1915-03-08

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of the Interior for the year ended March 31, 1914, volume I.-Mr. Roche.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I have seen
a statement in the press to the effect that a steamship service has been inaugurated between France and Canada. Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce give us any information on that subject?
Sir GEO. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce): We have been informed that arrangements have been perfected by the British Admiralty by which eighteen vessels will be placed upon the service between our ports and Havre, France. The purpose of these vessels is to transport Government supplies, solely and entirely. It is calculated -and so far as I have seen the calculations, I think they bear out the basis on which they are made-that Government supplies

and requirements will tax the total capacity of these vessels. There will be a tri-weekly service. That is the general plan, but all the details have not yet been worked out. If it happens that any one of these vessels is not filled to capacity by the supplies being sent to the British or French Governments, then other Government supplies furnished by private or company contractors may be transported. The service, however, is not meant for general trade.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand that there is no correspondence on this subject?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: There is some
correspondence, but we are expecting further correspondence on the subject. As soon as the correspondence is complete, it will be brought down. In the latter part of January the Government sent a representative to Great Britain for the purpose of conferring with the War Office and with the Admiralty, in order that some provision might be made for the transport across the Atlantic of supplies purchased in Canada by the British or the French Government. It was observed at that time that tonnage was becoming extremely scarce, and rates abnormally high. Mr. A. H. Harris, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, who went to England for this purpose, has just returned; and we are informed by him that, as stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, eighteen vessels have been assigned by the British Admiralty to this service, and withdrawn from other service. We are informed that the vessels will be available for this purpose from now until the end of the war.
I understand that one or more vessels have already arrived on this side, and that one has been loaded and is now on her way back to Great Britain or France. Another advantage which will be of general interest is that, by this arrangement, the tonnage which has been used in carrying coal from Great Britain to Halifax for the use of the Admiralty at that port, and which has been heretofore used to a very considerable extent for the transport of these supplies, will, it is hoped, be available for general purposes, and in that way assist in supplying the general demands for tonnage to transport goods from Canada to the Mother Country.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: What is the sailing port from Canada?


Robert Laird Borden: No definite sailing port has been fixed. I presume that the boats will sail from St. John or Halifax in

the winter, and, when navigation opens on the St. Lawrence, that all or the greater part oi the tonnage will go by the St. Lawrence route. If it should appear that the necessities of transportation might be more advantageously met by the vessels sailing from ports in the maritime provinces, those ports would be available, and I have no doubt that suitable arrangements might be made to that effect with the British Admiralty.	'
UNITED STATES POTATO EMBARGO. On the Orders of the Day being called:


Mr. B. B. LAW (Yarmouth):: I should
like to call the attention of the Acting Minister of Agriculture to a report I saw in the press a few days ago. It is headed " Canadian Potato is Under the Ban-United States Inspector's Report-Powder Scab Found," and reads as follows:
Hon. Martin Burrell, Minister of Agriculture, in December last made an arrangement with the Department of Agriculture at Washington, by which permits were to be issued to shippers of Canadian potatoes allowing potatoes to enter the United States. This arrangement was to continue so long as there was no powdery scab found in any of the shipments. Unfortunately the United States inspectors have reported that they have found powdery scab in a shipment of potatoes from New Brunswick to Boston and have given notice to the Department of Agriculture that no Canadian potatoes will be permitted to enter the United States from Canada after the 5th of March, instant. The potatoes complained of in Boston were immediately purchased for export from Boston and there was no difficulty, in so far as the quality was concerned, with the country to which they were to be exported. The Department of Agriculture is investigating to ascertain if the statements made by the United States inspectors have any foundation.
I should like to ask whether these are the facts; whether the department has made.an investigation, and whether potatoes can be shipped from Canada to the United States at the present time.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):: The statement is correct. The Department of Agriculture has been notified by the United States authorities, as intimated in that despatch. A carload of potatoes shipped to Boston was condemned by the United States inspectors. Some hon. gentleman considered the potatoes all right, and purchased and shipped them to Cuba. The Department of Agriculture, feeling that the American inspectors were not justified in condemning the potatoes, sent an inspector to Boston for the purpose of thoroughly looking into the matter. The inspector has not reported yet, but I shall be very glad
to let the hon. gentleman see his report when it is received.


Bowman Brown Law: Then it is a fact that potatoes cannot be exported from Canada to the United States at the present time?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the position.


Mr. MARCIL:: From what province in Canada were they shipped?


John Dowsley Reid: They were shipped from New Brunswick, and I have no doubt they were New Brunswick potatoes.


Mr. PUGS LEY:: Since this difficulty
occurred, has the Department of Agriculture taken steps to supervise each shipment, in order that none of our potatoes so affected shall be exported?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the Department of Agriculture has inspectors at all the ports, watching shipments very closely. If there is anything wrong with the potatoes, the inspectors do not allow them , to go out of the country. Our inspectors think that the American authorities were not justified in condemning that shipment of potatoes to Boston. Every precaution is taken by the department to see that nothing is shipped unless in first-class condition.


William Pugsley: Had this carload been inspected?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL:: After the minister received notice about this carload of potatoes shipped to Boston or New York- I understood that it was at New York that the difficulty occurred-did he take any steps to have the car examined by an intelligent inspector, or was nothing done in the matter? The reason I ask is that the potatoes in question were shipped, not only from my own constituency, but from my own home. On Saturday afternoon I had the privilege of interviewing an inspector of the Department of Agriculture, a very capable man indeed, who had received his training at Macdonald College, and he assured me in the most positive manner that the cars were personally inspected by him. He said that he had inspected practically every potato, and could not think it possible that there should be a diseased potato among them. I mention that because I think the Government should know it, and I would like to know if any further inspection was made in Boston or New York.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman confirms what I said a few minutes ago, that in so far as the Department of Agriculture is con-

cerned the inspectors were taking every precaution to see that no potatoes left Canada except in proper condition. When Mr. O'Halloran. the Deputy Minister, brought this to my attention on Wednesday or Thursday of last week, I instructed him to send an inspector to Boston, to examine the potatoes thoroughly and make an official report. I do not see that I could have done other than that. At all events I gave instructions to do everything possible, to have them examined again thoroughly by an independent inspector and to make a report accordingly.



DISTRIBUTION OP SEED GRAIN.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) to thajact that information has come to me to the effect that certain agents of the Government from Saskatchewan are refusing to accept applications for seed from men who are on patented lands and also that the Dominion lands agents at Wadena, Battleford and Big-gar are refusing to take any applications from men who have received their patents. I would like to ask the minister if, in view of the statement he made to this House on February 10 in which he agreed that every application should be given proper consideration, he has instructed the agents to receive and consider every application properly, whether the land of the applicant is patented or not.


Mr. ROCHE:: The policy which was announced here by myself is being followed out, I believe, to the letter. Instructions were sent to the Commissioner, of Immigration, who has charge of this matter of the distribution of seed grain, to deal with cases coming from the holders of patented as well as unpatented lands in all deserving cases. Of course, there have been several thousand applications of cases that do not come under the enumeration that has been laid down, and they have therefore been refused. Mr. Bruce Walker was in the city on Saturday, and he told us that outside of the drought-stricken area 7,000 applications had been favourably acted upon.
17TH NOVA SCOTIA REGIMENT.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say to the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), who asked me to lay upon the table of the House some telegrams from Mr. H. C. Crowell of Halifax, that I expected to have them ready to lay upon the table of the House to-day; but I find that there are some [Mr. J. D. Reid.I
more to be filed and I will lay them on the table of the House to-morrow. I would like, however, to explain that it appears that the interview which was alluded to in the telegram from Sir George Perley was an interview with General Guy Carleton Jones, director of the Army Medical Service. The mistake occurred in this way, that the code word which was translated by the decoding clerk in this telegram as " Alderson " appears twice in the code book, and the decoding clerk selected the particular word which worked out as " Alderson." A further telegram from Sir George Perley explained that he had used the code word which appears elsewhere in the code book and which worked out as " Jones," and this was the word he intended to use. Therefore, Mr. Crowell is quite right in stating that he did not have an interview with General Aider-son, but nevertheless there was an interview with Surgeon General Jones, Director General of the Army Medical Service in England. It was he, as I am informed, who had the interview with Mr. Crowell in which Mr. Crowell expressed the opinion that has already been communicated to the House.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills. Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Bill No. 8, respecting the Edmonton, Dun-vegan and British Columbia Railway Company-Mr. Green-in committee.
On section 1-extension of time for construction :
Mr. ROGERS:: When this Bill was up on Friday night we had under discussion the time during which the company should have the right to start work, the provision being that it must be started within a period of two years. There was no disposition, as far as I understood the matter then under discussion, on the part of any person, to delay in any way the passing of the Bill, but in view of the fact that this railway company have already sold their bonds and have the money on hand, and as there is a pressing necessity for the construction of this line of railway, at all event from a point known as Smoky river to a point known as Spirit river, a distance of some fifty miles, it was thought that it might be well to make a reduction in the extension of time allowed for commencing the work from two years to a lesser period by reason of the fact that the conditions are favour-

able and also by reason of the fact that, as I understand it, those who are in charge of the work are not anxious for an extension of two years but are willing to carry on the work as soon as spring opens in so far as this fifty miles in particular is concerned. I think that perhaps the Chairman of the Railway Committee will be disposed to amend that clause and provide that work shall be commenced within a period of six months instead of two years. I think that would cover the difficulty, taken with the assurance we have from the railway people that they are going to go ahead with the work and that they propose to complete as speedily as possible the line from Smoky river to Spirit river.


Mr. LANCASTER:: Under the circumstances, I do not see any objection to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Rogers). As I said on Friday night, we granted a time for commencing the unconstructed portions of these roads because some of the charters are already expiring. If we haa been sure in the railway committee that none of these franchises would run out before His Royal Highness would give his' consent to this Bill we would not have needed to have worried about the commencement. We would simply have said that they should be allowed five years to complete the uncompleted portions of their road. But the better opinion among lawyers is that when charters are expiring, or have expired, it is necessary to also give a time for commencing. Some of these franchises would expire in three or four days from now and it was necessary that we should resuscitate them. That is why the clause is worded as it is. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) remarked on Friday night about the peculiar language, and that is the explanation. If it were not so we would not have said anything about what is contained in the first five or six lines; we would simply have dealt with the time when they should complete the uncompleted portions of the road. In view of what was said on Friday night and, with the unanimous consent of the House, I will move to amend this clause by striking out the words " two years " and inserting in lieu thereof the words " six months " for commencement. T am assured by counsel representing the company that they propose going right on at once or as soon as this Bill is passed and the company do not object to this change. They will not object to being required to hurry on within six months. Therefore, in accordance with 46	'
the suggestion of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, I move to amend section I, by striking out the words " two years " in line three and inserting in lieu thereof the words " six months."


Mr. GREEN:: 1 am sorry I was not in my seat on Friday evening when this Bill came up for discussion. I am not rising now particularly to object to the shortening of the time to six months. This Bill was discussed very fully in the Railway Committee, and it seems strange that it should for some reason or another have met with opposition, not only there but in the House. I wish to point out that this Bill is one that should receive every encouragement in this Parliament, because these people are railway builders; they are not people who are asking for anything unreasonable; they are in the business of building that particular railway, as evidenced by the fact that they have already built and have laid the steel upon 262 miles of that railway. Their charter expires oh the 17th day of March, a few days hence, and it is necessary, as the Chairman of the Railway Committee pointed out, to have the extension granted at this particular time, so as to prevent its expiration, and inability to reinstate it if it is not signed by the Governor General before the date of expiration. These people have not only built the road so far, but they have the money on hand to continue construction. The line of railway is northerly from Edmonton to mile 131 where the railway crosses the Athabasca river. The bridge over this river is of steel on concrete piers. The route from the crossing of the river is generally westerly along the south shore of the Lesser Slave lake, and through the settled district just west of Lesser Slave lake. From the end of steel, grading has been done to a point a short distance east of Smoky river, and it is proposed when the frost goes out of the ground to continue the grading and lay the steel in a westerly direction. The intention is to construct the line of Tailway to Peace River block, where it will join with the Pacific Great Eastern railway, a line of railway which is being built through the province of British Columbia. Bonds for 350 miles of the railway, to the extent of 820,000 per mile, were guaranteed by the province of Alberta, the Tate of interest being 41 peT cent. It is the intention of the company to push work vigorously for the obvious reason that the company is anxious to obtain all available



freight from Spirit River and from Grande Prairie. The company is seeking legislation at the present session to enable it to forthwith construct a line of railway from a point on its main line near Spirit River settlement through Grande Prairie, with the object of giving relief at as early a date as possible to the settlement in Grande Prairie.
When this charter was before the Railway Committee, objection was taken by some members of the committee that the government of Alberta, being interested as guarantors of the bonds, should be consulted. They were consulted by telegram by the Hon. the Minister of Railways, and he had a reply from the Premier of that province saying that they had no fault to find with the Bill as it was, and that under the contract for the guarantee, they were in a good position to protect the province from any attempt on the part of these people to forego construction at the present time. There is no desire at all on the part of the contractors to retard construction, because the line already built is of no service until it is extended to meet the requirements and to get the trade of certain districts which are settled. The country through which the line is already built is not settled to any great extent, and therefore these people are particularly desirous of continuing the work, so as to reach the settled districts. I repeat that I have no desire to oppose the amendment offered by the Chairman of the Railway Committee, that the period be reduced from two years to six months. I think, however, it would have been better to give a year, but six months is quite satisfactory to the promoters of the railway, and I think by the time this House meets again we will find that the railway has not only been completed to the confines of the province of Alberta, but that it has probably been connected up with the Pacific Great Eastern railway of British Columbia.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Green) says he cannot understand why there is opposition to this Bill, both in the committee and in the House. I desire, as a member, to protest against any hon. gentleman saying it means opposition to a Bill, simply because a member wants to have it put in proper form. The Bill in its present form is decidedly objectionable. It is all very well to say that the gentlemen who are building this road are railway builders. I know they are. I know that Mr. Macdonald, who is the principal party concerned in the

building of the road, is a gentleman of the very highest character and may be expected to push the road forward as Tapidly as possible. But, every time we pass a Bill in this House we are forming a precedent for future legislation, and under this legislation as it is, the company need not strike another blow, even on the portion of the road on wfhich the steel has been laid, but which may not be completed because it is not ballasted or because station-houses have not been built. I cannot for the life of me see why it is necessary to put any provision in the Bill as to the commencement of construction upon the uncompleted portion. The road lias been commenced under the provisions of the charter, and all that would be necessary would be to provide a time for completion, but under this Bill the company can lie down to-morrow and not strike another blow for two years, and not complete that portion of the road which may be practically constructed. That is why I took objection to the form of the Bill. I had no idea of opposing the measure, nor had I any idea of throwing any obstruction in the way of the company. I am quite sure that the Minister of Public Works, in the views he expressed in the committee, had no such thought either. But what I wanted was to endeavour to have proper legislation passed so that in regard to the road which is under way the company should be compelled to go right ahead with as reasonable speed as possible.


Mr. CARROLL:: I fail to see how an
amendment to this Bill, making it incumbent on the railway company to commence construction within six months, is going to assist in the speedy construction of the road. I would point out that the policy of the Railway Committee of this House, in recent years, has been to have some uniform time fixed, to which charters should be extended. I think the chairman of the committee will bear me out in saying that until last year the policy of the Railway Committee for the two previous years had been that where a railway company had not commenced the construction of a road to give it two years to commence and five years to finish, if it was an ordinary railway. Last year an innovation was made in the Railway Committee, and instead of granting two years, the policy of granting one year was adopted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend can
hardly call that a policy. What we concluded was that each tub should stand on its own bottom, and that each Bill should be

dealt with on its own unique facts and particular merits, believing that there might be cases in which in the interest of the public and not too harmful to the progress of the company, they should be cut down to one year. We did that in some cases and refused to do it in others. So far as I was concerned, I advised in the committee-perhaps advised is too strong a word to use-but I suggested that each Bill should be treated on its own special merits. And where one company might get two years to commence and five years to finish, another company might get only one year to commence, and, in fact, in some cases, it might not be found desirable to extend the charter at all. It was not a policy for any fixed time exactly that was laid down by the com. mittee.


William F. Carroll: Until last year the policy of the Railway Committee was to give companies which, had not commenced , com struction two years to commence and five years finish. Last year some of the members of the committee thought that was too long, and in some instances the time for commencement was cut down to one year. When the extension of time for this railway was challenged in the Railway Committee, I took the ground that if we were going to cut down the time in which to commence to construct the uncompleted portion of the road, we should also reduce the time for completion; that is, if we gave the company six months in which to commence construction, we should give it three years instead of five years in which to finish, because it is not going to help out the completion of the road to limit the time in which the company may commence operations and to let it have five years in which to complete. I am sure that every hon. member, whatever part of Canada he may come from, is anxious to see this road built; and if this amendment calling for commencement of construction within six months is to go through, another amendment should be made that the road should be finished within three years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My opinion is that it does not necessarily. follow, that because you cut down the time for commencement of construction to six months, you should also cut down the time for completion from five years to three. When a company has commenced construction and has spent and is spending money on its road, for its own sake it will endeavour to complete the road as soon as possible, because it gets no 46i
revenue until the jpad is completed. Obstru-tions may arise preventing the completion of the road within the three years; and there is no harm in giving the company five years, so long as it is going ahead with the construction.


William F. Carroll: Why not give the company two years in which to commence construction?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is a different matter entirely.


William F. Carroll: The hon. Minister of
Public Works is anxious for the completion of the railway, and he is right in taking the stand that he does. He will not, however, accomplish his purpose by giving the company a short limit in which to commence operations and five years in which to complete the road.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He will accomplish it by forcing the company into an undertaking on which it will lose interest and from which it cannot possibly get any profit or revenue until the road is completed.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Very unfair discrimination is being shown against this Tailway company. Ever since I have been a member of this House, in the Railway Committee we have been extending charters for railway companies. A premium is being put on railway companies which do not do anything. This railway company has done more actual construction in -a given space of time than any other company in Alberta. It has completed 262 miles of its line and has a service on that portion; it has in addition 25 miles of steel laid. This railway runs through a country which is not productive of freight or revenue up to the point which it has reached at the present time, namely 262 miles from Edmonton; but from now on the company is bound to make revenue by pushing its line forward. There is no question of commencement at all, because the railway company has never ceased constructing its line. It is doing construction work at the present time. It is merely on account of the fluctuations of the market that it is asking for an extension of time. I do not think that the committee is dealing fairly with this particular railway company in limiting it to six months for commencement of construction.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The company is not raising any objection.


James McCrie Douglas: That is not the point. This section is not going to hinder the com-

pany in the least, because it is going right on at present with the construction of its line. The point is that there is unfair discrimination against this particular railway company. That is why I object to this section. It will not affect -the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company, if you put the time to commence construction at ten days. This is the point: Is this committee going to single out this particular line of railway and insist on a six months' limit for commencement, when companies owning charters f-or railways going through this same section of country - are doing nothing whatever to earn their charters?
As regards the settlement in the country through which this railway runs, I saw a clipping the other day which stated that in 1914 there were 1,280 homestead entries in the Peace River agencies and 913 in the Grande Prairie agencies. This railway does not project far into the Grande Prairie district; but when it reaches Spirit river it will come within fifty miles of -the Grand Prairie country, and I am informed by men who know that during the coming summer this railway will reach the Spirit river, giving communication to the people of the Grande Prairie district within fifty miles of this railway. I do not contend that it will hamper the company in any way to insert the six months' limit.


Robert Rogers: I can assure my hon.
friend that there is no intention on the part of any hon. member to place any lunfair restriction on this particular railway or to treat it in any way that could be termed unfair. On the contrary, as I understand the disposition of hon. members on both sides, they are well disposed to give this railway company every assistance and every consideration possible. I was moved to make the remarks I did by reason of the fact that a couple of years ago we had a deputation from the Grande Prairie district, which is forty or fifty miles from Spirit river. This railway company had its charter ; it had its bonds sold and had the money ready with which to go on and build the line from Smoky river to Spirit river. What the people from the Grande Prairie district had in view was the clause in this extension, namely, that the company was to have two years in which to build the line from Smoky river as far as Spirit river, a line which interests particularly the people -of the Grande Prairie district. They were hoping to get a local line with which to connect

with this railway, to enable them to ship their grain. On the deputation there was one farmer who had in his granary over
65,000	bushels of grain. Hon. members can understand the temper and feeling of people who grow grain in such large quantities as that: they pay very careful attention to the wording of any extension of time granted to any railway that is likely to give them relief. There is no objection on the part of this railway company to the time limit being fixed at six months. If the company were not satisfied with that time limit, and if there were any difficulty from any point of view, I would not press the point; but in view of the anxiety of the people of the Grand Prairie district for railway communication, I thought it only fair for us to give them such consideration as we could. So far as I am aware, there is no intention on the part of any hon. member to place any difficulty in the way of this company going on with its work. As all parties are agreed as to this change of time, I do not see why there should be any objection to it.


James McCrie Douglas: I am not voicing any
objection; I am merely stating that it will not hamper the railway company to have this amendment inserted. If the minister is sincere in his desire to assist the people in Grande Prairie, he will take the same stand as he is taking at present, when the Bill respecting the Canadian Northern railway comes up.


Mr. NESBITT:: Will this railway serve
the people of Grande Prairie or will it not?


