1914-02-19

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

Mr. R. LANCTOT:: 1.	Was there a contract made between the Government and Messrs. NoS Poupart and Duranceau of Laprairie, for the erection of the protecting wall at the town of Laprairie, at the highlands of St. Lambert?
2.	Were tenders asked for that purpose? If so, in what papers were the notices published?
3.	At what date were they asked for, and when did the time for the reception thereof expire ?
4.	Did the Public Works Department at Ottawa ask that 1,400 feet be completed during last fall, that is the part between St. Jacques river and the high lands of St. Lambert, in order that the road called Boulevard Edward VII, which was completed last November by the provincial Government, be utilized?
5.	What are the names of the parties who have sent in tenders and the amount of each tender?
6.	Was the lowest tenderer awarded the contract and to whom has it been given?
7.	Is the contract signed by the contractors? If so, is it the intention of the Government to see to it that the works start next spring?
8.	Is the Government aware that those works are said to be absolutely necessary, particularly the 8,000 feet of road forming part of Boulevard Edward VII?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Contract sent for signature on 16th January, but not yet returned to the department.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) Montreal: Gazette, Star, La Patrie, Standard, Moniteur du Commerce, Tribune, Canadian Jewish Times, L'Araldo del Canada, Financial Times, L'Opinion; Quebec: Chronicle, L'Evene-

ment, Le Travailleur; Lachute, Watchman; St. Joseph de Beauce, Le Raillement; Chicoutimi, Le Progres du Saguenay, Le Travailleur; Joncquieres, L'Avenir de J oncquieres; Cookshire, Compton County Chronicle; Grand'M&re, La Semaine; St. Lambert, South Shore Press; Victoriaville, La Gazette d'Arthabaska, L'Echo des Bois Francs, Gleaner; Joliette, L'Etoile du Nord; Buckingham, Post; Thetford Mines, Le Mineur; Monbmagny, Le Peuple; Shaw-ville, Equity; Sorel, L'Eveil, Warning, Le Sorelois; Richmond, News; Rimouski, Le Progres du Golfe; St. Hyacinthe, Le Courrier, La Tribune; St. John, News and Eastern Township Advocate; Sherbrooke, Record; Granby, Leader Mail, L'Echo de Granby; Waterloo, Le Journal de Waterloo; Magog, Enterprise; Fraserville, L'Action Canadienne; Shawindgan Falls, L'Industriel; Three Rivers, Le Courrier.
3.	Tenders advertised 21st August, to be received up to 23rd September, 1913.
4.	Yes.
5.	E. J. Rainboth, $70,051.60, approximately; A. Duranceau & N. Pouport, $72,676.73; F. C. Jackson, $110,326.23.
6.	Lowest tender was withdrawn, on a misunderstanding of the specification, and the contract awarded to the second, Messrs. Duranceau & Pouport.
7.	(a) Answered by No. 1; (b) yes.
8.	The department has been so advised.


INTERCOLONIAL. RAILWAY-DETECTIVE SKEFFINGTON.
[Stage Direction]
'Mr. EMMERSON:
1.	Has George Skefflngton, a former detective officer on. the Intercolonial railway been employed at any time since January 1, 1912, in the service of that railway? If so, what were the services rendered, and what was the amount or amounts paid hint for such services, if any?
2.	Was he during the period named employed by any department of the Government? If so, what services did he render, by whom was he engaged, and what was the compensation allowed and paid to him?
3.	Is the said George Skefflngton now in the employ of the Intercolonial railway either permanently or intermittently? If so, in what capacity and at what compensation?
4.	Is he now' in the employ permanently or intermittently of any other department of the Government? If so, in what capacity, and on what terms as to compensation and the period of employment?
Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	He was employed as .special inspector as follow's: 9 days, July, 1913, amount paid $27.50; 1 month, August, 1913, amount paid $82.50; 1 month, September, 1913, amount paid $82.50.
2.	He vras employed by Commissioner
Adair gathering information relative to investigations being carried on by the commissioner. He was paid $877.39.
3.	No.
4.	The Department of Railways and Canals has no information.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-FREIGHT RATES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the rate per ton for first-class freight from St. John to Halifax?
2.	VI)at is the rate that is being paid by the Canadian Pacific railway to the Intercolonial railway per ton for freight carried by the Canadian Pacific railway between St. John and Halifax?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	First-class rate St. John to Halifax, which includes cost of loading and unloading and terminal charges, is $7 per ton that is the rate as applied to shipments of the highest class moving locally between St. John and Halifax in less than carload quantities.
On such traffic the railway assumes the responsibility for loss or damage to the freight, the cost of handling in its freight sheds at both 8-t. John and Halifax, of loading into and unloading from cars, of way billing, collection of charges and sundry accounting expenses.
2.	No freight is carried by the Canadian Pacific railway between St. John and Halifax.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-CHANGES OF GRADES.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Has the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company approved of the changes of grades on the Transcontinental railway between Quebec and Winnipeg since October, 1911? If so, in what terms, and on what date or dates?


Mr. COCHRANE:: No.


EMPLOYMENT OF WILLIAM F. SLACK.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Was Mr. William F. Slack, of Ottawa, appointed as clerk of works in the Department of Public Works, in July, 1911?
2.	Was he appointed by the Minister of Public Works or by the Civil Service Commission?
3.	At what salary was he appointed?
4.	Were there any charges made against him in 1911 or 1912? If so, what are said charges, and the names of the persons who made them?
5.	Were these said charges investigated by Mr. Hector Chauvin?
6.	Was a report of that investigation made by Mr. Hector Chauvin? If so, what were his findings ?
7.	After above-mentioned report was made, was said William F. Slack reinstated? If so, why, by whom, and on what date?
S.	After the above report of Mr. Hector Chau-

vin, were there any further charges made against said William F. Slack? If so, what are said charges, and what are the names of persons who made them?
9.	Were said further charges, if any, investigated by Mr. R. V. Sinclair, K.C., of Ottawa? If so, when?
10.	Did any witnesses appear for complainant or complainants? If so, what are the names of the persons who appeared at said investigation before Commissioner R. V. Sinclair, on behalf of the complainant or complainants to support said charges?
11.	At the said investigation before Commissioner R. V. Sinclair, was the said William F. Slack heard, or allowed to be heard, in his defence, or were there any witnesses heard, or allowed to be heard, on his behalf? If not, why not?
12.	If any witnesses were heard on behalf of said William F. Slack at said investigation, what are the names of said witnesses?
13.	Did Commissioner R. V. Sinclair make any report of said investigation? If so, when and what were his findings?
14.	Has said William F. Slack been dismissed? If so, when?
15.	Is it the intention of the Government to reinstate said William F. Slack? If so, when?
16.	Has there been any change of Minister of Public Works between the first and second investigation?


Mr. ROGERS:: '
1.	Appointed on 6th October, 1911.
2.	By Order in Council, based on a certificate from the Civil Service Commission.
3.	$1,200 a year.
4.	Yes; J. Jolicoeur, A. Franche, A. Mous-seau and ,7. R. Lamontagne. (See answer No. 8.)
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes; no evidence was submitted.
7.	Yes; by the chief architect, on 29th May, 1912.
8.	Yes; abusive and blasphemous language to Dr. J. L. Chabot, M.P., making false statements to the latter, and drunkenness while on duty.
9.	Yes; 26th September, 1912.
10.	Yes; Dr. J. L. Chabot, M.P., J. R. Lamontagne; iWm. Hollington; A. Mous-seau and Wm. Orton.
11 and 12. Yes, but he did not desire to call any witnesses.
13.	Yes; 17th December, 1912; that the charges preferred have been proven.
14.	Yes; by Order in Council of 25th January, 1913.
15.	No.
16.	There was no change of minister between the closing of the first and the opening of the second investigation.


SHIPMENT OP HAY.
Mr. EMMERSON:: :
1.	Is there any hay being shipped over the Intercolonial railway to Halifax via the Can-

adian Pacific railway, which comes under the terms of the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement? If so, what quantity has passed over the Intercolonial railway from St. John to Halifax since November 15, last?
2.	Is any hay being transported to points in Nova Scotia, from Quebec province, at special rates, or at rates other than those given in printed tariff of rates, by way of St. John, or otherwise ?
3.	Is any hay being shipped to Nova Scotia points from points west of New Brunswick at rates similar to the special rates granted to certain eastern Nova Scotia points during the autumn of 1912, and the winter and spring of 1913, on account of so-called famine districts?
4.	What is the regular freight tariff rate on hay from points in Quebec province to Halifax and to Sydney?
5.	What were the rates in 1912 and in 1911, and how do the rates compare as to each of said years in comparison with the present rates charged over Intercolonial railway on its own line or over Canadian Pacific railway via St. John?


Francis Cochrane: 1'. There has been no hay forwarded from Halifax by the mail steamers of the Canadian Pacific railway and Allan Line this season, and none has been handled from St. John to Halifax under the terms of the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement.
2.	No.
3.	No special rates were granted by the railways from points west of New Brunswick to eastern Nova' Scotia points during the autumn of 1912, and the winter and spring of 1913, and current shipments, if there are any, are being made at the printed tariff rates.
4% Attached is a statement marked * A ' showing the regular freight tariff rates on hay from points on the Intercolonial in the province of Quebec to Halifax and to Sydney.	.
5.	Statement attached, marked 'A ' also shows the rates charged on hay in 1911 and 1912 to Halifax and to Sydney, and comparisons with the rates of 1913.
Statement ' B ' advises the corresponding rates applicable from contiguous stations of the Canadian Pacific railway in the province of Quebec to Halifax and to Sydney.
(Statement filed with the Clerk of the House).


INDIANS OF KITSILANO RESERVE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has the Government any knowledge ot payment by the Government of British Columbia to the Indians of the Kitsilano reserve, to secure their removal from the reserve?
2.	Is the Government aware that the buildings which had been occupied by Indians on the Kitsilano reserve, are said to have been destroyed?

3.	Has the Government any knowledge at whose instance the buildings were destroyed?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	It has been reported by an inspector of the department that the buildings were destroyed under instructions oi the provincial government.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-COST PER MILE.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What is the estimated cost per mile, when completed, of the Mountain section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
2.	What is the cost per mile of the Prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Government Chief Engineer's, estimate of cost of Mountain section of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway per mile, $97,035; Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Chief Engineer's estimate per mile, $102,775.
2.	Estimated cost of the Prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, per mile, $45,180.


COAL FOR DREDGES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Were tenders invited in 1913, by the Department of Public Works, for supplying coal to Government dredges in British Columbia?
2.	If so, when were such tenders received?
3.	What are the names and the post office addresses of all parties who tendered?
4.	What is the amount of each tender?
5.	When and to whom was the contract awarded ?
6.	What price was paid for the coal required to supply said dredge between the date when said tenders were received and the date when the contract was awarded to the successful tenderer?
7.	Has any coal been purchased for this service from any party or firm other than the successful tenderer since the said eontract was awarded? If so, how much, and what price has been paid for same?
S. How much coal was supplied up to December 31, 1913, under the said contract so awarded to the successful tenderer?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tenders were received in Vancouver, B.C., on April 19, 1913, by the Superintendent of Dredges, and were forwarded to Ottawa, where they were received on May 7, 1913.
3 and 4. ' A.' For Victoria, B.C.-Contract M. F. (delivered in Victoria harbour, alongside dredge, wharf or other place).
Best lump. Washed nut. Victoria Fuel Company,
Victoria	$5.50	$5 00J. Kingham & Company, Victoria.. ..	5 25	4 75
Contract M. H. (Delivered in Victoria harbour, on board dredge, tug or other
floating plant).
Best lump. Washed nut.
Victoria Fuel Company	$6 00	$5 50J. Kingham & Company	
6 50	6 00
' B.' For Vancouver, B.C.-Contract M. G. (Delivered in Burrard Inlet, First Narrows or False Creek, alongside dredge.)
Best lump. Washed nut. Evans Coleman &
Evans, Ltd., Vancouver	$5 25	$5 00Macdonald Marpole Company, Vancouver	
5 65	4 65
Contract M. E. (Delivered in Vancouver harbour, or , First Narrows, alongside dredge or wharf).
Best lump. Washed nut. Evans, Coleman &
Evans, Ltd	$5	25	.$5 00
Macdonald Marpole
Company	 5	65	4 65
(Delivered on board dredge or other floating plant).
Best lump. Washed nut. Evans, Coleman &
Evans, Ltd	$6	00	$5 50
Macdonald Marpole
Company	 5	95	4	95
' C.' For New Westminster, B.C.-Con1 tract M. (Delivered in Fraser river at or below New Westminster alongside dredge or other floating plant or wharf.)
Best lump. Washed nut. J. W. Pike & Company, New Westminster	 $5	20	$4	70
Joseph Mayers, New
Westminster	 5	50	4	50
Gilley Bros., Ltd., New
Westminster	 5	65	4	55
Contract M. B. (Delivered on board dredge Fruhling at New Westminster.)
Best lump. Washed nut.
Gilley Bros., Ltd....$6	50	$4	70J. W. Pike & Company 6	60	6	10
All prices per ton of 2,240 pounds.
5.	Victoria, B.C.-Contract M.F., J. King-ham & Company, Order in Council August 2, 1913.
Contract M. H., Victoria Fuel Company, Order in Council, August 2, 1913.

Vancouver, B.C.-Contract M. G., Evans, Coleman & Evans, Ltd., by Order in Council, June 10, 1913.
Contract M. E., Evans, Coleman & Evans, Ltd., by Order in Council, June 10, 1913.
New Westminster, B.C.-Contract M., J. W. Pike & Company, by Order in Council, June 11, 1913.
Contract M. B., Gilley Bros., Ltd., by Order in Council, June 11, 1913.
6.	Victoria, B.C.-Dredges Ajax and Mudlark, $7 per ton.
Tugs Point Ellme and Petrel, $7.50 per ton.
New Westminster-Dredge Fruhling, $6.65 per ton.
Dredge King Edward, $7.50 and $6 per ton.
Vancouver-Tug Point Ellice, 7. Victoria:	$6 per ton
Tons.	Per ton.
834 		.. $7 00
35		.. 7 50
77		
13		
85		.. 6 60
New Westminster:	
Tons.	Per ton.
765 		
100		
8		
Vancouver-Forty-five tons at $5.50 per ton. On account of the strike in British Columbia and the scarcity of coal, extra high prices were paid as it was absolutely necessary to provide fuel for the dredges.
8. Victoria-Contract M. H., 140 tons.
New Westminster-Contract M. B., 291 tons.
Vancouver-Four hundred and twenty-two tons. All dredges and tugs, excepting those at Victoria, have been equipped with oilburning apparatus, and in future such large supplies of coal will not be required.


WEST BRANCH MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the mail carrier between Scots-burn Station and West Branch river John, Pictou county?
2.	Has the carrier signed any contract for the service?
3.	If so, what is the time of said contract?
4.	How much is being paid him for the service?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Hugh R. Ross.
2.	He has signed a temporary agreement.
3 and 4. Dating from the 1st February,
1914, and terminable at the pleasure of the Postmaster General, at $2 per trip amounting to $626 per annum. New tenders will probably be invited.


VALCARTIER ARTILLERY CAMP.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Department of Militia and Defence recently purchased any land at Valcartier, P.Q., for a proposed artillery camp?
2.	How many farms have been secured and what is their total area?
3.	What was the amount paid for same?
4.	What are the names of the different owners of said farms, and what is the amount, paid or agreed upon in each case?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


PICTOU COUNTY RURAL MAIL.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Have any petitions been received asking for the establishment of a rural mail delivery route between Pictou and Saltsprings, county of Pictou?
2.	If so, when were they received and what routes are sought to be established?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A petition was received on the second of June, 1913, for rural delivery between Pictou and Saltsprings, but it was found on inquiry to be impracticable on account of connections. Moreover, the route applied for was not a circular one, being on one side of the river only. A petition was received on the seventh of February, 1914, for a rural mail delivery service over a route running between Saltsprings, Green Hill, Lovat and Lime Rock, which route, if found satisfactory, will cover a portion at least of the country between Pictou and Saltsprings, and is now under inquiry.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY COAL SUPPLY.


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What are the dates and amounts of the contracts awarded for the contruction of the Hudson Bay railway, and the names of the contractors to whom each was let?
2.	What time limit was fixed for the completion of each of the said contracts?
3.	What deposit was required in each case?


Mi. COCHRANE:: 1.	Le Pas to Thicket Portage (approx.
185:5 miles):	(a) Date of contract, September 25,	1911.	(b) Amount based on
schedule Tates $3,078,354.50.	(c) J. D.
McArthur.
Thicket Portage to Split Lake Junction (68 miles): (a) Date of contract, September 20, 1912.	(b) Amount based on schedule
rates, $1,811,285.	(c) J. D. McArthur.
Split Lake Junction to Port Nelson: (165 miles), (a) Date of contract, December 17, 1912.	(b) Amount based on schedule rates
$3,668,128.	(c) J. D. McArthur.
2.	Time limit for completion of section
from Le Pas . to Thicket Portage was December 1, 1912, but was extended to December 1, 1913, and further extended to December 1, 1914. Time limit for completion of contract; Thicket Portage to Split Lake Junction is December 1, 1914. Time pletion of contract, Thicket Portage to Split Lake Junction is December 1,	1914.
3.	Security deposit on contract for section, Le Pas to Thicket Portage is $200,000. Security deposit on contract for section, Thicket Portage to Split Lake Junction is $150,000. Security deposit on contract for section, Split Lake Junction to Port Nelson is $150,000.


WELLAND CANAL CONTRACTS.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What are the dates and amounts of the *contracts so far awarded on the new Welland canal, and the names of the successful contractors in each case?
2.	What is the time limit for the completion of each contract?
3.	What deposit was required in each case?


Francis Cochrane: 1,	Section No. 1: (a) Date August 1, 1913.
(b) Amount based on schedule rates; $3,487,725.	(c) Dominion Dredging Co.,
Ltd., R. Gordon Stewart, president; E. A. Larmonth, secretary-treasurer. Section No. 2: (a) Date December 31, 1913. (b) Amount based on schedule rates; $5,377,185.75.	(c)
Baldry, Yerburgh & Hutchinson, Ltd., per W. H. Hutchinson. Section No. 3: (al Date October 4, 1913.	(b) Amount based
on schedule rates; $9,540,050.	(c) O'Brien
&	Daheny, Renfrew. Section No. 5: (a) Date December 22,	1913.	(b) Amount
based on schedule rates; $1,945,788.	(c)
Canadian Dredging Co., Ltd.
2.	Time for completion of contract on section No. 1 is April 1, 1917. Time for completion of contract on section No. 2 is April 1, 1917. Time for completion of contract on section No. 3 is April 1, 1917. Time
for completion of contract on section 5 is April 1, 1918.
3.	Security deposit on contract section No.
1, is $200,000. Security deposit on contract section No. 2, is $150,000. Security deposit on contract section No. 3, is $400,000. Security deposit on contract section No. 5, is $100,000.


EAST JEDDORE DREDGING.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Who was the inspector of the dredging carried on at East Jeddore, Haliiax county, N.S., in the year 1913?
2.	What remuneration did he receive?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Arthur Webber.
2.	$80.


PAYMENTS TO GEORGE LONGHURST.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What amount was paid during the years 1912 and 1913 to George Longhurst, a fishery guardian in the county of Shelburne, N.S., for salary or allowance, travelling expenses and other disbursements respectively ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1912.	1913.
Wages	
$258.75	$367.50Expenses	(travelling) .. None	NoneOther expenses	
None	None
HALIFAX COUNTY MAIL CONTRACTS. Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:
1.	Who is the contractor for the mail service
between Black Point and IngTam Port station, Halifax county, and what amount is paid therefor?	.,
2.	Were tenders asked for the said mail service? If so, who tendered and for what sums respectively?
3.	Who was the preceding contractor, ana what amount did he receive?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Amos N. Hubley, at $175 per annum.
2.	The contract was arranged with the former contractor without inviting tenders, as the price asked was considered reasonable and the amount was under $200 per annum.
3.	Amos N. Hubley, at Ui cents per trip, amounting to $90.77 per annum.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTIES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was any authority .given to James L. Hattie, of Caledonia, Guysborough county, N.S., or to Arthur H. Macdonald, of Sherbrooke, in said county, by the Minister of Militia and Defence, or any officer of his department, to take up and forward claims of Fenian raid veterans to said department?
2,	If any authority was given in writing, what is the date or dates of same?

