1914-04-24

THE PRUDENTIAL LIFE OF CANADA.

Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston) moved:: That the Order of the House of 22nd April, 1914, authorizing the refund of fees paid on Bill No. 150 (letter H-2 of the Senate), an Act

to incorporate the Prudential Life of Canada, be rescinded, and that that portion of the sixth report of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, reporting the preamble of the said Bill as not proven, be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


William Folger Nickle: It is perhaps fair that in moving this motion I should mention some of the circumstances surrounding this legislation. The Prudential Life Assurance Company, a company incorporated under the laws of Manitoba, desires this legislation from this Parliament. It is opposed by the Prudential Life Insurance Company of America, a company that took its name from the British company of that name, and which has been doing business in the United States for about twenty-seven years. The American company was licensed by the Finance Department of the Dominion of Canada in 1909. The Canadian company was incorporated by Manitoba in 1902, but did not begin business until 1907. However, in the year 1907 the Canadian company started business in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and further it extended its business to New Brunswick in the year 1910. The reason this legislation is desired is, that owing to the diversity of the provincial laws regarding insurance, the company finds that under its provincial charter it is practically prohibited from carrying on its business throughout Canada as a whole.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What is the abject of the legislation sought from this Parliament?	.


William Folger Nickle: The legislation sought from this Parliament is to give Dominion incorporation to a company that hitherto has had only provincial incorporation, so that the company may be enabled to do its business throughout Canada rather than be restricted to certain of the provinces. The Bill introduced this year in the Senate was introduced in the House of Commons last year, and passed successfully through the committee stage and through the House, but it was stopped when it reached the Senate. This year, to overcome any fundamental objection, the promoters of the measure introduced it in the Senate, where it was successfully passed. It was then introduced in this House, and was referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. The promoters of the Bill were somewhat surprised, when the measure came before the Banking and Commerce Committee, to find that for some inexplicable reason-or perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should recast that sentence and say that for reasons they had not foreseen, a phalanx of members were gathered there, and for one cause or another opposed the legislation going through the Banking and Commerce Committee.
Various objections were offered to the Bill, and perhaps it is fair that I should summarize these. One was, that confusion would result from another company bearing the name 'Prudential' getting legislative sanction from this Parliament. May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this difference between the name of the American company and the name of the Canadian company. As I have said, when this Canadian company was authorized by Manitoba to begin business, the name was the Prudential Life Insurance Company; the name of the American company being the Prudential Insurance Company of America. That there might be no confusion, the promoters of the Canadian legislation signified their intention to change the name, so that the new name would be ' The Prudential Life Company of Canada.' There would then be this fundamental difference between the two names: the American company would have as an affix the words ' of America ' while the Canadian company would have as an affix the words ' of Canada.' The American company would carry the word ' insurance ' and the Canadian company would be described as a ' life ' company.
Fox reasons that met the approval of the committee, however, the Bill did not yesterday successfully get through the Banking and Commerce Committee. Objection was further made that it would be an offence against international comity that a Canadian committee should give legislative sanction to a company whose name was so similar to that of an American company; that as the American company had first made application to the Dominion Parliament for authority to conduct its business in Canada, it would be improper that a provincial company should now be recognized. I might say, in passing, speaking of the possible confusion of names, that I find on looking up the record that we have in Canada doing business the Mutual Life Assurance Company of New York, and that we also have the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada. We have the Travellers Life Assurance 'Company of Canada and the Travellers Life Assurance Company of Hartford. That legislation was piloted

through this Parliament by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). We have the Phoenix Assurance Company of London and the Phoenix Assurance Company of Hartford. When application was made by the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada to the English authorities to carry on business in England, they consented, although there was a British company carrying on business under the name of the Sun Life Assurance 'Company, to let the Canadian company do business in England if the words 'of Canada' were added to their name. Therefore the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is doing business in England to-day.
Objection was also raised that the American company was the big company and the Canadian company was the little company, and that the big company should have the advantage and the little company procure another name. That hardly seems to be fair. The Canadian company had the western sphere of business entirely to itself from 1907 to 1909. The American com. pany then entered the field of operation, and they now say: Although you came first and had provincial incorporation; yet, because we were first in Dominion license, you should be stopped from extending your business. The name 'Prudential' to the small company in the West certainly means more to it than the name 'Prudential' to the American company, with its extensive ramifications and business connections. To show how this small company has prospered, the following figures will show the growth of its business from 1908 to 1913:
Date.	Business in force.
On June 30,	1908	$1,311,500On Dec. 31,	1908	
2,230,000On Dec. 31,	1909	
3,321,083On Dec. 31,	1910	
2,277,028On Dec. 31,	1911	
6,294,464On Dec. 31,	1912	
7,576,631On Dec. 31,	1913	
8,617,015


Mr. SPEAKER:: It seems to me that the hon. member is extending the discussion beyond reasonable grounds upon a motion to refer a Bill back to the committee.


William Folger Nickle: I have not the slightest
intention of trespassing upon the patience of the House; but if any other method can be suggested to me than that which I am at present adopting, I shall be very pleased to carry out the suggestion.


Mr. AMES:: Are any new facts to be presented to the committee for consideration?


William Folger Nickle: The facts as they were laid before the committee yesterday I think
;Mr. Nickle.]
cannot be amplified if the Bill goes back to the committee; but the legislation is of such an important character to the company involved and the throwing out of a Bill simply for the preamble not being proven on the ground that the name is not satisfactory is such an unusual proceeding that I think the Bill should be referred back to the committee for further consideration in the hope that a favourable decision may be reached. Last year, without a murmur, the House of Commons passed this legislation and the Senate killed it. This year the promoters introduced the Bill in the Senate, believing that once it passed the Senate it would safely pass this House. Suddenly without a word of warning, the Bill is stopped by the same committee and the same House of Commons that last year allowed it to pass without a murmur.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are there any provisions outside of the name which the company believe to be necessary for them to carry on their business?


William Folger Nickle: The only provision, I understand, is the power to increase the capital.


Mr. BOYCE:: The motion made by my
hon. friend from Kingston to refer this Bill back to the Banking and Commerce Committee is of a somewhat unusual character and one not usually pursued in this House. The House having committed a Bill to one of its committees and that committee, as my horn, friend has stated, with .a phalanx congregated there, that is, with an unusual number of members, having deliberated on the Bill and having reported, it would be a most unusual practice for the House, without a single reason being shown beyond the charge made by my hon. friend that the committee has decided wrongly, to order the recommittal of the Bill to the committee. I entirely .agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it is not proper now to go into details of the case. The Banking and Commerce Committee was represented on that occasion by the largest number of members it has had this session; and during the greater part, if not the whole, of two hours, this question was debated pro and con. The hon. Minister of Finance was present and gave his advice to the committee; my hon. friend himself and hie cohorts and his phalanx of members gave their views, and the judgment of the committee was unfavourable to my hon. friend. Under such circumstances, it would be con-

trary to the usual practice of this House and a slight upon the dignity of the Banking and Commerce Committee that this Bill should be relegated again to that committee for its consideration, without its being shown that there was a mistrial, that there was a paucity of members; that there were points which ware ill-considered or not considered. During the ten years that I have been in the House I remember only one case where a Bill was so dealt with, and that was a case where it was alleged-my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition will bear me out-that there was such a small representation upon the committee and that there were certain facts not considered by the committee that it was open to the House, in the exercise of its discretion and in the fullness of its power, to relegate that Bill to the committee, which it did. Therefore I consider it would not be an exercise of the judicial or proper discretion of the House to treat the Banking and Commerce Committee in such a. way in this case. That committee having digested and disposed of and decided the whole question, it ought not to be again burdened with the consideration of the matter. Therefore I foor my part shall strongly oppose and, if necessary, vote against the motion of my hon. friend.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Possibly the fact that
in *the previous session of Parliament I had charge of the Bill now under consideration would justify a word or two upon my part. It may be that the ruling is correct; I question it not, that the merits of the Bill are not under review at the present time, and it may be that jthe hon. member for West Algoma is within his rights in saying that some special consideration should in the ordinary course be preser.it in the mind of the House before it would be justified in referring the Bill back to the committee. In my experience in the House, though, I have never been able to detect any rule that the House has come fto in the way of determining what these considerations shall be or how compelling they shall be before a Bill be committed back. Every Bill is treated, and I think should be treated, and every Bill for reference back should be treated, strictly on its own merits and on the merits of whatever considerations may be brought before the House in regard to it. It cannot be argued-and I think the only deduction from the reasoning of the hon.
member for Algoma is thait it must be argued-that as soon as a Bill passes the committee the House is entirely robbed of its deliberative capacity on the merits of the Bill itself. Or, puitting it another way, as soon as the Bill is thrown out by committee, if the hon. member for Algoma is correct, then the House is robbed of its power to deliberate on the meri'ts of that Bill.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I did not suggest that.


Arthur Meighen: I can find no other deduction from my hon. friend's reasoning.
If his reasoning is correct, that condition will at all times prevail unless fthere happens not to be many members of the committee present. That, however, would not be a cause better than any other, because the committee itself should be the judge of whether or not its numbers are sufficient to enable it finally to pass upon the merits of the Bill. There are, though, especial considerations in the present case, and I think the important one is this:	the
Bill has already passed committee and passed this House, and the judgment of this same House has been reversed by committee. Is not that a material consideration? The Bill has passed this House in respect of *the clause which was a stumbling block to the present committee. I understand that it was stated when this Bill was before committee yesterday that the matter of name was not under review, that the name was not. objected to tvhen the Bill was before the committee a year ago. I had charge of the Bill at that time and I remember quite well that objection was raised to the name.
I do not know whether it was pressed very strongly in committee; if.it was not it was because the objection at that time appeared, I must say, more or less trivial; blit objection to the name was pressed by some one and the committee in its wisdom decided that the objection was not tenable and that the Canadian company had prior rights to the name. That judgment of last session was under review in this House; was favourably passed upon by this House and the committee now step in, rebuke the judgment of the House of last session and throw out the Bill. I am not arguing that the committee had not the right to do so; I am not saying that the committe was estopped from deliberating on the merits of the name merely because the same House of Commons had approved it, but I do say this: that the fact that the committe did so in

contradistinction to its own action a year ago and in opposition to the judgment of this House a year ago, is an especial and a material consideration that should weigh with this House in discussing whether or nod. the Bill should go back. I do not argue that there were not sufficient members present at the meeting of the committee. I myself came in only a short time before the vote was taken, in time, however, to hear the arguments raised against it by the hon. member for West Algoma. As a consequence, I do not know what degree of discussion did take place, but I was more or less conversant with the subject before I came in. However, there were sufficient numbers present at the committee, no doubt and I do say that the merits of the case itself are such that a very brief review of them would convince the House, were I permitted to give them, that the position taken by the committee is indefensible and that the committee offers a very serious precedent for this House to adopt if that decision is not to go back for review.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Supposing the Bill to be recommitted and reconsidered by the committee and that there be a much smaller phalanx of members present, what would my hon. friend say then as to the reason for its being recommitted?


Arthur Meighen: I would say that those who had opposed the Bill had seen the error of their ways and had stayed away. After the Bill has received the notice that it does receive and goes back to the committee, there is ample notice to all members of the committee and there is nothing to hinder their being present. I must say that those interested in the passing of the Bill will welcome all who may come to that committee, be they opposed or be they not, and welcome a fair consideration of the claims of this measure on its own merits.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would my hon. friend be satisfied if an adverse judgment were then given, and, if so, why is he not satisfied now?


Arthur Meighen: When the adverse judgment comes I will give my decision upon it. I do not know what will produce it; it may be that there will then be special considerations, but I will say this: if my good friend the hon. member for West Peterborough will disarm himself of all prejudices that may now be in his mind and will address himself to this question with all the intelligence that he can command, I think I will be satisfied with his judgment 
on the merits of this Bill. If the Chair rules that I am forbidden to discuss the right of this Canadian company to retain the name under which it has been operating through six provinces of the Dominion and which it is now proposed to rob it of, I criticise it not; I bow to it, but I ask that it prevail throughout this discussion.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Before the
motion is put, I rise merely to say that I, as a member of that committee, voted in opposition to this measure, and I resent strongly the insinuation of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Niokle) that the members who voted in opposition to it were influenced in any way, or that they were asked to come to the meeting of the committee. So far as I am concerned, I wish to state emphatically that I was not asked to come to the committee and vote; I felt myself perfectly free to act as I did. While on my feet I may say also that I strongly resent a similar assertion made by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) in the committee. I am surprised that hon. gentlemen should make such statements, because they include members of the committee who, I believe, went there for the purpose of conscientiously carrying out their convictions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Frederick Joseph Campbell.-Mr. Ames.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Elizabeth Ghausse.-Mr. Sehaffner.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Beatrice Mae Stinson Fotheringham.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Eva Jane Bateman.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Florence Rolf.-Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. EMMERSON:: I want to call the attention of the Government to a very glaring and inexcusable error to be found in a map published by the Department of the Interior showing the number of chartered banks in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. In this map, Lawrence-town is represented as being east of the city of Halifax, and in Halifax county. Lawrencetown is in Annapolis county.


Mr. BORDEN:: My hon. friend is giving us an example of a little knowledge being

a dangerous thing. There is a Lawrence-town east of Halifax in Halifax county, as well as a town of the same name in Annapolis county.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But the one in Halifax county is not a banking town so far as I am aware. This map was sent to me by the manager of a prominent bank in eastern Canada. In calling attention to this error he said that the Lawrencetown where the bank is located is in Annapolis county, and not in Halifax county as indicated by the map.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend is quite correct in that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The map is to that extent inaccurate. I wish to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the error, as the maps are being distributed all over the country, I myself having received one. Lawrencetown in Annapolis county is quite an important place, but I never heard of the one in Halifax county.


Robert Laird Borden: Doubtless the confusion has arisen over the identity of names.



ST. PETER'S CANAL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. KYTE:: I desire to ask the acting
Minister of Railways and Canals, when he expects that work will be resumed on the St. Peter's canal. I understand that owing to a change of plan the contractor has been obliged to discontinue work for some time. In the present condition of unemployment throughout the country I am bound to say that it is a matter of supreme urgency that the work be resumed as speedily as possible.


Mr. J. D. REID:: Work on the St. Peter's canal ceased during the winter, as is usual, on account of the cold weather. During the winter borings were taken for the proposed lock, but the material turned out to be different from what was expected and the chief engineer is now considering the advisability of having the lock in another place. If that plan is adopted it may mean the closing of the canal for one season. I discussed the matter with the chief engineer this morning with a view to arriving at a conclusion on that point, so that work might be started at the earliest possible moment.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. W. CHISHOLM:: I desire to call the attention of certain members of the Government to delay in bringing down returns ordered of the House passed several weeks ago: one was with reference to the mail service between North Lochaber and West Lochaber; another had reference to reports re dredging in Antigonish harbour; and a third asked for correspondence re the appointment of a collector of customs in Antigonish.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to call the attention of the acting Minister of Railways to a return I asked for some time ago relating to an agreement with - reference to power rights on the Trent Valley canal. I understand my hon. friend proposes to go into his Canal Estimates to-day, and certainly the information to be found in the return should be before the House when that particular item is being considered. I do not think the return is of such a lengthy character as to take a great deal of time to prepare.


John Dowsley Reid: I was under tne impression that it had been brought down, and I am surprised to hear that it has not. That particular item will not be taken up until the hon. gentleman has the return, and has bad time to look it over.



TRUST COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White, the House went into Committee on Bill No. 70, respecting Trust Companies, Mr. Blondin in the Chait.
Mr. WHITE:: My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) usually desires to know what changes, if any, have been made by the committee, and I shall be very glad to give him that information now. The committee gave this Bill very careful and thorough consideration, and made a number of minor changes. Some valuable suggestions made by members of the committee have been incorporated in the Bill. It will be sufficient for the present to mention that amendments have been made as to the following matters: Qualifications of directors, the quorum of directors' meetings, the forfeiture of shares for non-payment of calls, the liability of shareholders to creditors, the liability of directors, 'loans to directors, and the investment of the company's own funds. The last-mentioned amendment is the principal change made by the committee. Under the draft Bill, the trust company was permitted to invest 40 per cent of its paid-up capital in office premises. That provision was changed by the committee so that 35 per cent of the paid-up capital and reserve may now be

so invested. Under the provisions of the draft Bill, 25 per cent of the capital of the [DOT]company might be invested in stocks of banks and incorporated companies. That was amended by the committee so that not more than 20 per cent of the stock of any bank and of the stocks and securities of any incorporated company may be taken by way of investment, the total not to exceed 25 per cent of the paid-up capital and reserve. This section is made retroactive after January 1, 1917, so that the trust companies incorporated hitherto will have between now and that date to arrange their investments so as to comply strictly with the provisions of the new Act.
When I was dealing with the Bill on the second, reading, my right hon. friend referred to the very wide powers which in the past had been granted to trust companies incorporated by letters patent from the Department of the Secretary of State, and asked if we would inquire as to how many of' these companies had organized with a view to seeing whether the powers of those companies which had not organized 'should be cut down so as to comply with the provisions of the new Bill. We made that inquiry through the office of the Secretary of State. We found that most of the companies had organized and were carrying on business at the present time. A few of the comparfies have not organized. The changes which have been made by the committee in section 66, which deals with the investment powers of the trust companies incorporated under this Act, together with the retroactive provision, effectually clip the powers of any of the companies which have not yet organized, and which have powers of investment wider than I think this House would deem it w-ise that trust companies should have. So I think the point which my right hon. triend had in mind has been met by the committee.
On section 4-Incorporation and organization :


Mr. TURRIFF:: 
William Thomas White: As my hon. friend is aware, there is concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of incorporating trust companies. The Dominion of Canada has jurisdiction, and each province has jurisdiction, so that the Dominion could not, as a matter of right, interfere with the legislation of any province. The point was raised, I think, upon the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, and I stated that I had received communications from the attorneys general of, I think, two or more provinces asking in a general way what legislation we proposed to introduce. They evidently desired to have it before them in connection with some similar legislation which they had in mind for their respective provinces. We are sending copies of this Bill to the several attorneys general, but beyond that I think we have not any power whatever to interfere with their discretion in the matter of provincial legislation. The only thing that could be done would be by way of suggestion. In sending a Bill with a covering letter >ve

might possibly be able to do that, but of course anything like interference might be misunderstood and even resented.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is
another way of determining the respective powers of the Dominion and of the provinces to incorporate companies. The late Government had this matter referred to the courts. I do not know in what position the matter stands to-day; (but we shall never have complete satisfaction upon this point, but shall always have clashing of interests and possible complications, until we have, whether by legislation or by judicial determination, complete knowledge as to the power of the provinces to incorporate companies. Take the case we have had before us to-day of a company which has been incorporated in Manitoba. It comes to the Parliament of Canada to have its powers enlarged, and very properly so I believe. That company recognizes that there is more security in a Dominion charter than in a provincial charter. If a company wishes to do business not only in a province but beyond it, according to my judgment, it should have a Dominion charter. We have allowed the provinces to give charters to companies, and many of these companies have obtained powers just as extensive as those obtainable from the Dominion. I would like to know from mv hon. friend in what stage the lawsuit is between the provincial governments and the Dominion Government as to the power to incorporate companies. Has the matter been prosecuted or not?


