Day after day is wasted because a few members abuse to the extreme their privilege of speaking again and again in the committee of reply. Saturday Night' says: ments to give the information and let every hon. member if he wishes be allowed to ask questions. Then, the items which were not contentious should be passed in the House en bloc. The contentious items could be discussed, and in that way months of the We fiddle with a programme that is petty time of the House would be saved. These and peanutty. Toronto Star', April 17, 1909: With the growth of Canada the business of parliament has outgrown the old procedure. The House of Commons ought to be able to agree upon some businesslike way of doing its business. 'Manitoba Free Press ', February 23, 1909: Such an outrageous wasting of the time of parliament at enormous cost to the country should be made impossible by the adoption of rules of debate and procedure such as no other parliament in the world is without, the indemnity to the member being only a fraction of the daily expense of having parliament in session. This will not prevent the answers being explained in the House if necessary. Rule 2. Estimates to be first brought before committee consisting of all members. The committee will sit in committee room on Monday, Tuesday. Wednesday, Thursday and Fridav, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and if necessary while House is sitting. All non-contentious items to be brought up in bulk in the House and contentious ones separate, but this not to prevent any item to be challenged in the House. This is the rule in the English parliament. The system followed in the Canadian parliament in reference to the estimates is absurd. The minister is supposed to explain them but in reality he may not know any. thing about them and so his deputy sits next him and the accountant sits next him again and the information is transmitted backward and forward and a great deal of time is lost. If the minister happens to be a gentleman who is friendly to every one in the House his items go through with a rush, but otherwise he is bothered considerably and in the end the items go through with out any real explanation being offered. I submit, Sir, that the business way to do this is to have a committee of the House sitting every day of the session at ten in the morn ing. Let the minister give notice a week ahead that his estimates will be brought up at a certain date and then let him be prepared with his clerks and with his docu are the other rules I submit: 3. A member only to be allowed to speak once to any item brought up in Committee of the Whole House. 4. The Speaker to be authorized to prevent members from repeating themselves or iterating other members speeches. re 5. The Speaker to allow quotations, referred to in members' speeches to be placed on Hansard' without being read, if he sees fit. 6. Where a member makes a motion for papers, letters, documents, to be brought down and the government grant the motion, no discussion is then to be allowed in advocacy of the motion. 7. A set time should be decided on for bringing down of the estimates each session and so many days allotted to each department similar to the English practice (page 109 Redleigh.) 8. Wednesday evenings to be utilized for work. Rule 7 is in force in the English parliament, and although I have doubts as to whether it would work here, I have added it. As to the rule about sitting on Wednesday evenings, my contention is that we come here to work and if there is one evening to be taken for play or recreation it should not be Wednesday evening. It is the only evening in the week outside of Thursday that all the members are here and as we all know well most of the estimates are put through on Friday night when very few members are present. I submit that either Monday night or Friday night should be the night set apart for social gatherings or rest if rest is needed. Now, Sir, I have given notice to-day of eight Bills to be introduced by me. They are Bills which I introduced last session and as some parts of those were adopted last session I only propose to ask the consideration of the House to such provisions as were then not adopted. I have been fourd fault with for introducing too many Bills in parliament, but I cannot suggest any possible way by which less of the time of the House would be taken than by putting my ideas in the concrete form of a Bill. Every one knows that a private member cannot have legislation passed in this House, nor do I consider that it is the province of a member of the opposition to put legislation on the statute-book. His first duty in this House is to criticise the administrative acts of the members of the government, in whose hands the people of the country have placed the government for the time being. Let me mention some of these Bills: The Bill respecting load lines on ships; the Bill respecting injuries quote the hon. the Finance Minister's own words: Toronto Star, March, 1909: I venture to say that if you attempt tɔ reach combines by the ordinary procedure of law, without any other penalty than that enforceable by the courts of law, you will have great difficulty in reaching them. The efforts made in other countries to reach combines in that way have not been very successful. This is the great truth which is now being pressed upon the government in vain. He asserted: There is no combine or merger of the people, and this remedy could not be utilized without such. to persons due to motor vehicles; the Bill to provide for the government inspection of vessels not now inspected; the Bill respecting wireless telegraphy on ships; the Bill respecting offensive weapons and capital offences; the Bill respecting as saults against the person; and the Bill respecting the saving of daylight. If I desired to pick out two or three from these, I could not do so, because they are all good. Now, I desire for a few moments only to refer to what concerns more and comes closer to the plain people than anything else under the sky, that is, the enormous increase in the cost