1914-02-10

BEPOBTS AND PAPEES.

[Stage Direction]
Telegraph statistics of the Department of Customs for the year ended June 30, 1913.- Hon. F. Cochrane.
Telephone statistics of the Department of Customs for the year ended June 30, 1913.- Hon. F. Cochrane.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 56, respecting the Alberta Central Eailway Company.-Mr. Michael Clark.
Bill No. 57, respecting the British Trust Company.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 58, to incorporate the Sudbury, Kepawa and Bell Biver Eailway Company. -Mr. G. V. White.
Bill No. 59, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Eailway Company.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 60, to incorporate the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. J. DEMEES (St. John-Iberville) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 61, to amend the Eailway Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to make more explicit section 298 of the Eailway Act, and to avoid any ambiguity which might arise in future in the interpretation of that section in its

present form. Section 298 of the Railway Act refers to the setting fire by locomotives to crops, lands, fences, and so on. It reads in part as follows:
The company making use of such locomotive . . . shall be liable for such damage.
If we were to interpret this section strictly to the letter, the remedy given would be of no value whatever. In many cases, it is absolutely impossible for the claimant to know what company is using the locomotive. For instance, in the county of St. John and Iberville, the Delaware and Hudson railway has running rights over the Grand Trunk railway; so has the Central Vermont from Montreal to Iberville. The Rutland railway has also running rights on the Canadian Pacific railway from Montreal to Iberville. Now, suppose that a locomotive set fire to erops along one of these lines, action would naturally be brought against the company which owns the line, and the reply in every case would be that the company was not using that particular locomotive-that, it was used by another company operating over its line. That is the defence that is always put up, and under these circumstances I think it is urgent that the law be made more explicit.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons. He said: As it has become necessary, under the terms of the British North America Act, that the representation of the various provinces in Canada should be readjusted, perhaps it would be convenient at the moment to review briefly the legislative provisions which have been made in that regard, and to state the results up to the present time. By section 37 of the British North America Act, 1867, it is provided as follows:
The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia, and fifteen for New Brunswick.
That fixes the representation of the various provinces up to the year 1871, and from that date the representation of the various provinces is to be determined in
accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the same Act, which is as follows:
39i
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and on each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner, and from such time as Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
(1)	Quebec shall have the fixed number of 65 members.
(2)	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number 65 bears to tne number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained).
(3)	In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded T but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number.
(4)	On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.
(5)	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing Parliament.
There is another provision of the British North America Act, 1867, which might be alluded to in this regard; it is section 146:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the Houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the union, and on address from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada to admit Ruperts Land and the Northwestern Territory, or either of them, into the union, on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act; and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
It will be observed that the enactments to which I have called attention, and particularly section 51 of the British North America Act, 1867, provided for representation according to population, and provided alsh for the readjustment of the representation of the various provinces of Canada at intervals of ten years, and upon results determined by the decennial census. It is not absolutely accurate to say that the representation shall be entirely based on population, because the fourth subsection of section 51 provided a saving
[Stage Direction]
clause in case the proportion of the population of a province to the whole population of Canada should not be diminished by one-twentieth.
The terms which were then fixed between the four original provinces undoubtedly constituted a compact between those provinces, and up to the present time they have, of course, been carried out according to the true intent and meaning of the statute.
British Columbia came into the Confederation under the provisions of section 146 on the 16th day of May, 1871. The provision in regard to the representation of British Columbia in Parliament is to be found in the eighth clause of the resolutions which were embodied in the Order in Council. That clause is in the following terms:
British Columbia shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by three members, and by six members in the House of Commons. The representation to be increased under the jorovisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
Prince Edward Island came into the Confederation under the special provisions of section 146 on the 26th day of June, 1873. The relevant clause of the resolutions which were embodied in the Order in Council constituting that province a part of the Canadian Confederation, is in the following terms:
That the population of Prince Edward Island having been increased bjr fifteen thousand or upwards since the year 1861, the Island shall he represented in the House of Commons of Canada by six members, the representation to he readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
In the year 1871 the British North America Act was amended by an enactment of the Imperial Parliament, which is known as the British North America Act, 1871. By the second section of that enactment it was provided as follows:
The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said Parliament.
It did not appear that there was any special provision for representation in Parliament of the territories which did not form any part of the several provinces, and so another amendment to the British North
America Act was enacted in 1886, which is known as the British North America Act, 1886. By the first section of that Act it is provided as follows:
The Parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make provision for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or in either of them of any territories which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any province thereof.
I have given in this brief way a sketch of the legislative provisions which constitute the charter of this country as far as representation in Parliament is concerned.
Next, it may be worth while that I should place before the House, in a succinct form, the results which have obtained from time to time under the enactments to which I have alluded. I have pointed out that the original Confederation consisted of four provinces, the representation being fixed as follows: Ontario, 82 members; Quebec, 65 members; Nova Scotia, 19 members; New Brunswick, 15 members; a total of 181 members.
In	1872,	after	the	decennial	census	of
1871, a Redistribution Bill was passed, which provided that the representation of the House of Commons should consist of 200 members, distributed as follows:	Ontario, 88 members; Quebec, 65 members; Nova Scotia, 21 members; New Brunswick, 16 members; Manitoba, 4 members; British Columbia, 6 members.
In	1882,	after	the	decennial	census	of
1881, a further Redistribution Bill was passed, which provided that the representation of the House of Commons should consist of 211 members, distributed as follows:	Ontario, 92 members; Quebec, 65
members; Nova Scotia, 21 members; New Brunswick, 16 members; Manitoba, 5 members; British Columbia, 6 members; Prince Edward Island, 6 members.
In	1892,	after	the	decennial	census	of1891,	a further	Redistribution	Bill waspassed, which provided that the representation of the House of Commons should consist of 213 members, distributed as follows:	Ontario, 92 members; Quebec, 65
members; Nova Scotia, 20 members; New Brunswick, 14 members; Manitoba, 7 members; British Columbia, 6 members; Prince Edward Island, 5 members; the Northwest Territories, 4 members.
In	1903,	after	the	decennial	census	of
1901, a further Redistribution Bill was passed, which provided that the representation of the House of Commons should consist of 214 members, distributed as fol-
[Stage Direction]
lows:	Ontario, 86 members; Quebec^ 65
members; Nova Scotia, 18 members; New Brunswick, 13 members; Manitoba 10 members; British Columbia, 7 members; Prince Edward Island, 4 members; the Northwest Territories, 10 members; the Yukon Territory, 1 member.
After the establishment of the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and after the quinquennial census of 1906, the representation of these two provinces was fixed by chapter 41 of the Statutes of 1907 at 7 and 10 respectively, giving a net increase of 7 members and bringing the total representation of the House of Commons up to the number of 221, at which it stands at the present time.
In passing, I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that in 1872 the membership of the House had increased from 181 members, the number at which it was originally fixed, to 200 members. Of these 200 members, 10 came from the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia, leaving the membership from the four original provinces of Confederation at 190. So it will be borne in mind that, according to the increase of the population up to that time, the province of Quebec, which was the pivotal province of Canada, had lost relatively in its membership. It is perfectly true that it retained a fixed membership of 65, but originally it had 65 members out of a total membership of 181. In 1872 it had a fixed membership of 65 out of a total membership of 200; or, taking the four original provinces of Confederation, it had a fixed membership of 65 out of a total membership of 190. In 1882 the total membership of the House of Commons was 211. Quebec still retained, under the terms of the British North America Act, its fixed membership of 65. The membership allotted in 1882 to the four original provinces of Confederation was 194, so the relative membership of Quebec at that time had decreased in that proportion. In 1892 the membership of the House of Commons had increased to 213, and the membership of the four original provinces of Confederation had decreased to 191, or just ten more than the number assigned to those provinces by the British North America Act. In 1903 the membership of the House of Commons had increased to 214, and the membership of the four original provinces of Confederation had decreased to 182, or just one more than the number allotted to those provinces by the British North America Act. Since that time, as I have
already pointed out, by the readjustment in Alberta and Saskatchewan which took place after the quinquennial census) of 1905, the membership of the House had been increased to 221, Quebec still retaining the fixed number of 65.
In 1903, when this subject was under discussion in the House of Commons, the question was raised as to the representation of the Maritime provinces. Eventually the Government of that day submitted certain questions for the determination of the Supreme Court of Canada. The answers of the Supreme Court of Canada upon those questions were eventually carried by appeal to the Privy Council, which affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Two questions were thus submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Privy Council. One related to the Maritime provinces in general, and the other had special reference to the province of Prince Edward Island. The question argued on behalf of the Maritime provinces generally was as to the meaning which should be placed upon the word ' Canada ' in subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Privy Council held in effect that the word 'Canada,' as used in subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act, must be ascertained by reference to section 4 of the British North America Act, which is in the following terms:
The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the union, that is to say, on and after the day appointed for the union taking effect in the Queen's proclamation; and in the same provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
The importance of that provision, from the standpoint of the Maritime provinces, was this: If it should be determined that Canada in subsection 4 of section 51 was to include only the four original provinces of Confederation, then obviously those provinces, which were losing representation in the House of Commons by the Act then proposed and afterwards passed, would stand in a very much better position, because in that case no account would be taken of the rapidly increasing population of those portions of Canada which had been added since Confederation. The judgment of the Supreme Court and of the Privy Council in effect was this, that inasmuch as Canada was constituted originally by an Order in Council, passed under the authority of the British North America Act, and inasmuch
[Stage Direction]
as the other provinces of Canada subsequently added were also constituted a part of Canada by Order in Council passed under the provisions of the same Act, the definition in section 4 necessarily implied that all the provinces constituting Canada in 1903 must be taken into account in determining the proportion to be ascertained under the provisions of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act.
So, the contention on the part of the Maritime provinces failed. There was a separate contention made on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island, to which I need not especially call attention at this moment, except to say that such contention was also decided adversely to the claim of the province. It will be observed by the statistics which I have "piaced before the House that in 1672 both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick increased their representation in the House. In 1882, they retained their representation. In 1892 the representation of Nova Scotia was reduced by one, still leaving it one in excess of that fixed by the British North America Act of 1867. The representation New Brunswick on the same occasion was reduced to fourteen, leaving it one below that fixed in 1867. The question was debated in 1903, and was mooted last year and again this year, as to whether or not some relief could be given to the Maritime provinces in this regard. The members of the Government had the advantage a few weeks ago of hearing the subject discussed, both from the general standpoint of the Maritime provinces and from the special standpoint of Prince Edward Island; and I am bound to say that I do not think the case either for the Maritime provinces generally or for Prince Edward Island in particular could have been put more thoroughly, more exhaustively, more eloquently or more cogently than it was by the Prime Minister of New Brunswick and the Prime Minister of Prince Edward Island. I think that everything was said that could be said on behalf of the Maritime provinces generally, and on behalf of Prince Edward Island in respect to the special circumstances which were brought to the attention of the Government with regard to that province.
Let us for a moment give consideration to the case of the Maritime provinces generally. Without going into the claim of these provinces exhaustively, I shall take the liberty of laying upon the table of the House, and, if the House will permit, of having printed for the use of members, the memorandum placed before the Interprovincial Conference on behalf of the Maritime
prewinces generally and the memorandum placed before the same conference, and afterwards before the Government, on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island; and in doing that, I shall relieve the House from listening to a fuller statement of the claims put forward. While the case on behalf of the Maritime provinces generally was put cogently, exhaustively and thoroughly, still one could not disguise from one's self the fact that in the first instance, when these provinces came into Confederation with a certain representation in thTs House, it was the expectation of the fathers of Confederation that they would gain and not lose. It is perfectly true that in the past twenty years their expectations have been disappointed in that regard, but it is also perfectly true that two of the fundamental considerations which had to be taken into account by those who made the compact upon which Confederation was based were the representation of the several provinces in Parliament and the distribution or division of legislative and executive powers as between thei Dominion on the one hand and the provinces on the other. Speaking for myself, I do not see how it would be posssible for this Parliament to attempt any alteration in the representation of the provinces without the consent of the provinces themselves. It was in that connection that the question was taken up before the Interprovincial Conference held last autumn in the city of Ottawa, and the result of the proceedings of that conference amounted to this, that the conference declined to take any action on the subject, saying that the matter was one for the consideration of Parliament. It is absolutely, in one sense, for the consideration of this Parliament, although this Parliament has no power to amend the British North America Act. On the other hand, if I apprehend the situation correctly, so far as the four original provinces are concerned, it was also a question for these four original provinces to say whether or not any change could or should be made in the compact under which the first provinces entered into the Confederation. The province of Quebec having been fixed as the pivotal province for representation retains the exact number of sixty-five members in this House under all conditions. But as I have pointed out, it is possible for the relative representation of Quebec to be changed as it was changed in the early days of Confederation. It has also been changed in another sense and from another consideration through the admission
[Stage Direction]
of new provinces and the increased membership of the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, as the provinces at the conference to which I have alluded had declined to take any action or pass any resolution on the subject-although I understand there were a good many expressions of sympathy- it did not seem possible for us to come to this Parliament and propose any remedy for the unfortunate situation with which the Maritime provinces find themselves confronted. It might, however, be said, and I think with a good deal of truth, than in the Canadian Parliament the representatives of the Maritime provinces, like those of other provinces of Canada, do not act as a body for their provinces. To quote from a well-written editorial on this subject published in the Maritime provinces some ten years ago:
On almost every question they divide according to their attitude towards the government of the day. Perhaps it would be wiser to say that in their minds their view of what is best for the Dominion as a whole is paramount. Further than this, the influence of a province in the great council of the Dominion does not depend nearly so much upon the number of re-pr^s^ntntives as in th#* pbHHv. skill, cxrtcri price, intellectual power and genius of these representatives. And it can fairly be said that in this respect the Maritime provinces have not been at all subordinate, no matter which party was in power.
Now, with regard to the case of the province of Prince Edward Island. It will be observed that the province of British Columbia had provision made, in the Order in Council which brought it into Confederation, that its representation then fixed should be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act. In the Order in Council passed nearly two years afterwards which brought the province of Prince Edward Island into Confederation the expression used was ' readjusted,' instead of the expression ' increased.' The case for Prince Edward Island is argued very cogently indeed upon the point that for many years it had refused to come into Confederation except upon a fixed representation which exceeded that to which it was entitled on the basis of population alone.
It declined for many years to come into this confederation with only five members in the House of Commons, but eventually six were conceded to it, when it had a right to no more than five. It is argued that the construction of the Order in Council to which I have called attention was understood by those who carried on the negotiations on the part of Prince Edward
Island, as meaning a readjustment by way of increase and not a readjustment that would decrease the number of representatives to which Prince Edward Island was entitled under the Order in Council in question. It is also urged on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island that that province, not being one of the four provinces which created among themselves the original compact of Confederation, could be dealt with in this regard by the Dominion as a whole, because the compact, in the case of Prince Edward Island, was made not between province and province, but between this Dominion as a whole and the province of Prince Edward Island, then >a sovereign province, possessing plenary powers of selfgovernment. It has been urged upon us with great vigour by the Premier of Prince Edward Island and !by Mr. Stewart, a member of his Government, that steps should be taken to fix a minimum representation for the province of Prince Edward Island of six, the number originally mentioned in the Order in Council passed under the provisions of the Confederation Act. It has been noted that in 1882 the Redistribution Bill did not diminish the representation of the province of Prince Edward Island, although, according to the census of 1881, Prince Edward Island was at that time entitled to no more than five members. At first I was very much impressed by this circumstance, but I observed that in a speech made by the bon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island, in 1903, who argued strongly and forcibly against the claims put forward on behalf of the province at that time, he attributed this result to the fact that there was no previous census with which the census of 1881 could be compared for the purposes of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned; amd probably that accounts for the result in 1882. In the Bill which I am asking permission to introduce, I have left blank the number of members for the province of Prince Edward Island, and therefore the total number of members, for the reason that I desire that question to be left open for consideration by the committee to whom I shall ask to have the Bill referred.
The province of Prince Edward Island has in the Senate of Canada a representation of four members. If the terms of the British North America Act were applied strictly to the province of Prince Edward Island, it would have under the Bill now to be passed by this Parliament, a representation in the House of Commons of not more than three. It is somewhat incon-
[Stage Direction]
gruous that a small province like Prince Edward Island, or, indeed, any province of Canada, shonld have a smaller representation in the House of Commons than in the Senate. I shall have occasion at a later stage in the session to speak of the principles which seem to have guided the fathers of Confederation in establishing the representation of the various provinces in the Senate. For the present it is sufficient to say this: that there does not seem to have been any very fixed principle in their minds, and that the arrangement as to representation in the Senate appears to have been almost purely an arbitrary one. In the United States, as hon. members of this House know, each state of the Union has a fixed representation of two in the Senate. In other federations the membership is determined not in that way, but according to the population, but I am not aware of any federation in which the membership of any province or state is less in the lower house than in the upper house. If I remember correctly the provisions of the Australian Commonwealth Act, the basis fixed in the Commonwealth of Australia is that each province shall, as nearly as possible, have two members in the lower house for each member that it has in the upper house.
There is another consideration, not of a legal character, and not one of controlling or determining influence, which might possibly be taken into consideration in this House in regard to the province of Prince Edward Island. I shall speak a little later of the reasons that have led both political parties in this country to fix a higher unit of representation in cities than in rural communities. That principle, of course, gives a larger representation to those who live upon the land in this country than it does to those who dwell in cities. The reasons for that I will come to a little later, but so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned it has to be borne in mind that the population of that province is almost wholly a rural population, and that upon any basis laid down by either political party in this country, and upon the basis which I hope will be laid down by the committee to whom this Bill will go, if the population of Prince Edward Island, although less than 100,000, were situated in any other province of Canada, it would have the right to a membership of at least four in the House of Commons. I do not know whether I make absolutely clear to hon. gentlemen of this House what lies in my mind, but that, I think, is the fact. If without being limited 
by the terms of a constitutional act, as we are to-day, we were to take into consideration a rural population of nearly 100,000 in any of the other provinces of Canada, we would, I think, upon any basis that has ever been accepted or is likely to be accepted, give a representation of not less than -four members to that population.
It is my duty next to lay before the House -and I do it purely for the purpose of convenience-the results of the census of 1911. I may say that there was a slight error in the census figures as at first published, and the figures here given are from the second and corrected edition of the census returns. Taken in alphabetical order, the population of the different provinces according to the last census is as follows:- Alberta, 374,663; British Columbia, 392,480; Manitoba, 455,614; New Brunswick, 351,889; Nova Scotia, 492,338; Ontario, 2,523,274; Prince Edward Island, 93,728; Quebec, 2,003,232; Saskatchewan, 492,432; Yukon, 8,512. Taking the population of Quebec, 2,003,232, and dividing it by 65, we obtain the unit of 30,819.
Applying this unit to the population of the various provinces of Canada, we find that Alberta is entitled to a membership of 12.12. The decimal is disregarded, and Alberta receives a membership of twelve. In the ease of British Columbia, the number is 12-70. The decimal being in excess of 50, British Columbia receives a membership of 13. In the case of Manitoba, the number is 14-78. The decimal being in exexcess of 50, Manitoba will receive a membership of 15. In the case of New Brunswick, the number is 11-42. The decimal being less than 50 is disregarded, and New Brunswick receives a membership of 11. In the case of Nova Scotia, the number is 15-97. The decimal being in excess of 50, Nova Scotia receives a membership of 16. In the case of Ontario, the number is 81-87. The decimal being in excess of 50, Ontario receives a membership of 82. In the case of Prince Edward Island, the number is 3-04, and, if the provisions of the British North America Act are strictly observed and the considerations to which I called attention a moment ago are not regarded, the representation of Prince Edward Island would be 3. In the case of Quebec there is a fixed representation of 65. In the case of Saskatchewan, the number is 15-97. The decimal being in excess of 50, Saskatchewan will receive a representation of 16. It is not proposed to interfere with the representation of the Yukon Territory.
It will be observed that, according to what I have proposed, the representation of On-

tario will be decreased from 86 to 82. That of Quebec remains at the fixed number, 65. That of Nova Scotia will be decreased from 18 to 16. That of New Brunswick will be decreased from 13 to 11. That of Manitoba will be increased from 10 to 15. That of Saskatchewan will be increased from 10 to 16. That of Alberta will be increased from 7 to 12. That of British Columbia will be increased from 7 to 13. Prince Edward Island, according to the letter of the British North America Act, would have its representation decreased from 4 to 3.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I thought that was left blank.


Mr. BORDEN:: So it is, but I am speaking of the result under the letter of the British North America Act.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: And the total
would be what?