James McCrie Douglas: It will come within fifty miles.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is a good distance to walk.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: As regards these extensions of time for railways, last session I favoured a limited extensio'n and I favour it to-day. I am also in favour of the view taken by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), that the time for completion should be reduced if the time for commencement is reduced. Western Canada is plastered with railroad charters. Extensions are granted year after year, but construction is not proceeded with. Present financial conditions may be an excuse for delay in completing railroad lines, but generally speaking I think it would be better for western Canada if many of these railway charters were cancelled. Settlers

have been living in isolated districts in anticipation of the construction of railroads and their hopes are not being realized on account of these everlasting extensions. This applies to districts in all parts of Western Canada. The need is not so great in sections of the country which already possess railway transportation facilities, but I think that a railway company proposing to build into a section of the country where there are no railroads should not be given continued extensions of time; it is a discouragement to the people. If this general principle were adopted, the people of districts in western Canada which are not provided with railroads would be in a position to know whether or not they are to have railway communication.


Robert Francis Green: The hon. gentleman evidently did not hear the explanation I made a few moments ago. This is not a paper charter. The company have no objection to the reduction of time to six months, but it would be manifestly unfair not to treat them as Other companies are treated so far as the time of completion is concerned. These people are on the ground, spending money every day on the construction of this railway. They have so much of it built that they must of necessity continue construction, or they will get no business.
I am quite in favour of limiting the time in respect of companies with paper charters, but in view of the fact that these people have the money and are prepared to continue construction, I think it would be too , had if we should not meet them on all possible points.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I cannot for the life of me see what good or harm this motion can do anybody. If the company were ready and willing to go on, the changing of the time limit would not hurry them a bit; if they were hanging back and did not want to go on, I would see some reason for the proposed amendment. It all depends upon what we mean by commencement.
I have known holders of charters to work a team and scraper four hours, and call that a commencement of a railway line. Such provisions look well in the statute, but my experience is that anything we have so far done to compel companies to commence construction has not amounted to much. Almost anything may constitute a commencement; the important consideration is the time within which the line must be completed. If this motion is passed other companies will be asked to accept a similar
condition. In some future application for extension of time, a reference to the statute will show that in this instance Parliament imposed a six-months' limit, and that, therefore, the same limit should be imposed in the case under consideration. This would, perhaps, make the proposed operations prohibitive.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the Railway Committee should deal with each separate charter on its own merits.


George Perry Graham: That is a good theory, but in many respects we are creatures of precedent; the special pleader
4 p.m. always quotes precedent. If by this proposed amendment anything were to he accomplished in the interests of the people who want this railway, there would be no reason why it should not be adopted, but, so far as I can see, it will accomplish nothing. If Parliament is afraid that the company will not proceed with the work, the six-months' limit will not make any difference; the company can go on just the same under the Bill as it now stands.


Mr. COCHRANE:: I know the company will be perfectly satisfied with this amendment; otherwise I would agree with the hon. gentleman.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3-electric or other power:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This section was put in by the committee, as a condition of renewal, so that the provisions of the Bill will conform with our present policy with regard to water-powers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-consent of municipalities for railway upon highways, etc.:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Sections 4 and 5 were not in the original charter. They are our standard sections for the protection of municipalities in the matters mentioned, and were imposed as a condition of renewal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	[DOT]
* Bill reported, read the third time and passed. ,
Bill No. 17, respecting the Canadian Pacific railway-Mr. W. H. Sharpe-in committee.
On section 2-extension of time for completion :
Mr. TURRIFF:: To what particular
branches of road does paragraph D of section 2 of chapter 96 of the Statutes of 1913 refer?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is from a point on the Kleinburg-Sudbury branch, between Bolton junction and Palgrave, and westerly through the counties of Peel and Halton to a point on the Ontario and Quebec railway near Canipbellville.
On section 4:
The company may sell, lease or charter any steam or other vessels of the company to the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services Limited, an incorporated company, or to any other incorporated company duly empowered to acquire, hold, own, maintain or operate steam or other vessels upon such terms and for such considerations as may be determined by the boards of directors of the companies respectively.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: This clause and the succeeding clause in the Bill, which gives power to hold shares of the Ocean Services Company, make the most radical change that has yet been made in the policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If I read this Bill aright, and if I understand the explanations that were offered at the Railway Committee, the proposal of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is to sell to the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Ltd., a company that is to be organized, any of its steam or ocean vessels, upon such terms as may be determined on by the board of directors of the companies respectively. The Canadian Pacific railway has been a'great national proposition in this country. It has been largely subsidized by the country in land, finished railway, money and many other concessions that were given to it. Eventually it was completed from ocean to ocean. It has been raised to the position of being the greatest railroad under any one corporation in the world. It has had a most successful career. The progress of Canada has been identified with that of the Canadian Pacific railway; and it may be said that the credit of Canada has been upheld, in a sense, by this railroad. Recently an announcement was made that there was to be a change in the policy of the railway, it was said that it was the intention of the company hereafter to segregate the extraneous assets of the company. That was announced by the president of the company at public meetings and at the meetings of the shareholders. I understand that the proposal of the company now is to dismember this great national railway in which Canada has such a vital interest, and that the first 
thing to be dismembered will be the ocean steamships. It was proposed, when this Bill first came to the Railway Committee that they were also to take away the lake steamships, but they found that they could not do that, and so withdrew that proposal. They propose now, in this very simple clause, to begin the dismemberment of the great Canadian Pacific railway, to take the ocean steamships out of its jurisdiction and put them under another company called the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Ltd. We got the information in the committee the other day that this Canadian Pacific Railway Ocean Services, Ltd., is a company that is to be incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Act of Great Britain; and, once it is incorporated there, it is without the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament, and so the ocean steamship service is beyond any interference by the people or the Parliament of Canada. This new company, we were informed, is to have an immense capitalization. We have the old company and its great capitalization, and we are now having established in England another company with large capitalization and large bonding powers under British . control, absolutely out of the control of Canada. You will notice that this Ocean Services Company is to acquire the steamboats on such terms and for such consideration as may be determined by the board of directors of the companies respectively. That is, the Canadian Pacific Railway is to appoint the directors of the two companies, and so can, on any terms it likes, transfer the ocean steamships to the new company, and thus remove them from the jurisdiction of Canada.
Was it the intention of the original charter that this great road should be dismembered and the assets passed over to another company over which we have no jurisdiction?
I never heard of suchr a proposal as that, of Parliament giving up its jurisdiction over a matter of such great national interest as the Canadian Pacific railway.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Have we control over the ocean rates now?


William Findlay Maclean: I say that we can get
control.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Have we control now?


William Findlay Maclean: I think we have. I will ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he was not a member of the Royal Commission appointed in Great Britain to consider our jurisdiction in this matter. Until we find out just what our jurisdiction is, I do not propose to abandon the powers

we now have. I would find a way of controlling the ocean rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I am certainly not going to make confession in this House that we have no jurisdiction over that matter.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. gentleman stated that we had control, and were giving up control.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not going to argue that to-day. Non possumus is a very good argument, but I am not going to adduce it in this case. I do not think any one who knows that great road and the great work it has done could make such a confession at this time. What is happening is this: We are giving power to a British company over which we have no control. That is perfectly certain. Once this British company is created we have no control over it, and I contend that we can have control over ocean rates. The fifth clause provides that the Canadian Pacific Railway may guarantee the securities of the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services Limited. That is, we are not only putting the steamships outside the jurisdiction of this House by turning them over to a British company, but we are giving to the Canadian Pacific Railway power to guarantee the securities of a company outside of our jurisdiction. That is the effect of this Act. It is a very simple proposal, and yet to my mind the most radical proposal that was ever put forward in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. And the company brings it forward just after the Government have brought down an amendment to the Railway Act containing a clause for the regulation of the financial operations of any railway company in this country. One of the clauses of the Bill introduced by the Minister of Railways last session says in substance, that no company shall issue any stock, shares, certificates of stock, bonds, debentures, debenture stock, notes, mortgage or other securities without first obtaining leave of the board. Then there is this clause:
The board as it deems the circumstances warrant, may refuse or may grant leave for the proposed issue or may grant leave for such part thereof as it is satisfied is reasonable and proper, and may in any case impose any terms or conditions it may deem proper.
Last session the Government committed themselves, and brought in a very good Bill to amend the Railway Act. The Bill contained the two clauses I have just read,
namely, that the issue of securities by any railroad of this country must first be approved by the Railway Commission, who can impose terms in any respect they like.


William F. Carroll: Is that the law now?


William Findlay Maclean: By reason of the lateness of the session last year the Government postponed its Railway Bill for another session. They have not brought down the Bill this year; so I have brought down a Public Bill in my own name, and it is now before the Railway Committee. So this radical proposal in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway is made just -after the Government announced its intention of amending the Railway Act. My contention is that if the Government intend to make that Bill the law of the land- and I believe they do-this Bill of the Canadian Pacific Railway ought to be delayed until the Railway Act is amended. If the Government measure can wait for one session, so can the proposal of the Canadian Pacific Railway; or if one goes through, both should go through; and the amendment I shall bring up to-day will be in that direction.
I pointed out in the Railway Committee the other day that the Canadian Pacific railway was a great national undertaking, and that its original charter contained a clause which ought to be of great interest to the House to-day. What I am speaking of is partly set out in the preamble and partly in a subsequent clause. The preamble"' says:
Whereas by the terms and conditions of the admission of British Columbia into union with the Dominion of Canada, the Government of the Dominion has assumed the obligation of causing a railway to be constructed, connecting the seaboard of British Columbia with the railway system of Canada ;.. . and it is necessary for the development of the Northwest Territory and for the preservation of the good faith of the Government in the performance of its obligations, that immediate steps should be taken to complete and operate the whole of the said railway;
And the last sentence in section 7 says:
And the company shall thereafter and for ever efficiently maintain, work and run the Canadian Pacific railway.
We not only gave these bonuses and gifts to the Canadian Pacific railway, we not only built that road because it was an essential part of Confederation and because we had to do it in fulfilment of our obligation, but we imposed on the Canadian Pacific railway-and it is imposed on no other railway in this country-that the

undertaking should be maintained as a railway for ever, and as a first class Tailway at that. And now, before we have revised our Railway Act, we propose to allow this company to begin its work of dismembering its assets. Por this 'proposal, as shown by a statement of Sir Thomas Shaughruessy's the other day, is only one of -a 'Series of movements to dismember this railway. They first propose to dismember the steamship service.


William Pugsley: I have not read the original charter. Does it provide that the Company must establish a line of ocean steamships ?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not say that it does. But a great national unde taking has grown up by reason of the aid given to that company by this Parliament^; and now that company proposes to enter upon a policy of dismemberment.


John Dowsley Reid: Not to dismember the railway


William Findlay Maclean: This means the dismemberment of the railway, as I shall show. Sir Thomas Shaughnessy pointed out the other day that it was the intention of the company to segregate their extraneous assets. In plain English, that is they are going to dismember the road; they are going to cut the limbs off the trunk, and I call that the dismemberment of the Canadian Pacific railway.


Charles Marcil: Can the Canadian Pacific Railway sell their steamers to another company ?


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps they can, but
I am not going to give them power to put the security of the Canadian Pacific Railway behind this other company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where is the vice in what the hon. gentleman has just said"'


William Findlay Maclean: I am coming to the
vice. I can* hardly get a chance to make my case here. You would think I had a most vicious intention judging from the attitude of some hon. gentlemen towards my proposals, whereas I am merely trying to protect the public interest in regard to this Canadian Pacific railway which we have subsidized so generously in the past. Sir Thomas Shaughnessy says that he proposes to segregate the extraneous assets. He is going to lop off the steamship company. Hon. gentlemen say he can do that already. I do not know whether he can or not, but I am not going to help him to

do so by legislation in this House. He said:	I am going to dismember the lake
steamship service which is absolutely a part of the service within Canada. He found he could not do that so he withdrew from that position. He has further stated that they are going to dismember the lands and townsites and put them under another company. If they get that power they will then dismember the express, hotel and telegraph system and in the end we will only be a trunk line of railway with a capitalization of $235,000,000 or more and the other securities that have been issued on the Canadian Pacific Railway. All other assets will be put into other companies with different capitalizations. The result will be that the Canadian Pacific Railway and its associates and all the work that it is now doing under the original charter, and it is doing all this work under the original charter, will have a capitalization of two or three times what the capitalization is at present and the people who pay the freight will have to pay heavier charges as a consequence. It is not in the public interest that we should allow the company to dismember its various assets. Counsel for the railway when they appeared before the Railway Committee stated that they intended to keep control of these assets, that the stock of the new company which they would receive for the steamships which they sold would be placed in the treasury of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When they were asked if they had any objection to a clause being put in this Bill defining that, and saying that the Canadian Pacific Railway shall hold all this stock for the benefit of the public, they refused to consent to it. They may have some other intention in regard to the stock. It may be that they propose to distribute this stock in the new company among their shareholders or it may be that there will be a new melon cut for the benefit of those in whose interest this legislation is being asked. It is not in the public interest that this great railway should be dismembered or that the proceeds of the dismemberment should be used by the company for the benefit of the shareholders. There is no guarantee that such a distribution among the shareholders will not take place. Do we want to have control of ocean services in Canada? Do the people of Canada suffer now from the fact that heretofore we have not been able to control ocean services in Canada whether they were connected with our railways or not? Is it not the case that a commission appointed by one of the provinces of the West found that the high freight

rates in connection with the movement of the grain of the West was due to the high ocean freight rates? That was found to be absolutely the case. The millers of the country are on record as protesting against excessive ocean freight rates. The people of Ontario and the hoards of trade of Ontario and of Montreal have protested against excessive ocean freight rates. To-day the fact exists that, notwithstanding all we are doing for the farmers of the West, notwithstanding the distribution of seed grain and of feed, the farmers of the Canadian West, at the prices which they have obtained in recent years for their wheat, will not be able to stay on their land and make a living if they get the same kind of treatment in regard to ocean freight rates that they have got in the past five years. Notwithstanding the fact that the farmers of the West are faced by the conditions brought about by the war, notwithstanding that the railways have recently got an increase in the freight rates in the West, or some modifications-perhaps it may have been a reduction-the railway companies are now down before the railway commission asking for an increase in rates. When the West is stricken by one thing and another, and especially by reason of the recent bad year-not b.y the war-


George Perry Graham: A restricted market.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not for a restricted market. When we are faced with these conditions, two things happen: The Canadian Pacific Railway is getting absolutely clear from its steamships <so that the Parliament of Canada cannot control it in that respect, and it is getting ready to put up the freight rates and to dismember all the other portions of the system over [DOT]which Parliament has had control. Is that a thing to do to-day ? We are likely to have further trouble in the Canadian West if we allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to take these steamship lines away and put them under a British company, thus leaving them free to raise the rates. At the same time we aTe going to allow them to evade this new law, which the Government proposed last session and which 1 have introduced this session, giving the Board of Railway Commissioners control over the capitalization of railway companies. It is not good policy to do that. It is not in line with the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, who built this Canadian Pacific railway. He built that road for ever, and the bigger it got the better pleased he was with it. The greater it
became from his time to that of the Administrations subsequent to him the more it became the pride of this country. But now like a flash, and in two innocent little paragraphs, the Canadian Pacific Railway is here asking forv power to dismember itself.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, they are asking for power to take away these steamship lines. They came with a proposal to dismember the lake steamships. Here is what Sir Thomas Shaughnessy says-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That was all amended in the Railway Committee.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, it was all very nicely fixed up. Sir Thomas Shaughnessy said:
It is only another step in the direction ot eliminating from the direct operation of the railway company items that do not relate to the railway property itself.
The railway property itself, according to Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, means the road bed and the stations, but all the other things are not considered a part of the railway. He would dismember this great corporation that we have built up, take away all these auxiliary services and leave only the railway service. That was not the original intention. That is not how this road has grown to the enormous proportions which it has attained to-day. Now we have before us a proposition for its dismemberment, its breaking up, and we have information to that effect in this statement by Sir Thomas Shaughnessy given to the public the otheT day.
What' is the real object of this Bill ? In view of the fact that we are likely in this Parliament to get jurisdiction over the steamship lines, they are going, with our assistance if they can, to place the steamship lines in a British company over which we shall have no jurisdiction. They are going to establish this British company fox the creation of a great steamship service. This British company, with its large capital, will have ships on the Atlantic and ships on the Pacific, and own the vessels that the Canadian Pacific Railway own today, but not under the jurisdiction of this Parliament.


Charles Marcil: Are not all the Canadian Pacific Railway steamships at present registered in England?


William Findlay Maclean: There is another of
these questions that they bring up.


Charles Marcil: I merely wanted to know for information.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know whether they are or not, but we will admit that they are. Now I am coming to the point, and that is where we will be tested by the people of the country. We do propose to allow this dismemberment to begin, and it is proposed to allow it to apply to the ocean steamships, and it is proposed to *create a British company outside our jurisdiction. That may be possible, and at all events it is being done now, and no matter what any hon. member may say, or no matter what excuse he may offer for the Canadian Pacific Railway, I want to ask him whether he is prepared to do this? After we have created this great company and taken over these steamships, here is the next clause of the Bill:
The company (that is, the Canadian Pacific Railway) may guarantee the securities of the Canadian Pacific Railway Ocean Services, Limited.
Now, the Canadian Pacific Railway Ocean Services, Limited, is, as everbody will see, for the express purpose of creating a great sea monopoly beyond control of Canada, beginning with the boats of the Canadian Pacific Railway on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and every ocean they may go upon. And when they have done that and when they have lopped this limb off and given it to the other Company, they propose that this Parliament of Canada shall authorize the Canadian Pacific Railway to endorse the securities, no matter to what extent, that may be issued by this foreign company, in order to create and build up and strengthen the greatest sea monopoly that ever was in the world. There will be no monopoly on the seas equal to this new monopoly the Canadian Pacific Railway propose to build up. They propose to put boats on every sea, they propose to put them under the jurisdiction of a British Act, where we have no control whatever, and they propose to do it all on the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Canadian Parliament is asked to endorse that proposal and to give this power. Goodness knows it is bad enough to stand all we have stood in the past, and it is bad enough for the farmers of the Canadian West to have suffered from excessive ocean rates in the past. And we are distributing free seed grain among the farmers of the West, and when

these great railways are coming to ask for higher rates, is that a time to go a step further and give to the Canadian Pacific railway power to guarantee the securities of this company, for building up a great monopoly to unfairly treat the people of Canada? There is the issue, and that is the issue that will come home to the people of this country, and that is the issue I present to the Government and especially to the Minister of Railways. I say that is not good policy. I say it is not good policy at this time to give this great power of segregation. I say it is absolutely mis-policy; I say it is against the public interest; I say it is against the interests of the farmers of the West that the Canadian Pacific Railway should be allowed to cut a rod to beat the backs of our own Canadian people. That is the issue, and you cannot get away from it, and that issue is now up to this Parliament. What business have we to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to build up a corporation outside of our own country, and on the strength of its own credit, in order to use unfairly the people of Canada? There have been excessive ocean charges in the past, and the Canadian Pacific Railway feel they are in a way responsible, because they are in the great ocean combine, and they fear we might find a way to get at them through the commission of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a member, and to put them under our jurisdiction. I know there is a way yet to be found to get them under our jurisdiction with regard to these ocean freight rates, and now they are trying to get away from that. Are we going to let them get away from us under this clause which empowers them to endorse the notes of this foreign company and. this hostile company to the Canadian people? And it is to be a hostile company to Canada so far as ocean rates are concerned. They are trying now to get away from our jurisdiction; they fear we have jurisdiction, or that the Empire will find a way to get jurisdiction over them, and at such a time we are letting them go and giving them these privileges which they can exercise as they like. If the Bill to amend the Railway Act, introduced by the Government last session, was good law, and if the same Bill which I have introduced this session is good law-


William F. Carroll: Suppose the amendment to the Railway Act had been passed last year, how would it affect this matter?


William Findlay Maclean: It would affect it to the extent that the Canadian Pacific Railway would not be allowed to guarantee these

bonds without the consent of the Railway Commission.


William F. Carroll: I think the hon. gentleman is wrong there.


William Findlay Maclean: Why should that Act not provide for that?


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. gentleman think he is referring to the Act correctly?
Mr.-MACLEAN: I think so. Anyhow, if such a provision is not there it ought to be there, and what the Minister of Railways undertook to do was to put the securities of these railway companies under the control of the Railway Commission. That is what they are doing in the States, that is what we ought to do here, but we are very slow in doing it, and while we are slow in doing it the Canadian Pacific Railway is trying to get away from us. Is it calculated to advance the settlement of the Canadian West that we should let these steamships get away from us and let them get under a foreign company?


Charles Marcil: Does the hon. gentleman call a British company a "foreign" company?


William Findlay Maclean: As regards this legislation, yes. I am surprised at the loyalty of the hon. gentleman from the Baie des Chaleurs.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman is old enough to remember the discussion which once took place in this House on the word " foreign."


William Findlay Maclean: I did not take part in
that discussion. At all events, the least that can be said of this is, that it is an extraneous company; it is a company over which we have no control, and it is to be incorporated so that we cannot have control over it. But we have control over the Canadian Pacific railway, and we have control *over the securities of the Canadian Pacific railway, and that is a point which is easily grasped by the ordinary people of this country, and we are allowing the Canadian Pacific railway to endorse the securities of a company that is to build up a great ocean combine over which the people complain we will have no control.


Mr. MACDONALD:: How could one company build up a combine within itself?


