay of Gaspe. I understand that the Government cannot acquire the road without introducing special legislation to that effect. In order to facilitate the acquiring of tho;e lines, why should not the minister and the department feel their way by approaching the various companies and establishing to their satisfaction, as well as to the satisfaction of Parliament, what would be the cost of taking over those branch lines? It seems to me that this would be putting the oxen before the cart. I believe that if last year Parliament had been made aware of the cost of the various branch lines, the legislation which was introduced could have been passed and the amendment introduced by the Senate would probably not have been made. During the time that I was member



for Gaspe, a period of 16 years, I received many communications on this subject. Although their end of the road is in perfect order, my former electors in the county of Gaspe are anxious, in order to ameliorate the conditions, that this road should be taken over as a branch line from Matapedia to Gaspe Basin.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: I would suggest that
during the holidays the minister should do his best to meet the representatives of the various companies and ascertain in some of the cases what would be the cost of acquiring the lines. This would pave the way to enabling legislation empowering the minister to purchase a certain number of railways. If beforehand he could say to Parliament that it would cost so much for this or that line, Parliament would feel better able to deal with it.


John Dowsley Reid: That is a very good suggestion, and I will draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to it, or, if he should not be there, I shall be glad to follow it up.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Can the minister tell us what is proposed this year in branch line construction? Some of us on this side were much encouraged by the Government accepting a resolution moved by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) favouring the construction of certain new branch lines in Nova Scotia in counties not now provided with railway facilities. Will the minister say whether any provision will be made in the Supplementary Estimates for the construction of any of these branch lines in Nova Scotia?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no vote for new
branch lines; there is a vote for surveys to be made, and I think that the staff are at work, or are about starting at work, on the surveys along the Intercolonial railway.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no vote in the Main Estimates but we would like to know whether there will be a provision in the Supplementaries.


John Dowsley Reid: I could hardly state that until the Supplementaries are passed by Council. In the Main Estimates is a vote for $50,000 for surveys and inspection. I do not think the hon. gentleman would expect me to make an announcement as to the other.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the acting minister should be prepared to state the policy of the Government with regard to the branch lines, so that the committee might know whether the department intend to go forward this year or not. That would be a proper thing for the minister to deal with when he is bringing in his railway Budget. I am not asking him to reveal secrets or to say how much he is going to spend'. But will he spend any?


John Dowsley Reid: The Supplementary Estimates will have to be discussed in Council before I can make any announcement.


William Chisholm: While I am in hearty accord with the policy of the Government in taking over the branch lines, I would suggest to the acting minister that he must be just before he is generous. On a former occasion I brought up the question of the refund of damages paid by the municipalities of Pictou, Antigonish and Guysborough for the right of way for that portion of the Intercolonial railway running between New Glasgow and the strait of Canso. The subject was discussed on that occasion, but not at great length. The Prime Minister'discussed the matter shortly, and the hon. member for Cape Breton, the hon. member for Guysborough, and I think the hon. member for Pictou made some observations regarding the injustice of this claim. But the minister of Railways on that occasion stated that he did not know anything about this claim until it had been discussed that night. He, however, gave an assurance that he would look into the question so that he could discuss it at a future date. His remarks will be found in volume VI of ' Hansard,' 1912-13. The occasion for the discussion of the matter was the proposal for a subsidy to the Ontario Government of $2,000,000 in connection with the building of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. It was pointed out by myself, and urged by others, that in view of the precedent thus established there was no reason for further delay in paying to the municipalities the sums they had expended in that portion of the Intercolonial railway to which I have referred. The whole of the 2011
Intercolonial railway from Sydney to Montreal has been paid for by this Government -by the people of Canada. But as I was explaining, and as I am sure it will surprise the acting minister to know, the municipalities of these three counties have had to bear the cost of the right of way of that portion of the Intercolonial railway and the money was never refunded. There are other parts of the Intercolonial railway that were taken over from time to time in connection with the general scheme of building, but the provinces that had put their money into these lines were recouped. I do not think I can lay the case before the committee better than by giving somewhat in detail what was urged for and against the claim made by the Province of Nova Scotia in this connection, so that the minister may have all the facts when he returns; and I propose to give both sides of the case. This is an old question, dating back as far as 1891. There is a history to it, and I think it right that both sides of the case should be presented. Therefore, at the risk of wearying the committee, I propo.se to put on the pages of * Hansard ' the pros and cons.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman stated
that this dates back to 1891?


William Chisholm: The history of it goes back to 1891.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but did the claim
originate then on the building of the Intercolonial railway?


William Chisholm: It originated before
that portion of the road known as the Eastern extension, running from New Glasgow to the strait of Canso, was taken over by the Dominion Government. That railway was built by a company subsidized by the province, and the municipalities paid for the right of way. Later, the Dominion Government took it over and repaid the province what it had put into the road, but never repaid the municipalities the amount they had paid for the right of way. My point is that for every other part of the Intercolonial from Sydney to Montreal the municipalities have been held free from any portion of the cost. The Government paid the whole cost of the road. The matter will be explained better than I, can explain it if I place on 'Hansard' the resolutions that were passed as far back as 1891. On the 15th day of May, 1891, the legislature of Nova Scotia passed, and afterwards presented in due course to His Excellency the Governor General, an address which sets forth the facts as follows:

on the people of the municipalities mentioned, the said municipalities voluntarily offered and agreed to pay the amounts involved in the purchase of the right of way of the said line. Such were contributed in consideration of the advantages to be derived from the construction of the line, and were not intended to form any lien upon the railway so constructed, nor were they paid under any expectation of reimbursement. That since the railway had been operated by the Dominion Government, its efficiency has been increased far in excess of what could have been reasonably anticipated by the residents of the above mentioned municipalities when making the grant which they did in aid of the construction of the line.
That the mere fact that some other counties did not make a like contribution to railways which were constructed through them does not seem to afford substantial reason for the present claim.


John Dowsley Reid: What date was that?


William Chisholm: About 1893. The matter stood thus for some years until happily for the province of Nova Scotia a Liberal Administration came into power at Ottawa in 1896. So impressed with the justice of the claims made was the Government of Nova Scotia that, notwithstanding their previous refusal, they again submitted their claim to a Government which was naturally supposed to be more sympathetic, and in which they believed they had an especial friend at court in the person of the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Mr. Fielding. On the 15th of October, 1897, the claim was again presented to the Laurier Government. Inas-. much as I have read to you the position taken by the previous Conservative Administration here, as disclosed in the report of the Privy 'Council of the 28th of October, 1893, from which I have quoted, it is fitting that the rejoinder thereto should be placed on ' Hansard.' The House will pardon me for taking up its time, but I want all the facts laid before it so that the Minister of Railways, who is unfortunately absent, may grasp all the facts of the case, about which there seemed a great deal of misapprehension in certain quarters. Therefore, I propose to lay on * Hansard ' the further argument of the Government of Nova Scotia as contained in the documents presented to the late Laurier Government in 1897. I quote the following:
Eastern Extension Railway.
The terms of Confederation imposed upon the federal Government the responsibility of constructing the Intercolonial railway as a Government work, and, while the actual terms of the British North America Act only required that the railway should connect the river St.

Lawrence with the city of Halifax in Nova Scotia, the Government has seen fit, as a matter of public policy, to extend this road on the one side from Riviere du Loup to Lfrvis, and still later to the city of Montreal, and on the other to Sydney Harbour, in the county of Cape Breton. Every portion of this railway has been constructed and paid for out of the consolidated revenues of Canada, and the right of way for the whole work has been paid for out of the consolidated revenues of Canada except one portion between New Glasgow and the strait of Canso. That portion was built by the Halifax and Cape Breton Railway and Coal Company, by aid of a Liberal subvention from the Government of Nova Scotia. It was undertaken upon condition that on its completion it should be further aided by being handed over the line of railway then belonging to the Dominion between Truro and Pictou, which was then and still is a very profitable piece of road. Believing that it was in the public interest that this Eastern railway system should be in the hands of the provincial Government rather than in the hands of a company, the Government of Nova Scotia, in the session of 1883, took steps to acquire the Eastern Extension railway which carried with it the right of possession and ownership of the Pictou branch. A clause had been inserted in the contract with the Halifax and Cape Breton Railway and Coal Company enabling the Government, after the completion of the line, to take it over by paying the amount of the actual outlay of the company over and above the amount of subsidy it had received from the Government. The power of acquiring was exercised, and the Eastern Extension railway came into the hands of the Government during the year 1883, and was operated by the Commissioner of Public Works. On applying to the Dominion Government for the handing over of the Pictou branch, under the terms of the agreement and Act of Parliament, the federal Government imposed such conditions in respect of the transfer as made it impossible for the Government of Nova Scotia to carry out its policy of acquiring and managing the Eastern railway system, with its contemplated extension through the island of Cape Breton, without incurring flnanical responsibility far beyond its resources. The terms which the Dominion Government imposed as the conditions of handing over the Pictou branch were so unreasonable and so exacting as to raise a very strong presumption that they were imposed in furtherance of the well devised policy of the Government to themselves make this Eastern Extension a part of the Intercolonial and extend the same to Sydney Harbour. The result was that the Government of Nova Scotia was compelled reluctantly to abandon its own policy, and to hand over the Eastern Extension railway to the Dominion Government as a part of the Intercolonial railway system upon being refunded the amount that they had actually paid to the Halifax and Cape Breton Railway and Coal Company. At the time of this transfer, as will be found in the Journals of the House of Assembly, 1884, the Hon. Messrs. Pipes and Fielding, who were the delegates representing the Government of Nova Scotia, urged on behalf of the Government of Nova Scotia that the Dominion Government on taking over the Eastern Extension railway, should not only pay its costs to the provincial Government, but the provincial sub-

sidy as well; and no doubt this would have been insisted upon if it had not been that the action of the Dominion Government in refusing to hand over the Plctou branch, except upon terms which were quite unreasonable and quite impossible of fulfilment, compelled the provincial Government, in self-defence, to give up the road upon being recouped the actual amount which had been paid out to the company.
The fact remains that from Lfrvis to Sydney Harbour every single mile of the Intercolonial railway now running, has been paid out of the consolidated revenues of Canada, including the right of way with the exception of the short piece between New Glasgow and the strait of Canso, and this part of the national highway has been partially paid for out of the revenues of the province of Nova Scotia, and the right of way has been paid for by the ratepayers of the municipalities of Pictou, Antigonish, St. Mary's and Guysborough. The Government of Nova Scotia simply asked that this portion of the Intercolonial railway be placed in precisely the same condition as ail the other parts of the Intercolonial railway ; that the sum of six hundred and seventy-one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six dollars ($671,836), which the province of Nova Scotia, out of its limited resources, has paid as a subsidy to this part of the Intercolonial railway, be refunded to the province, inasmuch as if the Intercolonial railway had been extended by the Dominion Government eastward?

as it actually has been in accordance with its well defined policy-it would have been necessary to have paid for the construction of the portion between New Glasgow and the strait of Canso as rhuch as the amount which had actually been paid for it, plus the subsidy which has been paid out of the revenue of the province of Nova Scotia ; also the cost of the right of way. The piece of road between the strait of Canso and Sydney Harbour stands in precisely the same position as a part of the whole national work. Every dollar of the cost of construction has been paid for by the Dominion Government, and it will be difficult to devise means of pointing out any distinction which exists between the case of that portion of the Intercolonial railway, and the portion between New Glasgow and the strait of Canso, towards which the province of Nova Scotia has actually contributed the sum of six hundred and seventy-one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six dollars ($671,836).
It is scarcely necessary to remind you of the action of the Government of Canada in relation to the province of Quebec in respect of a case so very similar to this, only, perhaps, not as strong. In that case the Dominion Government undertook to refund to the province of Quebec their subsidies paid for the Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and Occidental, because it seemed to be a part of the general railway system of the country. The case is surely not as strong as in a case where the road "itself becomes the property of the Federal Government, and is being operated now as a national Government railway.	'
The claim, therefore, of the province of Nova Scotia is that this sum should be refunded with interest and that the amount paid by the municipalities of Pictou, Antigonish, St. Mary's and Guysborough for a right of way should likewise be refunded to those municipalities.
Now, Sir, I have laid before the House both sides of the case. The temptation, to
discuss the arguments pro and con is very strong; but that would be inexcusable as we have a quasi judicial pronouncement on the facts.
The Laurier Government showed its sympathy with the claimants by directing that the whole matter so far as these claims are concerned should be left to arbitration. The arbitrators appointed under an Order in Council dated July 19, 1900 were: Sir George Burton, an ex-Chief Justice of the province of Ontario; F. B. Wade, a leading lawyer of the city of Halifax; and Edmund J. Barbeau, a prominent banker of the city of Montreal. The case of the province was presented by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, and the present member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and part of the time by the late Christopher Bobinson, K.C., of Toronto, while Mr. Lafleur, K.C., of Montreal, represented the Dominion Government. The decision of the arbitrators will be found in the sessional papers for 1901, Vol. xxxv, No. 13, as Sessional Paper No. 73. It is a complete vindication of the position taken by the Fielding Government, and afterwards by the Murray Government of Nova Scotia. It finds that the claim of the province was a just one. To quote the language of the board:
We are forced to the conclusion that the claim of the province is a just one and we respectfully recommend that they should he paid the sum of $671,836, the amount of the bonus.
The findings of the arbitrators must be regarded as binding in law and fact, and conclusive as to the matters in dispute between the two governments-just as binding as a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada or the Privy Council in a matter that properly comes before them. The personell of the arbitrators, their high standing, and the professional standing of the counsel employed on either side renders the decision of the board such as makes it acceptable to all parties. The argument was made on behalf of the Government that the province voluntarily transferred the eastern extension for a certain fixed amount, namely the amount paid by the provincial government to the company for a transfer of the Toad by the company including their rights 'and interest in the Truro branch under the tripartite agreement, so called, and all parties were bound by that bargain. The amount was as stated $1,284,311.97. This amount, it will be observed, did not include the subsidies that had been given by the province during the construction of the road, amounting to

$671,836, nor what was paid by the municipalities for the right of way, which with interest to date would in round numbers approximate:
Due	municipality	of	Pictou . . . [DOT]	$141,000"	St. Mary's..	5,000"	Antigonish..	55,000"	"	Guysborough 32,000
It will be noted that the refund to the municipalities for the amount paid to them for the right of way was on all occasions as strongly urged as was the claim for the refund of the provincial subsidies paid the company. It would seem manifestly unfair that the Dominion Government, representing the whole of Canada, should take over that railway as a part of the Intercolonial railway belonging to the whole of Canada and constructed and operated for the whole of Canada, and not for the convenience or accommodation of any particular section of it, without paying for it every cent that it actually cost. Whilst individuals or corporations may well be justified in driving the best bargain they can, and may well insist on enjoying any legitimate advantage the one obtains over the other in a bargain made, I submit that rule should not be invoked by the Government of the country dealing for the whole country. It should not deal in a huckstering spirit, but should have regard to what is fair and equitable and just in foro con-scientiae, without seeking to take advantage of any technical objections available, or of anything strictly legal, in contradistinction to equitable, defences. From a reading of the arbitrators' report it appears this view seemed to have properly influenced them. They found this Government should repay the subsidies advanced by the province in the building of that part of the Canadian road. Can any one doubt that if the claim of the municipalities had been dealt with by these same arbitrators they would have been allowed? If it was right and proper, if fairplay and justice demanded, that the province should get back the money that it expended in that part of the national road, equally just and equitable is it that the municipalities should be refunded their contributions. It does not seem fair that Canada as a whole should pay for the right of way of every other portion, of the people's road except that' portion from New Glasgow to Mulgrave. It does not seem fair, and there is no principle of justice or equity on which you can contend, that these municipalities of Anti-gonish, Pictou, Guysborough and St. 
Marys should alone, of all the municipalities from Cape Breton to Montreal contribute directly or indirectly to building or extending the national railway required to be provided by Canada as a whole under the terms of Confederation ? The late Conservative Government took the position that in view of ' the facilities and accommodation which the construction of the said railway would confer on the people of the municipalities mentioned, the said municipalities voluntarily offered and agreed to pay the amounts involved in the purchase of the right of way of the said line,' and that ' such were contributed in consideration of the advantages to be derived from the construction of the line.' As a matter of fact, they did not do so voluntarily. But do not the very same advantages, facilities and accommodations extend to every other municipality from Montreal to Sydney ? Why, therefore, should we be saddled with burdens which the others have not had to bear ? When the Intercolonial railway was extended from Mulgrave to Sydney did the municipalities through which it ran have to bear the cost of the right of way in view of and in consideration of the advantages, facilities and accommodation such extension would give ? Not at all. I submit therefore, that the position taken by the Minister of Railways in 1893 is not tenable, and his conclusion ' that the mere fact that some other counties did not make a like contribution to railways which were constructed through them, does not seem to afford substantial reason for the present claim,' is alike illogical, unjustifiable and unfair.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you may ask, why was not the claim of the municipalities which on its face seems much stronger than that of the province submitted to the board of reference. It is unfortunate under the circumstances that it was not, for unquestionably it would have received favourable consideration. You have observed these claims were urged in the various memorials presented. These memorials were passed in 1886, 1889, 1891, 1894 and 1898 respectively. In the report of the arbitrators I find a reference to the municipalities' claims as follows:
A claim was made at the opening of the case by several municipalities who had assisted the railway by grants of money, to be heard by this board; but it was determined that such claims did not come within the scope of the reference, and we adhere to that position.
My information is that when it came to the submission to arbitration, the claims

of the municipalities were intentionally omitted in the order of reference. It was thought advisable not to confuse or complicate the issue by submitting more than one claim. The claim of the municipalities being considered much the stronger, the claim of the province was first submitted alone, it being assumed that if a favourable award were obtained in this case, there would be no question about the right of the municipalities to recover later. On the other hand, in the event of an adverse decision by the board, so far as the claim of the province went, the claim of the municipalities might be jeopardized by being linked up with the weaker claim. At any rate, the board did not adjudicate these claims, and they now come before this Government for settlement.
After the award was made in favour of the province and the amount thereof nearly three-quarters of a million dollars was paid, the municipalities claimed the province should recoup the amounts expended by them. The contention was made amongst others, that the local Government at the time had unjustly imposed and reimposed the obligation of paying for the right of way upon these municipalities against their will; that the province in undertaking to deal with the road and to transfer it to the Dominion Government was bound in fairness to pay them itself, or as a result of their dealing with it, to obtain payment for them; and that under these circumstances it was the duty of the local Government to see that the claims of the municipalities were included at the time of the arbitration held in 1901, as a part of the claim to which the province was entitled, and which the province should refund to the municipalities inasmuch as the province had improperly, it was urged, fastened this burden upon them when the construction of the road was undertaken. I am not going into details regarding this phase of the matter. I may say, however, that under chapter 3 of the Nova Scotia Acts of 1905, and chapter 50 of the Act of 1907, which extended the scope of the inquiry, a commission was appointed by the local Legislature to report on and adjudicate the claims of the municipalities, as made against that Legislature. There was some delay on the part of the municipalities in availing themselves of the machinery to adjudicate their claims; and it was not until the 24th of June, 1912, that the commission, consisting of Chief Justice Fitzpatrick of the Supreme Court of Canada, Chief Justice Townsend and Judge Drys-dale, of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court,
gave their decision, finding that there was no claim against the Government of the province in connection with the matter referred to them. The question they decided was the liability of the province to recoup the counties. The right of the municipalities to be recouped by somebody was evidently assumed. The commission decided that the province was under no legal or moral duty to do so. The inference is obvious. ' Disappointing as this decision may be to the municipalities, it is, and must be, accepted. This was not a commission composed of party friends of the local Government, who would in advance take instructions as to the goal desired, the decision to be reached; but it was composed of men who know not politics since their elevation to the Bench, and who, before their appointment to the positions they now adorn, although they had their party affiliations, two of them Liberals and one Conservative, could always rise above and beyond the level of the partisan to the higher plane of professional duty, and always had and retained the confidence of the public generally. Their investigations were not ex parte, or conducted in secret; but on the contrary, in open court and in the presence of counsel for all parties interested. I make these observations in passing, because I know it to have been stated by men prominent in politics, some of whom occupy positions in public life that would at least lead you to expect more honesty from them, that the Murray Government at Halifax referred the matter of the claims to this commission in order to secure the dismissal of the claims as against them. Such an assertion is as false as it is malicious.
It is very easy to be wise after the act. Men's hindsight is greater than their foresight. It is perhaps for that reason I could never see why the claim of the municipalities was not made, in the first instance, against the federal Government, instead of against the local Government. The local Government, under the Burton award, only received the amount of provincial subventions which went into the building of the Eastern extension. Had that board dealt generally with the cost of the Eastern Extension railway and the amount which, as a matter of equity, the Dominion Government should have paid for that portion of the Intercolonial, when it was taken over, and an award had been made accordingly, then I could understand the municipalities properly claiming to be recouped by the provincial Government. But as it dealt specifically with the subventions from the

provincial treasury alone, and it was distinctly stated in the award the claim of the municipalities could not then be considered by them under their order of reference, it is obvious, to me at any rate, that the further claims should have been made later against this Government, and not against the local Government. I have no doubt that, had the municipalities promptly pressed their claims against the Dominion Government, they would, in the face of that Burton award, have been settled long before now. But as I have already stated, it is easy to be wise after the act. The municipalities, doubtless, thought the claims could be more expeditiously, and with less expense, recovered from the province; and the province could then claim from this Government. The principle on which the municipalities rest their claims against this Government is found not only in the Burton award, and in that case where the Dominion Government refunded the province of Quebec their subsidies paid for the Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and Occidental railway, mentioned in the memorial dated October 15, 1897, but also in a more recent case, which I happened to come across, that of the claim of New Brunswick in re the eastern extension. In that case, the facts, which are almost on all fours with the claims made by Nova Scotia, were as follows:	In 1869
the Dominion Government took over and adopted as a part of the Intercolonial railway that part of the road formerly known as the Eastern Extension railway, and extending from Painsec Junction eastwardly to the boundary line between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, a distance of 37$ m.les. The Dominion Government paid $894,000 for it, of which $644,000 was paid by them to the contractors who built the road, and the balance of $250,000 was paid to the New Brunswick Government, by being passed to the credit.of the province on debt account. The province had up to that time paid for the construction of the road $400,000, and there was, therefore, a balance of $150,000 of the total expenditure by the province in the road. In 1834 the Dominion Government voted $150,000 to reimburse the Government of New Brunswick for money expended by them in the construction of this section of the railway, and this was, on July 1, 1884, passed to the credit of the province on debt account. The province up to that time had not only claimed this balance of $150,000, but in addition, [Mr. W. Chisholm.!
interest on that amount from 1869, when it was claimed this balance should have been placed to the credit of the province. The Dominion Government, on the other hand claimed that the payment of $150,0C0 was in full of all claims by the province in connection with that road. On the 16th February, 1900, an arbitration board was created to inquire into the claim made by the province and adjust same. The arbitrators were Judge Barker, of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Judge LangeJier, of the Supreme Court of Quebec, and Mr. Duncan Coulson, general manager of the Bank of Toronto. On the 1st April, 1901, they made their award, allowing the province the interest claimed, compounded, which amounted to $145,218.75. This report is found in the sessional papers for 1901, Volume xxxv No. 13, and in sessional papers is No. 73b. Not only was it considered equitable that the amount certified by the engineer to have gone into the construction of this section of the road should be paid, but the interest on it, from the time it should have been paid, must also be allowed. The actual expenditure by the provincial government should be recouped. It was thought but fair that the Dominion Government should pay every cent that portion of the Intercolonial railway cost.
Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, are not the claims of the municipalities which I am endeavouring to present not Only just, fair and reasonable in themselves, but their uayment by this Government justified to the hilt by precedent? For very many years, this has been a source of rankling and complaint with the people of these municipalities. They have considered, and very justly so, that justice has been denied them by the late Conservative Government and .delayed to them by the late Liberal Administration. From the view point of the late Conservative Government, they saw no legal duty on them to pay these demands although clearly, as indicated by the decisions and awards which 1 have read, the moral and equitable obligation was there. And so far as the late Liberal Administration went, they virtually admitted their liability, when they recognized their obligation in the similar cases, to which I have referred. It is hoped, therefore, that the grievance which has rankled in the minds of the people of these counties will be speedily removed.
Before leaving this point, let me give some

brief quotations expressive of the opinion of the leader of the Opposition in the province of Nova Scotia on this subject. In the debates of 1912 at page 304. Mr. Tanner is reported thus:
He had always held that the federal Government should pay the claim. He had said so in 1905, and he had never hidden his opinion.
Again:
He would repeat now what he said then, if the federal Government would now pay the claim, the provincial Government should do so.
Also:
He would say that in his opinion the provincial claim was a very weak one, and that the municipal claim is stronger than the provincial one.
These observations were made before the board of arbitrators was appointed to deal with the liability of the province in respect to these municipalities' claims. Mr. Tanner had no doubt the federal Government should pay these claims, and he apparently took the position, which it turned out was the correct one, that it was to the federal Government the municipalities should look rather than to the provincial; but so impressed was he with the justice of the municipalities' claim that he went so far as to say that if the federal Government did not pay the claims, the local Government should.
In conclusion, and here I again apologize for taking up so much time-let me summarize the grounds why these claims should be paid, by quoting from the statement of claim oh behalf of the municipality of the county of Pictou, found in the return brought dowu lately, and invoking these grounds on behalf of the county of Anti-gonish which I have the honour to represent :
1.	Because the Government of Canada are now the owners of the piece of railway between New Glasgow and the strait of Canso and have never paid to any one the cost of the right of way and land on which said railway is built, and should for equitable reasons pay to the county of Pictou the amount they were compelled to pay to the original proprietors over whose lands the railway was built.
2.	The road from New Glasgow to the strait of Canso forms part of. the Intercolonial railway, extending from Montreal to North Sydney, which road by the provisions of the section 145 of the British North America Act was to be a national work, and constructed as it has been at the expense of the federal authorities. Being a national work, it cannot be expected that a municipality should be compelled against its will, to bear the expense ol the right of way or any part of it.
3.	By the extension of the Intercolonial railway to North Sydney as one of its Atlantic
termini and making it the commercial highway through the last named point with the colony of Newfoundland, the Parliament Of Canada has made and declared that part of it from New Glasgow to the strait of Canso within the meaning and intent of section 92 sub-section 10	(c) of the British North
America Act a railway and public work for the general advantage of Canada, and should therefore assume any liability imposed in the course of its construction upor| a local authority like the claimants.
4.	The Government of Canada have recognized their right to pay for the right of way in regard to all other portions of the Intercolonial railway and to deal with this municipality as with all other bodies and owners.
5.	The Eastern Extension railway is not a railway principally of local importance or for the benefit of Nova Scotia, but is of importance to the whole Dominion just as is that part of the Intercolonial railway running from Ldvis to Montreal or a part of the canal system of Canada as being a national work.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has certainly put his case very well in support of the claims of the municipalities to which he refers. But what strikes me with reference to his claim is this: The claim has been in existence for twenty or twenty-five years. In that time there have been five or six Ministers of Railways, and, I suppose, the claim has been brought before each one of them, and must have been gone into very fully. Of course, the hon. member will understand that I can hardly be expected to be acquainted with the facts, as I am only acting for the Minister of Railways and have been so acting but for a short time. I am sorry that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane! is not able to be present, but we all know the reason. It was in the latter part of last session that the hon. member asked the question of the Minister of Railways, and the minister agreed to look into it and give an answer. No doubt, were he here to-night he would give that answer. What makes me feel specially that it is difficult for the Government to assume this claim is that Hon. Mr. Fielding, ex-Minister of Finance, was Prime Minister of the province of Nova Scotia, as I understand it, when this road was sold to the Dominion Government. Of course, he knew all the facts in connection with the case.	The
claim was presented to him in 1897, and, no doubt, pressed very strongly upon him. I am	surprised that he was	not
able to do something in the matter if he considered the claim a just and fair one.
I shall certainly draw the matter again to the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals; whether or not he will be able

to take any action with regard to the claim I do not know. As I have said, the fact of its being such an old claim and of its having been brought so- many times before the minister seems to indicate that there is some difficulty in the way of its being paid.
In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Pictou yesterday, I may say that the total coal requirement for the Intercolonial railway for the current year is 680,000 tons, of which 163,000 tons are to be delivered by water at Montreal and Levis and 517,000 tons by rail. Of the 163,000 tons, 81,500 tons are to be delivered by the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company and 81,500 tons by the Dominion Coal Company. The other coal contracts have not been finally awarded. Following is a statement of the different contracts for 414,800 tons of the amount to be delivered by rail:
Tons.
Colonial Coal Co	 21,650
Cape Breton Coal and Iron	Co....	30,000Inverness Railway and Coal	Co.,	Ltd.	39,150Minudie Coal Co	
50,000Rothwell Coal Co	
6,000G. H. King	
3,000Intercolonial Coal Mining Co	
75,000Dominion Coal Co. (Springhill)	..	..	100,000Maritime Coal Co	
90,000