William Thomas White: My recollection is
that the Supreme Court gave judgment in the matter, and that the case is standing for appeal to the Privy Council. I did not suppose that the Dominion or the provinces would be content with the decision of the Supreme Court, although that body is entitled to our fullest respect. I am afraid that I shall not be able to make a statement as to this matter without some notice.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps the
hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) can tell us in what position the litigation is. There has been a judgment of the Supreme Court, as I understand, affirming the right of the Dominion against the provinces. Am I right in that?


Arthur Meighen: I regret to say that I
cannot give my right hon. friend any information. The matter has not come in any way whatever under my cognizance since I have been in office.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid that my hon. friend has not been ve'ry diligent in getting information in reference to this matter and that this remark applies not only to himself but to the whole Government. They have not been diligent in getting this matter settled in one way or another. I know that there is a conflict of opinion between the provinces and the Dominion and that the provinces hold very strongly to the view that they have the power to incorporate companies. The Dominion, I believe, has not been as diligent as it might have been in order to have this question decided. The only way to secure a decision is by a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy . Council, and if the hon. Solicitor General has not the information, I think he should exert himself to secure a final determination of the question.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite aware that the matter has been under review judicially, and at the same time I know of many similar questions between the provinces and the Dominion that are under review, some of which, to a degree, and some altogether, are under my own charge. But this is not one of them. That does not say, however, that some other member of the Government may not have had it in his charge.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is young in years and young in harness. He has an excellent opportunity of immortalizing himself by having this matter decided once for all.
On section 6-model Bill:


Wilfrid Laurier: All these
clauses are in the original Bill, I suppose? There is nothing new in them?


William Thomas White: No, subject to certain
modifications by the committee.
4 p.m. On section 29-calls:


John Gillanders Turriff: I see that the minimum capital stock is fixed at $250,000. Is there provision later on that a certain amount shall be paid up before they can begin business?


William Thomas White: I would refer my hon.
friend to section 13 which provides that the company must have $100,000 in a chartered bank.
On section 34-share warrants:


Wilfrid Laurier: I wish my
hon. friend would give us some explanation of share warrants.


William Thomas White: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: Not the holder, but
is entitled to them.


William Thomas White: Yes, I was using the word ' holder ' synonymously with ' owner.' A bearer share-warrant is a certificate that the bearer is entitled to so many shares, or is the owner of so many shares, and is entitled to receive the dividends thereon when declared. The bearer share-warrant is 
negotiable; it passes from hand to hand like a bond payable to bearer. For example, if my right hon. friend were the holder of ten shares under a bearer share-warrant and desired to sell them to another party, he could pass on his title by merely delivering the bearer share-warrant to the purchaser. It is important, of course, that the company should have a record, and a careful record, of all outstanding share-warrants that may be issued. The holder of an ordinary certificate or scrip certificate, for so many shares in a company, delivers up his certificate and makes application for the issue to him of a share-warrant representing the same number of shares. The company after cancelling the stock certificate, or certificates, delivers to him the share-warrant. It then has no record of the name of its shareholder, and the share-warrant passes from hand to hand. There has been a great demand in this country for share-warrant provisions in special acts and in general companies acts, in order to meet the requirements of the European investor, who otherwise would be obliged to send a power of attorney or a scrip certificate across the ocean, and make the transfer to the name of the party to whom he sold. Personally, I see very little reason why the provision as to share-warrants should find its way into an Act incorporating trust companies, but there have been trust companies incorporated with the power to issue share-warrants, on the ground that they derive certain of their capital from the continent of Europe, and so I thought it better, because the matter is certain to arise again, to confer that power upon the companies incorporated under this Act. It is open to the directors or the shareholders, by by-law, to adopt a different course and to provide that share-warrants shall not be issued. If the shareholders adopt a bylaw providing that share-warrants may be issued, I personally do not see that any harm can come to the public. My assistant deputy minister calls my attention to the fact that the share must be fully paid before a share-warrant is issued.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have very strong
prejudice against this provision in an Act of this kind, and especially because of the secrecy it involves. I believe that the shareholders of any incorporated company in Canada should be open to the full light of day, so that every one who cares to know, or who is entitled to know, may know the personnel of those who constitute a company. If I am a shareholder in a company,

under this provision, I could go to the company, hand over my certificate for 100 shares say, and receive a share-warrant in lieu thereof. My name is then blotted out of the register of that company as a shareholder. The shares thus surrendered are suspended, and remain so as long as the share-warrants issued in lieu thereof are in circulation. The share-warrants may pass from man to man, and from continent to continent, and no one knows where they are, there being no identity as to the holders. This may be a convenience for an individual living abroad, and for the purposes stated by the Finance Minister, but I do not think it is in the interests of the public, nor do I think it is suited to the conditions in this country. This provision certainly should be withheld from a general Act, until a policy is adopted, whereby our Companies Act has such a general provision. There are a few isolated acts of incorporation containing this provision, and these have been granted only within the last year or two. If it is to be the policy of this Parliament to grant such legislation, then it should be made to apply as well and more particularly to the Companies Act. In this Bill, and in the Bill relating to loan companies, the provision has appeared for the first time as a general provision. I think it, is worthy the consideration of the minister, as to whether this should apply to trust companies and loan companies, when it does not apply generally to companies incorporated under the Companies Act.
The secrecy, the veiled circumstances, seem to be very objectionable in the interest of the public. We grant to a body of individuals certain powers, sometimes large and exceptional, and we know the individuals as they start out; but there may come a time when all knowledge ceases as to the individuality of the shareholders or as to the personnel of the company. For that reason I think this committee should hesitate before stamping its approval upon this proposition. The minister, although he may have considered the matter very carefully, in view of the doubt so generally expressed as to the wisdom of this provision, should hesitate before taking this step at this time, and I think it should certainly be withheld in the case of trust companies and even in the case of loan companies. We have not done it in respect to private corporations in the past.


Mr. NESBITT:: If we had done so, what harm would it do ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because of secrecy. It may not do harm; I cannot put my finger on conditions or circumstances which would demonstrate that harm had resulted, but I think there should be the fullest publicity and opportunity for knowledge with respect to every Act of incorporation granted by this Parliament.


William Thomas White: I appreciate the view put forward by my hon. friend that there should be general legislation, if it is decided by Parliament that share warrants shall be allowed. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has now under consideration, and will, I believe, within a few days or a week or so, introduce to the House an amendment to the General Companies Act under which permission will be given to issue share warrants. There is no doubt that any change of this kind should be carefully and seriously considered by Parliament, but this legislation is not new. The English Companies Act, under which companies may be incorporated for any of the objects within the legislative jurisdiction of Parliament in England has for a long time authorized the issue of share-warrants.


Wilfrid Laurier: For trust companies ?


William Thomas White: I would say, yes, with this
qualification, that I have not looked especially at the Act, but I believe that trust companies can be incorporated by the English Companies Act. The legislation is general, and the use of share-warrants is well recognized in England and has been brought about by the demands thalt I have mentioned, namely, from the continental investors. The safeguard is that the shareholders themselves have to pass a by-law authorizing the issue of the share-warrants. I have never known of any case of abuse. One could conceive of a case in which practically all the shares of a company might be represented by share-warrants, but I think iit is hardly probable. As I stated at the outset, I was influenced in introducing this section of the Bill, not by anything that I had especially in mind, but by the fact that trust companies had within the last two or three years sought this power and it had been conferred by this Parliament. As I decided to frame a Bill which would cover any application that might come up for the incorporation of a trust company, it occurred to me that I had better include the powers that had already been granted by

Parliament. My own belief is that the provision as to share-warrants will be inserted not only in the Dominion Companies Act but in the Companies Act of every province of Canada. This will be brought about by the demand of the continental investors for share-warrants.


Wilfrid Laurier: Would you do it in the case of banks ?


William Thomas White: I would 'hesitate to do it in tlhe ease of hanks, land I do not see the same necessity for it in the case of a trust or loan company as I do ;in the case of an ordinary commercial company whose shares are widely dealt in and in some cases speculated in. Undoubtedly we shall have applications in the way of special Bills brought forward to incorporate trust companies in which this power will foe asked, because the investors will desire to sell their shares on the continent and will be asking for share-warrants. If a Bill such as that were brought forward, in all probability it would pass through the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would hesitate to affirm a positive opinion upon this question, because the matter is altogether new to me. I can understand the advisability of facilitating commerce in shares as in other forms of commodities, because shares are commodities which are sold on the market every day, and there is good reason that we should facilitate transactions in shares. I can see very good reason why this provision should apply to ordinary companies, but as regards banks and trust companies there may be the objection that the character of their shareholders is one of their best assets. The stock of a company is an asset of its creditors. If you can conceive of a bank or a trust company -the whole list of whose shareholders does not appear in its books that fact would be a fatal blow to it because such an institution adds very much to its value and its reputation by 'giving a list of its shareholders to the public. Trust companies are becoming one of the most important forms of management of estates that we have. They are coming more and more to be the managers of the funds of orphans, infants, widows, and so on. The character of the directors is the first asset, and the character of the shareholders is the second; but if you introduce a system whereby it is possible that the whole list of shareholders shall not appear in the books, I doubt if the same security will he felt by the pu >lic in 
regard to trust companies a.s there is at present. That is the only objection that I can see at this time.


William Thomas White: Does not my right hon.
friend consider that as one reason why the Act would not be abused, namely, because the company would consider the names of the shareholders a valuable asset- and would not permit the occasion to arise under which all the shares, or the greater part of them, would be represented by share-warrants. If we do not insert this provision now, we shall he inserting it in special Bills, so that unless there is some special objection to it, I feel that the provision had better stand.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is provided in this section that a shareholder cannot qualify as a director by holding share-warrants. A man holding ordinary shares could qualify as director, so that it would not be possible for all the stock to be in the form of share-warrants.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE:: It is my opinion that there is a great deal of objection to the use of share-warrants in ordinary companies. Business is now carried on largely by companies, and the whole purpose of the new Companies Act is to give greater publicity to the affairs of these companies. Snare-warrants are going to defeat that very object; the people are not going to know who are the shareholders of the companies. There is another objection to the use of share-warrants. The local legislature collects succession duties from the estates of deceased persons. By the use of share-warrants a man who wishes to do so may_ defraud the treasury of the province by taking out share-warrants and handing them to members of his family prior to his demise. The object and purpose of our Companies Act should be not to enable companies and corporations to conceal the identity of their shareholders, but to have more publicity; the whole object and purpose of the use of share-warrants is to create secrecy in the transaction of business and secrecy as to the identity of members of companies. While provision for share-warrants is in the English Companies Act, their use is, I understand, not very general in the commercial life of Great Britain, although they are used to some considerable extent on the continent. Legislation of this kind is sought !by rich Brazilian and other companies, so that they may float their bonds

and sell their shares in the old country and at the same time conceal the identity of their shareholders. Personally, I am very much opposed to the use of share-warrants.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is great force in what the hon. member for North Ontario says. The question is a new one; perhaps the Minister of Finance may think it advisable to leave the matter over for further consideration.


William Thomas White: The difference between
scrip certificates of Canadian Pacific railway stock, for instance, and bearer share-warrants, is only a matter of form. My hon. friend might be the holder of twenty-one shares of Canadian Pacific railway stock and if he handed me a stock certificate endorsed in blank I could transfer it to B and it could be passed on to C1 and D and so on until it finally got into some one else's name. The scrip certificate form is used, and I think, will continue to be used, in Canada. I do not know that share-warrants are used in this country at all; 1 am satisfied that they are not used to any considerable extent. The only purpose of this legislation is to meet the requirements of the European market, where they are not familiar with scrip certificates and where they are asking for share-warrants in order more readily to make the transfer of shares. With regard to the succession duties mentioned by the hon. member for North Ontario, it is a question of fact as to whether a decedent was the owner of shares or not and the same consideration would arise in connection with bearer bonds. A, who is the owner of $100,000 worth of bearer bonds, dies. He may have transferred those bonds by delivery to the members of his family or to others; it would be a question of fact as to whether or not he owned those bonds or whether he had parted with them for the purpose of defrauding the treasury of the province. Precisely the same consideration would arise in connection with share-warrants, so that I do not regard that argument as a conclusive one. I repeat that, so far as I know, the only ground upon which the privilege is asked is that of meeting the requirements of the European market. In this country we get most of our money from Great Britain but a great deal of money has been coming over from Belgium and France and the investors in these countries ask 184
for bearer share-warrants. The question is: Shall we make legislation to meet their requirements? If we have not legislation to meet their requirements, they will not so readily invest. The question, then, is whether we are willing to provide facilities under which the continental investor may get the kind of document to which he is accustomed in connection with the holding of shares.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Could not the same object be attained by having a transfer office in London? Provision is made under "the English Companies Act for what they call colonial transfer offices. If an English company wishes to sell its stock in any of the colonies they may establish colonial offices for the transfer of shares. The only argument in favour of the use of share warrants is that they facilitate the sale of stock on the continent. If a Canadian company wishes to transfer or sell their shares in the continental or English markets they could have a transfer office in London or on the continent, which would facilitate the transfer of shares and at the same time remove any objections which might be urged against the use of share-warrants.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to draw
the attention of the committee to the fact that these share-warrants are issued only for fully paid-up stock. Not only would they be a convenience to the people of the continent, tout they would be a great convenience to the trust and loan companies in this country who want to get money from the continent.
On section 51-directors jointly and severally liable:


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a very important clause. What is the meaning of the word 'knowingly'?


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend has happened upon a word that was rather carefully considered by the committee; in fact, it was inserted by the committee for the purpose of protecting directors against undue liability. The wording of the section in the Bill as originally introduced, so far as it is relevant to my right hon. friend's question, was as follows:
If the directors of the company declare and pay any dividend when the company is insolvent, or any dividend the payment of which renders the company insolvent, or diminishes the capital stock thereof, they shall be Jointly and severally liable, as well to the company as



to the individual shareholders and creditors thereof, for all the debts of the company then existing, and for all thereafter contracted during their continuance in office respectively: Provided that if any director present when such dividend is declared does forthwith, or if any director then absent does, within twenty-four hours after he becomes aware of such dividend being declared and is able so to do, enter on the minutes of the board of directors his protest against the same, and in either case within eight days thereafter publishes such protest in at least one newspaper published at the place in which the head office of the company is situated, or if there is no newspaper there published, in the newspaper published nearest thereto, such director may thereby, and not otherwise, exonerate himself from such liability.
This was considered by the committee, and I think properly, to be an exceedingly drastic provision. We traced it up and found that it had appeared in Dominion legislation since 1877, but there was no English precedent for it. Our surmise is that it was adopted from American legislation. The committee, after having given the matter very full consideration, came to the conclusion that the section was too severe upon directors. Whether a company is insolvent or whether a payment will make it insolvent, is in each case a question of fact. The result of the section, therefore, would be that, on a strict interpretation, a director who concurred in declaring a dividend when the company was as a matter of fact insolvent, even although not to his knowledge insolvent, or who concurred in paying a dividend payment of which rendered the company insolvent, although it was not to his knowledge that it would do so, would nevertheless be liable under the provisions of this section. The committee, therefore, concluded that it was too drastic, and they amended the section to read as follows:
If the directors of the company declare and pay any dividend which impairs or diminishes the paid-up capital of the company, the directors who knowingly or negligently concur in the declaration or making payable of such dividend whereby the paid-up capital of the company is impaired or diminished shall be jointly and severally liable for the amount of such dividend as a debt due by them to the company.
That is the way it was left by the committee.


Six WILFRID LAURIER:: I do not think that the amended clause has improved the Bill. In my estimation it has deteriorated it. The Bill as drafted provided that if a director paid a dividend when the company was insolvent, or a dividend which made the company insolvent, he should be liable.
.
For my part I would certainly be in favour of that legislation; in fact, while I cannot speak as to the common law, my impression is that, under the civil law under which I was brought up, without any legislation or statute, the director would be held liable personally.


William Thomas White: Apart from negligence or knowledge?


Wilfrid Laurier: 
William Thomas White: My righthon. friend,
I am sure, will agree with me in this: that if the director in that suppositious ease refrained from informing himself on matters that he ought to know about, he would be guilty of negligence. My right bon.

friend -will observe that the sedtion reads, ' the directors who knowingly or negligently concur/ so .that a director who sayts, I did not know, would not necessarily excuse himself from the consequences. If a charge of negligence were brought home to him, ihe would still be liable. While appreciating what my right hon. friend has said, and realizing, I think, precisely what ihe has in mind, namely, that under a clause of this kind it would be difficult to bring home * knowledge ' to a director so as to make him liable, I would like to call his attention to the fact that this section is almost similar in wording to 'section 68 of the Bank Act, which reads as follows:
' The directors who knowingly and wilfully concur in the declaration or making payable of any dividend or bonus whereby the paid-up capital of the bank is impaired, shall he jointly and severally liable for the amount of such dividend or bonus, as a debt due by them to the bank.
For the words 'knowingly and wilfully' we have substituted in this Bill * knowingly or negligently'-making it stronger. For the information of my right hon. friend, I may say that in the Yarmouth case this section of the Bank Act was effectual in enabling the liquidator to recover from the directors of the bank substantial sums paid as dividends in violation of its provisions.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As the hon. minister
knows, when this Bill was before the committee I objected to the word ' knowingly ' on the same ground as my right hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 70-investigation:
Mr. MARCIL:: I would like to ask the minister if there is any control or inspection over joint stock companies incorporated by the Dominion. For instance, one company is selling Panama bonds in the province of Quebec; another one is advertising guessing competitions in the newspapers and is coining a lot of money.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the name of the
Panama company?


Charles Marcil: The Provident Financial Association, Limited, incorporated by the Dominion Parliament in 1905. Last year I called the attention of the Superintendent of Insurance to the matter, and also that of the Minister of Justice. A circular is circulated in my county and various parts of Quebec, stating that these bonds are guaranteed by the French Government. They are sold to the farmers down there for $52 on the instalment plan, or for $40 cash, 184i
and the farmer also has a chance in a lottery that takes place subsequently. The largest amount he can draw is $96,500.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is the company incorporated by Parliament?