William Findlay Maclean: In the very way that the Canadian Pacific railway has built it up now. The Canadian Pacific railway is a member of the North Atlantic steamship
combine, and if I were the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Railways, before I would pass this legislation I would say to the Canadian Pacific railway:	I will allow you to do some of
these things if you first give us a pledge that you will come out of the North Atlantic steamship combine. The dominant force up to date in the North Atlantic steamship combine is the Canadian Pacific railway, and the people most ill-used under it are the people of Canada.


William John Macdonald: How can it be the greatest; what about the Cunard line and the White Star line?


William Findlay Maclean: They are not greater
than the Canadian Pacific railway, but even if they are, they are out of our jurisdiction, and if the little villain is under our jurisdiction let us get hold of him. Let us not let him escape because there is a bigger villain elsewhere. You can argue from now until doomsday, but the point is that at a time when our western farmers and our Canadian merchants generally are complaining of excessive railway freight rates, and excessive ocean rates, and at a time when the doctrine is being set up that we have no jurisdiction over ocean rates, we are allowing the Canadian Pacific railway to put its ships into another company, and we are giving it the power to guarantee the securities of this foreign company to an unlimited amount, to create a still greater ocean combine and to terrorize uie people of Canada to a still greater extent in the future. That is not good Canadiain policy; that is not the National Policy; that was not the intention of Sir John A. Macdonald. It is not an up-to-date policy in connection with this great railway proposition. In the States to-day they have ordered some of the companies that built up extraneous assets to dismember. For instance, a lot of the coal companies which became railway companies, and railway companies which became coal companies more than they were railway companies, have been ordered by various authorities to disband, and to reorganize, and they have reorganized into other companies.
An hon. member near me says that is what is proposed to be done by this Bill. If the Canadian Pacific Railway do this, let us have control of the way in which they do it. Let us not give them a free hand to do as they like. When they are doing it, let us not give them a free hand to use the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway

Company to build up the greatest ocean combine in the world. My contention is that they should snot be allowed to use their capitalization for that purpose. We did not build up the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and give them land and money and railway lines for the purpose of letting them use their capitalization for the establishment of an outside ocean steamship service that we cannot control, that will put up the freight rates and that will put our farmers out of business. If we allow the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to form an independent steamship company, we shall have to go a step further and find a remedy. That remedy will be the creation of a great ocean service, and we cannot entrust it to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If this dismemberment which is under way goes on, we shall have to create a great merger with which to fight the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in this policy. We may have to merge two or three railways that at the present time have a hard struggle for existence, and to link them up with the Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental. If we do that, we shall have to buy ocean steamships, and we may have to pay a very much larger sum now for the chartering of ocean steamships than we would have had to pay some time ago. If this dismemberment goes on, we shall have to nationalize the railways and our steamships on the oceans, or we may as well let our farmers in the Canadian West go out of business. It is a crazy-quilt policy to subsidize and to encourage farming in the West, and then in the East to allow a great company to create on the ocean a steamship monopoly with which to take all the products of the farmer away from him, following the policy of some American companies in the early days, which said: How much can we take from the farmer and still keep him as a poor man on the land? In western Canada we have pretty nearly reached that stage at the present time; and we would have done so if it had not been for the increased prices that the farmers are getting this year because of the war. If Siberia should go more into wheat production; and if that great country Persia, that may be opened up by reason of this war, and the countries in the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates, which is a better wheat-growing section than is western Canada-do the same, our farmers under our excessive freight rates will be put out of business. 
These freight rates are charged by a company which we are allowing to pass out of our jurisdiction and on the flotations of stock on which we are placing no limitations. The Canadian Pacific Railway can give this steamship company any amount of credit, and there is not a line in this legislation to provide that, if the company wants to do certain things, it must go to some authority and get its approval. By this Bill, the company can do as it likes; it can issue stock to its shareholders at a low rate, as was done recently. .There has been no control of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the past, and it does not propose that we shall have any control of it in the future. Is the Parliament of Canada about to give the power to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to do this thing that is improper and contrary to the interest of the public? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company are asking for this power, and I gather that the Government proposes to give it to them. I do not, however, propose that they shall have that power without my protest and the protest of the portion of the country from which I come. The people of Ontario are against the capitalization of railway companies being beyond Government control. Last year the Government took over the control of the finances of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. That is a beginning, and a good one.


William John Macdonald: Was that what the Government did last year?


William Findlay Maclean: We have control of the capitalization. We may not have control of the securities, but some of them at least are guaranteed by the Government., We took control of the capital stock. The amount of that is stated in the Act and the .company cannot increase it. That company was compelled to put all its operations into one system, and we have it more or less under control. We ought to have the Canadian Pacific Railway Company under control. This legislation is not in the public interest, and it is not legislation that we should put through during this time of war.
It has been stated that it is the policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to dismember certain of its operations, such as telegraphs, hotels and lands. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company to-day owns lands that it got from the Government or that it purchased by means of money that came from the Government, that are worth from $200,000,000 to $500,000,000. It is proposed

next to take out those lands and put them into a like independent company, and use that as a melon for distribution among its shareholders. These lands and moneys *vrhich were given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were ear-marked for the benefit of the undertaking and not for the benefit of the shareholders. The contention is made that the shareholders can do, as they like with these things. They can do what they like only in the light and interpretation of the Act of Incorporation which was for the creation of a great transcontinental railway for the purpose of binding the provinces together. The railway company has used those lands and moneys to build itself up to the strength to which it has attained, and it should therefore not be allowed to dismember^ It is not good policy to allow it to take this land out of the company. I want to see the Canadian Pacific Railway Company keep itself intact. If it has in its treasury enormous reserves, which it is now trying to get rid of, those reserves are dedicated, consecrated and ear-marked according to my interpretation of the original charter, for the mitigation of railway freight charges and not for excessive dividends to the shareholders. Are we to sit quietly by and to allow this dismemberment to go on until there is nothing left but the trunk with the severed limbs?
If the Canadian Pacific Railway Company sells these steamships now to the new company, there is no intention that the proceeds realized from the sale shall be used for the reduction of the existing capitalization. The dismemberment is to go on, but the old capitalization is to remain, and the new proposition is all on new capital. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company in a very short time-and it says it is to keep in touch with all these new companies and to have control of them in some way-will have a capitalization of $500,000,000 instead of $250,000,000, as it is now. We are therefore authorizing a great exploitation and increase of the securities of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in one way or another, and we are not keeping control of it. We have some control over the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in regard to certain stock issues, because the company has to come to the Governor in Council and get authority to issue it. I believe the Government of the hon. gentlemen opposite gave the company that authority on two or three occasions.
Under this most dangerous legislation the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will be used to build up a great ocean combine, over which our people will exercise no control. The new organization will not be subject to Parliament or to the Governor in Council; I would propose that at least it shall be subject to the control of the Railway Commission. For the reasons which I have given here in committee, I submit that this clause and the one following it are against the public interest. I propose to vote against them, and later to submit an amendment.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think it will be agreed that there is a doubt as to whether we exercise control at the present time over the ocean freight rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Perhaps we do, but if we do not it is possible for the Government of Canada to secure that control. Last session the Government introduced a Bill to that end; I do not know why it was not brought up this year and put into effect before the introduction of such legislation as this. I should like to ask any hon gentleman-the hon. member who has charge of the Bill (Mr. W. H. Sharpe) or the Minister of Railways-what disadvantage the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is subjected to at the present time by reason of the Canadian ownership of these steamships? Does any one suppose for a moment that by organizing a new company and having the bonds secured by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company can get money any cheaper than they can get it under their own name? No company can get money cheaper than the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; I imagine that even the Government of Canada cannot do it. Why, then, do they ask Parliament to-day to authorize the withdrawal of their ocean and coast steamships from the control of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? Why do they ask Parliament to place this steamship service under the control of what my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) calls a foreign company, and what I call a foreign company, because it will not be subject to the control of the Canadian people?


William Findlay Maclean: The coasting vessels at Prince Rupert and Vancouver would, under this legislation, also pass out of our control.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, they are engaged in the coasting trade. This new company might as well be incorporated in Germany as in Great Britain, so far as our control of it is concerned. I ask again: under what

disability is the Canadian Pacific Railway Company labouring at the present time? Has Canada not treated them well? Have we not given them almost everything they asked for? Have we made any unfair or unreasonable exactions from them in the past?
I will admit that they have given us good service. They are a big corporation; they have a big business, and they have conducted it, generally speaking, on good business principles. But has the company anything to complain of in respect of its treatment by the people of Canada or by the Government? I think it will be universally admitted that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has absolutely nothing to complain of. What, then, are the grounds upon which they ask Parliament to have this steamship service withdrawn from the control of Canada, from the control of the Canadian Parliament, from the control of the Canadian people? There must be some reason.


Francis Cochrane: They never have been under the control of Canada; they have been registered in England right along.


John Gillanders Turriff: The minister says they have not been under Canadian control. But on every occasion upon which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company wanted money to buy boats or to acquire other' properties, they came to this Parliament for authority to issue stock; so that we have an indirect control, at any rate. Moreover, if the Prime Minister would reintroduce and have passed the legislation that he introduced last year, absolute control would be secured. In view of what has been done for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the people of Canada have a right to control its operations. What have the people done for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? We built $32,000,000 or $33,000,000 worth of railway, and handed it over to them-for nothing. We gave them
25,000,000 acres of land-for nothing. We gave them other assistance and other bonuses to help the company along. And can it now be said that the people have no right to exercise any control over the doings of this company? Can it be said that all the money which the people assisted the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to raise was used in the building of the Canadian Pacific railway or its branch lines? Any one who would say that has a very superficial idea of the ramifications of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as it exists to-day. I am speaking now of the operations of the company in Canada. Let us see what they control in addition to their

ocean and coast steamers and their Great lake fleet. They have a string of hotels from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They have lands given them by the people and lands purchased by themselves-lands which are now townsites, worth millions and tens of millions of dollars. The people of Canada put up part of the money with which these purchases were made; the Government of Canada gave them permission to issue bonds to secure the
5 p.m. money to buy these townsites and other properties. They have a large amount of money invested in smelters and in mines in British Columbia. The money that they put into these-industries was supplied partly by the capital this Parliament authorized the company to raise and partly by bonuses given them by the people of this country. Look at the timber they own at the present time. They are now asking that the steamship services only be separated from the company, but I have here an interview with Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, in which he intimates that they propose that all outside properties shall be eliminated from the control of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company proper. They have spent millions of dollars on irrigation lands. We granted them authority to sell securities to obtain money for that purpose; in a little while they will separate these properties also from the main company. Then they have telegraph lines, electric railways, express companies. The Hull Electric railway, which runs into Ottawa, is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. In a short time, according to Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will ask permission to withdraw all these outside interests from the control of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company proper. Do they propose at the same time to reduce the capital of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? Not at all. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company are just a little afraid that possibly the Canadian Parliament may ultimately control their ocean freight rates, and they are taking steps to prevent this before the legislation of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, introduced by his Government last year, is put into force. Shall we stand idly by and make no protest while that is being done?


William F. Carroll: How does the legislation of last year amending the Railway Act affect or conflict with this Bill?


John Gillanders Turriff: Not being a lawyer, I probably do not understand the matter very well; but in a general and rough and ready

way, I think I understand this; and I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways must have understood it in the same way when they introduced the legislation giving power to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada to supervise the securities that were issued by the railway companies. I think that w'ould go so far as to cover not only the issuing of the securities themselves but the guaranteeing of securities of any subsidiary company, and if it did not give such power the Act should be so amended as to give it. So I do not think we can get away from the fact that at the present time we are in the very good position of being able, in view of the legislation introduced by the Government last year, to have control of the capitalization and the securities issued by these different railway companies and other companies.
Let us see how it is going to affect those who have to pay the freight rates. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has spoken of its effect on the western farmer. He never said truer words in his life. We talk about the disadvantage the war has been to everybody. So it has in many ways, but financially the war has been a godsend to the people of the West; and if it had not been for the high prices obtained for the last crop there would have been a much greater protest from the West against the passage of any legislation such as we are now considering than there has been. Let us see the position in which the western farmer will be when this legislation is passed. Prices are high now, everybody, particularly the Government, is urging on the farmer to go in for production and patriotism. Well they need not bother about the patriotism end, the farmers are as patriotic as they are; nor need they bother about the production. There is no occasion to tell the farmer, if he has a field ready to sow, to sow it, if he can get the seed.


Mr. BRADBURY:: But he has to get the seed.


John Gillanders Turriff: In some cases he has to get the seed, but there is no need to lecture him on the growing of his crop or on patriotism. Let us suppose that this war ends sometime during the coming summer, as I think in all probability it will. Great Britain has a year's food on hand to-day. I have no doubt that France is in much the same position. These countries that are at war are not going on a margin of one or
two months' food supply, they have a huge supply of food products on hand and when the Dardanelles are opened in the course of a few weeks there will be an outlet for an immense amount of food supply and you will find that all the Allies will be well stocked up. Supposing the war ceases next fall, what will happen? Do you think the high prices will be maintained? Not for one moment, there will be a slump in the prices of food products, and a big slump. Then where will the farmer be? I make the statement without fear of contradiction that to-day it cost from 6 cents to 8 cents a bushel more to take wheat from Fort William to Montreal than it did three or four years ago. Why? The railroads are not charging more to bring it to Fort William, there has not been very much increase in freight rates on the Great Lakes; the great bulk of the increase has been on the ocean end. The ocean freight rates have been increased so that, as I say, there is now a difference of from 6 to 8 cents a bushel.


Charles Marcil: May I point out that before reaching the sea, on the Atlantic seaboard, flour that used to sell in my constituency at from $5.75 to $6 a barrel is now selling at $8 and $8.50 a- barrel.


John Gillanders Turriff: That has nothing to do with the question we are now discussing.


Charles Marcil: I am trying to say that regardless of the ocean rates there has oeen an unjustifiable increase in the price of flour in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: So much the worse.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not think it has anything to do with the question I am discussing; but I shall give the answer to my hon. friend's question. The big milling companies bought wheat last Fall, millions and tens of millions of bushels, at 80 cents and 90 cents a bushel, and later on they perhaps bought it at a $1 a bushel. Owing to manipulation, to a certain extent, but partly to the big demand in European countries, not only the countries at war but those that expected that they would be drawn into the war, putting in huge supplies of wheat, the price went from $1 up to $1.50 and $1.60 a bushel, and the mills are therefore charging for .flour which they grind from wheat which cost them less than $1 a bushel, the price they would charge if they had paid $1.50

and $1.60 a bushel. That accounts for the increase in the price.


Charles Marcil: The enhanced price does, not go to the farmers in the West.


John Gillanders Turriff: A great deal did not, because the large proportion of the crop had been sold before the 1st of January last year, so the farmers did not get the advantage of the whole increase in price. The great bulk of the crop was sold before the price reached $1.50 a bushel. Many farmers thought that when wheat got to 9Q cents or $1 a bushel it was a good price, and it was, and they sold for that good price. But I do not think that argument has much to do with the question that we are now discussing. The freight rates have been increased, and that increase has taken place partly for transportation before the produce reaches the ocean, but largely for carriage on the ocean.


Mr. STANFIELD:: How does the hon. member account for the fact that since this war broke out, in England freight rates have increased more than 100 per cent ?


John Gillanders Turriff: That has nothing to do with the question, and the only way I can account for it is that the Government of Great Britain had commandeered hundreds of vessels that were engaged in carrying freight.


John Stanfield: I am speaking of the railroad freight rates in Great Britain.


John Gillanders Turriff: Because I think in England they ane not a bit better than we are; and when the railroad magnates think they see a good chance to do the people oy extra freight Tates they have probably taken advantage of it.


John Stanfield: The Government took over the railroads as soon as the war broke out.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not know anything about freight rates in England, and I do not care what they do there. 'If they do wrong there that is no -reason and no excuse for doing wrong in Canada, and I do not think my. hon. friend will say it is a good excuse. But here is a company under no disability whatever in Canada, coming to Parliament with -a very mild-looking couple of clauses in another Bill altogether, having nothing to do with ocean shipping; and with these two mild-looking clauses they propose to take out of the jurisdiction of Canada forever any possible

chance of having any say whatever in connection with ocean freight rates. I say there is absolutely no justification for it. I -assume that the Prime Minister was in earnest when he introduced his legislation last year, providing for the regulation of ocean freight rates. That legislation has not yet come into effect; it is still before Parliament; and if, before that legislation is put in force, he -allows the Canadian Pacific railway to withdraw from the scope of that legislation a l-ar-ge portion of their -assets, then he will be responsible for something that should not be done and for which the Government will be held strictly to account.
The farmer in Canada has got to the limit of what he can stand. If it had not been for the higher prices obtained this year on account of the war, not a dollar would have been made out or last year's crop, even by those who had a good crop. And remember how the burdens of the farmer are to be increased this session. Here are the railroads clamouring before the Railway Commission for an increase in freight rates. They say the increase will not apply west of Port Arthur; but how can it be said that the West will not be affected by the increased rate from Port Arthur down to the Atlantic, when our western wheat goes over that line, and when a lot of the stuff we use in the West is drawn over that line from the East? But that is not all. It is proposed to increase the cost of producing wheat to a very large extent. The Government is increasing the cost of everything the farmer uses in producing his wheat. The Railway Board is likely to increase the freight rates, I understand, and now we have the Canadian Pacific railway trying to withdraw their steamships from the control of this Parliament, so that they can do any mortal thing they like in the way of increasing freight rates on the ocean.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How can it hurt the farmer of the West? The Bill is for the purpose of strengthening the Canadian Pacific Railway in their competition on the Seas. For the Canadian Pacific Railway has not a monopoly of ocean traffic; it has to compete with the steamship companies of Great Britain and of the United States and of foreign countries. This Bill will strengthen the owner of Canadian vessels in his competition with other steamship companies.


John Gillanders Turriff: What disability is the
company under at present?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As I understand it,
they want to be able to conduct their business in a business-like way. I do not want to interject an argument into my hon. friend's speech; but it strikes me that this Bill is very much in the interests of the people of Canada, because it keeps everything that the commission has control over limited to the seaboard. The companies cannot mix their rates as partly land and partly ocean, which might be done if they were not separate companies. I cannot see anything in this Bill except the strengthening of the Canadian Pacific Steamships in their competition with steamship lines of other companies of foreign nations. I do not see how that can hurt the Canadian farmer or the eastern or western citizen.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Canadian Pacific
railway is not conducting its ocean business in a businesslike way, simply because it is a branch of the main company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is not a branch of the railway at all. The whole argument of my hon. friend is based on a fiction. -


John Gillanders Turriff: It is a part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The boats were secured by the money of the Canadian Pacific railway. Where else was the money obtained? This proposal, that the Canadian Pacific railway should have power to guarantee the securities of this new company, will not relieve'the Canadian Pacific railway in the slightest degree, except in this sense: it will relieve them for the future from control by the Parliament of Canada. In view of the fact that the legislation before us will have the effect of enabling the Canadian Pacific railway to enter into combines and to secure a greater monopoly of ocean traffic than they now have, and in view of the legislation introduced by the Government last year, surely it would be the part of wisdom for this House to say: We will let this Bill stand for a year, until the Prime Minister makes good the legislation introduced last year. If we do that we shall not be hurting the Canadian Pacific railway. They have gone on for years with their ocean service as a branch of or as a part of their main company; they have not suffered at all, and they are not suffering to-day. They have any amount of money in their treasury, and if they have not, they can get it just as readily through the present company as through the proposed new company. So we should be imposing no hardship whatever on the Canadian Pacific railway by delaying this Bill. What good rea' 47
son can be brought against allowing the Bill to stand? It is quite possible I may be absolutely wrong in the views I hold on this subject, but I think it would be best for the Bill to stand until next session when, during the recess we shall have had an opportunity of learning more about it. Surely that is not asking too mmjh, especially when there is a great possibility that its enactment may be to the detriment of the people who use the railway and the ocean service of the Canadian Pacific railway. Take my own constituency, absolutely an agricultural constituency, practically a wheat-growing constituency. The fact that it costs our farmers drom 6 to 8 cents a bushel more than it did a year ago to send wheat to the Old Country means that every farmer of the West is being deprived of that 6 or 8 cents a bushel, and when the war is over they will not be able to stand these increased rates. This war will have one effect, and hon. gentlemen opposite, and the Government especially, should not lose sight of it. In the West to-day to one farm occupied you will find two farms empty, in township after township; and that is not in the drouth-stricken area, but in districts that had a good crop last year. How is that? Simply because the farmer is finding it harder every year to make a living.


William Findlay Maclean: Low prices and
high freights.


William Pugsley: Narrow markets.


John Gillanders Turriff: And combines, monopolies, high freight rates, and the tariff. It means that you are going to drive the farmers from the land, not by hundreds, but by thousands. I may be wrong in thinking that this legislation will have that effect. But I think the Canadian Pacific railway is no better than another company; it is just as ready as the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Northern railway or any other steamship company to take the last cent from the farmer in freight rates. The farmers have not been able in the past to stand the high rates, and many of them have been driven off the farms. I fear that this legislation will have the effect of driving thousands and thousands of our farmers off the land. It makes me tired to hear this propaganda of getting people back to the land. That is beginning at the wrong end. What is wanted is legislation that will enable the farmer who is on the land to stay there. If you enable the farmers to stay on the



land, you do not have to bother about a propaganda to get them tb go back to the land. There are thousands of people living in cities who* would be glad to go on the land if they felt .they could make a living from the land. But you are going the wrong way about it by introducing this legislation in view of, the fact that the Government brought down legislation dealing partly with this question last year. I would suggest that this whole matter be left over until another session. Then we could take up the matter and thresh it out on its merits.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Suppose the Government did control this steamship company and did control the rates, what benefit would it be? Where would we benefit from it?