William John Macdonald: I wish to supplement the argument made by the hon. member of Antigonish with regard to the line of railway in the counties referred to. The cost of the right of way was paid by the municipalities mentioned, not voluntarily, but under an Act of the province of Nova Scotia which imposed the liability upon them. The legislature of Nova Scotia, after the transfer of 1884, always asserted that the province should pay back to the municipalities the sum of $671,000 which, they alleged, had been wrongfully withheld from them by way of duress, and that the amount paid for the right of way should also be refunded to the municipalities. A reference was made, and the municipalities were under the impression that the order of reference to Chief Justice Burton covered the claim of the municipalities. When the case came before the tribunal Chief Justice Burton ruled that the terms of the reference were not sufficiently wide to enable (him to adjudicate upon the matter, consequently the question has since been left undetermined. The municipalities urged the local Government to pay them out of the money they had received. The . reference my hon. friend made to Mr. Fielding has really no application to the case, because previous to his 
being minister he urged, not on behalf of the province, but on behalf of the municipalities, through the legislature, the justness of the claim. The intention of the parties at the time the order for reference was made was that the claim should be adjudicated upon by Chief Justice Burton, but on account of his having ruled that the terms of the reference were not sufficiently wide, no supplementary reference having since been made, the matter remain unsettled. I hope the minister of Railways will look into the matter very carefully; the facts will warrant his taking some action with regard to it.
With regard to the coal contracts, I would be obliged to the minister if, before he takes up his Estimates again, he will get fuller information with regard to the delay in the settlement of one of these contracts, which happens to be in connection with a company in my county. Just now the mines in my county are working only half time-two of them have been closed-and owing 'to the uncertainty occasioned by the delay in awarding these contracts, arrangements for the season's output are considerably delayed. As a consequence the spring operations have not been resumed, and in some cases real hardship exists among the miners on account of failure to get work. With the settlement of this contract they may go on with some reasonable degree of certainty.
I wish to call particularly to the minister's attention to-night a matter referred to in a return which he brought down some time ago with regard to a question of very wide importance. In January of this year the importance of obtaining a shorter distance on the Intercolonial between Moncton and the industrial centres of New Glasgow and Sydney occupied the attention of the officials of the department. On January 28, the chief engineer wrote a letter to Mr. Guteldus, as follows:
In connection with the proposed low grade line from Moncton and Sydney, via Oxford Junction, Pictou, New Glasgow, etc., I would be pleased if you would authorize the necessary surveys, borings and soundings to determine what it would cost to build a bridge across Pictou harbour to a connection with the branch from Pictou Landing to New Glasgow. If this bridge site does not prove feasible, I would request authority to make such surveys, soundings, etc., as may be necessary to secure a low grade line from the vicinity of Lyons Brook, on the Pictou and Oxford Junction line, to a connection with the present line at or near New Glasgow. Either of these propositions will eliminate the present wooden bridge across the river between Brown's Point and

Loch Broom and the heavy grades between Loch Broom and Stellarton.
There is a special report of the chief engineer of the department to Mr. Gutelius, dated January 28, in which he says:
As the traffic, tonnage and number of trains on the Intercolonial railway is increasing, and considering the character of the tonnage hauled and the low rates in force in connection with same, it is desirable that grades be reduced and the double tracking extended on certain sections of the road in order to increase the efficiency and economy of operation.
These conditions are at present most pressing on those portions of the line east of Moncton, where between Moncton and Halifax there is a greater frequency of train movement and where the present lines between Moncton, Halifax and Sydney are operated over very heavy grades.
The following scheme is, therefore, outlined in order to meet these conditions and the addition of traffic which may be expected when the Transcontinental railway is put into operation; and is divided into two parts as follows:
Moncton to Halifax.
First -Extend double track on low grade not eiceeding six tenths per cent from Painsec Junction to Oxford junction and strengthen bridges.
Second,-Extend double track on low grade not exceeding six tenths per cent from Windsor junction, and strengthening bridges for heavy power.	. . ^	..
Third,-Strengthening bridges to take the heaviest power and introduce passing sidings between Oxford junction and Truro.
General,-This whole work from Moncton to Halifax to include such additions and revisions to existing terminal yards and passing sidings, strengthening of bridges and track for heavy power, installation of telephone despatching lines and automatic block signal as may be necessary to economically and efficiently operate the line.
Second Part.
Instead of hauling the low rate tonnage between Moncton and the Sydneys over the Cobequid mountains between Oxford junction and Truro and Truro and New Glasgow it is
recommended:	,	_	_ .	.First-That the grades be reduced between Sydney and New Glasgow where our freight earnings are considerably less than our cost of operation.	.	_ . ,Second,-Grade revision between Oxford junction and New Glasgow including new bridge across the river at or near Pictou connecting with the present line between Pictou landing and New Glasgow.	.	,
This whole grade revision scheme to mciuae such revision of terminal yards, passing sidings, strengthening of track and bridges for heavy power as may be necessary to make a first-class up to date standard line for the economical handling of traffic.
The scheme proposed by the chief engineer involved the double tracking of the road from Painsec Junction to Oxford Junction and involves the utilization of what has been known as the short line railway running through the counties of Cumberland, Pictou and Colchester. Crossing the harbour of Pictou is a bridge built twenty-seven years ago. It will have to be rebuilt, being a wooden bridge on piles and the sentiment of the community as I am sure it has been urged upon the minister, and the view that has been urged by such prominent gentlemen connected with our industries as Mr. Cantley of the steel works is that the harbour of Pictou should be passed by a permanent bridge at a point lower down connecting immedi-10 p.m. ately with the line of railway which runs near the Nova Scotia steel works.


John Dowsley Reid: That is in accordance with
the recommendation. I understand that the hon. member agrees to the recommendation.


William John Macdonald: Yes, I am bound to say to the minister that I think the proposition of the chief engineer is a good one and I hope he will endeavour to see it is carried into effect. I hope that something will be found in the supplementaries this year that will enable construction to be proceeded with for this reason, that the condition of the old bridge is such that it would be unwise to spend a large amount on it and it is desirable that the new construction should proceed without delay. The report of the chief engineer points out some advantages that would result from this plan, but it does not mention all. The large productive traffic for the Intercolonial railway in Nova Scotia, once the ocean steamboats are off in the summer time, is in the industrial portion of the province where the coal, iron and steel furnish return traffic on the Intercolonial railway to the West. All that traffic has to be carried up two very steep grades to-day at a much greater cost of operation than would be the case if the traffic went by the shorter line of railway built by Sir Chas. Tupper, in 1887, for the avowed purpose of improving the conditions which have always existed and have never been overcome. That line of railway could be utilized with low gradients and proper curvatures and then the freight from the industrial portion of the province could be hauled to the main line and brought to Moncton and other places west at a much less cost than to-day. The figures brought down in response to the inquiry of the hon. member for Guysborough show conclusively the importance of that particular locality as the place where the major portion of the freight for the Intercolonial railway originates. The necessity for immediate action in

regard to the matter is on account of the need for cheaper railway operation which is recognized by the officials. It also exists because there must be a new bridge across Pictou harbour. I would press upon the minister strongly the desirability of taking advantage of the necessity of building the new bridge to erect the new one in such a place that all these difficulties in regard to gradients will be overcome and a condition will arise under which all our freight from eastern Nova Scotia will be hauled more expeditiously and cheaper for the railway. Then, this piece of railway, which was built especially and almost solely for the purpose of giving a shorter haul under better conditions, might be utilized. I am here to ask the minister to carry out the recommendation of his own officials. I hope that in doing so on this occasion they will do the thing right. I am sure that the minister could make no better investment on the Intercolonial railway in regard to cheapening transportation than placing a permanent bridge from Pictou to Pictou landing.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: I understand that the contract for ooal awarded to the Inverness Goal company amounts to 39,100 tons. Could the minister tell me how this compares with the quantity awarded to the same company last year?


John Dowsley Reid: I am sorry not to have that to-night, but I will get it.


Alexander William Chisholm: It is a pity that the contract was not awarded sooner. The mine is working half time now for the first time in its history. If this contract had been given to them some time ago they might have been able to run full time, but for the first time in the history of the mine they are not able to get orders.


John Dowsley Reid: The Intercolonial railway
has been taking coal right along from the coal company without interruption, as they required it. The hon. member will agree that all our railways throughout Canada and the United States have been suffering for the want of business. The receipts are much less.


Alexander William Chisholm: I have only the interests of the coal mines in view.


John Dowsley Reid: The railways did not require as much coal, as they have not been running as many trains.


Alexander William Chisholm: These contracts are for coal that is to be used afterwards. The Department of Railways and Canals

knew quite well the amount of coal they expected to use in the coming season, and if they had awarded these contracts it would have enabled the coal producers in my county to employ their men more than two days a week, which is all they have been able to do of late.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall be glad to get the
hon. member the information.


William John Macdonald: The hon. minister
was going to say something with reference to the matter I mentioned.


John Dowsley Reid: I have discussed that with
the general manager of the Intercolonial, Mr. Gutelius, and he is very strongly in favour of having that work proceeded with at the earliest possible moment. I will take the matter up and see if I can get an item in the Supplementary Estimates for that work. I know the general manager of the Intercolonial railway spoke to Mr. Cochrane about it before he left for Europe, and there is no question about what the feelings of the minister are. I certainly am of the same opinion as Mr. Gutelius and the minister, and I hope we may be able to proceed with the work during the present season.


John Howard Sinclair: Before the minister
closes, I would like to say a word with reference to the matter brought up by my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. W. Chisholm). My constituency is interested in that claim, and I want the minister to know that I am interested in the discussion and would like him to give the matter his careful attention. The chief reason the minister gave in reply-if I understood him correctly-was that the claim was an old one, and that it ought to have been settled by the late Administration. The municipalities were endeavouring to collect this claim from the local Government for a number of years. The local Government through its legislation compelled them to pay for the right of way. The municipalities resisted and the county of Pictou brought up a test case which went against them. They were finally compelled to assess themselves to pay for the right of way. The municipalities naturally felt that their claim was against the local Government of Nova Scotia and they continued to press that claim until a few years ago when the local Government of Nova Scotia consented to an arbitration. The Chief Justice of Canada was chairman of the arbitration board. The claim against the Government of Nova Scotia-not this Government-was argued

before that board and the Chief Justice decided against the municipality, who, now, naturally say that some one ought to pay for this right of way. We contributed against our will. The local Government and the Dominion Government between them have acquired the road which is now part of the Intercolonial railway. The other municipalities along the line of the Intercolonial have all been paid for the right of way but the four municipalities mentioned by my hon. friend have not been paid. Eighty miles of right of way has not been paid foT by any one, and that stretch is one of the most profitable portions of the Intercolonial. The municipalities certainly have a moral claim against this Government, if not a legal one. I have given these facts to account for the delay in bringing this claim forward. I think it was only two years ago that the decision was given that the local Government Was not liable, and the municipalities are now claiming against this Government on the principle that there must be a remedy somewhere, and if it is not in Nova Scotia they think it is here. I am not going to argue the claim to-night, hut I wish to say that it is a matter too important to be brushed aside, and one that should receive the serious consideration of the minister. I would also like to get some information in regard to proposed improvements of the grade of the Intercolonial between Halifax and Moncton. Several schemes were proposed. This matter was discussed last year, and I have no doubt the minister has the information at hand that he may lay before the House before the Intercolonial discussion is concluded. There were two or three proposals: one was that a line should be built by Parrsboro; another for a line across the mountains, and a third proposal was that a northern direction should he taken around by New Glasgow. A good deal of money has been spent .in surveys and investigations, but the country has not yet got information as to the policy of the Government in regard to this matter or as to thei *result of the investigations. If the minister, before Tuesday, when I understand the Railway Estimates are coming up again, would furnish the House with any reports he has on that question, and give us some idea as to the policy of the Government in this matter I should be very glad because a great deal of interest is felt in this question in the province of Nova Scotia and the people are waiting for some statement by
the acting minister as to the Government's intentions.


John Dowsley Reid: I remember discussing this
matter with the minister when going down to Halifax to see him off. I remember the place too where there is a very heavy grade. The minister had a discussion with Mr. Gutelius at that time, and I know they had in view the reducing of the grade at that place. Mr. Gutelius said they were making surveys with a view to trying to get around it in some way. I will see if they have any information in the department. Of course, the Minister of Railways, if he were here, could explain the whole s:tuation, as he understands it thoroughly. If I have not any information in the department, I will write the minister or telegraph the general manager for information, which will, no doubt, reach us before the end of the session. We will leave some of the Intercolonial items on which to dis-euss any question in connection with the Intercolonial railway.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister has the engineer's reports, I would like to see them.


John Dowsley Reid: If there is anything in the
department I will bring it down on Tuesday; but if I have to communicate with Moncton, the hon. gentleman will understand that it will take a week or two to get the information.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I understand from the observations made by the hon. member for Pictou and the answers given by the minister, that general improvements in connection with the Intercolonial in Nova Scotia are in contemplation. In the island of Cape Breton, from which I come, it is particularly important that any general improvements contemplated should have reference to the facilities at the strait of Canso. The enormous traffic between the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland landed at Sydney comes, of course, by the strait of Canso. Unless better faeilities are provided there, I would submit to the minister that whatever improvements he makes in the rest of the road will not give him the results that he might expect. We have only one steamer on the st:a't of Canso, the Scotia. She is good enough for her size, but she is only one steamer.


John Dowsley Reid: I think another steamer has been purchased.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very glad to hear that.


John Dowsley Reid: The contract has been let for a new steamer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not so good as the first statement of the minister, but it is well to know the contract has been let. I presume the new steamer will be of equal capacity with the Scotia, which is a very good boat.


John Dowsley Reid: She is much larger.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is still better. When you are building for the strait of Canso you are building for Newfoundland, because although possibly there is no obligation on us to build for Newfoundland, yet for the purpose of bringing traffic to the Intercolonial railway it is just as well to do so. It has been said that a bridge over the strait of Canso is quite feasible, and if my hon. friend should continue to be Minister of Railways


John Dowsley Reid: I hope not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If he should continue to be Minister of Railways a monument to his memory would be a bridge over the strait of Canso.


John Dowsley Reid: If I should continue to be Minister of Railways I would have a monument sooner than that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The bridge over the Grand Narrows is a monument to the memory of the late Sir John Macdonald. At one time it was thought that Cape Breton would forever be handicapped with a ferry across the Grand Narrows, but in 1888 we had the honour of a visit from Sir John Macdonald, then Prime Minister, who having seen the situation there, decided to bridge the Grand Narrows, which has been a vast advantage to the Intercolonial and to all that part of Canada.	Some years	ago	an
Act was passed by this Parliament constituting a private company to bridge the strait of Canso, and a very eminent engineer who was in the service of that company pronounced that it was quite feasible to do so. If it was feasible for a private company, much more would it be for the Government of Canada. It would certainly be a great thing for the island of Cape Breton and for the whole of Canada.
I wish that the minister, when he is looking to betterment of the conditions of the Intercolonial railway, would make inquiry as to whether a bridge should not be built across the strait of Can30.

There is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the minister. The hon. gentleman pointed out to the member for Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) that he is possibly too late now in making a claim for a refund to these municipalities on account of the right-of-way, and so I want to guard against being too late by now making a claim somewhat akin to that which the hon. member for Antigonish has made. There is a diversion of the Intercolonial in the island of Cape Breton, known as the Georges river, Little Bras D'Or, Sydney Mines and North Sydney diversion. I congratulate the Government on putting the road now where it should have been put thirty-five years ago when it was first built, but by this diversion they are abandoning about five miles of the present road between North Sydney Junction and the town of North Sydney, and for which five miles the right-of-way was paid for by the town of North Sydney when the road was built in 1888. Now that the Government is abandoning that five miles of road, and that it is not to be put to the use for which the town of North Sydney bought the right-of-way, the municipality should be put in the position in which it was before, and the money it paid for the right-of-way refunded to it. That diversion is not yet completed, and this five miles is still in operation, so that the contention cannot be raised that the claim was made too late. I give notice to the minister now that when the five miles is abandoned the town of Sydney will expect to be recouped for their investment in that right of way.


John Dowsley Reid: The diversion is not yer, constructed and the five miles will have to be operated for some time yet, so that the question could not come up during the present session. I will draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to the statement of my hon. friend.
Progress reported.
In motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Monday, May 4, 1914.
The House -met at Three o'clock, the Speaker in the Chair.



Wilfrid Laurier: In reference to the resolutions with regard to the Cana-

dian Northern railway, the business of the House would be facilitated if my right horn, friend the Prime Minister could lay on the table at as early a date as possible the correspondence which must have preceded the resolutions. It is stated in the preamble of these resolutions that the constituent and subsidiary companies are desirous that aid should be given. Therefore there must be petitions, letters or correspondence in the possession of my right hon. friend manifesting their desire. It is stated also in the first section of the resolutions that the stock of all these constituent and subsidiary companies is owned or controlled by the Canadian Northern Railway Company. It would be of advantage and interest to know what are the companies the stock of which is owned and controlled by the Canadian Northern. Then, there are some other matters as to which we should have some information; for instance: what are the liabilities of each one of these companies mentioned in the first part of the second schedule of the resolutions? Another very important question is, when and in what way was the $3,000,000 worth of stock in the Canadian Northern Alberta transferred so that it might be available for the present purposes of the resolutions?


Mr. BORDEN:: I shall expedite the matter as much as possible. I am not sure if there is any correspondence to be brought down. The other details that my right hon. friend has mentioned can, I think, be attended to without much delay.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Will the statement [DOT]which my right hon. friend purposes bringing down show7 the gross earnings of the constituent and subsidiary companies?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure about that. With the consent of the House, I lay upon the table the following documents:
1.	Four copies of the trust deed, dated
June 30,	1903, between the Canadian
Northern Railway Company and the British Empire Trust Company and the National Trust Company, Limited;
2.	Four copies of the trust deed, dated May G, 1910, between the Canadian Northern Railway Company .and the British Empire Trust Company and the National Trust Company, Limited;
3.	Three copies of the trust deed, dated November 19, 1913, between the Canadian Northern Railway Company, Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, and the


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
British Empire Trust Company and the National Trust Company, Limited;
4.	Four copies of a statement showing the floating liabilities of the railway companies embraced in the general title of the Canadian Northern Railway system.
5.	Four copies of a statement of securities pledged as collateral to temporary loans of the Canadian Northern Railway system.
6.	Four copies of a statement showing the engineer's estimate of the cost of completing the Canadian Northern Railway system.

Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) lay on the table of the House a statement showing the deposits of the Farmers Bank on the 31st day of September, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910, distinguishing between deposits subject to call and otherwise.


William Thomas White: Only to-day I received a list of the depositors of the Farmers Bank, which is very lengthy. Unless my hon. friend has some special object in view in distinguishing the different years, I should think the statement I have received would meet his requirements. The statement which he is now asking for would entail very considerable work upon the liquidator.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think that it would entail much work, and it is rathar important to have it. I thought that the annual statements made by the bank to the Finance Department would be available, and that without very much work to the department that information could be obtained. Possibly it might be obtained by going through the Canada Gazette.


William Thomas White: Is my hon. friend referring to the depositors or to the shareholders?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The depositors

the amount on deposit at the end of each year beginning with the year of incorporation, 1906.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend mean a detailed list, or just the 'amount?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, just the amount.


William Thomas White: I have misunderstood my hon. friend; I will have the pleasure in getting the information he requires.


BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
Robert Laird Borden: My Tight hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made inquiry a week or


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
more ago in regard to the legislation which was under consideration and which would probably be brought down this session. 1 think I can give him the information asked for in a fairly definite way. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries purposes to bring down a Bill respecting the Grading and Inspection of Pickled Fish. The Minister of Justice hopes that there will be a report from the Committee on Elections which will result in a Bill to amend in very important particulars the Controverted Elections Act.
It will probably be necessary to make some provision with regard to the lists for elections under the Canada Temperance Act, as that Act has apparently not been taken into consideration in the preparation of the Electoral Franchise Act. Any such legislation [DOT] will not, I think, be of a controversial character The Minister oi Justice has in mind a Bill to amend the Criminal Code, not I think in any very important respect. The Minister of Finance has in hand a Bill to Amend and Consolidate the Civil Service Acts, and a Bill to Provide for the Superannuation of Civil ' Servants. These Bills will be introduced, and it -will depend upon the length of time which they are likely to occupy as to whether or not they will be put through at the present session. We are not desirous of hurrying them through, as we are anxious that they should have the best consideration of the House and of the Senate. The Minister of Finance intends also to introduce a Bill respecting co-operative credit banks. There are also two minor Bills, one to amend the Dominion Notes Act, and the other to amend the Quebec Battlefields Commission Act, which the Minister of Finance has in hand,- The Minister of Public Works will introduce a Bill to amend the Drydock Subsidies Act. The acting Minister of Railways and Canals informs me that it will be necessary to introduce a Bill confirming an agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company, the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Crown respecting the entrance to the Winnipeg terminals, as it appears that there is some agreement which will require the Confirmation of Parliament. The acting Minister of Railw'ays and Canals will also introduce a Bill respecting bridges over the St. John river, which has already been the subject of some discussion in this House. Tiie Secretary of State has had in hand for some time past a Bill respecting the storage and handling of explosives founded more or less upon a Bill introduced by Mr. Temple-man. The question of federal rights and
[ill-. Borden ]
provincial rights has been under consideration in connection with that Bill; otherwise it would have been introduced at an earlier date. It has been found necessary to have communication and correspondence with the provincial Governments in regard to it. The Secretary of States has also in hand a Bill amending the Joint Stock Companies Act. There may be one or two other matters of which I shall speak to my right hon. friend, but of which I am not sure at the moment. These Bills and what there is already on the Order Paper constitute the programme of the Government.
Sii WILFRID LAURIER:: This is the 4th of May, and if we are to take up the programme *which my right hon. friend has already laid before us and the legislation still to be introduced by the Government, we need not look forward to prorogation for some time to come. Some of the legislation mentioned by my right hon. friend is not of a very heavy character; but some of the Bills are important, such as those respecting the Civil Service. I presume these can be introduced this session, and if they cannot be taken up before prorogation, they will be before the public and the public will have the advantage of knowing the intention of the Government respecting that very important legislation. With regard to the other matters, they do not seem to be of a very-contentious character. Pickled fish will not give very much trouble. As to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, when he brings in his Bill he can tell us about the Georgian Bay canal and the French river.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Might I ask the Minister of Finance -whether or not the legislation regarding the Quebec Battlefields Commission is to have any reference to the old forts in the Maritime provinces? That subject was brought to his attention at the last session of Parliament; and I think assurances were given, if not by himself by other members of the Government, to the effect that some action would be taken. A letter reached me this morning inquiring with respect to this matter, and I hope that some attention will be given to it. These old forts are decaying day by day, and some of them will be beyond all recognition very shortly if some action is not taken. I refer to Fort Beausejour, now known as Fort Cumberland, Fort Monkton, and several others. Hon. members from the Maritime provinces section of the country will be familiar with them.


William Thomas White: The matter (has been under consideration, but it has not yet been decided definitely whether or not the work of preservation that my hon. friend has in view will be committed to the Quebec Battlefields Commission. When I bring down the Bill to amend the Quebec Battlefields Commission Act, which has 'been delayed because I have in contemplation some amendments, I shall be able to give a more definite answer to my hon. friend.


'INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. GRAHAM:: May I ask the hon. Minister of Finance when he intends going on with his Insurance Bill, which is a very important one? I have been receiving many inquiries with regard to this Bill, which will affect in a material way the investments of insurance companies, who are very anxious to know what, if anything, is to be done this session with regard to it.