3.	Was any authority given at any time by the said minister, or any officer of his department, to the said James L. Hattie, or the said Arthur H. Macdonald, to charge the said veterans a fee for their services in connection with taking up and forwarding all such claims?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1. The department has no record that these men, or any of them, professed to have authority from the department to take up and forward claims of Fenian Raid veterans to the said department. The Militia Department gave no authority to any one in Canada, except its regular commission, to deal with any claims.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called :
Mr. PERLEY:: On February 12, when the Civil Government Estimates were under consideration, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) asked the following question:	.
Is the Finance Department acting with the Attorney General of Ontario in the prosecutions that are being carried on against the directors and manager of the Union Life Insurance Company?
Upon making inquiry I find that the answer which I gave at that time was not strictly accurate, and I wish to take this opportunity of substituting for it the following:
The investigation of the affairs of the Union Life Insurance Company was undertaken on the instructions of the Minister of Finance *nd it is understood that the evidence brought out at that investigation has formed the basis for the prosecution of the directors. The prosecutions, however, as is usual in such cases, are entirely in the hands of the Attorney General of Ontario and the Department of Insurance is not acting with the Attorney General in the matter.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways for an explanation. On the 3rd instant I called the attention of the minister to the increases in the freight rates on the Prince Edward Island railway, and the minister answered me as follows:
I think the hop, gentleman is -trying to mislead the people when he makes the statement that the cars on the Prince Edward Island railway do not carry over half what the cars on the main line do. This, I say, is not true, more than that, the hon. gentleman has never told the House and the country that we have cut out the third rate for the ferry across. This has never been done before, and 
is more in the interest of the people of Prince Edward Island than anything else we can do, until we get the ferry established.
What does the hon. minister mean by ' We have cut out the third rate?' Would that mean that the traffic to and from Prince Edward Island is free of charge? The minister spoke in the past tense, as if it were something that had already been done.


Francis Cochrane: I understood that it had been done, and I learned only to-day that it was not done. The instructions were that it- should be done immediately.


James Joseph Hughes: The one-rate shipment will come into existence when the ferry is established?	.


Francis Cochrane: Yes. Instructions were given to cut out the third rate immediately, so as to1 apply the same as when the ferry is running.


COMMISSIONER DUCHEMIN.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called :
Mr. SINCLAIR:: I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the answer given yesterday to question No. 39, which refers to a statement made by Commissioner Duchemin with respect to investigations held in Nova Scotia. This commissioner reported that he had refused on certain occasions to permit counsel to act for people who were being prosecuted, and he said that his action in that respect was confirmed by the department for which he was acting; but he did not name a department. My question was:
What department of the Government confirmed the attitude of Commissioner Duchemin in refusing to permit counsel to act for parties accused of partisanship?
The answer I received from the Department of Customs was that the Department of Customs did not give any confirmation. That is not an answer to my question. I do not care what the Department of Customs did; what I want to know is what department of the Government approved of Mr. Duchemin's action, in not allowing counsel to act for those accused of partisanship. I hope the Secretary of State will take the matter up. I have again put the question on the Order Paper.


Mr. CODERRE:: I will do so.


REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Borden for the second reading of Bill

No. 62, to readjust the representation in
the House of Commons, resumed			from
Tuesday, Feb. 17.			
Rt. Hon. R. L	. BORDEN:	Mr. Speaker, when the	debate	was	adjourned two days	ago,	we	hadunder consideration	whether	the	committee should consist of seven members, as in	1903, or whether it shouldconsist	of nine	members, as suggested by my hon. friends opposite. I adhere to the view I expressed before, that seven is a better number than nine. It seems to me, notwithstanding all that has been said'by my hon. friends, that the reasons for increasing the number from seven to nine are more fanciful than substantial. The object of establishing the committee was, that a certain number of gentlemen on each side of the House should be able to meet and put forward, in respect of all questions that might arise before that committee, the views entertained on one side or the other and safeguard the interests of the country from their several standpoints. Therefore, so far as my own individual opinion is concerned, I cannot say that I have been very much impressed by the considerations which have been urged for the increase in the number of the committee. However, it is a matter upon which there might be a legitimate divergence of opinion, although, in my judgment, the smaller the number forming a committee such as this the more probability there is that it will accomplish satisfactory and effective work. My hon. friends on the other side are desirous of increasing the number beyond that which was agreed upon by both sides of the House in 1903, and, although they seem to attach to it what I consider undue importance, I am not disposed to be unreasonable on the subject. Therefore, when I come to move that the Bill be referred, I shall move that it be referred to a committee of nine and not to a committee of seven.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Mr. BORDEN:: I beg to move:
That Bill No. 62 be referred to a committee composed of Messrs, 1161a mi, R. B. Bennett, Buchanan, Macdonald, Pardee, Pelletier, J. D. Reid, Rhodes and Rogers, with instructions to consider and report upon the same and to prepare schedules to define and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I appreciate
the courtesy of my right hon. friend
in assenting to our views that the committee should be composed of nine instead of seven members. I agree in principle with my right hon. friend that large committees are not desirable, and, as a rule, I think more work is effected by a small committee-by one of five or even of three-than by a large one. But this is a very special matter, and, apart from the main work of the committee, that is to say, setting down the principles upon which the redistribution is to be made, there must be a large proportion of technical work to be done in the mapping out of constituencies in the several provinces. I have asked my right hon. friend to agree to a committee of nine, so that the different groups of the population might be represented-the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the Western provinces. The ninth member will be the umpire, and if he succeeds in reconciling the differences that may arise, he will be worthy of all honour.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Trade and Commerce-Imperial Trade Commission, $5,000.
['I would like the minister to tell me, the next time we go into Supply, who has been appointed preventive officer at Arichat in the place of Lawrence Girrior, deceased?\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.\nFriday, February 20. 1914.']
Mr. FOSTER:: When we were in committee the4 other day, my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) intimated that some information would be welcome on the item under consideration, because not much had been heard, and nothing said in this House, wjth reference to the work of this commission. I shall make a very brief statement as to the construction and the work of the commission. The resolution out of which the commission grew was passed in the Imperial Conference in 1911-I am not going back further than that to inquire into the genesis of the commission. In pursuance of that unanimous resolution, a Royal Commission was appointed consisting jf eleven members, six being appointed by the British Government and one by each of the overseas dominions. The members of that commission at the present time, although death and other circumstances have caused a few changes, are: For Great Britain, Sir Edgar Vinpent, who represents particularly the financial side; Sir H. Rider Haggard, who is a poet and farmer and represents very largely the rural interests, which are not unpoetical by any means; Mr. Tatlow, who represents the railroad interests in a special way; Mr. Lorimer
92S

of Glasgow, who represents the great industrial interests particularly in the line of iron and steel and machinery made therefrom, and Mr. Garnett, who represents the large cotton manufacturing industries of the central part of England. For South Africa, Sir Richard Solomon was the trade commissioner who worked with us at the two earlier sessions, but unfortunately for the commission, and for South Africa, he succumbed to a sudden illness and passed away. In his place, when I left England, no one had yet been appointed; but, as the commission is at present in South Africa or very close to it, there is little doubt but that a South African member has been added to the commission. Australia was represented from the first by Mr. Donald Campbell, who is prominent in public life, and who adds to his general all-round knowledge the fact of having been a labour member and identified closely- with labour interests in the Commonwealth of Australia. Newfoundland is represented by Mr. Edgar R. Bowring. The Dominion of New Zealand is represented by Mr. I. .R. Sinclair, a member of the Upper House. I myself have the onus of conducting the work so far as Canada is concerned. At the conference of 1911 it was pretty strongly represented by some members of that conference that Cabinet ministers or men of Cabinet rank should he appointed to that commission, and I think Mr. Fisher's idea was to carry that out. Possibly the great separating distance between Australia and the mother country militated somewhat against that idea, taken in connection with the fact that the elections were pretty nearly due in Australia, .and that since the appointment of the commission there has been a somewhat spectacular and arduous political contest in that country.
It is sometimes a matter of criticism that a member of a government should take a position of this kind, -and the objection is plausible that he should have enough work to do in his own department without being absent in other countries for a somewhat long period. The criticism may go for what it is worth. I am extremely glad that I have had the privilege of being upon that commission, and that during the later period of a somewhat long political life I have been enabled to (realize what I have always had an ambition to accomplish-a wide, and to as large an extent as possible, intimate acquaintance with the British Empire in all its important distributed

parts. I have tried not to neglect my department, whilst at the same time giving my attention to the work of that commission. If further years of public service are allowed me in Canada, I am quite sure that the knowledge I have obtained and the widening of my views in connection with my work in this respect may not be without some advantage to the work of my public life and to the work of Parliament as well.
The commission was organized in the 3arly part of 1912, and during a portion of the year took evidence in London. Then the summer holidays intervened, and two months of the autumn were taken up in a second session of the commission in London. The commission works in two ways. First, it works through the medium of collected statistics, for the furnishing of which it relies on the dominions themselves. All the treasures of statistical information which bear upon the general subject matter of the commission's investigation are requisitioned from the dominions and from the Government of the United Kingdom. These statistics are collected and tabulated, and, as luminously as possible, used to illustrate the objects aimed at in the pursuit of information, and, ultimately, are considered in the recommendations made by the commission. That is a very large and important part of the commission's work. The second part, however, is none the less important. One of the most important features of this part of its work is the opportunity that is given to the commission to take in what you may call the atmosphere of the different dominions and of the United Kingdom itself. Sitting at your desk in your office, you may have all the statistics of all the portions of the British Empire piled about you, and, though you .may go through them with the utmost diligence, they are dry bones compared with what they become after you have travelled through and inquired into, and, as it were, taken on a portion of the active thought and life, commercial and otherwise, of the countries whose statistics you are studying. This living and vital atmosphere which the commission takes in during its travels tffough the different dominions, forms	the most
important part of its investigations, and will give, I	am	sure,	a determining tendency to the recommendations which the commission may	ultimately
make. In addition to that, and, in fact, to make that more effective, sittings are held consecutively in the important centres,

where men who are experts in the different areas of information which are to be explored -by the commission are, in good time beforehand, notified to prepare and have ready to submit, in answer to questions or as a memorandum, their knowledge, which is put into print and goes into the hands of the commissioners before they visit that country. So that all these important memorandums and answers to questions by officials, and by experts in various lines, are placed in the hands of the commissioners and studied by them. From that study and knowledge there comes the third process of their work, which is the actual bringing out and making clear, by questions upon abstruse or not well-understood points, the [DOT]information suggested by the memoranda and briefs and answers to questions which -have been tabulated as I have stated, and put in the hands of the commissioners. That will furnish the committee with an idea of what goes on, but that is not all. Travelling as they do, the commissioners, of course, have access to the -best sources of information, and are continually in communication with men from whom they glean knowledge which could not otherwise be obtained. To all that they add the final touch of visiting personally and looking into the different activities, industries and productivities, (if there be such a word), which form the basis of their inquisition. In all these ways, therefore, it will be seen that men who are intelligent and capable and fairly well up in their different lines have an unexampled opportunity of becoming acquainted intimately with the resources, the capabilities, the possibilities and the currents of trade of the countries visited, -and of furnishing themselves with such information as will enable them to make recommendations by which and through which all these matters may be better developed, better coordinated and all worked together for the common imperial uplift and development.
After having, not finished, but mostly carried out their investigations in Great Britain, the commission last year visited Australia and New Zealand. They visited every state of the Commonwealth and all parts of the Dominion of New Zealand and carried out their work as I have detailed. The evidence taken in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand has now been printed, and the first interim report, which is simply a covering report, and the second interim Teport, which deals particularly with special subjects in Australia and New 59
Zealand, have been printed and presented to the Imperial Government. As quickly as possible these will be furnished to members of this House, and distributed as widely as is reasonable throughout the country as a whole.
One advantage that Canada will have in the matter is that all this evidence and the interim report will be placed in the hands of those who are to prepare their briefs and answers to questions in Canada. They will therefore have the benefit, if they choose to use it-and it is a somewhat arduous task to use it fully-of all the evidence, and the opinions that have been gained in the preceding part of the travels of the commission.
On the 7th of this month the commission left England for South Africa. Returning from South Africa, after a short interval, they will, during the present year, make a tour of Newfoundland and Canada, beginning in Newfoundland somewhere about the latter part of the month of July, and from there make their way through every province to the coast. That itinerary is now being considered and laid out. The length of time which will be given by that commission to Newfoundland and Canada will be about three months. I think I have now given a resume of the constitution and the general work of the commission. I shall be glad to answer any questions.


Wilfrid Laurier: The committee have no doubt listened with very great interest to the explanations which have been given by my hon. friend of the work of this Imperial Commission. The graphic and even feeling way in which he has presented his observations, is certainly an evidence, if evidence were needed, of the very great importance he attaches to it. I agree with him, that this commission can be of the greatest possible importance; and I have no doubt that in view of the able men who compose it, the final report must be of great service and must link together, commercially at first and otherwise also, the British Empire. Trade, after all, is perhaps the greatest bond of union to-day amongst civilized nations and if, a3 a result of this commission, there is developed within the British Empire a greater amount of trade and a greater appreciation of it, the work of the commission will be amply justified.
I have taken exception to my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) being a member of this commission. I 'stated so in a casual way when he was absent and I have to repeat it in



his presence. No one would question the ability of my hon. friend to serve as a member; no one even discusses his qualifications in that respect. But, Sir, the very argument that my hon. friend has given in favour of his presence on that commission is the best argument in support of my contention that he should not be a member of that commission. He has stated that he attaches great importance to and has been able to realize a long-cherished wish in being able to
4 p.m. become acquainted personally with all portions of the British Empire. My hon. friend has visited Australia and New Zealand, but this commission will sit in a few days in South Africa and my hon. friend will not have the advantage of being present in South Africa, so that he might know the advantages of South Africa and the manner in which trade could be developed with that country. My hon. friend has his parliamentary duties to perform and those parliamentary duties keep him here in Ottawa while the commission is sitting in South Africa. This is the only exception I take to the presence of my friend on that commission. When we were in office we had made a recommendation to the Imperial Government as to the Canadian representation, but when my hon. friends came into office this recommendation was cancelled. I do not wish to go into that part of the i3ubject to-day. The Government thought that they should be represented on the commission by a man of their own political creed and for this there may be some justification. This office was, to a certain extent, not devoid of political considerations, and, therefore, if the Government wished to have a man of their own faith as a member of that commission I do not question this decision and I shall pass it by now. But I have to repeat to my hon. friend that whilst I do not hesitate to say that he is as well able as any man in this country to perform the work of that commission, I cannot help regretting that at the present time he cannot do his work on the commission because his duties as a minister of the Crown keep him here in Ottawa. That fact alone is a justification of the criticism I have ventured to offer, that he should not have accepted a post on that commission. Do I understand that my hon. friend has placed an interim report of the commission on the table of the House?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I placed the report, and the evidence, on the table of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I sent for it to the office, but they told me it was not there.


George Eulas Foster: I shall see that my right hon. friend gets a complete copy. I might say that I have about seventy copies, but these are not sufficient for distribution to each member of the House. It is intended to use these copies for distribution to those who are to be contributors of papers and so on. I have sent five copies to the Parliamentary Library. As soon as we get other copies, the members will be looked after.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the report be printed here?


George Eulas Foster: All of this matter is set up and printed in London. They are pretty bulky volumes, and it is just a question whether we shall obtain them there, if we can get them at about the cost of printing and paper, or set up the type ourselves, which, I think, would be very much more expensive. I am now communicating with the Colonial Office to know whether we can get our supply from them at first hand.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Who will act for Canada on the commission in South Africa?


George Eulas Foster: It seldom happens that all the members of the commission are present in any one of the dominions. For instance, last year in Australia and in New Zealand, South Africa was not represented. But I shall promise my right hon. friend that. as I get, from week to week, the evidence taken in South Africa, I shall read it carefully and possibly not lose too much. I may not get that peculiar atmosphere I spoke of, but I shall get all the rest. Now I think my right hon. friend is a little bit to blame for my not going to South Africa. I understood that he expressed a great desire to have me present in the House this year, and so I cut out South Africa.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am always glad to have my hon. friend here, and that was partly the reason for my request. But I not only wanted him for my own satisfaction; I wanted him to do his duty.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Might I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if this commission is seized of the question of ocean freight rates?


George Eulas Foster: I will venture to make a short statement with reference to that. During the recess the Government took

up "the question-it was pressed upon them from many sources-of heightened freight rates, and discrimination in freight rates as between different grades of articles between Canada and the United Kingdom; and in the end Mr. Drayton, chairman of the Railway Commission, was sent over to confer with the British authorities and with the shipping companies. The prominent question at that time was as to the control of freight rates on the ocean. We had gone, as everybody knows, to a very large expense to facilitate transport through the different districts of the country, and from ocean to ocean, and we constituted a board which had the ultimate controlling power over rates to be charged on that whole inland system of transport. When, however, goods leave our country, or come into our country from over seas, they traverse the ocean where we have no control outside of our own limit, and where it is impossible for any one country to exercise control. One idea that underlay the sending over of Mr. Drayton was to confer with the British Government as to what might be done towards establishing a joint control over freight rates between the United Kingdom and Canada. Mr. Drayton took up the subject there with his usual ability. He had a great deal of knowledge when he left home, and gleaned a great deal more when he was in England. He conferred with the Board of Trade, the Colonial Office and other permanent bodies. The idea was to have a joint commission appointed by the United Kingdom and Canada to take the whole matter into consideration, and for them to make an investigation and then recommend some measure for the control of ocean freight rates. The British Government did not favour the special commission for some reasons, one of which- and it was a reason which appealed with force to the Canadian Government-was that no such commission could be effected without getting first the sanction of their parliament, which would take time. The Royal Commission was already sitting and it had powers wide enough to take up that subject. In Australia, New Zealand, and partially in Great Britain, it had already taken evidence with reference to ocean freight rates, discriminations, bills of lading and such like, and the British Government proposed that this matter should be turned over to the Dominions Royal Commission and that they should make the investigation. Canada agreed to that, and the' matter was placed in the hands of the commission. The commission has 59*
taken the initial steps for an investigation in Great Britain. They will also carry on a somewhat cognate investigation in South Africa, where this complaint is also rife; and when the commission comes to Canada next year a fuli opportunity will be given to the interested parties to state their case and give their evidence before that commission. That, I think, is a short answer to the question of my hon. friend from South York.