Charles Marcil: Yes, it is a Dominion
company, incorporated in 1905. I wrote to the Superintendent of Insurance on March 13, 1913, and he said in reply:
I am in receipt of your xeuer of the 13 th inst. The Provident Financial Association, Limited, was incorporated by an Act of the Parliament of Canada in 1905, but its Act of incorporation does not require it to make a report of its operations to the Minister of Finance. As to the bonds referred to in the circular contained in your letter I have no knowledge whatever. If they are in the nature of a lottery, the parties dealing in them may do prosecuted under the Criminal Code.
There is no disguising the fact that this is a lottery. Large numbers of these Panama bonds were sold in my own constituency to people who did not know any better. They were induced to buy them because on the face of the certificate it appeared that they had been guaranteed by a company incorporated by the Parliament of Canada. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), to whom I referred the matter, wrote to me on April 19, 1913, to this effect:
Ottawa, April 19, 1913.
Dear Sir,-There is not information enough in the papers you send me to enable me to judge as to whether the Panama bonds referred to in the circular you enclosed are a legitimate investment or not, nor would I like to express any opinion upon foreign bonds and debentures. I remember that lotteries were authorized and held in France to raise money for the Panama canal, but whether these bonds are connected with the lotteries or not I do not know. Lotteries are, of course, forbidden under our law.
Tours sincerely,
(Sgd) Chas. J. Doherty.
I have heard no more about it except that I have learned personally that a number of bonds were sold.
During March of this year large advertisements appeared in the newspapers of Montreal and Quebec. The one I have here is in French. It is headed, ' Grand Guessing Competition.' In the centre of the advertisement is a large picture showing a Roman chariot with four horses, and in the chariot a goddess holding a horn of plenty and scattering gold along the way. In the picture are the figures of four women, and the riddle is to make out these figures, which are not apparent at the first glance. This is the inducement offered:

Grand Guessing Contest.
We will give, absolutely gratis, to every person who will find the solution of this guess, one hundred shares in our mining syndicate, formed for the purpose of acquiring and exploiting one of the richest gold mines in the province of Quebec, with the right to participate in ten thousand dollars in gold distributed in prizes amongst members of our syndicate.
Then the conditions follow. The company is the Chesham Gold Mine Promoters, Limited. The advertisement continues:
This $10,000 is to be distributed gratis among the members of our syndicate.
There are 811 prizes, divided as follows:
One prize	$5,000 in gold.
"	
1,000	""	
500	""	
200	""	
100	"Two prizes	
50	"Four prizes	
25	"One hundred	prizes	
10	"Two hundred	prizes	
5	"Five hundred	prizes	
2	"Sll prizes.	$10,000
Then they state the conditions of the competition as follows:
To all persons who will send us a correct solution of this puzzle we will give absolutely free 100 shares in our syndicate, with the right to participate in this distribution of $10,000 amongst the members of our syndicate. All you have to do is to make a cross on the four figures which are found on this sheet and send them to us together with a five cent piece to cover the cost of postage. Write your name very legibly as well as your address. This offer is without precedent and is made for the purpose of advertising our syndicate. Do not forget to write your name very plainly, and enclose the five cents in your letter, which entitles you to take part in this competition.
A well known citizen in Montreal, who takes an interest in these matters, and who sent me this information, stated that he was informed on good author-5 p.m. ity that on the first day after this competition was announced on which a reply could be made, the 18th of February, 1,300 five-cent pieces were received, that on the following Tuesday 2,200 five-cent pieces were received, and that on the following Wednesday 4,400 five-cent pieces were received. The whole thing seems to be a sham. The advertisement appeared first in the Montreal papers, and then I saw it in the Quebec papers. The great objection is that this is being done under the Dominion Companies Act. This company was incorporated on the 26th January, 1914, under the Dominion Companies Act. I want to direct the attention of the hon. Postmaster Gereral (Mr. .
Pelletier) to this company. It is called the Chesham Gold Mines Promoters, Limited. The idea of giving 100 shares in a syndicate for five cents! I have several other cases that I want to call the Postmaster General's attention to as, being an abuse of the post office. I thought it was my duty to call the attention of the ministers present to what is being done. There is no inspection of these companies, and these things are liable to occur again.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) has handed me the statute to which my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) has referred-4-5, Edward VII. By chapter 151 the Provident Financial Association, Limited, was incorporated, but I fail to see anything in the powers granted to them which would enable them to carry on the business which has been described by my hon. friend. The powers set out in the Act are as follows:
The company may

(a)	Underwrite, buy, pledge and otherwise deal in bonds, debentures or obligations of corporations, whether secured by mortgage or otherwise, Dominion, provincial, British, foreign or other public securities, with the privileges and rights thereto attached;
(b)	borrow money upon the security of mortgages, hypothecs, bonds or other securities belonging to the company.
There is no objection that I can see to the legislation of 1905 incorporating hhe company in question. From what my hon. friend has said, I should judge that they are carrying on what is termed a guessing competition. Whether they are violating the provisions of the Criminal Code or not I am unable to say. I think i-t would be impossible to have any return made to the minister which would expose the character of the business carried on by a company having the powers mentioned in this Act. It is quite probable that the powers that were got by the letters patent referred to by my hon. friend are similarly proper in character; but the mode of carrying on business is objectionable. Possibly the Attorney General of Quebec would be the party who might be usefully informed as to the matters brought to our attention by my hon. friend.


Charles Marcil: I would no-t like there
to be any misapprehension. The sale of the Panama bonds has taken place by a company with a special charter.


William Thomas White: That is the company incorporated by chapter 151.


Charles Marcil: The other company is
incorporated under the General Companies Act. Would any sane man think that he was going to get 100 shares in a gold mine in Quebec for five cents? Yet a lot of people have been taken in-4,400 in one day. There is not the supervision of these matters that there should be. If there is no inspection of these companies iby the Dominion, there should be some prohibition against their misleading the public.


William Thomas White: I shall be very glad to
bring the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State.


Charles Marcil: What I am doing in this case, is, of course, in the public interest.


William Thomas White: Oh, certainly.


Charles Marcil: I was asked to call the attention of the Postmaster General to it, so that these notices might be stopped going through the mails. The other company I refer to is the Panama Bond Company, which probably is the most dangerous of all.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: When I was Postmaster General, an order was issued prohibiting the Panama Bond Company sending its matter through the mails. They employed counsel to argue the case before Sir Allen Aylesworth, who was then Minister of Justice, and he decided that they had no right to issue these bonds or to sell them to the public. We issued an order against them in the post office, but since that time apparently they have renewed their efforts.


Charles Marcil: There was a circular published and circulated in my constituency, stating that some person in Rockland, near Ottawa, had benefited to the extent of $15,000.


Mr. PROULX:: Did he get the money?


Charles Marcil: I never heard he got the money, but such a notice would induce others to spend their money.
Bill reported.



LOAN COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee on Bill No. 83, respecting loan companies, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
William Thomas White: It will be unnecessary for me to make any general explanation upon this Bill, because the same remarks apply
tk.	-
to it as to the Bill respecting Trust Companies, which has just been reported.
Bill reported.
BINDER TWINE FOR EXPORT. *
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (Minister oi Trade and Commerce) moved second reading of Bill No. 109, to amend the Inspection and Sale Act. He said: This is the Bill introduced upon the resolution which we discussed the other day in Committee, and which was, I believe, agreed to on all sides.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Steam service between Canadian Atlantic ports and Australia and New Zealand, $140,000.
['I should not think there would be any difficulty in framing legislation committing neither one country nor the other. If the Newfoundland charter is confined to the territory of Newfoundland, whatever it may be without expressly defining it, and if ours is made complimentary to that, I suppose it could be worked out. I think the Bill had better stand.\nProgress reported,']
Wilfrid Laurier: There is an
inarease there.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):	A comparison of the mileage of the service under consideration with that of the service with South Africa gives the following: distance from St. John to Dunedin, summer service, 15,656 miles; winter service, 15,303 miles. Distance from Montreal to Durban, 8,162 miles; St. John to Durban, 7,802 miles. It will be seen that the distance travelled is twice as great in the service to Australia and New Zealand as it is in the service to South African ports. That of course, makes the expense greater, and the company in charge of the service to Australia asked for an increase in subsidy. I did not grant the amount that was asked, but I did give an increase of $20,000 a year. This service is developing a fairly large amount of traffic. In 1913, $3,364,000 worth of exports of Canadian origin were carried, being about $500,000 of an increase over the preceding year. The increase in the value of exports of United States origin carried was about $270,000, making in all an increase of about $750,000 in the year. The service is being largely used by the export trade of eastern -Canada; the use of the long railroad across the continent is impracticable for most classes of freight. 1 am glad to be able to say to the House that during the last two or

three months the quantity of freight offering for these vessels has been increasing with satisfactory rapidity.


Wilfrid Laurier: This service was established as an experiment some years ago because manufacturers and others could not conveniently use the Pacific route. We hoped at that time that the service would be well justified by the results, and I am glad to see that so far our anticipations have been fulfilled. Has my horn, friend a list of the freights transported by this service?


Mr. FOSTER:: I would direct my hon. friend to part 6 of the report of the Trade and Commerce Department, which deals with subsidized steamship services. It has been our aim to obtain a statistical report of all freight carried so that a comparison can be made from year to year and a check kept upon the progress made. The vessels in this service carried last year the following articles of Canadian origin:
Lumber, automobiles and parts thereof, calcium carbide, chair stock, paper, sole leather, agricultural implements, rubbers, iron pipe, hardware, cattle, clothespins, seed, fruit Jars, corsets, cereal food, wire and organs.
Of United States origin the following articles were carried:
Cereal foods, machinery, automobiles and parts thereof, steel rails, organs, lumber, fruit jars, roofing paper, shoe polish, wire and sewing machines.
Of West Indian origin the following articles were carried:
Coffee, cocoa, pimento, ginger and cassava products.


Wilfrid Laurier: Were there return cargoes ?


George Eulas Foster: We do not have a return voyage. We subsidize the vessels for the trip from Canadian ports for export trade to Australia and New Zealand, but it has been impossible for the company up to the present time to get cargoes which would make it at all economical for them to bring return cargoes to our ports. When they discharge cargo at Australian and New Zealand ports, they load from whatever part of the world they can, generally taking cargo from there to British ports and then returning to our own ports to carry out their export contracts.


Wilfrid Laurier: My right hon. friend was in Australia last year. Whilst there is no cargo coming back aboard the 
steamers, is there any sign of any future trade from Australia to Canada?


George Eulas Foster: Yes. In another of the publications of the Trade and Commerce Department which details the transactions and exchanges of the different countries my right hon. friend will find set out the articles that return. The traffic between Australia and our own country is now mainly by the Pacific, and it has not been found practicable to get return cargoes to our eastern Canadian ports. But there is a very satisfactory increase in the interchanges between Australia and ourselves. If it would be possible for a provisional arrangement to be made covering certain lines of articles, that would he largely increased. That is shown in the trade between New Zealand and Canada, where we have a mutual preference, the trade, both going and coming, having very largely increased. It is not an extensive trade in one way, yet the increase has been rather remarkable and Canada enjoys a large part of the advantage of that trade, in agricultural machinery, some other kinds of machinery and manufactured articles of various kinds. With New Zealand, which has no very large manufacturing industries itself, our trade in automobiles and motor cars is increasing very rapidly. In paper there has been a very rapid extension of our trade; in fact, we supply practically all the paper for New Zealand, and we are supplying a very large proportion of what is used in Australia so that for our paper industry, our iron industry and the others that I have mentioned there is an extension of trade. Then, there is an opportunity for traffic between Australia and New Zealand and Canada in the matter of fruits, the two seasons being absolutely the opposite of each other. They are taking quite large quantities of our fruit from the British Columbia coast.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: From what ports do the ships sail?


George Eulas Foster: From Montreal and St.
John.


John Howard Sinclair: What route do they
take?


George Eulas Foster: They take the South
American route by Cape Horn.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the opening of
the Panama canal have any effect on the business?


George Eulas Foster: I am not sure that it will make the passage very much shorter, but-one cannot tell what will happen.


John Howard Sinclair: Will it have the effect of reducing the subsidy ?


George Eulas Foster: If it makes the passage shorter I am not sure but it would.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there not an application before the hon. gentleman for a subsidy when the canal is open for a line of steamers from the east coast to the west coast of Canada, and what consideration does my hon. friend intend to give that matter ?


George Eulas Foster: Several propositions have been placed before the department and the Government for subsidies for lines of steamers connecting the eastern with the western coast by the Panama canal. Up to the present time, although I have given a good deal of attention to the matter, I have not seen that it is necessary to subsidize freight steamers between our eastern ports and our western ports. These are not and cannot be mail carriers; they must be exclusively freight carriers. What may take place when the canal is opened no one knows; but it does seem to me there would be an increase in the lines of steamships from the European countries through the Panama canal to the Pacific ports of Canada, and that it might be quite possible to combine the services between the old countries and those western ports with calls at the eastern ports of Canada. So far as my department is concerned, we are allowing that matter somewhat to develop itself and seeing what the lines and tendencies promise to be before we undertake to subsidize a freight service between ports on these two sides of the country.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister considered the question of defining a coasting service in view of the opening of the canal ? At present a coasting voyage on the eastern coast of Canada extends from Labrador down to about the mouth of the Amazon, but no farther. There has been an ap-lication from parties connected with the shipping business to have the definition made larger so as to allow coasting vessels to go down to the ports of South America as far as the river Platte. Many of them are getting business that far, and there is no reason, as far as I am aware, why they should not be allowed to go to these southern ports. Then, on the opening of the canal, if we adopt the idea that has prevailed in the United States for many years, we would call it a coasting voyage between the eastern coast of Canada through the canal to the western coast of
Canada. I understand that in the United States a voyage from New York to San Francisco is a coasting voyage, although it is around South America at present, and under that system the business is confined to vessels belonging to the United States. This question of defining a coasting voyage is a matter of a good deal of importance to Canadian shipping, and I was wondering if it had been brought to the minister's attention. It is primarily, I suppose, a matter for the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I have brought it to the attention of the minister of that department during this session. No steps have been taken, but in view of the opening of the canal I think it would be worth while for the Government to consider this question in connection with the coasting trade.


George Eulas Foster: Primarily and naturally I suppose a coasting voyage is that which proceeds'* continuously along the coast of the country to which the ship belongs. The United States, as my hon. friend says, smile at such contractions as that, and their coasting voyages, I believe, go as far as the Phillipines and the widest extension they have. The matter is one that belongs to the Customs Department, I think, more than to any other. I do not think the question of definition of a coasting voyage has come up as a serious matter, but in connection with the opening of the Panama canal it is a question that may very well come up for consideration.
Mail subsidies-Canada, Great Britain ocean and mail service, $1,000,000.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Might I ask the
minister what is being done in that regard?


George Eulas Foster: The present contract expired at the end of the fiscal year, and communications and conferences are now going on with reference to the service for the coming year. I will ask that this item stand for the present until I have full information before the House.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to suggest to the minister that he consider a sliding scale of subsidies for ships according to their speed. As everybody knows, it is very important that we should have a fast service. At the present time the ships participating in this subsidy have different speeds; the Victorian and the Virginian, I understand, are 16-knot boats; the Empresses are about 18 knots, and I think

the Calgarian and Alsatian are even faster than that. Speed costs money and it would be an encouragement fto the owners of ships in this service to get something extra for extra speed. I think it would be a good principle to adopt that when new contracts are made some weight should be given to the speed of the ship, and that more should be paid for a fast ship than for a slower one.


George Eulas Foster: So far as the mail service is concerned, that principle is perfectly legitimate and ought to be acted upon; and it is acted upon to a certain extent. We are trying to get a fleet of Canadian vessels between our ports and the old country which will give us the greatest possible speed. The isbips are being built with satisfactory progress, if not so rapidly as some of us could wish. The Victorian and the Virginian have a nominal speed of 18 knots, but I do not think ithey made that speed from shore to shore. The Alsatian has a speed of I9i knots or more, and the Calgarian is expected to be even a little faster.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the speed of
the Empresses?


George Eulas Foster: Eighteemand-a-half knots, and the Royal Edward and the Royal George have a speed of nineteen-and-a-half knots; so that when the Calgarian is in commission our service between here and the old country will run very close to a nineteen-knot service in fairly good weather. That will be an improvement on the old service, and much more satisfactory in a great many ways.
Steam service between Canada and Cuba, $25,000.


George Eulas Foster: Last year's vote has not been expended. The last contract we had was with the Elder-Dempster line, who went out of this service more than a year ago. The question then came up as to whether we should have a subsidized service between our ports and Cuba; and after communications with shipping firms I received the assurance that they would go into the business, preferably, if a subsidy were granted-of keeping up a communication between Canadian and Cuban ports if they were given assurances that they would not be interfered with by subsidized vessels from Halifax and St. John. I agreed, with the proviso that if the service did not prove to be reasonably good I reserved the right to put on a subsidized service. The service (Mr. Sinclair.]
has been carried on by those firms and I think they have fairly met the needs of the two countries. While there is some chance of an export business to Cuba, we have the disadvantage of the preference being given to the United States. Not much is imported into this country from Cuba.


John Howard Sinclair: Could not our West
Indian service be combined with that?


George Eulas Foster: No.
Steam serivce between Canada and Newfoundland, $70,000.


George William Kyte: Is the service between Halifax and Newfoundland inaluded in that?


George Eulas Foster: No, this is for the service between Port-aux-Basques and Sydney, which is a daily service, Sunday excepted. The two new boats, the Bruce and the Lintrose, have a speed of fifteen and one-half knots and they make the run between Newfoundland and Sydney in about seven and one-half hours. As to traffic returns, I find that this year there have been carried goods of Canadian origin to the value of $981,000 in round figures, and of United States origin $288,232; and that the total value of the traffic shows a slight increase over 1912. The new boats were not in service except for a portion of last year. With the Lintrose taking the place of a less efficient boat the passenger and freight traffic shows signs of increasing.


William John Macdonald: I had the opportunity of visiting Newfoundland last summer, going via North Sydney to Port-aux-Basques. The new steamer is a splendid boat, and we can congratulate ourselves on Canada's means of communication with the oldest colony to-day. The iservice is very satisfactory. Of course, they have a very strong competitor in the service which is maintained from New York via Halifax, and which carries a tremendous quantity of American goods to Newfoundland. I do not know whether that service receives a subsidy, I would question the wisdom of subsidizing it, as the thing to be attained is the furtherance of Canadian trade, and a subsidy to that service would really be assisting American trade.


George Eulas Foster: It receives no subsidy.


William John Macdonald: I am glad to hear it.
I thought perhaps the Halifax people, for local purposes, might have asked the minister to subsidize that service. I want to take this opportunity to say to the minister that I do think that the contribution which was announced by the Prime Minister two

weeks ago of $10,000 for the people who have been left homeless in Newfoundland is a very meagre one for the Canadian people to make at this time. Since the date of the announcement of this contribution it appears that the Southern Cross, of whose safety some hopes were entertained, has now, beyond question, gone down with all on board. The situation is that there are a thousand families left absolutely without breadwinners in that colony. I notice that the great city of Toronto gives $5,000, which is one-half of the contribution of the whole Canadian people. I am well aware that in eastern Canada, in the business centres,	which have business
connections with Newfoundland, the personal generosity of the people will be exercised, but we ought to be exceptionally neighbourly to our own kith and kin in this sister colony, and over and above everything else I think the special duty is thrown upon the whole people of Canada of giving such a contribution as will materially assist in alleviating the distress which has arisen on account of this abnormal calamity. I therefore hope that the Government will be more generous and will increase the contribution with a greater sum than that of $10,000 which was announced by the Prime Minister two weeks ago.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend must keep in mind that the extent of the disaster, as far as the vessels were concerned, and certainly as far as the loss of life was concerned, was not at all known to the Dominion Government when the cable was sent offering our sympathy and aid. But since then the calamity has widened and more and better information has come to hand. Whilst I am not making any promises, the matter will certainly receive more consideration by the Government. We are closely allied in every way with Newfoundland, and a disaster of that kind is one that appeals to Canada from one end of it to the other.