William Thomas White: There are two or three
sections of the Bill, one relating to the matter which my hon. friend has in view, which I think will require very careful consideration before being enacted into law. li is probable that I may allow the Bill to stand in order that they may receive during the recess further consideration in the light of all the facts that may be presented to me as having a bearing upon them. Legislation of that character should not be pressed. When I introduced the Bill I had copies sent to the various insurance companies in order that all possible objections might be brought to my attention. It is probable that the Bill will not be proceeded with this session; but, if I decide otherwise, I will give my hon. friend, ample notice. *


MADOC BANK FAILURE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask the hon.
Minister of Finance if he is aware that another bank has lately failed at Belleville, Ontario, and if it is his intention to reimburse the depositors of that bank?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend no doubt
refers to a private bank-the Madoc Bank?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


William Thomas White: The answer is that the
Government has no intention of reimbursing the depositors, there being no ground upon which the Government can be held liable.
202i


THE MILITIA ESTIMATES.
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Mr. Speaker, I observe that the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) is in his place. Therefore, I desire to say that I received from him- it appears to me some weeks ago-a somewhat formal missive, signed with his own hand, asking me to be present in the Chamber at an early day when he was going to introduce his Estimates. May I ask him if he has gone back on that intention, and when we may expect his Estimates to be taken up for discussion?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The letter was signed with my own hand, Mr. Speaker; I never use a rubber stamp when writing to a member of Parliament. I wish other hon. gentlemen would observe a similar rule. But to come down to the point at issue, I may say that I have been waiting most patiently to enlighten my hon. friend and others who need enlightenment, and to instruct them generally in regard to matters of the Militia Department. But other matters have been on the list in advance, and I have been reluctantly compelled to delay the bripging forward of my Estimates. I hope, however, that by Thursday, if nothing goes wrong, I shall be able to claim the attention of hon. members with my Estimates. I am sure that I shall have a very ardent supporter in my hon. friend. I may say that my reason for sending out the invitation was that there were a number of gentlemen who, I knew, were anxious to be here, and who, fearing that my Estimates might be held up until the last day, were getting rather uneasy, and so I thought I would intimate to them that I would bring these Estimates forward as early as possible.


George Perry Graham: The threat will be carried out on Thursday?


Mr. HUGHES:: I will do my best.


Mr. BELAND:: Will street clothes be
allowed?


James Joseph Hughes: So long as my hon.
friend is clothed and in his right mind, that is all I ask.


PRIVATE BILLS. ' TORONTO, NIAGARA AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 59, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Currie. Mr. Blain in the Chair.
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-short title:
Mr. LANCASTER:: With regard to this Bill, I think an explanation is due the committee. This is an ordinary extension of time for the construction of a railway which has made considerable progress with its work and has spent a good deal of money. In the Railway Committee several sections were added. One of these sections,
I regret to say, I shall feel it my duty to ask the House to strike out, notwithstanding that it was inserted by the committee. The Bill was reprinted as reported by the committee, and the section whose excision I shall move is section 7 of reprint. Let me briefly explain the sections. Section 1 is the ordinary section. In section 2, we made an amendment to rectify an incorrect description of the authority controlling Burlington Beach. The section provided that railway should not be built along the beach without the consent of the corporation of the township of Saltfleet. But Burlington Beach is not under the control of the township of Saltfleet but under the control of the Burlington Beach Commission, that commission receiving its authority from the Provincial Legislature of Ontario. Section 3 enacts the ordinary limitations- two years to commence and three-years ' to complete the unfinished portions. Section 4 of the reprint has been added by the committee. This was done at my instance and was carried unanimously. The effect is to repeal section 10 of the statute of 1903. That section permitted a part of this railway to remain under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, notwithstanding that we were declaring the whole work to be for the general advantage of Canada. It struck me, and the committee agreed with me unanimously, that to expect the Dominion Railway Commission to control a railway, a portion of which was outside of their control and under the control of a provincial legislature, was incongruous. Sections 5, 6, and 7 were inserted at the instance of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell). It is with regard to one of these sections that I intend to move. But I ask the committee not to dispose of my motion at this time. 1 am informed that the hon. member for South Toronto has telegraphed that it is impossible for him to be here to-day, and as it is a section inserted at his instance that I am moving to strike out, in fairness to him I think this committee should hear what he has to say before acting upon my motion. I will pre-
sent my explanation of the case now, because, reluctantly, and much against my will-but I am bound to obey- my doctor's advice-I am unable to be here to-morrow. The condition of my health compels me to get away and not annoy you gentlemen longer, much as I should like to continue.
As to these three sections, I must admit to this House that I do not think I am entirely without blame for the mistake as I believe it to have been-that the committee made in regard to one of these sections. I have always found this House quite unduly inclined, as I think, to have respect for what I do as Chairman of the Railway Committee. So I am not going to leave here without stating frankly the position with regard to this section. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) moved three sections in one paper. Where I am to blame, I think, is in not having insisted that these sections should be separated and put before the committee one by one. I am satisfied that had this been done, the one to which I shall raise objection would not have carried-that	is
only my opinion, of course, and I have no right to say more than enough to make myself clear. These three sections are aimed at protecting the rights of the city of Toronto in regard to street railway franchise.
They are aimed at preventing any railway from coming into Toronto and interfering with the valuable street railway franchises of that city. Sections 5 and 6 are, in my opinion, quite proper for that purpose. I think section 5 as reprinted is waste paper, because, as I understand the Railway Act, the Railway Commission has exactly the same power as section 5 provides that they shall exercise with regard to preventing any railway from interfering with the street railway franchises of the city of Toronto. Section 6, however, is of some use to the city of Toronto, and I am in favour of it in so far as- it provides for the protection of urban rights by preventing a railway from coming into the city under the guise of being a work for the general advantage of Canada, but having in view only the object of doing a purely street railway business. Section 6 of the reprinted Bill is as follows:
Neither the company nor any other company that may acquire or have the right to run over the line of the company within the city of Toronto shall receive, carry or discharge passengers from any point within the limits of the said city to any other point within the limits of the said city; but the powers for the carriage of passenger traffic that may he exercised

by the company or by any other company over the line of the company within the limits of the said city, shall only extend to and include the receiving, forwarding and delivering of through passenger traffic originating outside the limits of the said city for delivery within the limits of the said city, or originating within the limits of the said city for delivery outside the limits of the said city.
iSection 7 of the reprint is a peculiarly worded section. The only argument used in the Eailway Committee in support of that section was that .similar sections were inserted in three other Bills three or four years ago by this House. These were new companies seeking incorporation; they were companies that had done nothing; had no vested rights, had built no part of their right of way and had spent no money. The Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Act is chapter 108 of the Statutes of 1910; the Western Central is chapter 150 of the Statutes of 1911, and the Toronto and Eastern railway is chapter 167 of the Statutes of 1910. Two of these railways were taken over from the province without anything having been done and one was granted a charter by original Act of this House. Nothing had been done when those clauses were inserted; they were given their franchise upon the express condition set forth in those clauses, .and upon no other. I do not think it makes any difference in the year 1914 what my opinion was in the year 1910 or 1911, but at that time I was of the opinion that this very section which I am attacking was not a provision which should go into a Dominion railway corporation Act, because we have a tribunal -to which we have given ample jurisdiction and to which we keep adding every jurisdiction that may possibly be necessary -in the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada, which properly and successfully deals with the question of railway crossings. The difference, however, between those three Acts and the one under consideration 

this, I think, is where the Railway Committee made a mistake; and I take my share of the blame for not having emphasized the point by putting these three sections separately instead of in one, as I did in the Railway Committee upon the motion of the hon. member for South Toronto-the difference is that vested rights do exist in regard to this railway company, but this section puts upon them an embargo in regard to their entering the city of Toronto. What is it that 1 call the embargo? It is that the mayor and aider-men of the city of Toronto, and they alone, can decide that this railway may cross upon
the level of any of the highways in the city of Toronto, notwithstanding that the Board of Railway Commissioners might decide that this railway and others should cross upon the level in one place until a viaduct or underground passage should be constructed. Notwithstanding what the Railway Commission might do in regard to any other railway, the mayor and aldermen of the city of Toronto can permit this railway to run across the streets of the city, upon the highway level. This simply means that any dispute between the railway and the city of Toronto will be decided by the mayor and aldermen of that city. On first principles it would strike me that this provision is absolutely wrong. It is classed as a safeguard for the city of Toronto. It certainly is a safeguard for the city of Toronto, but the trouble is that it is much more than a safeguard. It is somewhat the sort of safeguard which would exist if the provincial Government would pass an Act providing that no lawyer should practise in the city of St. Catharines without my consent. That is a safeguard to me; it protects me wonderfully well, and gives me great power, I dare say, in the city of St. Catharines, but is it the sort of safeguard that I should have? Having regard to a provincially chartered railway coming in contact at the outskirts of the city with a railway which is chartered by Dominion legislation, should the city of Toronto decide whether that Dominion railway should or should not cross its streets? Hon. gentlemen should bear in mind the fact that this Bill, like all other Bills that pass the Railway Committee, contains a full protection to the city of Toronto in that its streets cannot be used for any right of way; that railways cannot be built along or upon any highway level. But authority for these railways to cross must be given by the absolute power and plenary jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, else we cannot be sure that any railway can build from one part of Canada to another. There must be authority here to decide, in the interests of Canada, upon what terms those railways shall cross highway levels, whether the city concerned be Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Calgary, Montreal or any other, because they must cross in order to get from one place to another. The power absolutely to prevent building upon and across highways for right of way purposes is, of course, a very different thing.
I said that this railway had vested rights; let me point out what they are. As I say,

the companies, in the legislation respecting which these provisions were put in, in 1910 and 1911, had done nothing. They have attempted to do nothing; and they tell me they will not attempt to do anything because of the embargo which the city of Toronto has against them whereby they cannot possibly enter that city without the consent of the mayor and aldermen. From these facts hon. gentlemen can draw their own inferences: during the course of three years these three railway companies have attempted to do nothing under their franchises. But the history of this particular Bill is very different. In 1903 the company was incorporated under the name of the Toronto and Hamilton Kailway Company. It was then a line from Toronto to Hamilton and the company were authorized to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise all the rights, powers, stocks and everything else of certain other railways, including the Toronto and Suburban Kailway Company, not under the ordinary provisions allowing amalgamation, as provided by sections 361, et sequentia, of the Kailway Act, but under special provision to buy up the stock and acquire the franchises of these three railways, including the Toronto Suburban. They went ahead and did so. In 1904 an extension was authorized and in 1906 its name was changed to the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway, which is its present name. The company were authorized to extend their lines to. other places, which I need not mention, to increase their capital stock to $6,000,000 and to buy up holus bolus, as I have said, and acquire absolutely these other companies.
The railway then) proceeded. They went first to the Minister of Railways and got their route map approved. Then they went to the Board of Railway Commissioners, and as soon as the matter came before the Railway Committee, realizing its importance, I obtained from the board the record of what took place. I should tell the committee that in 1909 we recognized that the ^railway had partially constructed their road and obtained permission to complete within five years. It was admitted by Parliament that they had commenced their construction and had spent more than 15 per cent and all they required was not time to commence but time to complete. We gave an extension of five years from 1909 which will run out this year. The next year they *went to the Railway Commission and applied for permission to cross these twenty-[Mr. Lancaster.}
five different streets in the outskirts of the city of Toronto, where the Canadian Pacific railway and other railways are crossing the streets upon the level of the highway ; and for the convenience of the public, and I suppose for the purpose of getting the ear and sympathy of the commission, they built their track right alongside the Canadian Pacific railway, so that in making their crossing upon the highways at grade level they crossed at exactly the same places as the Canadian Pacific railway had crossed focr some years and is still crossing. The board heard the matter, and I shall read briefly from the proceedings on the 28th of January, 1910. Mr. Johnston, city solicitor of the city of Toronto, said:
If the board thinks that the entrance should be allowed, then it should be on conditions, that they should provide protection if required, or there should be a condition in the order that if the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks are elevated further west, they should go up on the elevation also. I think with that perhaps the city would be satisfied.
Hon. Mr. Mabee: Is that agreeable?
Mr. Royce, counsel for the railway made some remarks upon the point, I suppose not wanting to give in too easily, and then the ordar was pronounced by the chairman in these words:
One order may go in these twenty-five applications. I think one order will cover the whole of them. They may all be consolidated and one order issued in these terms. Authority given to applicants to construct across the streets mentioned, subject to the following conditions:
1.	That if the tracks of the Canadian Pacific railway are at any future time elevated, then the tracks of the applicants shall be likewise elevated along the course of the line where the right of way lie adjacent to each other, upon such terms as the board may direct.
2.	Protection to be provided at such crossings as the chief engineer of the board may require before the road is opened for traffic, and if protection is recommended at crossings that any other road is interested in, then the apportionment of the cost of such protection is reserved.
Hon. gentlemen who are familiar with the Railway Act and the way we have struggled for the last fourteen years in this House I speak only of the time during which I have been a member-will see the practical result of legislation that was passed here in 1999 for the very purpose of causing the least injury to be done to the fewest possible number of people and the greatest good to be done to the general public by allowing railways to enter into every city and town at the least possible inconvenience and risk of life and property. Here the board, in its jurisdiction,

mak-es the sensible order that as the Canadian Pacific railway is now crossing these streets on the level, the Toronto, Niagara and Western railway may rnn beside it, but that when the Canadian Pacific railway is compelled to raise its tracks, the Toronto, Niagara and Western railway must not use the permission granted to them as a ground for claiming that its tracks should not be elevated. We know that the Railway Act gives ample power to the Board of Railway Commissioners to adjust in a fair and equitable way the cost of such elevations. Under the Act, as this railway was' not constructed before 1909, the whole cost of the elevation must fall on the railway itself. That is the amendment of 1909, that a railway not then constructed, when required by the Board of Railway Commissioners to get off the level, must bear the whole cost; whereas vested rights were recognized in railways already constructed by apportioning the cost oi abolishing the level crossing between the grade crossing fund, the municipality and the railway. So Toronto is quite clear from any responsibility for the cost of elevation, and the Board of Railway Commissioners have done what I would expect them to do, they have looked ahead and made the most wise order they could. They have said to the Toronto, Niagara and Western, you may run on this highway as long as the Canadian Pacific Railway is doing so, you are right alongside the Canadian Pacific railway and are creating no additional danger; but the permission that is now granted you is not to be used in future as a ground for claiming a right to continue to run on the level, and you must -elevate your tracks at your own expense, under the statute of 1909, as soon as we require the Canadian Pacific railway tracks to he elevated. Under a former order of the hoard of December 17, 1909, the railway had acquired the right of entry into the city of Toronto, a distance of two and' a half miles. They asserted, and hon. gentlemen from Toronto did not dispute, that they bought every inch of that right of way for two and a half miles under that order. They have paid soone money for right of way to the city of Toronto itself. We are now asked to drastically interfere with them after they have bought that right of way and expended $1,500,000 in buying the right of way into the city of Toronto and in building towards the city -of Guelph. They asserted, and gentlemen from that locality agreed, that they had
acquired the right of way and had graded it almost the whole of the distance from Toronto to Guelph. I was accused by a former Minister of Railways, who many years since went to his last rest, that I was a socialist and radical because I wanted to amend the Railway Act against the vested interests of the railway companies. With what little common sense I have left I must press upon the House that there are vested rights in this case; the railway company have spent one and a quarter millions of dollars in acquiring a right of way, have graded it and prepared it for the rails, -and it does seem to me that, where they are simply asking for an extension of five years in which to complete construction, it would ;be bad legislation to refuse their request. We are incorporating railways for the advantage of Canada. That means that w-e must give them some power to ^xercise properly, and, under proper authority, to proceed into or through -any city or town, from Halifax to . Vancouver, or else our charters are waste paper. If the city of Toronto has sections of this kind put in with regard to a railw-ay which we take care to say by the other clauses of the Bill shall not do a street railway business, any ordinary Dominion railway can be held up-if you wish to use that term- by the city of Toronto, and we should have the Board of Railway Commissioners dethroned as to their power to decide whether, under any circumstances, a railway should go in on the level of the highway. If we do that with Toronto we -shall soon have to do it with Winnipeg, Hamilton, Montreal and every other city. We can not say that the city of Toronto is to have certain powers in regard to railways going into that city and at the same time allow the rest of the cities ot the Dominion to be at the mercy-if you want to use thait word, but I would prefer the word ' justice '-of the Board of Railway Commissioners. With that statement I leave the matter with the House. There are a lot of elaborations that could be made, but I shall not deal with them now, but, as I leave to-morrow, I do not want to go. aw ay without expressing my opinion on this matter for what it is worth. The House, with undue kindness, as I said at the outset, pays too much respect to my work as Chairman of the Railway Committee. Feeling as I do that my physical condition will not allow me to stand on my feet any longer, I will ask the House to be contented with the statement I have made, although I may he able to

answer some questions from my seat. I move to strike out section 7- of the Bill as reprinted.


George Perry Graham: As I understand it, the Bill was taken up not for final action but to allow the Chairman of the Railway Committee to make a statement concerning it, and to make his motion to strike out certain clauses which he thinks are objectionable. I think I am expressing the unanimous feeling of the House when I say that we deeply regret the indisposition of the Chairman of the Railway Committee. For some years I was ever in attendance on that co n-inittee, and among those who were seldom, if ever, absent was the hon. gentleman now chairman of that committee. Whatever his views were, he always expressed them fearlessly, and I think I am absolutely correct in saying that in no instance did he ever introduce partisanship into a discussion of any measures before that committee. Those with whom I am more intimately acquainted are unanimous in their approval of his conduct as chairman. He has fully maintained the high standard set by his predecessors in that important position, because, Sir, it is an important position. The Chairman of the Railway Committee, perhaps the largest and one of the mrst important, if not the most important, committees of the House, sometimes has a very difficult and delicate task to peiiform. Just before he leaves the Hous* to take a much-needed rest I wish to take this opportunity of expressing what I am sure is the feeling of every member of the House, that his work i-s fully appreciated by the House and, I trust, by the country. If I have any chiding to do, it is that the hon. gentleman has remained at his post so long as he has. It is an example of devotion to duty in the Dominion which certainly rivets the attention of the members of this House and of the people of Canada, Oispecially valuable at this time when there are so many people prone to intimate that men in public life are merely there for some sinister purpose, and are not sincere in their professed devotion to duty.
I think it will not be disputed that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mt. Lancaster) would not have devoted to his private business the attention he has given to the public business of this House during the past few weeks. He has stuck to his post longer than he should have, and our earnest hope is that after a much-needed rest he will [Mr. Lancaster.!
return to his domestic enjoyments fully restored to health.
The Bill which he has discussed this 'afternoon with such clearness
4.	p.m. has a delicate side to it, and is one that cannot be disposed of offhand. Those of us who were not in the committee, perhaps do not understand the situation as clearly as we shall when the hon. member foir South Toronto (M,r. Mac-donell) has given his views. For myself, I am almost egotistical enough to think I understand it as it is a>
twin brother to several others with which I have had to deal. The city of Toronto, like all large centres of population, has its difficulties and problems to solve. Sometimes I think its representatives endeavour to solve them perhaps too strictly along the lines of local views and without the widest outlook on the transportation problems of the Dominion-but it is not my purpose to criticise. We have had the statement of the Chairman of the Railway Committee and I think we should not put him to any more work answering questions. We shall be able to give his argument full weight when the matter comes up for final action, and I would now suggest that we report progress to discuss this matter at another time.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Before the proposal is
put, I would like to say that only one hour is allowed for private Bills to-morrow night, and this one may provoke considerable discussion. The Bill affects very considerably the counties of Halton, Waterloo, Perth, Wentworth, Peel, Wellington, and several other counties; and the position is a very peculiar one. I want to endorse as strongly as I can the motion of the Chairman of the Railway Committee that clause 7 be stricken out. The railway has now been graded from the westerly limit of Toronto to and through Guelph, a distance of fifty miles. It has also been surveyed, and the right of way purchased, on to Berlin. In some places steel has 'been laid. A large amount of money has been spent on the project, but the whole thing will be worthless unless we can get an entrance into the city of Toronto. Going home during the present session, 1 have been asked time and again how this matter stood; and while I agree that the city of Toronto should have reasonable protection for its streets, in this instance we can make out a case of proprietary or vested rights. I hope when the Bill comes up again we shall have a free and full discussion as the people outside

Toronto desire an entrance into that city. To my mind. Toronto has no right to deny that entrance.


John Dowsley Reid: I would move that the committee rise and report progress.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I might give a word or two of explanation in regard to three or four other sections of the Bill, unless the committee choo.se to pass them on my statement that they are all right. The other sections are the standard municipal clauses adjusted to this Bill so as to give the city of Toronto, and every other municipality, ample protection of their highways against telegraph and telephone lines, lines for the purpose of distributing electrical energy, and things of that kind.
Progress reported.


PATENT OP RUDOLF GOLDSCHMIDT.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 135, respecting a certain patent of Rudolf Goldschmidt.-Mr.	Fripp. Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 1-authority for variation of conditions as to manufacture, etc., in Canada:
Martin Burrell: The Bill deals with the patent of an invention with regard to wireless telegraphy. It was not put under the compulsory provision clause of the Patent Act, and the patent was allowed to lapse in February, 1912. It has taken a great many years to perfect this invention and to bring it up to the point at which it can be usefully employed. A large amount of money has been spent upon it, and they have now got it to the point where it can be practically exploited all over the world. The Bill received a good deal of consideration in the Senate, and the Senate came to the conclusion that the patent should be put under the compulsory clause of the Patent Act. The Bill was held up for a time because the patent is associated more or less with the Marconi patents with regard to wireless telegraphy. The Government has the right to use those patents, and we were not sure whether this particular patent was to be exempted from the privilege of the Government use. Consequently, the department took objection. That objection has been removed because the parties have agreed that it comes under the general list of Marconi patents and that the Government has the right to use it. As far as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Marine and
Fisheries are concerned, they have no objection to the Bill.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


FREDERICTON AND GRAND LAKE COAL AND RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 107, respecting the Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Fowler.
On section 1-declaratory:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: This Bill has been entirely recast. It was introduced apparently with an entirely wrong conception of the legislation that was required for the purpose desired. They introduced a Bill asking us to declare a certain provincial railway in New Brunswick to be a work for the general advantage of Canada and then to allow them to amalgamate with another railway under section 361 of the Railway Act. It struck me at once that there must be some reason why we should take away a franchise from the province of New Brunswick, and a most peculiar franchise it is, too, and make Dominion legislation of a private Act of the New Brunswick Legislature, the like of which I never saw, in a great many respects, in any Dominion legislation. I said to the promoters of the Bill: You must either try to make the Bill contain such a power as we would want you to have, or tell me frankly what you want. It seems that all they wanted to do was to make an amalgamation of the lines under section 361 and the following sections of the Railway Act; so I had the Bill recast. The effect simply is that we strike out the clause taking that railway over and making it a work for the general advantage of Canada and permitting the railway, of whose rights we are the custodians and over whom we must exercise control, that is the Canadian Pacific railway, to take a lease under the amalgamation clauses of the Railway Act.


George Perry Graham: As I understand, whatever powers this company has, it gets from the New Brunswick Legislature?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The Legislature can give it whatever powers it likes. As far as we are concerned, we give the Canadian Pacific Railway Company power to carry out its share of the bargain which this other company wishes to make.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, and the other
company must get its power from its own authority. -
* Mr. EMMERSON:	Does that bring it
under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Railway Commission will have to sanction the lease under the provision of section 361 and following sections of the Railway Act. We say that the Railway Commission may grant such a lease if they comply with the Act. But, of course, as the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Graham) says, the lease is no good on the part of the lessors unless their own guardian, the New Brunswick Legislature, permit them to make it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to know whether, under the proposed legislation, this company is brought under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission of Canada. I understand the company has been incorporated under the laws of New Brunswick. The railway was constructed, it has since been leased by the Canadian Pacific railway, and the Canadian Pacific railway now want some legislation in respect to the company. I fancy they propose operating it under the name of the Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company. In reality they will be the operators. Does this legislation enable the Board of Railway Commissioners to have control of the rates which are to prevail on this road?
Mr. LANCASTER In my opinion, under the provision, it does. The Railway Act is quite clear on that point.


George Perry Graham: I think the company is under the Act and not under the board.
Mr.	EMMERSON:	It is	a	matter of
very great importance that this railway should be operated under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
Mr.	LANCASTER:	That	is	what the
Canadian Pacific railway thinks in agreeing to this section.
Mr.	EMMERSON:	It is	a	coal road
running in connection	with the coal mines
in the county of Queens. It connects with another railway formerly known as the Central of New Brunswick, which in its turn connects with the Intercolonial at Norton in Kings county. The system will now extend from Norton on the Intercolonial through Chipman on to Minto, thence

to Fredericton. I was not in the Railway Committee the day the Bill was under consideration, and I would like to have some assurance that this railway will come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The only assurance
I can give my hon. friend is my opinion, which is not given ex cathedra at all, but it was also the opinion of the Canadian Pacific r'ailway in promoting this Bill. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company cannot obtain a lease until they get permission. When they get permission they make a lease and take it to the Board of Railway Commissioners, which, under sections 361, 362 and so on of the Railway Act, has the power to say that in its opinion this is e. proper lease for the Canadian Pacific railway to take from this company. In my humble opinion-and I am fortified by decisions as well as toy the actual language of the Act-the moment a Dominion railway operates trains over the lines of another railway, under a lease or otherwise, it comes under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Supposing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company continued to operate this road under the name of the Fredericton and Grand .Lake Coal and Railway Company, and the name of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company did not appear openly -in connection with the traffic, in what way could the Board of Railway Commissioners have jurisdiction over the freight tariffs that be filed with the Railway Commission by the Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Any municipality or anybody interested in that locality would only have to go to the Board of Railway Commissioners and say: You have on record that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is leasing this road and is running it, and this is Canadian Pacific traffic. On receiving proof of that, the Board of Railway Commissioners would at once have jurisdiction. The board would k :ow that the Canadian- Pacific Railway Company was -actually operating the road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know whether or not this matter was discussed in the Railway Committee. If it w-as, I withdraw any opposition. I would be satisfied if the committee, having considered the question, determined that under the lease the opera-

tion of the road came unden: the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Possibly my hon. friend is aware of the fact that this point was considered in the committee.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I thought I said that. What happened was this: I pointed out, as I said in the beginning, that to ask us to take over the road and make it a work for the general advantage of Canada would be simply ridiculous. The counsel for the Canadian Pacific railway had several conferences with me about the matter. I said:
' What is it you really want to do and I will help you to do it properly? He said: 'We simply want to get a lease under the amalgamating clauses of the Railway Act.'
I said. 'If you operate the road, the Board of Railway Commissioners will have control Over you.' He wanted to consult his superior counsel at Montreal in regard to the matter. After some correspondence back and forth, they finally agreed to this section. I personally have no doubt in regard to the matter, but I do not want to force my opinion upon the committee. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company believed that in operating this road they will be under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Perry Graham: What did the Railway
Committee think?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They agreed with me, so far as .I could tell.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Frederick Joseph Campbell.-Mr. Middlebro.