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot quite
endorse that way of dealing with a matter of such vital importance to the people of this country. This ocean combine is operative to-day. The increase of ocean freight rates is the greatest tax that has been placed on the Canadian farmer. The mode of dealing with it outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce will take a great deal of time. From the deliberative way a British commission goes about its work, five or even ten years is a reasonable period for them to take, in hearing evidence and making a report. This is a matter that affects the welfare of our whole Canadian west and interests the whole country, and we are now told that that question which so vitally affects Canada is to be dealt with by a Royal Commission and out of the jurisdiction of this House. I do not believe in the Parliament of Canada abdicating a function that belongs to it and handing it over to a Royal Commission. The hon. gentleman in his lucid explanation said: We have a railway commission in this country but it has not jurisdiction over ocean freight rates. I dissent entirely from that statement. I say we have jurisdiction over ocean freight rates, both in our Railway Commission and in this Parliament, and in other ways, and I maintain that a cure of this grievance can be immediately effected. I can imagine it to be possible, if we are to uphold that doctrine, that there will be no cure in the matter of this ocean combine for several years. I believe that our Railway Commission has jurisdiction over freight from its origination in the West, and its transport through Canada and across the ocean, to the place where it is landed; at least we have jurisdiction over the people who are handling our commerce and who have put this unjust tax on the faimers of this country. And to show how unjust it is, I wish to say that a commission -a quick-acting commission-was appointed by the Government of Saskatchewan to investigate what it cost the western farmer to raise his grain and other products, what it cost to market it, and what profit there

was in it for himself. A report of that investigation was presented the other day, the outstanding features of which report were, first, that there had been an immense increase in the freights paid for river and lake transportation to the seaboard, and, secondly, there had been 100 per cent increase in ocean freight rates; so that, as I gather, this unjust combine on our lakes and on the Atlantic has taken almost ten cents a bushel from the net receipts of the western farmer for his wheat. The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has established a very good law in connection with a special board of our own for the inspection of wheat and other grains, its storage and the way in which it is shipped. This .board has more or less jurisdiction over the products of the West. It has been a first-class law.
This Parliament is committed to an enormous expenditure for ports, canals, and ocean terminals and we are giving great subsidies to railways in order to give the Canadian farmer the cheapest possible transportation for his products to the consuming market. But the more we appear to do and the more money we spend, the higher are the charges that are put upon the farmer. Whatever may be the saving, here at home and by our own efforts, somebody is going to take it all away from us or from the farmer, and put it in his own pocket. That is being done by this Atlantic combine. The head of the Atlantic combine is the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway, the Grand Trunk railway, and the Inland Lake and River combine that has been formed. These people are all within our jurisdiction, and every one of them is constantly coming to us for favours, for legislation of one kind and another, and yet we do not propose to deal with them. We do not even deal with them through the Railway Commission, which, I say, is seized of jurisdiction. We do not propose to deal with them when they come here and ask for favours. For instance, we gave a great favour to the Canadian Pacific railway the other day when we granted them rights over the Intercolonial railway, and we are giving other railways favours over our railways as well as the use of the ports that we are building. The improvement of the St. Lawrence, the lighthouse service, everything that we do for the benefit of the farmers of Canada in order to better the price they may get for their products, is all being made nugatory by the action of the ocean combine, composed of people who are within our jurisdiction.

It is not good national policy to turn this question over to an Imperial Commission which is seized of a great many other things, which is not likely to be able, by reason of the many other matters engaging its attention, to get to the bottom of this question and to make a report which will be satisfactory, and which will be subject to co-operative legislation in the various portions of the empire. If there is a reference to that commission I see no remedy for the people of the West in regard to this ocean combine, for the next ten years. Yet we are going ahead and spending money hand over fist in developing our transportation facilities, while at the same time allowing the railway companies and steamship companies that we have created, to have the advantage of all these things and to take all the cream by means of this unjust ocean combine. Is that good policy? Is it a fair thing to tell the people of Canada that there is to be no relief now from these unjust charges ? Again I say that the increased charges on ocean traffic represent one hundred per cent above what they were three years ago. There is talk of a dispute between some of the larger companies not doing business with Canada in regard to passenger service. They are having a row over that, but they do not row over the transportation of grain, apparently. They are all in-I will not say as thick as thieves-but they are all as close as they can be together to uphold these ex-horbitant rates. And they are exhorbitant. Any carrier that in one year doubles its rate by means of a combine, is doing an unjust and an unlawful thing, and those who do it, in my mind, are outlaws.
Before this House I arraign these men for conspiring against the people of Canada, and I say it is up to the Parliament and Government of Canada to have no more negotiations, or to grant no more favours to any of these people who are parties to this unjust combine. The people of the West are asking-perhaps they are always asking; perhaps it is the nature of the animal always to be asking for something -but the people of the West are asking for improved transportation, and we are doing our best apparently to give it to them. But we shut our eyes to those who take advantage of everything, and instead of the advantage going to the farmer it goes to the transportation company.
Not only is there this ocean combine, but the worst combine that was ever formed in connection with transportation is the inland combine in the lakes, canal and river navigation. The same people are in

it. Every vessel that is owned in Canada, and doing business on the Great Lakes, is in that combine. They made a great flotation of bonds the other day to carry it out. Yet we say that we are unable to reach them. They have put up their freight rates. To show how close the combine is right at the present time, I have been informed, and I believe it is true, that the rate from Port Arthur to the sea is exactly the same by boat as it is by rail. Formerly the great check we had on the railways was the competition of navigation. Now that has ceased. Not many years ago I put to an old member of this House, now dead, the question: Who holds up the canal enlargement in Canada? He said: Don't you know? It is the railways. It is a fact that for twenty-five or thirty years the improvement of canal and river navigation was held back by the railways within our own border. They were persistently opposed to inland navigation, but now that we are going ahead and propose to have canals capable of passing through even ocean steamships, what good will it be if the steamships and the inland boats are in the hands and under the control of a combine that controls the ocean and our inland waters and which also controls our railways? It is three in one; it is a trinity and it is a most unfair trinity and one that it will require the greatest courage and the highest policy, and a policy of immediate action, to grapple with. The railways would not want a better proposition than that this question should be held up for several years before a royal commission.
The same question is up in the United States, and they are now passing legislation to deal with it. They have appointed commissions to disassociate the railways from navigation propositions, and they are gradually working out the problem. Who is it that has been holding back the construction of' the Panama canal?
The United States railways tried to get control of all the steamship lines through the Panama canal, and this unholy alliance has been found out and is being dissolved. The United States Government are taking precautions to ensure that the canal will be absolutely free to all nations; they are taking action against this alliance, and they are doing so by means of legislation within the United States. My contention is that we can do the same in Canada. Let us not abandon the jurisdiction that this House, this Government and our Railway Commission have in connection with this matter. Jurisdiction is
not altogether a matter of law; it is also a matter of policy, especially when these corporations are coming as suitors for favours at every session of Parliament. We have jurisdiction both by law and by policy that ought to be able to bring these corporations to time. I hope and trust that the question will not go to the Dominions Commission, but even if it should, that does not exonerate this Parliament or the Government or our Railway Commission from trying to effect an immediate cure of that substantial grievance.
We are spending millions of money; we have created at an enormous cost a commission that was to give relief to the people, but now we confess that we are not ourselves able to remedy grievances. We are told we have to go across the ocean to enlist the co-operation of England, of South Africa, of Australia, and of the rest of the British dominions. It is not good policy; it is not national policy; it is not parliamentary policy for this Parliament to abandon its jurisdiction or to plead that we are unable to deal with a grievance inflicted on us by a creature of our own, in the shape of a corporation. We cannot afford to make any such confession of inability before these corporations that we have within our own bounds. If they over-ride Parliament in this, what next will they attempt to do? They fight us at every turn; they antagonize our own national railway; they do not wish to see us [DOT]establish parcel post. If we now confess that they are not within our jurisdiction, why make all this fuss and feather about trying to improve transportation in this country? We might as well throw the money into the sea if we do not retain jurisdiction over these corporations, and if we do not keep absolute control of the rates on freight, not only through our own country, but until it reaches its destination.
I think some hon. gentleman in this House made the statement that, rather than pay $35,000,000 for dreadnoughts, we ought to put that sum into a state-owned ocean steamship line. I would sooner put $35,000,000, or whatever the sum was, into a Canadian owned ocean steamship line than wait for this Dominion Commission to find out the facts or to confess that we have no jurisdiction over the greatest grievance that we have in Canada to-day.
I appeal to the members from the West that they have a substantial grievance to-day, and that it is no answer to that

grievance to say that it must go to an imperial commission. I am for Canada first, every time; I am for national policy every time, and I am for the jurisdiction of Canada over every citizen, and. over every creature she has created in the way of corporations.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am glad my right
hon. friend endorses that idea. I think that national policy will also be endorsed on this side of the House and by every Canadian. I brought this question up in another form the other day, and I intend to bring it up whenever the opportunity arises. The opportunity is here to-day. The people are watching what Parliament is doing. Something has been done, but as fast as we improve the situation, along come these creatures of ours and they claim everything, and defy us, and leave the farmers of this country without a reasonable profit.
Just one word more. We want to settle the Canadian West. We are inviting immigrants from the United States and from all over the world to settle in that country. We have built all the railways in the West and we are building all these interior and terminal elevators. We have subsidized steamship lines; we are building harbours; we have the Intercolonial railway as a regulator of railway rates, and we intend to have it extended in a proper manner. Yet doing all these things, we are not able to give the farmers of Canada a single advantage in the way of transportation. We shall not succeed in building up this West if we have to wait for five or ten years to abolish this ocean combine. It must be cured now or the people will not go to the West. I ask the hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to study what the profits of the Canadian farmer are on the wheat he is raising in the West, and they will find they are almost nil.


Mr. BRADBURY:: The profit is very
small indeed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, they 'say that the cost was, if I remember well, 62 cents, and the market 67 cents. I do not quite agree with that, yet I know that these men gave the most careful consideration to it. The commission went abroad, and the two things that they ran up against were the combine on the inland waters and the combine on the ocean. But are we to tell the 
people of the West that they have to wait all this time to cure that grievance? If so, I say, it will give a black eye to the Canadian west, and I do not want to see that, But greater than that is the question whether we are to abandon our rights and the jurisdiction we have over the corporations that we create and say, ' non possumus.' Think of it! After forty-five years of the establishment of this Confederation, after combining half the North American continent into one for the purpose of progress and good government, we are supposed to confess to-day that the control of freight charges on the main products of the country has passed out of our hands and that we must go outside our country to seek for redress. I cannot accept that doctrine.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: May I ask the hon. gentleman, what would be his concrete remedy for the situation? Would he have Parliament hold up the steamship and railway subsidies until these companies agree to a satisfactory rate?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am a great believer
in ' Putting in the probe,' a3 they say in the United States. The question that came up here to-day is that we have no organization for investigation under federal law. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) told me, when he was the head of the Government, to go to Mr. Foy for the enforcement of federal laws.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will not
tell the hon. gentleman to go to Mr. Foy in relation to ocean combines.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, but I brought up the question of the enforcement of Dominion laws and showed that we have no machinery for the sufficient enforcement of those laws. On a former occasion when I brought this matter up, the present Prime Minister admitted the strength of my argument. If we had to-day an Attorney General whose duty it was to enforce the federal laws- and I am not casting any reflections on the present occupant of that position, but am criticising the condition of the law-if we had an attorney general authorized to put in the probe and to employ the necessary officers for that purpose, and if we had the machinery which the Americans have in their Grand Jury system, then we could send for these people and have them explain the facts. We could send for Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, put him in the box, and ask him to explain to us this ocean freight rate combine. The people of Canada would be

wise in one day to the condition of affairs, and this Parliament could find a way to meet the difficulty. I am not going to give the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) the exact details of how I would proceed against these people; but I would convince them that they were in the hands of Parliament and that we intended to find a way to meet any difficulties that arose. For instance, for every cent which they added to the freight rate on the ocean, we could take off one cent of the freight rates on land, and for every cent the inland navigation companies overcharged-and it is not pretended that they are not within our jurisdiction-I would regulate them; and I would not go to England, or Australia, or South Africa to find a remedy, but I would find that remedy here. First of all we need to have an Attorney General backed by legislation which will be really effective. Oh! it is absurd to say that we in Canada, after forty-six years of Confederation have not the machinery for the enforcing of our own law. I have pointed out to this House, time and time again, what is the significant feature of every important Bill passed by the Congress of the United States. It is a provision that the enforcement of any law rests with the Attorney General of the United States and his sub-attorneys, and that so many thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars are appropriated annually for the enforcement of the law. I say there is a cure for this ocean freight rate combine, and it is not to be found by going to England; it is right here, through our own Attorney General or Solicitor General. Here would be a fine opportunity for the young Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) to distinguish himself with the people of the West. Give him power to send for Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, for the representative of the Allan Steamship Company-a contractor with the Government for the transport of mails, and owned, I believe, by the Canadian Pacific railway -to send for Sir William Mackenzie-and he was in town yesterday; we could have served notice on him to come before this officer of the Government-and the representative of the Grand Trunk Steamship line, whoever he may be. Let us have before us these men whose ships tie up at our docks. If the Kaiser had this matter in hand, do you suppose he would let any one tie up at a dock in Germany who was an outlaw or an unfair dealer with the people of Germany? He not only would not give them a contract for the transport
of the German mails, but he would not even let them tie up to the dock; nor should we. We have every one of these sinners within our jurisdiction, we can administer proper punishment, and we can get immediate relief, if we undertake to do it, and do it within Parliament. But we cannot obtain it by a roundabout way. I am talking on this line especially to impress my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) with the idea that what he proposes to do before that very busy commission will not succeed, but that if Parliament will this session pass a law giving jurisdiction over this matter and will appoint an official with the powers of an inquisitor-and the hon. gentleman himself spoke of inquisitions that they were to have under this commission-


George Eulas Foster: I was not speaking historically.	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: ' Inquisitions ' is a very good word, and I use it not in the historical but in the dictionary sense, to wit, investigation. If we should this session pass a little Act empowering our Solicitor General to send for these offenders against the law in the way of transportation, and, as they say in the States, put in the probe, the evil would cease the next day or, if publicity did not do it, we could find another way. I think it is up to the Government to revise its policy in regard to this ocean rate combine and to proceed immediately, directly, and by all means within our jurisdiction, to break that combine, to expose the men who are in it, and to show that they are a Canadian organization, and within our law; and to compel them to do justice, or else confession. And, I do not want to confess-I will never confess-that there is not a cure within the Canadian Parliament for every grievance of this kind that exists in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid that if we continue the discussion on this line we might cover the field of the world's affairs and not get our items through. I do not rise to object to what my hon. friend has said, for I always listen with a great deal of pleasure to him. In a way, he is an outlaw himself, and he exemplifies his doctrine by his practice. However, while I do not intend to discuss this question which has been raised in the House by my hon. friend, I want to take just a moment or two to allay some of his fears.
In the first place, I do not believe that the


Mr. NEELY:: Surely this is the proper
time to discuss the matter which has been brought to our attention by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). I think the minister should be gratified at the manner in which the hon. gentleman has brought this very important matter to our notice, because it is a matter in which the people of this country are surely very deeply interested. It is alarming that the history of transportation in Canada during the past few years gives indisputable evidence of the fact that the more we improve our transportation facilities the more advantage is taken o.f these improvements, not by the people but by the transportation companies themselves. While the price ol wheat may go down, the freight charges on the wheat we export from this country constantly increase. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has, during the past twelve months, in his tour of certain parts of the world, undertaken the very commendable object of promoting the interests of the trade and commerce of this country. While the hon. minister has been trying to find new markets for Canadian produce, our transportation companies have been so increasing the charges on the produce we have to export that any good the minister may have accomplished or attempted to accomplish has been nullified. The hon. member for South York said something about the West always wanting things. Perhaps that is the nature of the animal; if so, it is a commendable nature. I may tell the hon. member -for South York that the western people are a progressive people; they are not satisfied to let well enough alone. They want to keep on doing better all the time, and they certainly are not satisfied with present conditions so far as the export of their surplus produce is concerned. They are not content with the fact that the charges made for the transportation of thelir produce by the inland and ocean navigation companies have been increasing during the last few years, although the price of wheat has been going down. This Government has, I was almost going to say, penalized the farmers of the West;

perhaps that is too strong a term. At least they have adjudged that the farmers of the West may not sell their surplus wheat in the nearest market, just across the line; they must send it to Liverpool, and other foreign markets. I trust that one of the results of the minister's visit to China will be the shipping of Canadian wheat eastward as well as westward,
As a result of the position taken by this Government, we are compelled to use these means of transportation in getting our wheat to the markets of the world; and we are confronted by this situation, that year b>
year the freight rates are increasing. We may deepen the Welland canal, as the hon. member for South York said, we may undertake great expenditures, if v/e please, for the improvement of our transportation facilities, but no matter what we may do, under present conditions, we are not benefiting the producers of Canada by these expenditures.


Mr. NESBITT:: What is the increase in the last five years?


David Bradley Neely: About fifty to one hundred per cent in inland navigation, and in ocean navigation, I believe, more. The grievance calls for a remedy, and we are asked by the minister to be patient and wait for the report of this commission, which will decide as to who has jurisdiction and by what method the solution of this difficulty may be arrived at. I must say that I agree entirely with the hon. member for South York that this House should not have the patience to wait for the report of a commission which may be indefinite or may be conclusive, but which in the end may devise no way by which we can arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the problem. It is quite true that the bulk of the inland navigation companies that do business in Canada, as well as the lines that carry our exports to the old country, are controlled by the railway companies of this country. We surely have jurisdiction over the railway companies, and we can and should have jurisdiction over the inland navigation companies; and by indirect, if not by direct means, we can surely exercise some influence over the ocean steamship lines. I was going to ask the hon. member for South York if he does not think there are one or two very useful indirect ways by which the rates of the ocean steamship lines could be lessened. It is my recollection that in 1897, when the British preference was established, that it had a very marked effect
on ocean freight rates, the reason being that the ships carrying our exports to the old country had a return cargo owing to the increased trade between Canada and the mother country. As I understand, it is the great object of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to promote trade between the component parts of the British Empire. How better could we increase this commerce between the mother country and Canada and the other parts of the empire than by increasing the British preference so that the ocean going ships that carry our produce to the British markets and the other parts of the British Empire, would have the privilege of bringing back a full cargo instead of half a cargo. That surely would have an important effect in lessening ocean freight rates. As to the question of jurisdiction, the hon. member for South York did not arrive at a definite conclusion as to how we could devise a remedy. I do not think we ought to be asked to wait until this Imperial Commission gave us an answer to the question. I think that this House has within its confines enough legal ability and talent to take this question -into consideration and devise ways and means by which it can be settled. I wonder if the hon. member for South York would not think it advisable to propose to the Government and to the House that a special committee of this House be appointed to deal with this question, to sift out, to discover the ways and means by which Canada, through legislation, can have jurisdiction not only over our inland shipping companies but over the ocean lines as well, in so far as those lines do business with Canadian ports. I give that suggestion to the hon. member for South York.


William Findlay Maclean: That is better than going to England.


David Bradley Neely: I give that suggestion, confident that in the personnel of the Government, including that new member of the Government to whom the hon. member for South York has referred, the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), there is sufficient ability to solve the problem. We read some months ago in the newspapers that the Solicitor General proposed to deal with this very question of ocean freight rates. I do not know how he is dealing with it, but I think that he and other members of the Government and of this House might very well be appointed a special committee to give this question their consideration and to devise ways and means to bring about

legislation by which we shall have jurisdiction over this question of inland and ocean navigation tariffs. I appreciate the position taken by the hon. member for South York on this question. He certainly is speaking in the interests of the farmers of the West, and I would assure the hon. member for South York that in the days to come-and they are not very far away, I trust-when there is a change of Government in this country, if his remarks are not taken as seriously as they should be by the present Government, I personally would very strongly endorse the view that no man in this House would be better fitted to take charge of that department, the Attorney General's Department, which would deal with this question, than the hon. member for South York.


Mr. OLIVER:: I am quite prepared to support this vote for the Imperial Trade Commission, and am quite prepared to believe everything that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said in regard to its value. While it is unfortunate that the hon. gentleman cannot be in this House and in South Africa at the same time, we are glad to have his presence and assistance here. That, however, is not to be understood as endorsing the idea that because we have an Imperial Trade Commission,-no doubt composed of good men and having large powers and authority, and a commission which will do good work,-we should not pay attention to the problems which are pressing upon us most closely and most seriously, and which can be attended to, in a measure or altogether, without calling in the services of that commission. If the vote for the Imperial trade commission is to be given as a reason why we should not give every attention that lie3 in our power to the problems that are pressing upon us, immediate and direct, I would be strongly in favour of striking the vote out. It is the problems that are pressing most closely that require our attention rather than those which are at a distance. We are glad to have the distant problems attended to in due course, but not at the sacrifice of attention to the problems close at hand. To show how pressing the problem of trade and transportation is, let me take the liberty of bringing to the attentioii of the House the matured conclusion of a commission of inquiry appointed by the Saskatchewan Government. The commission was composed of practical men of that province, who travelled in Europe where they were given every opportunity to acquire information.