Robert Laird Borden: In the one case, if we
should leave the representation of Prince Edward Island as it is at present, the total would be 235; otherwise it would be 234.
Not only has the proportion of population as between the various provinces of Canada been greatly varied by the last census, but the distribution of population within the provinces has also greatly altered in some instances. On the second reading of the Bill I shall probably lay on the table of the House an exact statement as to this, comparing the previous census with the present census; but for the present it might be of interest to the House to know that in Ontario, for example, the population of constituencies as they are constituted at present varies from 13,737 in North Middlesex to 105,291 in West Toronto. In Quebec it varies from 9,400 in Soulanges to 170,978 in Maison-neuve. In Nova Beotia it varies from 11,962 in Antigonish to 53,352 in Cape Breton South. In New Brunswick it varies from 15,687 in Restigouche to 44,621 in Westmorland. In Manitoba it varies from 23,501 in Lisgar to 128,157 in Winnipeg. In Saskatchewan it varies from 28,695 in Saltcoats to 87,725 in Moosejaw. In Alberta it varies from 34,504 in Macleod to 70,606 in Medicine Hat. In British Columbia it varies from 31,660 in Victoria to 123,902 in Vancouver
As I have already stated, we propose on this occasion to follow the course pursued in 1903 by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition iair Yulfrid Laurier), and therefore I am introducing the Bill without the schedules, which are to be prepared by a conference or committee of members representing both parties. It is my intention, subject to any observations that may be made by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, to have that conference or committee constituted of the same number and in the like proportion as in 1903. It was then constituted of seven members, of whom four represented the Government and three represented the Opposition. My right hon. friend, in 1903, spoke of this as a conference, but when we came to deal with the report of the so-called conference, it was rather regarded, at all events by my hon. trends who are now on the other side of the House, as a committee. I imagine that the converse is true, and that we were inclined in the first instance to speak of it as a committee and to say
4 p.m. that it should have been a conference, and afterwards we were inclined to take the ground that, properly understood, it was a conference. It was not a conference precisely in the sense implied by the British precedent which was invoked by my right hon. friend. Yet, on the whole, I think it did its work fairly well. There were undoubtedly differences of opinion, strong differences of opinion, and these were threshed out both in the committee and in the House; and doubtless there will be differences of opinion on this occasion. But I venture to state that a small committee of that kind will be better able to reconcile, as far as possible, those differences of opinion, and to reduce the basis of representation to some fixed principle than it could possibly be done in this House. Therefore I am entirely disposed to follow the course which my right hon. friend pursued in 1903.
The differences which are likely to arise will probably be those which will result from an endeavour to work out principles which, when applied on the one hand or the other, may bring about divergent results. In Great Britain, according to the principles laid down by the conference to which allusion was made, if I remember correctly, a good deal of emphasis was laid upon equality of population, upon the retention in borough divisions of population of an urban character, upon compactness in respect of geographical position, and upon community of interests. In Canada stress has been laid upon various considerations upon which I shall dwell for a moment in order that I may invite the consideration of hon. members of the Home to



G18 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
the subject, and in that way have an interchange of views which, I trust, may be of use in bringing about a fair redistribution in 1914. Emphasis has been laid by members on both sides of the House, perhaps more particularly by hon. gentlemen opposite, upon the observance of municipal boundaries. This principally concerns the provinces of eastern Canada, and the municipal boundaries alluded to are of a varying character in these provinces.
There are the boundaries of parishes, of villages, of towns, of cities, of townships, of counties divided into two municipal districts, of municipal counties, and of counties united for municipal or judicial purposes, or both. It is a very desirable principle, to be followed as far as possible; but there is another principle also to ibe observed, and the difficulty which will confront the committee this year, as it confronted the committee in 1903, will be to say in any particular case how these two principles can best be worked out, and, in case they are absolutely inconsistent, which one of them is to prevail.
The other principle to which I alluded is a certain equality of population. This principle, of course, will constantly be brought into opposition to the first principle. It must not be too seriously disregarded, as it is the basis of the whole scheme of representation as between the provinces; and I observe that in the principles laid down in Great Britain at the conference to which I have alluded, equality of population was placed well to the forefront. My right hon. friend himself, in 1892, in speaking of this subject, at page 3970 of ' Hansard, used these words, which express very well what is in my own mind and I think in the minds of all hon. gentlemen in this House:
The guiding principle should he as far as possible to equalize the population in all the constituencies.
Then, there is the question to which I alluded a moment ago; a greater unit for urban constituencies than for rural constituencies. Both parties have accepted this, although possibly it may have been emphasized on one side more than on the other. There have been various reasons given, some of which may be pertinent and cogent, and others of which may not be entitled to a great deal of weight. It is said that in a city constituency there ought to be a higher unit for the reason that it possesses greater solidarity and compactness; that its interests are more uniform; that its interests can make themselves felt more effectively and cogently than the interests of a rural con-

stituency. It is said also that many men who represent rural constituencies reside in cities, and in that way the cities throughout Canada, or in many portions of Canada, have a certain voice in the legislature which is denied to rural constituencies.
Importance has been laid by some members of this House upon the fact that there is perhaps a more stable interest in those who dwell upon the land, and whose forefathers have dwelt upon it for many generations, than is to be found in the case of a certain floating element of city population. In Ontario for a century or more, in my own province for a century and a half, and in the province of Quebec for three centuries at least, men have been dwelling on the same land from generation to generation. Those who cultivate it now can look back to their forefathers who were pioneers, say a century, a century and a half, or three centuries ago; and if I am not mistaken it was this consideration, coupled also with that to which I alluded in connection with the cities-a certain floating element of population-which impressed itself more than any other upon Sir John A. Macdonald in giving effect to this consideration. I hope that the committee will not depart from the principle which has been accepted by both political parties in that regard. It is impossible to fix or to suggest any defined percentage. There was no defined percentage fixed or suggested, I think, in 1903, or at any previous redistribution; but it seems to me that reasonable consideration should be given to this principle, which has almost come to be a part of our constitution, and I have no doubt that the committee to which this Bill is to be referred will give the consideration which is due to that principle.
Then, the English principles of community of interest and compactness in respect of geographical position may very well also be considered in this country as in Great Britain.
I thought it desirable, Mr. Speaker, in introducing this Bill, to give in this way a brief history not only of the legislation but of the principles, as I understand them, which have actuated both political parties in dealing with this question. I shall be very glad to take up the second reading of the Bill on a date as early as may be convenient to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, and to have the Bill committed to seven members, as suggested, in order that they may enter upon their conferences and deliberations at the earliest possible moment.
Motion agreed to.

On the motion that the Bill be now read the first time:
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: Before that motion is formally agreed to, I would like to say one word.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As I understand it, it is not permissible to debate on a motion for the first reading, but it is permissible to debate on the motion to introduce the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: We will consent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not for the
purpose of debating any controversial subject, but to ask for certain information and to make suggestions to the right hon. gentleman, that I ask the consent of the House to speak at this time. The right hon. gentleman, in introducing this measure, read in the course of his lucid explanation a clause of the British North America Act which has always given rise to considerable discussion in dealing with the question of representation. I refer to clause 4 of section 51, which says:
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.
I would like to ask if the right hon. gentleman would lay upon the table of the House before the second' reading of this Bj.ll, the computation which I assume was made for him in connection with this fractional difference spoken of in this Act. I want to call his attention to the fact that, taking the word * one-twentieth ' as it is found in that section, and interpreting it in the ordinary way as being one-twentieth of a unit, we have these results as regards the province of Nova Scotia: In 1901 the population of Nova Scotia was 459,574, and the population of Canada 5,371,315; that is, in the proportion of 1 to 11; or if it is placed as a fraction, the fraction would be 1-11.6876.
It may be remarked that this section should be interpreted in accordance with a comparison between the relative proportions of the two decennial periods, and it is the difference between the proportions the statute speaks of and not the difference in the populations. The proportion after the last census was the proportion which existed as between 492,338 and 7,206,643, which was the population of the whole of Canada. That proportion, to give
it in short language, was in the relation of 1 to 14, or, taking it as a fraction, you have a proportion of 1-14.6876. When you oome to make a comparison between these two proportions as a mathematical proposition, you find that the second proportion is l-58th less than the proportion made in the first instance. Thus the difference between these two proportions which the statute says you have to make is a difference of l-58th.


Robert Laird Borden: One fifty-eighth of what? My hon. friend is aware that it is a question of the reduction of the proportion?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Quite so; there is that difference between the proportions. It is l-58th of the unit.' This is less than l-20th. I am submitting to my right hon. friend the question whether this l-20th is l-20th of the unit or l-20th of the original proportion of the previous ten-year period. How is the statute to be interpreted? The matter was called to my attention by an hon. member of the Senate from St. John, who was very much interested in it, and I have no doubt that he discussed it with my right hon. friend. The position of affairs is this, that if you take l-20th of the unit as being the difference which the statute contemplates, the difference between the two proportions is a difference of l-58th, and that difference is less than l-20th, and consequently we should suffer no reduction iu representation. My difficulty in considering this question was increased to some degree by reason of the fact that you can find'in the books no definite or accurate statement as to how this matter has been dealt with in the past. I find that in the Supreme "Court representation ease the Chief Justice of Canada, who was then Minister of Justice, made this statement-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member seems to be starting in upon a practice which is not in consonance with the English practice or with our practice. Our practice is that when the motion is made that a Bill be now read the first time, it shall be adopted without amendment or debate. There may be on the proposal to introduce and an amendment, but not on the motion for the first reading of a Bill. In attempting to override that rule the hon. gentleman would be establishing an inconvenient precedent for the future.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite understood that I was only speaking with the consent of the House and of the Prime Minister. I will not enter into any debate, and I do

not want to make any argument. I simply want to put for the consideration of the Government a question in regard to this matter, which has been a serious question to hon. gentlemen who have looked into it, and I think this is the most convenient time for me to do so, before the debate on the second reading takes place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member must see that whatever information he may give will invite explanation or argument; it is likely to do so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Either I have the
consent of the House or I have not. If I have not the consent of the House, of course, I cannot go on.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that my hon. friend is speaking with the consent of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. member for Pictou is nearly through anyway. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the consent of the House, he might be allowed to proceed. I would like very much to know what his point is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have its consent to proceed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. LANCASTER:: Get to the jpoint.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am getting to the point. I am afraid that my hon. friend would require the statute before him to enable him to see the point. The only plq.ce I can find any record of any public statement as to how this computation has been made is at page 527 of chap. 33, Supreme Court of Canada Reports. There the present learned Chief Justice, arguing in the representation case, -when Minister of Justice, made a statement as to how this computation was made up both in regard to Ontario and Nova Scotia at that particular period. It seems to me that there is a statement from which one is not able to get any very clear deduction as to the view which I am presenting as being an incorrect one. On the contrary, viewing this purely from the mathematical standpoint, I think the reason which he gives as to why this computation is made up in that way is incorrect. I thank the House for its courtesy. I merely wanted to put this consideration, or this suggestion which has come from hon. members on both sides of the House from the Maritime provinces, before the Government, as 
under it we are entitled to .maintain our representation unimpaired. I think we ought to have that point settled and that we should have the matter thoroughly discussed. I would like to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that this data will be brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very glad that the hon. member for Pictou has brought this matter to my attention. I may say that I examined the computation to which he alludes and I regret to say that I do not find much consolation in it for the Maritime provinces. I would be glad to find any assistance in a computation of that kind. The question is:	What was the
proportion at the last census and what is the proportion now, the proportion in question being that of the population of a particular province to the population of the whole of Canada. If you take either Ontario or Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, and find the proportion of the population of the province to the whole population of Canada in 1901, and the proportion of the population of the province to the whole population of Canada in 1911, a very simple mathematical calculation will, I think, show that the proportion, as I understand it, has been decreased by more than one-twentieth.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By one-fifty-eighth,
which is less than one-twentieth. I have it from an actuary.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will
come to me I will explain that mathematical calculation to him. I regret that I could not find much consolation or assistance in it. However, I have the calculations already prepared, but I would like to have them verified, so that they will be accurate beyond question, and I had intended, even if my hon. friend had not brought the subject to my attention, to have placed them on the Table before the debate upon the second reading of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Carried.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Mr. Speaker,-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Carried. I must rule
that at this stage there cannot be any debate. Either the rules are for a good purpose, or they are for no purpose, and my only desire is to maintain the rules.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. PROULX:: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) this question:	Do
the new parcel post regulations affect the privilege of franking parcels posted at the post office in the House of Commons?


Mr. PELLETIER:: The Postmaster General himself will not have the right to frank a parcel. Everybody will have to pay postage.


Edmond Proulx: Until to-day we were
able to frank parcels up to five pounds. I wanted to send books to-day from the House, and I was refused permission.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You had better pay
for them.


Edmond Proulx: So much the worse for
the parcel post system.



PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS AND DOMINION OFFICIALS.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Foster for Committee of Supply:
Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: Before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I wish to speak for a few moments on a matter which I proposed to bring before the attention of the House yesterday when the Orders of the Day were called, but which at your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I deferred until to-day. From the answers to some questions which were answered yesterday, with reference to the number of homestead entries that had been made within the last three years, 1911, 1912 and 1913, I discovered that the number had very considerably decreased during those three years. On the other hand I discovered that the number of officials in the outside service in the Department of the Interior had been very greatly increased. Taking for instance the one item of homestead inspectors alone, the number, which on the first day of October, 1911, stood at 40, has been increased to 60, an increase of fifty per cent, although the homestead work has very greatly decreased so far as entries are concerned. With reference to the staffs of the various land offices in the West, the number of officials on the different staffs, which on the first of October, 1911, stood at 332, has been increased to 377. From personal observation I am of the opinion that the Government have appointed a large number of officials in the West, not because they are required in the public service, but in order that they may devote their superfluous time to canvassing votes for the political party which to-day holds power in thi3 country. Far from it being the purpose and intent of the Government that public servants, paid out of the treasury of this country, shall not be partisans, shall not take an active part in politics while in the service of the country, it would appear on the contrary that it is the intent and purpose of this Government that officials of the various departments, at least in the outside service, shall render assistance to the political party which to-day holds office.
In support of that view and in reference to the particular matter which I propose to bring before the House, I question very much if the individual concerned is nearly as much to blame as is the Government which he serves. From what I have seen and from what I know, the offence of partisanship in the public service is an offence, not only condoned but regarded as an object of merit by this Government. As proof and evidence of what I say, I wish to take the case of one Mr. Arthur Smythe, who was appointed homestead inspector for the district of Humboldt, by the present Government. From the answer received yesterday to my question, I discovered that this Mr. Arthur Smythe, who was appointed, I believe, early in the year of 1912, is still in the public service as homestead inspector. I have already brought to the attention of the House and of the Government the fact that in July, 1912, during the progress of a provincial election in the province of Saskatchewan, this Mr. Arthur Smythe was haled before the court on the charge of intimidating voters in that election, of attempting to coerce voters to vote for candidates of the Conservative persuasion. Not only was he haled before the court but he was fined fifty dollars and costs. Evidently the proof against him was absolutely conclusive. My inquiry of the Government as to whether or not this Mr. Smythe was still in the public service was answered in the following laconic and emphatic manner: ' Yes, still in the employ of the Government.'
In view of that fact, what can any public servant in the outside service consider is his duty from the viewpoint of the masters whom he serves? An instance such as this is evidence of the fact that from their public servants this Govern-

ment not only condone active partisanship in the discharge of their public duty, but apparently consider it to be one of the cardinal virtues.
Of the large army of new officials that have been created by this Government since coming into office, there is one official to whom I propose to give some particular attention. We have, of course, in the West and in the East, a department of Indian Affairs. When the late member for Dauphin, who was defeated by his constituents in 1911 by a large majority, found that he was out of public life, this Government undertook to provide him with a position in the public service. In order to do that, they created for this gentleman the new office of Chief Inspector of Indian Agencies. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1913, this Government paid to this official $4,434.63, $450 of which was paid while still being unaccounted for, I suppose in the form of vouchers, receipts or something of that sort. It was put in under the bald statement of expenses. I believe that of the total amount, $3,000, is salary and the balance is travelling expenses, etc.	.
I am not speaking of this gentleman with any personal animus or feeling, whatever. I have not any question or doubt as to the attainments and qualifications of this gentleman for the position to which the Government have appointed him. I presume . he has the necessary qualifications, if he so wills, and if the Government wishes it, to give faithful service in the position to which he was appointed. But I have this complaint to make of this gentleman, that, so far as my information goes, from the day of his appointment he has been as acutely and actively partisan as he ever was when he was himself a candidate for public office. Just as an illustration of this I find in the Dauphin Press of the 5th of this month, in the general news columns, an item to this effect:
A Conservative convention is to be held on January 16, to select a candidate. Hon. George Lawrence, Minister of Agriculture, will be present with Glen Campbell and others to address the electors. Opposition speakers are invited.
Three thousand dollars a year and expenses ! And he is billed in the constituency of Swan River to be one of the public speakers at a convention to be held-to which, of course, opposition speakers are invited. That is only an illustration of the kind of work that this gentleman has been carrying on in the constituencies of Manitoba, and not of Manitoba alone but of the provinces further west. I have just received

information from the provincial constituency of North Qu'Appelle in which there is a by-election pending that again the hand of this high-salaried official is shown in his capacity of public servant of this country by participating actively in the contest. I say the by-election is pending. Though the writs have not yet been issued, yet both political parties expect the writs to be issued very shortly and, as a matter of fact, the Liberal party put their candidate in the field in the month of December last, while the Conservative candidate was placed at the end of November. The by-election in the constituency of North Qu'Appelle is occasioned by the resignation of Mr. John Archie McDonald, exmember of the Legislative Assembly, against whom charges of corruption were laid on account of his election in July, 1912. Before his case was proceeded with in the courts, Mr. McDonald saw fit to resign his seat and is not himself again a candidate in the election. Mr. John Archie McDonald, I may say, is the brother-in-law of Glen Campbell, Superintendent of Indian Agencies-or, if any would prefer it that way, Mr. Campbell is Mr. McDonald's brother-in-law. But while Mr. McDonald is not a candidate, he is exceedingly anxious that the seat he vacated shall be filled by a Conservative in the local legislature. Consequently, we find Mr. Campbell and Mr. McDonald have recently been making a tour of the constituency, with what object in view the members of this House can guess.
The particular matter I wish to bring to the attention of the House and the Government is contained in a letter from Mr. William Penny, of Balcarres, to which is attached an affidavit signed and sworn to by Michael Poitras a half-breed voter in the North Qu'Appelle constituency. I shall just read the letter of Mr. Penny, and as for the affidavit, I will give the substance of it, and the Minister of the Interior who is responsible for the conduct of this official will be welcome to peruse it after I have dealt with it here. The letter from this justice of the peace is addressed to myself and is as follows:
Dear Sir,-I have the honour to enclose herewith affidavit of Michael Poitras, a half-breed, living near Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask.
I may say in this connection that I understand that one of the duties of the Superintendent of Indian Agencies, and of every Indian agent also, is to prevent the Indians who are the wards of this Government and this country, from having access.

if preventable to intoxicating liquors. The half-breed is not a ward of the Government, but he is in the same position as the Indian so far as his weakness along these lines is concerned.
This man is in destitute circumstances, as a result of becoming intoxicated and lying outside on the frozen ground without any protection from the weather, all night. He has a wife and a family of young children depending on him for their support.
My object in bringing this matter to your attention is with the idea that you may persuade the Dominion Government authorities to render this unfortunate family some aid in their dire distress, which, as you will note in the affidavit, was the result of liquor supplied him by one Glen Campbell, inspector of Indian Agencies. I understand that Campbell resides in Dauphin, Man., and is a brother-in-law of John Archie McDonald, former M.L.A. for North Qu'Appelle, who resigned recently, when charges of corruption in connection with his election were coming before the court.
Trusting that you may be successful in your worthy endeavour to secure aid for this unhappy family.
I remain,
Your obedient servant,
Wm. Penny,
A Justice of the Peace in and for the
Province of Saskatchewan.
Attached to this letter is the affidavit ol Mr. Poitras. As I have said, I will not go into the details of this affidavit, but wi'l hand the document to the Minister of the Interior and he will see just how reprehensible was the conduct of Mr. Campbell on this occasion. This half-breed, as all men will, drifted into a bar-room one day-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not all.


David Bradley Neely: As some men will-drifted into a bar-room one day in January, and there he was met by Mr. John Archie -McDonald, and a little later by Mr. Glen Campbell. The affidavit goes on to say that Mr. Glen Campbell insisted on his drinking whisky of which he bought him not one but a great number of drinks until the poor man became intoxicated. The man went out of doors and slept on the prairie- this is in the month of January. And any one who knows anything of the weather of the West in January will know what that means. The result was that when he was discovered in the morning, one foot was entirely frozen, so that the man probably is crippled for life as a result of this experience, and his family, because of his inability to support them, found themselves in destitute circumstances. Now, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House, and to the Prime Minister and the Government, whether or not they consider that this sort of conduct on the part of an official
of this Government should or should not go unpunished.
I have instanced the case of Mr. Smythe. His was a political -offence and perhaps on that account is more leniently regarded by the Government. But here is a case of an agent whom they have appointed to the responsible position of Superintendent of Indian Agencies. He has to look after the wards of this conn try and protect them from certain vices, of which they easily, as we all know, become a prey. The man spoken of in this letter of the justice of the peace, and whose affidavit is attached, is, as I say, a half-breed, whose position is practically the same as that of an Indian. Yet we find that this official in the constituency of North Qu'Appelle, when a by-election was pending, spent his time-and we will get the expense account in due course-in the service of his country by buying intoxicating liquors for this poor, benighted half-breed who had not sufficient will-power to resist his solicitations, with the result that a family has been practically rendered destitute. We all know very well the high and exalted ideals of the leader of the Government on the question of the public service; at least we all know the high and exalted ideas he entertained before he became Prime Minister of this country. I bring these two instances to the attention of the Government, the latter one especially, and to the attention of the Prime Minister, as evidence of what I believe to be the general practice, so far as partisanship is concerned, of many of the outside officials of this Government, particularly in the Department of the Interior, who operate in western Canada. I say that if the public service is to be degraded and disgraced by such conduct on the part of its high-salaried officials, the sooner this country knows the facts the better. Let us have a statement from the Prime Minister, or from the responsible Minister in this case, the Minister of the Interior, as to whether or not he thinks it is in the public interest and for the wellbeing of this nation that such conduct should be continued, to the degradation of one of the units of our great body of citizens.
These are only a couple of instances I am bringing to the attention of the Government. I could cite not one but many more instances where officials in the Government outside service, men appointed by this Administration, are carrying on this kind of business. But what is the need of my doing so? We have the evidence of the public

press as to the conduct of this particular gentleman-the fact that he takes the platform and makes political speeches on behalf of political candidates in the West. Not only have we the evidence of the public press, but we have what I would consider to be the irrefutable evidence of this affidavit as to his conduct on the occasion referred to. This seems to be an example of the kind of work this gentleman is doing to earn his $3,000 salary and his $1,400 or $1,500 travelling expenses. The Dominion of Canada is paying for the services of this official, and I say that the Government must be held responsible for the conduct of their officials in expending these moneys not in the public interest, but for the advancement of political parties, whether in provincial or federal politics.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of Interior) :: Yesterday when the hon. member
for Humboldt, on the Orders of the Day being called, arose and gave notice that he intended to bring a matter of great urgency before the House, we expected, of course, to hear something most important, possibly affecting the national welfare. When you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the matter should not come up except on going into Supply, I sent a note over to the hon. member for Humboldt asking him if he would have the courtesy to tell me what he was going to bring before the House upon its going into Supply. The hon. gentleman, however, has not seen fit to extend this courtesy, and I get up here to-day without having previously had the slightest inkling of what the hon. gentleman has now brought to the attention of the House.