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

Mr. PROULX:: Is it the policy of the Interior Department or the Government to set up the statute of limitations as a bar to the right of Lord Selkirk's pioneer settlers of Manitoba, who have been deprived of the power of protecting their civil rights through the failure of the Crown to take over the custody of the land registers and state papers of Lord Selkirk's esiate from 1812 to 1835, at the transfer of that country to Canada in 1870?


Mr. ROCHE:: The Department of the
Interior is not aware of any further rights of Lord Selkirk's pioneer settlers of Manitoba, nor is it aware that such settlers have been deprived of the power to protect their civil rights. There is no policy or intention to set up any statute of limitations in the matter.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE SUPPLIES.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Did Messrs. C. Livingston & Bros., of Kingston, ever have a written contract with the Government for the supplying of clothing and similar articles to the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario?
2.	If so, what was the date of that contract, and how long was it to run?
3.	Is the contract at present in force?
4.	If it is not in force, when did it cease to be in force, and for what reason?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The contract was dated August 9, 1911, and was to continue in force until June 30, 1915, and thereafter from year to year. It was terminable at any 30th June after 1914, provided six months' notice to that effect was given by either of the parties thereto. A further condition of the contract was that it might be annulled at -any time if the conditions thereof were not complied with.
3.	No.
4.	It ceased to be in force from April 1, 1912; cancelled by letter of that date addressed to Charles Livingston; and confirmed by Order in Council dated May 30, 1912.


LIQUOR SELLING TO INDIANS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What fines were collected from the Seven Islands Indians agency, Quebec, for sale of liquors to the Indians of the Montagnais hand reserve, during the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?
2.	From whom were said fines collected?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	The following fines were collected from the Seven Islands Indian Agency, Quebec, for sale of liquors to Indians during the years 1912, 1913 and 1914:
1912: None.
1913:	Noel Mainville, $50; Samuel
Lafontaine, $100; Mrs. Jos. Lapointe, $700; Alfred Marquis, $50; Wm. Robichaud, $50; A. J. Vennette, $100; Jos. Perrault, $200; Pierre Mainville, $50; Phil Ferguson, $50; Thos. Lavallie, $50; Everald Boudreau, $50; total, $1,450.
1914: None.
2.	From the above-named persons.


HALIFAX NAVAL COLLEGE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Department of Naval Service issued new regulations relating to the internal administration of the Naval College at Halifax, N.S.?
2.	If so, do these regulations provide that parents or guardians of cadets receiving instructions at that college must in future declare in writing that their son or ward will join the Canadian Naval Service on leaving the college?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, in the reserve. These regulations were published in the Canada Gazette on 25th April, 1914, and have been laid on tlhe table of the House.


ST. ARMAND STATION RURAL MAIL.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	How many times were tenders called for rural mail route No. 2, St. Armand station, county of Missisquoi?
2.	What were the names of the tenderers on each occasion, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Has a contract been let for this route, and when will the service commence?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. Tenders were invited for this route once only.
2 and 3. The contract arrangements for this route and for the services of Philips-burg and St. Armand Station post offices which must he made before the rural route can be established, have not been completed. The information will be given when the matter has been settled and the contract executed.


REIMBURSEMENT OF BANK DEPOSITORS.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the intention of the Government to reimburse the depositors of the Ville Marie Bank, the Banque St. Jean and the Banque du Peuple?


William Thomas White: No,


TATAMAGOUCHE AND BRULE RURAL MAIL.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has a rural mail delivery route been established between Tatamagouche and Brulfi, county of Colchester?
2.	Have tenders been called for the mail contract?
3.	If not, will tenders be called?
4.	Who is the present carrier and what is paid him?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. Application has -been made lor the establishment of a rural mail delivery service from Tatamagouche, N.S., to Wal-degrave, Brule (or Brule Shore) and Sand-
[Mr. Roche, l
ville, and the matter is now under inquiry, and until sudh inquiry is completed and the inspector's report is received, the Postmaster General is unable to say whether or not the service will 'be authorized.
2, 3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


INDIANS, KINGS COUNTY, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.KYTE:
1.	How many Indians are mere in the county of Kings, N.S.?
2.	In what parts of Kings county and in what numbers are such Indians located?
3.	How many Indians were resident in Kings county in 1901 or 1902, and in what districts in that year were they located, and in what numbers?
4.	Who was the Indian medical attendant in Kings county, N.S., prior to 1911, and what remuneration did he receive annually for such services ?
Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Ninety-three.
2.	Kings county Indians are located at the following places, but there is no record of the number resident at each place: Aylesford, Berwick, Bisbopville, Blue Mountain, Brooklyn Corner, Cambridge, Gasperaux, Kentville.
3.	Seventy-four in the year 1911; Kentville 20, Berwick 10, Blue Mountain 6, Greenland 6, Middleton 10, Kingston 7, Gaspereaux 10, Black Rock 5.
4.	H. Jacques, M.D. $50 per annum.


SERVICES OF ALFRED BISHOP.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Upon what terms and conditions may the services of Alfred Bishop, of the Kentville Horticultural Station, be made available to address farmers' meetings in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	What are the special subjects in agriculture or horticulture upon which said Alfred Bishop is qualified to give instructions to farmers?
3.	What public addresses, if any, have been made by said Alfred Bishop from the date of his appointment to March 31, 1914?
4.	Will applications for the services of said Alfred Bishop be considered by the Department of Agriculture in the order in which the same are received?
5.	What requests have been made to the department or any official thereof to secure the services of said Alfred Bishop as a lecturer, instructor or speaker on agriculture or horticulture since his appointment?
6.	By what authority did said Alfred Bishop devote his time during the months of September and October, 1913, to running a municipal election in the county of Kings?
7.	What deduction was made from the wages or salary of said Alfred Bishop during the time he was engaged in running a municipal election in Kinga county during the year 1913?
8.	Is it part of the duty of said Alfred Bishop to attend revisors' courts?

9.	Is any deduction made from his wages for time spent attending revisors* courts?
10.	From whom is said Alfred Bishop required to obtain leave of absence from his duties at said station?


Martin Burrell: X. Upon special application 'being made to tbe superintendent, Mr. W. S. Blair. Such services are rendered free of all cost to the society or association receiving the same. It may 'be stated, however, that farm foremen are not considered as technical officers and are rarely, if ever, asked for or sent on such missions.
2.	Mr. Bishop is the farm foreman at the Kentville Experimental Station and as such, is not necessarily an expert in any particular subject in agriculture or horticulture.
3.	None, so far as the department is aware.
4.	Applications for the services of Mr. Bishop as lecturer will not be entertained.
5.	None.
6.	Mr. Bishop asked the superintendent, Mr. Blair, for one day off, Tuesday, October 22, 1913, to attend to private business. Any other absences in the month of September and October were not authorized.
7.	No deductions were made from Mr. Bishop's wages for absence on any account, during 1913.
8.	No.
9.	No deduction has been made from Mr. Bishop's wages for absence on any account.
10.	From the superintendent, Mr. W. S. Blair.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has J. R. Denison, postmaster of Richmond, Quebec, been dismissed? If so, on what grounds ?
2.	Was an investigation held? If so, by whom and did Mr. Denison have an opportunity of defending himself? If not, why not?
3.	Has a new postmaster been appointed? If so, what is his name and who recommended his appointment?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes. The management of the office was very unsatisfactory.
2.	Serious complaints were made in regard to the management of the office and an official investigation was held. The inspector's report showed that a change in the postmastership was necessary.
3.	A new postmaster has been appointed by the direction of the Postmaster General. His name is Wm. E. Mclver.


John Howard Sinclair: X.. With reference to the reply given on April 20 to questions relating to the dismissal of
Charles McPherson, postmaster at North Riverside, Guysborough county, and with further reference to a letter received by the said postmaster from an officer of the Post Office Department, stating that a complaint charging partisanship against said postmaster had been received, what is the name of the party or parties who made such complaint?
2.	What is the date of such complaint?
3.	Who has been appointed his successor?
4.	Who recommended said successor?


Mr. PELLETIER:: It was not a matter of complaint against the postmaster. It was a question for the Post Office Department to maintain or cancel an appointment made by a government after it had been defeated.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of all correspondence exchanged by and with the Department of Inland Revenue and the late J. S. Mousseau and A. M. Caldwell, New Carlisle, Quebec, and David Champoux, Campbellton, N.B., or Resti-gouche, Quebec, in connection with the dismissal of Arthur B. Caldwell, assistant inspector of Weights and Measures, district of Quebec.
Mr. Henderson.-For a return showing the number of half-yearly renewal term policies or certificates of insurance issued by the Federal Life Assurance Company of Canada and now in force, with the names and present post office addresses of the holders of the said policies or certificates of insurance.
Mr. Lemieux.-For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, accounts anu receipts concerning advances made to the Montagnais band of Indians through the agency of Seven Islands, Quebec.
Mr. MacNutt.-For a copy of all correspondence exchanged by and with the Department of Public Works or the Post Office Department, relating to an application or applications for a post office building at the town of Melville, province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Tobin.-For a copy of all complaints and other documents bearing upon the dismissal of J. R. Denison as postmaster of Richmond, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.
Mr. W. A. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, complaints, pay-rolls, vouchers and all other documents in any way connected with the expenditure of ?500 during the year 1913 on Finlay Point wharf, Inverness county.
Mr. Sinclair..-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions, including the signatures of such petitions, and all other documents and papers in the possession of the Department of Trade and Commerce, or the minister of said department, or in the possession of the Prime Minister, relating to any application made between November 1, 1913, and date hereof by parties in Nova Scotia asking for Government ' assistance towards the transportation of fresh fish between ports in Nova Scotia and the United States.
Mr. Kyte.-For all correspondence relating to the services of Alfred Bishop, of the Kent-
[Stage Direction]
ville Horticultural Station, before and since his appointment.
Mr. Lemieux.-For a return showing the names of the 82 tenderers for the carrying of the mails between Baie St. Paul and Murray Bay, county of Charlevoix, and the amount of the tender in each case.

George William Kyte: I desire to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence to a message which I have just received to the effect that the Royal Canadian band paraded the streets of Halifax in full uniform Saturday evening to celebrate the discharge of a certain gentleman who was imprisoned for a short period for contempt of the Legislature of Nova Scotia.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. gentleman is out of order.


George William Kyte: I desire to ask the hon. Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


MORNING SITTINGS.
[Stage Direction]
„ Mr. BORDEN moved:
That on and from Tuesday next, the 5th 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 be an intermission from one to three o'clock p.m.
Wilfrid Laurier: I appreciate
the fact that at this stage of the session everybody desires to make as much headway as possible towards prorogation, but I submit to my hon. friend that this motion should not be pressed to-day. The moment we have before us information as to the legislation that is to be brought down, we shall be ready for that resolution, but not before. If my hon. friend will hasten business and bring down as soon as possible all the legislation that he intends to introduce, we will do all we can to hasten matters.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to assure the right hon. gentleman that I have done the best I could. There seems to be some force, however, in what he suggests with regard to the matter, and I will not press the motion to-day. I will endeavour to impress upon the ministers the importance of getting all the legislation down.
Motion stands.


DRAWBACK ON PIG-IRON.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blain in the Chair:
[Mr. Kyte.l
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council, may under regulations made for the purpose, allow, on the exportation of goods manufactured in Canada and into the manufacture of which pig-iron imported into Canada mixed with pig-iron made in Canada has entered, a drawback, equal to the duty paid, less such deductions therefrom as is provided in such regulations, on all pig-iron imported and used by the manufacturer of such goods in manufacturing the goods exported and other goods, and the drawback may be computed on the total quantity of pig-iron, including pig-iron made as aforesaid, entering into such exported goods.
George Perry Graham: Would the minister state just what that change is?


William Thomas White: I explained the reasons for this legislation upon the occasion of the Budget speech, but I have prepared a succinct statement, which is as follows:
The object of this amendment is to enable drawback to be paid on pig-iron used in articles exported, but not exceeding the weight imported, and entered for duty.
When manufacturing the same article for export and for home consumption, it is found impracticable to keep the melts of foreign and domestic iron separate, so that only foreign pig-iron will be used in the article exported, and domestic pig-iron in the like article for home consumption.
The proposed amendment is designed to enable drawback to be paid to the extent of the weight of pig-iron used in the exported article, but not in excess of the quantity imported, and on which duty has been paid.
Section 288 of the Customs Act, which is amended, is as follows:
The Governor in Council may, under regulations made for that purpose, allow on the exportation of goods which have been imported into Canada, and on which a duty of customs has been paid, a drawback equal to the duty so paid with such deductions therefrom as is provided in such regulations.
In the administration of this drawback provision the Customs Department has found itself confronted with a difficulty which really makes it in the interest of Canadian manufacturers who manufacture for export as well as for home consumption to purchase all their pig-iron abroad. I can best illustrate to the House by a concrete example. Let us say that a manufacturer of articles into which pig-iron enters, for home consumption as well as for export, requires 30,000 tons of pig-iron during the year for his entire business, both domestic and export. Let us say that he buys 10,000 tons of pig-iron from the United States and 20,000 tons of domestic pig-iron; and let us assume that he exports
10,000	tons of manufactured product made from pig-iron. He is entitled to a drawback in respect of duties paid upon pig-

iron which has entered into his export product, 10,000 tons. The Customs Department will not allow him a drawback to the amount of the duty paid upon the 10,000 tons of pig-iron which he has imported from the United States because, they say that in the melts (a technical term) in his manufacturing of both his domestic and his foreign products he has combined the .foreign pig-iron and domestic pig-iron in the proportion of one and two. They therefore will allow him only one-thirc^ of the duties which he' has paid upon the
10.000	tons of imported pig-iron by way of drawback; that is to say, they will allow him the duty paid in respect of 3,333 tons only, although he has melted 10,000 tons of American pig-iron and has imported
10.000	tons of his manufactured product.
The manufacturer, therefore, whose case we have under consideration, says; Well, I will buy all my pig-iron, the whole 30,000 tons, in the United States, because then no question can possibly arise as to confusion in the melts; I can buy the 20,000 tons in the United States just as cheaply as T can in Canada, and I can buy the 10,000 tons just as cheaply in the United States as	I can in Canada,	and	therefore I will	buy it	all	there.
He gets a drawback in respect of the duties paid on 10,000 tons, because he has used
10.000	tons of imported pig-iron in the product which he has exported, and no question arises as to the confusion of the metals in the melts. This matter was brought to our attention by the iron and steel companies of Canada. They said-and I think the matter is beyond question-'that by reason of the administration of the drawback provision by the Customs Department in the past, they had been debarred from making sales to manufacturers who use pig-iron in their production; they requested that this change be made whereby a rebate of duty will be given in respect of the entire amount of pig-iron imported from abroad, provided the drawback does not exceed the total amount of duty paid upon the pig-iron imported by a manufacturer and entering into his exported product.
31r. EMMEESON: What is the duty on pig-iron imported into Canada?


William Thomas White: Two dollars and a half,
general.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Newfoundland comes
under the British preference?


William Thomas White: The British preferential
on pig iron is $1.50.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Can the minister give us the regulations as they now stand?


William Thomas White: I have not the regulations before me, but I may say-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If goods made in Canada, and exported, are made of imported pig-iron then there is a rebate. Do I understand that the rebate is only applicable to goods made in Canada, and exported therefrom, and into which foreign pig-iron enters?


William Thomas White: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The rebate does not
apply to goods made in Canada and sold in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: The explanation, as my hon. friend says, is very technical. As I understand it, the manufacturer who buys 10,000 tons of pig-iron in the United States gets a rebate if my hon. friend is sure that 10,000 tons goes into the product he exports.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is substantially stating the facts although, perhaps, he is generalizing. I do not know whether my right hon. friend approves of the legislation or not, but he sees the alternative. The alternative is that the manufacturer buys all his pig-iron in the United States, and then if he exports 10,000 tons of product made from pig-iron, he gets a drawback upon the duties paid on 10,000 tons. Of course if he bought the entire 30,000 tons from the United States, no question could arise as to the melting of that with Canadian pig-iron. I am told that the Massey-Harris Company has bought its pig-iron outside of Canada for years, and the same thing has also been brought to my attention in connection with the International Harvester Company.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Massey-
Harris Company could not have bought it in the United States with the object of getting a rebate because they get a rebate both on their domestic and foreign ore.


William Thomas White: Take the case of the International Harvester Company of Hamilton. It has been represented to me by the Steel Company of Canada, and by the International Harvester people themselves, that if the drawback provision were amended the latter would buy some of their pig-iron from the Steel Company of Canada in Hamilton, who are neighbours to them-just across the street, so to speak. But until this drawback provision is amended it pays the International Harvester Company to

buy all their pig-iron in the United States. On the face of it, this legislation would seem to be a disadvantage to the Canadian iron and steel companies, but it is not so. They have asked for it, and I think the illustration shows clearly that it will be in the interest of the iron and steel companies of Canada to have this legislation enacted, because it will put them in a favourable position for the sale of their product to manufacturers who require it. At the present time the drawback regulations are to their disadvantage.


William John Macdonald: If that is the end the minister wishes to attain, he is not attaining it at all according to the explanation he has given to the House.


William Thomas White: Why not?


William John Macdonald: Because my hon.
friend says that to-day the Cana-
5 p.m. dian manufacturer who imports
10,000	tons of pig-iron from the United States and takes at the same time
20.000	tons from the Canadian manufacturer, and uses that in the productirr cf exported goods, is not able to get a full drawback on the 10,000 tons from the United States, but only one-third of the drawback. My hon. friend is making it easier for him to get the full drawback on the 10,000 tons of imported product.


William Thomas White: I took a hypothetical case which, by reason of the administration of the drawback provision in the Customs Act, could not actually arise.


William John Macdonald: Why does not my
hon. friend take an actual case? His hypothetical one disproves the argument in favour of the proposed legislation.


William Thomas White: If the manufacturer buys
20.000	tons in Canada and 10,000 tons from abroad and gets only one-third drawback, it might be argued that that was an advantage to the Canadian iron manufacturer; but as a matter of fact it is to their interest to buy all their pig-iron from the United States, and, as I have said, the Massey-Harris Company does it.


William John Macdonald: The Massey-Harris
Company used to buy their pig-iron from the Nova Scotia Company in my county. They took almost the total output of the concern for the manufacture of agricultural implements.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Pig-iron?


William John Macdonald: Pig-iron and steel
products, which come under these drawbacks:. But they have been purchasing in the United States for a number of years and they apparently do not want to purchase in Canada. It is one of the anomalies of the Massey-Harris people that they are coming here asking protection when they do not show the slightest interest in behalf of the people who produce their raw material and are continually pressing the Minister of Finance, as they pressed the previous Minister of Finance, to give them the widest opportunities of going out and getting their raw material in the United States which they do. I would like to get from the Minister of Finance some clear explanation as to how this, proposition is going to be worked out. My hon. friend will be bound to admit, that, having regard to the hypothetical case which he submitted to the House, the effect of this legislation he is now proposing is to make it easier and more natural for the Canadian manufacturer to go to the United States to get the whole of the pig-iron that he wants than even it is now.


William Thomas White: He is going there now; I want to make it in his interest not to go.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend was dealing with a case in which a Canadian manufacturer was purchasing one-third of his necessities in the United States and two-thirds in Canada. He said that if the manufacturer did that he would only be able to get one-third of the duty lie had paid on 10,000 tons of pig-iron, taking the hypothetical case, whereas, under this new legislation he would be able to get the whole of the duty paid on the 10,000 tons.


William Thomas White: Let us assume that the
manufacturer, as in the hypothetical case, purchased 20,000 tons of pig-iron in Canada and 10,000 in the United States and, as in the hypothetical case, got a drawback of duties in respect of only 3,333 tons; I would ask my hon. friend what he would do next year. Next year, after having bought
10,000	in the United States and 20,000 in Canada and finding that he only got a rebate of duty in respect to 3,333 tons, he would do precisely what the manufacturers are doing to-day; he would find that it paid him better to buy his entire 30,000 tons in the United States and he would do so.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend has made clear what he failed to make clear before. My hon. friend takes the ground that, because of the administration of the Cu.s-

toms Department and interpretation of the law as to the proportion of drawback that he is entitled to upon the material that he lias purchased, the manufacturer has been induced to go to the United States in order that there might be no question as to the proportion.


William Thomas White: Exactly.


William John Macdonald: Where, in the province of Ontario, is pig-iron manufactured and sold to other manufacturers?


William Thomas White: In Hamilton.


William John Macdonald: In Hamilton alone?


William Thomas White: Pig-iron was manufactured at Midland and charcoal iron at Deseronto and Parry Sound. Pig-iron is manufactured^ at Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie.


William John Macdonald: For sale?


William Thomas White: For sale.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: How does the Government establish the quantity of pig-iron that has been imported and which has entered into the manufacture of different articles which are exported? Does it take the manufacturer's word?


William Thomas White: A customs officer visits the establishment of the manufacturer making application for drawback, examines his records, ascertains the amount of his export product, and the amount of raw material imported from various sources that has entered into that product, and makes the necessary calculation.


Wilfrid Laurier: The more this matter is explained the more mysterious it seems to be. The present law is that the manufacturer who imports iron from the United States gets a drawback of one-third when manufactured and exported, and my hon. friend argues that he is encouraged to buy more iron in the United States. My hon. friend is going to prevent him now from doing that. He is going to take away the inducement to purchase iron in the United States by increasing the bounty from one-third to three-thirds. I do not know how that will work out, but it seems to me that it will work out according to ordinary rules of common sense. I do not object to the legislation of my hon. friend, because, like my hon. friend behind me (Air. Michael Glark), I am in favour of a low tariff, and if this contributes to a lowering of the tariff I shall not object to it. But, unfortunately, it is not the Cana-203
dian consumer who will benefit by it, but the foreign consumer.


James Arthurs: Representing a county interested in the pig-iron industry, I have only one objection to this proposed legislation, and it is that it does not go far enough. I think that when you are granting a bonus, or a rebate, on articles manufactured out of Canadian iron and steel, you should also give a bonus of an equal amount for the whole of the pig-iron that is manufactured in Canada and goes into the construction of these implements.


Michael Clark: Where will you get the money?


James Arthurs: The money is easily got. Any man who understands the question thoroughly can easily see what the minister is trying to do by this legislation. For instance, if a manufacturer imports any number of tons of pig-iron for the manufacture of implements to be exported from Canada, he receives a bounty for exactly that amount. If, on the other hand, he imports only one-third of the iron entering into these implements, he only gets, under-the present regulation, one-third of the rebate. The distinction, is that the man importing the total amount of pig-iron entering into the exported articles receives under the present law 99 per cent of the customs duty paid by him on that imported pig-iron. Thus, the man who imports one-third of his pig-iron and uses two-thirds Canadian pig-iron, according to the legislation now in force, is handicapped as compared with the man who imports the whole quantity. That is ,the present situation, and these are the conditions that we have to meet. If a manufacturer, using 100,000 tons of pig-iron a year, imports that pig-iron from the United States, he gets a rebate on 100,000 tons. If, on the other hand, he uses
100,000	tons for export, of which any amount is purchased from Canadian smelters, he only gets a rebate for the amount on which he has paid duty, or, for the amount that he has purchased from the United States. This resolution, as I understand it, is to allow a man to receive -a rebate to the extent of his exported product. If he exports 10,000 tons of manufactured goods, and if he has imported -from the United States 10,000 tons of pig-iron, he receives a rebate upon the whole of it, notwithstanding the fact that he may have purchased 50,000 tons of Canadian ore in the meantime and used it in the production of



exactly similar implements. My only objection is. that I believe that any one engaged in exactly similar business, using exactly the same material, and manufacturing in all probability similar products, should receive exactly the same treatment as the man who imports from the United States, and that is all that the minister is asking for at the present time.
He is simply asking that the manufacturer who is honest enough, Canadian enough, to buy as much as possible in Canada should receive the same treatment as the manufacturer who imports entirely from the United States.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend has forgotten the point that the manufacturer can solve the problem by not importing any of it from the United States. Then he will not require to ask for any drawback.


William Thomas White: The price is better.


William John Macdonald: Then, how is my hon. friend to assist the manufacturer of pig-iron in Canada by giving the full drawback to the person who goes to the United States to purchase pig-iron, when he can get it cheaper there than in Canada, even when handicapped by the fact that he can get only one-third of the duty back? Under the existing legislation, the Internationa] Harvester Company, for example, if they want to encourage Canadian production of pig-iron, can go to my hon. friend's (Mr. Arthurs) constituency and buy it. If they buy it in the United States, they get only one-third of the drawback on the duty. My hon. friend is proposing to give back the whole of the duty. The consequence will be that if the manufacturers can get pig-iron cheaper in the United States, they will buy it in the United States. That is what the Massey-Harris people did. While clamouring for the maintenance of the duty on their products, and asserting that they could not make goods wholesale in Canada without the assistance of the duty, they were purchasing all, their raw material in the United States. If these manufacturers who purchase pig-iron for raw material are patriotic and Canadian enough to encourage Canadian industries, they will purchase all their pig-iron in Canada without asking my hon. friend to give them the whole drawback and thus remove all the impediments which lie between them and purchasing in the United States. When the Hon. Mr. Fielding was Minister of Finance, he had to defend the maintenance of bounties on pig-iron; and I heard many hon.

members from the province of Ontario denounce the then Government for giving bounties to that industry.


James Arthurs: Is my hon. friend in favour of bounties now'?


William John Macdonald: I was in favour of a bounty on pig-iron at the time when my hon. friends were opposing it in this House, and were going up and down the province of Ontario saying that the revenues of Canada wmuld be used by the manufacturers of pig-iron to build private yachts. If my hon. friend will turn to 'Hansard' of 1900 he will find that several hon. members who have seats in the House to-day turned their eyes askance at any gentleman on this side who said anything in regard to a duty on iron, although their statements were not nearly so extreme as what my hon. friends said when the late Government's proposals in respect to iron were brought dowm. My hon. friend (Mr. White), in dealing with this question of the duty on iron, has made a tariff for a few friends of his in the province of Ontario.


William Thomas White: What about wire rods?


William John Macdonald: Were it not for the fact- that wire rods happen to be manufactured in the province of Nova Scotia, my hon. friend w'ould have absolutely disregarded the iron industry in that province, where iron was first made in the Dominion. My hon. friend has been working for the Steel Company of Canada and one or two industries in the province of Ontario w'hich have peculiar interest for him, and he is entirely disregarding the interest of the .people in the other provinces of Canada.


William Thomas White: What complaint or suggestion has my hon. friend to make- because I have not heard from him as yet -in regard to the change in the iron and steel schedule?