John Howard Sinclair: In reference to freight carriage on the subsidized boats, I would like to know if the minister has any system by which he can qontrol the rates. There is a great deal of feeling along the coast that some of the subsidized boats axe charging too much for freight. The ten-[DOT] dency of subsidizing boats is to drive schooners and other modes of carriage off the routes. On the south coast of Nova Scotia there were a great many schooners carrying freight some years ago, but, as we
began the policy of subsidizing boats between Halifax and the eastern ports, the schooners were cut out of .the business and driven off the routes. The result is that some of these subsidized boats have put the freights up to what is regarded as an abnormal figure along the coast. When these contracts are being renewed it would appear to me to be a suitable time to see whether, if we have not the power under the law to regulate rates, we can do so by contracts. We could arrange with these people to submit their rates to the minister, and he would approve of them before they would be operative. I received a letter a few days ago from people in my own constituency as to the rates which are being charged by the Scotia, which is one of the subsidized boats on the coast of Nova Scotia. The statement made to me was that under the old rate a barrel of flour was carried from Halifax to the small ports on the southern shore for fifteen cents, and that at the present it costs twenty-eight cents. I made some further inquiries, and I was informed that four cents must be added to the fifteen for wharfage, which would make it nineteen cents under the old rate, and the difference is therefore as between nineteen and twenty-eight cents. That is quite a large addition to make, and I have had a number of complaints of that kind. I would like -the minister to say whether he has taken any supervision over the question of rates?


George Eulas Foster: I have taken supervision in two ways. In- the first place, in every one of these contracts there is -a clause, which my hon. friend will find in the latter part of the report to which I referred a moment ago, and which provides that the service shall be performed:
At tariff rates both as to passengers ancl freight which may be from time to time approved by the minister.
The minister has control. None of these vessels can raise the rate which has been approved in a previous year without first getting the assent of the minister thereto. The other way in which the service is being supervised is by having a supervising officer, who travels on all these routes at least once or twice during the season of navigation, makes notes of these things, and calls them to the attention of the minister. In that way we are keeping a pretty fair supervision over these services. I am having the matter to which my hon. friend has called my attention looked into-


Mr. BLAIN:: Is that provision new?


George Eulas Foster: These last clauses have been added.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 130, respecting Certain Patents of Leopold Will-son.-Mr. Fripp. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will somebody explain
this Bill?


Mr. FRIPP:: There are eight patents involved in this. Mr. Willson has been carrying out these patents near Ottawa, and has spent a quarter of a million dollars on them. He now requires a larger plant as well as water-power, and he has interested some Americans, who have acquired waterpower, I think, in the province of Quebec. Only two of the patents have not been manufactured, and the desire is to pi ice them in such position that if any person has manufactured in the meantime he shall be protected. There is nothing unusual in the Bill.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
PATENT OP RUDOLF GOLDSCHMIDT. The House in Committee on Bill No. 135, respecting a certain patent of Rudolf Goldschmidt.-Mr. Fripp. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The instruction I have received from the solicitor in this case, is, that Dr. Goldschmidt is associated witn Paulsen and Marconi, inventors of wireless telegraphy. Through inadvertence, this patent was allowed to lapse in February last, and he asks to have it renewed, saving the rights of any persons who may have required the right to manufacture in the meantime.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Does a man
with a name like that ever do anything inadvertently?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. OLIVER:: If this Bill is passed, in what position will this man stand as compared with the position he would have stood in had he not allowed the patent to lapse? Is he getting a further extension of time 	.
than he otherwise would have been entitled to?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Then I shall have to
register my vote against it.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: No injury is done to anybody. He failed to manufacture within two years and by this Bill he is put under the operation of the license clause, which provides that if any person has obtained from the department a license to manufacture he can proceed to do so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The practice of this House for many years is not to permit Bills of this character to go through, unless the Minister of Agriculture is present to explain them. I believe that it is a very good practice. Bills relating to the renewal of patents ought not be passed in this House without the representative of the Department of Agriculture being present.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The Deputy Minister of
Agriculture was present in the committee and said that this was a proper Bill to pass, and that the department had no objection.


Frank Oliver: That does not exactly explain the position in which members of this House are before the country. Each mem-k.er.	House of Commons has a responsibility to the people of Canada in regard to the protection not only of public right, but of private right. The fact that a Committee of the House has seen fit to pass upon a question of public and of private right does not relieve each individual member of the House of his responsibility in regard to that. The Government is primarily charged with responsibility for administering the patent law. If the responsible minister will from his place in the House of Commons declare that this Bill is a proper Bill, in which the rights of the individual and of the public are adequately protected-to borrow a phrase from the Premier-then each private member of the House is relieved from responsibility in the matter-he has done his duty by the public; but unless and until either there is an expression of opinion from the Committee of the Whole or from the proper minister, the members of the House are not discharging their responsibility to the people who sent them here. For all I know there may be people in my constituency who elected me for the protection of their interests who may be affected by this [DOT] particular Bill. I have a right to know, on the responsibility of the Government and of the minister, whether that is the case or

not, and I protest very strongly against bills of this class, which necessarily affect intimately private as well as public rights, going through the House without adequate information and an assumption of responsibility by those who are entitled properly to bear that responsibility.


Mr. CARVELL:: It is something like ten years since I first protested against the railroading of patent bills through this House. I must confess that my protests have not produced very great results, because it seems that the door is getting wider each- year, and it has now reached a stage when a man need not bother whether he follows the law or not; all he has to do is to pay $200 and get his patent renewed. Perhaps the worst offender in the whole 221 of us is my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp). I do not know why it is; perhaps it is because he is so near the seat of Government that he is chosen as the channel by which these Bills shail be railroaded through. As explained by my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa, there may be some difference of principle between Bill No. 130 and Bill No. 135. In 1903 Parliament in its wisdom provided that, when a patent is taken out, the patentee can have inserted a provision by which he is exempted from the necessity of manufacturing within two years provided he holds himself ready to lease or sell to another person the right to manufacture the article in Canada. That is done to provide for cases in which there would not be a very large sale, for instance heavy classes of machinery. My recollection of the law is that, either at the time the patent is be>-ing taken out or within six months thereafter, application can be made to the Commissioner of Patents to have this clause inserted. In the case of Bill No. 130, which has just passed the committee after the very lucid explanation given by my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa, possibly no very great harm is done because it only* allows the holder of the patent to retain his right and he has to give another person the Tight to manufacture. As I understand the explanation of the Bill now under discussion, it is on a different principle altogether. The well known patent law of Canada, of the United States and of most European countries is that the patentee must commence the manufacture of his patented article within two years and continue to manufacture the same so that any one may be able to purchase it; otherwise, his patent is void. A patent is a monopoly given by Parliament to a man who invents a new and useful article. The law of the country says: We protect that man to a certain 'extent; we encourage him to employ his thoughts and ability in seeking out these new devices and we give him a monopoly for a certain number of years providing he complies with certain conditions. This man has been remiss in his duty; he has allowed the matter to drift along and now he comes back to Parliament and says: I was guilty; I was remiss in my duties; I did not fulfil the conditions of the law, but that is nothing. I will pay $200 and you ought to reinstate me in my interest. Supposing I had a note endorsed by a neighbour for $1,000 and on the day of maturity I failed to present that note at the proper place and to send him notice and he said:	' Because you
have failed to do what the lafl demands of you, I will not pay this note,' would not I be laughed to scorn if I came to Parliament and asked to be replaced in my position because I had been negligent? The two cases are. parallel. The way these patent Bills are railroaded through Parliament is trifling with justice and with the rights of the people. It has been stated here a great many times that the granting of patents should be taken out of the hands of Parliament. Why not hand the matter over to the department and let the department in some way exercise a discretion that is a discretion? It is all very well for my hon. friend to say that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture was in the committee. I presume he was there, but the deputy minister knows that this Parliament is railroading these patent Bills through by the dozens. We were guilty when members on this side were in power, and our friends are guilty now that they are in power.


John Hampden Burnham: Is there anything to
prevent this man from taking out a new patent?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, the law says-


John Hampden Burnham: Apart from the law, as a matter of equity?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only state what
the law says. He cannot take out a new patent after it has been in force one year. From the equity standpoint, if he sleeps upon hie rights and other men have manufactured his article and purchased it, it is not fair that he get a new patent. I had a very important case in my own practice

some five or six years ago where an American patented a logging engine in the United States and also in Canada. H|s first patent was workable, but he had not manufactured in Canada within the two years. A client of mine spent about $20,000 in building this same machine, not knowing that it was patented. He had gone to the trouble of employing one of the best patent lawyers in Canada, a man having an office in this city to search the record, and he informed my client that there was no patent on that article. The patentee, an American concern, finding that their patent had been infringed upon, brought action in our Chancery Court to prevent my client from continuing the manufacture of the article, and to claim the payment of royalties. It was a long-drawn-out fight, but we won in the end because the patentee had not complied with the law. I cite this instance to my hon. friend to point out that we ought to lay down a definite principle with regard to this matter. Either we should renew these patents or we should not, and if we are going to renew them we should lay down some reasonable rules and hand the matter over to the department to be dealt with according to their discretion.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), is apparently under some misapprehension; the remarks which he has made with regard to the renewal of patents do not apply to these two cases. We are doing no more than what the Patent Act allows us to do: apply to the commissioner, through this Parliament, for the right to renew these patents under section 44, which gives to any third person who applies for license and shows that he has been manufacturing in the meantime the right to occupy the field in the interim. My hon. friend referred to cases where the patentee neglects to renew his patent within the proper time and thus loses his rights. In these cases the rights are still existing, and under the Patent Act we have the right to ask that this Bill be passed. There is a difference between a patent which lapses by non-renewal and one which has not lapsed unless it be by non-manufacture. If the hon. gentleman will look at the Act he will see that we may apply to the commissioner through Parliament for this right at any time, but we have to give within six months to any third person the right to obtain a license or lease from us of our patent rights to manufacture. The argument that Parliament [Mr. Carvell.''
phould not interfere in the case of a patent, which fails by reason of non-renewal and the payment of fees is good, but the cases under consideration come not under that head, but under section 44, which provides-this very remedy.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am satisfied that my hon. friend is labouring under a misapprehension of the law. The law provides that when a man applies for a patent, or six months thereafter, he may be brought under section 44 of the Act, which provides that the commissioner of patents has the-power to grant to any person the right to manufacture that article by paying a reasonable royalty. If the parties themselves cannot agree upon the amount of the royalty, the commissioner of patents has the right to settle the matter. Under section 38, if the patentee does not manufacture the article within two years his patent is dead. If after the expiration of from six to twelve years a man has not renewed his patent, it expires. My hon. friend himself admits-that we ought not to renew patents under such circumstances, but we are doing it every day. Here is section 38 of the Act:
Every patent shall, unless otherwise ordered by the commissioner as hereinafter provided, be subject, and expressed to be subject, to the following conditions:
Such patent and all the rights and privileges thereby granted shall cease and determine, and the patent shall be null and void at the end of two years from the date thereof, unless the patentee or his legal representatives, within that period or an authorized extension thereof, commence and after such commencement, continuously carry on in Canada, the construction or manufacture of the invention patented, in such manner that any person desiring to use it may obtain it, or cause it to be made for him at a reasonable price, at some manufactory or establishment for making or constructing it in Canada.
That is the provision which has been violated in this case. The man has not manufactured within two years; his patent is dead, yet my hon. friend is asking this Parliament to give back to him that which he lost by his negligence. This is section 44:
On the application of the applicant for a patent previous to the issue thereof, or on the application within six months after the issue of a patent of the patentee or ms legal representatives, the commissioner, having regard to the nature of the invention, may order that such patent, instead of being subject to the condition with respect to the construction and manufacture of the patented invention hereinbefore provided, shall be subject to the following conditions, that is to say:
Any person at any time while the patent continues in force, may apiuy to the commis-

sioner by petition for a license to make, construct, use and sell the patented invention.
That is, while the patent is in force, not after it is dead. The section goes on to
*say:
The existence of one or more licenses shall not be a bar to any order by the commissioner for, or to the granting of a license on any application, under this section, and the patent and all rights and privileges thereby granted shall [DOT]cease and determine, and tfte patent shall be null and void, if the commissioner makes an [DOT]order requiring the owner of the patent to grant any license, and the owner of the patent refuses or neglects to comply with such order within three calendar months next after a copy of it is addressed to him or to his duly authorized agent.
Under this law the patent died because the holder did not manufacture within two years; yet my hon. friend, though he admits that the patent has lapsed through negligence; though he admits that he did not, at the time of application for the patent or within six months afterwards, request that the patent be brought under the conditions of section 44, asks this Parliament to reinstate this man and not only to bring his patent hack to life and to give him six additional years in which to carry on business, but to give him as well the right to come within section 44. This section provides that he need not manufacture in Canada; he can signify his willingness to the Commissioner of Patents to give to another person the right to manufacture in Canada.
Progress reported.


PACIFIC, TRANS-CANADA AND HUDSON BAT RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 142, respecting the Pacific, Trans-Canada and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: That is quite a large
[DOT]order. I do not know if anybody in the House knows anything about this Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is a first renewal that came up in the committee yesterday morning and was passed by them with discussion.


Frank Oliver: Can 'the hon. member
state where its termini are?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: One terminal is on the
Pacific coast north of Prince Rupert, and the line runs along through the north country to 'the Hudson bay.


Mr. MORPHY:: When this Bill was in
committee I took an objection to the name
of the company. My objection was that, if the Bill goes into effect and the public are invited to subscribe in any way the name carries on its face something calculated to deceive the public, inasmuch as there is at present under construction a Hudson Bay railway. I was informed that the name having been given to the company previously, it seemed hopeless to do anything to change it in the committee. The House will notice that the name also con-tains the words ' Pacific ' and ' Trans-Canada,' inebrporating within the one name the names common in a measure to three great systems of railway, either built or building in this country. I thought the name was suspicious. I do no*t know anything about the incorporation or who is behind this enterprise, but I thought it was my duty to point that out, as I now do, to the House, lest by an improper use of the name-and I cas-t no reflections as I know nothing about those behind the Bill-the public might hereafter in some way suffer. I notice it is running through similar territory to some of the o-ther roads, and I leave that to the committee and the Whole House for their consideration. I would like to have it discussed.


Robert Laird Borden: In *the absence of the
mover, it had better stand.
Progress reported.


PRINCE EDWARD AND HASTINGS RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 93, respecting the Prince Edward and Hastings Railway Company. Mr. Hepburn. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: I do not wish to delay
the progress of this Bill, hut I have asked for explanations in regard to different railway Bills, not because I took exception to the charters, but because it is always possible that special provisions may be inserted in one of these charters that may affect the public interest. When the Chairman of the Railway Committee (Mr. Lancaster) was in the House, he was always able to give the House a thorough explanation as to whether the public interest was being protected or not, and in what manner.0 It was very satisfactory, to me at least as a responsible member of the House, that that information should be placed upon 1 Hansard ' as a protection and defence ho members under all circumstances. I do not wish to interfere with

the course of legislation, particularly in this case, but in regard to railway charters in western Canada I have always desired to be satisfied as a master of record that there is nothing in the charter inimical to the public interests.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is nothing in the Bill out of the usual course, but inasmuch as neither the acting Minister of Railways nor the gentleman whose name appears on the Bill is here, and as the Chairman of the Railway Committee is unfortunately absent through illness, the Bill had better stand.
Progress reported.


GRAND TRUNK-CANADA ATLANTIC.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committe on Bill No. 154 respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and the Canada Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Alfred Ernest Fripp: This is a very simple Bill. The Grand Trunk railway acquired the Canada Atlantic railway some years ago, and this Bill is simply to ratify the agreement consolidating the two companys under the name of the Grand Tunk Railway Company of Canada.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
LABRADOR, QUEBEC & SOUTHERN RAILWAY.
The House in Committee on Bill No. 97, to incorporate the All Red Line Railway Company (and recommending that its title be The Labrador, Quebec and Southern Railway Company.)-Mr. Fripp. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-incorporation:


Frank Oliver: As the member in whose name the Bill stands is here, perhaps he will give the House a lucid explanation of the Bill.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: This is a new railway
charter for a line running from some point on the cost of Labrador to the city of Quebec. It was originally the intention of the promoters of the Bill to run across to the Pacific coast, but the committee cut down the charter to between the two points I have mentioned.


William John Macdonald: As neither the acting Minister of Railways nor the Chairman of the Railway Committee is here, I think the Bill had better stand.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Rill was very carefully considered in the Railway Committee when both the acting Minister of Railways and the Chairman of the Railway Committee were present.


William John Macdonald: We have had so
many people seeking railway charters in Canada that when a proposition comes to the House in the way this one originally came-seeking a charter from some harbour in North Labrador which may not be in Canadian territory, but under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland,-and when that proposition has been whittled down by the Railway Committee to a local road from Northern Labrador down to lake St. John, I think under those circumstances we should have a little fuller explanation; especially in view of the fact that propositions of that kind have within them the germ of exploitation, and may not in the end result to the advantage of Canada.


Mr. PARDEE:: As my hon. friend says, this society originally sought a charter to cross the continent, but at the last meeting of the Railway Committee the Bill was very much curtailed. A large amount of money has already been spent by this company on plans, surveys, etc. The Bill was thoroughly threshed out in the Railway Committee, and it appears to me that the Bill might pass in its present shape.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Railway Committee gave it a good deal of consideration, and passed it in its amended form.


William John Macdonald: Why do these gentlemen come here and ask for a line of railway from Labrador to the Pacific coast, and then appear to be satisfied with a line of railway running through absolutely impossible territory, as everybody knows, from Northern Labrador down to lake St. John?


Robert Laird Borden: I think under the circumstances the Bill had better stand.


Frank Oliver: Before the Bill is disposed of, I would suggest that the question raised by my hon. friend from Pietou be considered; that is, as to the jurisdiction of Canada over the Atlantic terminus of this road.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That was thoroughly explained in the committee. The railway already has a charter for that portion of the road.


William John Macdonald: That brings up the question as to whether or not this Govern-

ment, having recognized the Newfoundland charter over the disputed territory, is disposed to give full recognition to the rights of Newfoundland. That is a question still to be determined by some independent authority before Canada gives up its full rights.


Robert Laird Borden: I should not think there would be any difficulty in framing legislation committing neither one country nor the other. If the Newfoundland charter is confined to the territory of Newfoundland, whatever it may be without expressly defining it, and if ours is made complimentary to that, I suppose it could be worked out. I think the Bill had better stand.
Progress reported,


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Ethel Cora Robinson.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Johann Andreas Horn.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Henry Elmer Bicknell.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of George Gracie Smith.-Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Harry Cracroft Pugh.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Charles Low Hutcheon.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Jessie Eleanor Grassett Parkhurst.-Mr. W. H. Bennett.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of William Godfrey Thorp.-Mr. Carvell.
Bill No. 131, respecting The Sterling Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill No. 117, respecting the Montreal and Lake Victoria Railway Company.-Mr. Achim.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Bertha Hetu.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.
Steam service or services between Canada and Newfoundland, $7,000.
Richard Blain: I understand that there is now a better inspection of these subsidized steamship services by the Department of Trade and Commerce than there has been hitherto.


Hon.   G@: The inspection of these subsidized steamship services is now a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Until within two years ago, there was really no supervision 9 p.m. of these services at all. We entered into contracts with these different companies, and we exercised as much oversight as we could from the department itself, but we had no system of examination and report in any way. For instance, a claim was made for the opening up of a new route, and that was decided, probably in the minister's office, or somewhere between the club and his office, in conversation, as gentlemen were passing. So far as the conduct of the service was concerned we sometimes got complaints, and then made some examination of these complaints and found out certain things. That seemed to me to be irregular in several ways, so that I appointed a superintendent of these subsidized steamship services, and for the past two years he has been carrying on this work. He has made a yearly trip and inspection of each one of these services on the eastern coast of Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: Who is this officer?