David Bradley Neely: I gave the name of the
official agent against whom I proposed to lay the charge.


William James Roche: 
David Bradley Neely: Can the hon. gentleman
prove that?


William James Roche: Yes, in Saskatchewan-I
Can prove it. Mr. Smythe was arrested because it was supposed that he had intimidated some of those people who were residents or who had taken up land in that country.	As I say, this is
the first time I have heard of this charge against Mr. Smythe; so far as I know, Mr. Smythe was occupying his position before I came into the department. I do not know the gentleman personally, but I have had no complaint against him in connection with the matter which the hon. member for Humboldt has brought to the attention of the House. The hon. gentleman has mentioned the name of Mr. Glen Campbell. I am quite aware that Mr. Campbell was a member of this House during the last Parliament, and I am also aware of the fact that he and the hon. member for Humboldt exchanged what I would call many petrified bouquets at that time. It may be that some of those are still rankling in the breast of the hon. member, and so Mr. Campbell, who is generally quite able to take care of himself, is made the subject of a series of accusations, which I have heard to-day for the first time. Mr. Campbell, a high priced official, the hon. gentleman states, has drawn a great deal of money from this Government, and he says vouchers for a certain amount of this 'have not been forthcoming. I am not aware of this. I thought possibly the hon. gentleman was mixing up his men, that he was referring to a celebrated character named R. E. A. Leech. That was the gentleman who put in a padded expense account and the Auditor General refused to pay him. That is the gentleman who was rewarded by one of my predecessors in the late Government for his thin red line outrage by being appointed to the high position of inspector of land agencies in western Canada. I am not aware that Mr. Campbell has not sent in his vouchers. If he has not, I presume the Auditor General has not paid his accounts. At all events, the responsibility rests on the watch dog of the treasury, the Auditor General, to look after those details. He states that Mr. Glen Campbell appeared on a public platform in one of the constituencies of northern Manitoba and made a political speech, the proof of which he had in the newspaper which he read. He may have done so, I am not aware of the fact; but certainly the hon. gentleman did not produce the proof that he did. All he produced was a notice of a meeting at which Glen Campbell was advertised to speak. That is about the proof he furnishes in re-40
gard to all these other accusations. I do not believe that Mr. Campbell appeared at that meeting.


David Bradley Neely: I did not say that he took the public platform; I said he was advertised to take the public platform.


William James Roche: Mr. Campbell is not responsible for being advertised at any meeting and I personally know that he is not so fond of appearing and speaking at public meetings that now, since he has become an official of the Government, he would take part in such a meeting. I do not believe he appeared on that platform and delivered a speech.
Again, the hon. member takes exception to his visiting Qu'Appelle, because, in the not distant future, there is to be a provincial by-election in that constituency, at which his brother-in-law, Mr. McDonald, is to be the candidate. I do not know whether Mr. McDonald has -been selected as candidate or not.


David Bradley Neely: I said he was not to be the candidate.


William James Roche: Then the grievance is that he appeared with his brother-in-law and was travelling through that constituency and the hon. gentleman, being suspicious as he is, immediately jumped to the conclusion that because, at some time in the future, there is to be a by-election in that constituency, therefore Mr. Campbell and his brother-in-law, whom he 5 p.m. was probably visiting, must be on mischief bent. Therefore he holds Mr. Campbell up to the odium of the country through this Parliament on a charge of canvassing on behalf of a candidate who has not yet been selected, to my knowledge, on behalf of the Conservative party.
His other accusation is a very serious one touching the character of Mr. Campbell. While half-breeds are not, as he says, the wards of the Government, and Mr. Campbell's particular jurisdiction is to look after the Indians, still it is reprehensible for anybody-I am sure the hon. member for Humboldt deplores the idea of his taking a half-breed into a hotel and buying him even one drink. But if the accusation is true as made by the hon. member for Humboldt that Mr. Campbell did that, it is a very serious accusation, and I certainly will submit those charges to Mr. Campbell and allow him to make his defence. The hon. gentleman and his friends opposite have frequently taken us to task on this side for daring to dispense



with the services of any man of the Liberal persuasion without giving that official an opportunity to defend himself; and I am sure he will not take exception if I take the same course in the case of Mr. Campbell. The opportunity of hearing those charges was afforded me for the first time this afternoon, I did not know their nature and therefore I have no papers from the department which might gainsay the accusation against Mr. Smythe on other charges. But I think such complaints ill become hon. gentlemen opposite, with the record they had when they were on this side in connection with their officers. I need not go beyond the confines of my own constituency. There has not been an election since 1896, when 1 first contested Marquette, that it has not been overrun by hordes of Liberal officials using their utmost services in favour of the Liberals. I entered no strong protest against it, it was part of the game; I did not put up a squeal in Parliament about it; but now as there is some suspicion, yes, it is all based on suspicion, of Mr. Campbell taking part in a by-election about to take place in Saskatchewan, immediately the hon. member for Humboldt, in that virtuous or simulated indignation of his, rises to take the Government to task for something of which Mr. Campbell may have been entirely guiltless. I think these accusations, in the main, are rather puerile. The one the hon. member made against Mr. Campbell personally is a serious accusation against his personal character which I shall bring to Mr. Campbell's notice immediately, and I shall also give the hon. gentleman the opportunity of receiving Mr. Campbell's reply.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: I
do not think there is any question that the House is very much disappointed at hearing so bold an announcement from the present Minister of the Interior-I speak of it as it comes to me-of an intention to administer his department as a political machine.


William James Roche: Suspicion again.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend suggests that the administration of departments under the previous government was of that nature. I had the honour of administering that department for a term of years. My hon. friend, I think, is aware that definite instructions were issued by myself, pending either a Dominion or a provincial election, forbidding officers of the department to take part in those elections. My hon. friend

may say that that order was disregarded, but it will surely be understood that if he, as a member of Parliament, had brought to my attention such an incident as has been brought to his attention to-day, I would have been compelled either to dismiss the official or to admit that I was in a position that no minister or no member of Parliament ever could maintain.


William James Roche: Is that what you did with Phillip Wagner?


Frank Oliver: There was no accusation
brought against Phillip Wagner for his actions while I was minister; and he was appointed by me.
Mr. ROCHE o He was in jail before you became minister.


Frank Oliver: He was in jail before I
was appointed. I appointed Phillip Wagner because he was competent for the position. He filled the position acceptably. There was no protest against his appointment and no objection to any action of Phillip Wagner's after he had been appointed by me.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Did you give public
notice that you were going to appoint him!1


Frank Oliver: I appointed Phillip Wagner for good and sufficient reasons, and I stood by the appointment for good and sufficient reasons There was no political reason against Mr. Wagner. Never during my administration of that department was an allegation received in the manner this has been received by the present administrator of that department. My hon. friend, it seems to me, scarcely appreciates the importance of the department of which he is the head, and how far the administration of that department affects the well-being and the progress of Canada. This House will surely realize that the welfare and the progress of Canada depends very largely [DOT]upon the settlement of the prairies, and that the settlement of those prairies depends very largely upon the fairness with which this Government deals with the settlers. When my hon. friend stands before this House, and gives the House and country to understand that the officials of the Department of the Interior have free rein to use the authority vested in them for the advantage of the party in power, I say he throws discredit on the Government of Canada; he terrorizes the settler on the prairie and restricts settlement to that extent. I ask my hon. friends who are not acquainted with the conditions of settlement on the

prairie, to give a moment's attention while I place those conditions before them. A man takes up a homestead far from a railroad and has his wife and family with him. He lives under difficult circumstances, and in a large number of cases without means, excepting such as he can earn at intervals. He depends on getting the patent for his land. To him that patent means his living; it means in many cases his life; and his getting of that patent is to depend upon the dictation of the homestead inspector that my hon. friend appoints, and who is authorized to give, or withhold, his recommendation according to the political views of the man applying for the patent! A more outrageous proposition has never been been placed before the Parliament of Canada. There has never before been a minister in the Parliament of Canada who dared to take such a position before Parliament. Has this action had any effect? Homestead entries have decreased in two years by nearly 10,000- nearly 10,000 less in 1913 than in 1911-and I ask you to believe me when I tell you that this policy of political administration of the Lands Department of this Government has had much to do with that deplorable decrease in settlement.


Mr. BRADBURY:: How ?


Frank Oliver: Because the settlers are terrorized by the officers of my hon. friend, and no man will take the chances that he has to take with himself and his family if the reward for his risk depends upon the political administration of a Government such as this. Does my hon. friend think that the settler who depends on the recommendation of an officer Who takes the public platform and announces his support of a certain political candidate, does he think that that settler will risk giving his political views ? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that when my hon. friend's homestead inspectors become candidates themselves, that terrorism is exercised over the homesteader, and that such conduct instead of promoting settlement promotes discontent, and prevents settlement. Does my hon. friend want to know the facts ? In the recent provincial election at Peace River, the homestead inspector, Mr. Joshua Fletcher, took the platform and spoke on behalf of the Conservative candidate. He is reported by the newspapers of that district, as declaring that this Government at Ottawa had to be supported by votes for the local candidate in the Peace River constituency.
404	'	"
It must be said that this man was appointed by the late Government. I know the man personally. I appointed him myself. My information is that the man took the platform and spoke as he did, because he had to do it in order to hold his position. Did my hon. friend know that his homestead inspector, Mr. Ambroise Grey, was a candidate in the Beaver River constituency in the recent Alberta elections ? He was a defeated candidate, it is true.


Mr. CARVELL:: Did he lose his job ?


Frank Oliver: No, he resigned from his position, we were informed, when he became a candidate, but he has been holding his position ever since, and when I happened to visit that country shortly before the opening of this session, I found my friend, Mr. Ambroise Grey, and another official, Mr. F. Fane, also a lawyer named Mackie and a gentleman called Hoyle, travelling around the country in an automobile-I do not know who is paying for it, but I fancy the country is-to collect evidence to be used in protesting the election of the successful candidate. Consider the position, Mr. Speaker, of the homesteaders in that constituency who may have voted against Mr. Ambroise Grey. He is now a homestead inspector and knows that they voted against him. Are they likely to get fair treatment at the hands of Mr. Grey when they apply for their patents ? I do not think that they will even expect to get it, and I say that the settlement of that section of the country is discouraged to that extent.
My hon. friend was good enough to recall occurrences in the Saskatchewan election.	I happened to be in the
province of Saskatchewan at that time, taking some part in that election. At the town of Outlook I was credibly informed that a gentleman named Walker had been appointed homestead inspector there in place of another man who had been dismissed, and that Mr. Walker took the position on the understanding that he was to draw the salary and act as organizer for the Conservative candidate in the constituency during the progress of the election. He did, as a matter of fact, act as organizer, and I was credibly informed that he had addressed a meeting in the same hall that I addressed a meeting in a few nights afterwards. He had loaned his team and rig, or buggy, that the Government supply to homestead inspectors, to the Conservative candidate for the Conservative candidate's use, and

I was told that the Conservative candidate allowed the horses to run away and break the rig.	.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who paid for it?


Frank Oliver: I suppose the Government paid for it. My hon. friend said that during the election in Saskatchewan there were men arrested for their work in that election. I ask him: Was it right or wrong that this man Smythe should be indicted on a charge of intimidation?


William James Roche: I have had no proof yet that he was.


Frank Oliver: The case was tried before the court, the magistrate found Smythe guilty and Smythe did not appeal the case. My hon. friend las seen fit to say that some of these men who were arrested in Saskatchewan came from Manitoba.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is Smythe still homestead inspector?


Frank Oliver: Smythe is still homestead inspector. Any men who were arrested in Saskatchewan, so far as I am aware, were tried on the charge on which they were arrested, and were either punished or released according to the findings of the Court. I will also draw attention to the fact that things are not thus in the province of Manitoba, where they arrest men without warrant, hold them without trial, and discharge them when the election is over. There is not only that difference, but the premier of that province stands on the public platform and announces to all and sundry that they are going to do it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Minister of Public Works?


Frank Oliver: Well, the Minister of Public Works has no jurisdiction over that particular matter. The premier of the province of Manitoba stood on the public platform and declared that men taking part in the election would be arrested; they were arrested without warrant, they were held without trial, and they were discharged without offences being alleged against them.
I hope that my hon. friend the minister will realize that the administration of his department is something more than he has seen fit to phrase it here in the House, as a matter of 'playing the game.' I think he will realize that on its righteous, and, therefore, successful, administration depends in large measure the

welfare and progress of this country, and if the hon. gentleman sees fit to administer that department, as he has lightly suggested-I think rather in humorous terms than with wrong intent-if that is his intention, then I say he has made a more violent accusation against the good faith and sound patriotism of the Government of which he is a member than any member of this House ever .made before.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow some of the statements which have been made by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) to go unchallenged. My hon. friend has undertaken to refer, in answer to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche), to certain arrests that were made in the province of Saskatchewan in the by-election two years ago. I want to tell the hon. member for Edmonton that while a very large number of arrests were made, no charge was preferred against any man who was arrested according to the law in this or any British country in the known world. Take the case of this man Smythe who was arrested; he was not faced by a magistrate upon the charge with which he was arrested at all. Numbers of other homestead inspectors were arrested, and when they were arrested, without the issue of a warrant, they were arrested largely on the strength of a telegram from a whisky detective in the city of Regina.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman give the names of those other men who were arrested?


Robert Rogers: I will be glad to supply my hon. friend with them. I do not have them here. I will name one who was arrested-Mr. Shields.


Frank Oliver: Was he a homestead inspector?


Robert Rogers: He was a homestead inspector. He was arrested at some distance up the line from Regina, handcuffed, paraded in the train from there to Regina, and cast into jail at that place. Bail was asked and urged, but it was denied. The matter was taken before one of the justices of the High Court, wno commented upon the conduct of those in charge of the case and expressed the hope that the people of Saskatchewan were not prepared to conform to Russian methods. Therefore, he would undertake to liberate Mr. Shields, and he said that if the men in charge of the jail did not obey his orders

he and Mr. Johnston would go down to the jail themselves and see that Mr. Shields was liberated from the cell in which he had been placed by the officers of the Liberal Government of the province. Mr. Shields was allowed to go, but a moment afterwards he was re-arrested and put in jail again. The same justice ordered his release at once and Mr. Shields went home. He came back for trial at the time appointed and no charge was preferred against him; he was told to go, as they had nothing to offer against him and no charge to prefer. This condition of affairs obtained in other cases in connection with arrests that were made in that election. There were very many-


Frank Oliver: How many?


Robert Rogers: The only case in which a' fine was imposed by a justice of the peace was that against a homestead inspector by the name of Smythe, and that conviction was obtained on an entirely different charge from the one on which he had been arrested.


David Bradley Neely: What was he fined for?


Robert Rogers: He was fined on some
trivial charge; I do not recall it. I have not read the case for over a year and I do not recall to memory what the charge was, but I will promise my hon. friends on the other side of this House that before the vote upon this debate is taken I will submit a history of the arrests in that particular province and I am sure it will startle the good sense not only of hon. gentlemen opposite, but the people of this Dominion. My hon. friend the member for Edmonton rose with righteous indignation in respect to the administration of the Department of the Interior and the action of officers of that department in taking part in elections in the western provinces of Canada. I am free to confess that there is and always has been a condition of affairs that apparently has admitted of officials taking a certain part in elections in those provinces. There is probably no man in this Dominion of Canada more responsible for that condition of affairs than is my hon. friend the member for Edmonton himself.
It will be, I am sure, in the recollection of certain hon. members of this House, especially of my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), that in the year 1896 a resolution was introduced and an understanding arrived at between both sides of this House, which carried with it a perfect understanding that
officials of the Government were not to take part in elections. I think this is what was laid down by my right hon. friend-I take it from ' Hansard ' of 1896, Volume 1:
That, whilst it is desirable that every official in the employ of the Government of Canada should enjoy perfect freedom of political opinions and the untrammelled exercise of his franchise in accord therewith, no official should be engaged or be permitted to engage in partisan work of any description in the election of a representative to a provinical or Dominion legislature.
This, I understand, was approved and accepted by both sides of the House. I have not in mind whether it was carefully observed and carried out, but I know that, when an election was called for provincial purposes in the province of Saskatchewan at the time of the foundation of that province in 1905, my hon. friend the member for Edmonton, who stands up to-day in righteous indignation condemns the taking part in the political warfare of any province of the officers of any particular department, if the press quotes him correctly, is reported, not only as being in the province of Saskatchewan assisting in that contest, but as undertaking to give out a published interview as appearing in the press of that province of that day. What did he say then? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare his words at that time in the province of Saskatchewan, when he was engaged in the first election of 1905, with the speech with which he has just favoured the House this afternoon. As I understand it, he is speaking of the officers of the Department of the Interior and dealing with this same resolution that was approved by both sides of the House. His interview in part is as follows; he is referring to homestead inspectors and others:
They have the power of speech and therefore they are entitled to express their political opinions. They are entitled to express them to homesteaders; they are entitled to express them to men under their control; they are entitled to go on the public platform and express them as presidents and officers of Liberal organizations.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask my hon. friend the authority for that interview?


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will find it in the public press of Saskatchewan of that day.


Frank Oliver: What paper was it published in??


Robert Rogers: I will try to get my hon. friend a copy, I simply copied this out of the paper some time ago.


Frank Oliver: Before my hon. friend
goes any further, I wish to say that such a statement as being made by me is absolutely false.


Robert Rogers: I shall be glad to provide my hon. friend with a press report of it, and he will satisfy himself in the matter. My hon. friend talks about the responsibility resting upon an officer of the department and especially upon a minister who is responsible for the administration of a department. If my hon. friend is not satisfied with the statement in respect to the interview which I have quoted, probably he will be satisfied with an official record of the department, by which record he, as Minister of the Interior, divested himself of all rights and of all powers in respect to the form of appointments made for the filling of positions in the western provinces of Canada. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has mentioned here to-day the name of one R. E. A. Leech, a gentleman whose name is fast becoming a household word in various parts of this Dominion, largely by reason of the services which he has been able to render the hon. gentlemen opposite, and by reason of the generous compensation which he has received in various forms from the public treasury for services so rendered. That gentleman was the Liberal organizer of the province of Manitoba when that famous scheme of the thin red line was practised by which thousands of the best citizens of that province were deprived of their right and of their liberty to exercise the franchise. How was that effort of Mr. Leech appreciated by the Government of hon. gentlemen opposite in those days? I am quoting from a public record how he was appreciated by no less a person than my hon. friend the member for Edmonton who issued this instruction, dated Ottawa, March 23, 1906:
Memorandum.
Mr. K. E. A. Leech,-With a view to securing more efficient service in office and field work in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, you are hereby given authority to . suspend, for cause and for such time as deemed . advisable, any Dominion Lands agent, clerk, homestead inspector, sub-agent, or other employee in the service of the Lands Branch of the Department of the Interior. You will .promptly report to head office each case of such *Suspension, giving full particulars as to the reasons for the action taken, when the matter will be dealt with by the department.
(Sgd.) Frank Oliver.
In view of these conditions, in view of file appointment of men under such a head and Under such an officer of the department as Mr. R. E. A. Leech, is it any

wonder that a practice should have been established in those western provinces whereby the officials of the Department of the Interior in particular have from time to time taken part in political contests? I am frank in admitting that it is becoming a very common practice. As my friend the Minister of the Interior said, before the present Government took office, you could not go into any constituency without being met by a horde of Liberal employees taking part in, taking charge of and managing the political campaign of the Liberal party.
In so far as the accusation of my hon. friend from Humbolt (Mr. Neely) is concerned, I was not in the House when he was speaking and I did not hear of it. All that I have to say in respect to Mr. Campbell is that he was for some time a member of this House. I understand that he is an efficient official. If he is guilty of this particular charge, which my hon. friend has made against him, it is a matter of great surprise and of great regret to me. I can only hope and only promise hon. gentlemen opposite that in elections in western Canada, as far as officers of any department of the Government are concerned, they will receive a great deal better treatment, and I hope perfect treatment, as compared with the treatment which we received when we had to go into these contests.