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend, in response to the requests made to him by the iron and steel people throughout this country, has so framed the schedule that, with the exception of the one item of wire rods, which happens to be manufactured in the province of Nova Scotia, his iron and steel changes have been made for his particular friends in the province of Ontario, and he knows it.


William Thomas White: I fail entirely to follow my hon. friend. He is a member of this

House; and, if he has any criticisms to make of the Budget proposals in respect to the tariff, it is his duty to make them.


William John Macdonald: I am making them.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is doing so in a very vague fashion. He says: You are favouring some of your friends in the province of Ontario, and, incidentally, you are affording some advantage to the Steel Company of Sydney. Does my hon. friend ohject to the imposition of a duty on wire rods? If he does, he should say so.	I have
not understood him to object to that. As nearly as I can make out the burden of his complaint against me, it is that, in some fashion, which he does not deign to particularize, I have overlooked one or more companies; and that, in the tariff resolutions which I have brought down, the beneficiaries are an Ontario concern, as he puts it, and incidentally the Dominion Iron and Steel Company is pretty important company. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) during his term of office paid bounties of about $15,000,000 to establish, amongst others, the steel plant at Sydney. Speaking for myself, I made no objection to that. I said that I thought bounties were justified to call into being large industries of the kind in question. Now my hon. friend has made this resolution, which relates to drawback, the occasion of an attack upon me for not doing more for the steel industry; and yet he does not particularize. I have reason to complain that he does not bring to my attention any particulars as to what he has in mind. If he has in mind the raising of the duty on steel billets and pig-iron, I will let him fight it out with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who will do the job very much better than I can. My hon. friends on the other side say:	Let us
abolish the duty on agricultural implements; and my hon. friend says by implication:	Let us raise the duty on raw materials for the manufacture of agricultural implements. He is what may be described as an incidental or casual or occasional Conservative. We on this side call ourselves Liberal-Conservatives. My hon. friend passes occasionally as a Conservative-Liberal; yet he has not the courage of his convictions, and does not say frankly in this House what he wants. If he is in favour of raising the tariff on steel products, let him say so, instead of making these veiled charges that I have overlooked certain of his friends-because that is really 203*
what is back of it all-and have favoured certain others engaged in the steel industry. As a matter of fact, I have given the most careful and painstaking attention to the whole matter of the steel schedule; and I believe the steel industry, as a whole, is quite satisfied with what has been done. My hon. friend knows that, to raise the duty upon pig-iron and upon steel billets necessitates a revision of the entire steel schedule. It means the raising of the duty on agricultural implements, stoves, castings and everything into which steel and iron enters as a base product. He knows this, is not a year of general revision. This is a year in which certain readjustments of the tariff have had to be made, for the reasons I have given, namely, so far as the steel industry is concerned, because the steel companies have had to broaden or change the basis of their production to meet the altered conditions, as I explained in my Budget speech and in Committee of Ways and Means when the resolutions relating to the steel tariff were under consideration. My hon. friend makes an attack to-day that he failed to make on the occasion of the discussion on the Budget or in the discussion of the resolution in the Committee of Ways and Means. My hon. friend does not understand-at least, if he does, he desires not to be understood as understanding. My hon. friend says:	If he can buy
cheaper in the United States, why will he not buy all his supply in the United States? I will tell him why. Take the case of a company in Hamilton, let us say, manufacturing both for export and for domestic consumption. They are entitled to a drawback upon duties paid in respect of foreign pig-iron entering into their exported products; they are not entitled to a drawback in respect of duties upon imported pig-iron entering into their products consumed at home, w'ith the exceptions which I have indicated to my hon. friend from Halifax. That company can buy cheaper in the United States if they are getting the drawback, but not if they have to pay the duty without receiving a drawback. In that situation, the question arises- whether it will pay them to import all their pig-iron by reason of the fact that they get a drawback upon that part of it, which they export. Let us assume that with the drawback allowed they can buy in the United States more cheaply than in Hamilton. It does not follow that they can buy all their pig-iron more cheaply than in Hamilton; if they could, of course they would not buy in Hamilton. Even if the manufactures can

buy some of their pig-iron as- cheaply in Canada as they can buy it in the United States, after payment of the freight and duty upon it, under the regulations that now exist it would pay them to buy all their pig-ron in the United States, both for home and for foreign trade. Under the- amendment which I am introducing to the Customs Act they will receive a drawback in respect of the pig-iron which they import from the United States, provided they export an amount of manufactured iron equivalent to the amount imported.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the hon. minister say that they can buy pig-iron in Canada more cheaply in Canada than they can buy in the United States and pay the duty?
Mr. WHITE. Not necessarily. There is usually a parity of price. Suppose the agricultural implement manufacturer in Hamilton could buy in Pittsburg at a price which, freight and duty paid, would lay the pig-iron down in Hamilton at $15 a ton. In that case, the Hamilton price would be about $15 a ton. It might be that they would lower the price to get the business. As a general thing, they cut a little below the price of the American product, plus the freight and duty, to get the market.


William F. Carroll: As the minister is changing the law with regard to drawback, I think he should change it so as to give no drawback. If he intends that the Canadian consumer shall use pig-iron produced in Canada, the obvious way is to refuse to give any drawback, and give no advantage on the exported article either. Suppose that this change is some advantage to the Canadian manufacturer of pig-iron, it is no advantage to the Canadian consumer. The only persons who get advantage, according to the minister, is the manufacturer who imports from abroad and the outside consumer of the manufactured article.


William Thomas White: This relates only to export products.


William F. Carroll: Exactly so. The minister tells us that this change is designed to benefit the iron and steel manufacturers of Canada. But if that is his intention, I say he should give no drawback at all. If it is a benefit to the iron and steel producers that the user of the material should not be allowed a drawback on goods sold for home consumption, it would be a double benefit if no drawback were allowed in any case. Doesv the minister follow mg?


William Thomas White: I follow you, but I do not agree with you.


William F. Carroll: The minister agrees with
me that it would be more to the advantage of the Canadian manufacturers of iron and steel if no drawback were allowed. If the object is to benefit the producer of iron and steel, why not then do away with the drawback altogether? When this resolution was first brought down, I said in my remarks on the Budget that the change would be injurious to the manufacturer of iron. If the minister is right in his contention, I can see where there is some advantage. But I go further and say that this change -does not benefit the Canadian consumer, so I think the minister has made a- mistake in not -doing away with drawbacks altogether, thus making the manufacturers buy pig-iron altogether from the producers of iron in Canada.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend surely is
not -serious, or, if serious, he has not considered the question. His suggestion is that there should be no drawback of -duties paid in respect of raw materials entering into products of Canadian manufacturers exported from Canada. Let me point out to what that would lead. The Canadian manufacturer, of course, in respect of his -export business, is in competition with the manufacturers of the world. Now, let me ask my hon. friend, who is a good business man, to -suppose for a moment that he is a manufacturer of -agricultural implements which he is selling in the markets of the world in competition with similar m-anu-facturors of the United States. And suppose he received no drawback on pig-iron bought in the United -States. The agricultural implement maker in the United -States would have his pig-iron at about $2.25 or $2.50 a ton cheaper than my hon. friend would have his pig-iron if he were forced to buy in Canada. The result would toe that because the cost of manufacture is so much less to the American manufacturer, my hon. friend could not compete in the markets of the world with the manufacturer of the United States, and he would have no export business at all. The provision as to drawback does not relate only to iron and steel;- it relates to all raw material imported toy Canadian manufacturers in respect of their export business, and the reason is that either they must be placed on an equality


MAX' 4, 1914
[Stage Direction]
with foreign manufacturers, who get their raw material cheaper, or they cannot compete. Surely that must be perfectly plain to my hon. friend. If they are not put on that same footing, the pig-iron manufacturer of Canada, who occasionally-but seldom, I admit-can sell his products to the manufacturer, even in respect of his export business, would be in a worse position to manufacture for export; in fact he would not be able t-o carry on business successfully at all.
William F. Carroll: What about manufactured articles exported to Great Britain? Does the Canadian manufacturer get his drawback there?


William Thomas White: Supposing the Canadian
manufacturer is competing with the British manufacturer in the market of free trade Great Britain. The British manufacturer gets his raw material free; the Canadian manufacturer has to pay for whatever raw material he imports to Canada a price determined to a certain extent iby the duty payable upon it. The Canadian manufacturer, therefore, could not compete with the British manufacturer at all. It is absolutely necessary that the Canadian manufacturer should have a drawback in respect of raw material if he wishes to be placed upon an equal footing with the foreign competitor.


William F. Carroll: When the minister made his statement to the House he said that this was to be done for the advantage of the steel manufacturers of this country. I want to draw the minister out and show that he is also benefiting the manufacturers of agricultural implements and of all other things that are manufactured from iron. If he had told the House that when he was making his statement he would have told the whole truth.


William Thomas White: Every manufacturer in
Canada to-day gets a drawback in respect of the raw material that he imports or uses in his export business, so that there is absolutely no charge in that regard. The Massey-Harris Company and the International Harvester Company buy practically all their pig-iron in the United States, for the reasons which I have given, and what I desire to do in this legislation is to enable them to buy some of their pig-iron in Canada, and to prevent the pig-iron manufacturers of Canada from losing business by reason of the regulation of the Customs Department, which at present allows to manufacturers in respect of their
export products a drawback upon commodities to the percentage that the imported American pig-iron bears to the amount of the American and the Canadian pig-iron used in their product, both for domestic and foreign export trade.


William F. Carroll: The minister does not suppose they are going to buy it in Canada if they can get it cheaper in the United. States?


William Thomas White: No. .


William F. Carroll: They can get it cheaper in the United States with the duty as it is now.


Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend think this regulation will help the export trade to the United States of manufactured iron goods?


William Thomas White: No.


Michael Clark: It is not meant to do that?


William Thomas White: I do not expect that that will be its effect.


Michael Clark: I would like to *understand exactly the attitude of the minister in the matter. He seems to be in favour of the export of these manufactured iron goods into the United States.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend asks
whether I am in favour of manufacture in Canada for export to the United States, I say, of course.


Michael Clark: I am surprised, because when I want some beneficial arrangement on behalf of the western wheat growers I get sermons the length of the minister's arm preached to me about the advantages of the home market. Why should not the hon. minister and his friends be content with-the home -market? Is not the sauce for the-western goose good enough for the Ontario-gander?


William John Macdonald: The hon. minister
complains that I did not make the few remarks which I did at some other time. I want to tell my hon. friend that I will trouble the House whenever it suits me to do so, not when it may happen to please my hon. friend. I said-and I repeat it- that in dealing with this iron and steel schedule during the present session of Parliament, the minister has had in view, with the single exception of the wire rod industry in Nova Scotia, solely the interests of some of his friends in the province of Ontario. My hon. friend did not venture to

question that statement; he did not meet that proposition and cannot meet it, because it is absolutely correct. This is not his time, he says, for a general revision of the tariff. My hon. friend knows that if he did not lead certain iron and steel people in this country after 1911 to believe that the alleged anomalies of the tariff with regard to iron and steel, would be removed at an early day, some of his colleagues did. My hon. friend knows that the iron and steel people in this country, particularly in Nova Scotia, were led to believe by some of his colleagues that the bounty which expired in 1911 with regard to pig-iron and certain other products would be renewed.


William Thomas White: Is my hon. friend complaining that they were not renewed!


William John Macdonald: I am discussing my hon. friend's position as Minister of Finance and his relation to the iron and steel people; I will discuss my own attitude when it suits me to do so. My hon. friend need not to be alarmed about my attitude in this matter; when the responsibility is placed upon hon. gentlemen on this side they will give to Canada, in regard not only to iron and steel but to other items as well, such a reasonable tariff that Canada will prosper as she did when the Liberals were in power. They will not, as the hon. gentlemen have done, dilly-dally with the question for nearly three years, creating business uncertainty throughout the land, a lack of public confidence here and abroad, and a condition in Canada where in almost every industrial centre manufacturing establishments are closed and workingmen are walking the streets. It is the attitude of my hon. friend and the performances of his party that have to be considered. I repeat that in 1911 the iron and steel people of this country were led to believe that the bounties on iron and steel, which expired in that year, would be renewed.


John Dowsley Reid: Who did that?


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend knows who did it; my hon. friend knows that some of his colleagues made representations to men connected with the iron and steel industry. My hon. friends know what happened last year and the year before. They know the expectations that were raised in regard to this question and how they proved to be illusory. My hon. friend had not the nerve to tackle this question, and now he says: Oh, this is not the time for a general revision of the tariff; wait until two or three years have passed, and

we have dealt with this matter; then come around and criticise us when we have dealt with the whole thing. I say to my hon. , friend now that in so far as he has dealt with the iron and steel tariff he has dealt with it on local lines, dealt with it in such a manner that the men who expected a great deal from him had a right to be disappointed and are disappointed.


Michael Clark: I do not wish
to interrupt the dispute between the hon. members from Ontario and Nova Scotia, but I am anxious to expedite the noncontentious business in order to get to the really contentious business of the session, and if possible reach an end. I only intervened to ask one of these hon. gentlemen who are conducting this interesting dispute to explain to me, as a resident of one of the other seven provinces of Canada, how the policy which they both seem to support, if it is applied only to the locality in which they are particularly interested, ever came to have or can in any way deserve the term 'national ' as applied to it. I do not care which hon. gentleman gives me the explanation.


William Thomas White: Perhaps I should
say: after you my dear Alphonse, because my hon. friend is so much more eloquent than I am. I do not want to mar the humour of my hon. friend's remarks by any answer, and I am sure he will overlook the fact that an answer is not given. With regard to what the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) has said, he may know of some promises having been given with respect to bounties. Personally I know of none.


William John Macdonald: I said they were led to believe.


William Thomas White: I do not know by whom
they were led to believe. As far as I know, any promises that this party have given have been lived up to.


William John Macdonald: All?


William Thomas White: I am quite satisfied that no tariff promises were made on the eve of any election; at least, on the occasion of the election of 1911; I am not so sure about the promises of 1896. My hon. friend seems to be disappointed at something I have refrained from doing, and yet he does not put fonvard what that something is. I have a very great respect for my hon. friend and for his ability, and any time he will rise in the House and tell me precisely what he has to suggest in the way of increased

duties I will say to him What I do to every member of the House or the public who bring matters of that kind to iny attention: I shall be glad to give it careful and serious consideration. The complaint I have against my hon. friend is that while he does not agree with what I have done he does not make any suggestions which indicate his own views. If at any time he will tell me what he complains about I shall be glad to meet that complaint as far as I am able. He has put forward no representations; he has not asked for any increased duties. If he did he would find himself in conflict with distinguished gentlemen whom I see on the other side of the House, his friends and colleagues. Under these circumstances I must continue to do what I have done: administer the tariff according to my own best judgment-in view of the facts before me. I repeat, if my hon. friend has any specific complaint to make that we have not raised duties in respect of the products of any particular industry, local or otherwise, in which he is particularly interested, if he can tell me in specific language what he is complaining about, I shall be glad to take any statement and any representations he may make under my careful consideration.


William John Macdonald: That is very good of my hon. friend, hut he has not met my point.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Together- with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) I am particularly interested in the manufacture of iron and steel, especially pig-iron, which is under discussion this afternoon. I would say to the minister that the producers of pig-iron in Canada are quite capable of supplying the legitimate demands of the manufacturers of Canada. I do not pretend to be an expert on questions of duty as applied to the subject matter before the committee, but, generally, I make the statement that I believe the large producers in Canada are to-day capable of producing pig-iron sufficient to supply the Canadian market, and if we are capable of supplying the market we are equally capable of supplying it with a first-class article. I speak particularly for the Dominion Steel Company at Sydney, and the Nova Scotia Iron and Steel Company, oparating in the county which I have the honour to represent. Taking for granted that we have a supply in Canada of a firstclass article suflicient to meet the demand, the question is why would not that article be purchased if it be purchasable at about the price at which the same article can be purchased from the United States? The theory of the National Policy of which we heard so much, with which I have grown up and of which I profess to know something, was that protection would enable us to manufacture our own products for our own use, and that local competition would give our people the manufactured article at a price not any higher than that of the foreign market. If that theory were carried out, then, of course, protection would have its uses. But we had to contend with such things as combines, when there was no local legitimate competition. When combines arose this local competition which was promised to us was destroyed and so we have not got the National Policy in this particular sense, and some other remedy should be applied. I wish to point out to the minister that I cannot see the difference between a drawback and free admission, as far as the article upon which the drawback is given Is concerned. I think it is as broad as it is long. If a man lias to go into the United States or any other foreign country and import a thousand tons of p'g-iron. paying duty of $2.50 a ton, knowing that under certain conditions he will get that money back, it is tantamount to free trade. If protection is worth anything at all, and of course so far as my own industries are concerned and because I understand those industries well, I am in favour of protection of the industry of the country from which I come-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am always pleased
io get a cheer from my hon. friends opposite. I cannot understand why I get a cheer o,n this occasion, because I have spoken in this House a great many times in the last ten or twelve yeans and when iron and steel and coal were under discussion I was always a tried and true protectionist. There is no reason why I should he particularly congratulated upon my stand to-day, it is an old stand and until conditions are changed it is the position to which I propose to adhere. The fault I have to find with the policy of the Minister of Finance is that he gives this drawback at all. If protection is good, if it is given far the purpose of encouraging the production of pig-iron in

Canada, why give us the will o' the wisp of giving us protection and taking it away the moment it becomes of any service to us? J think the protection should stand there for the 'Canadian pig-iron producer, particularly when we produce a first class article and lay it down for the same price that pig-iron can be got elsewhere. In this way we would encourage the production of manufactured goods in Canada and encourage our own manufacturers to supply the local market. If the local producer's horizon is widened, if the places where he can sell in the West and elsewhere become more numerous, he is encouraged to go more fully into the manufacture of his article, which in turn encourages the parties who are producing the raw material. I do not profess to understand the nice mechanism of the resolution before the House. I find it almost as difficult to understand as Mr. Hennessy found Mr. Dooley's explanation of Kruger's franchise. I do not for a moment say that my hon. friend is of the same calibre or ingenuity as Kruger, but I find this resolution extremely difficult to follow. One thing, however, I do understand; I think it is for the purpose of making it easier for the Canadian manufacturer to get his raw material from the United States, and while he professes to be paying the duty, he is getting it back. Another thing, it encourages the home manufacturer to produce articles to be sent out of the country instead of to be sold in Canada, where they would have the effect of making things cheaper for our own people. In conclusion, my idea is that the $2.50, which we are told is a protection to the pigdron producer, should mean something and stay there as a permanent protection.	'
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 171, to amend the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General), the House went into Committee on Bill No. 146, to amend the Civil Service Act, Mr. Blain in the Chair.

On section 1-salaries increased from $500 to $600;. annual increase from $50 to $100.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This Bill was explained when we were in Committee on the resolution. This Bill affects the clerks in city post offices, the offices of the post office inspectors, the offices of the superintendents of the railway mail service and the money order exchange offices. It raises the initial salary from $500 to $600, and it raises the annual increase from $50 to $100. When the resolution was in Committee it had the concurrence of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux).


George Perry Graham: How many employees
will this affect, and how much money does it amount to in the aggregate?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have sent for the
deputy minister, who has that information for me.


William Erskine Knowles: I understand that in
the West, when a man's salary reached a certain stage, his living allowance dropped; but I also understand that the Government has amended that so that a man's living allowance never recedes. Is that cUne by this Bill?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No; what we have arranged has been done by Order in Council.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I notice that the railway mail clerks are not included in this Bill?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, they come under another Bill.


Mr. HENDERSON:: What class of officials does this affect?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The clerks in city
post offices, the offices of the post office inspectors, the offices of the superintendents of the railway mail service, and the money order exchange offices; in fact, it covers every clerk in the outside service except the railway mail clerks, who will be provided for in a Bill which comes after this.


George Perry Graham: Is there not another
class not included in city post offices or the offices of post office inspectors? For instance, there are certain post offices that are created city offices, although they may not be in cities. Then, there is another class of post office which does not come under that heading.
I


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Like Brantford or
Brockville, for instance; that is what we call a semi-staff office.


George Perry Graham: It will not affect the
standing of those clerks?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The semi-staff offices
are on the same footing, as far as the payment of the clerks is concerned, as the city post offices.


George Perry Graham: By whom are the clerks engaged?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They are engaged by
the department.


George Perry Graham: Is the staff at Renfrew
engaged by the department or by the postmaster?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a revenue
office.


George Perry Graham: Will this Bill have the
effect of saying to the postmaster there: You must pay a certain salary to your staff?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: These people in Renfrew will not be affected by this Bill, because the Renfrew office is a revenue office. Brockville is a semi-3taff office and Toronto a city office.


George Perry Graham: There is nothing in this Bill for the aid of employees at Renfrew or Arnprior?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, these people are
employed by the postmaster himself, and he pays them out of his revenue.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: Is it the intention of the minister to create Medicine Hat and Lethbridge city post offices? At present they do not rank as such.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: These are semi-staff
offices.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Is it the intention of
the department to place them in the rank of city post offices?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The qmestion is under consideration.


George Perry Graham: Will there be anything in any Bill that will affect the staff in revenue offices?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Not in this Bill.


George Perry Graham: I know it is not in this Bill; but is it in the mind of the Postmaster General? Is he thinking of doing something of that kind? A clerk may do just as much
work in a post office in a town the size of Renfrew or Arnprior as another clerk will do in an office that is on a different status. There are certain post offices where the salaries are fixed and the appointments are made by the department. In post offices in towns like Renfrew or Arnprior the postmaster gets a certain salary from the revenue and engages his own staff. There seems to be somewhat of an anomaly. In one post office a clerk may be working for $400 a year; whereas in a post office in a neighbouring town, where possibly an equal amount of business is done, a clerk may be getting $600 a year from the department. I think there should be some way in. which the salaries of the staff can he regulated, even though the revenues alter.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The whole difference
is this, that in the revenue offices we do not control the salaries at all; the employees are not our employees; they are engaged and paid by the post-master. We have, therefore, nothing to say as to wThat their salaries shall be. If a post office were not kept properly, if the postmaster had not the necessary number of employees, we would hear complaints about it and probably would have to interfere; but s-o long as we hear no complaints, we take it for granted that the office is properly equipped and run to the satisfaction of the public, and we have nothing to say about the salaries which the postmaster pays to his employees.


George Perry Graham: Does the department
never intimate to the postmaster whom he ought to employ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-minimum salaries:
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the length of
the probationary period?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Six months.


George Perry Graham: Will these salaries date from the 1st day of April, or is that merely the qualification of the employment?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The salaries will date from the first day of the financial year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	*
On section 3-(temporary clerks:
George Perry Graham: What is that?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is the same thing -to put the initial salary at $600 instead of $500.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Bill reported.
On the motion of Mr. Pelletier for the third reading of the Bill:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my !hon. friend
not considered the advisability of bringing all these outside clerks under the Civil Service Commission?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That will not come under this Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But has not the Government considered, as a matter of policy, the bringing of the outside civil servants in those large offices under the Civil Service Commission?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We cannot do anything for the Post Office Department unless we do it for all the departments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is to be the policy of the Government in the future?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is under consideration for the moment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have discussed this question on several occasions, and I have always understood that the day is not far distant when the Government may bring those officers under the Civil Service Commission. It would be in the best interest of the service and in the interest of the Government to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: It might not be practicable to bring them all under the Civil Service Commission in the near future, but some of them might be brought. Probably that matter will be discussed in connection with the Civil Service Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General) the House went into Committee on Bill No. 147, to amend the Post Office Act, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 1-Revised Statutes, c. 66, amended:
George Perry Graham: This is an amendment to the Revised Statutes of 1906. Will the Postmaster General tell us briefly what changes are to be effected?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The main object of the first change, that is, in paragraph (e), is to make it quite clear that the right of looking at newspapers, parcels and so on, is absolutely confined to those, and that there is no right to open letters. The sec-

tion, as it .stands at present, as my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) knows, leaves the question open as to whether or not it is right to open letters. I want to make it quite clear that that right does not exist.
We are amending the clause, so that there is no possibility of doubt, by inserting the words ' except in the case of letters.' So we keep the right to open all other mailable matter, to carry out the purpose and intention of the Act, but making it quite clear that there is no right whatever to open letters. There are other matters of detail, but this is the main object of this clause.


William F. Carroll: Is the regulation making it compulsory to register letters containing money still in force?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is no obligation at all upon anybody to register letters. But we have complaints from a great many people that they had sent money through the mail in letters not registered, and that their money has been stolen. My hon. friend knows that it is impossible to follow' letters which aie not registered, and people are subject to loss of money on a great many occasions in this way. At the same time, we have found that it is a great temptation for clerks in some of the offices to examine unregistered letters and some of these clerks are very apt to guess that there might be money in these letters. We have found that it was therefore a suitable thing to try and protect the public, and also save these clerks from temptation by asking the people to have their letters registered if there is money in them. But we do not exact that. We have a regulation under which we impress upon the public that they should not send money in letters, containing over a dollar, without taking the precaution of registering them. But it is not compulsory.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose this amendment is made in connection with the regulations concerning the parcel post. The department is aware that people are sending all sorts of things through the new channel, and there must he some regulation, in order to prevent, for instance, chemicals and things of that kind being sent through the mails. I do not know whether the Postmaster General has seen the item in the Montreal paper that white rats were sent by mail, and that the department decided that the white rats ought to pass. I believe that the regulation, provided that letters are not inter-

fered with, is desirable. The Postmaster General should have the authority to describe what kind of material should be handled. As regards the Sending of coins in letters, I cannot agree with the criticism that has been made against the regulation of the department a few days ago. I remember when I was Postmaster General, some institutions, especially religious institutions, were being constantly robbed of small sums that were sent to them in letters. It is very easy to detect whether an envelope contains a coin, and I know of one or two institutions in Ottawa-and the Postmaster General knows, too-whose money some clerks had been tempted into taking for months and years. Sometimes the money is lost through the breaking of the envelopes, and complaints are made to the post office. It is better, under the circumstances, that the department should give the public notice that it is taking great risk in sending money in coins in that matter. And the mode of registration is so easy, and after all so cheap, that the public should register their letters when sending money through the mails.