of living. Even with the amendments we are now Wages are much higher than they were making, the element of protection will reten years ago. Still the dollar to-day will main in the tariff to a considerable extent. not buy much more than half what it One of the evils to the protective system is would then. I propose to suggest a reason that it inevitably leads to the formation of and also a remedy, and to bear me out in combines in our country as the recognition my contention I propose referring to some of the fact, by manufacturers and others who reliable and prominent newspapers. I may engage in forming combines for unduly contend that the chief cause of the great enhancing the prices of commodities, that the increase in the cost of living is the high duty on like articles imported into the counprices carried by the combines which are try can be removed by order in council. fostered under the present customs law. Shortly after the change of government in 1896 the free trade Finance Minister took the tariff out of politics by substituting for protection the words 'tariff for revenue only,' and there the tariff has virtually remained ever since. Now, Sir, I do not propose going into a discussion of the tariff or whether the Finance Minister was right or wrong, but I do consider that under the circumstances the Conservative opposition are not bound to stick to protection and be called high protectionists. 'In fact, Sir, I think that under the circumstances certain parts of the tariff should be lowered, and I propose bringing in a resolution to that effect respecting agricultural implements. While it may be necessary in the interests of certain manufactured articles that a combine or merger, as it is sometimes called, of factories or corporations should be, it may be necessary or beneficial in the interest of those institutions, still, Sir, I contend that where the people of Canada through its government protect the combine or merger from outside competition, then the same government acting for the same people should see that said combine or merger does not unduly charge said people for its goods. Shortly after the accession to power of the present government the Finance Minister spoke on this question, and I believe he proposed trying to remedy any evils by orders in council; but he finally realized what work this would be and how anything he did might be misinterpreted, and he desisted and ever since has only referred complaints to the remedy under the Criminal Code. There is no question I speak, Sir, on behalf of the consumers as to this remedy being under the circum- of Canada, and I say to the manufacturers stances futile and a dead letter; and I that my only desire is to see a body of There is one way, and one way only, and I submit an adequate way of remedying this great grievance, and a way which will be of great benefit to the government and I refer to a percountry in other ways. manent commission of men skilled for the purpose, men above politics, who will bring their whole energies and time to the study of the intricate question and do full and fair justice between the producer and the consumer. To-day if a producer thinks an alien is importing goods and in any way evading the duty or part of the duty by under-valuation or otherwise, all he has to do is to report the matter to the nearest customs officer, and immediately the whole machinery of the government is investigating the offence; but if a consumer or retail dealer believes he is charged unjustly or that there is a combination in restraint of trade, he has to fight it himself, which is an impossibility. Why should it cost the newspapers $2,000 to fight this paper combine? It cost thousands to prosecute the plumbers' The advice of such combine in Toronto. a commission to the government on tariff legislation, apart from combines, would be invaluable. How can any finance minister, no matter of what party, give adequate research and thought to tariff charges or making when you consider all his other duties? There is no question that the corporations and trusts have the United States legislative bodies in their iron grasp, which once closed is hard to open. Don't let us fall into the same error. skilled, reliable and impartial men appoint-on imports, I am forced to depend for suped to see that the manufacturers and con- plies, could put me out of business to-morrow sumers both get fair and honest treatment. and I simply dare not be quoted in opposiThere is no use in my taking up the time tion to what these combines are doing, said of the House in specifying articles which one dealer. the combines charge too much for. Their number is many. There is hardly an article, from leather to wash goods, from rubber to tacks, that it would not pay to have the charges for investigated. The Toronto Star,' November 13, 1908, says: A protective tariff established with the aim of building up Canadian industries and employing Canadian workmen at fair wages soon becomes an instrument for furthering trade combinations and conspiracies to rob the consumer, the speculator follows the settler and lives upon his labour. 'Toronto Star', February 3, 1909: Tack combine in trade war. Effect on general commercial conditions is wholly bad, after driving out opposition by low prices, prices are raised too high. 'Toronto Star', February 17, 1909: Grange meeting at Forest asked Dominion government to investigate at cost of government charges made re combines and remedy. Combine is the modern robber baron. Decidedly uneasy feeling among old time Liberals at position re combines taken by Mr. Fielding. 'Huron Signal' goes so far as to say, that the fact that it was even necessary to present such a request constitutes a disgrace to the government. The Signal' contends that the government should have acted of its own motion without waiting for a request to perform the duty, which it has by formal enactment laid upon itself. The Kingston Standard says private persons cannot afford the cost to fight a combine. If any one tries, he is a marked man. It cost newspaper men $2,000 to fight the paper combine. The Toronto Globe': Two things should be done; those found guilty of extortion in connection with the combines should be punished and the tariff conditions which favour unjust combines should be changed. 