THE DUTY ON BASIC SLAG.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Foster for Committee of Supply:
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland):: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to invite the attention of the House to a matter of very great importance, especially to. the people of eastern Canada; and I propose, before resuming my seat to conclude with the motion of which I have given my hon. friend the Minister of Customs notice. A year ago or so I took occasion, availing myself of the privilege accorded to me as a member of this House, to call the attention of hon. members and of the country to the trend of events with respect to legislation in Canada. On that occasion, I illustrated my viewpoint by calling to the attention of the House several Bills which were simply Bills of an enabling character, Bills giving power to the Governor in Council to legislate in respect to the matter they referred to. I think I pointed out that the Naval Bill was an enabling statute, that the Highways Bill, the Bill relating to Branch Lines, the Agricultural Bill, were all

enabling statutes, that all gave power to the Governor in Council to legislate with regard to matters that should be under the direct control of the people of the country through their representatives. I called attention to the fact that in one particular Bill, namely, that relating to railway construction and railway acquisition, it was an enabling statute giving the Minister of Railways-not merely the Governor in Council, but the Minister of Railways power and authority to do in this respect that which should be performed and controlled by the Parliament of Canada. I think that in some measure I illustrated the dangers incident to legislation by Order in Council. I pointed out that it meant that we were going back in history and doing over again under this Administration what had been done when we were mere colonies under the Crown and under the direction of a Governor in Council who legislated in a large measure for the people. I thought at that time, and I still think, that that class of legislation is against the best interests of Canada. But we have developed very recently a method of legislation in Canada that is much more dangerous and much more inimical to the public interest than that of the Order in Council. I refer to orders made by the Board of Customs of Canada. That is a much more dangerous form of legislation, because of the secrecy of its character, and the subtlety of its nature, and because it is surreptitious in the method pursued, it legislates in respect to matters which should be under the control of Parliament and should be subject to public discussion and within the knowledge of the whole people. An illustration of this is to be found in a case which has developed within the last few days. To an inquiry I made I received an answer from the Minister of Customs to the effect that no Order in Council had been passed whereby the importation of slag into Canada was affected, but that there had been an order of the Customs Board, passed in September last which imposed, or had the effect of imposing, a duty on what is known as basic slag. I need not recite the question and answer. The minister made a statement with respect to the order of the Customs Board, and he placed in my hands for the information of hon. members the following:
Meeting of the Board of Customs held, Ottawa, 9th September, 1913.
Question of duty on basic furnace slag, ground.
Declared to be dutiable under tariff item 663 and in effect from 9th November, 1913.
John McDougald,
Chairman.


Mr. CARROLL:: Is basic slag the raw
material, that is, the product of the steel mill?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a raw material, ground material, but that will develop as I proceed. Accompanying this order of the Customs Board was the following memorandum-or at least that was furnished me after I had first received a copy of the order. The order on its face seems to have dropped into the groove in which the Customs Board would meet: there is nothing preliminary to show any initiative with respect to this order. There was no application; apparently it dropped from the heavens, without being put in motion by anybody.


Mr. BRODER:: Is the hon. gentleman
finding fault with anything that dropped from the heavens?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I should be very
happy to congratulate the hon. gentleman if I thought he came from that direction.


Mr. FOSTER:: That is where he is going.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: To the Senate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sure we hope he
will get there; I am afraid that if he keeps the company he is now keeping, there may some doubt with regard to his ultimate destination. This memorandum, which is dated February 6, 1914, reads as follows:
The question of the duty on basic slag, ground, was referred to the Board of Customs, 9th September, 1913, under section 5S of the Customs Act, on the verbal representations of the manager of the Cross Fertilizers Company, who claims that the company has a capital of $140,000 invested in the manufacture of ground basic slag at Sydney, N.S., and that in 1912 they manufactured 16,000 tons of this article. Respectfully submitted,
John McDougald, Commissioner of Customs.
I do not propose to analyse that memorandum, or to comment upon it. It says that the Board of Customs took action under t'he 58th section of the Customs Act of Canada with respect to a commodity referred to in the order as basic furnace slag, ground. For many years, down to November 9 last, under the provisions of the customs tariff of 1907, blast furnace slag came into Canada free of all customs impost.
Mr. A. IC. MACLEAN: What is the number of the tariff item?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 372. Under the order passed on September 9 this was made dutiable under item 663 of the tariff, which reads as follows:
Fertilizers, compounded or manufactured, n.o.p., 5 per cent British preferential tariff, 7i per cent intermediate tariff, 10 per cent general tariff.
I wish to read, and to ask hon. members of this House to note the reading of it, the 58t'h section of the Customs Tariff Act, under which this order was passed:
Whenever any difference arises or when even any doubt exists as to any or what rate of duty is payable on any class of goods, and there is no previous decision upon the question by any competent tribunal, binding throughout Canada, the Board of Customs may declare the rate of duty payable on the class of goods in question, or that such goods are exempt from duty, subject in each case to an appeal, by any person interested, to the Governor in Council, and any such declaration of the Board of Customs when approved by the minister, or any such declaration when made by any Order in Council upon appeal, shall have force and effect as if the same had been sanctioned by statute.
This is a provision of the statute which enables the Customs Board, under certain conditions, to vary and control certain items of the tariff. I hold that the order passed in September last is not in accord with the statute. Under the provisions of the statute, any declaration so made by the Board of Customs shall have force and effect only when approved by the Minister, and it must therefore appear on the face of the order that there were doubts or differences in respect of the subject matter of the order, which, when passed, requires the approval of the minister and can only be made effective by that approval being made part of the order. Therefore in my judgment the order itself is illegal and improper.
I want to say that this is a dangerous method of making conditions with respect to the importation of anything into this country. I admit that the order refers to basic furnace slag, ground, whilst item 372 of the tariff mentions blast furnace slag.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does the order refer to the number of this item?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it makes no reference to item 372; it simply says: 'duty on basic furnace slag, ground,' Under the provisions of item 372, blast furnace slag has been imported into Canada for many years free of duty. It will be observed that item 372 does not say that blast furnace slag is free only when unground; it does not refer to it in anyway as being ground or unground. I can only infer that a dis-

tinction is made between blast furnace slag and basic furnace slag, ground. I hold, in the first place, that the Board of Customs had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, that they have not followed the statute, that the provisions and conditions of that statute have not been observed by them or recognized by them. We all know and it is well understood that wherever a tribunal is created by statute the terms of the statute must be strictly followed in order to give jurisdiction to that tribunal. A statutory court has jurisdiction and authority only when the provisions of the statute are rigidly followed and strictly adhered to. It must be shown on the face of the proceedings that that has been done. In this instance there is no such showing, it does not appear that they had jurisdiction, and my contention is that under that order any duty that has been collected by the Customs of Canada to-day on blast furnace slag imported into Canada is collected unjustifiably and without authority of law, and not in any way ratified by the action of the board itself.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51, respecting the Bronson Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 52, respecting the Central Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. W. H. Bennett.
Bill No. 53, respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mae-donell.
Bill No. 54, respecting the Niagara-Welland Power Company.-Mr. Blain.
Bill No. 55, respecting the Quinze and Blanche Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp.

Henry Robert Emmerson: Before
recess, I was referring to the object of this order of the Customs Board, and in doing so I had remarked on the very great injustice and the secrecy of it. For many years slag has been used by the farmers in conjunction with other commodities as a fertilizer. The slag is brought in, in a ground form and is then combined with nitrates and potash. I presume the phosphorous in the slag has certain fertilizing qualities. The farmer mixes these commodities together on his barn floor and utilizes the compound as

a fertilizer. The effect of the order of the board has been very material, and has caused very serious surprise. It was not made the subject matter of a tariff discussion in this House, nor was it even subject matter of an application made on behalf of some association. Nothing was heard of it, until, suddenly, out of a clear sky came the intelligence that there had been imposed upon this article a customs tariff of 10 per cent in the case of general importation, and in the case of preferential, a duty of 5 per cent. Slag is a by-product of steel manufacture. It is a sort of cinder and can be used in the form in which it comes from the factory, as a fertilizer for grass lands, but not so effectively as if it were crushed by the farmer. When ground, it is more effective as it reaches more roots of the grass or grain, as the case may be.


Mr. J. A. SEXSMITH (East Peterborough) :: Does this basic slag add any fertility to the soil?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is used for root
crops in a mixture that the chemical fertilizing companies make of slag, nitrates and potash. In its crude form, that is, just as it is taken from the refuse of the mill, it has a fertilizing effect on grass lands, at least, it is so claimed, and it has been used by the farmers, particularly in Eastern Canada, for that purpose. I may say it is also used by the orchardists of Nova Scotia in the Annapolis Valley. I will have occasion a little later on to refer to the transactions of that body with respect to this matter. I believe that a fruit grower from Nova Scotia appeared before the Agricultural Committee of this House last session and gave evidence before the Committee with respect to the importation of slag to the Nova Scotia orchardists.


John Albert Sexsmith: I do not think the
hon. gentleman understands my question. Does slag add to the fertility of the soil, or is it its chemical action on the soil that gives slag its value?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not expert
enough to explain that to my hon. friend. I know it is used as a plant food.


John Albert Sexsmith: I hardly think it is
a plant food. It is used for its chemical effect.


Henry Robert Emmerson: At any rate, I can
tell my hon. friend that the farmers spread it on their grass lands and I presume they do so because it helps in the growing of their crops. Slag is also used for making
blocks and in connection with road making, and it used to be brought into Canada, under clause 372 of the tariff, free of duty. The order of the Customs Board transferred it from clause 372 to item 663, ' fertilizers compounded or manufactured,' and imposed a duty on it. The question might arise, and I presume it was in the minds of the Customs Board, as to whether this was a manufactured fertilizer.


John Albert Sexsmith: It is not a fertilizer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Customs Board
have treated it as a fertilizer.


John Albert Sexsmith: I understand it only helps the farmer to mine the soil; it is not a fertilizer at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then on the statement of the hon. gentleman, the action of the Board of Customs in making it subject to duty under item 663, which covers fertilizers compounded or manufactured, was without any excuse whatever. I was going on to discuss the question as to whether the mere grinding or crushing of the slag made it a manufactured article. It is a question about which there may be a difference of opinion. My own judgment would be that it is not a manufactured article when so treated any more than ashes brought in and put upon the land would be if the ashes were sifted. The mere sifting of the ashes or the grinding or the material in no way changes their component parts. The grinding of the slag is for the greater convenience of the farmer in spreading it over his land with the greatest possible effect. My contention in respect to this matter is, first, that whatever was attempted to be done was illegally attempted to be done, and, in the second place, that there is no justification for placing this article under item 663.
But the farmers of eastern Canada, the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley, the farmers of Westmorland county, who have been using this article for years not paying any duty upon it, were astounded on learning that it was subject to duty. They only learned it in November, and I have some evidence to offer with respect to the method by which this was carried out. Here is a duty of 10 per cent placed upon this article. They usually brought it in delivered at Halifax or St. John at $11.50 a ton. Slag brought from Sydney could only be purchased at $11.50 a ton; that is at a price equal to the foreign article delivered at an ocean port. If you would ask quotations for slag from the Sydney people you would be quoted a price of $11.50 at Hali-

fax or at St. John, plus the freight to the point where the article was required. If an Antigonish farmer sought to buy slag at Sydney he would be quoted $11.50. at Halifax, because that is the cost of the foreign article, plus the freight from Halifax to Antigonish. The article was quoted at $11.50 at Halifax in order to meet the foreign competition and in addition to that there would be the freight from Halifax to St. John to the point where the article was required to be used.
That situation confronted the farmer. At the very same moment, and it is strange that they should synchronize, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals' (Mr. Cochrane) imposed an additional freight tariff over the Intercolonial railway of, first, about 40 cents a ton from St. John to Sackville in Westmorland county. The farmer had imposed upon him the burden of this tariff, and in addition to that, by another department of the Government he had exacted from him 40 cents a ton as freight on this very same article. The method pursued is a simple one, whereby with simply turning a screw, an additional amount is extorted from the farming interests of Canada. I am amazed at the ease with which it is accomplished. An effort was made by the farmers of western Canada to get free wheat. They sent large delegations, they sent men who were representative of large agricultural associations, men who came here representing thousands and thousands of farmers asking the Government to give them free wheat. The Government would not listen, but here, according to this, one lone man from Sydney, Cape Breton, accidentally meets the Commissioner of Customs. I am only assuming this. The manager of a fertilizer company down in Sydney makes a quiet request, stealthily, without any public notice being given, that this article which had been brought into Canada free of customs, should be made subject to a duty of 10 per cent, and lo, it is accomplished. This is quietly and secretly turning the screw whereby the Customs revenue of Canada is increased and the burdens of the farmers of Canada are added to. The extent to which this method is adopted, I am informed, is something startling. I have been told on very good authority that the increases by this method during the last two or three years would amount to an addition of one per cent to the average Customs tariff of Canada. Yet the people do not realize it until they are called upon to pay the

duty, because, after all, it is the consumer who has to pay the duty.
This article of which I am speaking is the raw material of the farmer in eastern Canada. He cannot get manure in abundance. The long cold winters make it almost impossible for the farmers to keep very large stocks of cattle. There is a scarcity of fertilizer, and they are compelled to pay to commercial fertilizer companies prices ranging from $25 to $42 per ton. The $42 article is recognized by the intelligent farmer as being more economical than the $25 article because of its richness in fertilizing qualities. They pay in most instances from $40 to $42 a ton for commercial fertilizers. The product of that fertilizing material is not worth, and I am told by intelligent farmers will not realize to them, $42 a ton on wheat or whatever may be the product grown. That is to say, the farmers cannot realize in the first year $42 a ton for the crop which is planted on the area covered by this material. Therefore it is a matter that is of some moment and that is attracting attention.
There is one subject that is being discussed very generally throughout Canada to-day. It is discussed in this House, in the press, on the public platform, by the fireside in the homes of our country, everywhere it is discussed,-I refer to the increased cost of living. Many contributing causes are alleged. I am not going to speak of the causes or to discuss them. Many people in our towns and cities state that one of the causes for the increased cost of living is the lessened production on the farm. The cry goes out from the artisan and the labourer and the mechanic that the farmer is reaping everything; that he is charging too much for the products of his farm and that he is being enriched at the expense of the consumer. They say: Why do you not produce more? They say that the prices of agricultural products such as vegetables, butter and other products that are in general use as necessities of life, are all higher by reason of the fact of under production. The claim is, and I think it is fairly and rightly made, that the farmers, in eastern Canada at least, are not producing to the extent that they should do. That very fact increases the cost of production because the supply is not equal to the demand. The farmers answer that they are doing their utmost, and many of them say that they have not the plant food required to enable them to till their land so that their production can be greater. Another answer has been very fairly made by the

farmers that'because of the restricted markets they are not encouraged and stimulated to further production; that there is a fluctuation and even an uncertainty with respect to a market. That is one of the reasons why I, as an individual, supported reciprocity, because I believe that it would afford an additional market and a choice of markets, thus assuring stability of production, giving assurance to the farmer that if he could not succeed in one market he would succeed in another, and that it would be to his advantage, as it would be to the advantage of a consumer, that the production should be greater and steadier, and therefore the prices would be steadier and more to the satisfaction of the consumer as well as of the producer. It is not to the advantage of the farmer to have a very high price during one year and a very low price during the next year for the same commodity, and it is certainly not of advantage to the consumer. The latter would rather have an assured supply at a steady price than have the supply and the price fluctuate up and down.
That is a mere discussion of the economics involved in this question. The action of the Customs Board, which I hold was not regular because it nowhere appears that the Minister of Customs gave his approval as required under the Act, has indeed resulted to the injury of the farming community in eastern Canada, as I am well informed, and I believe to the farmers generally throughout Canada wherever commercial fertilizers are made and sold.
This slag is used by the commercial fertilizing companies in the manufacture of fertilizing materials in conjunction with other component parts, as I have said, nitrates and potash. These materials are imported from abroad, largely from Chili, Belgium, Germany, the Southern States, etc. The slag and the potash and the nitrates are brought in free under the tariff of Canada. The slag, however, under this order is made subject to a duty. The additional freight rate and the additional duty bear heavily upon the farmers in eastern Canada. To that extent it has an effect upon the production of the farms in eastern Canada, upon the supply of the necessities of life required by the consumers. In that way, it has a natural bearing upon the high cost of living.
I have had the advantage of having this matter placed before me by a very intelligent farmer who comes from my own constituency and whose name, wherever
known, is respected. I can best quote from his letter to me. He says:
One of the several serious handicaps to profitable farming in these two provinces is the low grade quality and excessive prices of most of the fertilizers offered to our farmers. Those well-meaning wise people who do all their farming on paper are continually telling us how easy it would be to double the yield per acre by better methods. But every practical farmer knowsand my informant is a practical farmer; he is not a gentleman farmer in the usual meaning of that term.
-that on our average upland farms, with its more or less exhausted soil, bigger crops cannot be raised, unless more plant-food is supplied to that soil in the shape of fertilizers. The immense cost of feeding cattle through our long winters and occasional short crops of fodder make it impossible for any man to keep sufficient live stock to produce more than a trifling supply of barn manure, totally inadequate for any enlargement of his fields, or increased yields per acre.
How, then, I ask, shall the farmer make good in the face of these facts, and double the fruits of his field? 4 Nothing is easier,' answer the manufacturers. ' See our factories,' they exclaim, * all over these provinces, turning out unlimited quantities and endless variety of fertilizers already mixed, to supply your every want.' 'Buy our mixed fertilizers, Mr. Farmer, double your crops per acre, and get rich quick,' is the slogan of their many agents sent out to push the sale of these goods. Unfortunately for the farmers, however, our tariff maintains a heavy duty on all mixed fertilizers. With this advantage, our Canadian fertilizer companies apparently fix their prices to the farmer on the basis of charging him * all that the traffic will bear,'-$25, $30 and even up to $42 per ton is demanded for these mixed goods. At the same time, our farmers know $1 per ton is the outside market-value of barn manure for common crops. Is it any wonder, then, that the farmers are suspicious of such costly goods and buy so little of them? Is it any wonder farm crops are decreasing in these two provinces when the men who try to grow them are charged $40 to $42 per ton for mixed fertilizer of the standard analysis of 4-8-10, which is the lowest grade any man should use? Forty dollars per, ton! Just think of it! Not one of our principal crops, not even wheat, is worth $40 per ton. At such unreasonable prices, it requires the whole gross proceeds of three to five acres of hay, or of wheat, or of oats, or of barley, to pay the first cost of a single ton of these factory mixed fertilizers, to say nothing of the large cost of raising and harvesting the crop besides. I freely admit there are plenty of mixed fertilizers on market for $30 per ton, or for less. Much of the factory mixed product, however, is of such low grade analysis, and so completely stuffed with 4 fillers ' as to make it even more expensive to those who use them, than the better quality at the bigger price.
I relate now the experience of this gentleman with respect to the treatment of this material:

Having become impressed years ago with our great need of better and cheaper fertilizers, I set out to inform myself if such were nnt obtainable ; and, if so, why these provinces should be deprived of their benefits. Travelling in the Southern States, I found their immense production of cotton, corn, tobacco, sugar cane and garden truck, practically all depended on the lavish use of high-grade fertilizers obtained at a reasonable cost. English farmers have steadily increased their yields per acre by importing guano for the last fifty years from another hemisphere; and now with that supply becoming scarce, they have an abundance of high-grade slag at home at prices nominal, compared with the cost of the same grades here. Being fully convinced that I could double the proceeds from my farm operations if permitted to buy reliable fertilizers at their value in the open market, I determined to make the effort.
One year ago, in conjunction with my brother, A. Chase Faweett, and C. Fred. Fawcett, we set out to buy a few carloads of fertilizers for ourselves and a few neighbours, at what we had learned was something near their real value in the open markets of the world. After weeks of correspondence and many interviews with agents of our Canadian mixed fertilizer companies, we found it impossible to buy their mixed goods at anything near our estimate of their real values. Rather than pay their prices, we decided to buy the several imported ingredients and do our own mixing by hand on our own bam floors. To make a long story short, we soon had six carloads at our station; three of slag direct from England, for our grass and grain, and three of phosphate rock, potash and nitrate, to blend in a 4-8-10 mixture for potatoes and turnips. The best evidence I can give of the complete success of our experiment and the satisfaction we all got by mixing our own fertilizers and knowing just what they contained, is to mention the fact that we are now placing our next spring order for five times as much as last year (or some eight thousand dollars' worth) lor our own and nearby neighbours' use.
There is the result of the experiment of this farmer in eastern Canada. He is voicing the judgment, experience and opinion of all farmers there who have had occasion to purchase commercial fertilizers. With respect to his experiment, he goes on to say:
Much as we saved in purchase money and gained in better crops, however, was only in small comparison with valuable knowledge we acquired in the venture. By carrying on a wide correspondence and by further persistently delving into the mysteries of the fertilizer business, we now find that for next year, we can buy most of these unmixed products for even less money than last year, and possibly save something besides on freight rates and larger orders.
But the increase of duty discounts this very much, as also does the recent increase in Intercolonial freight rates. For he and his associates live along the line of the Intercolonial railway, and the recent increase on this material largely discounts

the advantage they were to- secure by reason of the experiment which they made last year, and the greater knowledge gained by them in study, correspondence and travel. Evidence of that character must of necessity have a very great weight with hon. members of this House, and it must make them realize that the Government of the day, in imposing these additional burdens on the farmers of eastern Canada, have done something which is unjustifiable and against the best interests of the country. If they want to help production, then let the farmer have this material free. This is the farmer's raw material. The protectionist clings to the idea always that, while he should have protection for his manufactured products, the raw material must come in free. That he demands, that he insists upon, and that he secures from any government that is carried on on protectionist lines. The farmer asks that his raw material, this slag, be made free. He goes further- although this may not be pertinent to the discussion of the particular motion I am bringing before the House-he asks that all fertilizers should be made free, because all fertilizers are his raw material out of which he brings forth the manufactured product, the crop. If you want to lessen even in a slight degree the cost of farm products to the labourer, the artisan and the consumer everywhere, make it possible for the farmers to produce their crops at a lower percentage of cost. This can be done always by increased production, and it certainly can be accomplished if you give the farmer his raw material free, and refrain from burdening him with customs duties.
I want to relate some further facts in regard to the manner in which this order was passed by the Board of Customs. (Reading):
We first learned of this proposal to impose such a duty-
That is, the duty that was imposed on the 9th of November.
by accident. We heard it as a rumour first, but now realize that it is all too true. In October we were on the point of closing a contract for 1,000 tons of British or Belgian slag with the Nitrate Agencies Company, New York city. Said slag was to be of extra quality and some dollars per ton cheaper than any ever on our market before. It contained 17 per cent to 19 per cent phosphorus, with 14 per cent guaranteed soluble and available.
Perhaps the hon. member who questioned me. a few moments ago will take that to heart.