Only a preliminary report has so far been issued, but it contains matters of such vital importance to this country that I desire to bring it to the attention of the House. All matters in this country, whether trade, finance or any other thing, finally come down to the question of the production of wheat and the price of wheat, and the conclusion of that commission 13 that while the cost of wheat production has increased by 12'15 per cent since the year 1909, the cost of marketing the wheat has increased by about 15 per cent. That is to say, while it costs the farmer 12-15 per cent more to produce his wheat, it costs him 15 per cent more to market it than it did in 1909.


William Findlay Maclean: And the price
has also gone down?


Frank Oliver: Yes. The Liverpool quotations fell from $1.23 in 1907 to 98 cents per bushel in 1913: a difference of 25 cents a bushel on the market price, a difference of 12-15 per cent in production and a difference of 15 per cent in the cost of marketing. The figures are arrived at by making a calculation on the handling of a thousand bushel carload. To quote the report:
The services enumerated are those performed in connection with 1,000 bushels of No. 3 Northern wheat shipped through a country elevator in Saskatchewan, hauled to Winnipeg, there sampled and graded by the Government, sold on commission to an exporter, hauled to Fort William, unloaded, weighed, received in store, cleaned and insured at a terminal elevator, inspected out into a lake steamer before the close of navigation, carried to a Georgian hay or lake Erie port, unloaded through a transfer elevator into a railway car, hauled to Montreal, unloaded from the car into a transfer elevator, loaded thence into a steamer and carried to Liverpool or London. This procedure and route are selected because more grain has been handled by this procedure than by any other and more has been exported via this route than by any other Canadian route.
The charges may be grouped naturally under two heads:
1.	Charges (paid directly by grower and shipper of consigned grain.
2.	Charges paid directly by purchaser of consigned grain, but indirectly by grower and shipper because deducted from the price the grain realized.
I will not trouble the House with the details but the conclusion is, that in 1909 it cost $304.60 to market a carload of wheat from the province of Saskatchewan, and in 1913 it cost $346.60.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Might I ask whether that additional charge is entirely attributable to additional freight rates?


Frank Oliver: I was just going to give the details of the increases. It is not necessary for me to give the whole details. All the charges remain the same in 1909 and 1913, except those I will mention: the rates of interest has increased; the estimated increase in interest on 1,000 bushel carload valued at $700, is $2; the increase in lake carrying charges is from $10 in 1909 to $20 in 1913. That is just double. The ocean steamship charges have been
5 p.m. increased from $40 per 1,000 bushels to $75. Those are the only increases. The increase in hank interest is trifling but it may be counted. But the increase in cost of lake transportation is serious; it has been doubled and the cost of ocean transportation has been almost doubled, and this cost, as the report points out, necessarily is deducted from the price the producer receives.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: What was the lake rate per bushel last fall and in 1909?


Frank Oliver: This report does not take into account last year's rates. The summary contains only a general computation but I happen to have the figures on lake rates, and my information is that in the season of 1913 the lake rates varied from If to 3| cents a bushel.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that with storage?


Frank Oliver: I could not say. This responsible commission appointed by the Saskatchewan Government has declared that the cost of lake transportation doubled since 1909 and that, in conjunction with the increase of ocean freight rates and the increased cost of production, and in connection with the drop in the world's prices, has produced what may be considered as a crisis in wheat production in the western country and is a matter of such great importance as to call for every attention that can be given to it by this Parliament and the Government to relieve the conditions in whole or in part. While dealing with this question of lake freights, let me give the House some information that I am sure will interest the people of Eastern Canada as well as those of Western Canada. Of the grain that went forward from Canadian ports at the head of the lakes from August, 1913, to the close of navigation in December, 75,000,000 bushels went by United States ports as against 58,000,000 bushels by Canadian ports.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that mixed grain or wheat alone?


Frank Oliver: That is all grain. That is something that should make those members who are interested directly or indirectly in the shipping ports of Eastern Canada recognize that they too have an interest in this question of the transportation of western grain. When Canada does not handle, through her own ocean ports, half of the grain that she produces, it is certainly an indication that there is something radically wrong in connection with transportation.


William Wright: Is there any difference between the freight rates on the Great Lakes going by an American port, such as Buffalo, and the rates through a Canadian port?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend can hardly ask that question because unless there was a difference the grain would not go that way. It must be of advantage to ship by way of Buffalo or the grain would not go by way of Buffalo.


William Findlay Maclean: In this report of the commission the statement is made that the grain of Canada, to reach the market in Liverpool, pays more than the grain of any qther country in the world. That would cover the case of the United States, and the rate is lower in the United States.


Frank Oliver: The condition, as it appears to my mind, is this: on account of the shipping combine on the Great Lakes, which is a Canadian combine and which controls the rates between Port Arthur and Midland, it has been necessary for shippers to take advantage of American vessels available for that trade, which vessels could not carry from Port Arthur to Midland, and, therefore, these shippers, in order to get the lower rate on their grain, had to ship by an American bottom through an American port. As a matter of fact, that is precisely what occurred during the past season. The freight rate during the past season averaged lower than it did the season before because a larger proportion of Canadian grain went by American bottoms through American ports. That is why the grain has to go that way, and that is what brought the rate down.


William Wright: Will the hon. gentleman give us any exact figures and not mere assumption as to the Canadian rates on the Great Lakes as compared with the American rates via Buffalo?


William Humphrey Bennett: The rates are invariably the same.


Frank Oliver: Naturally the rates remain on a par because, when the American boats carrying grain to Buffalo come into the competition, if the Canadian boats carrying [DOT]to Midland did not carry at the same rate the grain would -all go to Buffalo. That is elementary. The question of interest to this House is not what the rates are but the question of interest, so far as the western producer is concerned, is that the rates are higher than they used to be and higher than they ought to be. To the eastern representative, who is concerned with eastern Canadian shipping points, the question of interest is that the freight is going to American ports. Whatever the reason may be, Canada is losing that trade. If the transportation companies are losing trade business interests in every way are losing trade, and I say it is for the Government to wake up to this situation and, instead of awaiting the report of an imperial trade commission, deal with this matter that is immediately in hand. This is a matter which ought to be under the control of this Government. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) desires me to read to the House a statement from the Saskatchewan report which is as follows:
It costs the farmers more to have the exportable surplus of Western Canada's grain crop placed on present ultimate market than the farmers of any other large exporting country have to pay.
That is a startling statement and when it is taken in conjunction with the increased cost of production and the drop in prices in the world's markets, it is notice of a situation in this country that must have very far reaching effects. It has such a direct bearing on the present condition of the country that I think the country should wake up and realize what the position of affairs really is. Our farmers are producing their grain at a loss and not at a profit. Our country is not getting the benefit of the transportation of grain in such proportion as it should. One reason in large measure is the combine of the lake vessels which has driven Canadian grain to American ports.


Mr. THOBURN:: Do the farmers in the Northwest pay more per bushel per mile than do the farmers in any other country?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend asks me a question that I cannot answer, and that I could not be expected to answer. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, with all the resources that he has at his command, could not answer that question. It does 
not matter what other people pay; the question is, what do we pay and can we afford to pay it? That is the essential question, and if the answer is, as the Saskatchewan Grain Commission has answered, that we are not getting for our grain a price at which we can afford to produce it, then certainly there must be a change of the methods of marketing and transport, or our products must be restricted in proportion. Everybody knows that the restriction in any degree of western products is bound to have a serious, nay a disastrous effect upon the welfare of this whole Dominion. Unless production in the West can be moderately and reasonably increased from year to year for many years, there will be serious loss and injury throughout the rest of Canada, because our industrial establishments, our commercial organizations, our financial institutions have all been organized and capitalized with a view to meeting the increase of production that is expected.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: This is very interesting and important, but I would gather this inference from the report of the commission, and also from the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver), that there is a combine on the lakes so far as Canadian vessels are concerned, and that there is no combine so far as American vessels going to Buffalo are concerned. I also draw the inference that, so far as Canadian bottoms that carry the grain over to the old country axe concerned, there is a combine, and so far as American bottoms are concerned there is not a combine. Are these the facts in connection with the matter? The statement that it costs more to carry our. western grain to market than grain grown in any other part of the world does not sound very well, and requires investigation. The only country that you could compare with western Canada would be the western states. So far as the Argentine republic or any of ther other wheat-growing countries are concerned, the traffic is by sea, and ocean freight rates are of course less than railway rates. If my inference is correct that there is a combine in Canada and not in the United States, then I think the matter can be very easily explained. I would like to know if my hon. friend can give any information on these two points.


Frank Oliver: On the lakes there is a
combine amongst Canadian shipping interests. There is not a combine amongst American shipping interests. The latter

enter into our trade only when their trade is slack. We did not get their competition in the season of 1912 to the same extent that we did in the season of 1913, because they were busier at home in 1912 than in 1913 It was because the ore carrying trade fell off in 1913 that the American vessels came into our trade and thereby reduced the rates for 1913 as compared with the rates for 1912. In order that the western farmer shall get the benefit of that competition, the eastern port interests must lose. That is an undesirable condition.


William Findlay Maclean: The proof that
American wheat is carried to market at a lower rate than Canadian wheat lies in the fact, that if there were free wheat in this country to-day, the bulk of our wheat would go to market through the United States and not through Canada, unless the Canadian railways came down to American rates. So far as I can see the only people who today are opposing free wheat, are the railways, because, if they can keep the wheat from going into the United States, they can reap a bigger profit on their "freight rates.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The American rates
are not lower.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The American freight
rates are lower.


Mr. STEVENS:: What are they?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am taking it on the general proposition which I .put before the House the other day that the opposition to free wheat comes from the Canadian railways, because they are enjoying higher rates to-day. If we had free wheat, our wheat would go through the United States unless the Canadian railways reduced their rates, and they would have to do so.


Mr. BEST:: Tell us what the rates are.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The rates are lower in the United 'States than they are in Canada.


John Best: Anybody could say that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver); I will give the details later on. My conviction is that the opposition to free wheat is because it entails the reduction of Canadian rates.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: So far as my part of the country is concerned, the rate from Boissevain to Fort William and the rate from Rolla, a town directly south of us and a few miles across the border, to Duluth, are exactly the same.


Frank Oliver: I am not questioning that at all. I am pointing out a condition that exists beyond any question. There is no possible doubt that the eastern Canadian ports lost the transportation of a large pro portion of that 75,000,000 bushels of grain because of the Canadian shipping combine on the upper lakes.


William Wright: What cure does the hon. member suggest?


Frank Oliver: I am trying to arouse the interest and attention of the House and measurably of the country to a condition as it exists. Unless that interest can be aroused, there is no use proposing a remedy. Unless the country believes that it is being hurt and hurt in this particular, there is no remedy required. I wish to put it beyond argument that there is a damaging condition; that it is seriously damaging. If I can impress that upon the House and the country, then I shall be glad to go into any discussion as to a remedy for it.
The point is that there is on the upper lakes a combine of Canadian shipping interests which is detrimental to the western producer and also to the interests of eastern ocean shipping ports.


William Wright: I am not antagonistic to the views that the hon. gentleman is putting forward. He has my entire sympathy in regard to this question. All I desire is a little more light upon the subject.


William Findlay Maclean: Let us have a committee.


Frank Oliver: I hope the force with
which I have made my statement is not construed by my hon. friend as offering any objection to his question or to any discussion that may arise. I speak strongly because I feel strongly; because I feel that the condition is serious and that the House should be thoroughly aware of how serious it is.
My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner) asks as to the conditions on the ocean. As I understand, the great lines which run to Canadian and American ports are in the one combine. The combine is the same to New York as it is to Montreal, so far as the combine is concerned; but there is this difference, that the tramp steamers which are not in the combine have access to United States ports on terms of less insurance that they have in Canadian ports. Shippers from American ports have that advantage over us, because of that that condition.

Now, in regard to the ocean rates. Every man has receive ,i within the past day or two the report of the Council of the Quebec Board of Trade for 1913, in which there is information which seems to me to be almost startling; so far, at any rate as the principle involved is concerned. The assertion is made that the Allan Line carries certain classes of freight, mentioned here, for less money to Montreal than to Quebec, and that as a matter of fact, freight is systematically carried to Montreal by steamer and shipped back to Quebec by rail. Here are some of the figures:	Oilcloth in rolls to Montreal 25s.; ito Quebec 27s. and 6d. Woollen goods in bales, to Montreal 25s., to Quebec 35s. Pease in bags to Montreal 20s., to Quebec 22s. and 6d.


William Findlay Maclean: How about
whisky?


Frank Oliver: I had just reached that item, and I am sure my hon. friend will be interested. Whisky in cases to Montreal 30s., to Quebeo 32s. 6d.; liquor in cases, to Montreal 30s.; to Quebeo, 32s. 6d. It is quite evident that there is discrimination by ocean steamships as between Canadian ports. We have got quite used to the condition on the railways under which it is as cheap or cheaper-or used to be cheaper, I am not sure but that it is yet- to ship oats from Edmonton destined to Kamloops first to Vancouver and thence to Kamloops rather than direct. It is news, however, that the same conditions prevail in regard to ocean traffic and that the city of Quebeo, at tide water about 180 miles nearer Liverpool than Montreal, pays 2s. 6d. per 100 lbs., or whatever it may be, more than Montreal pays for freight landed there. I do not know whether an Imperial Trade Commission is necessary to deal with that question; I do not know whether it is a question that is considered to be of serious interest-it is certainly far removed from the locality in which I have any direct interest. But I draw attention to it to let the House know that discrimination and high charges are not peculiar to the West, but that the other parts of Canada suffer somewhat similar conditions.
The main point, however, is that so far as wheat production is concerned, there is work for the Government of Canada to do and work for this Parliament to do, in dealing with the conditions which I have shown on the authority of the Saskatchewan Commission to be so serious, not only to western Canada, but to Canada as a whole. These conditions demand immediate attention; not

waiting for the report of an Imperial Trade Commission-which may be altogether useful in itself. These conditions press close home; they ought to be, if they are not, under the jurisdiction of Parliament; and they ought to be dealt with now by Parliament and by the Government


John Best: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the cost to the farmer of wheat-producing land had increased very much and that its producing qualities had decreased very much. Could the hon. gentleman tell us why the land has increased in price while its producing qualities have decreased?


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood me; for I did not say the quality of the land had decreased, but the returns from production to the farmer had decreased.


John Best: I understood that among the causes of increased cost was the increase in the price of the land.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Best: If the wheat is so much
cheaper and so much more expensive to produce, the producing value of the land is >so much less?


Frank Oliver: No doubt.


John Best: Why, then, is there an increase in the price while the producing qualities are decreasing?


Frank Oliver: For several years the
price of wheat was increasing, and while it was on the increase and before the cost of production had risen owing to the increased cost of articles that the farmer had to buy, land naturally increased in value. But under the conditions that now exist land is not increasing in value and cannot increase in value when the financial returns from the working of that land are on the decrease. The land itself must decrease in value, and that itself is a serious condition. We need not say too much about it, but we all must realize that it is inevitably the case and that it is to the last degree serious to every interest in this country.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has declared that it is time that this Government and this Parliament should ' wake up.' These are two very good words. I suppose they have been applicable at other times als well as at the present. An interesting side-light-a bit of

history which ought not to escape attention entirely-is thrown upon this discussion to-day by some documents which are at hand and from which I am going to quote to a very small extent. My hon. friend was a member of a very powerful government in this country at a time when the freight rates were going up, moving skyward, rocketing. My hon. friend was from the West then, as he is now; he had the interest of the West at heart, as he has now; the complaints poured into his ears, as he says they are pouring into his ears now. What was done by him and his Government at that time? I am not deterred in the least by the two Latin words ' tu quoque' which will be trotted out in a little time. I am bringing the matter up by way of a little historical sidelight on the position of my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman
wants the answer, I can give it to him in a moment, and I will not use the tu quoque either.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman may give an answer hut the record speaks plainly, and though he is fairly accurate sometimes the record is a little more accurate than his assertion. So, I propose to take the record. In the early part of 1910, protests showered in upon the then Government with reference to the enhancement of ocean freight rates. The Minister of Railways took the matter up with Judge Mabee who at that time was Chairman of the Railway Board. Judge Mabee prepared what I would call an able memorandum-and he was considered to be an able lawyer. I am not going to read all that memorandum, but I wish to refer to two or three parts of it. In the first place-he states-and that contravenes the dictum of my learned friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) on the law -that the jurisdiction of these controlling bodies his own included-
-Is limited to the land or land and inland water movement. In other words the moment that an export traffic reaches the seaboard of any of those three countries, Government control over it is absolutely lost.
He discusses the matter further by saying:
Under the present law, when these shipments reach Montreal, control over the rates and conditions of transportation is lost, the result being that for two-thirds of the total distance the traffic moves at the rates the ocean carriers choose to make.
He proceeds to say:
The time to obtain control over the rates upon this traffic is while it is comparatively in its infancy and not after enormous development has taken place and shipping trusts of all kinds have grown up.
He concludes by suggesting that an international tribunal consisting of the English Railway and Canal Traffic Commission and the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, or certain defined members of those commissions, could by joint legislation be empowered to control all these matters.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the date of that memorandum?


George Eulas Foster: February 12, 1910. The
Minister of External Affairs at that time (Mr. Murphy) presented that report to Council, and a minute of Council was passed, pressing upon the Colonial Secretary the desirability of having a joint tribunal appointed to regulate and control ocean freights. On February 28 Earl Grey sent a copy of that Order in Council, which was dated February 26, 1910, with a covering despatch, to Lord Crewe, who communicated it to the Board of Trade on March 31. The Board of Trade took it into consideration, and on August 4 it advised Lord Crewe, in effect, that a joint inquiry be made by persons designated by the British and Canadian Governments. On August 18 Lord Crewe transmitted that communication to the Canadian Government, asking the Governor General to be kind enough to transmit, as soon as possible, any further observations that might be made by the Canadian Ministry. On August 31, Mr. Walker, a clerk in the office of External Affairs, brought this despatch to the attention of the Minister of Railways. There the matter rested until November 30, 1910, when a despatch was received from Mr. Harcourt, Secretary of State for the Colonies, asking for the minister's views at an early date. Nothing resulted, and on December 20, Mr. Pope called the attention of the Department of Railways to Mr. Harcourt's despatch. From that time on there was no response, and on March 14 the Governor General's office communicated with Mr. Pope, saying that a further despatch had been received from Mr Harcourt, dated March 14, asking again for a reply to his former despatch. All these things took place, and yet there was no action by the Minister of Railways or by the Government in power at that time. Notwithstanding the fact that in February,

1910, hon. gentlemen opposite committed themselves to the principle of a joint tribunal to investigate and control, particulars concerning which were in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Colonies by August of that year, and a communication from him, asking for further observations, received by the Canadian ministry by the last of August of the same year-and that this was followed up by three separate despatches asking for a reply to the first-nothing was done, hon. gentlemen who now, through the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) tell this Government, in tones of thunder, to wake up, at that time did absolutely nothing; nor did they do anything before they went out of office. The criticism is made that this is a matter of such importance that time is an element. If this matter had been put into the hands of a joint tribunal for inquiry and for recommendation, with the disposition of the British Government favourable and accordant action on the part of the Government oi Canada, there might have been to-day a joint control of ocean freight rates between Canada and the old country. But my hon. friends did nothing, and now, two years afterwards, they come to us with that trumpet note:	'Wake up; time is very
precious/ I just wish to put this matter on the records of the House to show what a most important lapse of memory has taken place and to show that hon. gentlemen opposite for twelve long months had not the time to reply to a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Under that joint tribunal and commission there might have been an actual and substantial lowering of last year's and this year's freight rates by control of ocean transit, to the benefit of the farmers of the West, about whom these gentlemen, and rightly so, are so much concerned. When the western farmers listen to these fervid appeals for action now, in February, 1914, let them remember, and apportion their judgment accordingly, that in 1910 there was a method offered by which the Government of that day might have had control over the ocean rates upon all grains carried from the West to Great Britain during this last year and the year preceding if they had simply taken the trouble to answer a despatch and put into operation an effective control of these rates.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry
that the Minister of Railways is not here;

I have no recollection of the correspondence to which my hon. friend refers. But there is one remark which he made to which I wish to call attention. My hon. friend said he was not going to put forward the argument tu quoque-and what has he done?