Mr. CABBOLL:: I should be against
any compulsory order to people to register their mail. I had correspondence with people in Cape Breton on this subject. They interpreted this as being compulsory, and I may tell tha Postmaster General that some country postmasters have assumed it to be compulsory.	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend may
tell people who ask him for information on the subject that it is not compulsory. The regulation is merely an effort to persuade the people of what they should do, but there is no sanction to it except that we hope to bring the people to the right point of view in this matter, as so well expressed by the hon. member for Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) a moment ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Another point I wish
to discuss with my hon. friend. Of course, the secrecy of correspondence is kept; that is a privilege which the public enjoy, high or low. At the same time, there is a regulation in the Post Office Department, which permits the Postmaster General to open letters In the case of what is called fraud order. The section under discussion would not affect that right on the part of the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General was away the other day-he was in Quebec I believe-when my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) brought to the notice of the Minister of Finance the
case of some lotteries which were making use of the mails in order to extract as much money as possible from the gullible people. He cited instances in his own county, in which large sums of money had been taken from the people by this improper use of the mails. My hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) can refer to the report of that debate, and he will see that in one case at least the department some years ago took drastic measures to prevent a lottery from using the mails. I think the hon. Postmaster General will do well to look into it and prevent the improper use of the mail by lotteries.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have had the Deputy Postmaster General take a note of the fact referred to. He will look into it. We are doing this every week or two-stopping fraudulent practices by mail. We will take special care to refer to the matter of which the hon. gentleman has spoken.


William Erskine Knowles: I desire to call the attention of the Postmaster General to a matter which may not have been mentioned in the House before. During past years the gentlemen who represent the people in this House have had the privilege while in the city of Ottawa of franking parcels sent through the mail. The hon. minister has recently adopted a system of parcel post, upon which I shall not make any comment at this moment, but why that should have been made the occasion of taking away the privilege which the representatives of the people formerly enjoyed is something which I do not understand. If there is any reason why the privilege of the franking of parcels should be taken away from members of the House, that reason existed, of course, before the parcel post system came into operation. There are many occasions when it is to the advantage of the constituents whom we represent that we should have that privilege. Very often we visit the Experimental Farm and are favoured with a sample of wheat or oats which we wish to send to our constituents, and now we have to pay postage upon any parcel containing such samples. I raise the question not as asking a favour; I suppose that any hon. gentleman can put his hand in his pocket and pay postage, but it is a matter of public policy, and, so far I have not learned any reason why we should not have the same privileges that we formerly enjoyed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend says
that members of the House should not be deprived of the privileges that they had

before. The Post Office Department has deprived itself of the very privilege to which my hon. friend refers. When the parcel post system was put into operation on February 10 last, we decided to make no exemption from the payment of postage; the Prime Minister of Canada and the Postmaster General have to pay postage on all parcels sent through the mails. Our experience shows that this is the best policy. The franking privilege has not been taken away from members of Parliament; they may continue to frank literature sent by book post as well as anything in the shape or form of a letter.


William Erskine Knowles: If anything is mailed in an envelope the frankifig privilege may be used?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: Many members who have clerical staffs in their home towns have been in the habit of' sending home envelopes to be addressed by their stenographers or .secretaries, who have the voters3 lists .and other information at hand; and the envelopes are returned to Ottawa when the work is completed. Under present conditions members have to send these envelopes home by express or by parcel post. I think the taking away of the franking privilege in regard to parcel post is not right. A great deal of the work we do while in this city we do because we are members; a great deal of the expense we incur is incurred because we are the people's representatives. I do not think the minister intended to be small, but I think it was a small piece of business to take this privilege away from members. The hon. Postmaster General .says that the Post Office Department has deprived itself of the privilege. To say the least, that is a shallow argument, for my hon. friend knows that with the department it is a mere matter of book-keeping. The department buys the stamps and gets the money that is paid for them; of course, no money is paid out, so that it is just the same as franking. The amount is credited to revenue, of course, and this helps to increase the revenue and to bolster up a surplus, although in these hard times . there should not be any surplus.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Why should members of Parliament be asked to pay postage upon parcels addressed to them which do not carry any or sufficient postage stamps?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a regulation that applies to everybody. The postmaster should not receive a parcel unless the proper amount of postage is paid and the necessary stamps are affixed thereon. The same thing applies to letters. When a letter arrives at the point of destination, if the necessary stamps have not been put on it, the man who receives it has to pay-double the amount of the postage due.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It appears that postmasters in the country receive parcels which are addressed to members of Parliament and are not properly franked. When' the members receive these parcels, they are asked sometimes to pay as much as forty cents for postage due. I think this is an injustice. If the postmasters in the country have not received instructions to refuse all parcels addressed to members of Parliament which do not bear the proper frank, we should not be asked to pay the cost of transporting them. I was asked to pay forty cents, I think it was, on a parcel. I did not know where it came from, and I refused to pay the amount. In this ease it turned out to be a model sent to me for the patent office. A month later the gentlemen who sent me the model, discovering that it had been lost, came to me and explained the whole matter. Certainly the postmaster should not have received the parcel, and I think that in such cases we should not be asked to pay postage.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My deputy informs
me that the postmasters have been duly informed of their duty in this respect. Probably some of them overlooked the instructions. We will see that this is remedied.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has not been explained to me why the franking privilege with regard to parcel post has been taken away from members. As an individual member of Parliament I do not ask for the privilege of the free use of parcel post, but I have been a member of this House foT fifteen years, and certain small parcels are frequently sent me- by constituents. Why should the privilege be withdrawn because of the establishment of parcel post? If the motive is economy, I do not think the Post Office Department is as economical in other directions. If the principle is wrong, withdraw the franking -privilege from members; but surely no good reasons have been shown why the privilege heretofore accorded should be withdrawn at this time.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not object to this discussion, because it is only fair that

people should have a chance to ventilate that grievance,, if it is one, on the floor of this House; but I may say that this subject does not come within the scope of this Bill. I shall look further into it, and when the question comes up on the Estimates I shall be glad to say more to my hon. friends.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps the minister will note that in subsection (c) he is given power to establish rates of postage on all mailable matter not being letters. That is with respect to a regulation and he has made the application. Nowhere under the law has the privilege been withdrawn. If the hon. member can point out to me where there has been a change in the law I shall stand corrected; but the mere establishment of the parcel post system in no way changes the law as respects the franking privilege enjoyed by members of Parliament since 1867.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I would ask if there
has really been any departure' from the principle which was always recognized in this House? Has there been any taking away from the members of any privilege? I have always understood that when the House was in session a member of Parliament had a right to frank letters, books and certain parcels from this House; but I have always understood that the general public had the same privilege of sending letters, parcels, books, etc., to any member of this House. In what respect has the principle heen violated? We enjoy as members exactly the same privileges as the general public enjoy. Frequently I have had reference made to the franking privilege of members. My answer has been: You possess the same privilege I possess; while the House is in session you have the right to send any mailable matter to any member of Parliament; or to any department of Government at any time free. While the House is in session we have the privilege of sending, mail free so that we are on exactly the same footing with the general public. If we had the right of franking parcels from this House, which right was not enjoyed by the general public, it would be a departure from the principle which has always hitherto obtained.


William Erskine Knowles: The principle which the hon. member lays down is now as it always ha3 been, namely that the member and the constituents in the country have the same right. But to-day neither has the same right that was enjoyed before a certain day in February when the minister changed the whole system, as I stated, in an ultra
vires fashion. I have had constituents send me samples of their soil, from different points in my very large riding, to submit to the proper department and ascertain the properties of the soil%nd the way in which it should be treated. I have had men send me ore. The public have had the privilege of sending such things, but they have not that privilege any longer; they must now pay postage to swell the revenue of the Post Office Department. The only justification for taking away that privilege is penury, economy; and as long as the inspector of the Post Office Department at Sherbrooke can go gallivanting around the country in a $4,500 Packard car, I do not think that they need to economize as much as the minister says in reference to parcel post. I think the minister should reconsider this and not economize on this little matter, but restore to us, as the peoples' representatives, the privileges of the parcel post. I would like to know what the hon. member for Selkirk thinks of this. He is close to the Cabinet, not in it, but I hope he soon will be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have read on several occasions in the press a rumour that the Canadian rate of postage on newspapers was to be increased. I do not suppose this will be carried out. The rate is one-quarter of a cent per pound now. Not very long ago I learned that there were loud complaints against newspapers abusing that privilege. Papers were published at one cent per number which did not contain the average number of pages of editorial matter but which contained more or less advertising and stories. The Postmaster General has the right according to the Post Office Act, to decide what is a newspaper and what is not a newspaper, and I daresay he will have to exercise his judgment, because there are these loud complaints from newspapers that their rivals in the business are selling newspapers in Montreal, for instance, at one cent a copy, the annual subscription being $3.00, while the same newspapers, very heavy, containing any amount of advertising and stories, are sold all over the Maritime provinces, after they have passed a certain zone, at only $1 a year. It seems unfair to the regular newspapers that they should have to face such competition. AA7hilst I am speaking about newspapers, is the minister at present discussing with the British Postmaster General the question of renewing the post office arrangement which I made

in 1907 with the then British Postmaster General, Right Hon. Sydney Buxton, by which the rate of postage on British magazines and newspapers was reduced from four pence a pound to one penny a pound, or from eight cents to two cents a pound in our currency? The arrangement was made because at that time many British organizations and leagues were clamouring for a more widespread circulation of British and imperial news with the dominions. At that time British newspapers and magazines had a very limited circulation in the dominions because they were handicapped by the heavy postage, and as a result heTe in Canada we were flooded with American newspapers and magazines. The question of increasing the circulation of British publications in Canada came up at that time, notably in the Canadian Senate under the lead of the late Sir George Drummond. I decided to take up the matter with the British ..Postmaster General, and we came to an agreement whereby British magazines and newspapers should pay two cents a pound instead of eight cents from the British post office to Liverpool, the transit charge from Liverpool being borne by the Canadian post office. The result has been very gratifying indeed. I remember standing one day on the wharf at Liverpool a few months after that agreement came into force, and I asked the captain of the steamer to give me an idea of the increase that had taken place in the number of British magazines and newspapers coming to Canada. I was simply amazed to see the number of baskets and bags filled with newspapers and magazines as a result of that agreement. The figures have since been published, and are very gratifying indeed. In 1906, the year before that agreement came into force, the weight of British publications sent to Canada was comparatively infinitesimal, but the reduction in postage which took place in 1907 has borne fruit as follows:	In
1908 the weight of British publications coming to Canada was 2,328,000 pounds; in 1909, 2,910,000 pounds; in 1910,	3,836,000
pounds; in 1911, 4,747,000 pounds; in 1912,
5,785,000	pounds. Fancy what this means to this country where we have so many immigrants from the British Isles, especially in the West. By this arrangement, the newly-arrived immigrant can continue to receive papers from home at a very cheap rate; and besides that, not only our newspapers but our clubs, our associations, and our public men can afford to receive the news from the right centre. It was stated 
on many occasions when we were discussing in this House the reduction of the cable rates that nearly all our papers both in the West and the East received tainted news from American sources. Personally, I do not believe that the news service is
9 p.m. tainted, but yet if it comes via New York the news lias first been addressed to New York papers, or perhaps to Chicago, or S-an Francisco, through American agencies and for American consumption, and then it is served afterwards to the Canadian public. The difference in the news may not be great, but when you compare it with the British dailies that arrive a week or two afterwards you find quite a difference; and that is why, on both sides of the House, we have been endeavouring for the last few years to get better postal regulations and cheaper telegraphic communication between the mother country and Canada. I was reading the other day a letter in the London Times of Monday, 6th April, signed by Evelyn Wrench. I dare say Evelyn is a feminine name but there are so many strange names in English that I am not quite sure.
Mr. GEORGE E. FOSTER: It is not a feminine name in that ease.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -if there are difficulties in coming to a satisfactory arrangement with the British post office, he will find means of continuing the service. I am not more British than the King, but still I am British enough to be willing to go at. least half way in this matter. When we took up this question in 1907 we found that in the mining camps at jCobakt and elsewhere our people were provided with very cheap magazines and with questionable newspapers. We thought that by facilitating the circulation of British newspapers and magazines we might perhaps render a real service to the Imperial cause in Canada. The arrangement has proven very successful indeed according to the figures I have quoted to the House and I sincerely hope that my hon. friend will do his best to induce the British authorities to renew it. It would be a great pity indeed if the Postmaster General in England were to re-enact the old prohibitive postal Tate as regards newspapers and magazines mailed to Canada. Quite a trade has been established in Canada. As this correspondent, Mr. Wrench, states in every little village, in every township in the West, you find "the board at the railway station with the announcement that the British mail has arrived, or will arrive at a certain date and there also you will find for sale, quite a collection of British magazines and newspapers. I think that my hon. friend should strain a point in order to meet the views of the British postmaster and see that there is a renewal of the arrangement.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The matter of which
my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has spoken is a very important one. I would not like to go into all the details at the present moment because the whole question is the subject matter of negotiations between the British and Canadian post office departments. I am heartily in sympathy with almost everything that my hon. friend has said on this subject, but I think that, whilst he has shown that he is well posted on nearly all the details, there is one aspect about it upon which he is mis-

taken. He says that the effort of the department should be to get the British Postmaster General to renew the agreement. It would be rather an easy matter indeed to do that. That is what he is asking for but I think that my.hon. friend will remember that what the Post Office Department did under his direction and guidance in this respect was not absolutely on the lines which he has indicated. The general outline of it is all right as expressed by my hon. friend but there are some details that are of importance. It is absolutely true, as my hon. friend has said, that before that change was adopted by the Canadian post office in 1907, American literature in the shape of magazines was coming into this country in large volume. We had few British magazines. My hon. friend, when he was Postmaster General, saw fit to enter into an arrangement- with the British post office by which, for a certain number of years, it was provided that British magazines should come into this country on most favoured terms. This arrangement was for a period of four years. It was entered into in 1907. It has been continued during the four years in question and after its expiration it was renewed for a further period of one year. After I came into office I thought that the policy adopted by my predecessor was a good one in many respects and I renewed the arrangement for a year. But when the arrangement was renewed the British post office was informed that when the year upon which we were then entering had expired probably some other arrangement would have to be made.
It is important for hon. members to know what those arrangements are, so that they may be able to form a correct opinion in regard to the matter. On the British magazines which come to Canada the British post office collects postage at the rate of one penny or two cents per pound to pay for their carriage from London to Liverpool, a distance of 210 miles. The British post office gets that money; whilst Canada takes these same magazines at Liverpool and carries them to any point in Canada, as far as Vancouver or Victoria, and gets absolutely nothing for so doing. The British post office gets two cents per pound for carrying these magazines 210 miles and we get nothing for carrying them five or six thousand miles. That is the present condition of affairs. I do not intend to pass any judgment on it or to ask the House to do so. The American magazines coming into this country pay a postage rate of four cents per pound or one cent for four ounces. We have suggested 
to the British post office that the penny which they collect should be divided between Great Britain and Canada-that they keep one cent- for their 210 miles and we get one cent for our five or six thousand miles. I think this is offering a pretty fair bargain. If we succeed in making that arrangement, the British magazines will continue to come into Canada for one-half of what it is costing the American magazines to come here. As a matter of fact, the object for which the old arrangement was entered into is exactly as stated by my hon. friend the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), namely, to encourage British literature to come into this country, and this object has been attained. When this arrangement was entered into, there were less than 500,000 pounds of British magazines coming to Canada. My hon. friend from Rouville told the House that there were over 2,000,000 pounds at a certain time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1908, 2,328,000 pounds, and in 1912, 5,785,000 pounds. The quantity is increasing all the time.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Who benefits by that increase? There is no question that Canada does; but the publishers of these magazines also reap a great benefit. The British post office has realized every year $100,000 for carrying these magazines from London to Liverpool; and it seems to me that we are very reasonable if, now that the object has been accomplished, now that we have succeeded in getting these magazines into Can- . ada, we ask the British post office to share with us the two cents postage.
The old arrangement was renewed in 1912 for a year. In 1913 the British post office asked us to continue it for another year. We said: In order to give you time to consider the matter, we will continue it for six months. The arrangement was accordingly continued up to the 1st of December last, and then the British post office asked ns to extend it for another period of six months. We said: We will extend it for another three months. When those three months were np, they asked us to extend it for another six months. ' It suits them very well to extend the arrangement from time to time, because during all that time they are collecting all the postage. We have again extended the arrangement for another period of three months, which will expire at the end of July. Meanwhile we hope-in fact, we are almost sure-that we shall come to some reasonable agreement under which these

magazines shall have a kind of preferential rate, because that is what they are getting to come to Canada. My hon. friend from Rouville knows that whatever we do in this matter is not in any way, shape or form going to hurt the editors of these magazines, because they do not pay us anything at all. They do not deal with us; they mail their productions in the post offices in Great Britain. The British post office pays the Canadian Government the international postal union rates on all mail matter which comes to Canada under the Canadian Government contract for the carrying of the ocean mail. If this temporary agreement had not been entered into, the British post office would have paid us on these productions the same rate as they paid on all other kinds of mailable matter. They have been exempted from doing so, and the whole question resolves itself into this: Will the British post office pay to the Canadian Government on these magazines, not the same amount as they pay on other available matter, but a proportion of it; or will Canada carry for nothing these magazines for all time to come? After all, the present arrangement is an encouragement to the editors of British magazines. We have gone very far to help them, and we are prepared again to help them; tout we would like the British post office to meet us and to come to some other arrangement which would continue the preference which these magazines get at present. We think that the British post office should come, not half-way, but some little distance, in order to meet us in this matter.


Frank Oliver: Is not the position in regard to this matter of postage on magazines exactly the same as the matter of postage on letters, namely, that each country collects its own postage on matter going to the	other country,
and carries the matter that comes from the other country free? I understand	that that is the principle.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, but there is some distinction. When the letter is mailed in England, people put on their stamps there and that goes to the British post office, but the British post office pays the Canadian Government thirty-five cents a pound for all letters which come over on our steamers, while as for those magazines the British post office, under the present arrangement, has not paid one cent. That is the point of difference.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has
here an illustration of *what free trade means. He says we should get one cent out of the two cents a pound on newspapers and magazines collected by the British post office from London and Liverpool. But the British Postmaster General might perhaps 'answer my hon. friend: Well, when we send goods to Canada we meet with customs duties ranging from twenty-five to sixty per cent. Of course, you Canadians loye the mother country, you love the empire, but you tax the goods sent from England to Canada, while you send your manufactured goods and all your products to Britain without paying duties, and Britain is, after all, your best customer.
However, that is not the issue at the moment; I simply bring it in to show my hon. friend that the Postmaster General in England could make a very good rejoinder to his argument. He must not forget that special treatment was given to Canada by Great Britain, that is to say a special alteration in the postal laws wa:s made in England so as to meet the case of Canada.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Special treatment?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. This arrangement does not exist with the other colonies or dominions, but only with Canada, and possibly Newfoundland. Therefore it was just to meet the special Canadian case. My hon. friend must not forget that if Sir William Mulock and the Canadian Government were able, in 1897, to obtain penny postage on letters addressed to any part of the empire, it was due to the bold action taken by the British postal authorities. Canada, of course, took the lead in that matter, and was foremost. The reduction from three cents to two cents had been promoted in Canada and by some parties in England, but unsuccessfully, for a period of ten or fifteen years. I remember reading the pro-ces verbal of the Imperial Conference discussion on that subject. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the reports of the various conferences he will see how reluctantly the British authorities yielded at last. But it was due to that acquiescence of the British post office that Canada obtained the reduced rate of postage throughout the whole of the British Empire. It was done at the request of Canada, it was given after a very able presentment of the case by Sir William Mulock. It was a masterly stroke, and no one will question to-day that this reduction in postal rates in all parts of the British Empire has created an immense



amount of good. Now, there is give and take in these matters. I know the post office in Canada loses some thousands of dollars-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Fifty thousand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -but is it worth-while for the Postmaster General t.o destroy this intellectual preference between Great Britain and Canada because of the paltry sum of $50,000? When I tell him that we tax British goods while England accepts our products duty free, and when we know that England has yielded to the request of the Canadian post office to establish penny postage throughout the empire, should we not'compromise?	*


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I will draw his attention to the fact that the amount of $50,000 would he the amount we would get if the two cents, which is now collected by the British post office, were divided between the British and Canadian post offices. But the amount which the British post office would have to pay the Canadian Government if the rates that apply to this class of business were collected is $235,000. That is the extent to which the British magazines benefit by the present postal arrangement. The only suggestion made now Js that instead of imposing the same rates as we do on foreign magazines, the amount that is collected should be divided between us. I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that this is not a matter of trade arrangement between the home Government and our Government. I take it that this is purely and simply a matter of arrangement between the British and Canadian post offices. Of course, if we go further and say that since England takes our products without charging us duty we should therefore yield this benefit to England, I think that we are driving far afield from the real point at issue. England is a free trade country and does not charge high customs duties on Canadian products or on products from any other country in the world. This is not done as a special benefit to Canada; it is the free trade policy of England. It is for that reason, no doubt, that the British Government has not brought forward the argument mentioned by my hon. friend, and I do not expect they will do so in the future. I hope the new British Postmaster General *will be able to meet us and to make another kind of agreement which will be helpful and continue to be helpful to the British magazines, without leaving the poorer 
government of the two, that is the Canadian Post Office Department, to bear the whole cost without any remuneration whatever. That is the whole point at issue, and the only one. The hon. member suggests that tins should be an entirely one-sided arrangement. It has been so for seven years. The object has been attained, because we do not get now much more than the five or six million pounds to which the hon. gentleman referred as coming in in 1910. It is not increasing very much, and I take it that if we leave the foreign rate at four cents a pound and the rate for British magazines at two cents a pound, they will have had a full realization of the hopes they entertained at that time. The reasons for entering into that agreement are on record. It was stated that if this preference were given for three or four, years, the British magazines would be enabled to get a strong foothold in this country, and that they could then be put on the same footing as the others. They now have a strong foothold in Canada, and I hope that hon. gentlemen on both sides will join with me in trying to meet the new situation which is thus created. We have had to increase the ocean mail subsidies by a large amount, and we have had to increase the amount paid the railway companies for the transportation of our mails. They carry our mails on a ear mile basis. Under the new arrangements we are going to' carry
6,000,000 lb. of British magazines a year, and we will have to pay the railways sixteen cents a car mile or nine cents a car mile, as the case may be, for the carrying of this mail matter. Under these circumstances I think that the British Post Office Department should meet us, and I hope they will. The British publishers oif these periodicals had a meeting with, the Right Hon. Mr. Hobhouse the other day in London. Some of them told him that the Canadian post office was right in its contention. They said that they appreciated what the Canadian Government had done. The English press-the Times, for instance-say that the Canadian Post Office Department is taking a reasonable view of this- matter. The answer Mr. Hobhouse made to the publishers was that they might increase to a very small extent the subscription prices of their publications. They in turn tried to put the shoe on the other foot; they told Mr. Hobhouse that he should consent to our request without asking for any increase in the charges. In a matter like this all the members of the Canadian Parliament should be of one mind, and while

we do desire to continue to give preference to the British magazines, the Canadian post office should not bear all the burden; the British post office should do its share.


Rodolphe Lemieux: *very moderate proposition that has been put 'to him by our Postmaster General. Where -we carried almost nothing a number of years ago we are now carrying six million pounds of magazines. We are carrying these absolutely at our own cost and charges. I am quite willing that we should carry that and twice as much as that at our own cost and charges if it is necessary; but I would like the arguments and the views to be put as strongly as possible in the mother country that the imperial sentiment is as much to them as to us, and that therefore they ought to be willing to bear their fair share of the burden.


Frank Oliver: The Postmaster General
gave us information that the letter postage from Great Britain to Canada paid thirty-five cents a pound for the ocean transport.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: To the Canadian
authorities?


Frank Oliver: To the Canadian
authorities. Does not the Postmaster General think that the price is fairly high? It seems to me that thirty-five cents a pound for the transport of the mail matter across the ocean, when the freight rate is exorbitant at one cent a pound, is really not helping out the transport of information across the ocean.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: These are the Postal Union rates.


Frank Oliver: I am only saying that is not a low rate and the country is not losing anything on that side of the transaction, or if it is it ought not to be.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We lose heavily.


Frank Oliver: Under what circumstances and conditions do we pay this amount? I understand the British Post Office Department pays our department and our department pays the steamship lines. To whom do we pay more than thirty-five cents a pound for the carriage of our mails across the ocean?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: To the steamship
companies.


Frank Oliver: What companies?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Four.


Frank Oliver: Are these the same
steamship companies that we pay a million dollars a year subsidy to? [DOT]


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is the amount
we pay for the transportation of our mail, one million dollars; that covers every-
JMr. G. E. Poster.]
thing. That is the amount of the contract. There are four companies, the Allan, the Canadian Pacific railway, the White Star and the Canadian Northern railway lines have entered into a contract with us under which we pay to the whole of them one million dollars a year for transportation of all mails from Canada to Great Britain and the return mail from Great Britain to Canada.


Frank Oliver: Therefore, really it does
not make any difference to us whether we carry one ton or one hundred tons of mail matter or what rate we may be charged for it; we pay a fixed amount to the steamship companies, and we get such service as they give us for that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend is
mistaken in that last statement. This year the steamship companies have approached the Post Office Department, and I think the Department of Trade and Commerce, . and they have told us that the increase in the amount of mail matter is such that we would have to increase our price. But there is' another more tangible point. When we come to take these magazines at Halifax or St. John in winter and to Quebec or Montreal in summer we pay for the transportation of these six million pounds sixteen cents a car mile.


Frank Oliver: I am only getting down
to the ocean transport, and it is still in my mind that although, as a matter of bookkeeping, we are paying 35 cents a pound for the carriage of the mail, as a matter of fact we are not paying anything; we are paying a million dollars a year for the purpose of establishing a steamship monopoly between Canada and England. We are not paying anything for the carrying of mail; the carriage of mail is an incident subordinate to the payment of subsidy, which we pay whether they carry a pound of mail or not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have the right to put all our mail and all United States mail which may go through Canada on board these steamers, and they are obliged to carry all the mail from Great Britain or other European countries to this country. That is a flat rate arrangement. It covers the whole world.


Frank Oliver: If we were not sending
or receiving a pound of mail by any of the steamers of either of these four lines we

323.T '
would be'paying one million dollars just the same.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: But we would not
make the contract.


Frank Oliver: The contract being as it
is, whether they bring a pound of mail or not, they would get the one million dollars.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is a mail subsidy
we are giving these companies.


Frank Oliver: As a matter of fact, it
does not make any difference to the Canadian Government in cash whether they bring five million pounds of magazines or not, it is costing not one cent for ocean transport over what would be paid whether the magazines came or not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It does not look like
that to me. The proposition of the hon. member for Edmonton is one that cannot happen. The British magazines that come from the old country have their subscribers in this country, and there is always a certain amount of this matter to Ibe carried. The amount of mail coming over is almost as regular as clockwork, except that it seems to increase in weight and size. The amount of mail matter carried in steamers has increased immensely. We have not seen as yet-and I do not think we ever shall see-any one of those steamers coming in without any mail. If the hon. member for Rouville could see the mail being landed at Rimouski or Halifax or Quebec he would be amazed at the large amount of mail matter brought by every one of those steamers. At Quebec, in the summer time, I have seen as many as twelve or fourteen full carloads unloaded * from the steamers.