Hon. J. D. REID:: Is the hon. gentleman now reading from the same letter as that which he quoted from a few moments ago?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, from another
letter.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not from a farmer?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is.


John Dowsley Reid: And he was buying a
thousand tons for his own use?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For his own use and the use of his neighbours; they were cooperating. This man is a practical farmer, a man of some means, and because of his being a practical farmer, working his farm as it should be worked, he is in a position to give an order for a thousand tons for himself and his associates. I think my hon. friend should not look down upon him or regard him with scorn because he is a practical farmer.


John Dowsley Reid: I was not looking down upon him; I simply asked the hon. gentleman a question.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. minister
spoke contemptuously, and in a way in which I would not expect him to speak.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Give him the name.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The name of the gentleman in question is W. B. Fawcett, of Sackville, county of Westmorland. He was born and brought up in a Conservative family. The Fawcett family has been Conservative from time immemorial-until they had their eyes opened by the iniquities of the tariff. The letter goes on:
It contains 17 per cent to 19 per cent phosphorus and with 14 per cent guaranteed solu-able and available, and was to be delivered to us f.o.b. cars St. John, N.B., at $10 per ton. The Sydney slag advertised and sold throughout these two provinces only carries an analysis of 14 per cent to 16 per cent phosphorus with 12.05 per cent, guaranteed soluble and available to the farmer, or his crops. Just at this point this Nitrate Company informed of the impending duty, with the result that we deemed it prudent to reduce our order to 500 tons under such new conditions as we will have to pay the $5 extra in duty, in case they bring us Belgian slag, or a trifle less if British slag. Another addition to the hold-up in our efforts to increase the farm crops in this vicinity: Mr. Gutelius lately saw fit to give the Maritime farmers a further kick to the tune of 40 cents per ton additional cost in freight from either St. John or Halifax to Sackville. Some say this has again been slightly altered leaving the increase in freight over the Intercolonial at about thirty cents per ton.
Whilst Mr. Fawcett, a very intelligent man and an educated farmer, has his own views with respect to tariffs, and whilst he has been a Conservative, he is not in any sense a political partisan. He was in favour of reciprocity, believing in the interchange of natural products between this country and the people of tne United States. To the fact that the Conservatives in his community so believed, I owe my election in 1911 as a member of this House, because in that vicinity and in other sections of the country there were in 1911 at least fifty Conservative reciprocity men who voted not for me personally, but for the principle which I espoused, reciprocity. Mr. Fawcett took that view.


William Cameron Edwards: How did your majority compare with 1908? The hon. gentleman is making an assertion which the figures do not back up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have said that I owe my election to fifty reciprocity votes. Although I had a majority of 1,400 in 1908, I am free to say that had it not been for these votes I would not have been elected in 1911. I asked Mr. Fawcett if he had ever imported any of this slag in former years. He says:
Yes, in a small way we did last year, three carloads. It camel about as follows: The United Fruit Company of Annapolis valley quoted us Sydney slag at Halifax at $11.50 per ton, and added that they thought they could deliver it at Sackville at same figure, because freight rate, Sydney to Sackville, was the same as Sydney to Halifax. Later on they advised us they were unable to do so. Then we wrote directly to the Cross Fertilizer Company at Sydney asking them if they would deliver us three cars at Sackville at the $11.50. Mr. Walker, their manager, answered they could not deliver at less than the $11.50 Halifax price plus freight Halifax to Sackville, $1.20 per ton. Failing to see any justice or equity in thus being held up for two rates of freight Sydney to Sackville just because Sackville was unfortunate enough to be placed alongside of a railway instead of alongside St. John or Halifax or any other ocean port, we wired-
Hun. gentlemen can see the force of this statement. He has charged $11.50 a ton, the Halifax price, plus freight Halifax to Sackville but the Sydney concern made their price at Halifax to equal the price of the imported article, plus the duty at Halifax, plus the freight to Sackville.
-we wired Mr. Whlker again that we would take three cars of his slag delivered at Sackville at $11.50 per ton the same as he offered it to us at Halifax, same also as he offered it to us delivered at St. John even after he paid Intercolonial railway freight all the way from Sydney to St. John, otherwise if he refused us the slag at the competitive ocean port price

$11.50 we would give our little trade to the foreign slag which evidently was the only influence at keeping prices within the farmers reach.
Outside of this venture in slag we also imported about three other carloads of potash as it comes from Germany, nitrate as it comes from Chili and phosphate brought as it comes from the Southern States in proper proportions to mix in a complete fertilizer for potatoes and other crops of any analysis of 4 per cent nitrogen 2 per cent phosphorus and 10 per cent potash, After we got mixing these ingredients on our own barn floors we were visited by our New Brunswick Secretary of Agriculture (Mr. Daggett) with his expert chemist (Mr. Durst) who testified that our materials were so true to analysis that each ton was worth from $1 to $2 per ton more than any four by eight by ten mixture put up by any fertilizer manufacturer in the two provinces and sold to farmers at $40 to $42 per ton. We distributed our three cars among our neighbour farmers at $29 per ton which just paid labour and expenses of handling but no profit.
Now, there is the experiment of a practical farmer acting in co-operation with his neighbours, anxious to increase the production of their farm land, feeling the necessity of enriohing those lands with plant food, but not having available the natural manure on their farms for fertilizing purposes. They seek to get it at the cheapest possible price, at a price more in keeping with the value of the material, and co-operating, buy the ingredients which go to make up a commercial fertilizer, mix them on their barn floors and have a material that does not cost more than $29 a ton, a material that is, according to the testimony of the agricultural experts of the province of New Brunswick, better in fertilizing qualities than is the ordinary fertilizer purchased from the commercial fertilizer companies. It seems to me, without dwelling further upon the subject, that the action of the Government in attempting to extort secretly from the farmers this additional toll on their raw materials should be condemned. I have further said that the Customs Board were
9 p.m. not justified in passing that order, that it is illegal and improper and that it works very serious injustice to the farming community of the Maritime provinces particularly. I presume that wherever in Canada commercial fertilizers are in use there is a proportionate injustice and loss to the farming communities in those sections. I would therefore move, seconded by Mr. Hughes, of Kings, P.E.I.:
That under article 372 of the Customs tariff of Canada, 1907, blast furnace slag is on the free list, but that the Board of Customs, at a meeting held on the 9th day of September, A.D. 1913, improperly and illegally declared the same to be dutiable under tariff item 663

and in effect from the 9th of November, 1913, without such declaration being, as appears, approved by the Minister of Customs as required by statute and that the Department of Customs in now subjecting the same to duty is violating the statute to the great injustice and loss of the farming community.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the situation appears to me to be something like this, that this Government, desiring to give the manufacturers of the country all the advantages that it is possible to give them, desiring to help them in every way even to the disadvantage of others, and not finding it expedient to raise the customs duties in the ordinary way, by increasing the tariff, have taken advantage of every possible excuse to do the same thing in another way, that is by rulings of the' Customs Board. This slag, as has been pointed out by the mover, is an ingredient in the compound of fertilizers and under the late Government it was admitted free of duty. By the tariff law of the country it was admitted free of duty. Some manufacturer in some part of Canada who treated this article in some way or other conceived the idea that it would be 'greatly to his advantage to have a duty put on it and apparently all he had to do was to see the Ministet of Customs, to see a member of this Government, and straightway a ruling of the Customs Board was obtained by which this article, which had hitherto been free, was subjected to a duty of 7 to 10 per cent.
That appears to be a peculiar way of helping the farmers, and this Government has often told us that its great desire is to help the farmers. It is something like the ruling of the Customs Board-putting a duty of $2 a thousand on lumber that had hitherto entered this country free. Rough lumber was admitted free, and under a ruling of the Customs Department of the late Government lumber planed on one side only was considered as rough lumber; but when this Government came into power, and when the present minister took charge of the Customs Department, he made a ruling subjecting that kind of lumber to a duty.
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs). That is not right. I may say that rough lumber, or lumber planed on one side, comes in free, and has always been free.


James Joseph Hughes: It is free now, but it was
not free a year or two ago.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it was. It was only
dutiable when planed on both sides.


James Joseph Hughes: At all events, it is true that lumber that was admitted free by the late Government was, by a ruling of the Customs Board, made dutiable by this Government. Lumber is a necessity, almost a prime necessity, to the people living on the plains where lumber is very scarce. It is certainly raw material to the farmers, who have to build houses and barns for the protection of themselves and their stock, and the people who suffered loss by reason of that ruling brought their case to the Supreme Court of Canada, and as I understand it, the Supreme Court found that the ruling of the Customs Board was illegal, and ordered the removal of the duty which had been imposed by the present Minister of Customs. That is one of the things which show the insincerity of this Government when they state that they have the interests of the farmers at heart. They are willing to educate the farmer and do a great many things for him, providing he allows them to tax him all he can bear for the advantage of the manufacturers and the big interests. They are willing to pay professors, and the Lord knows how many men, to educate the farmer, and it is a peculiar education he gets, in some cases at all events. Some years ago a professor came down to my own province and told us that the very best thing the farmers could do was to establish cheese factories and manufacture cheese. He was a learned man and spoke well. The farmers thought he understood the business and took his advice. They established a great many cheece factories. But a few years after that another professor came along and said they had made a great mistake, that cheese farming was not the thing for them, and told them they should have gone in for making butter. He advised them to discard the machinery they already had in the cheese factories, and to install the very expensive machinery necessary for the making of butter. It has been well said that if you would get off the farmer's back, and allow him the freedom of working for himself, in nine cases out of ten he would be able to educate himself, and perhaps be able to give himself a better education than these high-salaried professors give him. If this Government were really sincere in its effort to help the farmer, it would at least give him his raw material free of duty, and lumber and fertilizer are raw material to the farmer, as has been pointed out. Why in the name of common sense, is an effort being made by the back door to tax this material that is so essential to
a farmer's existence? It seems to. me to be a very peculiar thing, but perhaps the minister may he able to explain it. It is just another indication that this Government wishes to put all the burdens it can upon the farming community for the benefit of the privileged classes, and for the benefit of the men whose orders they have to obey. It is well for the farmers to know the actual situation, and it is well that these things are occasionally exposed. This is an education that the farmers ought to get, and, so far as I am concerned, I will try to give it to them. If the minister has any explanation to make, I trust it will be a reasonable explanation; but there is one thing he cannot explain away, and it is this: that this article, which is of very great importance to the farmers of this country, came in free under the kat-e Government, and under this Government it is taxed to the disadvantage of the farmer and at the behest, I suppose, of somebody who thinks he can make a profit out of it.


John Dowsley Reid: I am very much surprised to see the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) pose as the farmer's champion. Last year when we had the Highways Bill before the House the hon. member did not pose as a champion of the farmer. This Government last year and the year before, put a large amount in the Estimates for the building of good roads for the farmers, and the hon. member for Westmorland was one of those who did what he could to prevent that money being expended.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, no, you are wrong on that, as you are wrong on this.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. mernoer's whole
argument was to show that fertilizers should be on the free list. In 1906, when the present tariff was being drawn up, the Hon. Mr. Fielding went into council, as every minister must do, and submitted that tariff for the approval of the Cabinet, and the hon. member for Westmorland sat at that council and approved of fertilizers being put on the dutiable list.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was the tariff of 1907; I was not a member of the Government then.


John Dowsley Reid: November, 1906, was the time at which this tariff was passed, and the hon. member was a member of the Government and approved of a duty being placed on fertilizers, and placed, as he argues, to the disadvantage of the farmers of the country.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now you have a chance to remedy it.


John Dowsley Reid: That may be, but the hon. member did not remedy it, and from 1906 until the present time he has never stood up in the House and advocated that fertilizers be put on the free list.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The farmers are asking for it, and you have the opportunity now; why do you not do it?


John Dowsley Reid: Now, this resolution states:
That under Article 372, of the Custom Tariff of Canada 1907, blast furnace slag is on the free list but that the Board of Customs, at a meeting held on the 9th day of September, A.D. 1913, improperly and illegally declared the same to be dutiable under Tariff Item 663.
That resolution does not state, what is the fact so far as blast furnace slag is concerned,'that it is still on the free list. But if you bring in another article and call it basic or ground slag, it is a different article altogether; it is a manufactured article and is not the article specified in the tariff item.


William F. Carroll: 
John Dowsley Reid: No, I have not heard of it. There is no such interpretation by the Customs Board. They do not know it in any other way except as blast furnace slag.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the difference between blast furnace and basic slag?


John Dowsley Reid: They call it basic slag because blast furnace slag is the base of the article which has been manufactured or ground.


William F. Carroll: Blast furnace slag, that is in the rough, is still allowed to come in free?


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly. The hon. member has admitted that this blast furnace slag in the rough, as mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) is manufactured into other articles, such as paving blocks. There is one article of manufacture called scoria blocks-blocks that are put under the ties in a street railway. The scoria blocks are manufactured in this way: the slag runs in hot state into forms which are so made that when the material cools it is in the shape of a square block. Would the hon. member for Westmorland state that these blocks should be brought into this country and called blast furnace slag?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why not?


John Dowsley Reid: It is changed into a manufactured article altogether.	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is only a new form in which it is brought in.


John Dowsley Reid: It becomes another article
altogether. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that corn is on the free list; if you simply ground the corn and brought the product in, would you still be allowed to bring it in as corn?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not a parallel case; you say that the slag is run into a mould.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a parallel case. The
article is brought into this country not as blast furnace slag but it is brought in and sold as fertilizer the same as any other manufactured fertilizer. When the importer brings this fertilizer, manufactured from blast furnace slag, through the customs house he enters it for the article for which he purchased it-that is fertilizer-and pays the duty imposed by the tariff of 1907. But this article had been imported and it was not brought to the notice of the customs. The importers have been bringing it in- not the farmers directly-but the jobbers in the lower provinces and when they made out their entries it was entered as blast furnace slag. They made their entries read the same as the item under the tariff.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Is it compounded
with anything else when imported?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is just plain, ground
slag?


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I know. For that reason they did not notice it, and it passed the customs in that way. The way it was brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Customs, as I understand it, was this: There is a concern down in Sydney which has erected a manufacturing plant for the purpose of taking this slag, grinding it and making it into fertilizer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And mixing other ingredients with it.


John Dowsley Reid: They made a different article altogether. This manufacturer imported some $7,000 worth of machinery, but when he went to sell his goods he found that parties were importing this ground slag.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend may not know it, but this fertilizing company

has been in existence for a number of years, and this material has been imported free during that period.


John Dowsley Reid: They may have been doing that, and yet this concern would probably not find it out for some time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They fix their price to suit the imported article.


John Dowsley Reid: As soon as they found that this was being imported, they notified the Commissioner of Customs. The matter was brought up before the Board of Customs, and they ruled that this was not blast furnace slag as intended by the item in the tariff, that it was being brought into this country as fertilizer, and that it should come under the item covering the article for which it was sold.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If those reasons made the Customs Board act, why does that not appear as a part of the record?


John Dowsley Reid: It is difficult for me to give an. answer to that, for the reason that the Customs Board has been in existence for years and years, the same men have composed that board, and they are the men who were there during the whole of the Liberal regime.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But they cannot be a law unto themselves.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been in existence all these years, l'ne power given to it by the Act has continued during the last fifteen or sixteen years. The carrying on of that Customs Board has not been changed in any way by this Government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not for twenty-five years, probably.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know how long it is, but there have been no instructions given to them either by myself or this Government since we came into power. There has been no secrecy about these board meetings. There is a regular board meeting held once a month; others are called if necessary at any time. The hon. member asks why there were not some letters put in from some person showing that some charge was made that this article was being imported in this way. The answer is because the information was given verbally to the commissioner. Hardly- a week passes but some importer, or other person, comes to the customs and makes complaint that articles are either being charged too much duty or that parties are importing 41
goods at an under valuation, and so on. They made their complaint to the Commissioner of Customs, and he notified them on what day the board would meet. They appeared before the Board of Customs and stated their case, and the decision is recorded.	,


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is not a record kept?


John Dowsley Reid: Just as the hon. member
has a record of this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no record
there.


John Dowsley Reid: We do not have a stenographer to take down the evidence of every little case. I believe the right hon.. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfried Laurier), the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and the hon. member for Ruesell (Mr. Murphy), will agree with me that the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) is wrong, because the Board of Customs have a precedent for this case. There was a case in -1909 almost similar to this where an appeal was made to the Board of Customs by a firm in Paris, Ontario. Here is the ruling of the Board of Customs:	.
The Board of Customs at its regular meeting on the 12th January, 1909, under the powers conferred by section 58 of the Customs Act, declared that broken gypsum rock not ground, per sample, such as would pass through a halfinch screen, is free of duty under item 292 of the Customs tariff of 1907.
This case was where a sample of crude gypsum had been submitted to the Board of Customs. It had not been ground fine like this slag, but it had been put through some machinery and broken up into smaller lumps so that it might be used, as I understand, in concrete work or work of that description. Here is the ruling of the Board of Customs:
It is admitted that the samples submitted have passed through a stonebreaker.
In this case, it has passed through a grinding mill and been made very fine.
Small samples were selected for decision, because if these were declared to be free of duty there would be no question as to duty on larger pieces of gypsum rock.
The Customs tariff, 1907, contains the following provisions as to gypsum rock and products thereof, viz.:
Item 292-Gypsum, crude, sulphate of lime, free in all the tariffs.
Item 294-Plaster of Paris or gypsum, ground not calcined-Preferential tariff, 10 per cent: intermediate tariff, 125 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Item 293-Plaster of Paris or gypsum, cal-



cined, and prepared wall plaster, the weight of the package to be included in the weight for duty, per 100 pounds-Preferential tariff, 8 cents; intermediate tariff, 11 cents; general tariff, 121 cents.
The board held that the meaning of 'crude' in item 292 was ' raw,' not ground, refined or calcined. If the breaking of gypsum rock into small pieces is held to be a manufacture, the broken gypsum rock would fall under item 208 at 30 per cent general tariff, as manufactures of stone, n.o.p., while the ground gypsum, a more advanced article of commerce, is only 15 per cent under the general tariff.
' Crude ' is a term usually applied to articles in a rough state-not finished or refined.
Raw materials in earth, clay, sand, rock, etc., are as a general rule free of duty in the tariff of 1907, vide following items free in all tariffs,
' Item 296-Refuse stone, not sawn, hammered or cfiiselled, nor fit for flag stone, building stone or paving.
Item 295-Clays, including China clay, fire clay and pipe clay not further manufactured than ground:	ganister and sand; gravels;
earths, crude only.
Item 296-Flint, ground flint stones; felspar, flourspar, magnesite; soap stone, cliff, chalk, China, or Cornwall stone, ground or unground.
Item 297-Silex or crystallized quartz, ground or unground.
The Alabastine Company, jnmited, cite a decision by the United States appraisers rating crushed gypsum as ' An article manufactured in whole or in part, n.o.p,,' under section 6, United States tariff, 1897.
There is no similar provision as to duty in the Canadian Customs tariff of 1907.
Crude gypsum is on the free list in Canada but not on the United States free list.


Wilfrid Laurier: Was there an appeal?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, here is the decision of council:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council was pleased to hear an appeal front the Alabastine Company, Limited, of Paris, Ontario, against a decision of the Board of Customs on ' the 12th of January, 1909, declaring broken gypsum rock not ground, per sample, such as would pass through a half-inch screen, to be free of duty under item 292 of the customs tai'iff as gypsum ' crude.'
His Excellency in Council, having heard arguments in favour of and against the said appeal, was pleased to over-rule the said decision of the Board of Customs, and to order and declare, under sections 62 and 63 of the Customs Act, that the duty on gypsum, as above set forth, is payable under item 294 of the customs tariff as gypsum, ground, not calcined.
(Sgd.) P. R. Bennetts, Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.
That is an appeal from the Board of Customs to the Governor in Council, and there were present at that council meeting Sir Richard Cartwright; Mr. Fielding, the framer of the tariff; Mr. Paterson, the Minister of Customs; Mr. Templeman, Mr. Brodeur, Mr. Oliver, from the West, who is

also looking after the interest of the farmers; Mr. Lemieux, Mr. Pugsley, Mr. Graham and Mr. Murphy. If that decision was right, then surely the blast furnace slag that is taken rough from the mills, taken to another concern altogether, then ground and made into an entirely different article of commerce, would come under item 294, that is, would be dutiable. If it was allowed to come in free, it came in without the knowledge of the Customs Department. So far as the Government were concerned, we knew nothing about it. It came up in the usual way before the Board of Customs. After they had given a ruling on it, the matter was submitted to me with all the explanations. I certainly approved of the ruling.
If an article is not specified in the tariff, the Board of Customs has been appointed and has always been in existence to interpret under what item that particular article of which the complaint has been made should be placed. There is no such item in the tariff as basic ground slag. For that reason it should come under the item under which it is sold. So far as I am informed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, all this fertilizer is imported from England or Belgium, and the rate of duty is simply five per cent.