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend is
not quite right in that. I said I was not deterred by any assertion of the tu quoque argument from bringing this matter before the House. It is an absolute tu quoque argument, but it is an historical fact.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly, and my hon. friend has had the advantage which I have not had of perusing the correspondence. He stated he had only read some partial extracts from it to the House. I do not know what are the parts he has left out. I do not know if there is anything involved which had better be put before the House, and I invite him, since he has put part of the correspondence before the House, to put it all on the table so that we may have the advantage of looking at it.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly.


Wilfrid Laurier: In the meantime I have only to say: what is the use of having a change of government? What is the use of all the inflammatory speeches we had at one time if these gentlemen, on coming into office, are to do just as their predecessors did? Suppose we were lax in 1910 and 1911, is that any justification why my hon. friends, coming after us, should be lax in 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914. My right hon. friend found that correspondence in the Archives of the Government. He stated that the British Government awaited our reply. Why did he not send a reply? Has he made any reply since the 21st of September 1911? Not a word. By his own confession he has not. And all he has to say now is: You have been derelict in this matter but we have not been any more derelict than you have been. Was it for this that he was put in office? We have had no excuse for this laches of the Government except: You have done as we have done. That is not what the people expect. The people are commencing to be disappointed, and they have good reason to be disappointed. They expected when a new government was in office that everything that was wrong with the late Government would be better. But by the confession of my hon. friend himself we left that matter in 1910 for him to deal with; he comes in, a new broom-and the new broom does not

sweep at all. I would remind him that in 1911 we were very busy.


George Eulas Foster: Too busy to look after the farmers.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not too busy to look after the farmers, we were looking after the farmers at that time.


George Eulas Foster: Looking after their votes.


Wilfrid Laurier: And the
farmers have told my hon. friend again and again: Give us the United States market for our wheat. That is the best way of dealing with the freight rates question. My hon. friend will not even communicate with the English Government, and when the farmers come here asking to have a competitive rate, my hon. friend turns a deaf ear to them. That is all the explanation my hon. friend has to give. Can he say that we were at all negligent ? In the midst of a stormy session in 1911 when I had to leave the business of the session to attend the Imperial Conference, in England, this very question came up, and it was I who moved at the Imperial Conference for the establishment of that very Imperial Commission for which my hon. friend is now asking an appropriation. To this commission I myself moved that this very matter of ocean freight rates should be referred; and yet my hon. friend has the audacity to say we were derelict in our duty in respect to it.


George Eulas Foster: Just a word to clear up some of the mists that are around the mind of my right hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: Better look to yourself. '


George Eulas Foster: No doubt my right hon. friend is perfectly right in saying that they were looking after the farmers in 1911; that is, they were looking after the farmers' votes. They were awfully diligent about that, but they did not show the same diligence in looking after the farmers' freight rates for nine, ten or twelve months before. It was a tremendous task, no doubt, it required much time for consideration. But what were the facts of the case ? In February, 1910, they had come to the conclusion that a joint tribunal was the proper thing, and had asked the British Government if they would join with them in constituting one. They had made up their minds, there was no necessity for any time to consider, they had come to a conclusion on a point of policy and their policy was a joint tribunal, if it could be brought 60
about, between Great Britain and ourselves, in order to control freight rates. In August, 1910, the British Government acceded to their matured opinions and the way was cleared, all obstacles to the appointment of the tribunal were swept away, except one, and that was the time that was necessary for some minister of the Government to sit down and write a despatch agreeing to have a joint tribunal between Canada and Great Britain, and naming the persons who should act for Canada. For 12 whole months no reply was sent to an acceptance of a proposal which they had made. But my right hon. friend is a little out again. He said the new broom did not sweep, meaning the present Government. Neither did theirs. But the facts are the very opposite. They made the handle of the broom; the British Government made the brush of the broom, they had the handle fitted so that one-half minute's work would have put it into the brush so that the brush would sweep; but they were so anxious for the farmers' votes that they did not want to sweep in order that the farmers freight rates might be reduced. We came into office, and to-day not only is there a proposal, but there is an accepted arrangement, by which a joint tribunal is to-day looking into this very matter of control of ocean freight rates. So that our broom has swept, and we have shown that we are looking after the farmers' interests, having got their votes. My right hon. friend looked after them, but he did not get all of them. We got our proper proportion of them and addressed ourselves gratefully to guard the farmers in that respect.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock Mr. W. F. MACLEAN: I want to refer to some of the incidents of the debate this afternoon. I appreciate very much what my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce said about my being a lawyer and an outlaw. That term may be rather a compliment in this country. But it is a strange thing that any one who criticises in a reasonable way-and I think I was reasonable enough-the railways or other corporations in this country, should be called a corporation baiter, and be told that he is most unfair and does not know what he is talking about. A friend of mine in the Cabinet also spoke of me the other day as John the Baptist, because I happened to have some



original views as to public affairs in this country.


George Eulas Foster: That is a compliment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it is a compliment. I am proud that I am not a lawyer, and I can say to the hon. gentleman who was Minister of Marine that perhaps he is a sea lawyer. We all know that a sea lawyer is a man who has an opinion of his own. In a very delicate way, he suggested to the Chairman this afternoon that perhaps I was an outlaw as regards the discussion I raised, although I imagine I was quite within the rules of the House. Be that as it may, I want to recall to him and to other members of the House a little incident which occurred in this House touching on my legal knowledge and which also bears on this question. A good many years ago, I was trying to call the attention of the House to an amendment that I proposed to the Railway Act, that express rates should be controlled by the Railway Commission, and the present eminent and learned Chief Justice of Canada who was then the Minister of Justice, got up in the House and gave his high legal opinion that I was unconstitutional, inasmuch as express rates concerned inland navigation, stages and railways, which were outside the jurisdiction of this House. He was backed up in that opinion by another eminent lawyer in the House, now the Prime Minister, and between the two the House was persuaded that I was acting unconstitutionally and my proposal was turned down. But, it was not long before this House adopted the principle that we had control over express rates and we made the express companies come to time. In the same way I say we have control over these steamboat companies. They load at our ports and we can get at them in that way. Furthermore, we subsidize them to carry His Majesty's mails. We build ports for them, and they are part of the railroads of this country. These railroad companies give bills of lading from the point of origination of the freight rates across to the other side, and in that way they come within our jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over them in a great many other ways. I know that the usual way of getting by any question is to get a lawyer's opinion on it. They presented the opinion of the late Chairman of the Railway Commission who suggested that a commission go across the ocean, and the Government of that day took advantage of that. And now the same thing has happened to-day, only in a more veiled and 
expert way. Another commission is to go and look at conditions in the Old Country. That will not do. You can always take advantage of a legal subterfuge of that kind. I contend that this Parliament has full jurisdiction over these companies, and that we do not need to go to England for any assistance in that matter. All the facts could be elicited by a parliamentary committee of this House. We could send for all these people and find out how this eombine originated, and who are the members of it, and let the people of Canada know.. If we did that, we should find out that all these companies are the creatures of this Parliament, and are within the jurisdiction of Parliament; and if we made the issue as between them and the people of Canada it would have such an effect on them that that combine would be dissolved the very next day. But if we are to put off dealing with this matter until some commission reports on it, and until other countries have to be consulted, the evils will never be cured. My suggestion is, and I make it with all respect, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce take this question with him to the Imperial Commission and let him take with him all the information that can be obtained by a parliamentary committee of this House. I do not know whether that Commission has the power to summon and swear witnesses and get evidence as we have here. We could bring them all here within a couple of days and get all the facts about this ocean combine, what its object is, under what law they are organized, and why they seek to take away from the Canadian farmer every advantage that accrues to him because of the immense expenditure this country has made for the improvement of navigation. If we are going to spend, not a hundred million dollars but two or three hundred million dollars, on new ports, on deepening canals, and on the improvement of navigation generally, and a shipping combine is to be allowed to take away all this from us, then we had better confess that this is not a self-governing country, that we are not competent to deal with these questions and that the Parliament of Canada is less than the corporations it has created. This is a most serious question and it has to be settled. It cannot be trifled with, as it was trifled with by the previous Government according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon, and it will be more or less trifled with if we send it to the commission. A parliamentary committee could get all the facts in a very

short time, and then if we found we could not deal with it we could give those facts to the minister; but I am confident that an investigating committee of this House could get the facts and force a dissolution of that combine within a month, or two at the most.


Frank Oliver: When the Minister of
Trade and Commerce was speaking, he dealt with the condition that I had endeavoured to lay before the House and the country in regard to the grain trade of Canada. I cannot put into words how strongly I feel that the country must be disappointed at not hearing from the hon. gentleman, either a denial of the conditions or a suggested remedy for them. The hon. gentleman satisfied himself in dealing with a condition that must be admitted to be of the gravest national character, by calling in question the inaction of his predecessors in office. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the questions before Canada at the present time in regard to the price of wheat, in regard to the condition of transportation, in regard to the consequences to the trade, finances and industry of Canada at large, is not ameliorated, or remedied by any reference to the conduct or misconduct of my hon. friend's predecessors in office. I do not think it would be a useful expenditure of time to defend the position of the late Government in this matter that my hon, friend has seen fit to attack. He asserts that the late Government opened the question of ocean freight rates with the Imperial Government and carrried the matter no further. I am not in a position to give reasons for the action, or inaction, of that day, nor, do I think it is material to the discussion.
Let me draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that there is a serious change in conditions between that date and the present, and that the change of conditions emphasizes to such a degree the necessity of action by the present Government that no possible measure of shortcomings by the late Government relieves them from the responsibility. Since the late Government went out of office the price to the farmer for his product has decreased by 8 cents a bushel according to the report of the Saskatchewan Grain Commission. Assuming the marketable product of the wheat of the West to be 150,000,000 bushels, my hon. friend can see by these figures that the difference in value to the farmer for his product as between this year and the year in which my hon. friend took office is a matter of some 60i
$12,000,000. That surely is a sum of sufficient amount to show that if it was a matter of urgency then it is a matter of still more pressing urgency to-day. If the late Government may have been justified we will say, in putting something else before the question of ocean freight rates, these are 12,000,000 reasons why the present Government are not so justified in taking no other action.
It is not only the fact that the price to the farmer has been reduced by reason of the shipping combine, as well as by the operations of the world's markets, but it is also a fact that the cost of production has been increased. The reports that are published from month to month by the Department of Labour give a statement as to the increased cost of living throughout Canada. That increased cost of living affects the farmer on the prairie just as it affects everybody else throughout the country, and that makes it as necessary that he should receive a greater price for his product if he is to get an equal profit upon it as that the salaried official in the city of Ottawa should receive an increase in his salary if he is going to be in as good a financial position at the end of this year as last year. Not only is there an increase in the cost of living, but there has been an increase in the bank rate of interest. The increase in the cost of land has to be provided for and, according to the report of the Saskatchewan Commission, the farmer is to-day twelve per cent worse off in the cost of production than he was in 1909. The greater part of the increase in the cost of production has taken place in the latter two years rather than in the former two years. My hon. friend must therefore admit that if the position was urgent in 1910 it is proportionately more urgent to-day.
But instead of my hon. friend coming forward with a remedy, he comes forward with the statement that the late Government failed to take action in regard to a matter as to which .they themselves had raised the question. If that is the only answer that my hon. friend has to give, if all the country has to look for at the hands of this Government is the reply, that whatever the conditions may have been in the past history of Canada no action dealing with that condition was taken and if that is a justification for no action being taken at the present moment, all I have to say is that the condition of the country is not hopeful under the administration of my hon. friend.
The condition that exists calls for

remedy, but I want to point out that I was not putting forward the responsibility of the Government in regard to ocean freight rates. I was careful not to put that responsibility forward because I appreciate very fully that with the best of intentions this Government, or any Government, must, in the nature of things, have such a limited measure of control over ocean freight rates that there can be no great results looked for with any degree of certainty from effort in that regard. We will be glad if the efforts that are put forward by the present Government result favourably in securing a reduction. We will be glad to give them every credit for their success, if success they achieve. But I cannot look with any great hope upon the prospect. A joint arrangement between the authorities of Canada and the authorities of Great Britain in regard to shipping rates across the ocean must strike anybody as a rather one-sided proposition. While Canada sends and receives a large part of the freight, the vessels are owned in Great Britain, and the dividends are paid in Great Britain. It stands to reason that British interests, looking at those interests as humanly selfish, naturally they would look for the greatest revenue that could be secured from the operations of the ships. Therefore, in the nature of things, so far as assistance from the British end of the conference is concerned, we can at best expect sympathetic consideration of the conditions under which we labour. I shall be glad if I am disappointed. I shall be pleased if the Government is able to do better than I hope, but I must say that I do not consider the outlook at all hopeful in that regard. It was for that reason, as well as for others, that I urged upon the Government attention to those matters that were within their control and under their responsibility. I protested against setting up the idea of looking for relief across the ocean, where relief might never be secured, and of ignoring the responsibility of providing such measure of relief as could be secured nearer home. In regard to the shipping combine on the upper lakes, there is no doubt that it is under the jurisdiction of this Parliament.


William Humphrey Bennett: What does the
hon. member mean by a combine on the upper lakes? Does he mean that one company has control over the freight rates, or that the different companies are combined in order to keep up the freiebt rates?
 *


Frank Oliver: I think the latter position is probably the correct one. My hon. friend is aware that one company has absorbed a large portion of the lake shipping, and therefore is in a very convenient position either to compel its competitors to come to terms or to make favourable arrangements with them. We need not traverse that ground again. The fact remains that, because of the existence of a shipping combine on the upper lakes, 76,500,000 bushels of Canadian grain found an outlet through United States ports last year as against 57,900,000 bushels through Canadian ports.


George Eulas Foster: Has my hon. friend the figures of last year so that he can compare relatively what passed out by each way last year and this year?


Frank Oliver: I have not the figures,
but my information is that just in proportion as the shipping combine on the upper lakes strengthened its position, in the same proportion Canadian grain was forced into American channels.


George Eulas Foster: I have an impression that the fact's of the case are that, as compared with the United States, a very much larger quantity went by way of Montreal this year than last.


Frank Oliver: I have not the figures; but it will ndt be denied, that not very many years ago Montreal was bulletined throughout America as being the leading grain shipping port of the continent; that it had actually surpassed New York in its amount of wheat shipments. That is not the fact to-day. Not only is it not the fact, but Montreal is not getting even half o.f the Canadian shipments. That is absolute evidence that something is wrong. I may be mistaken in my judgment as to the cause, but there is no question as to the fact. As I have already said and urged, a certain condition being found to exist it is the business of the Government to find out what the causes are and to prescribe the remedy. I will go so far as to suggest a remedy, a drastic one it is true, but I believe an effective remedy, only to be used in case of emergency, namely, to permit the United States shippers to carry Canadian grain from one Canadian port to another. I have some 'Confidence that that would bring the shipping combine to a realization of the fact that they did not own Canada; that they did not own the farmer of the Northwest, and that it was

not their privilege to strangle him whenever they saw fit.
There is another means whereby the farmer could be given reliei. I should not use the word 'farmer'; I should not say that the farmer could be given relief, because this is not a question of the farmer only; it is a question of the business of the Dominion of Canada.
A short time ago there was moved in this House a resolution urging upon the Government the desirability of removing the duty on wheat as a means of securing the free entry of wheat into the United States. As to the advantage of that to the Canadian farmer and to the businessman who depends upon the farmer, I quote the latest price list that I find in the Grain Growers' Guide of February 11, showing that No. 1 Northern for cash was worth 87J cents in Winnipeg and 91J cents in Minneapolis. It is, however, a well known fact that Canadian grades are higher than those of the United States and that Canadian No. 2 is quite equal to American No. 1. Therefore, the comparison would be No. 2 Northern at Winnipeg, 852 cents; No. 1 Northern at Minneapolis, 911 cents, or a difference of nearly six cents a bushel. With this market of Minneapolis standing at a figure six cents higher than the market at Winnipeg, if there is an opportunity to secure access to the Minneapolis market for Canadian wheat so that the Canadian producer could get the benefit of that six cents per bushel more, there is at least a prima facie case for the Government to take such action as would give that opportunity.


George Eulas Foster: If I understand my
hon. friend's argument, it is, that, because the quotations of what he calls an equal quality of wheat in Minneapolis ranges six cents a bushel higher than in Winnipeg, therefore, if there were no duty intervening between those two points, our wheat would have an increased advantage of six cents per bushel. That is the argument if there is anything in it. It may be modified a little by saying that there would be some charges midway according to the destination of the wheat. The argument is that it is the duty that causes that difference in price between Winnipeg and Minneapolis. Suppose the hon. gentleman takes two cities in the United States, perhaps not further apart, and consults the quotations, he will find time after time a difference of two cents, three cents, four cents, five cents, six cents,
sometimes as much as nine cents a bushel between the two. There is no intervening duty there, so in that case it is clearly not the duty which makes the difference in price. Does not that lead the hon. gentleman to believe that there are other factors besides the duty, and that he has not quite proved his case from the one citation he has made? This matter of trade and prices is a pretty wide, round, long, deep business.


Frank Oliver: I am quite willing to admit that there are other factors entering into the price of wheat, and I will not urge for a moment that the removal of the duty will invariably give to the Canadian producer six cents a bushel more for his wheat. But I do say that, the conditions in Minneapolis being as they are, Minneapolis being: the great milling centre of the United States, the great wheat market of the United States, and that market showing consistently a price measurably, considerably, notably higher than that of Winnipeg-that is when Winnipeg has any wheat to sell-it is evident that the removal of the duty would accrue to the benefit of the Canadian producer. It appears to me to be a clear prima facie case, and the Government is certainly not doing its duty to the country if it does not try this matter out by actual experiment.


Mr. MORPHY:: Is there any reason to feel that Canada cannot be the great milling country of the world, with the wheat in our own country and the mills here or to be brought here? Would not that be worth while?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is asking a question which rather diverts me from the argument I wish to make, but as he has asked it, I would say that mills operate not only for the purpose of grinding wheat, but also for the purpose of selling flour; and you require a population in order to have a market for flour you grind. And as long as the United States has 90,000,000 of people and Canada has only 7,000,000, there is, in the nature of the case, a much laager market for flour in the United States than in Canada, and therefore the United States must be a better milling country.


George Eulas Foster: Not necessarily a larger
market for Canadian wheat.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: How much flour does
the United States export to the foreign mar-' kets of the world yearly?


Frank Oliver: I could not give the information offhand.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is a large quantity.


Frank Oliver: I know they do export a great deal of flour. But I know as a matter of fact also that they are prepared to buy our wheat, for reasons that are well known. Our wheat is required by them for the purpose of mixing with their wheat of different quality; I will not say of lower quality, but it does not command an equal price. Therefore there is a standing demand in the United States for the quality of wheat that we raise, not only because of their great home milling industry, but also because of their export milling industry; and they are willing to pay a higher price for that wheat than our Canadian millers are willing or able to pay. As to the reasons for that I do not speak, but the facts are as they are. It is not for me to weary the House with details, but I put it on the lowest possible basis: there being a prima facie case, the Government is not doing its duty by the country and by the western farmer, under the present conditions of reduced prices and higher cost of production, if it does not give the farmer an opportunity to reach more buyers by opening an important market. Everything that my hon. friend has suggested here tonight was suggested and repeated in regard to the price of cattle. When we were discussing the advantages of reciprocity with the United States, we were told-just as my hon. friend has it in his mind with regard to wheat-that, since the United States exported cattle we could not find a market for our cattle in the United States, although the United States market prices were higher. Since that time the United States duty on cattle has been removed, and the consequence has been that the price of cattle to the farmers throughout Canada has increased very substantially, not only in the county which my hon.
- friend represents, but also in the county which I represent, and he knows it perfectly well.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Not feeding cattle, but young cattle and stackers.