Frank Oliver: We need not dispute about that; we know the mail comes on those steamers, but I was wishing to get clear in my mind the point the hon. minister was making that we were sacrificing in cash a large amount for the benefit of the English magazines, which cost should be borne by the British post office. I am only wanting to get clear in my own mind and in the mind of Parliament that as a matter of actual fact the coming of these British magazines does not cost the Dominion of Canada one cent, so far as their transportation across the Atlantic is concerned. The British Post Office Department does not pay the Canadian Government 35 cents a pound as it does in the case of letters.
In my humble judgment, the Canadian Post Office, in the slang of the day, is ' putting one over ' the British Post Office-Department when it charges 35 cents a pound for mail matter carried on these steamers. But we will not find fault with that; we are glad to see the Post Office-Department showing a due dilligence in the collection of revenue, especially revenue that is not collected from the Canadian people. We do not wish the argument to be made, however, that Canada is actually making a sacrifice in cash when, as a matter of fact, she is not making any such sacrifice. In regard to transportation of mail by rail in Canada I wish to deal with the subject matter of this section, and there is some little connection between the point I had primarily in mind and this carriage of English magazines. We pay a certain rate to the railway companies for carrying our mail matter through Canada. Do we pay by the pound or by the car mile?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: By the car mile.


Frank Oliver: And it works out something on the same principle as in the case of the steamers. If we have no mail matter to load, we pay just the same as if the car were'full. Is that correct?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No. We pay by the
car mile, but if we need only half a car we pay for only half a car; that
10 p.m. is, we pay for the space we use.
So, whatever the worth of my hon. friend's argument in the case of sea transit, he will have some trouble in arriving at the same conclusion in regard to mail carried by rail.


Frank Oliver: I just wanted t-o get the facts clear in my mind. I wish to deal with the matter of newspaper transportation, which was brought up by my hon. friend from Rouville. I notice that the section of the Bill gives authority to the minister to establish the rates of postage on all mailable matter 'not being letters and prescribe the terms and conditions, etc.' I am sure the question has been before the Postmaster General very frequently, and as he must have come to some conclusion on the matter, I think it is inorder that he should tell the House what his conclusion is. He is asking for power; let us know how he proposes to exercise-that power.	*


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is in the old law..


Frank Oliver: It is not the old law, but the new conditions that are the question.

The Law expressly places the responsibility on the Postmaster General, and gives him due authority, and we would like to know how the minister proposes to deal with this question. I am speaking of a question that I am sure has been brought to the attention of the (minister very frequently, that is, as to the postal rates on newspapers of different classes, and the question of drawing a distinction between newspapers which aTe published primarily for the purpose of carrying advertising, and newspapers which are published primarily for the purpose of distributing news.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have not reached any conclusion so far, but the matter has been the subject of a good deal of thought and care. We have taken this matter up with the Canadian Press Association, and have asked them to meet us with the view of coming to some arrangement. We are very desirous to arrange this matter by consent, and I must say that the Canadian Press, Limited, and the Canadian Press Association have shown a good deal of the right spirit in this matter. They have sent delegations to us, and have .appointed a committee to look into the matter. That committee has made a report to them, which they have adopted. They have sent a second delegation to the Post Office Department to try to come to some conclusion. We have not been able yet to come to a complete agreement, but I may say we have agreed on certain points of detail, and we hope to be able to come to a complete agreement some time after tbe session. I have had no time lately to devote to the matter, but when you realize that in this country the newspapers only pay one-quarter of a cent per pound for postage to be carried all the way from Vancouver to Halifax, or vice versa, and that in England they pay one cent per copy-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Ours is the cheapest
rate in the world.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend who has been Postmaster General knows that. There is not a country in the world where such rates are in existence. The rates do not begin to pay for the cost. In the United States the rate is one cent per pound. I may say to the credit of tihe newspaper men that they agree that our rates are not high enough, and they have admitted that in black and white in their report, which is now on file in the Department. We have gone pretty far in the way of effecting an 
agreement when they have reached the conclusion that the present state of things cannot continue. Just what changes will be made, is another question. Some newspaper proprietors suggest that we should increase the rates in a certain way, and others suggest a different way. I would like to say that the different suggestions .which have been made wonld be to the greater or less benefit of the owners in question. They have however shown a good deal of public spirit in the matter. The rates will be and I hope it will be done with the consent of the newspapers. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) will realize that it would :be a somewhat difficult matter for the Postmaster General to antagonize all the newspapers in the country and it is not a very desirable thing to do, although, if it should come to that, I want it to be understood that as a matter of public duty I would' not hesitate to do it. But, I prefer doing it with their consent. However, I am happy to say, that they have met us fairly, and I think that next session I will be able to tell this House that we have reached a certain point and that we have made some progress.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to delay
the committee on this question but I wish to state the views which I hold. The newspaper rate of postage i,n Canada is no doubt very low. It was made low in order that the literary matter published by the newspapers might reach as large a proportion, of the population as possible. It was recognized that it was a country of vast area with a comparatively small population .and that the conditions being exceptional it was desirable to disseminate the newspapers at the lowest possible cost. As my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has spoken of the arrangement in regard to British magazines, it was understood to be an intellectual preference. At this time conditions have changed. We have entered upon an era of newspaper publication wherein, from year to year, the newspaper is published rather as a vehicle of advertising than as a means of disseminating news and opinions. Just in proportion as the newspaper expands as an advertising medium, as compared with ita value as a news service, it departs from; the conditions that warranted the low postal rate that was given to newspapers in the earlier days.. I do not think that a newspaper which is published primarily as an advertising medium is. entitled to the rate of postage it

would have been entitled to if it were published primarily as a vehicle of news oir opinion. I would be sorry that any increase in the postal rate should apply to newspapers published primarily as newspapers. I think it would only be just to the country and to the newspapers that are published as newspapers rather than, as advertising mediums that there should be a difference of treatment between these two classes of so-called publications. I do not lay down any rule, I do not suggest any division, I quite appreciate the difficulties that will have to be met, but as one who has published newspapers for a long time I would resent very much any increase in the burden of legitimate newspapers whereby they were compelled to carry that burden which is levied by the Post Office Department by reason of these papers published as advertising- mediums rather than as newspapers.
The low rate that was given to newspapers was given as an intellectual preference and so, if the department is carrying that quantity of paper under the name of newspapers which are really advertising mediums at a price much below the cost, my hon. friend has no very good case to demand with -any serious strength a radical revision of the rates in regard to the British magazines. Let us put our own house on a business basis before we undertake to dictate to the people across the water how they must do business. I was more than astonished to hear some gentlemen who so eloquently and so vociferously undertook a year ago to insist upon making a free gift of $35,000,000 to the Government of Great Britain to-night protest that it was necessary as a matter of good business that the British Post Office Department should pay, or help to pay, for the carriage of British magazines across the ocean when that carriage does not cost this Dominion of Canada one extra cent.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) is more inaccurate than usual in the statement he has made just now. The $35,000,000 that we proposed last year was to be used for the construction of ships^ to remain in the ownership of the Canadian people, and to be placed at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the empire until recalled. As far as his argument is concerned in regard to some other matters that he mentioned, he might as well say that we could carry all the letters
and other mail matter from the United
States to Great Britain without charging anything for it and not be out of pocket, as to make the argument that he has made in regard to these magazines. As I understand, the Canadian post office, in respect to the transmission of mails across the Atlantic, acts as a courier, and charges the United States Government, for example, certain rates, not rates fixed by the IPost Office Department, but fixed by an international arrangement, and charges the British Government or any other Government, for these mails, the transportation of which is arranged for by this Government through a mail subsidy of $1,000,000. While in one sense, of course, if we did not charge the British Government, the United States Government, or any other Government, we would not be out of pocket if we should continue to pay that $1,000,000; still it would hardly 'be a very good argument that we should give up charging any of the nations of the world for the transmission of their mail matter across the Atlantic. The magazines that have been alluded to by my hon. friend the Postmaster General are precisely in the same category as any other mail matter. The Postmaster General -has merely suggested to the British Postnfaster General that, inasmuch as a penny a pound is charged upon these magazines, a reasonable proportion which he has suggested to be a half, should be paid to the Canadian Government for the transmission of these mails by the Post Office Department of Canada as a courier across the Atlantic and by other means throughout our territory as a reasonable compensation for that carriage.


William Chisholm: On the
item before the House we have been discussing the franking privilege, the character of the literature that goes through the post office, and mailing privileges generally. Therefore I think I am in order if I ask the Postmaster General whether or not the sheet called The Liberator, with which he is familiar, published in the city of Ottawa, is accorded the privilege of the mails. I am not a subscriber to that paper, but I receive it regularly through the post office here. I do not know whether postage is paid on it or not. The reason I ask that question is that I observed in the last issue that the editor or publisher had some fears of the present Postmaster General. The paper stated editorially that the present Postmaster General was watching it pretty closely, and that there was some diabolical influence behind him that was likely to make trouble for it whenever the Post-

master General could screw up enough courage to make the attack. So far as the editor of that paper is concerned, it seems to me, in view of the courage and strength and forcefulness which the Postmaster General displayed with reference to the sheet called the Menace, which is characterized as scurrilous, indecent and immoral, that there should be no cause for anxiety or misgiving in the breast of Mr. Morgan at all. I would like, however, to have some official statement from the minister as to whether or not this paper has the privileges of the mails. I know it does not have very much circulation outside the city of Ottawa, but in Ottawa it is known and has been denounced by all the leading clergymen of the city.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Liberator, published in Ottawa, does not go very much through the mails; its circulation is almost entirely in the city. I understand from the deputy minister that this paper has been warned that it must not publish any immoral literature, and on that condition the privileges of the mails have been given to it. I have not the pleasure of reading that paper as carefully as my hon. friend; but P hear from him to-night that it says that it is being watched. It is not being watched by me at all events; but there are officers in the department whose duty it is to watch all that is going through the mails, not from the point of view of religion, but from the point of view of decency and public morals, and the Liberator or any other paper, whether Protestant or Catholic, which does not come within that rule, will be dealt with in the same manner.


William Erskine Knowles: Since the Menace has been mentioned, and as it was I who first placed the question on the Order Paper, I wish to ask the minister why he ruled first that the Canadian Menace should not be allowed, and later ruled that it should be allowed, the privileges of the mails. I am not at the moment asking him to enter into a dissertation as to the merits of the Menace or as to his own personal view of it or as to the view of his deputy minister or of any one in his department, although in one of his letters he hid behind the fact that his deputy minister happened to be a Protestant. It is not a matter of concern to us what is the religion of the deputy minister or whether he has any religion. We vote the deputy minister his salary; and, as we all have troubles of our own, we have not the time to consider the religion of the deputy minister. In answer to my question 
the minister said that the Menace of Aurora, Ontario, was denied the mails for the same reason that the Menace of Aurora, Missouri, had been denied, namely, because it was scurrilous and indecent and immoral. I wish to ask him, because I think the public have a right to knew the reason, why later on he admitted the Canadian Menace to the privileges of the mails.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I gave a full and complete answer to that question only a few days ago. My answer will be found on ' Hansard ' and I would like my hon. friend to read it. The reason for which the Canadian Menace was refused the privileges of the mails in the first instance was that it was going to be a Canadian edition of the scurrilous sheet published at Aurora, Missouri. Later on the Canadian Menace acknowledged that we were right in our contention that it had no right to publish dirt and filth, and promised not to do so; consequently it was given the privileges of the mails.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Some time ago the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) stated that the paper, the Liberator, published in Ottawa, came through the mails and was put into our boxes. The Postmaster General very frankly said at that time that this matter did not come under his supervision, but was under the control of the Speaker. If I remember aright, the Speaker told us at the time that he would see that this would [DOT] not occur again. We have been surprised to see that this paper, though without any franking privileges at all, is placed in our boxes. I would like to know if the Speaker has forgotten or if he is going to give new orders. We do not want to see this paper in our boxes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not make that
statement. What I said was that my attention had never been drawn to the matter, but that I would look into it and endeavour to see who had the authority and what the nature of the sheet was. I made inquiry and was told that the censorship over all mail matter was exercised in the Postmaster General's department, and therefore the House of Commons had nothing to do with it.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: But what I should like to know is bow it happens that this paper is placed in our boxes, not franked, with nothing to show from what source it comes c<r by whom it is placed in, our boxes. Is the responsibility on the Postmaster Gen-

eral? I am afraid it is. Is it on the Speaker? If so I hope you will be moire careful in the future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the House will see that a radical change is made as regards the insurance of letters. I do not wish to delay the committee, but I think the House is entitled to the information.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have the power of insurance now. We are making a distinction between the power of registration and the power to insure. The two are now mixed up. We are limiting it now to $25, as compensation which people who register mail matter should have the right to claim as a result of the loss. This is carrying into effect a proposal which I explained last year, and it will enable those who wish to do so to insure their parcels going through the mails. This is done, if I mistake not, in all countries where parcel post exists. We thought, and I still think, that we might have that power, but there was some doubt expressed about it, so we thought it best to come to Parliament and have the whole thing on the statutes so that there might be no mistake. We are going to keep to the five cents for registration fee. We will make the charge for insurance of parcels not lairge, but we may have to charge a little more for insurance purposes.-Our present intention, as advised by the officers of the department, is that -the proper limit would be $50.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Insurance brokers are
taking advantage of the Post Office Department in this way: they insure parcels, so to speak, and really they do not insure them, but they profit by the registration of the post office and are satisfied with paying the small amount of five cents instead of paying for the regular insurance, and in that way they are taking away the money due the Post Office Department. I understand that the amendment is to cover that point.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman
has put it exactly as it is. I was coming to that point. Money is taken by some companies and for it a receipt is given, and they undertake to carry it to the point of destination. What do they do? They just simply put the money through the Post Office Department and get the profit. We think we might as well get the profit, and this clause is in order to cover such cases.
32;i7


William Erskine Knowles: I would ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to an item in the Orange Sentinel of the 23rd of April, complaining that a certain paper called the Catholic Register had trangressed the requirements of the mail service even more than the Menace. The Postmaster General told us that one paper was under supervision, if that is the word-or censorship-and he told us that there is no other paper besides the Liberator that is under censorship-I think that is the word.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I did not use that
word.


William Erskine Knowles: We will say 'observation.'


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: All papers in this
country are under observation.


William Erskine Knowles: And so the Sentinel
is?	.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is exactly in the
same position as the Catholic Register, and the Catholic Register is in the same position as the Sentinel; and if the Catholic Register were to publish things like those in the Menace, it would not be tolerated for five minutes by the Post Office Department.


William Erskine Knowles: I think the hon. gentleman said it had been warned and was under some sort of supervision.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Like the other papers.


William Erskine Knowles: The same sort of supervision as the Mail and Empire and the Montreal Star?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There are some
papers over which this kind of observation would be more necessary than over others, because we hear so many people complaining, of these newspapers telling lies about them, but this does not come under the censorship of the Post Office Department; we are only looking at the decent and moral side.


William Erskine Knowles: If the minister is not
interfering with papers telling lies, probably then the Mail and Empire can get along all right. The Orange Sentinel does not take the same view with regard to the action taken by the Postmaster General as he himself has taken. The Sentinel says that the reason he turned rightabout face was that the Orange lodges made him do so. I do not know either Orangeman or Catholic so far as this House goes, or so

far as the public business goes; but I know the Postmaster General as a man responsible to this House for the discharge of his duties, and it is scarcely right that a paper of wide circulation like the Sentinel should make the charge that the Postmaster General had changed his views-which we must assume were conscientious because the Sentinel and his friends made him do so, and that no explanation should be given. The Sentinel says;
The ban on the Canadian Menace has been raised. Hon. Mr. Pelletier has seen a new light and has conceded interim postal privileges. So long as the Menace refrains from imitation of the paper of the same name in the United States, it is likely to be allowed to pass through the mails.
Credit for the vindication of the liberty of the press is largely due- to Orangemen. Thousands of them protested in vigorous terms against Rome's attempt to establish herself as press censor and allowed it to be known that they would break party affiliations rather than endure a violation of the Protestant principles.
Had the Orange Association and its official organ been less influential, Canada would still be disgraced by the State's suppression of a publication disliked by Rome. No one can tell what the end would have been.
The lesson for our members is that if they will get all their friends to read the Sentinel and succeed in inducing them to join the Order, and fight for equal rights and one school, one flag, and one language, it will not be long before Orangeism is triumphant all along the line.
It is time all Protestants got up on the band wagon.
Now, one of two things is correct: Either this paper has committed a gross libel upon the minister-and it is not becoming the dignity of this House that one of our members should be so libelled-or we are in the hands of a Postmaster General who would have done us a wrong, unless the Sentinel and its Orange friends had in some divine way come to our assistance. Either one of these is an unfortunate position, and I think it is the minister's duty to straighten the matter out.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend is very witty and draws a great many smiles from his friends around him: Why he is bringing this matter up and putting it before the committee I do not know, but I would advise him to consult some of his friends on the other side as to whether they think the matter to which he has referred is a good and proper one to bring before the House in the way he is bringing it. So far as I am concerned it is not a question of my doing what I am told by the Orange Lodges, by the Catholic Church or by anybody else;

what I try to do is that which I think is right; that is my only guide. That is what I am going to continue to do, whether it pleases the one church or the other, and whether my hon. friend from the West is satisfied or not.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I want to speak of the proposed changes in newspaper rates in so far as they concern newspapers published in western Canada, and I would like to place before the Postmaster General some views in that regard based upon practical experience. If there is to be an increase in postal rates, special consideration should be given .to the newspapers of western Canada on account of the extent to which the cost of production exceeds that of eastern newspapers. I have some figures here which I prepared last session when this matter was under consideration, and which I did not place before the House. In the first place, I would like the minister to consider that the field covered by the western daily newspaper is very wide compared with that covered by the eastern newspaper. .For instance, there is no daily newspaper between Moosejaw and Medicine Hat and there is no daily newspaper between Medicine Hat and Calgary; consequently the newspapers in those western cities cover a very large territory.
This is not the case in Ontario, where daily newspapers are published in nearly every incorporated city and in some of the towns. What I want to emphasize is the fact that the cost of publication in western Canada is much heavier-much more so, perhaps, than the Postmaster General realizes- than it is in eastern Canada. Apart from the matter of high telegraph and cable tolls and from the question of wages-and wages in western Canada are considerably higher than they are in the East-the cost of publication is higher in the West than in the East and higher in Winnipeg than in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Dealing with the item of freight rates on the paper on which newspapers are printed, I would like to quote these figures: Winnipeg papers pay 61 cents a hundred pounds; Regina, 99 cents; Calgary, 81.32; Edmonton, $1.32; Lethbridge, $1.27; Saskatoon, 1.09; Nelson, B.C., $1.71; Rossland, $1.71; Minneapolis and St. Paul, 10. cents; eastern Canadian newspapers, from 10 to 20 cents. It will be observed that the cost of production in the West is very much larger than in the East, in respect of the one item of freight rates, upon paper. The newspapers of western Canada have been of

great value to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior in providing a great deal of publicity, for the western Canadian newspapers circulate not only in their own respective districts, but very largely in the United States and Great Britain. They are of value also in developing a strong Canadian and British sentiment in this country, and that is very important in a new part of the country like western Canada. I hope that the Postmaster General will take up the case of the newspapers of western Canada which, I believe, has been presented to him by influential western publishers, and give it the serious consideration which I feel sure it deserves.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The remarks of the hon. gentleman are worthy of attention, and they will, be taken into serious consideration when we take up this matter at the end of the present session.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-qualifications of superintendent.
Mr. G. V. WHITE:: Has it been decided by the department to establish a new railway mail district at North Bay.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.
Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski). I would like to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any amendment in the law under this clause 2? I understood there was an amendment in connection with the length of time the mail clerks should be employed before being appointed as superintendents.
Mr. PELLETIER. Before the existing law, the mail clerk had to be employed for a number of years in the office and to act for a certain time as a railway mail clerk. Under the new law, it will be sufficient to have been in the office for a certain dime, even though he had never been a railway mail clerk; as long as he has been in the office for a certain length o.f time, he may be appointed as superintendent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-temporary appointments:
Mr. MURPHY:: When this Bill was before the committee in the shape of a resolution, some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House asked my hon. friend for an explanation with regard to this section. A partial explanation was given, but, with all respect to my hon. friend, I must say that' he did not satisfy this side of the House that he was not taking power under
these amendments to appoint without examination a host of political friends, who will serve as travelling political agents for the Government of which my hon. friend is a valued and useful member. If my hon. friends on this side of the House who have been complaining about dismissals will apply their attention to this section and observe the difference between it and the provisions of the section for which it is a substitute, they will readily understand what has become of many of their political friends of whose dismissals they have previously complained. One remarkable feature of subsection 3 of this section is that it is retro active; it is to be effective frpm March 12, 1912. It provides among other things that persons who were then in the employ of the railway mail service shall be continued in the service, irrespective of age, and notwithstanding the fact that they have not passed the Civil Service examinations.
It then makes a further amendment of the previously existing law, which declared that such persons shall not be eligible for an increase until they pass the Civil Service examination, while the new section provides that they shall be eligible for an annual increase until their salaries amount to $1,000 so they may be continued for an indefinite length of time in the service without examination and have their salaries increased to $1,000. After that the new section provides that they shall not be eligible for an increase above $1,000 until they have passed the qualifying examination. - Perhaps the minister can give me some explanation.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is no such radical change in the Bill, as my hon. friend may learn from the hon. member for Rou-ville. Clerks are taken on as temporary employees not only in the post office but in all the departments. Before the date mentioned in that section, that is, the 12th * of March, 1912, under the law as it then existed the Post office Department had the right to appoint these employees as they were appointed; but subsequently we ourselves passed a law under which it became necessary to pass certain examinations. Thus, instead of relaxing the rigorous state of the law, we have made it more rigorous.


Charles Murphy: Not by this amendment.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This amendment is
not as my hon. friend read it. The only thing whidh this Bill provides which is a

change from the present law is that these people, if they are satisfactory, may get their increases like everyone else. There is no such radical change as he suggests.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend has referred to some subsequent legislation. I do not know whether he referred to chapter 41, of the statutes of 1912, or to' some Act subsequent to that. If his reference is to chapter 41 of the statutes of 1912, I would submit that the observations I have made are entirely borne out by this amendment. This amendment is doing precisely what I stated a few moments ago it is intended to do.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is now a law in existence under which railway mail clerks can be kept as temporary employees for more than twelve months. They have then to pass the preliminary examination, or they have to go; even if we wanted to keep them the Auditor General would not pay them. When an employee has passed the preliminary examination he can be kept, but his salary does not go beyond a certain limit until he has passed the qualifying examination. Some of the temporary clerks in the Post Office Department have had no increase because they did not pass the preliminary examination at the end of the first year of their appointment, and did not pass it because they were not then obliged by law to pass it. Then the law came into force saying that no increase would be given to those who had not passed the examinations. The law discriminated against these clerks, and we are taking care of this special condition by this clause. My hon. friend will see that this Bill makes no great change.


Charles Murphy: What I see is the reverse of what the hon. gentleman has stated. Under subsection 3 surely my hon. friend will not contend that he has not taken power to appoint.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The clause only refers to those appointed before the 12th of March, 1912. The clause does not refer to future appointments.


Charles Murphy: I am not speaking about the future, but about people who have been in the service. My statement is that the intention is to make them practically permanent officials, turning them from temporary into permanent employees without examination.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: But this does not give me the power to make temporary appointments, as my hon. friend says, he speaks of
[Mr. Pelletier.!
political agents going around the country It refers to appointments made prior to the 12th of March, 1912. These people have been in the service during all that time, and we would like those who are qualified for the work and who are recommended by their superior officers, to have the increases to which they would have been entitled if they had been appointed under the same circumstances as the others who were appointed since that date. That is all the clause provides for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In other words, the law says that no man can be appointed railway mail clerk until he has passed certain examinations and not if he is over thirty years of age. My hon. friend has not been able, as I was not able, to find young men of less than thirty years who would be willing to accept the paltry sum of $500 to serve as railway mail clerks and he has appointed, under the name of labourers, many mail clerks over thirty years, some fifty years of age and probably some sixty. My hon. friend wishes to put these men regularly in the service but he gives them a little salve because under the existing law unless they pass the qualifying examination he would be unable to give them a salary beyond $1,000.


Mr. MURPH  Y@: Can my hon. friend tell the committee to how many employees this will apply?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That question was put by the hon. member for Oxford, and I have the information here, as to the number of people affected and the amount involved. By reason of the annual increase from $50 to $100 for the people now in the service it will cost $66,200.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is for the staff?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This gives the information for the Bill we have passed and the Bill we are now engaged on. To raise the salaries of permanent clerks from $500 to $600 will cost $38,300. To raise the salaries of temporary clerks now employed from $500 to $600 will cost $25,300. The total amount involved is $129,800. The total number of persons affected is as follows: Temporary cleTks who will be raised from $500 to $600, 89; permanent clerks who will be raised from $500 to $600, 126; clerks who will receive an annual increase of $100 instead of $50, 490; altogether 705 people will come under the preceding Bill and the Bill we are now discussing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Seven hundred and five will be made permanent.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, that relates to
salary. The figures I have given include railway mail clerks, who are provided for by this Bill, employees in the city post offices, and in the other offices.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many will be made permanent?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have not that
information, but there are not many.


George Perry Graham: About 90?
" Mr. PELLETIER: Oh.no.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend read the figures 89. Were those temporary clerks being made permanent?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, that is the number of temporary clerks who will be raised from $500 to $600.


George Perry Graham: Were most of these temporary clerks appointed after October, 1911?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Most of them I suppose?


Charles Murphy: How many of that class will this section make permanent?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have not that information, but I will make a
11	p.m. note of it. Temporary clerks are paid the same salary as the initial salary of the permanent clerks, and as the initial salary of permanent clerks has been raised to $600 the temporary clerks will 'be paid at the same rate, but they do not go beyond that point.