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Tupper. If there are applications for new services, he is instructed to go over the routes and report upon the population, the number of towns and villages, the business which would probably offer, and that report gives some guidance to the department, as to whether the application is worth considering and as to how far it ought to be considered. These small services, without supervision, got into slovenly ways; the sanitary conditions were bad; the life-saving apparatus was deficient, the conduct of the vessel during the service was not in point of order what it should be. All these things are taken up by the supervisor, and he reports upon them, and points out the deficiencies, and then the department is in a position to write to these gentlemen and say: you must have such and such put in proper shape. That supervision is jacking up the service, and there has been great improvement. Sometimes vessels are found to be of inferior standard, and notice can be given that a better vessel must be provided or no subsidy will be paid, and in some cases we have got better vessels. Before this inspection was instituted, there was no means of checking up whether a subsidy was greater or less than should be granted, and in order to get at that, there has been embodied in the contract a clause

by which these steamship services are to give thorough statements of their expenses and revenues in reasonable detail. We have then, at least, a basis for a judgment as to whether too large or too small a subsidy is paid. You can then deal more justly with these services, giving those that are worth it a little advance in the subsidy, if that be thought necessary, or, bringing down those which have too much to what is reasonable, but I must say that our subsidies, as a rule, are not placed upon any unreasonable basis. In this way, the different services are, I think, being gradually placed upon a more satisfactory footing.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: Has an application been made recently to subsidize a line of steamers between Halifax, Charlottetown, Sydney, and southern Newfoundland? The trade of that portion of Newfoundland is rapidly increasing, but I fear it is going into the hands of the Americans. The trade of Newfoundland last year amounted to over $14,000,000, and we only captured about $4,600,000 of that, while the United States took $5,000,000, and Great Britain $4,000,000. My opinion is that Canada is neglecting the best paying portion of the trade of Newfoundland by not subsidizing steamers to carry it on. There is a very paying trade in the southern part of Newfoundland, and the people there require our manufactured goods, our b'-eadstuffs, and farm products. If a line were subsidized to caitry those manufactured articles to that part of Newfoundland, it would be of great advantage to the people of Canada. The population of Newfoundland is now, I suppose, about
245.000	and is increasing at the rate of
25.000	every ten years. We ought to cater to the trade of that country and to look after it better than we do after the trade of more distant places. It costs less to put our goods on the markets of Newfoundland than to put them on the markets of New Zealand or Australia. We are neglecting places near at hand for places far away. I would as!k the minister to look into the matter and see if the trade between Canada and Newfoundland cannot be increased and if better inducements cannot be held out to our people to deal with Newfoundland. The fishermen of Newfoundland are becoming very prosperous and have money to pay for our goods, and it is the duty of this Government to see that the people of Canada get their fair share of the trade of that colony.
Mr. GEORGE E. FOSTER:	The
trade between Canada 8Dd Newfound-

land, although not of the largest, is still an important trade, os my hon. friend has said. It is also fair to say that the trade services in connection with the Newfoundland trade have been pretty carefully looked after. The trade between Canada and Newfoundland, taking the latest figures that we have, shows a gradual growth. The total imports of merchandise from Newfoundland during the last year were $2,057,297, an. increase of about $250,000 over the preceding year, and the largest in' the history of the trade between Newfoundland and Canada. The exports amounted to $4,472,717, an increase of $350,000 over the preceding year, and the largest by far of any in the history of the trade between the two countries. That makes a total trade of $6,530,014. We have five or six services between Canadian ports and Newfoundland, some of which are of a very superior order. The service between Sydney and Port-aux-Basques is one of the best we have on our coast-good vessels with good speed and so far .as I can learn, well managed. Then, we have a service from Halifax to Great Britain with a regular call at St. John's. We have also a service between Montreal and Newfoundland, with calls at Prince Edward Island ports, allowing of the export of Prince Edward Island goods, as my hon. friend has intimated. Then, we have two other services running out of Halifax which skirt along the southwestern coast of Newfoundland. An application is before the department at the present time for a new service from Halifax via Mulgrave, touching at Prince Edward Island, skirting over to Cape Breton island and thence to Newfoundland. That service is now under consideration, but a decision has not yet been arrived at.


William John Macdonald: Who are the applicants for that?


George Eulas Foster: The applicants are
Farquhars, the same firm that runs the Seal at the present time. The Seal is a very good boat and is giving a very good service, and that firm is a good firm in the trade service. While it is true that we ought to do everything possible to increase trade- and one means is by subsidized service- there is still a limit, and we have both coasts to cater to and satisfy as far as possible. We have to look a little to the amount of money that it is supposed we can put upon these services. Our trade in the last

two or three years in Newfoundland is gaining in competition with the United States. The latter country has, however, a very good service running as far as Halifax and calling at St. John's, which gives them very direct and very prompt service and we have to compete with that.


John Howard Sinclair: Are the reports made by the superintendent, 'Mr. Tupper, available for the members?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, in Part VI of the
reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Howard Sinclair: I have seen the
abstracts in the blue book, but the report itself I suppose is much fuller.


George Eulas Foster: The report contains a special report for every service, and it is in a certain way at the service of the House, but these reports have sometimes confidential parts, so that we have to be a little judicious as to whether they shall become public property or not. They are primarily for the information of the department, and then, in so far as they can be made common to the members, for their information. If any member who is interested in any service will come over to the department, I shall be very glad to give him an opportunity of looking at the reports, and in some cases they may be brought to the House.


John Howard Sinclair: 
George Eulas Foster: Perhaps my hon. friend will defer the matter until we come to that item, when I will give him all the information I have in regard to it.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member for Guys-borough, in dealing with the item before the House, brought up a question of principle that may have a very wide application and may lead to an understanding of a difficulty that has been up for consideration in the House on former occasions. I would like to have the views of the minister with regard to that matter; I refer to the effect upon the rates of the subsidies granted to coastal services. If I understood the hon. member for Guysborough correctly, he offered the suggestion that the paying of subsidies for coastal services had the effect of increasing rather than of reducing the rates. We are facing a condition of increased rates across the ocean. Is there not a possibility that like causes have produced like effects, and that, as a matter of fact, the bonuses or subsidies that we have paid for our cross-Atlantic services are the foundation reason for that condition of monopoly in transportation and continual increase in rates that has taken place during recent years? I need not argue how very important this question is, and how very desirable it is that the House and the country should know where the trouble comes from, if it is possible to find the source of that trouble. The minister has said that in regard to the coastal services he has taken means to inspect, to regulate, and control; but after he has inspected and regulated and controlled, the outstanding fact remains that according to the assertion of the hon. memiber for Guysborough it costs more to carry a barrel of flour between two certain points on the coast of Nova Scotia to-day than it did before subsidies were paid; and it also costs more to carry a barrel of flour or a bushel of wheat from Montreal to Liverpool to-day than it did when subsidies were very much less than they are at the present time. May I suggest, although I am not a maritime man, that just as the subsidy is enabling steamers in coastal services to drive sailing competitors out of the same business, so the subsidy that is



paid to the Atlantic liner enables the liner to drive the tramp from the port of Montreal and then enables the liner to raise its freight rates against Canadian business. The facts in regard to the conditions of the coastal services are established; the facts in regard to the conditions of the cross-Atlantic services are established. As to the reasons for those conditions, if we accept those given by the hon. member for Guysborough in the Case of the coastal service, we are almost compelled to accept the like reasons for the like conditions in regard to the cross-Atlantic service. As a matter of fact the Dominion of Canada is paying immense sums of money year by year to our steamship lines crossing the Atlantic, with the result that instead of our getting a cheaper service we are getting a dearer service. I take the liberty of putting this suggestion before the minister at this stage, whether or not I am in order, because it seems to me that the reasoning is apt, having regard to the assertion of the hon. member for Guysborough and to the fact that the matter is one of such paramount importance to the well-being of this country.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose it is not profitable to devote a little time to the discussion of a question so wide and so important as the one which my hon. friend has just raised, but whether we should attempt that to-night or take occasion to discuss it when there are a greater number of .members in the House is a question of which hon. gentlemen in this committee will have to be the judges. I do not think that anything that has been said by the hon. member for Guysborough has laid a stable foundation for the deduction that my hon. friend has just made: that the rates on our coastal services have been raised because of the subsidies which are being granted. The hon. member for Guysborough mentioned one or two specific cases on one route, which have not at all been examined or looked into. Of course, I am not questioning the information of my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: The point I desire to make is that as you pay subsidies to coastal steamers you drive the schooners and the other methods of transportation off the line, and on that account the greatest care is required by the department with a view to seeing that the rates are carefully guarded.


George Eulas Foster: That is a perfectly Legitimate point, but that hardly lays the

foundation for the sweeping conclusion of the hon. member for Edmonton that the coastal service rates are going up because of the payment of subsidies. The hon. member for Guysborough did not go that far.


Frank Oliver: That is exactly how far he did go.


George Eulas Foster: Then I do not understand him, or he does not understand me.


John Howard Sinclair: I think that it is the fact that the tendency of the rates is to go upward, but I do not know of any specific Cases except that of the Scotia, which I have mentioned.


George Eulas Foster: The Scotia is only one out of probably 75 or 100 services, and the case which has been cited with reference to the Scotia has regard only to the cost of transporting a barrel of flour and some other things. What I am trying to maintain is that the assertion of the hon. member for Guysborough is hardly a sufficient basis for the sweeping assertion that the rates of our coastal services are all going up because we are feeding them with subsidies.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the hon. minister say they are not going up ?


George Eulas Foster: I think I am quite right in saying that within the last three years there has been very little, if any, increase in prices on our coastal services.


William John Macdonald: They are subject to your supervision, are they not ?


George Eulas Foster: They are subject to the supervision of the department, and not a single case would occur of allowing them to raise their rates unless it came before the minister himself. I am quite certain that in the two or three years that I have been in charge of this department I have not sanctioned the raising of rates, so far as I can remember, in a single instance. There have been instances in which they have been brought down, but as a general rule the rates in our coastal services for the carriage of products are very reasonable and very low; I do not think that any of our coastal services are making very much money out of the operation of their vessels. With most of them the plea is ,-that they are not making even a reasonable wage for their own supervision, to say nothing of a return on the capital they have invested, and there are few of them who are paying, out of >the subsidies we give and the earnings they make, dividends to their

shareholders. So I think we are on a pretty good basis as far as that is concerned in respect to the coastal service, and I do not *think the hon. member for Edmonton, if he made a full investigation would find that he could base such a deduction as he has drawn to-night. Of course, the old schooner is gone. The hon. member for Guysborough never expects to see her back again in these days of steam and electrical power. There is a place for fihe old schooner, or for the new schooner to be built, or for the sailing vessel, but it is a place which is narrowing every day of the year and every year of our existence. Steam and motor communication takes its place.
With reference to the ocean service, I *think conditions are very different. I do not believe that there is any combine, any conference, any pool in our coastal services; at least if there is I have not come across any symptoms or any points which would lead me to come to that conclusion. But with ocean steamers and those engaged in the world's traffic there is an opportunity for conventions, combines and pools, and there is not a league of the sea in which steamships are not traversing the routes of trade under conventions and arrangements and pools, one with the other, which are carried out the wide world over. One of the most exhaustive examinations that has ever taken place into ocean rates has lately been concluded in the Congress of the United States. I have not been able to read all of the evidence, but I have read the report, and it is instructive to see the outcome of that examination. In the conclusions arrived at by that committee-and a. very able committee I believe it was- they find, speaking generally, that pools, conventions, arrangements, typify the world's seaborne services; that they do exist at the present time; and the committee comes to the conclusion that if they are reasonably carried out they are not only for the benefit of the carriers, but for the benefit of the shippers. The whole thing depends on whether these arrangements are reasonably made and reasonably carried out. In their conclusions they come to these two chief points, first that it is not practicable to prohibit conference arrangements and pooling arrangements and arrangements of different kinds between the different branches of the merchant service of the world. That it is not advisable in the 1851
general interests either of the carrier or the shipper that they should be prohibited; but that what is needed is a system of reasonable control of these services the wide world over, which would be a tremendous undertaking. They have recommended, so far as the United States is concerned, that the control of ocean traffic be taken over by the Interstate Commerce Commission, with enlarged powers and with certain additions to its force of traffic experts as far as seaboard commerce is concerned, and that an attempt be made, which they consider to be the sanest method of approaching and meeting the difficulties, by a system of control of rates. We are to a certain extent confronted with the same problems in our ocean-going commerce between Canadian ports and Great Britain and European ports. A very exhaustive examination was made by a Royal Commission in Great Britain not many years ago on this very thing and the matter has been agitated a lot. I think I explained to the House on one occasion that the British Government and the Canadian Government came to the conclusion to relegate the matter to the dominions royal commission and to authorize them to make an inquiry into these matters of freight rates on produce between Great Britain and Canada and, after having found out the facts, to base their recommendations upon the facts as they found them with a view to establishing a system of control which shall be jointly exercised by Great Britain and Canada so it will have a force and efficacy which it is impossible for Canada for instance to secure herself. The commission have already taken it up in Great Britain and in their trip to Canada they will hold sessions in the various parts of the country and take evidence upon that subject. The shippers will have every facility for putting their case and the carriers will have every facility for putting their case and both will be examined as thoroughly as the commission can do it, in order to arrive, if possible, at the facts in the case. The authority and power of Canada to exercise control over ocean rates is nil, looked at from one point of view, and restricted, looked at from another point of view. We may be told that where we subsidize a line we have authority to a certain extent to control rates. Theoretically we have; practically it is very difficult to do that with reference to ocean carriers. It could be done mucn more effectively if a system of control could be carried out by Great Britain and Canada jointly.

When you come to exercise the small control that you have in view of the subsidy that you give to a few of the carrying lines, you begin to realize how small the power really is to regulate by virtue of these subsidies. Another proposition which has been up before the Government and that has been heard is that the Government shall itself undertake to buy for itself or charter vessels and to carry on a freight service between the ports in Canada and the ports of Great Britain and that they shall cater for the farmer and the shipper of this country and carry freight at cost rates or near cost rates. Any hon. gentleman who thinks of that for a little will see that it is not a light or an easy thing for a Government to undertake. It has been undertaken by governments. In Australia I met with instances of it, particularly with reference to West Australia where it was carried out. In all the evidence I was able to get I could not find that it had been successful in the aim it had or that it had paid the State to undertake the service in the way they did. Perhaps few of us, may be none of us, understand very thoroughly the position of the steamship companies in this regard. My hon. friend from Edmonton said that rates have been raised.


Frank Oliver: Doubled.


George Eulas Foster: Since the cost of everything has very largely increased in late years, is it not reasonable that rates of carriage by sea should also have been raised? If it costs a ship more for coal, for supplies, and for service than it did, I think it cannot be denied that there should be some remuneration for that increased cost in the way of rates. You may say that the huge vessels of to-day carry very large quantities compared with the quantities carried in former days, but large capacity in a vessel adds immensely to the first cost and to the daily maintenance expenses. If we took one of these first-class vessels plying between Canada and the old country, and inquired into the cost of the ship, the cost of her up-keep, and the revenues derivable from passengers and freights, I think it would probably make us a little more temperate in our statements with reference to the inordinate greed and exorbitant rates of steamship companies. There is the possibility of going too far on the line of reducing freights, and there is need for some system-not yet organized in any country of the world that I know of-which will guarantee reasonable charges for ocean carriage. In a country like Canada where it is

possible by legislation to control freights on all goods carried by land, and where immense sums are invested in transport facilities, the argument is a strong one that if we guard and guide our expensive investments by regulations and control of freights on land, we ought not to lose the benefit of that regulation the moment our goods take the sea to be carried the remainder of their journey on ocean vessels. I think that argument is a perfectly good one, and the only thing is to get some method of deciding what is a reasonable charge. I am not going to pose as an expert on shipping because I am not, but we all know that shipping is more variable than probably any other kind of transport. Transport by railway is comparatively uniform and steady, and it is impossible-although we have gone a great way towards making it-possible

to get, in the course of a few months, a new railroad running over the same course that an older railway has been travelling for years. On the ocean, however, the steamships can go wherever they like; they do not have to lay down tracks for themselves and are not' subject to those stable restrictions that land carriage is subject to. The consequence is that the variations in ocean carriage are immensely greater, are less uniform, and more sudden than they are on land. It was so in the time of the old schooners in New Brunswick. They had their periods of great prosperity, and they sank into periods of equally grei.t depression. They made money at certain times and lost money at other times, and that is one of the difficulties that we meet with when we try to regulate, or even talk of regulating, ocean traffic.


Frank Oliver: I am sure the committee is under an obligation to the minister for the very full statement he has made, so far as it has gone, but I wish to get at one or two points. First of all, as my hon. friend has appointed a commission to regulate coastal service rates as a condition of payment of subsidy, it seems reasonable that he should do the same in regard to the transatlantic service, in aid of which we are paying very large sums of money. Surely the payment of that money could be made conditional upon some measure of control similar to that exercised over the coastal service, and exercised in somewhat the same manner. In regard to the increased rates in the coastal service as the result of no competition, which, in turn, is the result measureably of the advantage which certain lines have by reason of the

subsidies they have received, I think my hon. friend will agree that regulation of the coastal service rates is an absolute necessity under those conditions. The fact that he has established such a regulation is evidence of its necessity. When these people took advantage of their monopoly of the traffic, which came to them largely because of subsidies, the minister found it necessary to regulate the rates in order that the people should get the benefit of the subsidy they were paying. And so in regard to ocean rates. I say that when we pay a subsidy we ought to have some measure of control over the rates, and I am urging that the minister consider that point in due course and deal with it as may be possible.
Some little time ago there was a discussion in the House, in the course of which it was pointed out that a very large proportion of the grain of western Canada found its route to market by way of Buffalo and New York instead of by way of Montreal. One reason for that was because the rates from New York to Liverpool were less than the rates from Montreal to Liverpool. The reason why the rates from New York to Liverpool were less than the rates from Montreal to Liverpool was because New York was accessible to the tramp steamer and Montreal was not. Conditions at Montreal being as they are, insurance being high and the trade restricted, it is possible for the subsidized Canadian steamship lines to keep the tramp steamers out of Montreal and as a consequence the rates from Montreal are higher than the rates from New York although the distance is less because the tramp steamer gives competition to New York which it does not give to Montreal. The argument is that the condition of higher rates for Canadian freight across the ocean is exaggerated by the amount of money the people of Canada pay in subsidies towards the steamship lines. That is a startling view of the situation. I certainly was startled when I heard my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) make the statement he did but it struck me that it was desirable that the matter should be drawn, to the attention of the House and that we should have the best information the minister can give us in regard to it. There is no doubt about the tremendous disadvantage that the present high rates are to the development of the agricultural industry of western Canada. There is no doubt that it rests as ia
wet blanket upon the development of our country and if it is in any degree the fact that it is the result of the money that we are paying certainly it is a startling condition and one that calls for very close attention on the part of the authorities.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister will find that these matters are regulated by supply and demand and that it is practically impossible to control these rates. Suppose we did undertake to say what the rates on. 100 pounds of flour, or a standard of lumber, would be from Montreal to Liverpool, the ship would not necessarily come to Montreal. The bulk of the freight business on the ocean is done by tramp vessels, and there is no combine among them, never has been and never can be when they are owned all over the world by various owners who are competing one with another for every freight that is available for carriage. If there are a million bushels of wheat to be carried from Montreal to Liverpool, it is put on the board in London, they all bid against one another, and the ship that will carry the wheat for the lowest rate will get the contract. That is the history of the business. If we should impose a certain rate and say that such and such will be the rate for wheat, or lumber, or any of the exports we send abroad from Montreal to the west coast of England or anywhere else, the result would be that the ships would go somewhere else. Our traffic is only a very small part of the traffic of the ocean. I have on my desk a very interesting little book written by Sir Norman Hill, Secretary of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association., relating to the question of the Dominioni's Royal Commission, to which my hon. friend referred, and I have-no doubt that the minister is also familiar more or less with the contents of this book. Sir Norman Hill is an expert upon the question and he gives a great deal of interesting information. One of the things that is pointed out here is that, taking the total tonnage carried by British ships throughout the world, Canada only repaesents 4-7 per cent. All the business that British ships get from Canada is a little over 4 per cent of the carrying trade they do throughout the world. You can therefore see that we	cannot control it	and	that if	we attempt
to put up the rates on lumber or flour or any of these articles and to say that that shall be the rate from Montreal