John Gillanders Turriff: According to the argument of my hon. friend, we might better dissolve the Railway Commission. Has it been of no advantage to have the Railway Commission controlling rates? I think it has.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But they have controlled them under the system of allowing them to pay, have they not? They have not fixed railway rates at less than it paid the railways to carry the stuff?


John Gillanders Turriff: Three or four years ago the ocean companies were charging very much lower rates than they are at the present time, and we did not hear of any great difficulties among the ocean steamship companies. They were declaring good dividends until some men got together in New York and London, merged these companies and issued a large amount of watered stock upon which they have not been able to pay dividends. But there is no doubt that on the actual amount of money invested in these steamsihip companies they were making good returns. .


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Were they making money in these companies?


John Gillanders Turriff: They were paying dividends.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Then why did they sell? If you were making money out of a corporation, would you sell out?


John Gillanders Turriff: I would not hesitate to sell if I were making money out of it.


William Pugsley: May I ask if this Bill stands over until the Government bring down the measure that was introduced last session, would not that measure apply to

all steamship companies as well as to the Canadian Pacific railway?


John Gillanders Turriff: I think so. I think that would be the advantage of having this legislation passed instead of discriminating against other companies by giving special advantages to the Canadian Pacific railway. If this Bill is passed this session, and next session the right hon. the Prime Minister brings down and passes the legislation to which my hon. friend has referred, there may be disabilities as against other companies that he has exempted this company from.


William Pugsley: This Bill would not have any such effect, because if this Parliament has power to pass the legislation which was proposed at the last session applying to all steamship lines, the legislation would apply equally to the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services Limited. In our desire to try and get rates reduced, and it is a very laudable desire and one in regard to which my hon. friend from Assiniboia has always proved himself to be the friend of the western producers, we ought not to be unfair to the Canadian Pacific Railway simply because it is a great and successful company which, as has been said by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), has done so much for the development of Canada and, indeed, whose development and prosperity have been wrapped up to a great extent with the prosperity and development of our country. Parliament at this session has given the Grand Trunk Railway Company identically the same powers as those which are asked for by the Canadian Pacific railway.	, J gft


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Bill was passed on the same day as this Bill was held up.


William Pugsley: The powers are exactly the same.


William Findlay Maclean: Will my hon.
friend read them?


William Pugsley: They are in different
language, but the effect is exactly the same.


William Findlay Maclean: Read them, please.


William Pugsley: The directors of the company may from time to time, as often as they deem expedient and in such manner and upon such terms as may be mutually agreed upon-
The very language to which my hon. friend takes exception in this case.

*-make advances to or assist any company, now or hereafter incorporated, of which the capital stock issued and outstanding, or a controlling amount thereof, is now or may at the time of any such advances or assistance be held by or in the name of, or for the benefit of the company, and may acquire, hold, guarantee,-
That is the word to which my hon. friend takes such strong exception.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


William Pugsley: -guarantee, pledge, sell or otherwise dispose of shares, bonds, debentures or other securities of any such company and for any such purposes may use the proceeds of any class of stock heretofore or hereafter issued by the Company, and upon the acquisition of any such shares, bonds, debentures or other securities may exercise all the powers of holders thereof and receive any dividends or interest paid thereon.
Under that section the Grand Trunk Pacific, or the Grand Trunk Railway Company, could to-morrow organize lines oi steamships both on the Atlantic and the Pacific, put them under the name of another company and guarantee the stock and other securities of that subsidiary company. Then we find that the Canadian Northern Railway Company have segregated their steamship line from the railway; the steamships are owned by the -Canadian Northern Railway Company, but held in the name of The Canadian Northern Steamships, Limited, and owned in the same way as it is proposed that this company may own the steamships of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. We ought not to discriminate against the Canadian Pacific Railway simply because it is a great company and has done so much for Canada, while giving the same powers exactly to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and recognizing the right of the Canadian Northern Railway Company to have the same powers when they organized the Canadian Northern Steamships Limited.
Mr. SAM. SHARPE: Did not this Parliament at the last session, when granting the loan to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, combine the Canadian Northern Steamship Company with the Canadian Northern Railway Company proper, and are we not doing exactly the opposite in this case?


William Pugsley: At the last session the separate existence of the Canadian Northern Steamships Company Limited was not wiped out, but the company was connected as a steamship company the same as all other 47i
subsidiary companies with the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and all we did was to require that they should be merged together in the sense of all the securities which were to be issued being chargeable upon the mortgage. The reason was that as the Government was guaranteeing the bonds of the company to the amount of $45,000,000 it required that all the assets of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and of the subsidiary companies, some twenty or more in number-


Robert Laird Borden: Should be put in a convenient form for giving security.


William Pugsley: Yes, should be covered by the securities. The Canadian Northern Steamship Lines maintained their identity just the same as the twenty or more subsidiary companies continued their identity. I remember a very strong argument was urged for preserving the identities of these companies at that time. If Parliament has the power to regulate the rates of ocean steamships, it will have the same power after this Bill passes to regulate the rates of the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services Limited as it will have in regard to the Donaldson line, the White Star line, the Allan line, the Beaver line and all those various lines of steamships now crossing the Atlantic. Surely we ought not to discriminate as against one railway company in respect to its steamships, and not control the rates exacted by the other lines. If Parliament can pass a law such as is proposed, there is nothing in the Bill now before the House to prevent a statute after it is passed being effective as against the lines of the Canadian Pacific Oceean Services Limited just as much as in respect to any other lines of steamers. In regard to the right of the Canadian Pacific Railway to be allowed to do what they seek power to do, I asked my hon. friend from South York as to whether or not the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was ever obliged by statute to establish steamship lines. I thought that might have an important bearing upon the consideration of this Bill. He has admitted, and I have no doubt that it is the case, that there is no obligation, that there never has been any obligation, on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway to establish or operate steamships on either the Atlantic or the Pacific. There is nothing to prevent that company, without any violation of its charter and obligation to the Canadian people, disposing of all its steamship lines to-morrow.


William Findlay Maclean: Has it not
created a public service under that original charter ?


William Pugsley: It created it through money earned by the railway, I presume, and which otherwise would have been distributed to its stock-holders. I presume that certain earnings of the Canadian Pacific railway, instead of being distributed to its stock-holders, have been used for the acquisition of these steamships. I can understand that as a matter of purely domestic arrangement within itself, it may be very convenient for the Canadian Pacific railway to organize a separate company, just as the Canadian Northern has done, to operate its steamship lines. My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) talks of segregating the assets, and he says the Canadian Pacific railway may come here by and by to separate the hotel system from the railway. What of it; we have allowed that to be done by the Grand Trunk company. This magnificent hotel, the Chateau Hotel at Ottawa, is not owned by the railway company, but by what is known as the Ottawa Terminals Company. The hotels at Edmonton, Regina, Prince Rupert, and in the Rocky mountains, are owned, as I understand it, by the Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company, and not one of them by the railway company. Where would be the harm and who would object if the Canadian Pacific Railway to-morrow were to organize a great hotel company, in which would be vested these various hotels, so that they would be managed separately from the railway company ?


William Findlay Maclean: If these hotels are in the railway proposition now, and they do segregate them, do they propose to cancel the capitalization which now represents them in the capitalization of the eompdny ?


William Pugsley: Let me ask my hon. friend what would happen if they sold these hotels outright ?


William Findlay Maclean: They should put the money represented by them into the capitalization. ^


William Pugsley: I presume the money
would go into the treasury and if Parliament has any control over it well and good. But undoubtedly they have the power to sell such of their property, outside- of their railway, as they think it advisable to dispose of. The Canadian Pacific Railway

Company could to-morrow sell all their steamers, and they could to-morrow sell all their hotels. Where is the objection from the public standpoint to they themselves organizing a separate company to manage these steamships or to manage the hotels? Wherein is the objection to their having the power to guarantee the securities of the subsidiary companies, so that the money may be raised at a lower rate in the markets of the world, and thereby the charges upon the public less than if the subsidiary companies were obliged to pay a higher rate of interest upon the borrowed moneys. I can see no reason at all which would induce me to vote against the Bill, which I believe is entirely one of domestic concern for the Canadian Pacific Railway.
There is another consideration for those of us who are interested in Canadian ports-I suppose all members of this House are interested in Canadian ports, although some may be interested more than others because 'of local circumstances and considerations- and it is that we should not impose disabilities upon any railway company in respect to its line of steamers which would have the slightest effect in inducing it to discriminate against Canadian ports, or to disregard the business of Canadian ports and attempt to carry the trade through the ports of the United States. Suppose the Grand Trunk Railway Company were to come to-morrow to get authority to organize a great line of steamers upon the Atlantic, and to organize a subsidiary company for the purpose of owning and managing these steamers, and have power to the parent company to guarantee their bonds. Surely we would give that authority at once. We want to make Canadian ports favourite ports for ocean business. If we were to impose disabilities upon the Canadian Pacific Railway, and discriminate against them as compared with other lines of railway owning steamships, one could very well understand what might happen. They might dispose of their steamers altogether to companies in which they wrould have no interest and over which they would have no control, and instead of preserving that business to Canadian ports we might be doing very serious injury to the trade of these ports. I say, encourage by all means possible the enlargement of the ocean fleets of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and if they want it-and they would not come to Parliament unless they thought it would be an advantage to them in their financial operations and in the operation of their steamship lines-I say by all means

give them the widest possible powers. Then, if we can pass a general law applicable to all steamship companies, which would enable Parliament or the Railway Commission to control the rates, by all means pass it and make it applicable to all steamship lines as well as to the steamers of the Canadian Pacific railway.
Mr. SAM. SHARPE (North Ontario): It seems to me that Parliament is attempting to do this session exactly the opposite of what it did last session in the4case of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Last session we spent a great deal of time to compel the Canadian Northern Railway to combine its various companies and various assets into such a corporation as would enable it to give certain securities to this Parliament for advances made. In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway now, we are apparently dismembering the corporation, and separating it and weakening it, and, to a certain extent, losing the control which Parliament has at present over it. I was present in the Railway Committee, and I listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that took place there, and I am free to say that I was greatly impressed by the argument presented by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). The Canadian Pacific Railway is a mighty corporation; it has been built up with the great assistance of the Canadian people, who gave them 25,000,000 acres of land and $25,000,000 in money. We are all proud of the great enterprise, and no person wants to hamper it in any shape or form. In any remarks I may. make I wish it to be understood that I have no hostility whatever to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have always been friendly to the company, and I like to see it prosper as the country prospers, but it seems to me that every member who registers his vote in favour of this proposition is voting against the public interest of this country. We are now in practically what is a war session, and it was understood that no important legislation would be enacted outside of war measures, and the railway company will not be hampered if this legislation rest for a year or so, in order that Parliament may become seized of all its ramifications.
I moved in the Railway Committee that these two clauses should be referred to the Railway Board. We have there an expert body in Mr. DTayton and his associates. Mr. Drayton made a trip to the old country for the purpose of investigating these ocean rates and this very question, and I moved
in the Railway Committee that the whole subject be submitted to him, in order that he might if necessary suggest safeguards in connection with this, legislation. If it is dangerous legislation we should have expert opinion on it. It was said in the Railway Committee that there was no precedent for any such thing, but I remember*two or three years ago in the Private Bills Committee, when a water-power Bill came up for consideration, I moved that it' be referred to the Conservation Commission, headed by Sir Clifford Sifton, and that motion was carried. Sir Clifford Sifton and his expert associates went into the merits of the Bill, with the result that they reported against nine of the fifteen clauses. Why should we be paying these expensive commissions, if we cannot use them when we desire to? If these commissions can give us any assistance or any advice to protect the public, why should we not get it from them? Why should we be opposed to submitting this Bill to the Railway Commission to see if they cannot arrange proper safeguards to regulate ocean freight rates? The sense of the committee was against adopting my motion, and it did not pass.
There is no question to my mind but that a most important thing in a young and progressive country like ours, is to have favourable freight rates. That is important, not only to the western farmer but to the Ontario farmers and the Canadian farmer generally. We are shipping cattle and hogs and farm produce in Ontario, and these ocean shipping combines are sucking the life-blood out of the Canadian producer. We must not confess our inability and impotence to provide a remedy. We should grasp the question and devise means whereby we can have control over these ocean rates, and we should not be in too great hurry to pass this legislation. Why not consider it carefully and let the matter come up at a future session of Parliament? The member for South York pointed out that we are allowing the Canadian Pacific Railway to guarantee the bonds of a foreign corporation, iand we are facilitating them in getting away from the control of this Parliament and of the Railway Board. An article on the front page of Saturday Night, March 6, 1915, discussed the question of freight rates, and it is startling to hear of the enoTmous and staggering increases that have taken place in ocean freight rates during the past year. Judge J. W. Alexander, Chairman of the United States Committee on Merchant Mar-

ine and Fisheries, in a recent article in defence of that Government's Ship Purchase Bill, which it may be stated has been practically talked to death, and will probably be heard from no more, gives some astonishing figures in connection with this subject.
The article is as follows:


Francis Cochrane: The company has done that now.


Mr. SHARPE:: Has ' the company submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Railway Board?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Two years ago.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is all the more reason why the proposed amendment should be accepted. We all know that the Railway Board has done excellent work. If we have confidence in the Railway Board, then why refuse the amendment of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) ? The hon. member does not say: This shall not be done. He simply says: It shall be done by a board in which we have the greatest confidence. We have confidence in the Railway Board, which is not going to impose onerous conditions upon the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It will deal with that company fairly; it will not impose conditions upon the company that will drive it to American ports. Why should we refuse a reasonable amendment which provides that these transfers shall be made and the proceeds of these sales shall be employed only for such purposes and upon such terms as the Railway Board shall designate? That is a very reasonable proposition.

My hon. friend the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) asked: What disability will the Canadian Pacific Railway be under if it is allowed to remain just as it is to-day? The steamship lines were built up out of the earnings of the company. The people of Canada paid for them. Why do we not compel the company to register its ships under Canadian register? The only excuse offered to the Railway Committee by Mr. Beatty, counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway, was that-it would simplify bookkeeping to transfer the ships. With all respect to that gentleman, I think that is an absurd reason. It is no reason for this Parliament to allow such a radical change to take place as regards the policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If it is only to simplify bookkeeping, we should stay our hands, because we know that, with all the ramifications of a company like the Canadian Pacific Railway, it has a proper system of bookkeeping. That is no excuse to offer to reasonable men legislating in the interest of the people of Canada.
This legislation is aiming to do just the opposite of what we were doing before. When we wanted the Canadian Northern Railway securities, we spent days and weeks compelling the Canadian Northern to form one holding company into which to put all its assets. We wanted it to put all its assets into one basket, so that we would know what they were. In this case we are allowing the Canadian Pacific Railway to divide itself up into several companies, and we are weakening the control that we should have oveT it. I trust that the amendment of the hon. member for South York will receive endorsation at the hands of hon. members.


William F. Carroll: I did not hear the hon. member for South York move any amendment to the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We are on section 4.


William Findlay Maclean: My amendment is on the Votes and Proceedings.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It has not been moved yet.


William Findlay Maclean: It will be moved at the proper time.


William F. Carroll: The hon. member proposed his amendment before the Railway Committee. If sections 4 and 5 contain all the atrocious things the hon. member says they do contain, I would have no hesitation in voting against the passage of those two
sections. I do not see, however, that the hon. member for South York or the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) or the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) have shown us that any of the things will happen which they say are going to happen by the passage of this Bill. When this Bill came before the committee, section 3 read as follows:
The company may sell, lease or charter any steam or other vessels of the company to the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Limited, an incorporated company, or to any other incorporated company.
That gave the Canadian Pacific Railway Company power to sell, lease or charter its boats on the Great Lakes. It was immediately seen that this matter took the boats on the Great Lakes and the inland boats of the railway company away from the jurisdiction of the Railway Board under which they are at present. The proposal was at once made in the committee that an amendment should be put in as follows:
Excepting the inland river and lake boats of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company did not oppose that amendment, and this shows their recognition of the fact that the ocean liners of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are not and never were under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This legislation, therefore, does not attempt to put these services outside the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company may sell, lease or charter their boats, or may dispose of them in any way they may desire, and they ask that in doing so they may guarantee the stock of the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services Company or any other incorporated body which may purchase or acquire those boats. Is that an unheard-of thing? Certainly not; we are doing it every day. We are doing it in connection with all railway companies; why should we not do it in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? The new company is paying for these boats not by handing gold to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but by means of bonds and securities. It is provided that the company may subscribe for, purchase, take, acquire, hold, guarantee. Is there anything unbusinesslike in that? Is there anything in this legislation which will prevent the Board of Railway Commissioners from exercising any control of ocean rates which they do not exercise at the present time? The hon. member for South York spent two

days in the Railway Committee and an hour in the House to-day arguing this point; he is as clear about it now as hfe was then, and that is as clear as mud. It is recognized by the best legal talent in Canada that the Board of Railway Commissioners have no jurisdiction over ocean freights at the present time; how in the world can this proposed legislation take away from them that which they have not?
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at 8 o'clock.


William F. Carroll: It has been suggested
that one way in which this Government could make the' Canadian Pacific Railway subject itself in the way of giving the Railway Board jurisdiction over its freight rates -would be to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway to have its boats registered in Canada. I believe that if that were done it would result in the ocean liners controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway and other companies plying to ports in the United States. I do not think that would be to the advantage of the people of Canada, much less to the farmers of the West who have grain to ship across the Atlantic. The member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) said that this legislation would frustrate or defeat the object this Parliament had some years ago in incorporating this company and assisting it financially. I fail to follow him there. He cited a clause of the Act of incorporation which said that the Canadian Pacific railway should continue to.be operated as a first-class railway. I fail to see how, if this legislation passed and the Canadian Pacific Railway was allowed to lease or sell or charter their boats to an independent or subsidiary company, that would in any way interfere with the line continuing to be operated as a first-class railway. If there were anything in this Act which would be to the disadvantage of the farmers of the West or to any class or portion of the people of Canada, I do not think this committee would for an instant think of passing the Bill. How is the farmer going to be affected? The farmer in the West at the present time may appeal to the Railway Board, in so far as transcontinental freight rates are concerned. The farmer in the West is not in a position to appeal to the Railway Board in so far as ocean freight rates are concerned because the Railway Board has no jurisdiction and does not pretend to take to itself jurisdiction over ocean freight ratet at the present time. The only trouble

and the real difficulty that was in the Bill has been removed by the amendment made in the Railway Committee to clause 4, excluding from the operations of that clause the inland boats of the Canadian Pacific railway, so that it cannot dispose of them to a subsidiary company. The whole thing appears to me to be a business-like transaction. I do not believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway has in view the undoing of the farmers of the West or of any portion of the population of Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway are running this road as a money maker like others and in running it they must give a fair measure of justice to the people of Canada. If they do not this Parliament is here to make them do so. If they attempt to raise transcontinental rates we will have recourse to the Railway Board; but I do not think there is much danger of such an abuse in view of the fact that they now have two transcontinental lines competing with them. My friend from South York is reading into these clauses things which the clauses do not contain. I am afraid he is gifted, if you can call it a gift, like one or two of the clans of the Highlands, with second sight and can see things nobody else can. There would be a great deal in his contention, everything that he is arguing for, if our Railway Board to-day had jurisdiction over ocean rates. They have not that jurisdiction, and therefore -we are not giving to the Canadian Pacific Railway any privilege which they Iiave not now, with the possible exception of guaranteeing the bonds of this subsidiary company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5:
The company may subscribe for, purchase, take, acquire, hold, guarantee, pledge and dispose qf shares, bonds and other securities of the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Limited, and of any other company to which the steam or other' vessels of the company may be sold, leased or chartered.
William Findlay Maclean: This is the clause that authorizes the Canadian Pacific Railway to endorse all this capitalization of the proposed new company. It is said that we have no jurisdiction over ocean rates or over this company. We have jurisdiction, I think, over ocean rates, certainly it has not been proved to me that we have not, but we have jurisdiction over the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they are here to-day as suppliants. The history of progressive legislation in Great Britain, in this country, in every country, is that grievances have been rectified when the persons who have acted unfairly have appeared before the

legislature as suppliants. The Canadian Pacific Railway is here to-day as a suppliant. It has imposed most unfair charges upon the people of the Canadian West for ocean transportation. It has done this because it entered into a combine on the north Atlantic; and it proposes now to make a still greater combine, and we have the company now under our legislative control, and it is proposed by this legislation that we should part with that jurisdiction and permit them to endorse any capitalization in connection with outside companies.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What are we letting them out of in this Bill?


William Findlay Maclean: I am asking that we shall keep them under control, that we shall say they must not endorse the bonds of this company without the consent of Parliament and of the Railway Commission of Canada. That is my proposal, and that is the thing that I wish to see adopted. Why should we say that we have no power, and let the company do what it likes with the credit we gave to it and allowed it to build up to its present position? It should not be permitted to lend this credit to another company. And grant that we gave permission to the Grand Trunk, as has been said, then we did wrong. I was in the committee the other day when that was up.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You never said a
word.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps not. The hon. gentleman did not.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I fixed the Bill up.