Frank Oliver: Cattle, anyway. There is a substantial advance in the price of cattle in that part of the country since the removal of the United States duty on cattle. The United States export cattle and they export wheat; yet they buy wheat and they buy cattle, and they will give us better prices than we get to-day.
(Mr. Morphy.]	,


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. gentleman allow me another question ? Under the conditions he lays down, the United States would be sending wheat back here free ?


Frank Oliver: Sure.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They export somewhere about 100,000,000 bushels a year of soft wheat. That would open to the American farmer in the Toledo district the market
of the Canadian farmer in Ontario, and reduce his price from ten to twenty cents a bushel. Does the hon. gentleman want that P


Frank Oliver: I do not think there would be any such reduction in price.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Authorities say so.


Frank Oliver: Of course, the authorities may be correct, but I say


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If that is true, would the hon. gentleman willingly submit the Ontario farmer to it ?


Frank Oliver: I am coming to that. I am going to quote the deputation of western farmers and Ontario farmers who met this Government shortly after the opening of this session with a series of resolutions, and one of the first of these resolutions was a demand that food should be made free of taxes, because they said that taxes on food were a crime against humanity. And I say that if this duty on wheat keeps up the price of flour unduly throughout this industrial and manufacturing section of Canada, it is doing a damage to the success, the prosperity and progress of Canada, and it is not doing a corresponding benefit to the man who produces the wheat.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid the discussion is wandering beyond the scope of the resolution which is on the item ' Imperial Trade Commission.' A discussion on the question of free food is rather outside the item before the Chair.


Frank Oliver: I was only answering my hon. friend.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But you were not answering, that is the trouble.


Frank Oliver: I was trying to answer. I was doing the best I could; if I could not make my hon. friend appreciate my point of view, that is my misfortune. I was showing courtesy to my hon. friend by giving him the answer I thought best to the question he asked. I did not wish to

pursue that side of the question except in reply to him.
I assume that I shall not be out of order in having offered one or two suggestions to the minister a? to improvement of trade conditions in the country by bettering prices to the farmer, I offer as well, a third. The Canadian Gazette, of London, England, has been dealing with this question of the shipping combine. That journal has given the country the benefit of its views, and, if I may, I will offer to the House a paragraph giving the conclusion at which it arrives. After pointing out the difficulties of any enforced reduction of rates on ocean vessels, the Gazette concludes:
The densely populated towns of the motherland are the true market for Canada's produce, and the ever-expanding centres of Canada are the natural markets for the British manufacturer of goods which Canada does not and will not for many years make for herself. Let Canada buy more from England rather than from the United States and other foreign land3 and the steamship facilities and lower rates will come naturally enough. The grain-growers of the Canadian west have for some years desired a gradual increase in the British preference in the Canadian tariff with a view to the ultimate establishment of freer trade, if not * free trade,' within the British Empire.
The suggestion is that a reduction of the tariff between Canada and England would, by increasing trade between the two countries, tend to reduce the cost of shipment and thereby bring about the result that is looked for-cheapening the cost of transportation of western wheat to the Liverpool market.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would that reduced
cost of living be effected at the expense of the West, or of the East?


Frank Oliver: I was under the impression that as everybody, both West and East, eats three meals a day and wears the same kind of clothing, anything that would reduce the cost of living anywhere would reduce it everywhere.


John Hampden Burnham: No, it does not.


Frank Oliver: I am quite unable to
follow my hon. friend; I was under the impression that that would be the effect. The hon. minister has declined to offer any suggestions of relief for existing conditions. I have made certain suggestions which I am sure he will not accept; I am now going to make another. He refuses to take the duty off wheat, thereby giving it free access to the markets of the United States; he refuses, I presume, to reduce the duties on goods coming from Great Britain into
Canada, thereby securing cheaper facilities for trade between this country and Great Britain; I am sure he will not take measures against the shipping combine on the upper lakes. Will he, then, increase the price of the farmer's wheat by increasing the duty on wheat? If this Government believes in a national policy, a policy of high tariffs, a policy of protection of Canadian industries, now is the time for them to show their faith in that belief.


Mr. AIKINS:: Does the hon. gentleman
think it would be to the advantage of Canada to have a higher duty on wheat?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend need not ask me that question; I say, certainly not. But I do say this: if this Government believes what it preaches; if it believes that a high tariff will make prosperity, that a high tariff will raise prices, now is the time for them to show their faith in that belief. Let them raise the price of the farmer's wheat by increasing the duty on wheat. Mr. Chairman, I am a protectionist.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Since when?


Frank Oliver: Always. I believe in legislation. that will improve the condition of the country, and if my hon. friends, by increasing the duty on wheat, will correspondingly increase the price of wheat to the farmer, I will support them. Do hon. gentlemen believe in what they preach, or do they not? They will not reduce the duty on the wheat, because, as my hon. friend believes, it would do the farmers harm; will they, then, increase the duty on wheat and do the farmers good? This Government has been in .power two years; during those two years the price of wheat has gone consistently down and the cost of living has gone consistently up. The area of cultivation in the western provinces, because of those conditions, has been at a standstill, if it has not decreased. Homestead entries have dropped by 9,000 in two years, as the result of the policy and administration of hon. gentlemen opposite. If this policy of theirs is good, if they believe that it is good, now is the time for them to take such action as I have suggested. But my hon. friends know that their policy is a sham; they know it is a fraud; they know they cannot better the prices of the farmers' wheat by increasing the duty on wheat, and they will not take that means of remedying existing conditions.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) devoted a great part of his speeches this afternoon, as well

as of his remarks this evening, to trying to prove that there was a combination in connection with freight rates on the upper lakes, and that this combination had been fostered by the present Government.


Frank Oliver: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I want it to be understood distinctly that in all I said this afternoon and this evening, I kept as faT away as I could from any charge against the present Government or what they had or had not done, for the purpose of urging upon them the necessity of doing something in the future.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman at least encouraged the House to believe that this combination to increase prices has sprung up within the last year or two.


Frank Oliver: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman
pointed out the fact that there has been an amalgamation of a series of upper lakes companies, with the result that the prices for the carriage of grain on the upper lakes have been increased. If my hon. friend looks them up he will find that the rates from Lake Superior ports, Duluth or Fort William, to Buffalo or other Georgian Day points, are invariably the same. The hon. gentleman said this afternoon that the rate last year varied from one to 3J cents. He forgot to tell the committee that the rate of 3i cents included not only carriage, but also the storage of the grain in the* vessel all winter, this storage as well as carriage facilities being afforded by the vessel owner. The fact that the vessel is used as a floating elevator during the winter season throws a different light upon the matter. I wish to quote from the Buffalo Board of Trade Report-and I am sorry that it runs down only to 1908-the different prices that have prevailed on the upper lakes. In 1899 the price varied from 2i to 6 cents a bushel, which is much higher than it was last year. In 1904, the price varied from 1 cent to 5 cents a bushel; in 1905, from li to 4 cents a bushel. So hon. gentlemen will see that the rates have very often been higher than they were last year. As to the restraining of competition and the fixing of rates by these companies, let us see what the facts really are. I hold in my hand a little book issued by a Cleveland firm, which shows that approximately the number of vessels that are on the Great Lakes, both United States and Canadian, is 1,300. I do not say that these are all grain carriers; some of them are not, but a very large proportion of them are. I do not think there are over 75 
or 100 Canadian grain freighters on the upper lakes; the amalgamation of last year, to which my hon. friend referred, does not operate over 40 grain freighters. If the hon. gentleman will peruse the list he will find that the bulk o.f these freighters are very small vessels; they do not commence to compare with the large freighters of the steel trust or other United States companies.
Some of the American vessels carry thirteen thousand tons, while the bulk of the Canadian freighters carry not over three thousand tons. There are upwards of eight or ten different companies on the Canadian side. I do not believe there is any collusion or arrangement between these companies to preserve rates, and for the reason that it is an utter impossibility that a hundred vessels competing	against a
thousand could control the rates. The hon. gentleman stated this afternoon that there is always the	American competition
because the American vessels can carry the grain from Port Arthur or Fort William to Buffalo. He also stated that the export trade in grain of the port of Montreal was falling off. If he had looked up the annual report of the Board of Trade of Montreal, at page 52, he would have seen that while in 1909 there were exported from Montreal 11,691,000 bushels, the next year, there were exported 21,500,000; the next year 21,000,000; the next year 25,500,000 and in 1913, 44,000,000 bushels. The port of Montreal last year did the biggest business it has ever done. The trouble is that we have not proper facilities at Montreal. Any man who h&s done business out of Montreal can tell you that the grain is delayed there, apart and aside from the question of better rates from New York to the British Empire or to Europe. But there is no question that we have not been able to get grain away from Montreal fast enough; and in these Government elevators I think a great mistake was made last year in that people were permitted to keep grain there for speculation. I am informed that vessels lay often as long as twenty days at a time unable to load, while thousands of cars were standing in the yard. We have been making advances in the past year or two in the port of Montreal, as is shown by the report that last year we exported
44.000.	000 bushels from that port. It is quite true that at Buffalo they took in
150.000.	000 bushels. Of course the bulk of that is not exported, but is manufactured into flour right in the United States. The

business of the port of Montreal has not been a matter of a few years but of many years, and no doubt when the trade of Montreal has increased proportionately for a few years more the larger proportion of the grain now going out by American ports will go down by our own route. To argue that any combination exists on the upper lakes among the sixty or seventy-five Canadian vessels, and that they can muzzle trade and fix prices, is absurd, because last year was the first year when a combination would have been possible, yet as a matter of fact the rates last year were lower than for several years. In November and December when the greatest volume of grain is pushed forward the rates were much lower than for many 9 p.m. years before, and the Tates from Duluth to Buffalo were correspondingly in proportion just what they are from Fort William to any port on the Georgian bay. The hon. gentleman should not despair as to the trade of Canada going to the United States. Let me tell him that twenty-five years ago only one million bushels of grain came into the Georgian bay and there were only two elevators, a small one at Collingwood and one at Midland. Turn up the records in the office of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for last year and it will be seen that they handled, at Collingwood over ten million bushels; at Midland over thirty million bushels; at Port McNicoll over ten million bushels and at Depot Harbour over ten million bushels, so that in twenty-five years the trade of the Georgian bay in grain has increased from one million bushels to over fifty million bushels, something that, I think, we should be very thankful for. The whole crux of the position to-day is that the Government must advance to the work of Montreal sufficient money to equip elevators there. Whether that is done by the Government direct ot through the Montreal Harbour Commission is unimportant, but the trade has increased so that more adequate elevator accommodation should be provided. In addition to that there should be more stringent rules to compel people to pass the grain through those elevators, rather than store it with these improvements the trade of the port of Montreal would be very much increased.
On the question of the ocean freight rates I believe a great wrong is being done and it is to be hoped by everybody that the rates on the ocean liners will be decreased
very materially in the next few years. How that is to be done I know not, but I think the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) and any other hon. gentlemen who endeavour to keep this reform to the forefront are conferring a benefit not only on the West but on the whole of Canada, and I hope that these rates may be reduced very materially.
Mr. McCREA. I think that excessive freight rates, rail and ocean, not only affect the wheat trade, and the western trade, but affect the whole of Canada. They affect everything in the shipping line, and what affects trade affects everybody, t was somewhat surprised a minute ago when the hon. member from Edmonton stated that the ocean freight rate on a thousand bushels of wheat, was formerly $40 but had increased to $75 in the last few years. The original rate would be four cents a bushel and the present rate would be seven and a half cents. When you compare that with existing rates and past rates pn lumber you will conclude that the lumber dealers have a great deal more occasion to complain than the wheat dealers, although I believe the wheat dealers have sufficient ground for complaint. In 1910 the ocean rates on lumber were anything from 32 shillings to 36 shillings per standard, or about $4.50 a thousand, from Quebec or Gaspe ports to Liverpool. The rate last year on the same class of lumber was about 65 shillings a standard, or, in other words, a little over $8 a thousand feet board measure. If you get down to actual weight per hundred, a thousand feet of lumber, if at all dry, weighs less than three thousand pounds. A standard of 1,980 feet, approximately 2,000 feet or 6,000 pounds at 65 shillings or $16, which is a little over 25 cents a hundred. That is the rate that exists to-day on spruce and lumber to Liverpool, London and other points. On square timber the rate in 1910 was 52 shillings a standard, or equal to about $10.50 a thousand. If there is any class of freight that, comparing the weight with the value, ought to have a low rate it is lumber. Nothing less the freight quoted by the steamship people to-day from Portland or even from West St. John is seventeen cents a hundred pounds-equal to $10.50 a thousand feet. The first question to be considered is, does a grievance exist? I was a little surprised at the Minister of Trade and Commerce retorting: When your party was in office what did you do? That does not seem to me to be the right way of dealing

with this matter. The next question is, have the Government any power to remedy that grievance, and if they have, what are they doing towards remedying it? It is not a question of, what one government did when in power. Gentlemen opposite did not talk that way in 1911. Then they said: the Government is not doing its duty; pu't us in office >and we will conduct the affairs of this country in a businesslike way. But we are now in the third session under the new Government and nothing has been done. If the Government have not power to remedy that grievance, is there any machinery by which they could remedy it. If there is let them get busy and do it. The whole country is suffering. To give a concrete case: in 1912 a shipper with whom I am pretty well acquainted, wished to ship timber in the winter months, but during the winter months the railway company could not supply cars. When navigation opened in Montreal, the steamship company gave a through Bill of lading for the cargo but at that time there was a strike in Liverpool and it was eighty-two days from the day the timber was loaded until it was landed at Liverpool. Timber when dressed and in shipping condition is about as perishable as fruit. If it is exposed to the sun and weather it becomes suncracked and weather beaten, so that it is unsaleable when it reaches the market. This timber reached the market in that condition, was rejected by the buyer and had to be sold at cull timber prices. When he asked the shipping interests to compensate him for this loss he got no satisfaction and he could not reach them. I am not blaming anybody especially, but that is the condition that exists. I believe that the high cost of living and high wages have something to do with these heavy ocean rates, but they are,
I maintain, out of all proportion and some remedy should be found so that the shippers of this country will not suffer as they do at present.
Trade and Commerce-Census and statistics, $75,000.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the state of
the census at the present time; how near is it to completion?


George Eulas Foster: As to the work *completed and published, there is volume 1, containing the tables of population of Canada by provinces, census districts and *sub-districts; volume 2, tables of religions, races, birth-places, citizenship, illiteracy and infirmities; and volume 3, manufactures by provinces, districts, cities, towns, 
and incorporated villages - of 1,500 and over in population, with comparative taibles. Three volumes of the census are completed and published. Eighteen bulletins have been issued dealing with manufactures, dairying industry, agriculture in the different provinces, illiteracy, ages, and infirmities. That leaves to be completed two volumes, and the tables of volume 4, comprising the natural products of the country, namely, agricultural products, mines, forests, and fisheries aie nearly all ready for the printer. Volume 5 will contain the following tables: school attendance (that is completed), dwellings and families (completed), churche-s (partly compiled), schools and colleges (partly compiled), charitable and penal institutions (partly compiled), immigration (partly compiled). Occupations and wage earners have yet to be compiled. To sum up, three volumes are completed and published, *and of two others, one is ready 'for the printer, or nearly so, and the other has a large number of its material already compiled.


John Howard Sinclair: When does the minister expect the work will be completed.


George Eulas Foster: It is being carried forward as rapidly as possible; I do not know exactly when it will he completed, but sufficient help is being given to the officers to carry on the work of compilation just as rapidly as it can be done.


John Howard Sinclair: How many are there
on the staff at present?


George Eulas Foster: I could not say exactly, but outside the permanent officers I think there are about 75 on the staff.


Frank Oliver: At the last redistribution a map of the western provinces showing the population of the townships was prepared with the assistance of the Census Department. It was very convenient for us in outlining new constituencies. I would like to ask if such a map is being, or will be, prepared for* the forthcoming redistribution; or, if not, would it be possible to have such a map prepared?


George Eulas Foster: I will take a note of it
and make inquiries. The map would be made in the Interior Department, we furnishing the population statistics.


Frank Oliver: It is only by means of
such a map that it would be posible to get a really accurate knowledge of the population.


George Eulas Foster: I will inquire about it.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to give a word of explanation with reference to the fact that in the last census the average attendance of children at the schools of New Brunswick was reported to be very low. Under the laws of the province of New Brunswick children are not allowed to attend school until they have reached the age of six. In other provinces'it seems that children at the age of five are allowed to attend school. The average attendance in New Brunswick is lower than in some of the other provinces on account of the fact that children are not allowed to attend school before they are six years of age.
Trade and Commerce-West India cables, $38,933.33.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has there been a reduction of cable rates?


George Eulas Foster: For a long time-I do not know how long, but I suppose from the inception of the cable service into the West India Islands-the rates have been very high and they formed a veritable impediment to trade between Great Britain, this continent, including Canada, and the West India Islands. There were different companies in the West India Islands. One was the Panama Company, which worked through United States territory and through the territory from Key West and along and in conjunction with some other cables through different parts of the Islands. Then later, there came a direct cable from Halifax to Bermuda, and shortly afterwards an extension was made from Bermuda to Jamaica and Turks Island. That brought about a notable reduction as far as Jamaica and Bermuda were concerned. But the West India Direct Cable Company, terminating at Jamaica, found itself up against these cable companies that went around to the other islands, and were under certain contracts and agreements with which I will not trouble the committee. Th<# result was that cables that went by the Direct Company through to Bermuda and Jamaica were not forwarded by the other companies. They refused to give them right of way except upon their own terms and at their own charges. Competition was not gained at all so far as all the West India Islands were concerned with the building of the Halifax, Bermuda and Jamaica lines. The rates were very high, higher than in any civilized countries in the world, and there has been an attempt in various ways to
reduce them. When the West India delegates were here that matter was taken up, and as hon. gentlemen know who have read, and I suppose all have read, the Minutes of the Conference, the result was that an agreement was reached by which Canada was asked to represent to the British Government the nature of things and endeavour to bring about a reduction of the rates. Canada at that time offered to share with Great Britain whatever was necessary, in addition to the subsidy paid by the West India Islands, which was all they could afford to pay, to bring about ah amelioration. When I. went to England afterwards I took up the matter with the Postmaster General and with the two companies. To make a long story short, after a year and a half or so of negotiations the Postmaster General came to an agreement by which the West India Panama Company undertook to better its service, to give right of way to all cables which went through from Halifax to Jamaica via Bermuda, and to reduce the rates in all just about one-half of the former rates. These fates are now satisfactory to the business people of Great Britain, Canada and the West Indies.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the rate per
word?


George Eulas Foster: There are different rates to the different islands.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From Halifax to Bermuda?


George Eulas Foster: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: The West Indies do not participate in that rebate, if any?


George Eulas Foster: The West Indies do not
participate in' the rebate. The rates per word were formerly:

Halifax to Bermuda, 48 cents a word; British Guiana, $1.44 a word; Antigua, 81 cents a word; Barbados, 91 cents a word; Dominica, 77 cents a word; Grenada, 89 cents a word; Trinidad, 98 cents a word; St. Kitts, 89 cents a word; St. Croix, $1.02 a word; St. Lucia, 85 cents a word; St. Thomas, 96 cents a word; St. Vincent, 86 cents a word.
The reduction that has been made amounts to about an even half of these rates.


John Howard Sinclair: Could the hon. gentleman give us the present rate?


George Eulas Foster: 
John Howard Sinclair: Does it take in Porto
Rico?


George Eulas Foster: No. These rates are for the British West Indies and British Guiana.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has any new
arrangement as to cable rates been made since a year ago?


George Eulas Foster: About a year or more ago some reduction was made before this negotiation came to an end. This negotiation resulted in an arrangement which I think came into force not many months ago, about the first of the year if I remember rightly. According to the practice in England, the arrangement had to go before the Treasury Board and receive the assent of the Lords of the Treasury.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions__
steam service between Canada and the West Indies or South America or both, $340,666.66.


George Eulas Foster: This is the service which was put into force the latter part of last year. There was entered into with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company a contract, the particulars of which are pretty well known to those of the committee who have followed the service. Probably my hon. friend from Halifax has some questions or remarks to make upon this, or would he rather that I should make a general statement with reference to it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, regarding the nature of the contract.