to Liverpool the ships would 10 p.m. not take it if they could make a penny more by going to the River Plate for wheat, or to any other part of the world, for the whole world is open and a ship may go where she pleases. If she can get a penny a hundred -weight more in the Black sea she will go there. Consequently, if we put the rate lower than the level of what is a good profit from other parts of the world, the ships will not come to Montreal at all, and the consequence will be that we will have to pay more to induce them to come. That will be the result. That has been the result in Australia in connection with the attempt they have made to regulate bills of lading and freight rates. It has been the result in the United States in connection with the Harter Act and it will be the result in Canada if we impose restrictions of that kind. I find from this book that in 1911 the number of British ships engaged in the ocean trade was 4,102 and that of these 1,262 were liners and 2,840 tramps. Out of a total tonnage of 9,853,016 tons, the tramps represented a tonnage of 5,770,000 tons showing that there is a much larger tonnage represented by the tramp vessels than by the liners. The liners which are receiving subsidies from various governments might in some way he controlled, but I am not able to understand bow any single government can control tramps in their trade.
There is just one way, in my mind, of getting our freight rates down and of making them lower and more reasonable and that is by importing more goods. Increase the British preference so as to enable them to get return cargoes from Great Britain to Canada and .in the way the outgoing cargoes will be cheaper. If you will look at the daily reports in the shipping newspapers which are found on the tables in the Library you will see that the most important trade carried on by British ships is the trade between Great Britain and the River Plate. The ships carry out large quantities of coal from Wales, Newcastle, and so on, to the River Plate. The cargo they usually get on the return trip to Great Britain is grain or cattle. Comparing the rates from day to day, you will find that as the rate on grain goes up from the River Plate to Great Britain the rate on coal goes down and as the rate on coal goes up the rate on grain goes down. This means that a ship must have an average rate for her voyage out and back, and that both trips have to be counted to get that average rate. If we in Canada, insist tMr. Sinclair.]
on refusing to import goods from Great Britain, we may expect to pay higher ocean freight rates for our exports to that country. I thought it worth while to contribute this much to the debate, to show the view set forth in this very interesting pamphlet published by Norman Hill.


Mr. STEELE:: The question we are now
discussing is of very great interest to the agriculturists of Canada. I have listened with very great interest to the statements made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), but I fear they have offered no solution for the existing difficulty. The hon. member for Edmonton said that the present condition of high ocean freight rates is a great disadvantage to the agricultural interests of this country, and that we all must admit and cannot dispute. We have also the statement of the hon. member for Guysborough that it is almost impossible to control ocean freight rates, and that if we attempt to control them the vessels will avoid our ports and in that way refuse to carry out produce. This question of ocean freight rates between Canada and Europe is, as we know, from the statement of the minister, under investigation at the present time. As a matter of fact it has been under investigation for a long time past, and we cannot tell how much longer it will take. I point out that the existing condition is of great disadvantage to the farming and other interests of this country, and that it is not likely to be remedied in the near future. If the shipping interests are aware that a question of this kind is to be investigated by a commission, rather than to be dealt with directly by the Government, they are encouraged to put on higher rates, because they know it will take several years before a commission can investigate and report, and, in the meantime, they will enjoy the highest possible rates they can get. If, after a number of years a commission should report that the rates are too high, the companies stand to lose nothing, because, in the interim, they will have reaped the advantage of the high rates. I do not know whether the policy which I would advocate is practical or not, but it does seem to me that the common sense method of dealing with this matter is for the Government to put on a line of Government-owned andi Government-controlled steamers, for the purpose of carrying our agricultural products of Canada to Europe, and such return cargo as can he got. The

existing condition works great disadvantage to our people, and it is a condition that requires prompt and effective treatment. Why, instead of appointing a commission to investigate the matter, which will take years and years to come to any conclusion, do we not deal with it in a way which will check this evil at once. This suggestion is somewhat radical; it is perhaps too radical for this Parliament, but it does seem to me to be the common sense and effective method of dealing with the difficulty. I trust this matter will be given further consideration by the minister; that in the end some scheme of that kind will be adopted, that the shipping interests of the North Atlantic will be given notice that these high rates will not be any longer tolerated, and that the agricultural interests of Canada must be protected against them. I would like to hear from the minister as to what axe the prospects of this Parliament obtaining control over the North Atlantic ocean freight rates. We have American vessels, British vessels, German vessels, Canadian vessels, and it seems to me it would be a complicated matter to organize any tribunal which would have effective control over these various interests.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a great fluctuation in these freight rates. For example, about nine months ago you had to pay 60 shillings for cotton from Savannah to Liverpool, but to-day the rate is only 32 shillings for the same freight over the same route. The rates, at present, are extremely low all over the world; they have taken a great drop within the last few months. The trouble about the proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Steele) is that he would find difficulty in getting work for his ships the whole year around. If he put them into the wheat-carrying trade on the St. Lawrence, I am sure he would not know what to do with them when the season for that trade had closed. If the Government should go into the shipping business they will find they have a bigger contract on hand than any they have undertaken yet. But, of course, all these things are worth considering.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. friend (Mr. Steele) a statement which will satisfy him. There are very great difficulties to be met with in any attempt to prohibit, control, or regulate traffic which is world-wide and international. We could do it, of course, in the case of vessels plying between our ports
on the Great Lakes, or coasting vessels, where we would run no risk of any contingency which would inevitably occur when we came to deal with traffic of an international character. Another difficulty would be, that if the Government is going into the business of moving the agricultural products of the country, how could it refuse to go into the business of moving the products which are imported into the country, and which the farmers, amongst others, consume. The importing people of this country are just as strongly against the rates of the steamships as are the exporting people who are sending out the natural products of the country. Both of them, and for the very same reason, want the rates reduced, declaring that they are too high. If you take up those interests, you have to take up the interests of other producers, and the Government immediately goes into a national system of transportation in competition with the wide world. That has its difficulties, one of which has been spoken of by my hon. friend. In matters of other than trivial concerns, our relief takes a great deal of time to- bring about. A email matter can be quickly regulated; you can take it into your own hand; but when it comes to the planets, it takes Providence with all the force of the ages to keep them within their orbits. While those are extreme things to contrast, what I want to bring out is the great difference between managing small and local concerns and managing concerns which run into world-wide interests.
There is always one saving consideration: that is, that competition, whatever we may say, is a .mighty big force notwithstanding all your pools and conferences and everything else. Competition upon the sea is a much easier thing than competition by land, and in sea-borne commerce that competition is constantly exerting itself. Last year there came into the river St. Lawrence some fifty or sixty tramp vessels which took out from that river between 6,000,000 and 9,000,000 bushels of grain. These tramp vessels were in no pool and were competitors of the liners. Do not let us run away with the assumption that the liners are necessarily enemies of tramp steamers. I do not think they are. The liner which comes into Montreal harbour and lies at the dock is a vessel which takes high-class freight and which caters to a very wide area; and bulk products like wheat, she takes only as a last resort. If she cannot fill up with other freight, she will take wheat; and if she haa a hold big enough for a thousand bushel*

of wheat she will take the wheat. If she cannot get 5 cents for it, she will take 2 cents; and if she cannot get 2 cents she will take li cents, or anything that will pay for the cost. You could not possibly make a head against all those forces by a Government system of carriage, which would have politically and economically to widen itself to all the demands of all the producers and of all the consumers in this country. The tramp steamers would still exist; our Government vessels would not drive them off the face of the ocean; they would come and take the wheat, as they did out of Montreal last year, and would leave our Government steamers there. Of course, there is the ready answer to this that the Government would be able to stand the loss, supposing they made one. But the Government, after all, is all the people aggregated, and every man has to pay his shot into the locker.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister made any progress in regard to the insurance rates on the St. Lawrence? The high rates are one reason why the tramp steamers are kept away from the St. Lawrence. Some intimation was given that the Government was looking into the matter, and I would like to know if the minister has had any success in lowering the rates.


George Eulas Foster: We Canadians are optimistic and we rightly stand toy the statement that we are the best country in the world and can do almost anything; but we are still subject to atmospheric storms and geographical conditions. No matter what advantages we have, we have some disadvantages, amongst which is our geographical position, and the question of insurance plays a great part in that respect with reference to our freight. Whether rightly or wrongly, insurance rates are higher for the St. Lawrence and for ports along a certain range of north Atlantic territory than they are for those that lie to the south. We may think that this is not right, that it is unjust. We may say:	Look at our
buoys, our lights, at the immense sums we have expended; see how we have made almost a lighted street Of the St. Lawrence until you get out past the	Strait of Belle Isle.
Yet when you go to the hard-headed men of business who manage the marine insurance of the world, and talk to them, they simply meet you with the statement: It is all a matter of demand and supply,

and the rates are higher there because in the working out of the insurance business it has been demonstrated to us that we must have higher rates or else make greater losses. My hon. friend has said that some intimation was given that the Government was looking into the matter. So they were; and I think I made the statement myself that if the men who are interested in the Dominion of Canada will organize themselves into a combination and put their capital behind it in order to bring about a system of insurance which will make it easier for vessels, tramp and others, to come into the St. Lawrence and what you may call the interdicted ports, so far as higher charges are concerned on the Atlantic, the Government is sympathetic to a movement of that kind and will help it. That challenge has been made; but the shipping interests have not taken advantage of it; they have not organized themselves. If they would do so and would put themselves behind an organization to help to make matters better, the Government would be quite willing to assist them materially in doing it; but the Government is hardly in a position to ask the people to take the matter of insurance into their own hands for that part of the Atlantic, and to bear the risks and burdens and what is also a very great item, the conduct and management. There again is an item which bulks laTge when any demand is made that we undertake a Canadian system for carrying the freight of this country that is to be managed on business principles. It is a very difficult thing for a Government; and I, for my part, feel that the matter should be very gravely considered before the Government of Canada should undertake to do the ocean-carrying business of the Dominion of Canada.


John Hampden Burnham: Representing a large number of farmers who have often expressed their opinion to me on these matters, I feel it my duty to say that this difficulty which is presented in various forms, whilst being undeniable, is not insurmountable. The hon. minister has just outlined the fact that the problem before him is difficult and the Government hesitates to undertake to solve it, but that does not excuse the Government. Great Governments will do great things. If this country were at war, they would take possession of all the means of transport, guard all the avenues of output and of import and see to everything. Napoleon once held Europe in the palm of his hand. He

blockaded the whole continent of Europe at one time.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, and Europe had a
hard time of it for many years.


John Hampden Burnham: Yes, because he was in supreme control; that only emphasizes the point I am trying to make. Surely in this age we are not going to throw up our hands and say, because a difficulty is a great one, that it is therefore insoluble. The very fact that some system of national insurance could be contrived, if the different interests of the country would bind themselves together for that purpose, shows conclusively and at a glance that it is the Government's duty, as representing the people, to undertake that very thing. That is the function of government. People combine in communities and in nations for the purpose of having combined interests and of managing them in a combined or national way. Governments, I submit, are elected for that purpose and accordingly as they display capacity for administration, so do they make for the success of the national interests, as well as of the individual. If the farmers must be told that their produce will have to run the chances of an inclement clime, of rivers difficult of navigation and of all the other troubles that arise in a country like this; if that is the final finding of this Government, why then we must accept it. If it is a correct finding, we must resign ourselves to our fate, but the simple fact that the problem is a difficult one is surely no excuse for leaving it unsolved.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Change the Government.


John Hampden Burnham: That would only make it worse. We surely may expect that such a minister as we have will grapple with great things and solve them. We have tremendous means of internal transportation, but we are blocked by the sea. For my part, I have been thinking this question over for many years; I have been reading it up to the best of my ability and associating myself with those who understand it, and I must confess that I do not understand it, notwithstanding the fact that I have brought myself in contact with those whose interests are most involved. I cannot help saying however that I view with great disappointment any statement to the effect that another year is about to close without some supreme effort being made to solve this question. It is all very well having commissions of various kinds who bring in ineffectual findings, which are pigeonholed and that is the end of it; we farmers want to see these things grappled with; we want to see them solved. Speaking in a somewhat radical way, I think that if a government at any time finds that it cannot do things, it is that government's duty to give place to another. I am speaking in a gen-ral way; I .do not know that anybody in this country would for one moment advise such an exchange of horses as was suggested a moment ago. But it is a well-known maxim of law and equity that there is no wrong without a remedy. It is certainly no sign of strength, no sign of progress, no sign of aptitude that year after year we cannot do what other countries can do. Look at little Holland, covered with the sea, as it was. She shut the sea out; she actually defied the sea by raising dykes and pumping them out. Holland is a country of marvellous prosperity; she has become a country of happy and prosperous people. Now here are we with enormous natural resources, as we are told every day, and with great wealth; yet, in confusion, we are actually throwing up our hands before one of the most ordinary difficulties of everyday life. The farmers ought to feel that those in charge are capable and are ready and willing to do their duty in this respect. The farmers must know that the Government have some plan or will mature some plan which will give the farmers better facilities for the carrying of their produce and the transaction of their business. The farmers, as we all know, not being banded together in well-connected relationship like other classes of business men are unable to grapple with these ques-^ tions for themselves; therefore they must be particularly looked after by the Government. Other branches of business can by instantaneous communication or by well-conducted methods of business contrive plans for the solution of their problems. The farmer is, of course, an authority on the question of [DOT] the productions of the soil; he is not an authority on business by any means. I cannot emphasize it too strongly that the wish, nay, the demand of the farmer is that the present or some Government will rise up in Canada and solve the question of ocean transportation; and it must be solved.


Mr. CARROLL:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a matter that was before the department first in the year

1901, on different occasions between that year and 1908, and again in the form of a petition during the last year. I refer to the efforts that the people of Mira River have been making to get a subsidy for the steamship which runs up that river. When the matter was brought to the attention of the hon. minister's predecessor, I think he took the ground, that the Government was not supposed to grant subsidies or subventions to boats running upon inland rivers. The late Government voted sums of money to build public wharfs up that river, and this Government carried out the intention of the late Administration by building those wharfs. I think that does away with the objection that the Dominion Government should not subsidize vessels running upon inland waters like the Mira river. A large petition has been placed, I understand, with the minister or in his department by the residents of Mira, and I simply want to support the claims of those people as best I may. The Mira river is being navigated by a steamer which carries passengers and freight for a distance of between 25 and 30 miles inland. At the entrance of the harbour there is a Tailway which connects Louisburg with Sydney, and the river is the only means of transportation by which the farmers along the Mira-and it is a fine and thickly-settled farming district-can send out their produce, unless they drive between sixteen and eighteen miles either to Sydney or to the mining centres.
1 take the opportunity of bringing this to the attention of the minister to see if it is not possible to include in his supple-mentaries of this year some appropriation for this purpose. The Government have undertaken to build wharfs on that river.
I think the Government should help the residents of that section of the country farther by granting a small subsidy to this river boat. The local Government grants a subsidy to the boat, but it is rather small and they are looking for a daily service. Any person undertaking this service, even a subsidy, would have to be very wide awake to make a daily service pay.


George Eulas Foster: I will look into it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: We are on item 162, the service between Canada and Newfoundl-land. I have often thought, and this is my excuse for saying a word or two at this late hour, that there are great possibilities of trade between Canada and New-
foundland that are not taken advantage of to the extent that they should be. The people down there trade very largely with this Dominion. The hon. member from Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. McLean) gave the figures, so I need not go into them. I speak as a casual visitor having visited the island last summer. I was very much struck with the number of Canadian goods displayed, and in conversation with men of commercial standing there I discovered that our own people appear in their minds to be backward about catering for the tirade. I notice that the people down there are practically Canadianized. I think that the banks of Nova Scotia, Montreal and Commerce give them their currency. Canadian money passes current there from hand to hand and they speak absolutely our language with a delightful addition to it of the Irish brogue. They say it is the land of fish, frogs, dogs and Irishmen. I found a quiet desire for a closer trade relationship and I believe they are really anxious to have closer relations; and yet for some reason, for something that happened in the past which I need not go into, there is a reticence about entering into any closer alliance with us, national or commercial. Cabot's Head is the gateway of Newfoundland. At that point you enter through rugged cliffs on each side, into a most beautiful harbour, the crowning cliffs showing impregnable strength. I could not but be impressed that Newfoundland was not only the gateway to Canada but the gateway to British North America and to North America and I felt that if something could be done, whether along trade lines or otherwise, to round out the Confederation by bringing in that splendid colony, people of kith and kin to ourselves, it would be a great step in advance. There is along the southern coast of Newfoundland splendid territory for hundreds of miles from Port-aux-Basques to Placentia bay and then to St. John's. Every village along that coast is remote from the (railway, it is essentially a place for ocean trade; and with the progress that Canada has made there to-day, with the cordiality of feeling which I heard expressed by prominent business men and others, I think the time opportune to press for some measure to increase our trade with Newfoundland. During the fifteen years that hon. gentlemen opposite were on the Treasury Benches nothing was done in that direction. I think we on this side of the House might bring

to the attention of the Government the great possibilities of increasing trade there. I found a peculiar thing down there. The people of that colony are adventurous traders. I saw boats loaded at St. John's with codfish for South America. I found that they shipped also to the European countries. I found that the supply of fish was almost inexhaustible and while their trade is growing largely away from Canada and while they leave our Maritime provinces to supply us as they can with fish as far inland as refrigerator car service and other railway equipment will be able to carry it, the trade of Newfoundland in natural products, which I understand are largely fish and pulp and some minerals outside of the Belle Isle mines, has yet to be exploited and developed. Their trade is now moving in other directions and we should make an effort to secure a larger proportion of that trade, especially when they are so willing and anxious to receive the produce of this country. When I saw the moderate sum of $70,000, in that Estimate I was surprised; my idea rather runs to $700,000. I have no accurate data but I wish to convey my impression of the possibilities that exist there. Whereas to-day our export trade to Newfoundland amounts to $4,000,000 I think with a little extra pushing we might easily increase that to ten or twelve millions dollars to the great gain of the producers of Canada,


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to take issue with my bon. friend's statement that the late Government did nothing to increase trade with the colony of Newfoundland. The British preference stimulated trade between Canada and Newfoundland to a very large extent, and I (have no doubt that the preference is largely responsible for the increasing trade between those two countries. That is to the credit of the late Government who extended the British preference to all British colonies. The present Government, although it bias been in power over two years, has nothing to its credit in the way of increased trade with Newfoundland. My hon. friend was the first to introduce politics into this discussion, and I did not want to let the opportunity pass without giving him a little light on the question as to which party is entitled to the credit for the increased trade with Newfoundland. There is a way of increasing that trade still farther. If my hon. friend will persuade the Government to give an additional preference to that colony, he will find that Newfoundland will respond, and I am sure that that would do more towards increasing trade than paying subsidies to steamship companies.
Steam service between Halifax, St. John's and Liverpool, $20,000.