'Star,' February 3: It has come to a pretty pass in this country that if a man may not sell or may not buy where and how he pleases, but such is the fact. Commercial and social life is being strangled by this exercise of privilege on the part of guilds controlling the supply of the necessaries of life. It has come to pass that no man can go into any business without the consent of his rivals, and agreement to conduct it as they dictate. One retail merchant says the domestic combine on which owing to the tariff 'Toronto Star', February 10: Circular to retailer reads won't deal unless your buy from no one else and sell at our prices. "Toronto Star,' February 13: Canada's Combine Law a delusion and a sham. United States case quoted says, a combine is an illegal organization and cannot invoke law.' 'Toronto Star', February 6, 1909: One, well informed in regard to the situa tion, has estimated that the advanced price list will result in the collection of between three and four hundred thousand dollars than was collected last year on more from the users of woodenware in Ontario volume of business. Over 25 per cent above the same American prices. The Toronto Star' says: Huron, in the House of Commons, was an I had purposed, Mr. Speaker, making But, Mr. Speaker, there are other elements of national strength besides armies and navies. The most important element of all is the fibre of the race. A new nation derives its whole character and has its whole future determined by its first settlers, unless subsequent immigration is SO extensive as to submerge the original population. It needs little study to see of what great value to a people a national type is. The absence of a national type is a loss to every man, woman and child. The question of the effect of large foreign immigration is not between us and the im-migrants, but between our children and grandchildren and theirs. We are trustees for the future. We are laying the foundation for the last great nation; it rests with us how well built those foundations will be, and what kind of men shall inherit the country after we are gone. Two Englishmen, George Washington and Alex ander Hamilton, founded the United States and from 1776 to 1830 it grew from less than four million to almost thirteen million people, an unprecedented increase of 227 per cent and wholly out of the loins of their own people. They acquired a national type and characteristics of a strong, sturdy, moral self-reliant people. The height, weight, and chest measurement was steadily rising. Since 1880 these measurements are all decreasing, and the moral. physical and mental average lowering, due wholly to the immense immigration of people from inferior races, the small birth rate among native citizens and the great birth rate among foreigners. Up to 1880 the bulk of immigrants came from the sturdy races of northwest and western Europe-Scandinavians, Germans, French, Anglo-Saxons, good physique being the rule, and loathsome and contagious diseases extremely rare. In immigration heredity is far more important than environment or education. With the congestion of population in the great cities of western Europe, too many people are ill fed, ill clothed, ill sheltered and in consequence physically and morally weak. There is this to be said, however, of the Keltic race; men and women when lifted out of squalid poverty and despair into a broad land, where there is food and clothing for those who labour, invariably do well, after the shaking up and down of a Canadian winter and summer, they take a new lease of life and breathe in the air of freedom and ambition. a Now, Mr. Speaker, I contend. that we should profit by the example and lesson taught by a nation which has gone through what we are now face with. A nation founded by men of the same fibre as Canadians and grown up under similar conditions and climate. I, of course, refer to the United States. I hand in, Sir, map from a United States standard work, showing where the undesirable immigrants that have lowered the average standard of United States inhabitants come from, and I give notice that I propose introducing to this House a Bill prohibiting all immigration from Europe south of 44 degrees North latitude and East of 20 East longitude, and from Turkey in Asia. The United States native birth rate before 1830 increased the population fast enough. The birth rate was lowered among native Americans by the immense immigration, so sets out Hall on immigration and its effects upon United States issued in 1907. Why should we not keep for our own descendants and old country relations this fair heritage of ours, and be as Goldwin Smith savs a contented people dwelling in a land of milk and honey. The above remarks were carefully compiled some weeks ago. Since coming here. I happened to see in the reading room on the first page of Life,' the first social paper of the United States, a picture representing metaphorically what I have been saying. There is a great purple land with a great rock close to the ocean. On that rock stands a noble figure of a red man, one of the original owners of the soil. Behind him stands a tall man, with a goatee, with straps on his boots, and with the usual hat worn by Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam lifts his foot and pushes the red man off the rock. Then I turn to the other page, where I see standing on the same rock the same tall man with the goatee and the straps on his boots, and behind him crouched the figure of a man wearing old clothes and with a beard and a hooked nose-the same type of which seventy-five thousand were starving in New York last winter, and that man lifts his foot and kicks Uncle Sam off the rock and is left standing there alone. Let such immigration be absolutely prohibited. We have the power to do it. There is no better asset to Canada or any other