Mr. GARROLL:: Were any representations made by the Cross Fertilizer Company of Sydney as to the comparative prices of their product and the product that came over from England?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, the Cross Fertilizer Company stated to the commissioner that the price that they were charging before the decision of the board has not since been changed. There has been no advance in price.


James Joseph Hughes: How is it that the man who imported the article has to pay the duty on it now ?


John Dowsley Reid: There is a ruling of the Board of Customs. At all events, having the duty added to the price, as stated by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), at 5 per cent would be but 50 cents a ton. This is all that could possibly be added even if the manufacturer at Sydney took advantage of the price. But he has not taken advantage of it; the price has not been raised since the interpretation by the Board of Customs ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is 10 per cent from Belgium, not 5 per cent.


John Dowsley Reid: The preferential rate is 5 per cent. The commissioner told me today that the importation has been from England, and 5 per cent is the rate which applies. The hon. member for Westmorland has been making a mountain out of a molehill. He has gone into several other matters-the high cost of living, the freight rates on the Intercolonial railway, and so on. I will not attempt to answer him on these subjects to-night. I think the explanation given should be satisfactory to the hon. member. In future, if he is to bring forward a case for the farmers, I hope he will have a better one than this which he has brought before us this evening.
Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) * After the very elaborate explanation given by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid), I suppose he thinks that the last word has been said, and therefore that it is presumptuous on my part to attempt to discuss this matter. Nevertheless, so long as I am here, I shall have to take the opportunity to say a few kind words, especially when a matter affecting the administration of my hon. friend the Minister of Customs comes up. We appreciate the position in which the minister finds himself to-night, and I am not surprised that he speaks of this matter as he does-a mere 50 cents a ton to be paid by the farmer on fertilizer. Of course, the minister thinks that not worth talking about. But I may tell the minister if he were a farmer in New Brunswick and probably handling from twenty-five to forty tons of this material, he would find this duty quite a little item. And the duty does not mean merely an increase of 50 cents a ton, but by the time you add two or three profits it amounts to $1 a ton. Of course, the hon. minister thinks in millions now, and he does not care about what the farmer has to pay for fertilizer. He has talked about pretty nearly everything except the subject under discussion. He started talking about my hon. friend from Westmorland preventing the spending of money on the roads. That is outside the question, of course, but to put the minister right, let me quote from the record of my hon. friend from Westmorland, and also from the record of the Minister of Customs, on this question of the roads. Last session the Government, in the goodness of their hearts, saw fit to' make a proposition to give $1,500,000 to the country under certain conditions for the benefit of the highways, and provided 411
that it should be expended under the Canada Highways Act. On the 4th of June, I think it was-possibly on the 3rd of June-the Senate of Canada made an amendment to the Highways Bill which this House would not adopt, as was stated in this House by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways. This was on the 4th of June. On the 5th of June-	,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think this is quite pertinent to the question now before the House. This motion refers particularly to certain items in the tariff, and it would be desirable to confine the discussion to that subject.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not know I was prohibited from answering a point brought forward by the Minister of Customs. It was only for the purpose of putting the minister right that I entered upon the discussion of this question of the highways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Customs incidently mentioned the matter, and if he had continued on that line I intended to remind him of the rule, as I did the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes). It seems to me the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), is entering upon an argument that would take a good deal of time. '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must how to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But there will be another time. He is the man who voted against the Highways Bill, and I have the record here to prove it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that observation is quite unbecoming. When the Chair has ruled, it is the duty of the member to observe the ruling.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I observe the ruling,
Mr. Speaker. But there will be another time. Now, the minister says, when he is charged with having imposed duties by Orders in Council: Oh, you did it once yourselves six or eight years ago. And because we did it once, this Government claim to have the^ right to go on sinning without [DOT] being criticised. I would like to hear one single charge brought against this Government in answer to which we should not hear this reply. I have not heard one attack in the last three years in which that has not been their defence. We had it this afternoon on another motion. Yesterday, we had it also. The Minister of Customs says that six or seven years ago the Customs Board made a ruling by which certain forms of gypsum were made free and the treasury

board overruled that and made them dutiable. I do not care whether they did or did not; it does not matter. We charge the Minister of Customs with deliberately increasing the cost of an article which the farmer of the Maritime provinces must have to carry on his operations. This is the farmer's raw material and he must have it in order to produce his crop. We charge the minister with having increased that duty without justification or reason. It is refreshing to hear the minister say: It is true this was done, but it was by an officer of the department, and we did not know anything about it. Yesterday, we had that argument used to the limit. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Postmaster General told us that they did not know anything about a thing that had been done-it was done in the ordinary course of business. And the Minister of Customs aid not know anything about what had been done by the Board of Customs in the ordinary course of business. I wonder if the hon. minister is sincere in making a statement like that. I am sincere in asking him -the question: Does he believe that he can make the people of this country believe his Board of Customs changes the law so as to impose duties which take tens of thousands of dollars out of the pockets of the farmers, and he know nothing about it? He surely does not think that we are so innocent as that. He surely does not think that the people are so innocent as that. I do not think the minister, if the question were put to him, and he had to answer it squarely, would say he did not know it. I know he wall not say so though he tried to leave that impression with the House tonight. I know he knew this was being done, and he will not say he did not.- When he knew it, the Government knew it, and the Government is responsible for increasing the price of this commodity, and there is no use in their trying to hide themselves behind the action of the board.
Well, what does it amount to, the minister may ask. It amounts to a good deal. I find, on looking over the Trade and Navigation Returns, that during the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1913, we imported fertilizers to the extent of $539,905. That will be found on page 104 of the Fisheries and Navigation Returns, and on page 471 hon. gentlemen will find it stated that we exported fertilizer to the amount of $1,679,806, and imported only $92,425 of slag. We were able very largely to supply the home demand, which involves a large amount of money, and we were able to

export $1,679,000 worth, yet we imported only $92,425 worth, which means that practically nineteen-twentieths of all the slag consumed in the manufacture of fertilizer is the home production. The hon. minister did not put on this duty for the purpose of revenue, because the Government are getting only $9,000 or $10,000 out of it- according to the contention of the minister, only about $5,000 or $6,000. I think he is right in saying that a great majority of the material that is imported comes from England. I have not the data before me, but I know from looking the matter up on a previous occasion that at least two-thirds of this slag comes from England. But does my hon. friend expect the country to believe that the manufacturers of this slag have not increased the price to the farmers? What on earth did the manufacturer of this slag want the duty put on for, if he did not intend to increase the price to the farmer? He does not suffer from any outside competition, because there is very little of the material coming into Canada. Just enough outside slag comes in to keep the price down to that of the European markets plus the freight. When the manufacturer of this slag came to my hon. friend the minister and asked him to put the duty on, he did so for the purpose of being enabled to charge the farmers more for the article, and it is a fact that he is charging the farmer more for the article to-day, notwithstanding the assertion he makes to the Minister of Customs. The hon. member for Westmorland has proved it, the letter of that intelligent farmer, Mr. Fawcett, proves it, and our common sense teaches us that it must be so. The manufacturers in Canada do not come to the Government and ask that duty be put on a certain article simply for the fun of it. Every time duty goes on they get the benefit of it, and when a duty of five or ten per cent is put upon this slag, depend upon it the producer in Canada gets five or ten per cent extra, and the farmer pays for it out of his own pocket. That is why I am finding fault with the Minister of Customs to-night. I know there is not a member in this House to-night whose constituents are as vitally interested in this matter as mine are. I am satisfied that out of $539,000 worth of fertilizer imported into Canada last year, more than half of that came into my own constituency, and that two-thirds of it came into my constituency and that of the member for Victoria (Mr. Michaud). I am satisfied that last year my constitu-

ents paid more than half a million dollars for fertilizers alone, and that the people of the constituencies of York, Carleton, Victoria and Madawaska probably paid $750,000 for fertilizers; therefore it is a matter of no little importance to our people. The hon. minister says it is a mere bagatelle-that the imposition of the duty does not necessarily increase the price. I tell him that it means from $50,000 to $60,000 to my constituents alone, and when you add to that ten per cent duty on the manufactured product you are adding fifteen or twenty per cent to the cost of an article which is an absolute necessity to the farmers of the eastern provinces. This matter requires more than the passsing notice which the Minister of Customs has given it here to-night; we should have some better evidence that it was in the interests of the country and ol his department that this duty should be imposed. What evidence have we that it is necessary? I am not an authority on what basic slag is; neither is my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, because the question was put to him fairly, and he could not answer it. I have seen the slag as it runs out from the blast furnaces-I presume nearly every member in this House has seen it. The metal comes out in two streams; one the molten metal and the other the slag. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs understands that this slag is collected in some kind of a mould, that it hardens, and is subsequently shipped. In Sydney, I have seen them throw it out, mountains of it, alongside the steel works. Whether it is turned out in a great mass and carted away, as I have seen it done in Sydney, or whether it is poured into a mould and made into better shape for transportation purposes, it is the same slag; I care not whether you call it slag or basic slag, it is slag just the same. According to all we have heard to-night, this slag has very few fertilizer properties; it is only the basic material around which the real fertilizer centres. It makes the substance which contains the real fertilizer, because they add to that phosphorus, potash and ammonia. The hon. member for Westmorland says that these are, introduced in the proportion of four, eight and ten respectively; I understand that the ordinary commercial fertilizer contains these elements in the proportion of four, six and ten. Of course the proportion of four, eight and ten would result in a better article. But the slag is simply used as the substance to absorb the real fertilizing
elements, ammonia, potash and phosphorus. If that be true, and I am satisfied that it is, what justification has my hon. friend for classifying slag as fertilizer? Although he did not say it, I should imagine that in imposing this duty he is contending that the slag becomes a fertilizer; therefore he imposes the same duty as he would upon fertilizers. Getting back to the real crux of this matter, at the behest of the manufacturer the hon. minister has deliberately, without any justifiable reason, added from fifty to seventy-five cents a ton to the cost of the basic article in the manufacture of fertilizer, and when two or three profits are added to that it is evident thal the farmers of this country are being charged more than they should be charged for this article. This is done not for revenue purposes, because no revenue is obtained out of it.	In the first
six months of the present fiscal year we imported only $42,792 worth of slag, and at five per cent only about $2,000 or $3,000 would be collected on this amount. Therefore, as I say, the duty is not imposed for the purposes of revenue; it is done simply at the request and behest of a manufacturing industry in this country, and the net result is that the Government get in revenue a mere bagatelle, and the farming community of my county alone pay probably $50,000 more for their fertilizer. The hon. minister laughs at it; says it is a matter of no consequence. I want to tell him that it is a matter of some consequence, and I think my hon. friends opposite will find that it is a matter of a great deal of consequence before this session is over.


William F. Carroll: Do I understand that the farmers of the county have to put this material through some process of manufacture before they use it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, practically all the fertilizer consumed in the St. John river district is the manufactured article. There are a great many people who, like Mr. Fawcett, say that the farmers are being- well, I will not say robbed, but compelled to pay much higher prices than they should pay for this article. I have before me a very interesting letter-I wish I had time to read it to the House-written by Mr. H.
B.	Durost, of my own town. This letter, published in the Hartland Observer, would point out to my hon. friend what this matter really means to the farmers of my county.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER: I understood the question asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) to be this: Is the article which the farmers in Carleton county, for instance, use under this denomination simply a slag ground up, or is it a fertilizer made out of the slag and other ingredients?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is the latter, certainly; I was going to explain that. It is the commercial fertilizer, which sells from $40 to $42 a ton, according to the quality. The commercial fertilizer is composed of slag as a base, and around that or through it and with it are the real fertilizing elements, four parts ammonia, six parts phosphorus and ten parts potash. That is the general formula.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER: I would ask the hon. member for Cape Breton whether the product turned out by the Sydney company is simply the slag ground, or is it the slag ground and mixed with the other materials, thus constituting a compound fertilizer?


William F. Carroll: Perhaps the great
majority of the product of the Cross company is the latter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is merely the slag and the other ingredients are added by other people.


William F. Carroll: The manufacturers of
fertilizers who approached the Government for this duty are manufacturing the slag and add the other ingredients themselves and sell it as a fertilizer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That may be, but there are thousands of tons of fertilizers manufactured in the eastern provinces and the state of Maine and all through the western states made from the slag with the addition of the other fertilizing properties, so that while the Cross Fertilizer Company may manufacture a certain amount of this product into commercial fertilizer, they must sell a much greater proportion of it simply as the ordinary basic slag, they sell it to other fertilizing companies who mix it, and one branch of the argument of the hon. member for Westmorland was whether it was not better for the farmer to mix this himself, to buy his slag, import the nitrate, potash and phosphate, mix it himself and save $15 a ton. But it does not matter who mixes it, the slag itself is the basis and upon this base the Government have placed the duty. By doing so they have made the base cost, we will say 50 or 75 cents a ton more than it ought to and I do not care whether it is mixed by the Cross

Company, or the Windsor Company, or the St. John Company, or by the farmer on his barn floor, it means that it costs the farmer a dollar a ton more than it ought. That is the real question and the onp we ought to decide in this resolution to-night. I think the Minister of Customs ought to go further than this, he ought not only to rescind this regulation but, when the tariff is brought down, he should make fertilizers entirely free. Do not come back and say: You did not admit fertilizers free. I was in the House in 1907 when the Tariff Bill was enacted and privately I tried to make fertilizers free.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friends laugh.
Every time anything is*said they make that reply, they say: You did not do it. It is always the tu quoque argument.


George Eulas Foster: I think I have heard that in other years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The fertilizer business in the Maritime provinces was a
10 p.m. mere bagatelle in 1907. Statistics will show that not one-quarter, not one-fifth, not one-tenth, of the fertilizers were consumed m the Maritime provinces in 1907 that are consumed to-day. The imports in the year ending March 31, 1906, of dutiable fertilizers into Canada amounted to only $157,519; whereas during the first six months of the present year we have imported $300,000 worth. This is only a very, very small proportion of the actual amount consumed, as you can see that we are manufacturing at home; it has become a big industry, we are manufacturing from the slag produced at the Sydney Steel Works, and it is being manufactured, as I said, by a number of different companies, by the Cross Company and by the farmers. So in 1907 it was a comparatively unimportant item. There was no discussion in the newspapers about it, it was not considered a matter of any great importance. To-day it is a matter of the first magnitude, it is that without which the farmer in the Maritime provinces cannot produce his potatoes, and I am told in the province of Nova Scotia they can hardly produce their fruit without it. It is a prime necessity and it is just as important that it should be made free of duty as it is that wheat should be admitted free for the benefit of the farmer of the West. It is just as important to the farmer of Carleton county to have free fertilizers as anything T can imagine to-day in the world, and I hope that this discussion will result

in the Minister of Customs not only removing this obnoxious ruling of his Customs Board, but that when the tariff is brought down he will see that fertilizer is put on the free list absolutely. Then the farmers who are compelled to buy this very expensive fertilizer, without which they can hardly farm, will be able to save at least $6 to $7 a ton, which means, in some cases, almost the difference between success and failure in the farming industry of New Brunswick.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I shall occupy upon the motion of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), I shall not attempt to discuss the effect of the interpretation of the particular item of the customs tariff which is under discussion upon the price of the article and its general effect upon the consumers of fertilizers. That has been very fully and lucidly discussed by the hon. members for Westmorland and Carle-ton, and I could hardly amplify what they have said if I desired. The issue involved m the motion is the interpretation of an item in the customs tariff and whether the decision of the Board of Customs in interpreting the tariff item is correct or not. In my judgment there is no authority in the statute for the ruling made by the minister and by the Board of Customs.
There are two items in the tariff involved in this discussion, namely, item 372, blast furnace slag, which is free, and item 663, which is the item invoked by the Department of Customs to sustain the ruling they have made. Tariff item 663 is as follows:
Fertilizers compounded or manufactured, 10 per cent (under the general tariff).
The question is whether basic or blast furnace slag, which is I think one and the same thing, when imported into Canada in a ground state, enters free of duty or whether it is subject to a duty of 10 per cent under item 663, respecting fertilizers. I would think if we had no other evidence or authority before us than the customs tariff itself, it is quite clear that the position taken by the hon. member for Westmorland is absolutely correct and well founded under a construction of the tariff. Blast furnace slag, as I have already stated, is imported free of duty. This item does not differentiate between slag in the rough state, as it comes from the furnace, and slag ground or reduced to any mesh, and I think it is a fair and logical inference that furnace slag may be imported free of duty whether in a natural or ground state. Looking again at item 663, we find
that ' fertilizers compounded or manufactured ' are subject to a duty of 10 per cent. I cannot understand how the Department of Customs can argue that furnace slag, ground, is a fertilizer. It is admitted by the minister that it is merely an element and not a constituent in a compound, and that it is not a manufactured article; and therefore I say, by reference to these two items, that blast furnace slag, ground, is clearly importable free of duty. This is an important matter for many reasons. The functions of the Customs Department are purely administrative, and ministerial and to some extent judicial. They are certainly not legislative, and it would be an unfortunate thing for this country if, in the establishment of tariffs, the Customs Department were permitted to arrogate to itself legislative powers, and particularly to increase the tariff rate or rates. That is the objection which I think hon. gentlemen on this side rhake against the ruling of the department. I think it was clearly the intention of Parliament-and Parliament alone makes the tariff of this country and not the Customs Department-
* that all the constituents which enter into the manufacture of fertilizers should come into Canada free of duty. If hon. gentlemen would look at item 662, the one just preceding the chief item under consideration they will see that fertilizers-
-unmanufactured, including phosphate rock, kainite or German potash salts and German mineral potash; bone dust, charred bone and bone ash; fish offal or refuse and animal or vegetable manures.
are admitted free, and these articles were deliberately made free of duty by Parliament in order, I assume, 'to furnish to the manufacturers of fertilizers their raw material at the lowest possible price. The following item 663 provides the tariff rate for the manur factured article. Now if it was the policy of Parliament-and it evidently was-to permit of such articles as phosphate rock, German potash salts, bonedust and fish offal to come in free of duty, is it not logical and obvious that it was also the intention of Parliament that furnace slag, ground, Should enter free of duty, because it is one of the constituents in a fertilizing compound. For that reason I say it is obvious-at least it is perfectly clear to me and I think it should be to hon. gentlemen generally- that the ruling of the Department of Customs is in error, and that the objection made by the hon. member for Westmorland is well founded. Further, take the item

of felspar, which is a very important element in the manufacture of fertilizers. It is also upon the free list. Combined with fish offal, it produces one of the richest fertilizer known to the world, and yet our tariff has provided that felspar shall enter free of duty, and there is no distinction whatever in the tariff as to whether felspar be imported in the crude or ground state. I say again, it was clearly the policy of the Government responsible for the preparation of this tariff, and Parliament which enacted it, that the raw elements entering into the manufacture of fertilizing compounds should enter this country free of. duty. The Minister of Customs has invoked in defence of the ruling of his department, a ruling made by the Board of Customs some four years ago in connection with gypsum. I submit that the case is hardly applicable to the one before us for consideration. Under item 292 of the tariff, gypsum in the crude is free, and I would like hon. gentlemen particularly to observe that gypsum in its crude state is designated as being free, and gypsum if not crude is subject to duty. Naturally, the question would arise, when there was an importation of gypsum, whether it was crude or otherwise. In this case the gypsum apparently entered Canada, ground, or manufactured. The gypsum was reduced to a comparatively l3mall size and the question for the Department of Customs to determine was, whether it was gypsum crude, or gypsum manufactured, and I think it is quite clear that the ruling made by the Department of Customs was in error and that the appeal was very properly sustained by the Treasury Board. I submit that there was no warrant or authority under the tariff for the ruling made by the Department of Customs in connection with the matter now before us. I say it is quite clear-and it has been the policy of Parliament-that the constituents entering into the manufacture of fertilizers should be free of duty in order to give to the manufacturers the raw materials entering into the manufacture of fertilizers at lowest possible price. I think it is also quite clear that the motion made by the hon. member for Westmorland is well founded both in fact and law. I think the ruling made by the Department of Customs is absolutely in error, and I hardly think the case is arguable. I think the Minister of Customs should at least concede that the ruling is subject at least to doubt, if not clearly in error.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I was pair&d
with the right hon. the Prime Minister. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I was paired with the
hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was paired with the
hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. McLeod). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I was paired with the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil).
Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I was paired with the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
* Mr. NORTHRUP: I was paired with the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The ' Hansard ' reporters have been complaining to me that the pairs are not properly taken down on account of the low and indistinct way in which members make the announcement' that they are paired-
Amendment negatived, and main motion agreed to.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.
Department of Labour-Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $25,000.
Mr. VERVILLE:: I was not in the House on Friday last when the Estimates of the Department of Labour were under consideration, but I have read in ' Hansard ' the speeches made by members on this side of the House on that occasion, and I do not wish to go over the same ground that has been covered by them. In the few remarks that I intend to make, I wish to tell the hon. Minister of Labour very frankly exactly what the labour men think of him as a Minister of Labour.
I	have read very carefully the report made by Commissioner Price. I am surprised that in that report letters of the miners from the West have been published, but very few, if any, of the letters that have been sent to the Department of Labour have been published. It would seem fair that both sides of the case should be stated in a report made by a Royal Commissioner.
It is true that I have asked for' the papers to be brought down, but the returns are very slow in coming. This may be one of the reasons why this year the Estimates of the Department of Labour have been brought down almost before those of any other department. Generally, the Estimates of the.. Department of Labour are brought up very late in the session. I am aware that I shall not get the return for which I have asked 'for, for a long time to come. Last year on the 5th of April, I asked for a return, and it was just for