William Findlay Maclean: My great crime is that I do not watch everything; and if I try to watch one thing I am inconsistent. Probably the worst vice one can have is inconsistency. And then they say you are irrelevant, illogical, or the draughtsmanship is bad, as some of the lawyers say when you draw up an amendment. But Parliament never achieved any reforms without taking advantage of what it already possessed. We can secure a great deal in the public interest if we keep the capitalization of this railway under the control of Parliament or of the Railway Board. I have been through all this, and heard these charges of irrelevant and illogical argument, and of your statement being as clear as mud, and all those other polite things. And then the things you meet on the street. I could not go down the street to-night without having somebody say to me: "Oh, did you get that off?"-as if I was loaded with bile and
wanted to get it off. I went through all this in connection with the regulation of express charges in this country. The Minister of Justice and the man who aspired to that position told me that I was most illogical, that my draughtsmanship was bad, and that the jurisdiction did not apply. They have tried to keep express companies out of our jurisdiction, but they are now in it. Lawyers in this House would say: Oh, you have no jurisdiction over an express company, because it owns a boat service on the lake, or because some of the goods are carried by stage; and for a while the railways said we had no jurisdiction over the freights on inland waters in this country. But we have the jurisdiction now; we have acquired it in some way, but we should never have acquired it if we had confessed that we had no jurisdiction. We have some jurisdiction over the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to freight rates. We have sent the Minister of Trade and Commerce on a commission to ascertain just what our jurisdiction is. But it does not do to confess you have no jurisdiction.
The argument of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was practically: Oh, you are making fish of one and flesh of the other. Now, I may be inconsistent; we all may be; but a progressive measure has never been put on the statute book in order to cure some grievance or to improve a certain condition, which did not do some injustice in some way to somebody. That is how reforms work out. They do not work out by clear-cut logical statements, but by Parliament trying to attain something. Reform is worked out by judges bending the law in the line it is supposed to move, ox-ought to move. There is always some injustice and some irregularity, but eventually you get progress. From my experience in Parliament I should say that the way to get reform-and it is a way that seems to be more disapproved than any other-is to follow the good old English method. When we have a corporation here as a suppliant for increased powers-and we have them every yeai

we should say to them:	If
you want relief we are going to examine your character; if you are asking for relief in regard to ocean steamship rates, why are you in the North Atlantic combine? Why will you not submit your rates to us? If we followed that method we should be constantly progressing, and should get legislation in the public interest. I do not care how irrelevant the argument may be, or what it may lack in clearness, but I say we should not abandon our position and

give this railway unlimited power to use its credit for the benefit of a steamship company outside the jurisdiction of Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Are the Canadian Pacific Railway now in the North Atlantic combine?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know; they
were in it as big as could be.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Was it not proved at
the investigation in the United States last summer that the Canadian Pacific Railway were not in the combine?


William Findlay Maclean: They have been in the combine, and have led the combine; just as they own the Allan line to-day and profess not to own it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understood they were
proved not to be in the combine.


William Findlay Maclean: It has not been proved. They have been in the combine; they are in it now; they are directing the North Atlantic combine, and are going to direct it more when they have this legislation. It is against the public interests that they should be given this power to guarantee the securities of a company outside of our control. They are under our control now and we should say to them: If you are going to use this power, you must use it subject to the approval of the Railway Commission of this country, as laid down in the Government Bill of last session and in the proposed amendment I have on the Order Paper this year.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. member for
South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has made serious charges against the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Minister of Railways must know something about this, and I should., like to hear what he has to say about it. He has been looking over the Bill. He was in the Railway Committee the other day when the Bill was up.


Francis Cochrane: Everything seems
to have been discussed but the point of the Bill. I do not think there is any question of our power to pass legislation to control any ships that come within the three-mile limit or into our harbours. Would it do us any good to force this company to submit its rates to the Railway Commission or to the Government or to whomsoever it may be? It would only antagonize them, and drive them to other ports. I think there are three things which will help to get us 
lower ocean rates. First of all, we might make an international agreement with the United States in reference to a board; so that these ships could not be driven from Canadian ports to Boston, Portland or New York, which have all the time better rates than our own ports. There has been a little effort to bring that about. Another great thing is in regard to insurance. Insurance on vessels using Canadian ports is much higher than on vessels using American ports; that is a very serious thing, not only for ocean liners, but for tramp ships as well. Take Halifax or Quebec in the summer. These ports are then no more dangerous to approach or leave than Boston, for instance. In fact, I think either of the two ports I have mentioned is preferable to Boston. If we follow the advice of the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. I?. Maclean) and tell the Canadian Pacific Railway that we will not allow them to guarantee the bonds of the stock of this new company which they propose to create, this new company could get along without this help, but could not sell its stock or bonds in the market of the world as easily as it could if the Canadian Pacific Railway were behind it. The main reason for this legislation, as explained to me by ' the Canadian Pacific Railway, is because the British Government has commandeered nearly all their ships. That has caused freight rates to go up. They do not know when the boats will be given back to them, nor how many may be sunk before the war ends; so they have incorporated a company in England, and we all know how Lloyd George looks after companies there. They want to get these ships started at once; and the more ships we have on the Atlantic the lower the freights will be. Another great factor is the growth in our shipping, although it has not grown like American shipping. Again, there has not been much inducement to tramp steamers, which in my	opinion are a greater leveller
of	freights than	anything else.
I do not see any harm in the Bill. The views I have on this question are very much in line with those contained in the speech made by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley.) I think he laid down the case very clearly from all the different points of view. I think we would be only cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we accepted the amendment which has been given notice of. I do not agree that we have any control over ocean freight rates at the present time and I am of the opinion that the

Bill should go through. Some hon. gentlemen have talked all around this question, but they have not touched upon the real point at issue.


William John Macdonald: I think that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals {Mr. Cochrane) has come closer to the practical question in regard to the control of ocean freight rates than my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) did in considering this question. The problem of lower freight rates is one in which not only the farmer is interested but every man who is connected with the production of raw material or produce of any kind which he desires to send abroad. Every producer in every province of the Dominion who looks for a market in the Motherland, to which country our exports have increased very rapidly within the last ten years, is particularly interested in the problem of how to get these products carried to the old country as cheaply as possible and equally interested in getting what he purchases in Great Britain brought back to this country at the lowest possible figure. The question of what the freight rate upon these articles may be at any particular time does not depend upon any internal condition in this country. The whole thing is a problem of supply and demand and those men who have lived in the maritime provinces where we have had some connection with shipping interests know that within the last five years, indeed, down to a year and a half ago, and even later than that, the freight rates for our vessels that were owned and doing business there were at the verv lowest possible ebb. Within the last year the conditions have entirely changed and between
2,000	and 3,000 of the freight-carrying vessels of the world have been withdrawn from that service; the exact tonnage I do not know but I know that this large number of the vessels have been withdrawn in consequence of which a very much less tonnage is offering, or is available, for the	purpose	of	carrying ourproduce	to and	fro. The consequence is, just as in any other lines pf business in the world, that the cost of transportation has increased because there are fewer people in the business of transportation. There is another thing that hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this question seem to have forgotten and that is that Great Britain controls the carrying trade of the world upon the seas and the people in Great Britain are very much interested in getting all they can out of the n ships when the time for their harvest has arrived, so to speak. There is a greater demand for vessels now than at any time in the past, and the ship-owner of England, not being a special philanthropist, has taken advantage of the excessive demand for his tonnage just the same as a man in any other business would. My hon. friend comes in and says that because that is so, in this year of grace 1915, when the Canadian Pacific Railway asks us to pass a measure in the financial character of which there is nothing extraordinary, we should hold them up and not let this measure pass without stipulating that they cannot have anything to do with this new steamship company unless a clause is inserted in the Bill that freight rates shall be under the control of the Railway Commission.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say that.


William John Macdonald: Is not that the whole purport of the hon. gentleman's argument upon the holding up of the Canadian Pacific Railway the question of the control of ocean freight rates?


William Findlay Maclean: No, I have never argued that.


William John Macdonald: Then what was my hon. friend talking about?


William Findlay Maclean: My argument was that the control of the securities of the company should come under the Railway Commission.


William John Macdonald: Who is going to regulate the freight rates?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say;, we will find a way later on, but in the meantime do not let the control of our securities pass out of our hands.


William John Macdonald: I was listening to the hon. gentleman.


William Findlay Maclean: Listening to some of
your friends on the other side of the House.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend is not going to disclaim his association with my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff)?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say it.


William John Macdonald: If he did not iterate and reiterate tlhait in the course of his speech I do not know what he was talking about in regard to ocean freight rates.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say it.


William John Macdonald: Then, what did my hon. friend mean?


William Findlay Maclean: I meant what I have just said; I proposed that the Canadian Pacific Railway, should only give its endorsement to the securities of this other company after these securities had been approved by the Railway Commission.


William John Macdonald: What about ocean
freight rates?


William Findlay Maclean: You must ask those who dealt with that question. I said ocean freight rates were a grievance in this country and, in the meantime while they were a grievance, we should not let the control of ithe securities of the Canadian Pacific railway in connection with shipping pass out of our hands.


William John Macdonald: I think I am accurate in what I say. My hon. friend means that we should not give the Canadian Pacific Railway this legislation unless we do something in regard to ocean freight rates. We have power in this Parliament to pass legislation by which we shall say that the Board of Railway Commissioners, or some other board, should fix the rates to be inserted in .all bills of lading or charter parties in connection with the carrying of goods of different classifications, but the Minister of Railways and Canals has painted out that our jurisdiction in this matter would cease the moment any ship passed the three-mile limit or whenever we attempted to legislate beyond the confines of our country. But in the meantime, after putting that legislation into effect, there is this problem, that we have the United States to the south of us, and an exporter in Canada .at any point west of Quebec would divert his export trade to the American ports where there are no such limitations, no railway commissions, and ship his goods in that way. That is the way it would work out. That is the actual business result of it. At the same time we could not Dy any possibility control by our legislation here the freight rates which the English shipowner might ask the .shipper on the other side who wanted to ship his goods to Canada. Our lumbermen and our fishermen in the maritime provinces are quite as much interested in this question of freight rates as are producers of other classes in different parts of Canada. We are in this unfortunate position that, while Canada thirty years ago was at the very top of the list in the shippinv wotM when

she built her wooden vessels, she to-day has practically no vessels on the sea at all. Unfortunately our iron and steel industry (had not been advanced to that point, when our wooden vessels disappeared from the sea, that we could roll and combine steel plates into ships in the way in wfhich this work was done by the steel men of England who had a long lead on the people of any other country in the steel industry. To-day we have practically no Canadian merchant marine. As a consequence England's shipowners control this business, as to freight, as to transportation and as to all those questions of the sea and until you can make what might be called an international arrangement with England by which the English and Canadian Governments, or some joint commission to be appointed by both, would Ibave supervision over the question so that [DOT] you could make it work at both ends, any action by us Would be entirely inadequate and inoperative. In order to make that provision entirely effectual you would have to have an international arrangement between Great Britain and the United States by which the freight rates would be just the same in both countries. It seems to me that that is a fair statement of the actual business .conditions in regard to ocean freight rates. I would have liked to have heard from the bon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who has given this question his special attention, a statement of bis views upon this question because it is a most important one. The fault I have to find with imy hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) is that the proposition as it is contained in the Order Paper in regard to this particular legislation in reference to ocean freight rates would be entirely inoperative and inadequate and there would be no sense in putting it on the statute books.
The question of the control of the capitalization of the company may open a very wide door. It is a question whether or not due publicity as to the assets of a company and other information given to the public with regard to any stock issue would *ot be quite as advantageous as to make it compulsory for any large enterprise to come to any particular board in this country to get a certificate of character. Suppose one of our large railway companies contemplating a bond or stock issue came to the Board of Railway Commissioners and succeeded in getting its approval of the right to issue the stock or bonds, it would be at once urged by investors abroad, in the event of any

failure on the part of the enterprise, that Canada through her properly constituted authorities had given a certificate of character to that enterprise and to the right to make that stock or bond issue, which misled the investor, and that might result in very great injury to the credit of the whole country in the future. On the other hand, if you have proper publicity in regard to the status of a company arranged for, then the investors would have to make their own investigations and take their own risk. It does seem to me that my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has not made any case which would entitle the House to say to a company that comes here with an ordinary business proposition, that it should be held up by the imposition of conditions which are entirely unnecessary and which would be inoperative and inadequate.


John Gillanders Turriff: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways why the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should go to Great Britain for incorporation of the Canadian Ocean Services, Limited, instead of getting -incorporation in Canada?


Francis Cochrane: The ships owned by them at present are registered in Great Britain, and I suppose whatever new ships they get will be acquired out of the funds guaranteed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not know of any other reason.


Robert Laird Borden: rates upon the ocean, or rates upon the land either. I cannot see that the forma-ticn-'of this new company would tend to facilitate a combine. The allegation has frequently been made here that the so-called Atlantic conference has tended towards the increase of rates; but so far as I can see, the establishment of any such conference in the future would not be in any way facilitated by the organization of a separate company in this case. As a matter of fact, in the United States they are forcing companies to do that which the Canadian Pacific railway desires to do now of its own accord. Legislation in the United States, and the decrees of the various commissions which [DOT]have been established in that country, have prevented one corporation from carrying on the business of a railway and the business of a steamship company at the same time. They have also prohibited railway companies in the United States from being interested in coal areas and carrying on the business of coal companies.
It would seem to me that if the steamship company proposed in this Bill had been organized years ago by capital provided by the Canadian Pacific railway or by those who were interested in that company, and if the proposal were made here to-day that it should be merged in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, there would be even a louder cry than that which is put forward in opposition to this Bill now.
As to -weakening the Canadian Pacific Railway company, I cannot see that this Bill weakens it, and I think the company is pretty thoroughly able to safeguard its interests. As a matter of fact, there is not a great deal of change in the situation, as far as I understand it. The company up to the present time has invested a certain amount of its capital in the acquisition of steamship lines on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. Its ownership in those steamship lines would enable it to sell or dispose of them, so far as I understand the legal effect of the various Acts under which the Canadian Pacific Railway has acquired that ownership. What the Canadian Pacific Railway proposes to do is to organize a separate company, incorporated under the English Joint Stock Companies Act, with all the safeguards to which I have alluded, and it proposes that the ocean-carrying business of the Canadian Pacific Railway shall be transacted by this company and not by the parent company.

As far as control of rates is concerned, if the allegation be true that the profits from the ocean carrying business of the Canadian Pacific Railway are very large, the separation of that business in this distinct way is an advantage to the public rather than a disadvantage, because it will prevent any juggling with the receipts from the railway carriage and those from the ocean carriage, which might otherwise be possible. At all events, if it does not absolutely prevent that, it will make it more difficult. The Railway Commission would be able more distinctly to know that the profits of the ocean business were, as distinct from the profits of the railway company considered purely as a railway company.
The purpose of the Bill is almost altogether administrative, endeavouring to put the business of the Canadian Pacific Railway into a position in which it will be easier to carry on the ocean-carrying business as distinct from the la(nd-carriage business.
The only difference in the situation created by this Bill is this, namely that the Canadian Pacific Railway owns the steamships directly to-day, and that after this Bill has passed and after the steamships have been transferred to the new company which is to be organized, the Canadian Pacific Railway will own the steamships in effect although not directly, because it will hold the stock which represents those steamships. There will be no difference in substance although there will be a difference in administration.
It has been argued very strenuously that the stock may be distributed and divided amongst the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The Company cannot distribute its stock amongst the shareholders if it proposes, as I should imagine it would propose, to retain control of the ocean-carriage system, because if it distributes its stock amongst its shareholders, it will at once lose control, and the purpose which the company had when it embarked upon the business of transportation across the Atlantic and across the Pacific would cease to be effective. I would not therefore be inclined to attach importance to the idea that there would be any distribution of this stock, because the stock held by the Canadian Pacific Railway will represent the control which it must exercise, unless it proposes to go out of the ocean-carrying business.
So far as the guarantee of bonds is concerned, it is a very common thing amongst

railways-and I think it is a very common thing in the legislation which has been authorized by this Parliament for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-to give to a major railway company-if I may use that expression-the power to guarantee the bonds of another company which it purchases or leases. It is precisely that principle which has been brought into this Bill,	namely, the purpose of	en-.
abling the Canadian Pacific Railway a very great corporation with very great assets, to guarantee the	bonds in
order that the money which is to be raised	for the purpose	of adding
to the steamship lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway may be raised at the lowest possible rates of interest. So far as that goes, it is manifestly a proposal in the interest not only of the whole enterprise but of the people of this country at large.


William F. Carroll: Would the value of the stock of the present shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be decreased in any way by the transfer of the assets in the shape of ships, supposing the stock were given to persons who did not hold stock in the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the assets represented either by money or by stock would be in the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I do not see that it would affect the situation assuming that they were sold at their actual value. What impressed me was this, that it merely amounts to a change in the form of ownership. The Canadian Pacific Railway has direct ownership in those steamships under conditions as they are at present. After this proposal is carried out, that interest which it now possesses will be represented by stock held by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the new ocean steamship company. Do I make myself clear to my hon. friend?


William F. Carroll: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not affect the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which remains the same; but that which was represented by the ownership of those vessels will, after this proposal is carried out, be represented by the stock held by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the company which owns the vessels. Therefore, I cannot see that there will be any actual or substantial change in the assets of the Canadian Pacific Railway which will be affected by this Bill.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I thought the question asked was: Are the rights of shareholders of Canadian Pacific Railway stock safeguarded under this legislation? Take, for example a man who owns 1,000 shares of Canadian Pacific Railway stock. After the ships are removed from the company, what does he get in lieu of that security; or is it in the power of the company to say: We will take the ships away from the assets, and we will leave you what you have? Will the new company give the Canadian Pacific Railway Company something in lieu of the consequent depreciation in the value of the stock ?


Robert Laird Borden: Matters affecting the disposal or utilization of the assets of the company are left by the shareholders and directors. We are entitled to assume that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, when they sell these steamships, will get a reasonable price for them, and that that price will be represented either in money or in stock. I understand the proposal is that the price shall be realized in stock. The stock which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will receive will represent the value of the vessels. Instead of a direct ownership, there will be an indirect ownership through the stock, but the value will be there just the same as it was before.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think we all wish to be absolutely fair in matters of this kind, even in respect of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I asked the hon. member for South York if the Canadian Pacific steamship services, as at present incorporated, are a part of the North Atlantic combine. He said that they are. My memory is most distinctly the opposite. Last year when the United States appointed a commission to investigate the North Atlantic combine, it was found, not only that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had absolutely no connection with that combine, but that they were its chief competitor.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM: I am not inclined, like some hon. gentlemen, to chide the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). I believe, with him, that we get no reforms of any consequence unless some one, begins to agitate. Sometimes agitations are made too soon; sometimes too strong; but no harm can result from genuine agitation which in the opinion of the agitator is necessary to effect some reform. I admit that some beneficial results have been accomplished in respect

to certain matters which the hon. member for South York first brought to the attention of the House, and I think that credit is due him for these results.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) did the natural thing when he requested the Government to insert in this Bill a clause providing for control of ocean freight rates, because the company, in a general way, promised to do something along that line. When I had the honour of being Minister of Railways and Canals and the late Justice Mabee was Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, we conducted negotiations with the authorities in Great Britain looking to the inauguration of a scheme for the control of ocean freight rates. Justice Mabee expressed the view that we could control ocean freight rates, but, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Railways to-night, the control which we would exercise would be, in a large measure, unimportant; if Canada acted alone, the control exercised would not be sufficiently far-reaching. The present Solicitor General on one occasion took me to task for not getting the ocean freight rates under control, and h6 himself proposed to do it. The hon.
member for Assiniboia was 9 p.m. merely calling upon the Solicitor General to make good his promise, but it has not been a very easy task. I think the Government did send the present Chairman of the Board of Railway Commisioners to Great Britain to inquire into this matter. I do not know what information he gained, but I venture the assertion that he did not get much farther than I did. The reasons are quite apparent. This is a problem that cannot be solved by one country or by two countries; I am inclined to think that it could not be solved even if Great Britain, the United States and Canada were to unite in their efforts . to solve it. Great Britain owns a large proportion of the world's shipping, but many other countries as well are concerned. The negotiations which the late Government were conducting in this matter came to an abrupt termination. After it had been determined that it would be unnecessary and unprofitable to conduct any further correspondence, I discussed fairly and frankly with some of the authorities the prospects of carrying out such an arrangement. Some of the difficulties were made manifest, and are manifest now to those who understand the subject. Great Britain owns perhaps 90 per cent of the shipping cf the world, and

anything that we should do would be ineffective unless Great Britain co-operated with us. We could impose a license fee upon vessels landing goods at Canadian ports, but if we did that and some other country did not do so in respect of its own shipping, Canadian ports would be avoided. I discussed with men in authority the advisability of our co-operating with the United States in the matter, and it was agreed that our co-operation would solve the difficulty to a certain extent. But the chief difficulty which exists in connection with ocean or lake freights is not found in the control or management of railways. The Prime Minister made that quite clear. Any one who buys a ship can run it, but only the proprietors of a railway can manage a railway. Hon. gentlemen sometimes forget that if the Board of Railway Commissioners undertook to control freight rates on the ocean, they migjit be obliged, owing to changed conditions, to change rates as often as they had a sitting. Under regulations of the Board of Railway Commissioners, transportation companies are not allowed to carry freights at less than the rates agreed upon. To do so would be discrimination, for which a fine is imposed. Supposing a man wants to send a cargo to Canada from a point on the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific. In order to get a proper freight rate on that cargo, he wires to his agent on this side to see if he can get a return cargo, because ships, like railway trains, cannot gi"ve fair rates unless they get a cargo both ways. It quite frequently happens that the agent on this side can arrange for a return cargo at a very much lower rate than that which is usually charged, but, if the Railway Commission had previously fixed a certain freight rate, the steamship would be liable to a fine if the return cargo were carried at a lower rate. It is much more difficult to regulate ocean freight rates than it is to regulate railway freight rates. There are several difficulties in the way; I sympathize with the Government in that they are finding it not easy to do something in the accomplishment of *which their predecessors did not exactly succeed.