John Howard Sinclair: What company gets that?
Mr. FOSTER- Furness, Withy and Company.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister the
rate- schedule of that company?


George Eulas Foster: 
John Howard Sinclair: Do they submit rates each year when the contract is renewed?


George Eulas Foster: They raise the rates, they do.


John Howard Sinclair: Are the rates the same this year as last?


George Eulas Foster: Just the same.
Steam service between Montreal, Quebec and Manchester, England, $35,000.


John Howard Sinclair: What company gets that?


George Eulas Foster: The Manchester Liners, Limited.


John Howard Sinclair: Do they carry the mails?


George Eulas Foster: No.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the object in subsidizing that line?


George Eulas Foster: For the extension of our traffic. As my hon. friend knows, Manchester lies in the centre of the most populous district in Great Britain, and I would like to call the attention of my hon. friend to the increases that have taken place in that connection. This service carries a large amount of freight. Last year it took a total tonnage of 269,438 in weight and 72,761 by measurement, as compared, let us say, with 1908, when only 112,759 of weight was taken. The trade has more than doubled, and is constantly increasing.


John Howard Sinclair: It is simply competing with the tramp steamers.


George Eulas Foster: If the tramp steamers are there, they will compete. As to the value, $8,246,791 worth of goods of Canadian origin were carried, and $3,000,000 worth of goods of United States origin; that is, they carried over $12,000,000 worth of

freight, which represents an enormous amount of stuff. The subsidy is not a large one.
Mr, SINCLAIR: In that case they ought to be able to run without a subsidy.


George Eulas Foster: There is that question as to whether or not, and to what extent, these services ought to be self-supporting. One object I had in view in demanding a statement of revenue and expenses, was that with data covering a period of two or three years one might be able to judge as to whether this or that line ought not to be allowed to go on its own resources.
Steam service between St. John, Dublin and Belfast, $7,500.


William John Macdonald: Who gets the Irish subsidy?	_.


George Eulas Foster: The contract is with the Ulster Steamship Company, Limited. Last year they carried goods of Canadian origin to the value of $1,200,000.


William John Macdonald: How much of that was deals?


George Eulas Foster: There were some, but
they also carried wheat, barley, rye, lumber, flour, oats, apples, hay, linseed cakes, washboards, steels, and handles. They carried a large amount of general freight.
Winter steam service between St. John, Halifax and London, $15,000.


George Eulas Foster: The Canadian Pacific
railway has that contract. Last year they carried goods of Canadian origin to the value of $2,600,000, and $1,141,000 worth of goods of United States origin-a total of nearly $4,000,000 worth.


John Howard Sinclair: How many trips do
they make?


George Eulas Foster: Ten.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the object in
paying that subsidy?


George Eulas Foster: The purpose is to stimulate trade between the two countries.


John Howard Sinclair: It seems absurd that
we should have to subsidize freight steamers for carrying goods from St. John and Halifax to London, when there are a dozen companies willing to carry the freight at ordinary rates. We are not trying to develop trade with London especially, are we? If we are not getting any reduction in rates toy paying this $15,000, what are we paying it for? That is the point that wor-

ries me. If it were a particular trade that was being developed, if these vessels were carrying apples from Annapolis, for instance, it would be a different matter; but if this company is simply carrying deals or ordinary freight we are throwing away our money.


George Eulas Foster: It is not quite fair to say ' if they are only carrying deals ' because they are not simply carrying deals. Let me direct my hon. friend's attention to the situation. These services were not started last year or the year before. They had been subsidized for a series of years, going back to twenty-five or thirty years ago. The very same question that was asked to-night might have been asked, and it might have been just as difficult for me to answer it as it has been to-night, at any one of these times. There was really no data before the department until we undertook the system of trying to get at just about what were the revenue and expenses of these different lines. We could not do that in one year, but taking it over a period of two, three or four years, you have the data for making up your mind and basing your judgment as to whether this particular line, or any other, ought to be assisted. I think we must come to the time when our freight services between large cities or countries must carry their own charges and costs, and we will gradually become limited in making provision by way of subsidy to services for the carrying of the mails with as great speed as is required and to pioneer services breaking the way into new countries where we have great difficulties to encounter in carrying and establishing trade. In the course of time I hope we will be able to do some work of discrimination with respect to these services, which I have found impossible because I had no data.
Steam service between Canada and Australia or New Zealand, or both, on the Pacific ocean, $180,509.


William John Macdonald: Are our imports from Australia increasing ?


George Eulas Foster: Our exports and imports both are increasing. In 1913 the value carried out of Canadian origin was $770,412, and there was a large amount of United States origin, the whole value being between $3,000,000 and $3,500,000. It would be more satisfactory if the returns of the department were looked at to see the different lines into which this trade was divided.


William John Macdonald: What do we get from them particularly ?


George Eulas Foster: Exports of Canadian products increased from 52,574,000 11 p.m. in 1902 to 53,954,000 last year.
There were foreign products to a small amount, making the total exports about 54,000,000. The imports are much smaller, amounting to a

 little less than $500,000. In the trade exchange between us and Australia, the balance is very largely in our favour; Australia raising much the same character of staple products as we do ourselves.


William John Macdonald: Do we send any agricultural implements out there P


George Eulas Foster: Some agricultural implements go there, and they are very well thought of, too.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose the subsidy decreases as the business increases ?


George Eulas Foster: The subsidy, as are all our subsidies, is a stated sum during the term of the contract.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. minister says that there is a very large increase in the business. It struck me that there might be a corresponding decrease in the subsidy, because the increased business must give a much larger revenue to the steamer.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, on a strictly logical basis that would be so, but our subsidies vary a little from that basis.
Steamship service between Victoria and San Francisco, $3,000.


George William Kyte: Has any progress been made in regard to the application on behalf of some interests in the town of Yarmouth and vicinity to subsidize a steamship service between Yarmouth and Boston ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, so much progress has been made that I have been obliged to decline paying any subsidy to the line of steamers that run between Yarmouth and Boston. The Yarmouth line of steamers were on the point of increasing their service and then an attempt was made to get a subsidy from the Dominion Government. -On looking the whole matter over, and upon considering it, I was obliged to say that I believed they ought to carry their own costs and charges and improve the service. They have improved the service since without a subsidy.


George William Kyte: Has there been any proposal made to subsidize a new line of steamers between Shelburne and Boston?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether you could say that a proposal has been made or not. There have been communications and a deputation visited Ottawa and talked over the matter with me. But aside from the general idea that they would like to have a service between Boston and Shelburne, there was no founded proposal upon which a judgment could be taken as to the subsidizing of a service. Generally speaking, we have not subsidized direct services between our large cities and the large American cities. Although the matter has not been absolutely decided upon, I still think there will be difficulties that cannot at present be overcome in endeavouring to inaugurate a new and up to date transport passenger and freight service between Boston and the ports on the southern coast of Nova Scotia.


George William Kyte: A condition of affairs has arisen in respect to the trade between Nova Scotia and the New England states particularly in regard to the transport of fish that has not hitherto prevailed. The United States markets are free to the fishermen of Nova Scotia. The fishermen of the west-tern part of Nova Scotia would appear to be pretty well served by the very excellent steam service which has been established for so many years between Yarmouth and Boston. However, the fishermen in the eastern portion of Nova Scotia are not so well provided with means of transportation in that respect. There .has been a very excellent line of steamers established between Charlottetown, Port Hawkesbury, Halifax and Boston. Unfortunately, however, there are other very important centres of the fishing industries lying along the coast of Nova Scotia which are not served by any direct communication with Boston and I would like the minister to have an open mind in regard to the propriety of subsidizing some service between Nova Scotia and Boston and giving it the same consideration that he gives to other services that are bonused for the purpose of promoting traffic and the interchange of commodities between different sections of the British colonies.
There are very important fishing centres at Arichat and Canso, where are caught large quantities of fish, which will naturally find a market in the United States. At present, there is no means of ready transport, by reason of the fact that the steamers do not call at any intervening port between Port Hawkesbury and Halifax. It would be worth while for the minister to consider

whether he could not give a subsidy to the Plant Steamship Company, in consideration of their steamships calling at Arichat and Canso, for the purpose of taking fish shipments, which would find a much more profitable and ready market in the United States than they can find within our own territory.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to urge the same point on the minister, as it is a matter that my constituents are deeply interested in. I took occasion some time ago to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Marine, and we had a discussion on it, and a number of reasons were put forward by gentlemen on this side of the House in favour of granting some assistance to a line of fish boats to ply between the south shore of Nova Scotia and the Boston market. It is obvious that we should be able to take advantage of the free open market of the United States, but we cannot do' so with our present transportation facilities. The town of Yarmouth has transportation factilities to a certain extent; I understand there is a boat from Yarmouth to Boston making three trips a week.


George Eulas Foster: Four.


John Howard Sinclair: The Yarmouth people
are able to forward their fresh fish to the Boston market, and I am informed, on the best authority, that the result has been that the price at Yarmouth has about doubled since the United States duty on fish has been removed. Fish is a very perishable commodity, and unless it is put into the market quickly it is almost impossible to carry on a trade in it at all. At Canso, we have had a dead slow price of $1.50 per hundred pounds for fresh haddock and fresh cod, for a number of years past, while at Yarmouth they have been getting on an average during the present winter $3.86 per hundred pounds for the same kind of fish. The Montreal market is a good market as far as it goes, but it is expensive for us to send to Montreal, and the freight by water, from the ports of southern Nova Scotia to Boston, would be very much less than we could possibly expect them to be by rail to Montreal. Then, Montreal is a small market, and if you put more than two or three carloads of fish into it in one day, you break the market. On the other hand, you can bring as much fish as you like to the Boston market, because it is a great distributing point for Chicago, New York, [Mr. Kyte.f
and the big cities of the United States. The price at Boston goes up and down, but sometimes it is quite high. Sometimes it is lower than in Montreal, but the average Boston p-ice is much better than the average Montreal price. We can never expect to get a large fish trade developed on the south coast of Nova Scotia, with our present home markets. The United States market is now open to us, and the one thing needed to make a great and profitable business for the people of Nova Scotia, is transportation facilities. The Minister of Finance told us that our trade with the United States is large, because we purchase from the United States in great quantities, but here is an opportunity to sell them a commodity that we have on the southern shore of Nova Scotia, and for which a ready market is waiting in the United States. I have no doubt that if we had those facilities our fish trade with the United States could be worked up to be an enormous industry. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will find that during the past year enormous strides have been made in the fresh fish business in the town of Yarmouth, because of the Wilson tariff. We can equally develop the trade at Canso, Isaac's Harbour, Drumhead, and a number of other places along the coast of Nova Scotia. I would suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should get collecting boats to take the fish to some particular point, from which there would be a subsidized line to take it to the Boston market. I do not know what the difficulties are, but I cannot conceive that there should be any difficulties which would prevent that being done. I hope the minister will have an open mind on the question, and that he will carefully look into it, because I think it is one of the opportunities which our people in Nova Scotia have been looking to for a long time.


George Eulas Foster: I quite understandthough not so well as my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) who lives in the atmosphere- the possibilities of the fish trade of the Maritime provinces, particularly of that most highly endowed province of Nova Scotia, in that respect.


William John Macdonald: In every respect.
Mr, FOSTER: At the same time, there are difficulties in the way of having a fast line of steamers running to Boston, from all the eligible points in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, for developing the trade in fish. A very large

amount of money could easily be spent in arranging fast services at frequent intervals, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) will see that there would be difficulties in multiplying steamship services from all these eligible points. The fish trade of Nova Scotia is flourishing; it gives very large employment; it has a large number of men, who are not men of capital, to gather the fish, but it has also a large number of men who are men of capital, and who are able to put their means into the services necessary to transport the fish to the markets awaiting it. From Halifax and from Yarmouth you have direct lines of steamers running to this market. From Yarmouth you have another eligible line of steamers, and the line that runs out of Yarmouth does not simply serve the harbour, but the coast next to Yarmouth. Yarmouth is a centre for collecting from tihe south of Nova Scotia and even from points as far distant as Mulgrave, by the railway communication which they have and which caters very largely to the steamship companies that run out of Yarmouth. It would be a good thing if we could get in all these boats, but there are some difficulties in the way. It is a common idea amongst some that we are made of money and $100,000,000, or any number of million dollars should not stand in the way. We must be careful in one way to keep some cheek on our administrative expenditure; we must on the other hand 'have an open mind and look into these questions as thoroughly as possible, which I am well disposed to do with reference to Nova Scotia, because I know the value and the increasing value of its industries. Possibly a (little time and patience will do a great deal for uts in that respect.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- steam service from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1914, between Gaspg basin and Dalhousie or Campbellton, $20,000.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister give us some information about that?


George Eulas Foster: We had that service under contract with the steamer Canada for a period of years at a subsidy of $20,000 a year. That subsidy was made up of an advance of some $5,000, just a year or a year and a 'half ago. That grant was given because that portion of the coast showed a growing trade. There is in the first place, as my hon. friend knows, the competition of a line of railway which runs along the coast which does not serve all the points or the ports. In consideration, however, of local considerations, $5,000 was added to
the subsidy a year or so ago, and a contract was entered into with the Canada, a very good vessel, so far as I remember; but the proprietor of the Canada died and his estate was not able to carry on the service. Therefore we have arranged on very short notice, because all this has taken place within a short time, to carry on just about half the service at half the sud-sidy, using the Canada as one of the vessels and the Gaspesia, a vessel which will be known to my hon. friend, to carry on the other part of the service. We subsidized just to the same extent in point of distance and to the same ports, or very nearly so as were served under the old steamship contract with the Canada, but the service is distributed between the two vessels. I believe it is the object of the contractors to go as far as Montreal. We subsidized them no farther than Gaspe; but if they can go to Montreal and back and do the service on the schedule, there is no objection to their doing so. That is the best arrangement which we can make at present. What will happen in the future, I am not in a position to say.


Charles Marcil: Will there be two trips a week between Campbellton and Gaspe as at present?


George Eulas Foster: There will be only twenty-six round trips-half the subsidy and half the service.


Charles Marcil: Have the people down
there expressed any desire for a service of that kind?	.


George Eulas Foster: I have not had time to
communicate with the people, and it is not quite open to do in a few days' time what might 'be best for the service. If you have plenty of time to call for tenders and get competition in that way, you might do better. Here was a service which was about to open and that was the only proposition I could get placed before me and I took it up rather than have the service lapse.


Charles Marcil: Why not have the Canada continue the contract of last year?


George Eulas Foster: That might have been
possible if I had had a proposition to continue it, but I had not.


Charles Marcil: You had a contract.


George Eulas Foster: A contract is not much
use against a man who has died and whose estate is not prepared to carry it on. My hon. friend would not like me to press a service in a case of that kind.


Charles Marcil: I understand the boat has been sold to another company.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Charles Marcil: What is the name of the new manager of the company?


George Eulas Foster: The contract will be with the Gaspe and Baie des Chaleurs Steamship Company, .Limited, manager Mr. Blouin.


Charles Marcil: Is he a resident of Quebec city? '


George Eulas Foster: I do not know.


Charles Marcil: I put a question to the minister some time ago about the state of the steamer Canada, whether she had undergone any inspection or not, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries gave me the following information:
The SS. Canada was inspected by the Government inspectors and granted a certificate on the 5th May, 1913 ; this certificate expired on the 1st December, 1913. No further report of official inspection has yet been made to the department, and no certificate for 1914 has been issued.
This answer was given on the 6th of April, three weeks ago.


George Eulas Foster: I cannot say whether a certificate has been issued since then or not. I have not any information that I can give my hon. friend. With reference to the other vessel to be put on, I made inquiries and an inspection of the vessel made to satisfy myself that she was able to carry on the other half of the service. I am informed by the Postmaster General that the Canada is in dock being repaired, and that, when repairs have been made, she will get her certificate. The vessel must get her certificate in order to run on the route.


Charles Marcil: I have, in a return brought down to the House on the 2nd of March of the present year, a letter from the late president of the company, who gave as his reason for going into dry-dock last year on the 28th of November, at an earlier date than usual, the fact that he had asked Lloyds, of London, England, to certify the vessel, and they had instructed him to place it in dry-dock and he had complied with their instructions. I would like the minister to make sure that he is putting a safe boat on that coast.


George Eulas Foster: I certainly will do that.


Charles Marcil: This boat was bought in 1892. It was formerly called the Pro

Patria. It was reported as of no further use to the company which owned it, and lay in the harbour of Halifax for sale for quite	a	time	until	it was	bought
and	put on the Gaspe route.
The service was .not as bad as the one given by the Restigouche, but almost as bad; since the Admiral was taken off the route the service has been going from bad to worse. The Canada was patched up; a couple of cabins were built on the deck, but the machinery is out of date and she did not give satisfaction at all last year. The service used to be sixty trips during the season; that was cut down to fifty-three and it is now to be cut down to twenty-six, a trip every week. In the months of May and June, large quantities of salmon are taken from Gaspe to Charlo, transferred to Dalhousie and there put into the icehouses to be transported by rail. The people found the service of the Canada, two trips a week, entirely inadequate, and they organized local services. A resident of Bonaventure put on a special boat; the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Reid) sent a sailing vessel over from Chafflo and Loggies, I think, had an independent service of their owa AH these agencies were employed to carry the salmon taken up in May and June. The Canada gave a poor service, but if the service is to be made poorer stiU the people will have to rely on the railway to carry their fish. That is one more argument in favour of the suggestion I made the other night: that the time is coming when the Government should take over that railway and make it a branch of the Intercolonial. We spent a million and a half in cash upon that road and $250,000 were paid in special subsidies for the building of twenty-six iron bridges. The road between Carlisle and Gaspe, which was built at a cost of $3,000,000, is giving practically no satisfaction at all. During the winter only one train a day is run and for weeks at a time the country is without any service at all. The old line between Carlisle and Matapedia has to be rebuilt, but the chief requirement is a bridge between Cross and Campbellton to bring the Gaspe peninsula in touch with the International railway, with the Intercolonial at Camp-belltom and with the Transcontinental railway at Edmunston. If our friends in Nova Scotia get better steamship service for the carrying of their fish to the American market, we would have an ideal

'Service if we could but link up Gaspe with Carnpbellton. We could then take advantage of the International railway as well as of the Intercolonial system; we would be connected with the Boston and Maine and our fish could reach Boston within twenty-four hours. In the Baie des Chaleurs there are great possibilities. If the railway service were improved I think the steamship service could be dispensed with altogether from the freight point of view, though I would be sorry to see it go, because Gaspe coast is one of the most picturesque parts of the province of Quebec; during the summer season that district is one of the most attractive portions of eastern Canada. I know that difficulties present themselves to the Government but I hope that the inferior steamship service and ineffective railway accommodation- to which the people of the G-aspe peninsula are subjected will he taken into consideration by the Government and some improvement made.


Mr. PELLETIER:: My hon. friend knows that the Bill providing for the purchase of that railway was thrown out last year by the Senate.


Charles Marcil: The Postmaster General
knows well that if he brings in a measure now to take over that road I will support it.