George Eulas Foster: The contract has a history which was discussed last year and the year before in the committee, and was the consequence of two or three attempts to procure a satisfactory servio? between 
Canada and the West Indies. In the first place tenders were called for these services, giving an option to tenderers for a variety of itineraries, and a variety of speeds and capacities of vessels. When the tender time came to an end, it was found that no satisfactory tenders were in. The tender time was extended until the end of December, 1912, when several tenders were in with varying prices and with different conditions of speed, of size, and of capacities of vessels. At that time negotiations were taken up with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and a provisional or prospective offer was made by them. In the end, however, when all these came to be considered, some were impossible; others were withdrawn and the Government decided to enter into a contract with Pickford and Black, who proposed to associate with themselves certain foreign steamship companies, or owners, and to put on a service such as was described in their offer. Messrs. Pickford and Black, after the contract had been signed by them, were not able to get that co-operation which they expected. As a consequence the whole matter seemed to be confined to two lines.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What amount was discussed at that time with Pickford and Black and their associated English companies?


George Eulas Foster: That was for the sum of $200,000 per annum for a twelve day twelve knot service. However, this did not come to anything, and it appeared to me that we were reduced to one of two things. As my hon. friend knows, charters were very high at that particular time; I think the highest that they have been in the period of heightening charters. The construction of new vessels was difficult, and costly, and, besides that, required time. When the possible arrangement with Pickford and Black fell through, there were just two alternatives. One was to have recourse to a very large and influential steamship company, enter into negotiations with it and make the best arrangements possible, and the other was to go on with the old and inefficient service that we formerly had with Pickford and Black. I took up negotiations with the Royal Mail Steamship Company, and after some time received an offer from them for the service which they are now rendering. They entered upon this service in the latter part of last year. This offer was for a fortnightly service with vessels of the description given in the con-

tract, and with an average speed of eleven knots kept up at sea.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was the Pickford and Black contract agreement as to speed?


George Eulas Foster: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do I understand that at the expiration of the steamship service which is now subsidized by the West
Indies, and which I suppose are interinsular services, they will co-operate with Canada in establishing a trunk line service with inter-insular service? Is that the idea?


George Eulas Foster: There are several ideas as to the kind of service that would be best. There are those who advocate a trunk line with inter-insular service. This is advocated more by the large islands than by the small ones. But there are very great difficulties as my hon. friend knows in carrying on a service of that kind so far as Canada's portion of it is concerned, both receiving and sending out, because of the difficulties and damages of transfer from the trunk line vessels to the others in ports where almost all of the work has to be done by lighterage. There are two or three ports where the dock is approached and the service is completed over the dock, but in all the rest of the West India Islands lighterage has to perform the work of transfer both ways, and these lighterages are of varying lengths from half a mile, to two or three miles long.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do I understand that the minister hopes that some day the West Indies will contribute to the subsidy for this particular service we are now discussing?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, that is the intention of the islands themselves, and the hope we both entertain.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What did Pickford and Black receive under the contract which expired two years ago?


George Eulas Foster: Somewhere about $89,000 or $90,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have very little
to say about the West India steamship service contract. I must say, that personally, I should have preferred if some arrangement had been possible with Pickford and Black of Halifax, in connection with this West India service. They were the originators of the steamship service between Canada and the West Indies and naturally were obliged to devote a great deal of money in developing trade with the West Indies. I have always thought that, while the service was hardly up to the requirements, still it gave to the West Indian ports and to Canada a fairly substantial service. It is true that a superior service was frequently suggested, but I think that frequently the public were un-

fair in the nature of the service they demanded.
In my opinion the trade hardly warranted such a steamship service as many of the business men of the West India Islands and of portions of Canada were demanding from time to time. I think the minister himself has undergone a change of opinion during the past year. When the West India treaty was enacted a year ago, I rather received the impression from the hon. minister that an exceedingly modern and veil-equipped steamship service would be established between the Maritime provinces and the West Indies, and that it would at least be very decidedly superior to the service carried on by Messrs. Pick-foi d and Black. As the minister said a moment ago, under the old contract Pick-ford and Black were paid about $100,000, or less, while the present contract means an expenditure of $340,666.66. Naturally the question arises whether there is a sufficient improvement in the service to justify the increased expenditure. I have no hesitation in saying that had Messrs. Pickford and Black at any time in the past been offered a subsidy of $340,000, they would have at once placed in commission steamships equally as good as those used by the Royal Mail Steamship Company in the present service. The four ships which are en-' gaged in the present service are the Cobe-quid, the Chignecto, the Caraquet, and the Chaleur. Unfortunately the Cobequid was wrecked in the bay of Fundy recently, and, I suppose, has not yet been replaced.
I presume, however, that this vessel will be replaced by one of about the same character. The Cobequid, Chignecto and Chaleur were built in 1893, and the Caraquet in 1894, so that they are comparatively old boats. It is true that in tonnage they are in excess of the boats of the old Pickford and Black service, although there is not a very great difference so far as some of them are concerned. The four boats of the Royal Mail Steamship Company averaged about 2,900 tons each. The tonnage of the steamers of the Pickford and Black Line under the old contract was considerably less, although one or two of the boats had a tonnage of over 2,000. So far as passenger accommodation is concerned, it would not appear that the present service is a very great improvement over the old one. It is true that the passenger capacity is greater, particularly for second and third-class passengers, but the difference is not very great, and it does seem to me that 
the Government is paying a very handsome subsidy indeed for the services rendered under the present contract. In my own province, particularly in the port of Halifax, the opinion prevails amongst those who understand the need of that 'service and the West India trade, that there is not a very substantial improvement in the present West India steamship service. I do not presume to put myself before the committee as one capable of judging of the merits of the steamships now in service under the contract which we are discussing, but I have been led to the opinion which I have ventured to give by reason of the opinions I have heard expressed by persons in the port of Halifax who, I think, are competent to judge of the matter. If the minister will compare the class of boats now in the service with those previously used under the Pickford and Black contract, and consider the disparity in the amounts paid to the two companies, he will see that one might naturally expect a very materially improved service. Certainly I hardly think this service will come up to the expectations of the people of the West India Islands. The minister will remember that when the Royal Commission visited the West Indies, evidence was heard at a great many points concerning the character of the steamship service then in operation. The complaints were numerous, and, I admit, in some respects perhaps it was justified, although not wholly so. The demands of the West Indies may have been rather exorbitant so far as the character of the service they demanded was concerned, but I submit that the service now afforded falls far short of the demands they made to the Royal Commission at that time. So far as the speed of the boats is concerned, the present service is apparently no improvement over the old one.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under the contract with Pickford and Black the boats were to make an average speed of ten knots; the average speed required under the present contract is but eleven knots-the difference is very slight. Besides, the present service is to be a fortnightly one; I think under the last contract there were sailings from Halifax and St. John every twelve days, so in that respect the present service is not as favourable as the old. On the whole, I do not think that the Department of Trade and Commerce has given to this country the service to the West India Islands that was promised by the minister a year ago.

It certainly is not up to the expectations of the people of the West India Islands, and I think there is ample justification for the opinion which exists in the Maritime provinces: that the service is not sufficiently superior to the old one to justify increasing the subsidy from $90,000 to $340,000.


George Eulas Foster: The West India service, from the time of its inception a good many years ago, has been a very difficult service. Any one who understands the West India Islands and their physical distribution, their peculiarities, so to speak, as regards ports, lighterage and other different requirements, will understand why it has been and always will be a somewhat difficult matter to please everybody, in the West Indies as well as in Canada, by any service carried on between the two countries. II may be that some people in the West Indies, taking what they would like to have as the measure, put up their anticipations very high, but I am led to believe that the sentiment of the West India Islands at the present time is fairly well satisfied with the boats that have been put on. One of the greatest complaints in the olden times was lack of uniformity and regularity and lack of cargo space. The opinion, I think, of the best men in the different islands is that we want in the first place is ships of sufficient cargo capacity. The Pickford and Black steamers did not have sufficient capacity, and great dissatisfaction was caused in that respect, not only here but in the West Indies. There is a perfect unanimity of opinion that the new service is entirely satisfactory in this respect. I have had communication with the principal men of the different islands since the boats have gone into service, and that is the information which I have, and which I believe to be a fairly true representation of the case. It is also essential that there shall be at least good accommodation for passengers, and that the first-class passenger accommodation shall be in the right part of the ship. That was not the case in the old service. The passenger accommodation in these boats is excellent accommodation. The first-class passenger accommodation is amidship, everything is modern, and is put on in a style and with a quality which makes a man who is travelling feel that he is comfortable and induces him to recommend the service to his friends. That was not the case in reference to the old service. I do not want to run down or criticise
unduly, but oftentimes old services are not as good as new.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would be determined largely by the age of the ships I suppose?


George Eulas Foster: The ship and the service have a kinship. If you do not have passenger accommodation in the proper part of the vessel where people are comfortable you do not generally have the service to the people themselves as good as it would otherwise be. I do not want to bring up old experiences, but I think that is a generally, fair statement of the case, so that as regards passenger* accommodation, unless the idea is for high tourist purposes, and with the idea of extending hotel accommodation and giving to the Islands a service which will participate in the entertaining and housing of passengers and tourists in the West Indies, as well as their carriage from port to port,
I believe you have a service in these boats which fills the reasonable expectations of the people of the West Indies. That is at least the impression that comes to me from what I have heard. I do not think that any service can be carried on satisfactorily with the West India Islands which would be what you might call a broker's service; chartering vessels and being dependent on charters was the great difficulty in the old service. Something would happen and then the whole sea would be scurried oyer to get a vessel which could take the 10 p.m. place of a vessel disabled. I think you get very far towards the solution of a good service when you get it in the hands of a steamship company which has one of the widest services in the world, and which has a fleet of vessels so large and of such different adaptabilities that the company can secure what they want for almost any kind of service. It has been that largeness of the company and the largeness of its service which has made it possible to put on four vessels which fill the requirements of the West India Islands, which, as my hon. friend knows, are peculiar; and which at the same time fill all reasonable requirements as to passengers and fully meet everything that is required with reference to freight accommodation. We get some other advantages. We have a powerful steamship company which is running its vessels in our service, but which also has lines of its own, and steamship companies with which it is in affilia-

tion which ran to other West India Islands and which skirt the 'Coasts of South America. One of the terms of the contract is that they shall make through rate arrangements so that a shipper from Ontario who wishes to send to ports in South America either on the west or east coast or on the north of South America, can send these goods on through bill of lading to the port of consignment. I think it a very great advantage and, as we have no steamship service to the ports in South America and yet there are possibilities of working up a good trade with South America, this will, to a large extent in its carrying out, obviate the necessity for a special subsidy for steamers to South America and will enable our producers and exporters to send to South America markets. I have not a list of the ports into which Canadian exporters will be able to have direct communication but it is a large and important series of ports. That we did not have with the other service and it is something to get a company of that kind interested in the Canadian service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does your control of rates extend to these different services?


George Eulas Foster: The control of rates extends to the services which are laid down in the contract, and then the arrangements which are made for through rates have to be made as they can be made, but it gives the through line of passage. There is another thing; this company knows the West Indies better than any other shipping company in the world. It has had a service there for a great many years. It has an inter-insular service at the present time and at Trinidad and at one other port we get chances for inter-communication between the islands which are served directly under this contract and the islands of the West Indies that are served by the inter-insular line that is run by the same company. It is a fortunate thing I think that we have been able to make a trial under our new conditions with a company of the character, the financial strength and backing, and actual experience of trade in that quarter of the world, possessed by the Royal Mail Packet Company. I have had letters from passengers who have taken the trip down on the new steamers, and I have nothing but commendation as to the service, the accommodation and general agreeableness of the passage owing to the qualities of the ship and its service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A great deal
would depend upon the weather.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know that any
ship can be really comfortable when there is a tremendous sea on. I know I have never found one, but there are degrees of comfort in bad weather, if you are not absolutely laid on your back by seasickness. I had an experience of that when I came from London recently. I am not here to speak on behalf of any steamship company, but I must say that the Alsatian on which I came out and which is the newest acquisition of our Canadian fleet, is the finest vessel I ever travelled on so far as real comfort, service and steadiness are concerned. I am quite willing to give that advertisement to the ship, not for the ship's sake,
. but for the sake of any persons here who may want a good passage either way across the ocean.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not criticising the character of the boats in the new service, as I am the fact that we are paying $340,000 for this service, whereas formerly we were paying only $80,000 or $90,000, and the boats now in the service are not so very much better than the boats employed in the old service. I doubt if the improvement is sufficiently marked to justify the disparity in the amounts of the subsidy paid to-day and that paid under the old contract. I quite agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that there is an admitted improvement in the general character of the ships as to their freight capacity and passenger accommodation. I think it is to be regretted, however, that the speed of these boats under the contract is not to be greater than eleven knots. I think it is also to be regretted that it is only a fourteen day service. I was in hopes that we would at least have a twelve day service from St. John and Halifax. I think there was under the old contract.


George Eulas Foster: With reference to that, I have been told by people who ought to know, in fact I had the' information from the Islands themselves,-that a fortnightly service fits in with their wants better than a 12-day service, because it enables them to make connections which they could not otherwise make. I quite admit that this is a large subsidy but something had to be done.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister
must also admit that when he was soliciting tenders in 1912 he was anticipating a service very much better than the present one, not only in reference to passenger accommodation but to cargo

capacity, as well, and I think that had a deterring effect upon possible steamship contractors. My hon. friend has changed his mind very much indeed since twelve months ago respecting the service, that was actually needed for the West Indies. I must say that I am inclined to agree with what he has done rather than with what he thought should be done a year ago. Had it been known a year ago that the department would have been satisfied with a service of the character we are now having, possibly more favourable tenders might have then been received.


George Eulas Foster: I am not sure of that. It is pretty difficult to say what would have happened, but I agree with my hon. friend in this respect, that there were thoughts then of a better speed. The passenger accommodation on these boats is pretty nearly as good as we were thinking at that time we might probably get. I could have got 15-knot boats and I could have got the extra passenger accommodation and flourish for what it was worth, but if I had, I should have had to pay certainly nothing less than half a million dollars. When you come up against a state of things like that, the disparity between these amounts tends to persuade you that you had better take the modified service and try it out for a time until you are a little more sure from actual experience than could be made certain by any amount of optimism or desire for such and such a thing. I believe that under the circumstances we have done about the best that could be done.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: How is our
business going on with the West Indies?


George Eulas Foster: Our business is increasing satisfactorily. There is this much about it, it has infused a new spirit in the West Indies in reference to Canada. There is no doubt about that. One indication of that is the very fine exhibit made at the Toronto Exhibition last year by the West India Islands, and the results that have come from that. The new service and the preference put together have made the people of the West Indies come to the conclusion that we are desirous of pushing our trade with them and they are now wishing to push their trade with us. I think that is worth a good deal, both to Canada and the West Indies, and counts as a very large factor in the development of trade. We have beyond all shadow of doubt an opportunity for a very largely increasing trade with the West Indies. Our competitor there for the products we send is the 61
United States, and our competitor has gotten ahead of us because of better passenger accommodation and especially because of better freight accommodation and more frequent sailings, but more especially in this one thing:	as I analyse it and come
down to the facts, what induces the smaller West India merchant-and it is a numerous class comparatively-to .favour New York, is that he can send to New York and get a small lot, say 50 or 25 barrels of flour, if he wants it, and have it sent down by the next boat. Under the old conditions, and to a certain extent yet, but it is being remedied, :he would send to St. John or to Halifax for a small lot with the idea that the goods were lying there and could be forwarded by the next boat, whereas the order had to be forwarded up to the producer in the middle of Ontario, if it were flour for instance, and there was all the delay and uncertainty of a long land route as well as a sea route, and consequently these small orders could not be filled with promptitude in a fair time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Of course, the
steamship service has nothing to do with that.


George Eulas Foster: 

that New York is a market tor Canadian flour outside of what is sent to the West Indies and in business arrangements they find it well to make connection with New York so as to secure both sides of the trade. But I think conditions are very favourable to our developing something of an interchange between the two countries.


Mr. LAW:: What is the draught of the
steamers?


George Eulas Foster: The table that I have here gives all the information except the draught, but practically the draught is light enough to enable them to do the work at the dock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Bermuda would be the port with the lowest depth of water.


George Eulas Foster: A difficulty is also encountered in getting in or out of the port of Georgetown, British Guiana, because of a bar which lies out. If your vessel is over a certain draught you will probably have to load at the docks and then go out beyond the bar and lighter the remaining part of your load into the vessel. That is the most difficult part of the West India Islands but these vessels are quite able to do the work at the dock.


Bowman Brown Law: Last year, when this matter was before the House, I called the attention of the acting minister at that time to the fact that these boats go up and down the bay of Fundy past the port of Yarmouth, and I asked him if it would not be possible, when you are making a contract with them, to have them stop at Yarmouth either one way or the other. Years ago a very large trade was done with the West Indies through brigs, schooners and the smaller class of vessels. A large quantity of fish was shipped from there. The port of Yarmouth distributes molasses and sugar to the western part of Nova Scotia and handles quite a large quantity of these . products. It would not detain the boats very long if there was water enough in Yarmouth harbour to permit of them coming in. The trade during the last two years has deteriorated very much indeed on account of not having vessels to carry it. A large quantity of molasses is imported into Yarmouth via Halifax and St. John for distribution in the western part of Nova Scotia, and a double freight is paid in getting the molasses there, whereas, if it could be imported directly at the port of Yarmouth by these boats which come from the West Indies a considerable stimulus would be given to this trad''. I would like

the minister to take the matter into consideration and endeavour to get these Royal Mail Steamship Company's steamers to stop at Yarmouth provided there is water enough in the port to enable them to come in. Boats drawing from nineteen to twenty feet of water can easily get into Yarmouth harbour now, and with that depth of water I imagine that these steamers could get there. I am sorry that the minister has not the draught of these boats. It is a wonder that he has not that information with him. What is the tonnage draught of these vessels.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend credits me with being able to remember too much when he asks me to remember what is the draft of these vessels.


Bowman Brown Law: I did not ask the minister to remember; but he has a memorandum before him, and I supposed that he would find it there.


George Eulas Foster: I have not that here, but 1 can give my hon. friend an answer to his question as to the tonnage and the passenger accommodation. The net tonnage of the Chignecto, the Cobequid, the Chaleurs and the Caraiquet would run from 2,975 to 2,999 tons, or in round figures 3,000 tons; gross tonnage, 4,746 to 4,889, the average being 4,798; capacity from 5,129 to 5,557. The first class passenger accommodation is 41, second-class 60 to 75, and third-class about 90. As to the port of Yarmouth, I would be quite willing to take the matter into consideration, but my hon. friend will see that after a contract is made, when we had some difficulty even as to the ports in the Maritime provinces which have been adopted, it is not an easy matter to make a change. If there is anything in the world which would tend to give me a sympathy with what my hon. friend suggests it is the predilection that the people of Yarmouth and nearby have for the good old-fashioned molasses of the West Indies. I remember the taste of the molasses from my boyhood days at this very minute, and I always respect the man who likes molasses.


Bowman Brown Law: I would imagine that perhaps those boats are a little too large, but I thought that from what the minister said about some of the ports of the West Indies they might possibly be able to get into the port of Yarmouth.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are these
steamers provided with cold-storage?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, and electric light and wireless.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What effect does the hon. minister anticipate that the placing of raw sugar upon the free list in the United States in 1916 will have upon the Canada-West India trade in that same product, whether much will be deflected towards the United States?


George Eulas Foster: One cannot tell what the effect will be until the test has been made; but this will be a fact then as it is now, that the West Indies will have a preferential pdsition in this market whereas in the United States she competes with the whole world. As long as those conditions last, and particularly so long as there is sufficient market here for all of the West India products, which there is at present and will probably be for many years, I should not think that the effect would be very great.
Customs-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $3,590,000.


Mr. KYTE:: How does the hon. minister account for the extraordinary increase r.f $300,000 in this item??