William Findlay Maclean: Public ownership of steamships would solve the difficulty.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps public ownership of steamships would do it, 'but that is not applicable to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. That would not apply to that jurisdiction. I was referring to the remarks of the hon. member for

Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), fur which he had good reason. But unless we are prepared to go the length of purchasing a line of steamships, then I say the difficulties are almost insurmountable unless all the other countries will come in. Even if they did come in, I see the other difficulty, it would suppress the tramp steamer. My hon. friend says they are doing business, and after all the tramp steamers enable us to get very cheap rates at times on special cargoes, and are often regulators of freight rates.
As to the guaranteeing, I am a firm believer in the opinion that we will soon have to do something in Canada to regulate our large mergers; but in this respect I shall make a confession. Owing to a difficulty that I seemed to have when I was a member of the Government in finding just what the Canadian Pacific Railway was earning on its railway and what the operation of -the road was costing, I was trying to study out some means by which I could have this company separated into two parts so that we could, in a clearer way, get at the real cost of the construction and operation of the railway. I had that in my mind, and I was wondering about it and had consulted one or two of my best advisers on railway matters as to how that could be brought about so that, once and for all, we could find out what would be a fair rate to impose on, the Canadian Pacific Railway in respect of rail freights. Now I find they are making this very separation, and I really think it is a good thing for the Dominion of Canada that we are getting the railway away from the steamship line. With the steamship separated from the railway I think we will be in a far better position to control rail rates.


Mr. JAMESON:: Will the hon. gentleman explain to the committee how we will have better control of the railway when the steamship lines are separated?


George Perry Graham: It is hard to explain; but if my hon. friend had endeavoured to go into the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway when the steamships were so interminably mixed up with the railways that it was difficult to say just what part of the profits belonged to the railway and what part belonged to the steamships, he would realize the difficulty of arriving at a just conclusion as to the profits of the railway company.


Clarence Jameson: That does not affect our control.


George Perry Graham: The control of the Board of Railway Commissioners or the extent to which they exercise it depends on what is a fair return to the railway company for its investment and operation; and if you cannot tell what the investment is or what the cost of operation is exactly, you cannot tell what is a proper rate to impose on the railway.
There is yet a question between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Government as to whether the Government controls the Canadian Pacific rates by land at present. The Canadian Pacific Railway have never relinquished the right which they say exists under their original charter concerning rates.


Robert Laird Borden: Has my hon. friend seen the Order in Council passed on that subject?


George Perry Graham: I have not seen it, I was told such an order exists. My own opinion was that the Railway Board should control the rates.


Robert Laird Borden: What has happened is this. The litigation between the Government and the company, initiated just before my hon. friend became Minister of Railways, was brought to a conclusion by an arrangement under which the Canadian Pacific Railway admitted that its rates were subject to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. We withdrew the litigation on their express and explicit agreement, which is attached to the Order in Council, that henceforth the rates should be subject to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. This agreement was made a year ago last November and there cannot be the slightest doubt that the Canadian Pacific Railway, in respect of its rates, is absolutely subject to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners and has been ever since the 7th day of November, 1913. As a matter of fact, before that, by an informal agreement, the company had been assenting to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, as I am informed, but reserving, nevertheless, their right to raise the question if they saw fit to do so at any time.


George Perry Graham: The Order in Council had slipped my mind. I remember now that it was handed over to me on one occasion. The situation before the Order in Council was passed was that the Canadian Pacific Railway agreed tacitly to the control of the



rates, but reserved the right to raise the question under the old statute.
As to the guaranteeing of the bonds, the present is a very peculiar and exceptional time. Our securities, in common with all others, do not find such a ready sale at the present moment as we would wish. We are interested at the present moment very deeply in seeing that any securities that Canada has to offer through any of her great undertakings ought to be of the highest character and bring the highest price. This is not essentially a new organization at all, it is the separation of an old organization, which has a very high position, and rightly so, in this country into two integral parts, distinct and separate one from the other. The Canadian Pacific Railway, as I understand, are not asking permission to guarantee the bonds of some new organization in which to speculate in securities or of which the business will be speculative; they are simply asking that when they detach from the parent company the steamship line the parent company, which will still, in another way, own the child, may see it through by guaranteeing its securities. I think the situation is altogether different from what it would be if a new company were being organized and, a't the present moment, when it is essential not only to the company- but to the credit of Canada that the securities should be gilt-edged, I think no harm can be done by allowing the parent Canadian Pacific Railway Company to guarantee the bonds of its offspring, this new company, which really is part of itself. It is not an outside organization, it is not a new organization or company, but simply the old company dividing itself into two parts and asking that what is called the parent company may be allowed to look after the other company in the way of guaranteeing its bonds.
As to the position of the shareholders, I think the Prime Minister has stated that clearly. I might say in passing that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) will agree with me that the Canadian Pacific Railway never neglects its shareholders. The shareholders in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company proper will be part proprietors of every asset the Canadian Pacific Railway gets from the steamship company; and while the Canadian Pacific Railway will hand over to the other company the steamships, the steamship company will give them something in lieu of the steamships in which every shareholder will 
have a proprietary right as a stockholder in the original company. I am as anxious as any person can be for the control of freight rates, and will support any measure for that purpose that can be properly worked out. But this is something that will require international action, and cannot be successfully done otherwise.
As regards tne guaranteeing I see no reason why, under these peculiar conditions, I should not support the action of the committee in allowing the parent company to guarantee the assets of the company which is simply being detached.


John Gillanders Turriff: My right hon. friend has made one thing clear at all events, and that is that the Canadian Pacific Railway, in going to Great Britain for incorporation, are not going where the regulations will be less strict. My right hon. friend has explained that the conditions are even more strict in many respects. We all know that no company likes to be under strict regulations; they much prefer lax regulations, and latitude to do what they want. Therefore this company has not been incorporated in Great Britain in order to be under less strict regulations. There must be some other reason, and I think that reason has been made very clear. They are anxious to escape from the control of this Parliament. They do not wish this Parliament or the Board of Railway Commissioners to control their freight rates. If that is not the case, they would never have incorporated the company in Great Britain, where the regulations are much stricter than here. I want to put a further point up to my right hon. friend. Suppose that the railway legislation introduced last year had become law.


Francis Cochrane: If it was the law, it
would not touch this.


John Gillanders Turriff: We shall see whether it would or not. Suppose it had become law last year. Under that legislation the Board of Railway Commissioners would have had the right to regulate the issues of securities by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That is what the legislation is for. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways may shake his head, but if the legislation was not for that purpose why was it brought down?


Francis Cochrane: It was for railroads,
not steamships.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend seems
to forget that at that time as at present,

the steamboats were a part of the Railway Company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, they are not.


John Gillanders Turriff: They are a part of the assets of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The steamships are bought with the proceeds from stock authorized by this Government-if you do not choose to go further and say that they were partly bought with the cash, land and bonuses given to the Canadian Pacific railway. If that legislation had passed and become the law of the land, I am (Satisfied that, before issuing securities to raise money to buy further steamships for enlarging their fleet either on the Atlantic or on the Pacific, the Canadian Pacific Railway would have had to secure the (approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Apparently the Canadian Pacific. Railway see that very well. I have no doubt that, when the Prime Minister brought down the Railway Bill last year, they imagined he was anxious to have it passed; and although they believje that it will not be introduced this session, as my right hon. friend has stated that he did not intend to bring in any legislation this (Session except what was necessary in connection with the war, the Canadian Pacific evidently expect that at the next session of Parliament this legislation will be put on the statute books, and that by that legislation they would be prevented from doing what they proposed to do by this Bill. They believe that they would have to secure the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
If the Government put this Bill through they must assume the responsibility. My right hon. friend further states that there is no likelihood of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company giving any part of the stock of the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Limited, as a bonus to the shareholders of Canadian Pacific stock, because in that case they might lose control of the steamship stock. But I would like to point out to my right hon. friend that they could give 49 per cent of that stock .as a bonus, and still retain control of the company. They could even give 75 per cent of it to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, .and still retain control for all practical purposes.
Another point was mentioned by the Minister of Railways, by the hon. member for Pictou, (and by the Prime Minister. They all presupposed that if tbs railway or 481
steamship company had to get the approval
of the Board of Railway Commissioners for an issue of stock or securities, or for their freight rates, the Commissioners would be unfair to them. I do not believe any hon. member of this House thinks anything of the kind. I think every member of this House believes, <and has a right to believe, that the Board of Railway Commissioners would be perfectly fair both to the railway and steamship company, and to the public of Canada. I think there is no force at all in that argument.
My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham} brought up another point in connection with earning the 10 per cent. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister states that that is now entirely eliminated, that the Canadian Pacific Railway by Order in Council are absolutely under the control of the Railway Commission so far as railway rates are concerned. But to my mind that is the very strongest argument why this Bill should not be passed. Because if, as was pointed out here to-day, the ocean carrying end is going to be the big profitable end, it would be quite possible for the Canadian Pacific Railway to give certain through freights, credit the small end to the railway company and the big end to the steamship company, and in that way avoid earning over 10 per cent on the railway line, which is under the control of the Railway Commissioners. They could make what profits they liked on the steamship end and we could say nothing about the matter.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman not realize that the Board of Railway Commissioners would have control over the railway just as they have over the rates of any other railways, no matter whether a steamship service is at the end of the line or not. The Board of Railway Commissioners cannot allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to charge lower or higher freight rates than any other railway under the same conditions, whether there be a steamboat service at the end or not.


John Gillanders Turriff: I realize that perfectly.
My hon. friend knows I am perfectly right. A railway and steamship company could keep their books to show as much profit as they liked on the steamship end, and as little as they liked on the railway end.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the books were kept separate, would not the Railway Commission be able to ascertain much more easily whether there was any wrongdoing in connection with the bookkeeping, than if there

was one set of books for, say from Liverpool to Winnipeg or from Liverpool to Calgary? Would it not be easier for the commission if the books were kept separate? Would it not be an assistance to the Railway Commission if a Bill of this sort should pass? It struck me directly I saw the Bill that it would.


John Gillanders Turriff: It would be if we had
control at both ends, but this whole legislation is for the purpose of evading any possible future control. I imagine that that is the object that the Canadian Pacific Railway have in view. I cannot see any other object. A railway company of the magnitude of the Canadian Pacific Railway comes . here and gives us as an excuse for this legislation that they are taking incorporation for the steamship end of their company in Great Britain where the conditions are much more onerous than they are here, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister, and they tell us that they are doing this to simplify book-keeping. Nobody takes that seriously. Nobody wouild imagine that the Canadian Pacific Railway would do that for the purpose of simplifying their bookkeeping. It is too absurd to be credited for one moment. There is something else behind it and as far as I have been able to judge by the debate, and by the character of the legislation before us, the only conceivable object is to have that end of their business withdrawn from any control by this Parliament through the board of Railway Commissioners in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: In what way
does this withdraw it?


John Gillanders Turriff: Because there is a question that we have not that power now. Under the legislation they have to come to this' Parliament for power to guarantee the bonds of this company and if we have not got the power then it is quite possible, we might get it. The legislation goes a long way to convince me that the Government thought we- had the power. If we have not we could get it. But if this legislation is passed it is out of our hands forever and we will not be able to get it. If tins legislation goes into force well and good, the Government, of course, will take the responsibility for it, but if my hon. friend was in earnest last year in' his proposed legislation I think in all fairness to the country and to the different railway and steamship companies this legislation ought to be held over until the legislation brought

down last session is dealt with by the House.


William Findlay Maclean: It has been said by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) how well the company look after the interests of the shareholders. Certainly they do. Do they look after the interests of the public? What is happening to the public in this case? I want to call the right hon. the Prime Minister's attention to his argument that we are following tne procedure of the United States in compelling the companies here to dismember as they compel them to dismember in the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say
that we were compelling them to dismember.


William Findlay Maclean: No, but the point I
am making is that in the United States, when they were compelled to dissolve, they were compelled to cancel the capitalization. There is no reduction taking place in the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway and no claim that there is. The same old capitalization continues and the same old argument will be made that we have taken the assets out and left the capitalization. They will come to the railway committee and say: We have to pay a ten per cent dividend on $225,000,000 or whatever their stock is. _ When the ex-minister says that his object was to keep them in order, did he try to have the capitalization that would be represented by the separation cancelled? No, the capitalization keeps to the same amount and if you wish to protect the public interest you ought to compel the company to cancel the capitalization. The hon. member for Renfrew is willing to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to continue to do what it likes with its capitalization. Does he know that it made another recent issue of stock and sold that stock for less than it was worth to its own shareholders? Does he justify that? There has been so much of that in the past that the public demand the control and regulation of capitalization. They demanded it so strongly that the Government conceded it and put it in a Bill introduced last session. It ought to be made law this session when this Bill is going through. Certainly we should take that up next session, or we should take it up now so that these two matters might be dealt with concurrently.
Mr. SAM. SHARPE: It looks as if the Canadian Pacific Railway, by this legisla-

tion, is anticipating the railway Bill that it is proposed to bring down next session regulating the issue of securities by new companies, and the placing of these issues under the control of the Railway Board. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane), the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), and all the hon. members of this House who have supported this Bill, and who are against the amendment moved by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), place their opposition to that amendment on something that does not exist in fact; my hon. friend does not pretend that the amendment will accomplish the control of ocean freight rates. He does not pretend that his amendment will have any control over ocean freight rates, but he says it will control the issue of securities by railway companies, the very object that the railway Bill will accomplish when it goes into force. Hon. members who have opposed the amendment of my hon. friend have not dealt with the question of capitalization and the effect of increasing the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway and its subsidiary companies. Assuming that the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway at the present time is $300,000,000, including the railway, the railway tracks, lands, hotels and steamship companies, if this Parliament allows them to separate their assets into several companies, leaving the railway with the parent company, the capitalization will still remain at $300,000,000, a subsidiary land company might be formed with a capitalization of $150,000,000, a steamship company with a capitalization of $40,000,000 and a hotel company with a capitalization of $10,000,000, which will increase the capitalization by $200,000,000; so that instead of a total capitalization of $300,000,000, the Canadian Pacific Railway will have a capitalization of $500,000,000, without airy increase in the value of the assets. That is what is going to happen under this legislation, and what my hon. friend from South York wants to do is exactly what is proposed to be done and there is the Bill which is promised next session. My hon. friend says: Do not press this Bill now before the House until next session, but if you do, put in this amendment so as to control the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When this Bill was before the Railway Committee, the counsel of the Canadian Pacific Railway said that it was the intention that the stock in the subsidiary company was to be handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway in return for the steamship. I asked
him if they intended to divide that among the shareholders or to retain it in bulk in the treasury of the Canadian Pacific Railway. He said that it would remain in bulk in the treasury of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When it was proposed that it should be kept in the treasury of the company instead of being divided among the shareholders in the form of a melon-cutting, they would not accept an amendment to that effect. It looks as if they were evading and anticipating the principle of the amendment which the Minister of Railways and Canals desires to apply to all the railway companies in the country, viz., that the securities issued by railway companies shall be under the control of the Railway Commissioners. We would all have confidence in the ability, fairness and integrity of the Railway Board in dealing with applications for the issue of securities. They are not going to impose any unfair conditions upon the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other company, but they will take into Consideration the circumstances in connection with each issue. The effect of this legislation will be to increase the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway by $40,000,000 without increasing their assets one cent. It is not fair to the public who will have to pay rates, in addition to those now paid, sufficiently high to provide dividends for this increased capitalization.
On the preamble:


John Gillanders Turriff: I wish to move this amendment, of which I have given notice:
That the following clause be added to the Bill as clause N:
That the freight rates charged by the company shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
Amendment negatived.
Bill, reported.
On the motion for the third reading of the Bill:
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN moved in amendment :
That the said Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole for the purposes of amending the same by inserting the following:
5a. The said transfer or sale of the company's said steam or other vessels above authorized shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Board of Railway Commissioners and the company shall not invest in or guarantee the securities of the said Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, Limited, or any other corporation to which it may sell or transfer its said vessels without the leave of said Board of Railway Commissioners first

had and obtained. And the Board may specify the purposes for which the proceeds arising from the sale or transfer of said boats by the Company may be used.
He said: I move this amendment for the reasons which I gave this afternoon in the committee.
Amendment negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
Bill No. 20, respecting the Canadian Northern Kailway Company-Mr. Bradbury-in committee.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: The only amendment made to this Bill is that we have stricken out the words "or near" where they occur, so as to make it sure as to the places where the railway shall go. We have inserted after the word "company" in the second line of section 2, "subject to the restriction in the routes herein contained"-the restriction simply being that we struck out the words "or near" wherever they appear.


George Perry Graham: You are not making the road run like a rail fence?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: the intention is to make it run to places and not only near to places.


James McCrie Douglas: I suppose the chairman of the Railway Committee will have no objection to inserting a provision that this road shall be started within six months, the same as in the former Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not know that the conditions are the same. I said it a dozen times last session, and I said it two or three times this session, that where the change is made from two years to six months or any other period to commence the road, it is only done where a case has been made out for it. There was a good case made out to-day for limitation in a certain Bill. I want to say finally, and I hope people will understand me, that, so far as I am concerned, my understanding is that if the policy of the Railway Committee was changed last year it was not changed to any hard and fast rule as to time, but on the understanding that each Bill should be dealt with on its merits, and there is nothing inconsistent in making the period six months in one Bill and two years in another, if the facts justify it.


James McCrie Douglas: The railway from Strath-cona to Calgary is included in the Bill and there are ten miles oif that line built and graded and a bridge erected, but not an 
inch of steel has been laid. There has been no work done on it for four years, and the company is asking for an extension of time to five years in which to complete and two years in which to start work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They have commenced part of it.


James McCrie Douglas: Yes, they have graded ten imiles and they have left it lying there for four years. There is more need for the six months' clause in this particular Bill than in any Bill I have known to come before this House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why?
M-r. DOUGLAS: The Canadian Northern is a live corporation. This proposed line will be in competition with the Calgary and Edmonton Railway, and it has been promised to the people for a long time. The company 'actually started operations and then suddenly stopped, and now they are asking for two years in which to recommence.


William Pugsley: The Government are
partners in the Canadian Northern, they own 49 per cent of the stock, and I think they should set a good example and begin work within six months.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I went on record this afternoon about these extensions of time to railways, and I would point out that this 'company is asking power to complete a line and put it in operation within five years, but there is nothing in this Bill as to when they shall commence. The Bill says:
Unless the Canadian 'Northern Railway Company, hereinafter called the " company", completes and puts in operation within five years after the passing of this Act, the following lines of railway, all of which have been partly constructed, the powers of construction conferred upon the company by Parliament shall cease and he null and void, as respects so much of the said lines as then remains uncompleted.
There is included in this Bill a line from Calgary to Lethbridge. There has been some work done on that line, but I do not think anything was done during the past year. I would like to have some guarantee that this company shall recommence construction at once. Five years is altogether too long a period to give them to complete the road. When the end of the five years approaches, the company will probably start to do some work and then they will come back to Parliament and ask for a further extension of time, and put up the argument that they have done something. There ought to be some guarantee given to the House and to

the country as to when this company intends to start work on this line. The bonds on this particular line have been guaranteed by the province of Alberta. The province is anxious that construction should be commenced, and while I do not know the purport of the message the Premier of Alberta [DOT] sent to the Minister of Railways about it, I think he made the statement that the money had been raised and is in the bank, ready for the Canadian Northern the moment they undertake construction of this particular line.


Francis Cochrane: You refer to that one piece of line?


William Ashbury Buchanan: Yes, I am speaking of the particular branch which affects my section of the country. I do not believe an extension of time over too long a period should be given to any company. I think there should be some guarantee given to Parliament that the construction of these lines should commence within at least a year, and especially the lines which have been guaranteed by provincial governments. This particular line, to which I am referring, was incorporated and the bonds guaranteed in 1909, and, although they have done some grading, I do not believe that any steel has yet been placed on any part of that road which has been under construction. While the financial conditions are bad this year, still there is money in the bank which the Canadian Northern can use in the construction of this particular line. I would like to have a statement from the Minister of Railways as to whether the Canadian Northern will be compelled to commence the construction of the lines, the bonds of which have been guaranteed by provincial governments.


Francis Cochrane: If with respect to any line or branch line included in this Bill, the bonds of which have been guaranteed by the Provincial Government and sold and the money in the bank, the hon. gentleman moves an amendment to cut the time for commencement down to a year, I would be inclined to support him.


John Gillanders Turriff: What proportion of the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company does the Government now own?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 40 per cent.


John Gillanders Turriff: We have in this Bill a proposition from the Canadian Northern Railway Company to grant extension for five years to complete those branches that
were commenced over five years ago and that had a certain amount of work done on them. The settlers along those lines are patiently waiting every year for the work to be completed and nothing is being done. As the Government is now owner to the extent of 40 per cent in the Canadian Northern Railway Company, if it does not see that the company goes on and completes those branches, it will certainly have to assume 40 per cent of the condemnation of the settlers of those particular parts of the country. With the Government owning such a large proportion of that stock, it is its bounden duty to see that something is done. There is absolutely no excuse for any railway company grading two or three miles of road, as was done in my part of the country a few years ago, in order to prevent another road from coming in, and then as soon as the other road is shut off, stopping work for five or six years. As the Government is the junior member of the Canadian Northern to the extent of 40 per cent, it should see that that kind of work is discontinued in the future, or it will have to assume the responsibility for it.