a lock and key. I got the return only last week, and no look and key.
I claim that this report of Commissioner Price is not absolutely correct, and I really believe that it has been copied from a report made in 1903. It seems to me that this report was written with the intention of making the country believe that the whole fault lies with the men. I am not here to say that the men are perfect, far from it. If you want to get perfect men, whether employees or employers, you will have to go higher than the members of this House, or the public in general.
It would only be fair if both sides of the question were put before the public. I know that letters have been sent to the minister, and he will probably read some of them to the House. A letter, which I intend to read to the House, was sent to the Minister of Labour and the answer was simply: ' I will take the matter into consideration.' The Minister of Labour is still considering the matter, although it is a long time since the letter was sent. This letter, which appears in the report of the commissioner, has been sent by the miners themselves and is dated September 30, 1913:
Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour.
Dear Sir,-A short time ago, if you remember, in the Wilson hotel, you made the remark that if you could do anything in your power for the benefit of the workers that you would be only to pleased to do so. Now, 1 will endeavour to give you a full explanation of the trouble which we are engaged in at the present time. Our men have been openly discriminated against, and the companies refuse to give any reasons whatever. They refuse to meet our commitees, and we claim the right to Question at any time why our men are discharged.
The companies refuse to concede that right to us, and what do we find? They put us up against a lockout; our men are compelled to act on these gas committees and we can find no other reasons why they are discriminated against. Of course the companies are able to prove that they are not discriminating against our men on account of their actions on gas committees, but they do not submit any reasons why they have discharged them, and that is what we want to know-if there is any way to compel them to let us know why they are allowed to discharge our men unquestioned. That is the only question at issue. And if there is any remedy we would like to know.
Trusting you will give this question your immediate attention and that we will receive an early reply.
This letter has been replied to, but only with the statement that the letter will be taken into consideration. The ministers are still considering the question. And I am not prepared to say that the men did all that was right, but I am prepared to
[Mr. Verville. j
admit that both were right and both were wrong. But first of all I believed that when the minister took that trip to the West we expected that through his power as minister he would bring the two elements together, and, for the benefit of British Columbia as well as the country at large, would secure a settlement. It seems to me the mission of the minister was not to settle who was wrong and who was right, but to try to bring about a settlement. I have read the report. I do not pretend to know anything about mining further than to have been in a mine to see the conditions under which men have to work underground. At the same time, I think the commissioner was not justified in making this report. I do not know any better way by which I can show that than by reading to the House a letter that the minister himself received. That letter was written by Mr. Farrington. Of course, it may displease the minister, because this man happens to be an American, and I know the minister does not like to have any truck with the Americans. But he certainly is in a position to criticise the report better than I am. I hope the House will bear with me while I read this letter, for I am particularly anxious to get it on 'Hansard' so that the people in this House and outside of it may know how the criticism often levelled against the men in this case appears to one who knows exactly the mining situation in the West:
Hon. Thomas W. Crothers, K.C.,
Minister of Labour for Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-I have Just been favoured with a copy of the official report filed with your department by Royal Commissioner Samuel Price, who, I understand, was appointed in accordance with an Act of the Dominion Parliament to investigate the coal miners' strike now existent on Vancouver Island. Because of my having charge of this strike from its inception, I think I can discuss the report with a reasonable degree of assurance that I know my subject; and as the representative of the men involved in the strike I feel that I have a license to defend them against the injustice done their cause by reason of the commissioner's manifest failure to reveal the truth. Therefore, in the absence of a personal meeting, I take this means of communicating to you the statement that the Royal Commissioner's report is neither an impartial nor a complete exposition of the situation on the Island. Much of it is composed of a quotation on an opinion written by a former commissioner in connection with the Island strike of 1903, and which opinion was virulent in tone, unwarranted by the facts and injurious to the miners of that time, but entirely foreign to the present controversy; yet it is now reproduced in Commissioner Price's report, evidently to deceive the public and

injure the men engaged in the existent strike. Moreover, as a Congressional guide the report is misleading, and worthless as an historical document, for the reason that the commissioner has given but scant consideration to the miners' side of the dispute, while he has overstepped propriety to find justification for the iniquitous attitude of the mine owners. He has given credence to rumour where rumour was damaging to the miners' ~ union, and excused the evil practices of the mine owners in the face of tangible proof of their guilt.
To those who are familiar with conditions on the Island it is clear that the Royal Commissioner has predicated his report upon the unsupported statements of the mine owners and their satellites; and, on the other hand, denied the union men the opportunity of appearing before him in defence of their position or to refute the untrue statements of these hostile agents. In view of my prominent connection with this trouble I should be expected to have much valuable matter to contribute to the investigation, and I have, yet I was given no opportunity to present it to the commissioner. In fact, I never met him but once, and then only informally, during my brief conference with you in Vancouver city the first week in July. I do not mention this because I feel slighted, but because it shows the commissioner was not anxious to have facts. Furthermore, I have made careful inquiry of the district and local officers connected with the strike, and many individuals of influence and activity among the strikers, all of whom unite in declaring they did not have the privilege of appearing before the commissioner, and none of whom were even aware of his visit to the Island; which further indicates his desire to escape rather than to find the truth.
Couple his transgression in this respect with his transparent disposition to favour the mine owners and his apparent willingness to accept and include in his report everything, no matter how flimsy, that reflects discredit upon the United Mine Workers of America, and you must agree the Royal Commissioner's report is destitute of justice to the striking miners.
The miners have been insistent in their claims that the Canadian Collieries Company are employing Orientals, in violation of the Provincial Mining Laws to break the strike. The commissioner has concealed the true conditions in this respect by making irrelevant comparisons and by failing to give an account of the number of Orientals employed during the two and one-half months intervening between the last day of May and the date of his report. However, accepting his figures as a basis for computation, we find that of all the men employed in all the coast mines during 1912 less than 20 per cent were Orientals, and that of the men employed under ground by the Canadian Collieries Company eight and one-half months after our men were locked out, or in May, 1913, the ratio of Orientals was more than 62 per cent. And had the commissioner considered the additional number employed during June and July, and up to August 14, the date of his report, the ratio would be greater than that. Yet the commissioner says:
' Statements made as to the wholesale granting of miners' certificates to Orientals, who are said not to be properly qualified, are also, I find upon careful inquiry, not correct. According to figures obtained from the Department of
Mines, only thirty-six new miners' certificates were granted to Orientals from the commencement of the trouble down to the time of the inquiry, and the examination for these was conducted in the usual way according to the requirements of the law, and the certificates were only granted after the examiners, including the Chief Inspector of Mines, were satisfied that the Orientals were qualified and entitled to receive them.'
It is a matter of common knowledge among the strikers that the men employed as strikebreakers in the Cumberland mines of the Canadian Collieries Company are being wantonly maimed and killed because of their inexperience and a lack of knowledge as to how to protect themselves against the dangers of mining. In this connection the commissioner says:
4 The allegations made as to unsafety of some of the mines are at least grossly exaggerated. The statement that the percentage of fatal accidents at the mines of the Canadian Collieries Company has increased over two hundred per cent cent from 1911 to 1912, while correct, arises from the fact that in 1911 these mines had an abnormally low percentage of fatal accidents, only 94 per 1,000. while that of the province was 2.32 per 1,000. In 1912 this company though showing as alleged, a great increase over 1911, was still very low, and little over half that for the province the exact figures being 2.12 per 1,000, while that for the province as a whole was 3.92. The official returns show that at the Extension collieries there had been no fatal accidents either in 1911 or 1912?
While admitting an increase of 200 per cent in fatalities during 1912, in the mines mentioned, he attempts to justify this sacrifice of human life by saying other companies have killed more, and points out that no fatalities occurred in the Extension mines of the same company either in 1911 or 1912; but he neglects to explain why none occured in these mines. The explanation is a simple one. During 1911 and up to the middle of September, 1912, the Extension mines were operated by experienced men, and from the middle of September to the end of 1912 they were idle because the company could not recruit enough Chinamen and other inexperienced N vagabonds to operate the mines of both Cumberland and Extension, so they herded them all into the Cumberland mines and slaughtered them there; which fact also accounts for the 200 per cent increase in the fatalities .occurring in the Cumberland mines during 1912. [DOT] Rut what of the fatalities occurring in the same mines of this	company	during 1913?
Almost eight months of this year had passed when the commissioner's report was rendered, yet, though dealing with fatalities, he ignored completely those occurring in that period. Why? At the end of 1912, the Cumberland mines had been closed to their former skilled employees only three and one half months, and the list of fatalities augmented 200 per cent. When the commissioner's report was rendered the former employees had been excluded for eleven months. The number of inexperienced men employed had been increased, discipline demoralized by the constant coming and going of strange men, and the safety of the mines impaired because of a lack of experienced attention. Now, do not forget that for the first eight and one half months of 1912 these mines had the advantage of being worked with prac-

to say anything about the manner in which he was received in Great Britain. I happened to meet Will Thorne, a member of the Congress and a member of the Imperial House of Commons, who was a fraternal delegate at the last Congress in Montreal. Mr. Thorne told me that the reputation of the Minister of Labour had preceded him to England and that his reception at the Trades and Labour Congress was a very cool one.
There is one thing upon which I insist, that is that the minister should give us not only the correspondence which has taken place between the Department of Labour and the miners but also the correspondence between the department and the mine operators. It must be remembered that there is still a strike there, which is a detriment to the mass of the people of this country and we are here to try and bring about conciliation as far as possible. I really believe that the minister cannot settle that strike. I believe that his lack of experience in labour matters will prevent that. There are some in this House who understand the position as clearly as I do, that it is necessary for a man to have experience in that walk of life. The mentality of men generally must develop according to their circumstances and surroundings. We cannot expect my hon. friend to be able to settle these things because he does not understand the situation. If my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Shepherd) had been a Minister of Labour, I am almost sure that he would have been able to settle that strike because he would have known how to go about it. We cannot expect that with all the intelligence of the Minister of Labour he can do that, it is impossible for him to do it. So I would say to the Prime Minister, if he were in his seat, that I am sorry to tell him he has made a great mistake in appointing the present Minister of Labour.


Mr. CEOTHEES:: Hear, hear.


Alphonse Verville: Of course he may not believe that but we can all express our own opinions. Let us talk openly here, we are in committee and we may as well be frank. What I am going to say to the minister, may not be Parliamentary language, but the labour men of the country call the Minister of Labour as a Minister of Labour, not as a member of this House, a regular frost. Of course I do not know what that means, English is not my mother tongue, but that is what they say. At the same time I know the Minister of Labour has
been East. He is quoted in the newspapers as stating that conditions were all right in the East. I take issue absolutely with him. I know my men whenever I go anywhere, I go with the crowd, with the men who are suffering. I dc not go with the crowd who do not want anything, who are well supported in every way, whether by the tariff or otherwise, men ivh) are not in want, at least not in want of three meals a day. Whenever you are with this crowd you will find that conditions are not so nice as we may suppose. I do not know if my hon. friend has found that out but I happened to make inquiries about the Dominion Coal and Steel Works and 1 found out exactly how the poor miners are treated in that part of the country. Not one but a dozen or more of them came to me and showed me how they are treated. First of all some are obliged to buy at the company's store. It is true that at the sto;e they do not sell dearer than at other places but in many cases the men have tc get a certificate from the oflhe that they have earned a certain amount of money. That means if a man has been sick or has sickness in his family and has not worked, he cannot get anything to eat because he has not earned anything. It is true that they do not have to pay too high a rent but just imagine a man earning $1.40 or $1.50 a day who, not being able to work on account of illness or illness in his family, cannot get anything to eat because the company's store will not sell to him. The miners are charged a certain amount for medical assistance and a certain amount for the relief fund, &c., and it will be found that in many cases the labourers working in those mines receive $331 per year to live on provided they work every day, and I am informed that some of them are obliged to handle 115,000 lbs. of coal a day to earn $1.95. Let one of us do that and see what he would be like at the end of a day or a week or a month. That is the condition under which many of them are working. I am not speaking now of the regular miners but of other classes of men. I never bother myself about men who are getting from $4 to $6 a day, provided they can earn it in a day of reasonable length. It is those who earn the small wages who are treated worst. Whether at Glace Bay or Sydney Mines or Sydney, at the steel works, the conditions of the poorer class of labourers are deplorable. It is inhuman to have men working eleven, twelve or thirteen hours a day. If these people were business men they would give three shifts in the twenty-four hours.

I think the Department of Labour should immediately set to work and try if possible to have three shifts a day in those institutions. I have been in the- homes of these men, I have seen them. I know exactly how they live. They are mere mortals, they simply know the -route to go from the- works to the house and back again; they have no time to think because they are so tired they have not time to rest. I was told by one authority when I spoke- of the heat: This is very hot but you get accustomed to that. I told him that if this principle were followed out logically then those men, if they worked there long enough, could shovel in much hotter stuff in another -place and never burn themselves.
If you call a meeting of workingmen in any of the cities, there is a staff of men employed by the companies that will be found at every door and I have seen fifty men come to a meeting and look in at the door and I have heard them say: We would like to go in but these officers are there and we will get fired to-morrow if we go in. The minister says everything is all right; probably he has been told that everything is all right by the mine owners and other interested persons. I would advise the Minister of Labour, whenever he goes anywhere, to find things out for himself and not to take the company's word-not even to take the men's word. Let him go as a common citizen and inquire for himself. When the minister travels he might ride in an ordinary, common car like any one else. We do not need to ride in a special car when we go anywhere. Let him ride in a common car and with the common people. The Department of Labour should consider the situation at these steel works immediately.
I wanted to explain the conditions of which I have spoken to the committee, and 1 have read this letter because it is a thorough exposition of the case from the miners' standpoint. It is written by one of the organizers. My hon. friend will say that he is an American, that he is paid to do this and that if he did not do it he would get fired. I might answer my hon. friend by saying that he is getting paid for the work that he does now and that if he did not do it the Manufacturers' Association would say: We will get this man fired out of that job.
I hope that, when my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, is placed upon the bench as a judge, the present Government will take a practical man and put him at the hpad of the Department of Labour.
whichever Government is in power, whether it is this Government, or the one which succeeds it, I hold that it will never have any success until a practical man is made Minister of Labour. I fail to see that when John Burns was made a minister the prestige of the British Government was in any way diminished in the eyes of the world. I fail to see that when Mr. Wilson was taken from the ranks of the miners of the United iBtates and made a member of the United States Government the Government was diminished in the opinion of the world. Far from it; these governments have increased in the estimation of the world generally. Unless this Government, or the Government which comes after it, can find a man in this country to be Minister of Labour who is a practical man and who will understand exactly the grievances, whether of the employers or the employees, no success cJn be hoped for in the administration of the Labour Department. The Minister of Labour ought to be a man who is practical enough to understand the conditions and one who will not resort to a lot of technicalities in order to attempt by all possible means to fool the men. I am not applying these remarks only to the present Government, but I claim that this Government, or any Government which comes after them, will never make a success of the department until such time as they have a man of practical knowledge, a man who has made a thorough study of economic conditions, not in a superficial fashion, but from a practical point of view, at the head of the Labour Department. I do not believe that my recommendation will be followed by this Government and probably not by another Government that may come in, but nevertheless that is my impression and time will show whether I am right or wrong.


Mr. SHEPHERD:: The hon. gentleman
made the statement that a man had to mine . 115,000 pounds for the sum of $1.95.


Alphonse Verville: To handle.


Francis Henry Shepherd: What do I understand the hon. gentleman to mean by handling- not mining?


Alphonse Verville: No.


Francis Henry Shepherd: That is a matter of
51 tons and it would be impossible for any miner to mine that quantity.


Alphonse Verville: Some of these men are getting as little as 13 cents a gross ton to load the coal.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Chairman, before attempting to reply to the observations made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville), while the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), is in the chamber, I would like to call his attention to some grossly inaccurate statements made by him in this House last Friday evening when we were in committee. He stated on that occasion, as will be found on page 592 of 'Hansard ' that:
,1 happened to be looking over the Civil Service list the other day-
Just happened to be.
-and I found that for the year ended March 31, 1911, the list of employees of the Labour Department consisted of twenty-one names. In the list for last year there are thirty-nine names. In a little over two years in this department, which is what might be called a non-productive department from a material standpoint, there has been almost a doubling of the staff, and yet what is the net result?
I have here the Sessional Papers for the year 1911 and if my hon. friend will look at them, on page 276, he will find that instead of there being only 21 members of the staff that year there were 24. If he will also be good enough to look at the report for last year, he will find, on pages 369 and 370, that instead of the number having grown from 21 to 39 it had grown from 24 to 30.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Estimates state that there were 35 last year and not 30.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There were 9 out of these 35 that were vacancies, which vacancies were not filled at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are you going to fill them now? You are taking votes for 36 this year.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, there are nine vacancies and 36 have been placed in the Estimates this year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are you going to fill these positions up?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They were there last year and I did not fill them up.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why are you taking a vote for them if you are not going to fill them?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Perhaps my hon.
friend does not know the practice in the -different departments. If a man is promoted from one position to another the salary is voted for the position that he has left although there is a vacancy, and the position may be left vacant year after year, or until another man is appointed in his

place. It is a very peculiar practice, but it obtained when we came in, and it obtains yet. I am calling the attention of the committee to the grossly inaccurate statements made by the hon. me aber for Humboldt when he said that in 1911 there were 21, when, if he had looked at the record he would nave seen that there were 24. He says that last year the number was 39, when, as a matter of fact, it was 30.


David Bradley Neely: Will the non. gentleman be good enough to send over the Sessional Papers for 1911? [DOT]


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, I will be glad to. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has read a long letter said to have been written by Mr. Frank Farrington. This is the same gentleman who supplied us with some evidence which throws a flood of light upon the origin and purpose of the labour troubles on Vancouver Island for the last year and a half.


David Bradley Neely: These Sessional Papers are marked 1912.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, the hon. gentleman will find that, although the report is marked 1912, it is for the year 1911.


David Bradley Neely: It is the report of 1912.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, but it gives the servants of 1911,- and if the hon. member wall look at the beginning of the names, he will find that that is so.
This same gentleman, Mr. Frank Farrington, has given us some evidence which casts a flood of light upon the origin and purposes of the labour troubles that have existed on Vancouver Island for the last year and a half. For the benefit of the members of this House, I propose to read some of that evidence which he has provided for us. Hon. members will know that the headquarters of the United Mine Workers are at Indianapolis; that Mr. John P. White, of the same city, is president of that association, and that Mr. Frank Farrington, who wrote the letter read by my hon. friend, is vice-president of the association, with headquarters at Seattle.
This is an address which was delivered by Mr. Frank Farrington to the United Mine Workers of the United States. It refers back to the beginning of this trouble in Vancouver. It was published in the United Mine Workers' Journal on the 27th of March, 1913; and at the risk of wearying my hon. friends, I propose reading it, although it is somewhat lengthy. Mr. Farrington says:

Six months have passed since the Canadian Collieries Company, operating on Vancouver Island, B.C., locked out 1,500 of our members who were employed in their mines in Cumberland and Ladysmith. While the labour press of British Columbia has carried explanatory articles concerning this trouble, little has been written relating thereto for the United Mine Workers' Journal and other labour papers throughout the United States, and, as a consequence, a great majority of the rank and file of the Miners' Union know little or nothing of the importance of this contest, the causes leading up to it, the difficulties encountered since its inception, or the influences that have been used to defeat the miners in this section of the Pacific Northwest who are struggling for a greater measure of the things to which they are entitled.
Vancouver Island is rich with almost inexhaustible deposits of the finest quality of bituminous coal yet discovered on the American continent, and said to be equal to the famous Welsh coal which is reputed to be the best in the world. These vast and rich deposits of coal have been monopolized by a few combinations of capital, the greater of which is our present foe, the Canadian Collieries Company, which is a ramification of the Canadian Northern Railway and Steamship Company, a corporation composed principally of British capitalists and incorporated for $100,000,000.
Much of the coal is mined by Chinese and Japanese workmen, and all of it is mined under non-union conditions, and is used for coaling vessels plying between the trans-Pacific trade, but the bulk of it is shipped through the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca into the* markets of British Columbia, Alaska, Mexico, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle, in competition with the union-mined coal of Washington and eastern British Columbia. An idea of the advantage this coal has in the markets of the Pacific coast will be gained from the knowledge that union-mined coal produced in the Roslyn-Cle Elum field of Washington, has been entirely excluded from the local Seattle market because it cannot be transported over the Cascades mountains and meet the competition of Vancouver Island coal. Again, Oregon with Portland as its chief base of distribution received almost all of its coal supply from the same source. Cojning, as it does, down the coast, and entering the Columbia river at Fort Stevens, whence it reaches Portland and is sold at a price that prohibits competition from the adjoining state of Washington, and this notwithstanding there is an import duty of 45 cents per ton on all coal coming from the island into the United States.
However, this is not the worst feature of a bad condition. There is another angle to it that must have the consideration of the United Mine Workers of America. Extending along the Pacific coast of British Columbia six hundred miles, from Vancouver Island to Prince Rupert near the Arctic circle, is one immense bed of high grade coal which has been monopolized by practically the same interests that operate on Vancouver Island. Already this rich source of supply is tapped by many mines in process of development, so as to be ready for the opening of the Panama canal, which will undoubtedly in the near future make this territory one of the greatest coal producing centres on the American continent. It is anticipated that with the opening of the canal myriads of alien workers from
European countries will be induced to enter British Columbia via Vancouver city and Victoria, the natural ports of entry into this new field of labour. Even now the large steamship companies have agents scouring Europe, who are painting seductive pictures of the possibilities of this new El Dorado and offering inviting transportation rates to all those who wish to enter after the opening of the canal. That their efforts will result in multitudes of workers migrating into British Columbia is not doubted. Much of this foreign labour will be used to develop these rich mining properties and will create a tremendous tonnage that must find a market. These mines are located so that the output can be dumped from the tipple into ocean-going vessels, and with the long haul 'around the Horn eliminated, can be freighted without transfer from the mines to the Atlantic seaboard at a transportation cost that will allow it to become a strong competing factor in the markets now supplied by the union-mined coal of the eastern States. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Northern railway and other steamship companies have already contracted for the construction of an additional number of modern ocean freighters to be used in this trade.
Now, what follows?
So that it is not beyond reasonable conjecture to expect that within a comparatively short time we will find this coal bidding for markets on the Atlantic seaboard as well as on the Pacific coast. This feature in itself would not be so bad if there could be an interchange of competition, but that cannot be, for the reason that the much superior quality of this coal will always bar outside competition from its own zone.
The duty devolving upon the United Mine Workers of America, because of this condition-
Not because the miners on Vancouver Island are suffering.
-is to organize Vancouver Island and adjacent territory, raise the standard of employment and act as a balancing medium in the establishment of equitable competitive mining rates. This will be a herculean task but it must be done-
In the interest of the mine workers of Vancouver Island? No, in the interest of the mine owners and the mine workers of the United States.
-or we must suffer inequitable competition.
That is the trouble-the mine owners and mine workers of the United States will suffer from ' inequitable competition ' unless he becomes boss of the situation.
-and the job-
J-o-b, job.
-can be easier done now than after the task gets bigger.
Recognizing the seriousness of the condition and being desirous of protecting the interests of our membership.
Then he brings in the miners in Vancouver Island.