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):: The vote last year was $3,290,000, and as stated by the hon. member it shows an increase of $300,000 for this year. Last year the total yearly salaries of officers employed at the various ports were $2,728,435. The contingent expenses of the ports for the year, based on the actual expenditure for the nine months ending December 31, 1913, were $394,745; the expenditure for overtime paid for the current year will amount to $134,000. Therefore the total amount of salaries, contingencies and for overtime paid will amount to $3,257,190. This will leave $32,810 that may yet be spent for increases up to the end of the fiscal year. This shows that the amount voted last year was practically all expended. We are asking for $300,000 for this year for the following purposes :
For salaries of additional officers including new ports and outports $150,000 ; for increases in salaries, $125,000; for increases in overtime paid, $10,000; for increases in contingent expenses, $15,000 ; total, $300,000.
The hon. member will understand that it is necessary to give an increase to officers throughout the Dominion, and there is also a demand for new offices. In the opinion of my officers and of myself, after going into the matter thoroughly, we do 61J
not think this is asking an unreasonable amount.	j


George William Kyte: I am obliged to the hon. minister for the explanation which he has given; but I venture to suggest, with the utmost deference, that there are other expenses that go to account for this extraordinary increase of $300,000, that the hon. member has not given to this committee. For instance, at the last session of Parliament, I asked why Martin Johnston, preventive officer at Red Island in the county of Richmond, had been dismissed from office. The hon. minister told me that it was because there was nothing for him to do. I call the hon. minister's attention to the extraordinary circumstance that, having dismissed a man from office because there was nothing for him to do, he immediately appointed another person to do nothing in the same office. The dismissed official was in receipt of a salary of $100 a year for his services, whereas the information given me a few days ago by the hon. Minister of Customs is to the effect that Michael Edwin Gillies, the man appointed in Johnston's place to do nothing, was appointed at a salary of $250. That is a solitary instance; and I am quite sure, if the records of the department of the hon. minister were to be gone over, very many instances of a like nature would be discovered, which would go far to explain this increase of $300,000, in respect of which the hon. minister did not take us into his confidence a few moments ago.
If Martin Johnston, in the district of Red Island, was dismissed because there was nothing for him to do, I would like to know what justification the hon. minister had for immediately appointing a man to take his place. Of course, the man that the hon. minister appointed was the-brother of a defeated candidate in that part of the country, and I suppose he was entitled to some consideration from the hon. minister. How he can justify the increase of this man's salary from $100 to $250, when admittedly there was nothing for his predecessor in office to do, is something that I would like the hon. minister to explain.


John Dowsley Reid: If I remember rightly, the
place where Martin Johnston was stationed is in the same place at which Mr. Gillies is stationed. I think that Johnston was on one side of the river or bay and Mr. Gillies on the opposite side. Where Martin Johnston was, there was nothing to do; where Mr. Gillies is now there is something

to do, and for the salary that Mr. Johnston was getting one could not expect a man to do very much. My information is that Mr. Gillies is at Irish Cove in a different locality altogether, quite a distance away.


George William Kyte: Only a few miles away.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but a few miles might make quite a difference. There was something to do at Irish Cove, whereas there was nothing to do where Mr. Johnston was employed. I really think it was absolutely necessary to have the station at a place like Irish Cove, where there was something to do.


George William Kyte: The hon. minister is in no position to offer any explanation whatever. He says that Mr. Martin Johnston lived on one side of the bay and Mr. Gillies on the other. That is absolutely outside of the fact. Of course, I cannot hold the hon. minister responsible for any neglect of duty because he has not been able to inform himself as to the exact geography of the locality. I state to this committee, and the hon. minister of course is in no position to contradict me, that Johnston and Gillies live on the same side of the water. It is a farming community. Scarcely .any import business is done there. There is no vessel owned there. There is a wharf in the neighbourhood in which Mr. Johnston lives, and there is a wharf where Mr. Gillies lives. The same boat calls at both wharfs, and carries all the freight required in that community. Therefore, there is absolutely no foundation for the statement that more business is done at Irish Cove than at Red Island. I venture to say that the hon. minister has no information in his department that would justify him in making the appointment. I have no doubt that the minister received some such information possibly from Mr. Gillies, defeated Conservative candidate in my county, the brother of the gentleman who was .appointed to the office, but I venture to suggest that such information is not of a sufficiently reliable character to justify the minister in taking action upon it. This ' is a small matter, but it is nothing short of a public scandal that this man Johnston should have been dismissed from office	because	there was nothing	forhim to do and another man should have	been appointed to office	to	dothat '	nothing,'	and at a salary of	$250 ayear.	There is	no record, there is	no	information, in the department of the hon.

minister that would justify the minister in coming to this committee and stating that there is more work for a preventive officer at Irish Cove than at Red Island. As I stated, it is practically the .same neighbourhood; it lies along the southern shore of Bras d'Or lake, and the two places are a few miles apart, but as I said there is no more business to be done at Irish Cove than at Red Island. One steamer carries all the freight necessary for that community, and there is a wharf at each place to which the steamer comes; but, so far as business is concerned, if there was no business for Mr. Johnston to do, there is no business for Mr. Gillies to do at Irish Cove. But whilst the appointment of Mr. Johnston was made at the minimum of $100, the appointment of Mr. Gillies is made at $250.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, the hon. gentleman knows the locality much better than I do, and I do not question what he says about it. But I have .stated that my officials informed me that where Mr. Johnston was located there was nothing to do; that where Mr. Gillies is located is some distance from the other and that there is something to do at that point. I am only giving the information which was given to me by my officials at the time.


George William Kyte: I suppose the minister has
some record in his department of this information?


John Dowsley Reid: I discussed it with the Commissioner of Customs, Mr. McDougald, and he told me the position of the officers. There is no record; it was verbal.
Mr. KYTE. Did the commissioner make a report to the minister as to the necessity of -appointing a man at Irish Cove?


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly. I discussed it with -the commissioner, and he said that that was the place an officer should be, that there was more business to be -done at Irish Cove. That is the reason the appointment was made.


George William Kyte: If the commissioner made
such a recommendation to the Minister of Customs, then I am bound to say he had not informed himself as to the facts. Surely there must be some record in the department on which the minister acted, if not from the commissioner then from some other source which was held to justify the minister in taking this action. I will ask the minister to look up the files, -and if there is any information in writing to bring it before the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think there is, but if there is, I shall be glad to bring it down.


George William Kyte: What knowledge has the
Commissioner of Customs that the Minister ef Customs has not? The commissioner has lived here at Ottawa for many years, and I venture to say that he never visited that locality in his life.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that we have inspectors travelling all over the Dominion, and these are in and out of Ottawa all the time. I suppose the commissioner discussed it with them. I do not know where he got the information, but I acted on his advice.


George William Kyte: If the Inspector of Customs made a recommendation to the commissioner, that certainly would be in writing.


John Dowsley Reid: Not necessarily.


George William Kyte: The Inspector of Customs is Mr. D. C. Macdonald, of Port Hood, who was appointed in May, 1911, and1 to my knowledge he has never been in Ottawa since. He has never met the Commissioner af Customs, and the commissioner has not been in Cape Breton. I am safe in assuming that any communication between the Inspector of Customs and the commissioner as to the appointment in Irish Cove must have been in writing and the minister can produce it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me. I did not refer to the inspector in the locality. We have inspectors travelling through the whole Dominion, officers attached to the main service, but knowing the locality well. It does not necessarily follow that the commissioner would have to get the information from the inspector of that particular district.


George William Kyte: I suppose the travelling inspectors make report to the department?


John Dowsley Reid: They discuss these matters
verbally with the commissioner.


George William Kyte: How could they discuss this matter verbally with the commissioner? The only travelling inspector in the Preventive Service was the late Captain J. W. Gordon, of North Sydney. He occupied the position up to a year ago. Whatever report he made to the commissioner, he made in writing. He would not leave his office in North Sydney to come here and recommend that a preventive officer should be appointed at Irish Cove. So, we get back to where we started: whatever recommendations was made to the minister to appoint a preventive officer at Irish Cove must be in writing; and if there is no recommendation in writing, there is none at all. It comes down, I suppose, to a recommendation from the defeated candidate in the county of Richmond to appoint his brother to that position after he had recommended the dismissal of Martin Johnston. Does the minister think he has made out a case for the appointment of Mr. M. E. Gillies to the office I refer to at a salary of $250 in view of his statement that Martin Johnston was dismissed because there was nothing to do?


John Dowsley Reid: I certainly think we were
justified in appointing a man at Irish Cove at a salary of $250.


George William Kyte: Why does the minister think he was' justified in doing it? Has he any report recommending it to be done?


John Dowsley Reid: I stated to the hon. gentleman that the only information I have is from the Commissioner of Customs, who said 1 was justified in appointing a man at Irish Cove at a salary of $250, that there was more business doing there, and little if any doing where Mr. Johnston was located.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And so the
minister thinks he was justified in dismissing the other man?


John Dowsley Reid: We did not dismiss him, but let him go because there was nothing for him to do.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But this man lives
in the same place.


John Dowsley Reid: They are several miles apart.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How many?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand four or five miles.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If it were twentyfive or thirty miles it would matter little in the work of a preventive officer, because it quite infrequently happens that there is no work for a preventive officer in his own locality. In the Maritime provinces his territory usually extends over a certain portion of the coast line. If it be correct that the dismissed preventive officer resided at a distance of five miles from the residence of the newly appointed preventive officer, it appears to me that the explanation of the minister is hardly satisfactory; I think the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) is entitled to a better answer than he has received. The minister is in honour bound to restore the dismissed preventive officer to office and remove the

last one appointed. Surely it is evident that the reasons given are not sufficient for the dismissal of Mr. Johnston and the appointment of Mr. Gillies. I think the Minister of Customs might as well admit that frankly here and promise to restore the old preventive officer to his place. Cannot W6 get that promise?


John Dowsley Reid: I have explained to t/he hon. gentleman that we let Mr. Johnston go because there was nothing for him to do where he was stationed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: His successor is in the same place.


John Dowsley Reid: It is several miles distant.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A few miles makes
no difference.


John Dowsley Reid: It makes a great deal of difference where a man is located. The services of Mr. Gillies are more required where he is now than Mr. Johnston's were; there are more people living there, and there is greater possibility of smuggling taking place.	...


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What work would
there: be for a preventive officer there?


John Dowsley Reid: The work of a preventive officer is to prevent smuggling along the coast.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who would attempt to smuggle there?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot answer that very
well.


George William Kyte: 
Bowman Brown Law: How does the minister intend to distribute this increase of $300,000? Does he intend to increase the salaries of collectors of customs or preventive officers,

and does it apply to the inside or the outside service?


John Dowsley Reid: This vote is for the outside service; the law provides that officials in the inside service shall receive a certain annual increase. The practice during the last two years-and, in fact, the practice of my predecessors-has been that the officials of the department, the commissioner and the proper officers, submit a list of the officers from one end of the Dominion to the other to whom they think increases ought to be given, and as a rule their recommendations are adopted. These men know the officers and the conditions under which they work, and they are the ones who are the better able to recommend who should receive increases.


Bowman Brown Law: Has the minister the list of increases for this year, to which he has referred?


John Dowsley Reid: No. After the Estimates are voted, the Commissioner of Customs and his officials make up a statement showing the increases they recommend for the ensuing fiscal year.


John Howard Sinclair: On what principle do
they make these recommendations?


John Dowsley Reid: They simply add to the salary of each official the increase to which they think he is entitled for the ensuing year. Of course, they are sometimes unable to give them as much as they would like to, for the reason that vote is small; it is a small amount when you divide it up among so many officials.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there no principle
at all upon which such a list is made up?


John Dowsley Reid: Not such as there is in the inside service, where the law provides for an annual increase of $50 or $100.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. minister has appointed a great number of new men to the customs service during the last eighteen months.


John Dowsley Reid: We had to appoint a good
many on account of the extra work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am told that a great
many of them have nothing to do.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not agree with the hon. member there.


John Howard Sinclair: How many has the
hon. minister appointed?


John Dowsley Reid: I think the total number of
new men is 768. Of course there are a
great many deaths, resignations and other changes which necessitate the appointment of new men. The opening up of new offices and the covering of new territory requires additional officers. Each year the work of the Customs Department is increasing. I was told by the commissioner the other day that between, I think. North Portal and Coutts, Alberta, there are 400 miles of territory in which we have no officer at all, and that an officer should be stationed every 25 miles for the convenience of incoming settlers and for the protection of the revenue. The same conditions exist, I think, in respect of the district territory between Emerson and North Portal. The commissioner and the inspectors have been urging that we should put a patrol from Emerson right through to British Columbia. Settlers crossing the boundary in these districts sometimes have to drive 50 miles to a customs office and then back again, which is a great hardship. In addition to that, there is a great pressure on the department for the opening of new offices all throughout the interior portions of the West, and it is difficult to give them the number they ask for. We are opening a new office in a place called Wainwright; between Saskatoon and Edmonton, a distance of 400 or 500 miles, we did not have an office at all. Even then the places are fifty miles apart. I think the hon. member fop Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) asked last year about a place called Edson. It is my intention to open an office in that locality.


Frank Oliver: Is not that office opened yet ?


John Dowsley Reid: It is intended to open one in that locality, and I think Edson is the only suitable place. The one at Athabaska Landing was opened nearly a year ago.


Frank Oliver: Edson is certainly the
only place; it would be a crime to put it anywhere else.


George William Kyte: What is the meaning of the clause at the end of the item, ' notwithstanding any thing in the Civil Service Act.'


John Dowsley Reid: That is to permit of the payment of overtime to landing waiters. As a rule, they receive $850 a year. Their office hours are from eight in the morning until six at night, but of course they veTy often have to work until eleven or twelve o'clock, and they receive 30 cents an hour for this overtime. If we had not the

clause in, it would be impossible to pay them for overtime.


Bowman Brown Law: I called the attention of the minister to his appointment of two officials in Yarmouth at salaries of $1,000 a year, while we have three first-class officials, preventive officers Churchill, Potvin and Kirk, who receive only $850, besides their overtime. I trust the minister is considering their case, and will be prepared to give them an increase so as to put them on an equal footing with the two newly appointed men.


John Dowsley Reid: Churchill received $850 and $150 overtime; Potvin received $850 salary and about $100 overtime, and Kirk received $800 and $100 overtime.


Bowman Brown Law: But the other officials who are appointed at $1,000 get overtime as well. That is, Rogers and Boyd.


John Dowsley Reid: Rogers is not shown as receiving any overtime. Boyd had $23.40 overtime.


Bowman Brown Law: The three old officials are first-class officials, and it seems to me it was unfair for new men to come in and get more than they did after they had done their duty to the satisfaction of the public and of the department for years. I have nothing to say against the new appointees, and $1,000 is little enough.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree that the salaries of these preventive officers are very small. The usual salary in Ontario and the lower provinces is $850 a year, and then they have the overtime. The men who are appointed to work in the long room or to do clerical work, are appointed at a little higher salary, about $1,000, because they do not get overtime. I would be surprised if these men are doing the same work as the landing waiters and receiving practically the same overtime.


Bowman Brown Law: Boyd waits for the steamers the same as the others, and
11 p.m. earns a certain amount of overtime. When the daily boats arrive from Boston at six o'clock, they may have 600 passengers, and all the customs officials, except perhaps the collector, go down to the wharf to help pass the passengers. They earn their money.


John Dowsley Reid: Boyd received $23.40 for overtime. The overtime is divided among the landing waiters, unless for some reason one of the landing waiters cannot be present or an extra man is required.


Bowman Brown Law: Boyd attended the boats the same as the other three tide waiters. In fact, the clerk in the office and the three men cannot handle five hundred persons in the morning and get them off in an hour or an hour and a half, so that they can get the nine o'clock train from Yarmouth.


John Dowsley Reid: The yearly report made out by Smith Harding, the collector, shows Mr. Boyd to be employed in the long room. If they required an extra man he would be taken from the long room. If the hon. member will look over the list for the province, he will see that the salary of a landing waiter is about $850 or $900. I think myself they should get more, but if we increase their salaries by only $100 that would mean an increase altogether of $400,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much has this
item increased .since the minister came into office?


John Dowsley Reid: The estimate that I first put through-it was prepared by my predecessor -was for $200,000 and $100,000 in the supplementary estimates.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much was last year greater than the preceding year?


John Dowsley Reid: $400,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: So that the increase
in this item since the hon. gentleman came into office is nearly $1,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not a fair way of
putting it. You cannot say that it is an increase. The salaries increase each year and they will continue to do so as long as imports increase, which makes more work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose .some customs officials have died, and that others have been appointed at -a less salary than was received by the deceased official? The only observation I have to make regarding this is that I think the cost of administering the Customs Department, particularly the outside service, is growing very rapidly. In the province of Nova Scotia alone-I have not the information before me but I know it is available-there have been unnecessary appointments to the customs service, and the payment of salaries to these unnecessary officials would probably aggregate $25,000 or $30,000. In a great many of the smaller ports of the province, appointments have been made which, I think, are purely political. I know of one person being appointed to the customs service in the county of Lunenburg at a salary

of $1,000 or $1,200 a year, and that official has nothing to do and will not have for a great number of years.


John Dowsley Reid: What is his name?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: His name is Mr. Mack. I think the appointment is purely political. The appointment of Mr. Henley in the Preventive Service in the county of Halifax, was not, I think, a necessary appointment, and I have no doubt in many other places there have been appointments which were not absolutely necessary. I think the member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) will sustain me in that.


Mr. RHODES:: I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. gentleman to go unchallenged. I may say that the only customs official who perhaps was not giving value . for the salary he received, happened to be one of the fathers, I might say, of Liberalism in Cumberland county, and was appointed by the late Administration. At that time I think he was 65 years of age. He became incapacitated about a year ago, and was practically confined to his house, but rather than there should be any difficulty over the question he drew his salary until the day of his death a few weeks ago. That is the only case of money being expended where it was not properly earned, and surely hon. gentlemen opposite can find no fault in that case. There have been two appointments to the customs service last year in the town of Amherst, and I know as a matter of fact that they were necessitated in consequence of a report of an inspector of the Customs Department and not through any energy on my part. I had the privilege of recommending two men who were to occupy these positions, but the vacancies arose simply through the increase of business at that port. I do not know that the hon. junior member for Halifax can point his finger at any case and say that a certain appointment was a political appointment, or an unnecessary one. I have in mind the appointment made of a preventive officer at Spencer's Island in my county, and I venture to say that officer will collect little or no revenue, but ou the other hand his being appointed at that place will be the means of preventing a considerable amount of smuggling which has been going on there in years gone by, at least so rumour says. His appointment was due to the recommendation of Inspector Boak, who going down the shore saw that was a Strategical point where smuggling might take place. I have
no doubt the same condition applies to other places in the province of Nova Scotia. Let me say to my hon. friend that if he wants to point to Cumberland as an example of unnecessary appointments to the customs service, he is taking a very unfortunate case from his own viewpoint at all events.


Mr. BOULAY :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken the question at issue between the hon. member for Richmond and the hon. Minister her for Richmond and the hon. Minister of Customs deals with the dismissal friends, who has, purely and simply, been replaced by one of our party. Hon gentlemen opposite have no reason to be shocked by what happens to-day, it being one of these trifling occurrences of every day political life. Let them go as far back as 1896, and they will find that greater grievances have already been suffered in this connection. To make the case clear let me recall that Mr. T. B. Cook was pensioned at the age of 46 and replaced by one Mr. Palmer, who was then 61. When the Opposition of the time asked for explanations from the Government, and wanted to know why Mr. Cook had been dismissed, they were told that he was too old; and he had, nevertheless, been replaced by a man who was his elder by fifteen years.
It seems to me that the case mentioned by the hon. member for Richmond is not as momentous as this one, and that he might have dispensed with reminding it.


George William Kyte: I would like the minister to tell me, the next time we go into Supply, who has been appointed preventive officer at Arichat in the place of Lawrence Girrior, deceased?
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Friday, February 20. 1914.