William Ashbury Buchanan: In connection with the line to which I was referring, I am prepared to move an amendment that construction be commenced within a period of one year and that the line be completed and placed in operation within three years.


Francis Cochrane: Is that part of the line guaranteed?


James McCrie Douglas: This line is guaranteed by the Alberta Government, and the Canadian Northern solicitor gave the Railway Committee the assurance that it was going on this year, so that this amendment will not counter their wishes.


Francis Cochrane: Have the bonds been sold and is the money in the bank?


James McCrie Douglas: A certain proportion of the money is in the bank.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have to declare this amendment out of order, because no notice has been given of it.


Francis Cochrane: With the consent of the House it can be moved.


William Pugsley: There is no objection to it.


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Buchanan moves an amendment:
That the following paragraph be added to clause (f) : always provided that the railway

line provided for-in clause (f) shall be commenced within one year and put into operation within three years from the passage of this Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the House is unanimous, I am not objecting to this amendment, but I do not think that is the right way in which to bring about the amendment that the hon. gentleman wants. We have to look at the whole Bill. Section 2 reads:	-
Unless the Canadian Northern Railway Company, hereinafter called "The Company completes and puts in operation within five years after the passage of this Act the following lines of railway-
I think we would have to insert before (f) another section making what I have just said apply down as far as (f) and no farther, and then say that they may commence within one year and complete within five years this other railway. That is the proper way to make the legislation. Otherwise it will be very confusing, and it is not the usual way in which we pass such Bills.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) will have any objection to the suggestion made by the Chairman of the Railway Committee. The amendment was drawn very hurriedly, and I am satisfied that in the way in which it was drawn it would be perfectly clear and intelligible because it is a rule of construction that an exception to a general clause always governs the general clause. It might, however, be better to arrange it as the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) suggests; that is, section 2 would go down to the end of clause (e); then before (f) make a new section 3, which would read as follows:
Unless the Canadian Northern Railway Company, hereinafter called " the Company ", commences to construct within one year from the date thereof and completes and puts in operation within three years after the passing of this Act the following line of railway which is in course of construction, the powers of construction conferred upon the company by Parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line as remains uncompleted.
And then go on to (f). That might be more in accordance with the general policy of the drafting of the Bill. I am satisfied that the hon. member for Lethbridge will accept that suggestion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the hon. gentleman of opinion that, we should mention here the time within which the line should be commenced?
[The Chairman.]


James McCrie Douglas: Yes, because work lias been suspended for two or three years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the line has been commenced.


William Ashbury Buchanan: They did some work in 1912 and probably some in 1913, but I am satisfied that nothing was done in 1914. They did do some grading a short distance out of the city of Calgary, but what I want to make sure of is that they will recommence construction.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I submit this amendment for the approval of the Committee: That section 2 terminate at the
10 p.m. end of subsection (e), and that the following be inserted as
section 2a:
Unless the company commences to construct within one year and completes and puts in operation within three years after the passing of this Act the unfinished portion south of Calgary of the line of railway which tt^e Alberta Midland Railway Company (since amalgamated with the company) was authorized to build by chapter 45 of the statutes of Alberta for 1909, as set out in paragraph 4 of the schedule of such Act, namely: Prom Calgary to the confluence of the Little Bow and Belly rivers, thence In a southwesterly direction to a point at Lethbridge, the powers of construction conferred upon the company by Parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line as then remains uncompleted.
Section amended accordingly, and, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported.	/
Bill No. 29, respecting the Van Buren Bridge Company-Mr. Michaud-in committee.


William Pugsley: When this Bill was before the Committee on a previous occasion I stated that Mr. Michaud, who was in charge of the Bill, was absent; but I think he expected to return to-day, and as the Government have taken Mondays after to-day I would not ask that the Bill stand over. The American legislation ratifies the mortgage as applied to the American side of the bridge, and this legislation ratifies it as applied to the Canadian side, so that the whole bridge is covered by the $250,000, which is not an excessive amount for a bridge of this character.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In the Railway Committee we sat for some time past the hour of adjournment to oblige Mr. Michaud, who was anxious to go away hut wished to have

this put through. I understood that he wished me to have it put through the House in his absence.


Mr. HAZEN:: There is no objection to the Bill passing.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.	,
Bill No. 58, respecting the Casualty Company of Canada-Mr. Macdonell-in committee.
On section 3-section 7, chapter 63, statutes 1911, enacted by section 4 of chapter 100, statutes, 1913, repealed1:


George Perry Graham: What does section 4
mean?


William Thomas White: In the absence of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), in whose name the Bill stands, I might explain that the company has changed its original plan. When the Act of 1913 was passed the company intended to carry on the business of accident and sickness insurance. It now proposes to go ahead with a more limited programme for the present, and it has asked for a change whereby it shall be permitted to commence the business of plate glass insurance when it has $50,000 of capital subscribed and $15,000 paid up and to continue to add to its business as provided in section 3 and in accordance with the terms of this Act. The insurance department is quite satisfied that the amount of subscribed capital in each case is sufficient for the class of business to which it relates.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
The following Bills were considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed, without discussion:
Bill No. 53, to incorporate the Marcil Trust Company.-Mr. Marcil.
Bill No. 59, respecting The Empire Life Insurance Company, of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 43, respecting The Huron and Erie Loan and Savings Company, and to change its name to The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. Marshall.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has T. A. Anderson been employed by the Department of the Interior at any time during the years 1912, 1913 1914 and 1915?
2.	Is he still so employed?
3.	What was the date of his appointment, in what capacity is he employed and what is his salary or remuneration?


William Roche: As far as the Department of the Interior is concerned, no.


NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING AND PRINTING.
William Melville Martin: What amounts of money have been paid by the Government for advertising and printing in each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914, to each of the following newspapers:

The Regina Province, the Moosejaw News, the Saskatoon Star, and the Prince Albert Herald?


Mr. CODERRE:: Agriculture, 1913-14-
Regina Province	$16 64
Moosejaw News	 1664
Saskatoon Star	 1120
Prince Albert Herald	 16 64
Auditor General, 1912

Prince Albert Herald	$24675
Customs-
1912.	1913.	1914.Regina Province. . . $6 72	$ 17 84	$24 00Moosejaw News	
108 00	82 75Saskatoon	Star	
36	20	18 49
Prince Albert
Herald	 20	00		
Indian Affairs-
1912.	1913.	1914.Moosejaw News	
$24 64	$52 88Saskatoon Star.... 30 80	30 20	6	00
Prince Albert
Herald	 65	04	34 72	38	16
Interior-
1912.	1913.	1914.Regina Province.. $620	80	$577	12	$420	56Moosejaw News... 15	00	84	00	407	96Saskatoon Star . . 260	73	626	72	670	94
Prince Albert
Herald	 254 26	453 20	619 50
Militia and Defence

1912.	1913.	1914.
Regina Province.. $23 40	.... $21 24
Moosejaw News	
$19 20	11 80Saskatoon Star	
39 75	14 75
Prince Albert
Herald	 19 20		
Mounted Police-For advertising and printing in each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914 to each of the following newspapers:
Regina Province	$294	85Moosejaw News	
60	00Saskatoon Star	
113	33Prince Albert Herald	
389	75
Naval Service 1912-
Saskatoon Star	$27	95Prince Albert Herald	
24	08
Post Office-
1912.	1913.	1914.Regina Province . . $12 60	30 24	77	28Moosejaw News	
33 04	78 96Saskatoon Star	
26	45
Prince Albert
Herald	~		 10 76

Public Works-
1912.	1913.	1914.Regina Province . .$ 4 00	$126 44	$177 00Moosejaw News	
92 08Saskatoon Star	
7635	5060
Prince Albert
Herald	
13 20	110 28	14 56$18 00	313 07	$334 24
Printing Bureau-The Saskatoon Star, $20.70 in 1914 for printing only.
Trade and Commerce-	1913.
Regina Province	$21 84
Moosejaw News	
Saskatoon Star	
Prince Albert Herald .. ..
1914. $150 15 73 90 160 09 50 99


PRINCE ALBERT PROPERTY PURCHASE.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What properties have been acquired by the Department of Public Works in the city of Prince Albert since January 1, 1912?
2.	Prom whom were such properties acquired?
3.	What was the total price, and the price per foot in each case?
4.	For what purpose were such properties acquired?
5.	What was the date of each purchase?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	None by the Department of Public Works.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


MOOSEJAW PROPERTY PURCHASES.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What properties have been acquired by the Department of Public Works in the city of Moosejaw since the first of January, 1912?
2.	What was the total price paid, and the price per foot paid, for each of such properties?
3.	For what purpose was each property acquired?
4.	From whom were such properties acquired?
5.	What was the date of each purchase?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Lots 21, 22 and 23, block 122.
2.	$22,000, or about $2.35 a square foot.
3.	For Immigration hall.
4.	Wm. Hannah.
5.	26th January, 1914, date of certificate of title.
And-
1.	Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, block 125.
2.	$60,000, or about $5.20 a square foot.
3.	For custom warehouse.
4.	Jacob Errett.
5.	3rd March, 1914, date of certificate of title.


SASKATOON PROPERTY PURCHASE.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What properties have been acquired by the Department of Public Works in the city of Saskatoon since the first day of January, 1912?
2.	From whom were such properties acquired?
3.	What was the total price, and the price per foot in each case?
4.	What was the the date of each purchase?

5.	For what purpose was each property acquired?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Lots 1, 2 and 3, block 170.
2.	Anthony Le Jeune.
3.	$122,500, or about $5.78 a foot.
4.	21st February, 1914, date of certificate of title.
5.	On which to erect a public building.


WAR SUPPLIES-OVERSHOES.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What was the list price of all overshoes supplied the troops, both in England and Canada?
2.	What discounts, both trade and cash, were allowed by the firms supplying these goods?
3.	What firms supplied these goods?


John Douglas Hazen: Tenders were obtained from the following firms:	List	Price paid by
	price.	Department.
Canadian Consolidated		
Rubber Co	$2 pr.	$1.96 & $1.85 pr.Gutta Percha Rubber Co	2 "	1.70 $1.85 "Kaufman Rubber Co...	2 "	1.85 per pr.Independent Rubber Co	Not	known.	1.85 " "Columbus Rubber Co..	Not	known.	1.85 " "


PICTOU COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINERS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What doctors acted as medical examiners for the volunteers in Pictou county in August last under instructions from Major Graham?
2.	Why were they removed and others appointed?
3.	Who recommended the new appointees?


Mr. HAZEN (for Major General Hughes):: 1.	None.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


COUNTRY HARBOUR GAS BUOY.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the notice been received that the gas buoy at Country Harbour is out of order?
2.	If so, when did such notice reach the department ?
3.	What action was taken?
4.	Is the said buoy now in commission?
5.	During what portion of the calendar year 1914, was this buoy in commission?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No. It has been in commission since November 13, 1914.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Yes.
5.	1st January to 6th March; 18th April to 21st October; 13th November to 31st December.


STELLARTON PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any site for a public building been purchased at Stellarton, N.S.?
2.	If so, from whom was It purchased, what was the price, and when was it paid?


Mr. ROGERS:: 
RICHARD J. HALL.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has Richard J. Hall been appointed a veterinary inspector?
2.	If so, what are his duties and salary?
3.	What are his qualifications for the position?
4.	By whom was his appointment recommended?
5.	Is there to be any separation or other allowance paid in addition to his salary? If so, how much?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


WAR SUPPLIES-CANVAS SHOES.
Mr. MURPHY:: Referring to the purchase of 95,000 pairs of canvas shoes at a cost of $190,000, as set out on pages 58, 59 and 60 of the memoranda respecting work of the Department of Militia and Defence, European war, 1914-15, as follows:
Pairs. Price per pair.
Ames, Holden, McCready.... 36,500	$2 00
l'etreau Shoe Manufacturing Co. 36,500	2 00
Louis Gauthier Co	 22,000	2 00
And to the further purchase of 45,000 pairs of canvas shoes at a cost of $90,000 as stated by the Minister of Militia and Defence in his reply to a question reported on page 419 of unrevised Hansard for 1915, as follows:
Names of Contractors.	No. Price per
ordered, pair.
Cook and Fitzgerald	
5,000	$2	00Dufresne and Galipeau	
5,000	2	00Dufresne and Locke	
10,000	2	00Jas. Muir Co	
10,000	2	00Brandon Shoe Co	
5,000	2	00Regal Shoe Co	
5,000	2	00E. T. Wright Co	
5,000	2	001.	Were the 95,000 pairs of canvas shoes supplied the officers and soldiers of the first contingent?2.	If not, what use has been, or will be made of them?3.	What use has been made of the 45,000 pairs of canvas shoes?4.	If they are still in the Government stores, when, and to whom, will they be issued?5.	Have any more canvas shoes been ordered in addition to those above mentioned? If so, how many pairs?
was 75,000-not 95,000; the two items of
10,000	pairs each given on page 60 of the memoranda respecting work of the Department of Militia and Defence, European War, 1914-15, being a clerical error, and a duplication of two items of 10,000 each on page 59 of the same memoranda.
Canvas shoes were supplied to all noncommissioned officers and men of the 1st Division.
2.	Of the balance, a proportion were sent to Salisbury, and the remainder were held in Ordnance charge for distribution to noncommissioned officers and men of the 1st Division, and for various drafts for Overseas.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 2.
5.	No.


TRANSPORTATION OF FIRST CONTINGENT.
Mr. GRAY:: What sums have been, or are to be paid by the Government to the Canadian Pacific Railway, Grand Trunk Railway, and Canadian Northern Railway, respectively, for land and sea transport in connection with first contingent?


John Douglas Hazen: Canadian	Canadian	GrandPacific	Northern	TrunkRailway.	Railway.	Railway.Land transport	paid	$416,636	$ 16,151	$ 84,134Land transport	outstanding ..	40,331	100,231	57,631Ocean transport	paid	458,992	162,977	Ocean transport	outstanding. .	28,810	$915,959	$308,169	$141,765


BLOOD INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Indian Department made a lease of the Blood Indian reserve for grazing purposes?
2.	If so, to whom, and what are the terms of the lease?
3.	When does the lease expire?
4.	If a lease has not been made, what are the arrangements the Government has made of a temporary character for grazing on the reserve?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Since the termination of the former lease $3 per head per annum has been charged for grazing privileges.


WATCHMEN ON RAILWAY BRIDGES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:	.
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The quantity supplied to troops of the 1st Division, Canadian Expeditionary Force,
What are the names of the men employed as watchmen on the different railway bridges in Antigonish county at different times since August last on account of the war?


Francis Cochrane: Names of men employed as watchmen on the different railway bridges in Antigonish county, as follows: John McPherson, Angus McDougal, John R. Boyd, Colin F. McDonald, J. A. McDonald, John Kiely, Gabriel Chisholm, Thomas Kiely.


HALIFAX OCEAN TERMINALS.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What was the total expenditure in the calendar year 1914 at Halifax for the ocean terminals on account of the railway construction contract and on account of the docks and piers contract, respectively?
Mr. W. T .WHITE:


Francis Cochrane: Total expenditure in
the calendar year 1914 at Halifax for the ocean terminal on account of the railway construction contract was $1,181,355.78. Total expenditure on account of docks and piers contract at Halifax was $285,811.10.


TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR 1914-15.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What are the particulars and amounts of all expenditures made on capital and special account respectively from April 1, 1914, to March 1, 1915?
Public Works capital	
Railways and Canals capital:
Canals	
Intercolonial and connected railways	
Towards the construction of a railway to connect Montreal with the National Transcontinental Railway	
Hudson Bay Railway	
Quebec Bridge	
National Transcontinental Ralway	
IT nee Edward Island Railway	
Railway Subsidies:
The Fredericton and Grand Lakes Coal and
Railway Company	
The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway .. The Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway....
St. John and Quebec Railway	
Ha Ha Bay Railway	
Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway..
Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway	
Kootenay Central Railway	
Canadian Northern Pacific Railway	
Canadian Northern Alberta Railway	
The Algoma Eastern Railway	
The Alberta Central Railway	
The Kettle Valley Railway	- .

Charges of Management and Loan Account

The above represents the payments which passed through the hooks of the Finance Department from April 1, 1914, to March 1, 1915.


MEDICINE HAT POSTMASTERS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	How many postmasters have been removed from the service in the constituency of Medi-
cine Hat since October 1, 1911?
2.	What are the names and the name of the post office in each case?
3.	What was the reason for the removal in
each case?
4.	In how many cases were investigations held?
5.	In how many cases were investigations asked for but not granted?


Mr. CASGEAIN:: 1.	Thirteen.
2 and 3.

Name of Post Office.	Name of Postmaster.	Reason for Removal.	Date of Removal.Mrs. .1 Enright	Change in site of office	27 August, 1913.Political partisanship and neg-	lect of duty	4 April, 1913.G. R. Cope	Change in site of office 	11 December, 1912.Mrs. Vedee Hiereth ..	Change in site of office	28 January, 1914.Empress	Wm. Robertson	Change in site and unsatisfactory management of office	23 June, 1914.F aith	19 March, 1914.Political partisanship	11 July, 1912.Abandonment of office by post-	master .. 	28 May, 1914.M. Allen	Non-residence of postmaster...	13 July, 1912.Lethbridge	E. M. Higinbotham ..	Removal of post office to new public building 	9. October, 1914. vUnsatisfactory management... Postmaster delivering private accounts without prepayment of postage	18 February, 1914.Warner	F. L. Shepard	13 October, 1912.Websdale	A. E. Websdale. ...	Change in site of office	24 November, 1913.4.	Eleven.5.	In one case, that of the Lethbridge post office, removed to the new public building, an investigation was suggested to the department, but the transfer of the post office to the new postmaster had already been made.


WINNIPEG RESIDENT ENGINEER.
Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Who is the Dominion Government resident engineer in the city of Winnipeg?
2.	How many men are employed on his staff?
3.	What are their duties?
4.	What is the salary paid to each?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	John Sweeney.
2.	Nine employees on this staff, including Mr. Sweeney.	t
3.	Five assistant engineers, one foreman for Manitoba, one clerk accountant and one stenographer.
4.	John Sweeney, district engineer, $2,500 per annum; A. J. Stevens, sr., asst, engineer, $2,300 per annum; D. A. McIntyre, foreman for Manitoba, $2,000 per annum; L. H. Fournier, assistant, $2,000 per annum; F. de C. Davies, sr., assist, engineer, $1,700 per annum; Geo. Burbridge, sr., asst, engineer, $1,500 per annum; Chas Steele, clerk-accountant, $1,500 per annum; Barrett Wood, jr., asst, engineer, $75 per month; Miss L. Simpson, stenographer, $900 per annum.


JUDGES' PENSIONS.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How much has been paid by the Federal Treasury since 1867 to retired judges for pensions or retiring allowances?
2.	How much for each year since the said date?


William Thomas White: Year.	Amount.
1868	$	10,533 281869	
15,294	221870	
17,592	211871	
17,847	311872	
15,499	921873	
15,499	721874	
22,906	061875	
29,187	451876	
27,666	001877	
32,122	001878	
34,024	271879	
44,888	921880	
49,062	411881	
49,025	951882	
54,196	901883	
59,098	511884	
58,580	051885	
58,804	751886	
55,114	781887	
59,076	181888	
62,038	201889	
62,144	721890	
58,007	621891	
57,839	851892	
49,866	471893	
51,530	841894	
49,495	551895	
48,864	661896	'	
52,759 751897	
58,672	121898	
63,527	961899	
65,429	391900	
62,750	981901	
63,088	101902	
53,208	271903	
56,991	051904	
69,407	68
Year.
1905		$
1906		
1907		
1908		
1909		
1910		
1911		
1912		
1913		
1914		
To Feb. 28, 1915	
Amount. 55,238 3 91,909 25 81,990 21 126,359 82 124,401 83 143,365 26 151,428 00 145,464 09 173,866 03 175,668 99 155,922 25


$3,177,258 13 WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What are the names of the persons authorized to purchase horses for army purposes in Alberta?
2.	What salary or other remuneration does each person so authorized receive?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	At Calgary, E. J. Legg, B. S. Mitchell; Cochrane, R. F. Bevan; Vermilion, P. G. Pilkie; Medicine Hat, L. S. Manzer; Oko-toks, Geo. Scott; Edmonton, W. R. Lowes.
2.	Ten dollars per diem and expenses.


Mr. LAW:: 1.	Have any horses been purchased in the county of Kings, N.S., by the Militia Department since the outbreak of war?
2.	If so, from whom were such horses purchased, and what prices were paid for same?
3.	Who was the purchasing agent for said horses?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Messrs. Keever, Mackay & Moore. Average price paid, $171.09.
3.	The principal veterinary officer for Canada and his assistants.


OTTAWA-HULL POSTAL RATE.
Mr. DEVLIN:: Is it the intention of the Government to establish a rate of one cent upon letters between Ottawa and Hull? If not, why not?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Ottawa and Hull are
separate cities, and are, moreover, situated in different provinces. A drop letter is one that is posted and delivered in the same office and to have it otherwise would necessarily lead to an increase in the rate, as the department could not afford to carry letters from one office to another at a one-cent rate per ounce. If such were the case there would be no object in maintaining a two-cent rate per ounce for letters. If this privilege were given between Hull and Ottawa, it could not be withheld from all other places in Canada. To cairy letters in

Canada at the one-cent rate per ounce, in view of its long distances and sparse population, is not at present a possibility.