country than a stock. The best citizens we have are those strong, sound immigrant from our own of our own race, and I ask why, instead of doing as President Falconer says we are doing, going too fast-why should we not go a little slower and keep this country for our own people and the descendants of the people from whom we sprang. I have given considerable thought to this matter. (I am not here simply giving my own idea but those expressed by experts and students and official reports). It is sometimes thought proper to relieve the discussion of a serious subject by indulging in a lighter vein and while I tell this story. The province of I would ask the House to indulge with me Ontario some years ago called on its county clerks to say how many farm labourers were required in each county. The replies, of course, came in. Middlesex wanted many and Oxford so many, and so on. But in one county the county clerk happened to be away and his wife was doing his work and she wrote back: we do not want any, we grow our own. I submit that no better policy could be followed. Military and naval matters are all right in their way, but there are other things besides ships. Drake's guns would not have barked so loudly or strong had it not been for the men behind them, the fibre of the men is what counts. That is what we have to look to-the fibre of the men. An immigrant's heredity counts before environment or education. There is one great race trouble to the south, and that is race suicide. I would submit a solution for that great difficulty, one which is likely to affect this House in the near future, which is fast coming here except to the province of Quebec. SO There is the question of woman suffrage, which is on the way and is bound to reach us. Mrs. Pankhurst is on the road. I have a precedent for the remedy I propose, and it has come to me from a high ecclesiastical dignitary. While the spinsters of Canada have a right to vote on their own land, if the married women should come to the government and ask for the ballot, instead of putting a tax on bachelors or giving a bounty to large families, I would say give the women the right to vote if they carry out the duty they owe to their country as women and wives, on the clear principle, well defined, of No Babies no Ballots.' Motion (Mr. Ecrément) agreed to. Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved: That the said address be engrossed and be presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council. Motion agreed to. SUPPLY. could decide whether one contract was like another, and that where they differed in some respects the shipper was bound by the contract he signed notwithstanding it had not received the sanction of the board. In my opinion the law of 1903 was intended to make the jurisdiction of the board absolute as regards these railway contracts and did not intend that any court should exercise that jurisdiction in any respect. I introduce this Bill so that the intention of the Act be made clear and distinct. It also provides that where the railway company insists on a higher rate of freight in order to guarantee against full loss, but wants the shipper to take lower rate and lower liability the company must allow the shipper the choice of paying the higher rate of freight and being fully protected against loss if he wants to, and not compel him to accept a reduced liability without any option. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of time. Finance) moved: That this House will on Thursday next resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty. Motion agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS. Mr. FIELDING moved: That this House will on Thursday next resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty. Motion agreed to. RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT. Mr. LANCASTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 3) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill is to limit the appeals from the Board of Railway Commissioners. At present it is very doubtful that any time limits exist. Any party who accepts an order from the Board of Railway Commissioners may appeal against that order to the Supreme Court. Now, I think the House will agree with me at once when I say that orders made by the commission are supposed to be car On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House ried into effect immediately; they are not adjourned at 9.35 p.m. RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT. Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 2) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill is made necessary by the construction put upon section 340 of the Railway Act by the Ontario Court of Appeals in a case decided this last year. That section is the one that provides that the shipper shall not be bound to accept anything less than his ordinary and actual damages unless he signs a contract which must be approved by the Railway Commission. The Court of Appeals said they made unless there is immediate necessity for making them. And, as it has been found that the commissioners feel that they must grant leave for appeal almost at any time and under almost any circumstances, I wish, by this Bill to limit that kind of appeal. The very object of appointing the Railway Commission was to give speedy justice in railway matters, and, where a difficulty arose, to apply the remedy as promptly as possible. The purport of that part of the Bill relating to this matter is that the board should not grant leave to appeal after thirty days from the making of their order. If any party, whether railway company or any other, feels himself aggrieved by an order of the commission and desires to appeal, it is reasonable that he should make up his mind within thirty days and make application for appeal. The second provision of this Bill is that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should not be granted unless some doubtful question of law is involved and unless serious injury or loss will result from immediate compliance with the order sought |