George Eulas Foster: I have paid a great deal oi attention to the route mentioned by my hon. friend, but the question is rather a difficult one. When I came to look for results I found that with a payment of a subsidy of $20,000, the amount of freight carried was only 1,600 tons. The question arises as to how much money you can expend otn a route which in some respects seems to be on the diminishing side. I gave only the $5,000 and continued the granting of that amount because of my love for the scenic properties of that beautiful stretch of water, which I always liked to see visited by tourists and travellers. However, situated as we were, I could not see anything better to do than that which I have done.


Charles Marcil: The minister knows, of
course, that although traffic on the Canada has decreased, that does not mean that the Gaspd peninsula is not progressing. If the steamship traffic has gone down, it is because the railway now reaches Gaspe and because there are three independent lines of steamers running from Montreal to Quebec. In the old days the Admiral was 186
sufficient to do the whole business; now the Canada, the Gaspesian, the Lady of Gaspd, the Cascapedia and Gaspe railway are all employed in the carrying of trade.
Steam service between Halifax anti west coast Cape Breton, calling at way ports, $2,000.


William Chisholm: How far
north on the west coast of Cape Breton do as this boat go?


George Eulas Foster: She goes to Pleasant bay.
Steam service between Halifax and Sherbrooke, $2,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there a contract for that service, and if so, with whom?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, with W. J. Murdoch. The service has been running for some time. I think without subsidy. Last year it came under subsidy.


John Howard Sinclair: It received a subsidy
from the local government of Nova Scotia.
Steam service between Kenora and Fort Frances, $8,000.


Frank Oliver: This is an inland service. Would the minister give some explanation?


George Eulas Foster: That has a peculiar history. I wonder if I would be betraying any confidence if I explained i-t. A certain minister at a certain time had for a long time been very much importuned to grant a service over this route but he fought against the principle of subsidizing services in interior lakes in Ontario as a doughty soldier in the interests of economy and what he thought was proper steamship service. But at last he had to give so many steamship services to the ports in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that, in a rather irate fit or mood, upon a certain occasion he declared he would give one subsidy on this internal lake and river in Ontario as a bit of an offset for the number that he had to grant in Nova Scotia. I felt that I would not be doing honour to his memory if I did not continue that subsidy.


Frank Oliver: I do not want to be understood as objecting to the service at all.
Steam service from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1914 between the mainland and the Magdalen islands, $15,000.


James Joseph Hughes: This is a service
that takes in part of Frince Edward Island. If I understood the minister aright he said there was no increase in the rate since he took charge of the department. My information is to the effect that there is an increase in the rate.


George Eulas Foster: My impression is exactly the opposite. One of the troubles I have been up against is in regard to this service which is peculiar in many respects. It is not a service of very great volume of trade and the trade that is carried on is of a peculiar nature in which a sympathetic captain may very much help and an unsympathetic one very much hinder.


James Joseph Hughes: I think the service is a good one.


George Eulas Foster: Then we will start from a common basis that this service is a good one. I have gone carefully over the accounts of the service for the last two years with Mr. McClure, and I satisfied myself that something more would have to be given, in order to retain that vessel in this service. We have had several vessel s on that service and had chronic complaints on the part of the people of the Magdalen islands and of other portions as well, against the service. This vessel is, if anything, superior for that service; hut she has given a good service and the people are very anxious that the service should *be retained. I have come to the decision to add a little more to the service in ordier to keep it for the present year with the same vessel and the same captain. One of the difficulties I met with was that the rates to the Magdalen islands were so reasonable, so far reduced in fact, that there had to he a larger subsidy or an increase in the rates.


William John Macdonald: I was familiar with the granting of this subsidy five years ago and with the rates that were then especially stated in the contract, and I am in a position to know that there has been no change in the rates since, because the gentleman who is Tunning the service is performing tlhe contract -as it was made five years ago without any change. I have spoken to the minister privately about the .matter, as the service starts from my own town. I understand the minister has granted an additional sum but only for the year.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William John Macdonald: What is file minister's policy in regard to the future?


George Eulas Foster: These subsidies all around our coasts have been yearly subsidies. There are some difficulties to the department in the administration in having them fall in each year and so as soon as we have worked out some better system of checking up the receipts and expenditures we hope

to make a change and to enter into contracts for a period of years, perhaps three years or five years.
Steam service between Mulgrave and Guys-borough, calling at intermediate ports, $5,500.


John Howard Sinclair: I have bad requests
that the port of Sand Point, a place with a wharf on the strait of Oanso should receive a call from this steamer. It would have been easy to do but I find there is a difficulty in this way. A new wharf was erected there for the purpose o-f providing for .a call of that boat. Money was voted in the session of 1911 and a contract was made for .building the wharf. After the new Government came into power, the Minister of Public Works did not cancel the contract but he decided to change the site. The first site gave sufficient depth for the Steamer to call at the outer end of the wharf and do the business, but the minister changed this site to a point half a mile away, in order to give $160 to a friend of Ithe .party and to please some of his political friends who resided there.


George Eulas Foster: Of course that is an assertion.


John Howard Sinclair: That is the only reason.
the consequence is that the Wharf is now no good to anybody, because there is not sufficient depth of water in front of it for any boat to call at low tide. I would like the minister to have a consultation with the Minister of Public Works, and if he can induce him to add 100 feet to that .wharf so as to give a sufficient depth of water it will be a great accommodation to the people of that locality.


George Eulas Foster: I will consider the matter and have it fixed one way or the other: either get a little more water, or shave something off the bottom of the vessel.


William F. Carroll: Will the boat call at Big Pond?


George Eulas Foster: Did it last year?


William F. Carroll: I am told by a resident there that it did in the first part of the season, but not in the latter.


George Eulas Foster: I cannot say whether that is included in the contract or not, but I will make a note of it.


William F. Carroll: There is a Government wharf there.


George Eulas Foster: Has it water?


William F. Carroll: I presume so.

Steam service-Pictou, Mulgrave, Chetieamp, $7,500.


John Howard Sinclair: Who has the contract this year?


George Eulas Foster: I forget the name of the company, but it is the one in which Roderick McDougall is interested. I suppose my hon. friend wants some information on that matter. I have had more trouble over that than over any other service.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: If the minister had consulted me, I could have helped him out very easily.


George Eulas Foster: One never knows what silent and unobtrusive friends are close at hand to help out in times of difficulty, and often loses the aid he might have had. The facts of the case-I have them pretty fresh in mind-are these: The vessel was the City of Ghent-Captain Beatty. I remember the captain, and I have some recollection of the City of Ghent. 'So far as I can learn, the Ghent was a popular vessel, though not the best in the service, but the captain was not quite so popular as the vessel, and there was a great deal of trouble and many heartburnings. I took the ground at last that if I could get a suitable vessel and a suitable captain to cater to what seemed to be the wish of the customers of the route, that it was my . duty to do so. After a long while I found a sea-faring man who undertook to get a suitable vessel and to organize the service, and I have given him the contract for the present year. The vessel is the steamship Kinbum, refitted so as to give what seems to be sufficient accommodation for the route. We will try it out and see what happens this year.


William John Macdonald: I hope the minister will see that she starts from Pictou.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, yes, and goes back
to Pictou every time.


Alexander William Chisholm: If I have one
particular objection to the whole contract, it is that one fact that she starts from Pictou.


George Eulas Foster: I have no hesitation in
saying that if I were making the service anew, I would start the vessel from Mulgrave and run that route. I would divide the service into two, and if it weie necessary put on a service from Pictou to Mulgrave, serving the points in Antigonish county between those two towns and also >864
run a boat from New Glasgow. But it is not possible for me to do that this year.


William Chisholm: Here is another
case where the minister might have been helped out if he had consulted the representative of the county the year before last. The minister will not forget that he changed the service two years ago. Under the late Government there were two services. There was a boat from Pictou to Cape Breton ports, and a boat from Mulgrave to Chetieamp. The minister-I suppose from the standpoint of economy- undertook to amalgamate both services and gave the contract to Captain Beatty. If Captain Beatty did not turn out according to the expectations of the minister, he has himself to blame.


George Eulas Foster: He was more energetic
than I thought he was.


William Chisholm: If the service does not please the people of Inverness county they may blame the minister, because, as I have pointed out, it is impossible for one boat to do that service; and the same thing will happen again this year. The slightest consideration on the part of the minister would show him that it is an absolute absurdity for the boat to make one trip from Pictou to Chetieamp, and two from Mulgrave to Chetieamp in one week. On all that coast there is a large quantity of fresh fish, particularly salmon, and if we cannot have a regular two-trips-a-week service from Chetieamp to Mulgrave, the service is practically useless. We could not have it last year and certainly we cannot have it this year; the man simply cannot do it; the distance is too far. Another thing I want to point out to the minister is this: in my opinion the boat he has on the service now will not be any improvement on the service last year, and I question whether it will be as good.


William John Macdonald: She is not as good
a boat.


William Chisholm: That is my information, and I think the department ought to have had that information-I had it long ago. The boat that was on three years ago gave satisfactory service and I venture to say there were no complaints against it; but the minister took that contract away and gave it to Beatty. He found no satisfaction in him and drove off that boat, and I venture to say that this third boat will be the worst of the three. The minister ex-

pects this boat to perform a service that is physically impossible.


George Eulas Foster: The member for Peterborough says there are no impossibilities.


William Chisholm: Let me ask the minister if he will be good enough to watch the service of this boat this year? Rather than have the Inverness service sacrificed, as it will be, I would suggest that Pictou be cut out altogether. I am very anxious to be connected with Pictou and we would have been connected with Pictou in a satisfactory way if the minister had not tampered with the conditions he found when he took charge. But he did tamper and the result is evident; we have now no service at all. If we are going to have a repetition of what occurred last year let him cut out Pictou altogether this year.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend the member for Pictou and the member for Inverness can have a private conversation about cutting out Pictou.


William Chisholm: There is another thing with regard to the passenger service at that point. I understand the Kinburn has been equipped with passenger accommodation. If it turns out that in two months' time this boat is not equipped what will be the result?


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend tells me that the boat is not equipped, I will take some means of finding out whether she is equipped or not. She has to be equipped reasonably well for the service. My hon. friend will find that summer weather will make him less pessimistic than he is now.
'"Sir. CHISHOLM: I am not pessimistic; it is the people who are suffering, and not I.


George Eulas Foster: I started out with the heroic idea of economizing and squeezing into one some of the many double services I found on that coast. I have had my experience with that matter-I am quite willing to admit it.


George William Kyte: Did the minister get a report from any official as to the suitability of this boat for the service that it professes to perform ?


George Eulas Foster: The boat was on the service from Halifax out to the southwest coast last year, but it had not sufficient passenger accommodation. Outside of that it had sufficient accommodation. It is in part a night service and there must be sleeping accommodation. I summoned the

superviser, who was in Ottawa at the time, talked the whole matter over with him and we came to a conclusion as to what would be reasonably good passenger accommodation. They must fulfil that condition or they will not get the subsidy.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the inspector, Mr. Tupper, report on the question of the suitability of vessels ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, of every vessel.
Steam service between Pelee Island and the mainland, $5,000.


George Eulas Foster: The subsidy given so far has been 85,000. They have had for a series of years Tather an old
12 p.m. and not a very serviceable vessel, although it has done the work that it was necessary to do. This year the people of Pelee Island have subscribed their money, built a new vessel into which they have put about 870,000, they are going to give a better service and I am going to raise the subsidy to J8,000 for the improved service.
Steam service between Pictou and Montague, calling at Murray Harbour and Georgetown, $6,000.


James Joseph Hughes: There is a feature in connection with the services between one or two places to which I wish to call the attention of the minister. I think that in the contracts there is a clause to the effect that steamers subsidized by the Government shall use the Government wharfs where such wharfs exist. I think that is a proper clause.


George Eulas Foster: If they have water.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know of any wharfs in Prince Edward Island that have not water. This steamer does not use the Government wharfs, and the Government wharfs, as a rule, are better than the private wharfs. They have better freight sheds and are capable of giving better accommodation to the public. The hon. minister can understand that perhaps some of the shareholders, or some of their friends, may have a private wharf that the steamer people would like to use. I get letters in reference to this matter, and sometimes people who are aggrieved do not wish to make complaints personally.


George Eulas Foster: At what ports?


James Joseph Hughes: At Montague there is an excellent Government wharf; it has a new freight shed and it should be used. I understand there is a clause in the contract to that effect.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether
there is any clause in the contract or not, but I think the rule is that, if there is a Government wharf which is suitable for the people, the vessel has to call there if she is required to do so.


James Joseph Hughes: I would ask the minister to give notice to the steamship owners in time so that they cannot raise the plea that they were not notified and that they thought they could do as usual. Last year the steamer that called at Souris on the way from Pictou to the Magdalen islands did not use the Government wharf and a greater hardship was inflicted upon the people who shipped by the steamers in consequence of that than would have been the result even at Montague. A good deal of freight carried by that boat from Souris comes over the railway from Charlottetown and when the Government wharf was not used that freight had to be carted over from the Government wharf where the cars come down, around quite a distance to the private wharf, or it had to be carted from the station which was some distance back in the village land the goods had to pay unnecessary cartage and the double wharfage. Possibly this extra charge may have given rise to the idea that the freight Tates were increased. After considerable trouble last year I got that matter adjusted.


George Eulas Foster: There is no longer a grievance?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know whether
it may arise this year or not.


George Eulas Foster: Do not greet possibilities; you know that the thing is all right now.


James Joseph Hughes: I can quite see that the minister does not take the matter seriously.


George Eulas Foster: I am here to listen to you.


James Joseph Hughes: I am glad to hear that.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend should not deprecate himself enough to think that in adressing his remarks to me he would not address remarKs which would receive serious attention. Every member of this House, on any side of it, that wants to say anything in reference- to any service in which he is interested has a right to be seriously treated, and I always so treat him.


James Joseph Hughes: I am glad to hear that. If the minister's method of answering me did not convey that impression it is my misfortune. I suggest to the minister
that he should give notice to the steamship owners that that clause in the contract will be carried out.


George Eulas Foster: If there is a clause in the agreement and they have signed the contract and I have signed it, it will be carried out; there is no necessity of giving notice.


James Joseph Hughes: Lest there be any
misunderstanding, I tell the minister that in the case of Montague, the Government wharf was not used last year.


George Eulas Foster: I shall be glad to inquire into that.


George William Kyte: I see in one of those votes that you are subsidizing a schooner; is that a sailing vessel?


George Eulas Foster: No, it is a motor boat.


George William Kyte: Is it a new departure for the Department to subsidize motor boats for work of this kind?


George Eulas Foster: It is pretty hard to say what would be a new departure in the application of these subsidies. The Ghent, which ran from Pictou to Northern Cape Breton, found it impossible to get into a number of the smaller ports along the Antigonish coast, and this small vessel ran from Glasgow, and performed a very useful service to the people of that locality. I have the letters of the merchants and the priests along that coast congratulating me for putting on the service, and telling me how important it was that the contract should be continued.


John Howard Sinclair: Who is performing that service?


George Eulas Foster: I think the man's name is Macdonald; it is a small subsidy of $500 a year.


George William Kyte: This opens up a new field for the exploitation of persons who desire to get their names on the pay-roll for Government subsidies. I realize that there are many situations similar to those described by the minister, where ordinary steamers would be unable to call at certain places on account of the shallowness of the water, and it would be very desirable to subsidize gasoline boats for that purpose. I am glad to see the minister has undertaken to supply this much-needed service, and I may say to him that it is quite possible that in the near future very many similar applications will be made.


George Eulas Foster: I do not propose to extend the principle.


James Joseph Hughes: I may tell the minister that I know the rates have been increased on the service about which we were speaking, but I cannot be sure of the year in which the increase took place. Is the minister sure that no increase has taken place?


George Eulas Foster: I can only say that my recollection does not warrant me in saying that as to that particular service a request for an increase in any of the rates has been made. The instructions are absolute, and the clause in the contract is absolute that they must not charge any higher rates without the permission of the minister. I 3o not recollect receiving any complaint on that score.


James Joseph Hughes: I know that some years ago they charged $5 a head for cattle, and I think the charge is now 57.50.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think I should take the ground that the rates should remain the same over a period of years, during which there have been many essential changes in cost. I take it that what the contract means is that the rates shall not be increased beyond what is reasonable. There might occasions arise when the Department would think it reasonable to allow an increase.


James Joseph Hughes: I understood the minister to say there was no increase at all.


George Eulas Foster: No increase, unless authorized.


James Joseph Hughes: I am not objecting to a reasonable increase, and perhaps there might be good reason for it in some cases.


George Eulas Foster: I do not recollect any application for an increase.


James Joseph Hughes: Some years ago these
boats called at Souris on their way to Newfoundland., but that service was cut out, and they now call only at Summerside and Charlottetown. The subsidy was only $8,000 when they called at Souris and they are now getting $16,500. I think they should make a call at each county, in consideration of the increased subsidy.


George Eulas Foster: The vote is $16,500, but it is regulated according to the number of calls they make, and for a series of years they have made calls which entitled them to $12,500 per annum.


James Joseph Hughes: If they called at Souris would they be entitled to $16,500?


George Eulas Foster: My impression is that they would be entitled to more subsidy if they called at Souris, but I am not positive. I think there was correspondence on the point that they had not reserved space, and that therefore, the freight that offered' was not carried, and I took that matter up with them.


James Joseph Hughes: That would be at Charlottetown. Of course, it would be a great convenience to the people living in the neighbourhood if we could get at least one of these boats to call at Souris.


George Eulas Foster: I have the impression that they declined to call at Souris unless they were paid more subsidy.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, we are voting a
larger amount than they have been receiving. Is the contract for one year only?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Is there a possibility or a probability of getting the steamer to call at Souris during the coming season?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know, I will take the matter up.


James Joseph Hughes: If not, we will try to have it next year.


Frank Oliver: Would my hon. friend have prepared a list of the rates of the different services that might be laid on the table of the House at a later date?


George Eulas Foster: It could be prepared.
There would be seventy-five or eighty of them.


Frank Oliver: Merely the rates so that there would be no divulging of private information. It would be convenient for comparison. While the accommodation is important, the rate is also important.


George Eulas Foster: I will see whether or not there can be prepared for the annual report a table which will give the rates.


Frank Oliver: That report would not be received until next session of Parliament.


George Eulas Foster: We will try to get something for my hon. friend at an early date.
Steam service during the year 1914, between Quebec and Blanc Sablon, calling at ports and places along the northern shore of the river St. Lawrence between such terminals, $20,000.


Mr. GIRARD:: Before this item passes, without complaining of the past, I want

to congratulate the Government, and principally the Postmaster General, who is the minister of the Quebec district, on the success they have had in getting to do this service, instead of poor people, a strong company which will give two boats, one of them being prepared to carry one hundred first-class passengers at fair rates, under the supervision of the Government, and ready to take all means possible t-o advertise the resources of the north shore which has been neglected until now. The people living along the north shore will appreciate this service; and, in their name and my own, I want to thank the Government, and principally the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Postmaster General, for their work in bringing about this service, which will materially promote the prosperity of that part of the country.


George William Kyte: It would be satisfactory to hon. members who are not present if the last item should stand to give them an opportunity to discuss matters in which they might be interested.


George Eulas Foster: Any questions can be
asked on the former item that was allowed to stand.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Foster the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Saturday.
Monday, April 27, 1914.