OTTAWA AND HULL TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Has a commission been formed to prepare plans relating to the cities of Ottawa and Hull?
2.	What is the salary, if any, of the commissioners?
3.	What was the date of appointment of said commission?
4.	What amount has been expended for the said commission by the Federal Government?
5.	What amount, if any, has each of the cities of Ottawa and Hull contributed toward expenses of said commission?
G. Has said commission prepared any plan of improvement for said cities of Ottawa and Hull?
7.	If so, has such plan been submitted to the Government?
8.	If not, what is the cause of the delay?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No salary.
3.	Commission was appointed by Order in Council of September 12, 1913.
4.	$57,724.65.
5.	No amount has as yet been received on this account. Under the terms of the Order in Council of September 12, one-half of the cost is payable by the cities named jointly and rateably according to population.
6.	Final plans have not yet been submitted.
7 and 8. The report of the commission is almost completed, and will, it is expected, with the final plans, be ready for presentation to Parliament before the close of the present session.


WALLACEBURG CUSTOMS OFFICER.
Mr. GORDON:: 1.	What salary did the customs officer at Wallaceburg get during the last four years of the Liberal Government?
2.	What does the present officer get?
3.	Has he an assistant? If so, what does he get?
4.	What duties were collected during the last eight years?
5.	What rent is being paid for an office?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	1908	$1,000,	1909 $1,200,	1910 $1,200,
1911 $1,200.
2.	$1,400.
3.	Yes. D. F. Johnson, $850. R. D. Purser, $850.
4.	1906-7	$10,182.22,	1907-8	$125,161.39,
1908-9 $244,213.26, 1909-10 $231,957.64, 1910-11 $269,539.72, 1911-12 $275,490.68, 1912-13 $316,481.70, 1913-14 $361,992.75.
5.	$15 per month.


LEVIS DRY DOCK.
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Did the Government call for tenders for the building of the dry dock at or near Lfivis, Quebec?
2.	How many firms submitted tenders and what are their names?
3.	To whom was the contract given?
4.	At what price, and upon what conditions?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Six: M. P. and J. T. Davis, O'Brien and Doheny, Sir John Jackson, Holbrook, Cabot and Rollins, The Sherman Salter Company, Laurin and Leitch.
3.	Contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer: Messrs. M. P. and J. T. Davis.
4.	(a) Schedule prices which amount,
approximately, to $2,721,116.	(b) The ordinary conditions governing regular contracts, with date of completion 17th July,
1916.


FISH REDUCTION PLANTS.
John Howard Sinclair: To whom was the fertilizer produced at the Government reduction works at Canso, N.S., last season sold, and at what price per ton?


John Douglas Hazen: To individual farmers and to the United Fruit Growers Association of Nova Scotia at $20 per ton f.o.b. reduction works.


Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many tons of fertilizer were manufactured at the Canso fish reduction plant during the years 1913 and 1914 respectively?
2.	At what cost per ton was it manufactured?
3.	Was it sold by tender or otherwise?
4.	To whom was it sold and at what prices?
5.	Where were deliveries made?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	In 1913, 151 tons; in 1914, 91 tons.
2.	The total cost of operation in 1913 was $19,450.18. 151 tons of scrap and 15,272 gallons of oil were produced.
The total cost of operation in 1914 was $16,058.38. Ninety-one tons and 7,072 gallons of oil were produced.
3.	Otherwise.
4.	In 1913 it was sold to A. N. Whitman, Halifax, at $32 per ton f.o.b. works.
In 1914 it was sold to the farmers and the United Fruit Growers Association at $20 per ton f.o.b. works.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many tons of fertilizer were manufactured at the Clark's harbour fish reduction plant during the years 1913 and 1914, respectively?
2.	What was the cost of same per ton?
3.	Was it sold by tender or otherwise?
4.	To whom was it sold and at what prices?
5.	Was it sold delivered at any point or f.ob. plant?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	In 1913, 98 tons; in 1914, 81 tons.
2.	The total cost of operation in 1913 was $11,121.36. Ninety-eight tons of scrap and 3,480 gallons of oil were produced. In 1914 the total cost of operation was $10,137.74. Eighty-one tons of scrap and 4,868 gallons of oil were produced.
3.	Otherwise.
4.	To farmers at $20 per ton f.o.b. works.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


WAR SUPPLIES-BICYCLES.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	How many bicycles were purchased for use by the first overseas contingent?
2.	From what persons or firms were they purchased?
3.	What was the price paid for each?


John Douglas Hazen: 450 bicycles, military pattern, tvere supplied by the Canada Cycle and Motor Co. of Toronto at $62 each.


EMPLOYMENT OF A. GENEST.
Mr. McCRAE:: 1.	Is A. Genest an employee of the Post Office department at Sherbrooke?
2.	If so, what are his duties, and at what
salary ?	.
3.	Has he been constantly at work?
4.	If he has been off on leave of absence, how long, and for what cause?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	A. Genest is an employee of the Sherbrooke post office.
2.	He is a first-class clerk, grade A, with salary at the rate of $1,600 a year.
3.	The records show that Mr. Genest has reported for duty each day, but on account of the disease from which he suffers, he has not been able to work the regular hours of duty.
4.	Absences from duty on account of illness-pulmonary tuberculosis: 1903, 31st March, 1 day, with pay; 4th to 12th April, 9 days; 1904-15th March, 1 day; 1905-10th June, 1 day; 1906-27th December, 1 day; 31st December, 1 day; 1907-1st to 14th January, 14 days; 20th January to 25th March, 65 days; 30th December, i day; 1909-9th and 10th February, 2 days; 20th to 25th April, 6 days; 1912-23rd March, 1 day;
1912-13-9th May, 1912 to 8th May, 1913, 1 year; 1913, 9th May to 14th October, 159 days, without 'pay. Mr. Genest has been in the service since the 7th March, 1893, and since that time has always given good service to the department.


MEDICINE HAT RURAL MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	How many requests have been received by the Post Office Department for the establishment of rural mail routes in the constituency of Medicine Hat, Alberta?
2.	How many routes have been established, and where are they located?
3.	(a) Are any new routes contemplated? (b) If so, where?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Eleven.
2.	None.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) Pour routes from Lethbridge-north, south, east and west, also one route from Excel.


SEED WHEAT.
William Melville Martin: Referring to answered question by the Minister of the Interior- on the 4th day of March, with respect to seed wheat, are the prices therein stated f.o.b. Fort William, or are the prices quoted the ones which were paid at the local points of delivery in Saskatchewan?


William Roche: Prices quoted were f.o.b. cars at points of purchase.


SASKATCHEWAN INDIAN LANDS.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What was the total acreage of Indian lands sold in the province of Saskatchewan in each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?
2.	What was the average price obtained for Indian lands so sold in each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	In 1912, 755 920-1000 acres; in 1913, 276 25-1000 acres; in 1914, nothing sold.
2.	In 1912, $32.65 per acre; in 1913, $17.99 per acre; in 1914, no sale.


SASKATCHEWAN SCHOOL LANDS.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What was the total acreage of School lands sold in the province of Saskatchewan in each of the years, 1912, 1913 and 1914?
2.	What was the average price per acre obtained for school lands sold in the province of Saskatchewan in each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Total area of school lands sold in the province of Saskatchewan in each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914, is as follows: 1912, 103,707-01 acres; 1913, 661-38 acres; 1914, 597-48 acres. Total, 104,965-87 acres.
2.	Average price at which the lands were sold: 1912, $19.30; 1913, $25.33; 1914, $16.35.
In addition to the above there was also realized from the sale of town lots in 1913, $9,757.


EMPLOYMENT OF W. W. DAVIDSON.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has W. W. Davidson, of Moosejaw, been in the employ of the Department of the Interior at any time during the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?
2.	If so, what was the date of his appointment?	<
3.	In what capacity is he employed, and what is his salary or remuneration?


William Roche: In so far as the Immigration Branch is concerned,
1.	Yes.
2.	September 1, 1914.
3.	Relief supervisor; $150 per month.


ICL. RY. LUMBER CONTRACTS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is Alex. Pratt or I. P. A. Pratt, of Mata-pedia or Sellarville, Quebec, saving lumber for shims, tops and bottoms of cars for the Intercolonial railway?
2.	If so, is the work done under contract, and what prices are paid?
3.	If under contract, were tenders publicly called for, and at what date?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes. P. R. and A. Pratt, of Mata-pedia, P.Q.
2.	Yes At the following prices:
Shims, 7 inches wide by 12 inches long- i-inch, $3.65 per 1,000 f.o.b. Matapedia; i-inch, $7.30 per 1,000 f.o.b., Matapedia.
Shims 3 inches by 7 inches by 7 feet- $245 per 1,000 f.o.b. cars, Matapedia.
Shims 7 inches wide by 24 inches long- li-inch, $43.75 per 1,000 f.o.b. cars, Dawson Siding; li-inch, $51.02; 2-inch, $58.32; 21-inch, $65.65; 2|-inch, $72.90; 2|-inch, 80.22.
For spruce for car decking, $16 per M. ft., b.m., delivered f.o.b. cars, Dawson Siding, near Matapedia.
3.	For shims: Yes, on 23rd October, 1914. For spruce: On December 29th, 1914.



MATAPEDIA WATER SUPPLY.

Charles Marcil: Has an agreement been arrived at between the municipality of Matapedia, Quebec, or any party there, and the Department of Railways and Canals, regarding a supply of water for fire protection or domestic purposes, and what is the nature of the agreement?


Francis Cochrane: It is proposed to grant, by way of a lease " during pleasure," to Alexander Pratt, Lynch Dube and Cie., Robert Ferguson, John A. Robertson, John A. Ryan, Thomas V. Woodman, Sarah Smith and S. M. Adams, of Matapedia, P.Q., unincorporated, but known under the name of the Matapedia Water Supply Company, about one million gallons of water per

annum at six cants per thousand gallons, for water supply apd fire protection at that place. This lease has not yet been executed.
LETHBRIDGE FOSTiMASTERSHIP.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What was the reason for the dismissal of Edward N. Higinbotham, as postmaster at Lethbridge, Alberta?
2. Was an investigation asked for?
3. Was an investigation held?
4.	If so, what was the result of the investigation?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	On the 2.3rd September, 1914, the departmental officers were instructed by the Postmaster General that as soon as the Lethbridge public building was ready for occupation it was the intention to appoint a new postmaster, and the Superintendent was requested to keep in touch with the progress made, and as soon as it was ready for the department to take possession to inform the Postmaster General so that the change could be made without delay. This was done in accordance with instructions, and the Post Office Inspector, on the 9t'b October, was instructed to make the change,
2.	In a petition in favour of the late postmaster, which was received at the department in November last, it was suggested that an investigation should be made, but the appointment to the postmastership and the transfer of the post office to the new incumbent had already been made.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.



ICL. RY. COAL SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	Has the Railway Department called for tenders for coal for the Intercolonial?
2.	If not, when will tenders likely be called?

Mr. TOBIN:: Has an Order In Council been passed prohibiting the sale and export to the United States of Canadian bred horses from four to eleven years old? If so, when was such Order in Council passed?


John Dowsley Reid: An Order in Council was passed on August 7, 1914, which prohibits exports to any place other than the United Kingdom or any British possession of " Saddle, draught and pack animals, suitable for use in war."


QUEBEC RURAL MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any rural mail routes been established in Bonaventure, Gaspe and Rimouski counties?
2.	If so, where are these routes situated in each county?
3.	What is the cost of each service, and were tenders called for?
4.	Did the Department refuse to establish any routes? If so, where, why and when?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Although no routes have been established, tenders were called for a proposed route from St. Fabien, County Rimouski, and contract was awarded on January 27, 1915, at the rate of $700 per annum; but as the necessary fifty per cent of the eligible residents failed to subscribe for boxes, the route could not be put into operation. Tenders were also called for in February, 1914, for a proposed route from New Richmond Station No. 1, County Bonaventure, but were excessive.
4.	Yes. In the case of St. Fabien proposed route, fifty per cent of the eligible residents have not yet remitted payment for their boxes as above mentioned, and until they do the regulations prohibit the inauguration of the service. In the case of the New Richmond Station proposed route, all offers for the performance of this service have been too high,-and until a reasonable offer is received the Department will not establish the service.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. Hughes:	For a return showing-
1. What quantity of spirituous liquors, proof gallons, including ale, wines and beers, was taken out of bond between August 6 and August 21, 1914, at each port of the Dominion.
2. What quantity of cigars, cigarettes and tobacco was taken out of bond between the above mentioned dates at each port of the Dominion,
Mr. Murphy:	For a return showing-1.
From how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered saddles since the 1st of July, 19.14.
2.	The names of these firms.
3.	How many saddles have been ordered from each firm.
4.	How many saddles each firm has delivered up to date.
5.	How many saddles each firm has yet to
deliver.	,
6.	The price each firm is receiving for these saddles.
Mr. Murphy : For a return showing-1. From how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered cloaks or great coats since the 1st of July, 1914.
[Stage Direction]


i /0
2.	The names of these firms.
3.	How many cloaks or great coats have been ordered from each firm.
4.	How many each firm has delivered up to date.
5.	How many each firm has yet to deliver.
6.	The price each firm is receiving for these cloaks or great coats.
Mr. Murphy: For a return showing-1. From how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered forage caps since the 1st of July, 1914.
2.	The names of these firms.
3.	How many forage caps have been ordered from each firm.
4.	How .many each firm has delivered to date.
5.	How many each firm has yet to deliver.
6.	The price each firm is receiving for these forage caps.
Mr. Murphy: For a return showing-1. From how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered socks since the 1st of July, 1914.
2.	The names of these firms.
3.	How many socks have been ordered from each firm. '
4.	How many each firm has delivered up to date.
5.	How many each firm has yet to deliver.
G. The price each firm is receiving for these socks.
7.	If any complaints have been received from any officers, soldiers, or private individuals in regard to the quality of these socks.
8.	If the Canadian soldiers have been supplied with a sufficient number of these socks to keep them comfortable and warm while on active service.
Mr. Fowler: For a return showing: Whether it is the intention of the Government to increase the salaries of any members of the Civil Service at this Session of Parliament; the na/nes of the persons whose salaries are to be increased, and to what department or departments they belong; the special reasons for such increases ; what amount of money would be required to cover said increases in the coming fiscal year, by classes.
Mr. Murphy: For a return showing: From how many firms or individuals the Government or any department thereof, has ordered blankets since the 1st of July, 1914 ; the names of these firms ; how many blankets have been ordered from each firm; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver ; the price each firm is receiving for these blankets.
Mr. Murphy: For a return showing: From how many firms or individuals the Government or any department thereof has ordered soldiers' uniforms since the 1st of July, 1914 ; the names of these firms ; how many Oliver equipments have been ordered from each firm ; how many of these uniforms each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver; the price each firm is receiving for these uniforms.
Mr. Murphy: For a return showing: From how many firms or individuals the Government, or any department thereof has ordered Oliver equipments since the 1st of July, 1914 ; the names of these firms; how many Oliver equipments have been ordered from each firm ; how many each firm has delivered up to date ; how many each firm has yet to deliver; the price each firm is receiving for these Oliver equipments.

Mr. Kyte:	For a return showing:	From
how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any Department of the Government, has ordered kit bags since the 1st of July, 1914; the names <?f these firms; how many kit bags have been ordered from each firm ; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver; the price each firm is receiving for these kit bags.
Mr. Kyte: For a return showing: From how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered towels since the 1st of July, 1914 ; the names of these firms; how many towels have been ordered from each firm; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver ; the price each firm is receiving for these towels.
Mr. Kyte: For a return showing: From how many firms or private individuals the Government; or any department of the Government, has ordered bicycles since the 1st of July, 1914 ; the names of these firms; how many bicycles have been ordered from each firm ; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver; the price each firm is receiving for these bicycles.
Mr. Mackenzie: For a return showing: From how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered winter shirts since the 1st of July, 1914 ; the names of these firms ; how many winter shirts have been ordered from each firm ; how many each firm has delivered up to date ; how many each firm has yet to deliver; the price each firm is receiving for these winter shirts.
Mr. Law: For a return showing: From how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered suits of underwear since the 1st of July, 1914; the names of these firms; how many suits of underwear have been ordered from each firm; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver ; the price each firm is receiving for these suits of underwear.
Mr. William Chisholm: For a return showing: From how many firms or private -individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered cotton shirts since the 1st of July, 1914; the names of these firms; how many cotton shirts have been ordered from each firm ; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver ; the price each firm is receiving for these cotton shirts.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a return showing: From how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered trousers, breeches and pantaloons since the 1st of July, 1914 ; the names of these firms; how many trousers, breeches and pantaloons have been ordered from each firm; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver; the price each firm is receiving for these trousers, breeches and pantaloons.
Mr. Carroll: For a return showing from how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any Department of the Government has ordered flannel shirts since the 1st of July, 1914; the names of these firms; how many flannel shirts have been ordered from each firm ; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver; the price each firm is receiving for these flannel shirts.
Mr. Carroll: For a return showing frpm how

many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government, has ordered service shirts since the 1st of July, 1914; the names of these firms; how many service shirts have been ordered from each firm ; how many each firm has delivered up to date; how many each firm has yet to deliver; the price each firm is receiving for these service shirts.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm: For a return showing from how many firms or private individuals the Government, or any department of the Government has ordered motor cycles since the 1st of July, 1914; the names of these firms; how many motor cycles have been ordered from each firm ; how many each firm has delivered up to date ; how many each firm has yet to deliver ; the price each firm is receiving for these motor cycles.
Mr. Kay:	For a return showing how many
customs officers were employed at the customs port of Abercorn, Quebec, on September 20, 1911 ; the names of these officers ; what salary each one received ; the total amount of salaries paid the officers at this port; how many customs officers are employed at the port of Abercorn at the present time; the names of these officers; what salary each one receives; the total amount of salaries paid to the officers at this port.
Mr. Kay:	For a return showing how many
customs officers were employed at the customs port of Highwater, Quebec, on September 20, 1911; the names of these officers; what salary, each one received ; the total amount of salaries paid the officers at this port; how many customs officers are employed at the port of Highwater at the present time ; the names of these officers; what salary each one receives; the total amount of salaries paid to the officers at this port.
Mr. Kay:	For a return showing how many
customs officers were employed at the customs port of Mansonville, Quebec, on September 20, 1911 ; the names of these officers ; what salary each one received ; the total amount of salaries paid the officers at this port; how many customs officers are employed at the port of Mansonville at the present time ; the names of these officers; what salary each one receives; the total amount of salaries paid to the officers at this port.
Mr. W. M. Martin: For a return showing what fractional areas of homestead lands or otherwise in the province of Saskatchewan were - sold in the year 1914 ; the name of the purchaser, and the price paid in each case.
Mr. Graham:	For a copy of recommendation to council for the appointment to the Customs Staff in 1908 of F. Norris, as preventive officer.
2.	A copy of instructions sent either to S. W. McMichael, chief inspector of customs, Toronto, or to F. Norris, instructing the latter to take up the work at Chicago, July, 1910.
3.	A copy of recommendation to council setting out the reasons for retirement of said F. Norris, November, 1913.
4.	A copy of the correspondence between the Canadian Government and the Imperial Government concerning a proposed arrangement for placing the Canadian immigration under the same roof as the British Consulate at Chicago.
Mr. Law:	For a copy of all correspondence,
letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Mr. P. B. Hurlbert, post-49i2
master at Springdale county, N.S., and the removal of the office.
Mr. Devlin:	For a return showing all
amounts of money expended upon public works in the counties of Wright, Pontiac and Labelle from October, 1911, to date.
Mr. Devlin:	For a return showing the number of appointments to the Inside Service and to the Outside Service since October, 1911, of persons resident in the county of Wright; the number of dismissals from the service since October, 1911 ; the number of resignations from the serviefe since above date; with the names of parties at whose request such resignations, if any, were tendered.
Mr. Rhodes:	For a return showing the
amounts of money expended, in construction work or repairs, apart from salaries paid to permanent or yearly officials or employees, in the Departments of Public Works, Railways and Canals, Militia and Defence, Marine and Fisheries, and Agriculture, within the county of Cumberland, during the fiscal years 1896 to 1911, both inclusive, together with the particular purpose of each expenditure, and where expended.
Mr. Macdonald: For a return showing the quantity of Oliver equipments purchased since August 1, 1914, the persons from whom they were purchased, the price paid to each contractor-, and the dates of their delivery. Also a copy of all complaints received from any quarter in regard to the equipment, and of any action, departmental or otherwise, taken in regard to the same.
Mr. Bourassa: For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams and correspondence between the Hon. L. P. Pelletier, ex-Postmaster General, and any person or persons of the county of L6vis, which during the month of April, 1912, had any connection with the appointment of G. A. Marois to a position in the customs office at Quebec, and the appointment of J. E. Gin-gras as postmaster of St. Romuald and Etche-min.
Mr. Lanctot: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, or other documents in connection with a United States military officer named Stewart, who was attached to the regiment of mounted rifles now mobilizing at Ottawa, and the names, of any other foreign military officer who have been given commissions in the Canadian expeditionary force over the heads of qualified Canadian officers ; how many such officers were appointed, with the reasons therefor.
Mr. Kyte: For a return showing the names, ages, nationalities and place of birth of all who have enlisted in Canada for overseas service in the present war; distinguishing between the first, second and third contingents.
Mr. Tobin:	For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports of proceedings and all other documents in connection with the purchase of remounts in the province of Quebec since August 1 last, up to and including the recent purchases made in the eastern townships by Messrs. Palmer and Pallister.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Tuesday, March 9, 1915.