-as well as being anxious to extend assistance to the men employed on Vancouver Island who, because of the absence of an organization were being infamously treated and subjected to impositions that reached the last degree of toleration, the International Executive Board decided to extend the power and protection of the organization to the Island. In keeping with this decision a district convention was held in Nanaimo during the month of November 1911, and a district organization was formed.
It was because of ' this condition keep that in your mind all the time. The rest of it is not important, but perhaps I had better read it:
From the beginning the men took kindly to the organization, which grew rapidly in numerical strength, and there was every prospect of a substantial organization being established, when, during September, 1912, the Canadian Collieries Company, evidently fearing their power was passing, began singling out and discriminating against the more active of the men.
It is said over and over again that these men were dismissed because they had reported gas in one of the mines. That is not what Mr. Farrington says. He says it was because they were active in carrying out the schemes I have already read to you.
Peaceful overtures from the men for an explanation of the management's action met only with arrogant rebuff. This sort of treatment was tolerated until it could no longer be endured without resentment, and after every peaceful means of redress had been exhausted the men decided to show their opposition to such injustice by taking a holiday, which they did, and after which the company refused to allow them to return to work unless they would sign individual contracts (old iron-clads so familiar to the men of the United States), the terms of which would make the signers little more than bondmen, and which would result in the voluntary dissolution of their union. This the men refused to agree to, and the fight has been on ever since.
During the progress of this struggle all modern instruments used to defeat men engaged in industrial struggles elsewhere have been used to defeat the men engaged in this contest. Hardships, hunger, evictions, brutality, arrests, strike-breakers, false reports, illegal representation of vested rights, intimidation, political prostitution and armed guards are elements common to this battle for human rights.
However, notwithstanding that the company have mustered every influence at their command, they have not been able to produce any considerable part of their original tonnage, or
to discourage the men involved, and if solidarity, fidelity and courage are a harbinger of success the end will see the United Mine Workers of America established on Vancouver Island.
Now, the mine owners of Vancouver Island believe, rightly or wrongly-a belief based somewhat on this article and other
evidence which they have-that the mine owners of the United States are colluding with the mine workers in the United States for the purpose of getting control of the mines of Vancouver Island so that they will not be in a position to compete with .those in the United States * inequitably.' Now, this article is dated 27th March, but you will remember it goes back as far as November, 1911. That was followed, on the 30th of April-and my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), the other night was kind enough to say that I knew in April about this strike. Yes, I knew in April, but what day in April? The 30th. How much time was there between the 30th of April and the 1st of May.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: May I ask did the department have any information prior to the actual calling of the strike ?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: None prior to the 30th of April. (Reading):
Seattle, Wash., April 30, 1913. Mr. Robert Foster,
President District 28, United Mine Workers of America, Nanaimo, B.C.
Dear Sir and Brother,-A number of months ago Mr. John P. White, president of the United Mine Workers of America, invited the owners of the mines operating on Vancouver Island to attend a conference to formulate a joint agreement covering working conditions in the mines on Vancouver Island.
Mr. John P. White, a foreigner, living in Indianapolis, president of the United Mine Workers of America, invites the mine owners, the operators, to meet him and enter into an agreement with him to regulate how they shall produce coal in Vancouver Island, whether their men shall work one day in the week or five or six days, whether they shall, open one mine or two or a dozen. That is the effect of this invitation, and I know that my hoh. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) does not sympathize with that.
This invitation received no response from the mine owners.
Of course not.' My hon. friend from Edmonton would not respond to an invitation of that kind sent him from Chicago, to meet the writer to determine how the hon. member should carry on his own business.
Instead, the Canadian Collieries Company forced the men of Cumberland and Ladysmith into a strike which has now lasted more than seven, months.
Not a lockout. Mr. Farrington, himself, says here that it is a strike. But the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) called it a ' holiday.'


Alphonse Verville: I did not deal with that part of the report. But I shall have a chance to answer.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: During this strike the men of Nanaimo and South Wellington had not been called upon to
suffer any personal inconvenience or financial loss.
They were not on strike. The men at Nanaimo, South Wellington and Jinglepot were working under agreements, one of which would not expire for five months, one for seven months, and one for two years and four months, and since the agreements had been signed up there had never been a complaint. The agreement provided proceedings for settling disputes. He says these people ' are not suffering any personal inconvenience or financial loss,' and then he calls them out on strike.
However, the other companies operating on the island are co-operating with the Canadian Collieries Company in a hopeless effort to defeat the men of Cumberland and Ladysmith. Therefore, using the authority given me by President White, and in order that we may combat solidarity with solidarity, I hereby instruct you to call a strike of all the men employed in and around the mines at Nanaimo, South Wellington and Jinglepot.
These men had no complaints against their employers, and were working under three separate agreements, yet Mr. Foster was instructed to call out all these men.
The strike to begin May 1 and to continue until working agreement between the United Mine Workers of District 28, and the mine owners on Vancouver Island has been secured; said agreement to carry increased prices for labour and improved conditions of employment. You will please see that a force of men sufficient to protect mining property is permitted to work so long as the companies do not attempt to ship coal.
You will always find a clause of that kind in a strike call.
All other men should be urged to join the strike. You should also exert every effort to prevent unlawful or abusive tactics by the men during this conflict.
Listen to this:
And you will also make an earnest effort to secure the names of all men who refuse to respond to the call to strike so that they may be published throughout Canada, Great Britain and the United States. The men involved, union and non-union, will receive the financial support of the International Union as long as the strike lasts.	.
This decision has been reached only* after months of mature consideration. The time is now here for the men of Nanaimo and South Wellington to prove their worth. If they show the same fighting spirit as their brothers of Cumberland and Ladysmith, May 1 will see the
m
dawning of brighter days for the mine workers of Vancouver Island.
Yours fraternally,
Frank Farrington.
That was followed next day by a call issued by the local man, Foster, to whom Farrington had written, the important part of which is in these words:
I therefore avail myself of the privilege granted by the International representatives, brother Farrington, and the recommendation of the convention hereinbefore mentioned, and declare a strike at all of the coal mines on the island, and ask all miners to cease work until the companies concede them an advance in wages proportionate to the advanced cost of living, fair working conditions and an agreement specifying those wages and conditions of employment, said agreement to be entered into by and between the United Mine Workers of America and the coal companies of this district.
So that everything that occurred since November, 1911, should be read and interpreted in the light of this article that Frank Farrington published on March 27. On April 30, what followed? The very next day the following was issued in the form of a long, blood-red dodger, which was scattered in thousands throughout the city of Nanaimo:
General Strike. After having consulted the managers of the different collieries around Nanaimo, the parties signing themselves as a joint committee have decided to call a meeting at the Princess Theatre at 7 p.m.
These were men who did not want to strike. As a matter of fact one company, the Western Fuel Company, had 1,500 men employed, and only 240 of the 1,500 belonged to the United Mine Workers Association-the other 1,260 did not want to strike; they were satisfied with conditions.
While not opposed to meetings of the miners, we beg to inform all employees in or around the mines that a strike has been declared by the United Mine Workers of District No. 28, and endorsed by the National.
It would be truer if it had been said that the strike had been declared by the National and endorsed by the local association.
And will continue u#ntil such time as the operators of this district enter into an agreement with the United Mine Workers of America. Ballot or no ballot-
The men were not permitted to say whether or not they wanted to strike; 1,260 men who did not want to strike were not permitted to say anything about it.
-any one going to work in these mines will be branded a scab.

240 men brand 1,260 as scabs; the result is they all quit work. This is the same organization and these are the same officials who fought the mine owners of Nova Scotia for 22 months in the years 1909 and 1910, and there has been peace in Nova Scotia ever since.
I am told by the chief whip that as some hon. gentlemen who are not here to-night desire to speak on the subject of industrial training and technical education, it has been arranged that item 286 shall be allowed to stand, and that this one be allowed to pass.


David Bradley Neely: The minister said on Friday last that my statement in the House contained some grave inaccuracies. It does contain an inaccuracy of three names, due to the fact that I looked at the sessional papers published in 1911 for the list of that year, and in looking at the sessional papers published in 1912 I see that it contains the civil list of 1911, which has 24 names. But when it comes to my mentioning the 39 names, I have no correction to make in my figures at all. Whilst in the civil list of last year there were actually 30 names, the minister is asking ds to vote money to pay 39.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Thirty-nine-I do not think so.


David Bradley Neely: I think if the minister looks up the list he will find that I am not mistaken. Thirty-six men are provided for in this year's vote, and there are three men in the outside service, making a total of thirty-nine.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. gentleman cannot get out of it that way. He did not say anything about the outside service; he said he had been looking over the civil list the other day, and that he found thirty-nine names. He can find only thirty on the civil list, and the explanation as to the thirty-six I gave to my hon. friend the member for Pictou a few moments ago. Nine out of the thirty-six are vacancies.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At this late hour I do
not want to review at any great length the very impressive and somewhat dramatic presentation of this case which has been made by the hon. minister. But I would like to get his understanding of this matter in order that there may be no misunderstanding. In the first place, I want to tell my hon. friend that I do not know anything about coal mines. I never was in a coal mine in my life, therefore I am asking for

information. I understand the minister in this particular instance objects to this man Farrington and to White having anything to do with labour conditions in Canada, because they are residents of a foreign country.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not say that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did you not? It is pretty hard to pin the minister down to anything at all, because he always get out of it by saying: ' I did not say that.' I did not say the minister used exactly those words, but I leave it to any hon. gentleman in this House, if that is not the substance and meaning of what he said. I would have to get the 'Hansard' for his exact words. The minister alleges that there was a deep laid plot some years ago, by which the United Mine Workers of America, a labour organization of the United States, wished to interfere with labour conditions in the province of British Columbia, for, I might say, national reasons, not purely reasons connected with the mining industry of Brit-, ish Columbia. The minister has gone to a great deal of trouble and read a lengthy article published by Farrington, who occupied some position with the United Mine Workers' organization. 1 understand that practically all the labour unions in Canada to-day, excepting, one labour union in Nova Scotia, are international in character.


Mr. STANFIELD:: Not quite.
. Mr. CARVELL:	I am not an authority,
but I believe that practically all of them are international in character. The organization formed two or three years ago, of railway clerks and freight handlers, is local, 1 know. This seems to be a condition, and no matter whether we like it or not, it is a condition of things which we have to face. No doubt it is doing a good work, and I hope the minister will not say that trade unionism is not a good thing, so far as labour conditions are concerned. I do not think we are drawing an unfair inference from the statements made by the minister to-night when we say that he is opposed to the United Mine Workers of America in our coal industry because they are foreigners. I think I am equally safe in saying that the substance of the minister's explanation tonight is, that he is opposed to any attempt to settle this strike because ho does not want this American organization to interfere in labour affairs in Cana la. If I am right in my deductions, then I think the minister should answer this question: Is he, or is he not, opposed to international labour-unions in the Dominion of Canada? I

think I am entitled to an answer to that question.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Do you? I do not say anything against the United Mine Workers; I do not say anything to the effect that I was opposed to international unionism. 1 know that a great many unions in Canada are connected with this association. Some are not, a great many are, I am not discussing that question at all. It is legal for them to -have unions here. I have not said anything as to whether I was in favour or opposed to that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish you would.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have done nothing
in opposition to such unions, and I do not propose to do anything in opposition to them. I was simply trying to give the members of this House the origin, as it struck me from that article, of the difficulties in Vancouver Island.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then the minister does
not dissent from my conclusion from his remarks, that he has not done anything to settle this trouble between the United Mine Workers and the men of British Columbia?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I said nothing to warrant any such conclusion. We have been working at it since the 16th of September.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the minister go
[DOT] this far:	would the minister say that he
will not attempt to settle the strike at the present time because the trouble happens to be caused by the United Mine Workers of America?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, I will not say anything of the sort. The Deputy Minister spent nearly the whole of November in Vancouver Island trying to get the people gether. We have an officer stationed at the city Of Vancouver, a man whom I sent there when I was placed in charge of the Labour Department in order that we could have some one on the ground. There was a great deal of work to be done there. Before that, his headquarters had been at Ottawa. I sent a man of experience, Mr. J. D. McNiven, and he is in coijpmunication with us all the time, I get a report from him every week. I might say before I sit down, that the Canadian Collieries are employing about 400 more men than they employed at the -time the strike began, and are putting out a great deal more coal than they were at that time. I had a report a few days ago from Mr. McNiven, stating that the output of the Western Fuel Company during the first week
of February averaged 700 tons daily. Similar quantities are being turned out at Jinglepot and South Wellington. Large quantities _ of coal are being mined on Vancouver Island to-day, and there are large numbers of men employed. The -men are going back almost daily, and most of them are put on. The owners could not find work for them all, because they are not working as many mines as before the strike. We are just having a repetition of what occurred in Nova Scotia, two or three years
12 p.m. ago. The mine owners are operating their mines, but not to so large an extent as before the strike, but nobody is suffering through lack of coal.


William F. Carroll: By union labour in Nova Scotia, not by United Mine Workers.


George Perry Graham: Does the minister not
think that the Minister of Mines is largely to blame for this trouble, instead of the Minister of Labour? Under the late Government, warm friends of my hon. friend blamed the Minister of Railways when there was a railway strike, and using the same argument as was used against me by gentlemen from the town where the hon. Minister of Labour resides, the Minister of Mines is certainly responsible for this -trouble, and ought to be here answering questions instead of the Minister of Labour.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Since my hon. friend has referred to the practice of the Government of which he was a distinguished member, I might -read a letter to show what the practice of that Government was in such matters. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) referred the other night to the Conciliation Act, and pointed out what might be done- by the minister under that Act, without any application on the part of any one. Something could be done,
I quite agree with him. That same Act was in existence in 1906, when we had a very serious strike within a stone's throw of this city-about 20 miles down at a place called Buckingham. The men at Buckingham, more than a month before there was any serious trouble, requested the Labour Department to go down and intervene with a view to bringing about peace. My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was at that time managing the Labour Department. It was not a separate department at that time. But let me read a sentence or two from a letter written on the 2nd of November by the then Minister of Labour (Mr. Lemieux). About the 8th of October there was a riot at Buckingham. Mr. COMMONS
Lemieux had been requested in September to go down and see if he could not make peace between the men and employers, but he failed to do anything. A riot occurred three men were killed and others very seriously wounded, but this was the position taken by the then Minister of Labour.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was no legislation on the statute-book to enable him to act, there was no Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He could not do anything under that Act but he could under the Conciliation Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Wh, not?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Because the employers would not have anything to do with the settlement. The men might have applied for it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course they could.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am now attempting to answer the position taken by the hon. memher for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) that under the Conciliation Act the minister could have intervened of his own will or motion. That Act was in existence then, nothing was done under it. Men were killed, blood was shed, then militia were sent down from Ottawa; and this is what Mr. Lemieux said in a letter to Hon. W. E. Weir.
'	1	Re Buckingham Strike.
1 have to thank you for your letter of the 31st ult. and for your kind promise to send copies of the several reports made. With regard to what you say as to the report of our inspector, I would say that this matter was not investigated by any officer of the Department of Labour.
The procedure of the department in most of the cases which the department has had to deal with has been to intervene only where all sides have been willing to accept the department's friendly offices.
And he refused to have anything to do with it unless both parties asked the department to intervene. The men in this case asked them to do it but the employers did not want them to do it. The result was that the minister did not do it and he says that was the practice of the department, not to do anything unless both parties to the dispute were in favour of intervention.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was seven or eight years ago. Does my hon. friend think the Department of Labour should stand still for seven or eight years? Is there to be no advance in the method of handling these

troubles in seven or eight years? It just comes back to the old argument, if we are guilty you are guilty, too. That is the answer you get every time any question comes up in this House. The Minister of Labour surely must not think that because, before there was a Department of Labour, when it was only a sort of appendage to the Post Office Department, the then Postmaster General took a certain attitude before we even had the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, he can hide himself behind the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.	.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Nobody is trying to do it. Try to be fair if you can.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is very hard to be fair with the present Minister of Labour.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I know it is hard for you.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I fail to find a single soft spot for him to fall on. I do not want to distort the facts, but I say it is pretty hard for the present minister to get any comfort out of the action of the Postmaster General seven or eight years ago when there was not in existence an Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I had hoped that his department had advanced some in that time, that there was a possibility of a better feeling between capital and labour than there was seven or eight years ago. If that is the conception which the minister has of the duties of the Labour Department, I am afraid he is only bearing out the idea that many of us on -this side of the House have been trying to express to him during the course of this debate.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. member for Carleton was here last Friday night, he heard the whole statement as to what we have done to try to bring about a peacable settlement on Vancouver Island.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I heard nothing.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But to-night he says there has been no advance made in the department, that we are acting as Mr. Lemieux did seven or eight years ago, when he knows or ought to know that that does not represent the matter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister tell
us what he has done to try to settle the Vancouver strike?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Nothing has been given so far. He sent a telegram.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I gave a full statement to the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And you reported that nothing had been done then. Give us the information now.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, I told you the
other night that I was in Vancouver Island; I told you my fair-wage officer who went to the Crowsnest Pass in 1910 went to Vancouver Island day after day. I told you I appointed a commissioner; I told you that my deputy spent a month at Vancouver Island and that Mr. McNiven of Vancouver was in constant communication with Vancouver Island. And in the face of this the hon. member gets up and says nothing has been done, nothing more than was done by Mr. Lemieux seven or eight years ago.


George Eulas Foster: Preposterous.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I think the arrangement
was that items 287 and 288 were to pass and the other items were to stand.


Alphonse Verville: Just one word.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, let us go home.


Alphonse Verville: There is no letter whatever from the department to the mine owners in the report of the commissioner. Before we proceed with the other items another day, it seems to me that all the .correspondence should be laid on the Table so that we' may have a chance to see the position that has been taken. I am asking what will be no more than fair because the present report is only half complete, and my hon. friend knows it very well.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: On Friday evening Sir Wilfrid Laurier asked me to bring the papers here. They are here to-day. You could have seen anything you wanted to see.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are they on the
Table?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, they are here. We do not put originals on the Table as a rule, unless it be for a few moments.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why not send them to my hon. friend?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, I will not, but I will put them on the Table.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all we want.


George Eulas Foster: Is it understood that they should be put on the Table to-night and
that the hon. member for Maisonneuve should peg away at them all night?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There ought to be some understanding so that the hon. member for Maisonneuve can see them. The minister ought io be fair.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I shall be very glad, if he will come to my office, to let him see the whole thing.


Mr CARVELL:: There arc other [DOT]members biside the hon. member for Maisonneuve. Vi hy not make copies?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We. are makinv copies as rapidly as we can, but in the meantime I brought the originals here at Sir Wilfrid Laurier's request.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Surely they are not so voluminous that you cannot have them the next day.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We could not get them out in several days.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Foster, the House adjourned at 12.23 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, February 11, 1914.