Gerald Verner White: I do not wish t<s
delay the passage of this very important Bill, but there is a matter which I think is deserving of the attention of the Postmaster General, and that is in connection with the maximum salary of the railway mail clerks. The Postmaster General is to be congratulated upon his action in increasing both the minimum and the maximum salary of those clerks. Every .member of the House realizes that the employees of the railway mail service are subject to very many casualties. Employees in that branch probably run greater risks than in any other branch of the Government service, and I am pleased to see that the Postmaster General has seen fit to recognize the railway mail Service by raising the minimum and maximum salaries. I would like to have seen my hon. friend the Postmaster General go a little farther and make the maximum salary $1,500 instead of $1,400. I have in mind the case of a railway mail
clerk who lives in my town who was appointed to the service in 1884, and it was only last year, after being thirty years in the service, that he reached his maximum. However, the present legislation making the annual increase $100 instead of $50 will enable clerks in this particular branch to reach their maximum much more rapidly. I should be glad if the Postmaster General could see his way clear, if not this session, perhaps at the next session of Parliament, to make the maximum $1,500 instead of $1,400.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: I do not think this legislation is quite as innocent as the Postmaster General tries to make it appear. There is no objection, of course, to raising the minimum salary to $600. Five hundred dollars may appear low; in fact it is low. If $500 was a proper salary ten or twenty years ago, $600 is low enough to-day. The annual increase of $100 instead of $50 is all right too, but the vicious principle in this Bill is the dispensing with any qualifying examination, and giving the Postmaster General power to promote any man whether he possesses the necessary qualifications or not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not asking for that at all.


William Chisholm: This section provides:
3. Any person employed temporarily as a railway mail clerk on the twelfth day of March, 1912, may, if his services have been satisfactory-
Who is to be the judge?
-and if recommended by the superintendent and the controller of the railway mail service, be appointed to the permanent staff at a salary not exceeding the amount he is then receiving, irrespective of age and notwithstanding the fact that he has not passed the Civil Serviec examination.
Why should he not be required to pass the Civil Service examination? It was the law some years ago that a clerk appointed at $500 should serve a probationary period of one year, and then if he passed the examination-if he had ability and character enough he would pass the examination- and his services had been satisfactory and his habits were correct, he was in line for promotion, and could be appointed to the permanent staff and rise to the maximum salary. Why not require that to be done to-day? Is it not just as important to-day as it was fifteen years ago that railway mail clerks be men of character and intelligence? I say that principle is vicious.
32 52

Then again this Bill makes it retroactive.. The whole history of the thing is this: There were men who had to be provided for after the last election. I know one case where a man wanted a certain job, but it had been promised to so many persons that he was left out in the cold. Next thing the committee takes him in hand and says: We will appoint you to the railway mail service. The man made inquiries, read up the Civil Service Act, and found that as he was over 31-he was 33- he would be entitled to a salary of only $500 after he had'passed an examination. Hi? business was not of a clerical character at all; he had been a professional man, but had not made much of a success in his profession. He was good enough for the purpose, however, and they proposed to get him in the railway mail service. But there was some hitch and he did not go in. I am quite sure, however, that many did get in who have not the qualifications, and whose services would not be	found satisfactory if tested
by	an	independent and	competent
body; but they will be kept on. This matter will be left at the discretion of the department, and for those with the proper political leanings places will be found. Not only should this power not be put in the hands of the Post Office Department, but there should be a system under which persons who are absolutely useless should not be kept on. The man who cannot pass the examination at the expiration of a year is not the proper kind of a man to have. There are lots of young men who can be got by the Post Office Department. If the salary is too low, raise it, as this Bill proposes to do. There will be lots of men available then. There is no reason why any person should not be required to pass the examination. If it is left in the hands of the Postmaster General these men will not qualify themselves.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If my hon. friend will read section 4 he will see that his argument does not apply. Section 3 only applies to a fixed, number of people who were appointed before a certain date. Let me read section 4:	_
No person shall be eligible for the appointment to the permanent staff of railway mail clerks unless he has passed either the Civil Service preliminary or qualifying examination, or is a graduate of the Royal Military College or of a university of Canada. '
[Mr. W. Chisholm. V
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: Can he not be
brought in under clause 3, supposing his services are satisfactory, without passing the examination?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Those who were appointed before the date mentioned in that clause. At that time it was not necessary for these people to pass an examination.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: Was not the law then that they had to serve as probationers for a year at a salary of $500, and that, at the expiration of that period, if their services were not satisfactory, they were to be barred out?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If that clause had been in existence these people would not be in the Post Office Department now, because more than twelve months would have elapsed.


Hugh Guthrie: I am inclined to think that the clause is one that should not give us very much difficulty. There were some people appointed before the I2th March, 1912, as temporary employees. We know that it was difficult to obtain suitable men in all cases to fill these positions; the salaries were too small. They were put on as temporary employees. They could hot be put on the permanent list until they had passed the examination. They remained on year after year and did not pass the examination. Then we changed the law. That change was to the effect that a man had to pass the examination within a year. If I understand this section aright, it is only to apply to a small number of men who were in that peculiar position prior to the 12th March, 1912. I agree that no man should be eligible, as provided by the next subsection in future unless he has passed the proper examination. For my part I do not see much objection to the clause as it stands now.


William Erskine Knowles: I wish to bring to the minister's attention a matter that has been the subject of a resolution of the Association of Railway Mail Clerks in my own city. Among other things they asked the department that they might use their good offices to secure for railway mail clerks transportation privileges while they are on their holidays. At the present time railway mail clerks, although they are very closely indentified with the transportation system of the country, have to pay out of their own pockets for their transportation while on vacation. They have, by a formal resolution, asked that the Government

might use its good offices to get railway transportation for them during their holidays. The Government is very close to the railway companies and especially the railway mail service branch of the Post Office Department. Immense sums are paid to the railway companies by the Post Office Department and there seems to be a great deal of pith in what any constituents say that the influence of the Postmaster General would be very great with the railway companies in securing this concession. I am told that the employees of the express companies get this privilege to which I am referring. The department might accomplish this end, if in no other way, by allowing railway mail clerks to travel in the mail car itself which would not do any harm inasmuch as the men engaged in that service might very well be trusted to travel in the mail car. If the minister would be kind enough to assure me that he would do his utmost with the railway companies to come to an understanding with them that they would grant vacation passes such as they grant to their own employees I am sure it would be quite satisfactory to the railway mail clerks. I think they might grant such passes not only to the railway mail clerk but to the railway mail clerk and his wife. I would commend this to his favourable consideration.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend certainly overestimates the power which the Postmaster General has with the railways. If he could only have been present at the numerous interviews which were held in order to come to a settlement of the vexed question of the increase of the rates he would have known that the railway companies are not so willing to give the PostOffice Department favours as he supposes. Instead of giving us a pass for the railway mail clerk going on his vacation with his wife, his children and maybe his cousins, his aunts, -his friends, or his lady friend-


William Erskine Knowles: That was on the ground of morality, I suppose.
Mr. PELLETIER-I do not know; some of these people stand on very high ground, I understand. They even contended that we had no right to send a second clerk on duty on the postal car and that if we did so we had to pay for his passage. My hon. friend sees that instead of giving us passes for the railway mail clerks going away on their vacations they are so exacting in that respect that we would have very little chance of securing such a concession. We had to take the stand that the railway mail
clerks who were on the mail car on duty should not be called upon to pay anything for their passage. The railway companies will not give the railway mail clerks passes for their vacations and I would not ask for them. We have to -hold our own with the railway companies and we do not want to ask for these favours. They wanted $4,000,000 of an increase for the mail service and we succeeded in bringing their claim down to $780,000 but if at that time we had made it a condition that railway mail clerks, their wives and children, should be carried free perhaps we would not have succeeded in bringing that claim down to such an extent. I have received the request from the railway mail clerks to which my hon. friend has referred. I think all my employees will give me credit for doing everything that I can for them but this is a request that it is not in my power to grant.


William Erskine Knowles: If the post office inspectors, the assistant post office inspectors and the' railway mail superintendent have passes, why should not these much more poorly remunerated clerks get the same privilege?
Mr. PEELET1ER: That is on duty.


William Erskine Knowles: But they have annual passes. The minister, of course, has the power, if he would only consider the request reasonable. I would ask that the men who are so closely connected with the transportation system, and whose lives are imperiled in the discharge of their duty, should have the same privilege that every person else has who is connected with transportation; that is an annual free trip.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-age limit of railway mail clerks:
Charles Murphy: What is the reason for that change?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That section corresponds with the other ones. For the railway mail clerks the -age is now thirty, whereas for the other clerks in the post offices it is thirty six; we are putting them all on the same footing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-repeal:
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the meaning
_of this section?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The preceding amendment has rendered useless the four sections

in question, and the consequence is that they are repealed.


Frank Oliver: I do not at all agree with the policy of the minister in taking power to himself to make regulations for the postage of newspapers without the direct sanction of Parliament. The postal rates are provided at present by the sections that are being repealed. I think postal rates should be established by authority of Parliament and should be embodied in the statute. I do not agree that it is proper legislation or a proper discharge of the responsibilities of this House merely to authorize the Postmaster General to fix any rate of postage that he may think fit. The rule that has prevailed in the past, whereby the rate of postage is -set down in the statute on the responsibility of Parliament as recommended by the Government, is the proper way and the only way in which that matter should be dealt with.


William John Macdonald: Does the minister
provide under that section to blot out the statute regulation in regard to newspapers and to take the whole thing into his own hands? What ground does he give for taking such powers?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have it in everything else; it is a matter of regulation. If one reads the law as it exists at present, one- -may reach the conclusion tha-t we have that power at the present time, whereas another may reach a different conclusion; but it has been considered by me as a matter of regulation in the department. We are desirous to reach an agreement with the newspaper owners to increase the rates of postage on newspapers. If we cannot make this a matter of regulation, our hand's will be paralyzed. Under the Parcel Post Act we have the power to make the rates as they are ; we have the power to increase or to decrease them.


William John Macdonald: That is an experimental proposition.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are about to
change the ra-tes on newspapers and we expect to do it with the consent of the newspaper owners.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will there be an increase?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The rates may not be increased in all eases. The press associations have admitted that the rates should be increased but they propose, not the same zones, -but the same system of zones as exist for parcel post. They say that we

should ask a higher rate of postage for newspapers beyond.a certain distance. If this has all to be put into the law by Parliament, our hands will be tied and we shall not be able to make any such arrangement with the newspapers owners. This power exists for parcel post and for everything else. Last year we were told, when parcel post came up, that we should take that power and fix the rates. We cannot do that except by regulations which are adopted, which have to be published in the official Gazette, and which come into force only after being so published. These rates, of course, can be recalled. For parcel post, to which the same principle applies absolutely, if we had had to wait for Parliament to fix these rates, we could not have prepared as we did; and if in the course of our experience in Tegard to parcel post, we see that these rates may be decreased for the benefit of the public, we can do it without coming to Parliament for sanction. It is all a question as to whether or not the officers of the department, in whose hands this matter lies to a great extent, can be trusted to do what is right in the matter. There never has been a complaint in regard to the matter, and I do not think there ever will be.


William John Macdonald: Has the minister
nothing to do with these things himself?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I take a great interest in these matters as I do in all matters concerning my department. I have met the newspaper editors several times and have discussed this matter with them. They have been good enough to tell me that I have met them in the proper spirit and that they are willing to do all they can to meet my views, because they think I am right, at least to a certain extent. I do not think there is any great danger in this section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can say to my hon.
friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that the minister is right in his explanation. The Postmaster General, if you read his powers in the Post Office Act, can himself make all these regulations for newspapers, for parcel post and so on.


William John Macdonald: The Postmaster
General says that he does not look after these matters; that it is his officials who do so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend can
trust the Postmaster General not to quarrel with the newspapers. I can credit him to be an astute enough politician to play fair with them.


William John Macdonald: On some occasions
lately I have found my hon. friend the Postmaster General to be a gentleman of wonderfully fertile resources. He is very plausible in regard to this proposition concerning the newspapers, but he 'has a -way of putting his officials in front of him when there is anything for which he does not want to assume the responsibility, and he tells us that is all right. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is a newpaper man, and he has rather impressed me with his argument in regard to the matter. If my hon. friend the minister finds it necessary in the carrying on of the business of his department to deal with matters of detail, and if he is going to take the power-and he has made an argument to impress the House that he ought to have the power- to negotiate and do all these things between sessions, there ought to be an ultimate reference to Parliament when changes are to be made.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I agree with my hon. friend; but the revising power of Parliament exists even if I do not reserve it in this case. If I make an arrangement with the newspaper editors and owners which is not suitable to Parliament, hon. members can tell "me so at the next session. I think I understand what my hon. friend has in mind. I am not asking for powers to make the Liberal newspapers pay a certain rate and the Conservative newspapers pay another rate.


William John Macdonald: I never would have thought that at all.	.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am asking that the same rates shall apply to all newspapers, and no Postmaster General would think of doing anything else than that. Under the circumstances, as my hon. friend from Rouville has very properly said, there are a great many guarantees that this matter will be approached in the right spirit. I think we can accomplish some good if there is no doubt about these powers being vested in the Postmaster General. I am of the opinion that these powers are at present vested in the Postmaster General but there is some doubt in regard to the matter and I would like to make it clear, so that there will be no question about it.


George Perry Graham: This question of zone, of which my hon. friend has spoken, cannot be operated generally so as to be satisfactory. But let me point out the difference. It is all right where the newspaper is 205
located with a country surrounding it o'n all sides. But take newspapers published along the frontier, the circulation of which is in Canada alone, they have only half a zone in which to circulate. Now, unless provision is made to make the centre of their zone somewhere else than the place of publication, they are at a disadvantage. I have had a good deal of correspondence with newspaper men on this subject, and I said that if there was the change proposed it would be unfair to the newspapers on the frontier. Heretofore, the place of publication was at the edge of the zone, Which was fair. But the change that is proposed will take away a quarter of the privilege of these newspapers.	.


John Howard Sinclair: I hold no brief for the newspapers, but I hope no regulation will be made to make it difficult for people in the country to get a cheap newspaper. It is a great advantage that the Montreal Star, the Toronto Globe, and other large newspapers can go out to distant places in the country at cheap rates. The farmers will not pay a big price for a daily paper, but it certainly makes a country district a better place to live in if its people have access to daily newspapers, even though they be three or four days old. We are all agreed that rural life should be made more attractive, and cheap newspapers is one of the means to that end. If the Postmaster General takes away from the country people the opportunity to get newspapers at cheap rates, he will strike a heavier blow at the welfare of the country than he thinks. I hope he will give the matter very serious consideration.


Frank Oliver: I desire to protest as emphatically as I can, without delaying the committee, against the position of the Postmaster General that this should be by regulation. I say emphatically that it should not be by regulation, but by statute. It has always been by statute and is so now. But the minister proposes to strike that provision out of the statute and take power to regulate as he may please. The minister has given no reason so far to justify that position. It is right that associations of newspaper men should meet the officers of the department and discuss the proposed changes with them, and it is entirely desirable that they should reach an amicable conclusion. But that does not alter the fact that changes in such an important service as the postal rates on newspapers should be at the discretion of Parliament, and of Parliament alone. It is



not a matter that should be fixed between my hon. friend's department and an association of newspaper publishers; it is a matter that should foe set right on the floor of the House, not in the interest of the newspaper publishers and the officials of the department, but in the interest of the people of Canada who are interested in the newspapers and in the postal service. There is a very material reason from the newspaper publisher's point of view why this matter should be by statute and not by regulation. The newspaper postage, although it is small on each number of the paper, is, in the aggregate, a very important part of the charges upon any considerable newspaper enterprise, and it is important to the enterprise, wherever it may be located and whether large or small, that it should know that that feature of its existence and this limitation of its opportunities should not be subject to change without due notice and without the fullest consideration.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This does not interfere with all that.


Frank Oliver: If postal charges are to be subject to change simply at the will of the department, after consultation with this, that, or the other association of newspapers, there is no reasonable assurance of permanence in the regulations of the newspaper publishers at large, such as there would be if there could foe change only by Parliament only after full discussion on the floor of this House. From that standpoint, the practical effect of my hon. friend making the change from statute to regulations, is entirely against the material interest of the newspaper publishers.	.	j ,,
The Postmaster General has instanced the case of the parcel post rates as provided by regulation. He received authority from Parliament at the last session to establish a parcel post system with rates and regulations such as he should fix. And he concludes that because he was given that authority at that time therefore he should be given this authority now. Without introducing controversial matters, I say that for my part, as a representative of the people, as a member of this Parliament, I am responsible, measurably responsible, for m/ hon. friend's parcel post system and the rates he levied. Now, I am not in agreement with his parcel post system or the rates he levied; I do not think the system 
is well-conceived or well carried out, and I do not think it is fair to me or to members of this House that I have no opportunity to give my opinion with regard to that matter. So, his instance of the parcel post system is unfortunate fro-m my point of view. This is a matter of very great importance to the people of Canada, and the representatives of the people of Canada in Parliament assembled should have the deciding vote.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Gn section 8-section 116 amended:
Charles Murphy: A rather important
change is made in this section. Will the hon. Postmaster General explain why he is proposing that the Postmaster General should leave so much out of his report?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is a matter on
which I shall not insist if the committee oppose it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It will give rise to a
long discussion. For my part I shall oppose it very strongly.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Let me explain the
facts, and then if the House does not agree I am not much concerned except that it is a great waste of public money. We publish in the Postmaster General's Report an enormous amount of stuff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Information.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It may be information, but it is information which the people never read, and such as is not published by any other postmaster general in the civilized world, and moreover a great part of this same information is contained in the Auditor General's Report. I do not think that we should print that information twice.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I take issue with my hon. friend when he says that there is a lot of information in the Postmaster General's annual report that is not read by the people. What affects my county may not be of interest to the hon. member for Halifax or the hon. member for South Renfrew, but it is somewhat interesting to me and to the people of my constituency to whom I send the report. The tendency of Parliament nowadays is to give as much information as possible to the public and not to reserve that information to the select few. Of course, I do not object to lopping off from the blue book of the Post Office Department what is already published in

the Auditor General's Report, 'but I certainly would object to taking away anything from that report which concerns the service.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will not insist upon the passing of this clause if hon. gentlemen do not agree upon it; I will drop it for the present and bring it up another year.
Section dropped.
On section 9-letter carriers on electric railways:


Hugh Guthrie: I would suggest to the minister that he strike out the words 'except municipally owned electric railways.' In the city of Guelph in my riding the electric railway is municipally owned. It was a stock company; the city acquired the stock, and it is operated under a commission named by the council. I do not think that any arrangement has ever been made with them for the carrying of letter-carriers. I notice in the section that the Postmaster General proposes that letter-carriers shall be conveyed on every electric railway in Canada except municipally owned railways, on such terms and conditions and under such regulations as are made by the Postmaster General. Why make au exception of the municipally owned railways? If they will not make terms, the. Postmaster General can set the price. I think that should apply to municipalities as well as to companies. Nearly all electric companies are provincial companies, and the Postmaster General assumes under the section the right to prescribe rates for these companies. Municipal institutions are provincial institutions; if the Postmaster General can prescribe rates for the one he can prescribe them for the other. It would be a hardship to twelve or fifteen young men in the town where distances are long, and a hardship to the public as well, if they cannot get and deliver the letters as speedily as they could if they were permitted to use this electric road. I have heard it said that the Railway Commission at Guelph is exorbitant in its requests. I do not know what those requests are, but I think that the Postmaster General should take action at once to fix a price, and if he will strike out the words which I have indicated he will be able to fix a price.


William Ashbury Buchanan: For what reason are municipally owned railways excluded?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In all our experience we have had no trouble whatever with the 2054
municipally owned electric railways. I was asked by them: have you any reason to complain about us? I told them: no, you have been very decent about it. They said: if so, why put us on the same footing as the others who .are so exacting? I thought they were right:	The letter carriers in
every city would like to enjoy this privilege, which is now so general; but in many cases they are prevented from doing so oil account of the prohibitive price which certain tramway companies endeavour to exact from the department. In the case of Guelph or other towns where there are municipally owned railways we have authorities who will help us to come to terms and -to meet the views of the letter carriers in a fair way, and those are the reasons why we have not included the municipally-owned railway. So far as my knowledge goes, the municipally-owned railways have given us rates which compare in a favourable manner with those of the joint stock companies.


Hugh Guthrie: Have the Guelph
people done so?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not in a position to tell my hon. friend about it just at the moment, but if the matter is not settled by the Guelph people on proper lines my hon. friend can count on me to do what is right in the matter. If that tramway in Guefph is the property of the corporation, probably we cannot reach them under this clause, tout if it is in the hands of a company we can reach them. I have put this section in in order to show the other companies with which we have been having so much trouble-companies which are making enormous profits and which have no consideration for employees who are obliged to walk the streets with their loads-to show them that we intend to make a distinction between them and those companies which offer us fair terms. I want to make a clear distinction between the people who act in a fair way in the matter and those who demand from us prohibitive rates and, if they do not get them, decline to take care of the transportation of the men. We have been unable to come to terms with the company in Moosejaw; that is one of the few places in the West where we have been unable to come to a reasonable arrangement with the company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What did you offer? -


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I cannot recall the figures, but I offered the same rates as are paid all over corresponding area in the West. They admitted that the other

-companies were prepared to accept the rates offered, but they said: We will not accept them; we will get more. I found a very fair spirit on the part of the men, who told me not to give that price to the company, but to give them the difference and they would provide their own transportation. I have agreed to do that. I would say to my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that I would Tather have this legislation passed as it is and if there is one case that is left out I shall tell this corporation that we have passed this' law for this year and that they may be one of the exceptions among all municipally owned railways, but if they do not agree to it, another law will be enacted so as to reach them. I want to see all letter carriers taken care of in this respect and these tramway companies should do it. If they do not wish to do so I will see that they do.


Hugh Guthrie: I am glad to have that assurance from the hon. Postmaster General. I am afraid there may be some difficulty in coming to terms with the Guelph electric railway. That is an ordinary provincial electric company. The city bought a controlling interest in its stock and operates it through a controlling commission which is elected, but it is just in the same position as an ordinary privately owned company. I cannot see why the words ' except municipally owned railways' should not be omitted. The present condition is unfair to the letter carriers but to the citizens of Guelph because they are kept waiting for their mail. If the words referred to were struck out the Postmaster General would have power to control the Guelph company and secure a reasonable rate there.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I wish to give credit to the people who are entitled to it. These people have acted in the proper spirit and I told them that when I asked Parliament to enact that clause they would be given this consideration. I would like to keep faith with them, but I can tell the hon. member for South Wellington that I am quite prepared to do for Guelph what I am doing at the present time for Moosejaw, if the letter carriers there are in the same position and if the company is not willing to do what it ought to do. The letter carriers in Moosejaw are satisfied with the arrangement and it is at their request that I am doing it. I do not remember having received any communications from the letter carriers of Guelph.


Hugh Guthrie: I have received them.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If my hon. friend will tell the letter carriers in Guelph to send me a representation to that effect I will take it up and see they are treated fairly.


Hugh Guthrie: I am glad to hear it.


William Erskine Knowles: The Guelph railway is a company but the majority of the stock in the company is owned by the city. In Moosejaw it may happen that the municipality owns some of the stock of the company.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a corporation.


William Erskine Knowles: It is a corporation in Guelph only the city of Guelph owns practically all the stock. But that does not take it away from the operation of this clause. Has the minister satisfied himself that this Parliament has power to pass this legislation?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, yes.


William Erskine Knowles: Take the Moosejaw or Toronto street railway companies incorporated 'by provincial legislatures, their rates are subject to whatever 'bodies the legislature may create in the shape of a provincial railway commission. I very much question if this House has power to say to a provincially created company: You will carry people for a certain price. We might as well say we have power to compel a three cent rate in Toronto. I question if the minister has power to pass the legislation.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This Bill was presented last year, not the whole of it, but this clause, and this question was raised. Some of the most important companies, , one in particular, were trying to hold us up. The question whether we had this power was raised. We were at the tail end of the session and we were not able to come to an agreement with the company in question. Finally, I succeeded in making an arrangement. So I told that Parliament that I would drop the Bill for last year. The Department of Justice have been consulted in this matter. They have gone thoroughly into it and have told us that the Bill was well intra vires of the powers of this Parliament. If there was any doubt about it I think we might fairly run that little risk in order to see that we are not imposed upon by certain companies who think they can exact 'anything from the public and who are not desirous of helping the public as they ought to. At all events, the Department of Justice having fully considered

the question, I do not venture to offer my own opinion about it. If I were to do so, I might. Under the circumstances I think this is a Bill very much in the public interest, and one for the assistance of the letter-carriers who are doing a great deal of good work and ought to be protected against the exaction of some of the corporations.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. J. Roche (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 136, to amend the Dominion Lands Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
William Roche: This Bill provides for two principal amendments:, one is in reference to the matter of pre-emptions, and the other is in reference to proving up on homestead pre-emptions, and purchased homesteads that are not suitable for agricultural purposes, by keeping a certain number of stock. When I was in the West last summer, and since then, a great many representations were made to me that people in the pre-emption area are labouring under certain disabilities in the matter of pre-emptions, which they desire to see removed. The first request was that they would not be charged interest the first three years. The present Act provides that interest shall be charged during the first three years, but not collected until the end of the third year, when the homestead patent has been earned, Although they ate charged interest during that time, they are not allowed to pay either interest or any portion of the principal until the expiration of the three years. We are making provision to throw off the interest for the first three years. The preemption area is located in what was formerly known as a semi-arid district, and it was considered by the minister who created this pre-emption area that 320 acres in that particular district would not do more towards sustaining a farmer than 160 acres in a more productive part of the country. For that reason the lands were sold at |3 per acre, interest to be charged from the first. The first request made to me was to throw off the three years' interest. As time went on the requests became a little more drastic in character, and we have been asked to throw off the principal as well as the
interest, allowing them to spend the same amount of money on fencing and to keep a certain number of stock. The third request was that we should treat the preemptions exactly as we treat the homesteads; that is that we should charge them nothing for them and give a refund to those who had already paid up in whole or in part. That was rather too radical a step, as it would mean the refunding of upwards of two or three million dollars to those who had already paid for their pre-emptions, in whole or in part. However, I am taking power under the amendments to shorten the time in which they may receive patents for their pre-emptions. By doing their cultivation and residential duties they may, if they desire to pay up m full, obtain their pre-emption patents at the same time they are entitled to receive homestead patents, or at any time between the three years and the six years as at present. These are the principal amendments. In connection with the amendment relating to stock, we are merely taking power to allow them to prove up by keeping a certain number of stock on lands not suitable for cultivation purposes. There was a time in the history of the Land Act when we had a stock provision, but it was abolished some years ago-possibly for good reasons. I have no doubt it was abused to a certain extent. ' However, we are safeguarding as far as we possibly can against abuses like occurred in the past. There are other minor amendments, not very important, to which I shall not refer to-night.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 11.57 p.m.
Tuesday, May 5, 1914.